User talk:Bvcqszj

Welcome!

Hello, Bvcqszj, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

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 need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Rosiestep (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rhodes Pharmaceuticals (May 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nearlyevil665 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 organizations and companies). 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:

Might be a good idea to merge the information in this draft in the Purdue Pharma article as a separate section for subsidiaries.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rhodes Pharmaceuticals and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Rhodes Pharmaceuticals, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

nearlyevil 665 05:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bvcqszj! Having an article 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! nearlyevil 665 05:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your vigilance over at Ken Griffin's page rooting out a clear COI!Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Scott Borgerson has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Scott Borgerson. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: CargoMetrics (May 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Hatchens 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 organizations and companies). 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.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:CargoMetrics and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:CargoMetrics, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Hatchens (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Scott Borgerson has been accepted

Scott Borgerson, 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.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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!

Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kives moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Michael Kives, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. GermanKity (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing, because it has been used to evade blocks on one or more other accounts. JBW (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 44294

This user has requested unblocking at UTRS appeal #44294. This request is now closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I was asked to say what i would do differently. I wasn't banned for making disruptive edits. I was accused of being a sockpuppet, which I am not. I have no connection to the account they accused me of. In fact my edits have gotten many thanks from other editors. Bvcqszj (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Every sockpuppeteer denies doing so, so you will need to specifically address why we might think you are a sock if you actually aren't. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 15:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Okay, I looked through the user I am accused of being a sock of's edit history and it looks like we have edited similar pages. I don't think that qualifies me of being a 'sock'. I have focused on Purdue Pharma, the sackler family, 1mdb, etc. whereas Deltagammaz has edited much more the pages of prominent billionaires. I don't understand how that would be enough evidence to block me. I have made hundreds of positive edits that have received many thanks from other editors. I believe I was blocked because I accused an admin u/SPECIFICO of a possible COI after he made repeated disruptive edits to Leon Black's page. Or maybe it was retribution for editing the pages of the Sackler family who according to public media reports have paid many reputation management firms who are known for this type of behavior on Wikipedia. Bvcqszj (talk)

Decline reason:

Right, you just happen to live in the same city, use the same computer, and edit the same topics on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

If this editor chooses to waste another administrator's time with another unblock request full of lies, I can supply by email to any administrator reviewing the request evidence which places the sockpuppetry beyond any doubt whatever. JBW (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]