User talk:Zzremin

Welcome!

Hello, Zzremin, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as User:Zzremin/EGOV.PRESS, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

Article development
Standard layout
Lead section
The perfect article
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Will120 (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Zzremin/EGOV.PRESS

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Zzremin/EGOV.PRESS requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Will120 (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zzremin,

Please stop moving articles around multiple times. You should have a very good reason for moving a page and do so only once. Please think carefully through a page move before you do a move.

If you have questions about editing on Wikipedia and page moves, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You have been told on multiple occasions that there is no deadline, and instead of taking people up on their offers to help, you continue to spam your questions all over the project. That conduct is promotional even if you're not being paid to promote the site. Please stop or you risk being blocked. Star Mississippi 14:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Sorry. Zzremin (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: EGOV.PRESS (February 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:EGOV.PRESS and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zzremin! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Zzremin. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have nothing to do with the petition site EGOV.PRESS. Being a citizen of the Republic of Kazakhstan, where this site is very popular and benefits the development of democracy, I wanted to write about it on Wikipedia. If possible, I ask you to check and give instructions for the correct formatting of the article. Thank you. Zzremin (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer; you just seem extremely personally invested in this topic; there's no rush, no deadlines to meet. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: EGOV.PRESS (February 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Star Mississippi was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of websites). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

There isn't much of a claim to notability here. The site exists, but why is it notable?

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:EGOV.PRESS and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Star Mississippi 14:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Egov.press has been accepted

Egov.press, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Hoary (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Zzremin (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Zzremin, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although accepted

Although your article was accepted, it is weak. What is needed is more about the creation of the website, including the organization that created and maintains and finances the website. David notMD (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I was surprised when this was accepted, sourcing is poor and notability does not seem to have been established. Theroadislong (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me time, I will try to add to the article. I wrote the article quickly. Zzremin (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the article, please check it! Zzremin (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will definitely add to the article. Zzremin (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear friend. I almost completely rewrote the article and indicated authoritative sources. The article showed the importance of the site and what it does for the citizens of Kazakhstan. Please check. I hope my article is valid. I will be extremely grateful if you publish my article in full! Zzremin (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is already "published in full". Theroadislong (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Mr. Star_Mississippi has put it up for possible deletion due to incompleteness. At the moment, I have completely revised the article. Help me please. Zzremin (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already told you it was published in full, and I have not put it up for deletion. Star Mississippi 22:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the current revised article meets all the criteria, I would be very grateful if you would remove the Notability tag. Thank you. Zzremin (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and I have told you that if someone believes the criteria is met, they will remove the tag. I do not believe it is, so I will not be removing it. Regardless of whether you lack a COI with the company, you have a vested interest in retaining the article so you should not handle the tag directly. Star Mississippi 22:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely nothing to do with the EGOV.PRESS project. As a resident of the Republic of Kazakhstan, I wanted to write on the English-language Wikipedia about a site that allows freedom of speech in our country. Most likely, because of my patriotic goals, you thought that I was related to the project. Please be understanding. Thank you. Zzremin (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've already said that on my Talk.

It also has nothing to do with the matter of the tag. Since you started the article you believe it should exist. Therefore you're not a neutral judge of whether notability has been established. Star Mississippi 22:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got it, thanks for the advice. Zzremin (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzremin, I offered help in navigating this problem on the article talk page, and you responded to me with pretty much identical copy to what you've posted multiple times to others. You did not directly address any of the content of my message, nor my offer to work 1 on 1 with you to better understand how the English Wikipedia works and improve the article.

I really encourage you to read some of the many policy pages that have been shared with you, which explain how consensus and community content development work. This is not a company or government, where a certain group of people have power to approve content. We work together as a community to apply policies and norms and determine what any given article looks like.

I really appreciate your enthusiasm for this topic, and I think we share many values - that's why I wanted to help you get familiar with how things are done around here. Rushing in with too much enthusiasm, and copy-pasting urgent messages that amount to "the article is fixed, please publish now!" is probably the least effective way to get the content you want to make onto Wikipedia. Everyone here is a volunteer, and volunteers don't like being told (even with "please") what to do.

Plus, when you message in this curt and urgent manner, it makes people more worried that you have a conflict of interest on the topic- there is a cool essay about how Wikipedia has no deadlines, but I am too much of a newcomer mobile editor to link it properly, apologies!

I really think I understand where you're coming from, I get super excited about things as I learn as well. If I can suggest something, thinking about wiki Talk pages like actual, real life conversations instead of social media or messaging app chats might be helpful.

We write on article talk pages, and one another's user pages, not just to communicate in the short term, but to set a clear record surrounding the content of articles. So, when people ask for clarity around things, they're not just satisfying their curiosity, they're also establishing a record and context for the encyclopedia itself.

By answering the previous conflict of interest question so clearly and directly, if people ever get curious in the future they can find that, and not have to ask you about COI all over again. The process of tracking changes we make, and why we make them, is a super cool part of the encyclopedia too!

If you would like to chat more about improving the article, I am still happy to help. I love the English language, and have read a decent chunk of this Wiki's Manual of Style. However, I didn't feel very excited to help when I saw your responses to me, which felt very broad and generic as though you hadn't really read my messages.

If we are going to get this article cleaned up, you need to slow down for a second and review some of the policy pages that have been shared with you. I am happy to help, but I would need you to communicate with me directly and openly, without the form-letter style of your responses to people so far. There is no "the article is improved now, please keep!" Instead, we need to evaluate what Reliable Sources say about this topic, and try to establish Notability and an argument to keep and improve it.

If you are able to respond in a simple and direct fashion acknowledging at least some of what I've posed above, I will start a discussion on the article Talk page tomorrow summarizing the relevant criteria for Reliable Sources in this area, and we can determine where there might be sufficient coverage of the topic in such sources.

If we locate some, you can share a rough translation of them while I search for similar coverage in English language sources. Then we can review all of that and see if it meets the requirements for notability (then improve and source statements from there)!

No matter what, I applaud your passion for freedom and sharing information openly. I hope you are willing to take a moment and get acquainted with community norms here, because it's often a truly great frontier for those values. Best wishes! Chiselinccc (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your wishes. I have now added sources to the article, such as books and magazines, where petitions and the OJIDJOIDCJI website itself became a subject for discussion. You can check? Thank you, dear friend. Zzremin (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Egov.Press Zzremin (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still found sources in books and magazines. Please help me complete this article completely. Zzremin (talk) 11:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Zzremin your response, yet again, indicates to me that you're not really grasping the process here or approaching this in a collaborative way. I asked you to directly acknowledge *any* part of my carefully constructed message, and you responded by talking about quantity of sources and pushing to "complete this article" again.

I wish you the best of luck finding someone who is interested in collaborating with you. Chiselinccc (talk) 12:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend, thank you for your concern. At this point I have read most of Wikipedia's basic rules. I would be very grateful if you would advise and train me in the future. After all, you are an experienced participant. Zzremin (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress, it will NEVER be complete. I suggest you find other articles to edit and stop hassling everyone to edit the article. Theroadislong (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got you, thank you. I meant for my part I completed the article. Zzremin (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Your email

I have no idea who you are, nor do I have any idea how you know me. I am not interested in reviewing articles like this. Please keep further correspondence on Wikipedia, as this gives a sense of offsite canvassing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also received an email from you. This is not a matter that requires the confidentiality of an email. I, too, am not interested in either editing or reviewing this article. Cullen328 (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have also asked this editor to stop contacting me via email. Zzremin, please do not contact anyone unless it's a matter of confidentiality. It's not appropriate. Star Mississippi 01:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sorry. Zzremin (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For transparency, several hours after you wrote "Ok, sorry.", you reached out to me via Telegram regarding reviewing Egov.Press. Please stop canvassing. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Star Mississippi 01:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been given numerous last warnings and continue to spam Egov.Press all over the project. As a result, you have lost access to edit. If this continues when your block expires, you will be blocked longer. Please take the time to take on board the feedback, the numerous warnings and why your endless promotion is inappropriate. Star Mississippi 01:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Star Mississippi 15:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have made empty promises to stop sending emails and after I directly requested you to stop emailing me, you did so again today. As such you have lost access to email in addition to your block being extended as I see no evidence you're taking any feedback on board. Star Mississippi 15:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this user may be evading a block via editing while logged out. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without a doubt. I don't think the g-lock helped on that front so not sure what else will @331dot Star Mississippi 14:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Egov.Press for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Egov.Press is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egov.Press until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Star Mississippi 23:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]