This user's unblock request has been reviewed by anadministrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see theblocking policy).
I understand that my recent edits were interpreted as promotional. I would like to clarify that I am affiliated with the subject and attempted to follow Wikipedia’s Articles for Creation process, neutral point of view, and conflict of interest guidelines.
I acknowledge that creating a company draft as a new editor can appear promotional, and I apologize for any misunderstanding. I am willing to refrain from editing the article directly and instead follow the recommended COI process, including suggesting changes on the article talk page or requesting assistance from uninvolved editors.
This unblock request appears to have been written by achatbot using alarge language model. The purpose of unblock requests is to determine whetheryou, the human operating this account, understand why you were blocked – not to test a chatbot's ability to tell us what we want to hear. A message written (or rewritten) by a chatbot can also cause you to sound like you're making empty promises. It is better to write the unblock request yourself. Please read through theguide to appealing blocks for more help.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.
Sir I understand why I have been blocked. I created this account mainly to work on a draft about an organization I am currently employed with, and I now see how that looks promotional, especially for a new account.
I should have slowed down and asked for help instead of jumping straight into drafting. That was my mistake.I am just a starter trying to fix this issue
I am not here to promote anything. I’m willing to step back from editing the article itself and only use talk pages or the Articles for Creation process as advised.
Thank you so much for understanding me. And thank you to Chaotic Enby . Can you please guide me in writing an article for my company Securetech LLC where am currently working. Can you please guide me.TechEditorUAE (talk)13:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!The best tip is to first look for completelyindependent,reliable sources, like reputable newspapers writing about the company. Be careful as press releases, interviews and paid articles don't count: we want to know how independent sources describe the company, not how it describes itself.If you can't find multiple sources (ideally at least 3) that discuss the companyin-depth, the process ends there.Once that is done comes the most difficult part: discarding everything you know personally andonly writing from what these sources tell you, taking care to cite them for each claim. Even then, some level of unconscious bias is unavoidable, which is why you should then submit the article at AfC for independent editors to review it.If the company leadership disagrees with this process, or tries to nudge the writing in a particular direction (e.g. following the company's communication guide, relying on its own PR material, highlighting specific accomplishments, etc.), show themthis essay and tell them it can't be done. Ifthat fails,get more bargaining power.ChaoticEnby (talk ·contribs)14:08, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@TechEditorUAE, I must say I'm quite surprised that, after all the advice you've been given above, you still thought it a good idea to submit your sandbox draft, which I've just declined and deleted. I would suggest that you either completely change your approach, or move on to different subjects, because if you carry on like this you'll be blocked again soon enough. For absolute clarity, Wikipedia isnot a marketing channel for your business, andany sort of promotion is strictly not allowed. --DoubleGrazing (talk)14:25, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to read and follow the advice Chaotic Enby told you immediately after your comment above. You didn't do that. ReadWP:Golden Rule (it's very short), and find multiple sources thateach meetall the 'golden rule' criteria. Then write aboutonly what those sources say, not what the company wants to say. You didn't do that. Instead, you submitted another promotional draft cited to your company's website. That isn't acceptable. Do that again, and you'll likely be blocked again, permanently. ~Anachronist (who / me)(talk)09:44, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest , i Didnt intend to do that , i was trying to put it in draft article for review , since I am new I have little bit of problem in understanding the key functions. so that happened. i truly appreciate the support I am recieving here.TechEditorUAE (talk)09:51, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing were:
This draft's references do not show that the subjectqualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
Make sure you add references that meetall four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn aboutmistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
This submission appears toread more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from aneutral point of view, and should refer to a range ofindependent, 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'sverifiability policy and thenotability 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 itafter they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toUser:TechEditorUAE/sandbox 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 andmay be deleted.
Hello,TechEditorUAE!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 theArticles for creation help desk. If you have anyother questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at theTeahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!DoubleGrazing (talk)14:18, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
HelloTechEditorUAE! The thread you created at theTeahouse,Creating a Page for my employer, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.
Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing were:
This submission's references do not show that the subjectqualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not showsignificant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject inpublished,reliable,secondary sources that areindependent of the subject (see theguidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (seetechnical help and learn aboutmistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
This submission appears toread more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from aneutral point of view, and should refer to a range ofindependent, 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'sverifiability policy and thenotability 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.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Zero evidence of notability.
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 itafter they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:Abdulla Al Nuaimi 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 andmay be deleted.
Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
This submission's references do not show that the subjectqualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not showsignificant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject inpublished,reliable,secondary sources that areindependent of the subject (see theguidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (seetechnical help and learn aboutmistakes 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 itafter they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:Abdulla Al Nuaimi 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 andmay be deleted.
