Altutmir

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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)

Decline reason:

The time for you to "explain all" is now, not later. Citing a novel as a source on Wikipedia is something that you'll also have to explain. If you don't understand why citing a novel is a problem, you won't be unblocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

Praxidicae I will do after I am unblocked. My main concern is to get unblocked now. Altutmir (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Your main concern should be the fact that you violated the terms of use and lied about it. Praxidicae (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

No, madam, I didn't. I will explain all in due time. I have submitted an unblock request and I am waiting for the outcome. Altutmir (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The following message was added after the second unblock request and does not fit into the chronological order. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
You will not be unblocked unless you provide any and all needed explanations now. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@331dot: but I already did[4]. Please let me know if I missed something. Altutmir (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I can't speak for the reviewing admin, but I found that your explanation (especially the denials of any COI) was unconvincing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: then I am afraid I have to cease editing Wikipedia because the admins seem biased to me. Altutmir (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

No one here is "biased", but that's certainly your option if you are unwilling to be more convincing. 331dot (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Responses to the first unblock request

Re-structured for chronological ordering, heading added. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Because it should be self-evident that you shouldn't misrepresent sources, as you did in multiple articles and again in your unblock request. I think I have explained enough here; further explanations should be yours. Huon (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Huon: and @NinjaRobotPirate: - I should have been more careful when I used that book for referencing. It could have been used to show the usage in popular culture. Regarding PAID COI concerns, I know the owner Peter Bassill but he didn't ask me to write a Wikipedia page on him or about his company. I am not connected with the other two pages I created i.e. British Landlords Association which is just an association like many other associations in England and Bez Ambar is also a popular brand. I used the details from their website here: https://www.bezambar.com/about-the-designer/. Let me know your other questions. Altutmir (talk) 08:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think that's the case. Looking at the page cited, the "Hedgehog" organisation in that book refers to an investment firm, not cybersecurity. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 10:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Requesting unblock per [5] as the last message to the Admins were unanswered. Altutmir (talk) 09:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 13:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.