User talk:Altutmir

This is Altutmir's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Speedy deletion nomination of Hedgehog Security

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Hedgehog Security requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. Tatupiplu'^talk 21:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the WP:NPP again. I have just started creating the article and not finished yet. Altutmir (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to remove speedy tags from your own article. I've taken that page to AfD. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 22:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was a edit conflict otherwise you would have seen a filter tag's comment in the edit summary. Altutmir (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Huon (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: why did you block me? Altutmir (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia has enough crappy SEO spam and doesn't need more. Huon (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huon the article is at AfD and the community will decide the outcome and I will welcome the community's decision. What made you think my edits are crappy SEO spam ? Altutmir (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Altutmir (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe Huon blocked me because the articles I created are nominated for deletion by Jéské_Couriano but the articles I created are not spammy. These are well sourced from reliable independent media. I want to improve the articles I created and I won't be creating any new articles. Please unblock me. Altutmir (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I believe [[User:Huon|Huon]] blocked me because the articles I created are nominated for deletion by [[User:Jéské_Couriano|Jéské_Couriano]] but the articles I created are not spammy. These are well sourced from reliable independent media. I want to improve the articles I created and I won't be creating any new articles. Please unblock me. [[User:Altutmir|Altutmir]] ([[User talk:Altutmir#top|talk]]) 22:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I believe [[User:Huon|Huon]] blocked me because the articles I created are nominated for deletion by [[User:Jéské_Couriano|Jéské_Couriano]] but the articles I created are not spammy. These are well sourced from reliable independent media. I want to improve the articles I created and I won't be creating any new articles. Please unblock me. [[User:Altutmir|Altutmir]] ([[User talk:Altutmir#top|talk]]) 22:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I believe [[User:Huon|Huon]] blocked me because the articles I created are nominated for deletion by [[User:Jéské_Couriano|Jéské_Couriano]] but the articles I created are not spammy. These are well sourced from reliable independent media. I want to improve the articles I created and I won't be creating any new articles. Please unblock me. [[User:Altutmir|Altutmir]] ([[User talk:Altutmir#top|talk]]) 22:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Black-hat SEO, name-drops, and cites to books that cannot possibly provide any information on the subject in question are not "well sourced from reliable independent media" but rather a transparent attempt at trying to get crap past us, as is the (obviously bogus) claim on your user page that you are a high school student. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 22:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a black-hat SEO here? Why cannot I cite from books? And please stop personal attacks. No one asked you to verify claims on my personal userpage or your personal userpage. This shows your biasness.Altutmir (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One source for Hedgehog Security is a novel. Another is maybe reliable but talks about another company's product which happens to also be named "Hedgehog". Yet another was completely off-topic, with the only mention of Hedgehog in a "Here's another article you may want to read" link at the bottom. Most others are either written by the CEO or trivial passing mentions. On British Landlords Association one source was written seven years before the Association was founded in 2017, and it's about Gandhi. I'll also point out this list of fake "news" sites that has quite a few of Altutmir's references. Huon (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so according to you if any editor uses the source listed at User:Praxidicae/fntest then they will be blocked by you for spamming? Altutmir (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. But if an editor routinely writes articles on topics of dubious notability based on spurious sources that are blatantly misrepresented in a promotional way, then they will be blocked by me for spamming. Huon (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that I have made other contributions and in my unblock request I wrote that I won't be creating any articles by myself. You are an admin, why do you think you do not need to warn a user if their contributions seem spammy to you and block them directly? Altutmir (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

@Praxidicae: I got notification that you reverted my edits here[1] without any reason in the edit summary. Can you please tell me why? Is it just because I am blocked? Altutmir (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because we don't allow people who violate the terms of use to edit. It will be more beneficial in the long run if you stop playing stupid games with volunteers and just disclose as per WP:PAID. Praxidicae (talk) 22:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, tell me which terms I violated please? You reverted a citation I added from the Daily Telegraph!

FacepalmAltutmir (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop stupid revert like this[2] then expect a rational message. Altutmir (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go with m:Terms of use#4. Refraining from Certain Activities, specifically the part about editing for pay without disclosure. I should also note that in some jurisdictions this sort of thing is illegal, and is punishable with fines. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 22:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. You are the one who first started commenting on me[3] instead of commenting on my contributions. You can block me but this is somewhat hypocrisy. The same policy you cited is applied to you too.Altutmir (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you've failed to address the paid accusations still, why? Praxidicae (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]