Hello, Suvelazad, 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:Suvelazad, 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! VViking_TalkEdits 23:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Review Team,

I recently submitted a biography of M Shahriar Azad Bhuiyan for inclusion on Wikipedia. I understand Wikipedia’s strict policies regarding notability and verifiability, and I want to clarify that this submission was made with a strong basis in factual information, backed by credible sources.

M Shahriar Azad Bhuiyan has made significant contributions in the fields of finance, economic policy, and capital market research, with his work being widely recognized in leading newspapers and industry reports. His research and professional insights have been published in reputable financial publications, and his contributions have had a measurable impact on economic discussions in Bangladesh.

I assure you that this submission is not for self-promotion or advertising but rather to document the notable contributions of an individual whose work is publicly acknowledged. The references used in the article are from independent, well-established sources, ensuring compliance with Wikipedia’s verifiability and notability guidelines.

If there are specific areas that require improvement or additional citations, I would appreciate guidance on how to enhance the article to meet Wikipedia’s standards. I am open to making necessary revisions to ensure compliance.

Please let me know how I can proceed with addressing any concerns regarding the submission. Suvelazad (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Suvelazad 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. VViking_TalkEdits 23:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedily deleted because (your reason here) --Suvelazad (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Suvelazad/sandbox 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. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 11:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 11:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add any promotional materials. Thanks Suvelazad (talk) 11:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't mention how I was adding promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia. Suvelazad (talk) 07:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Suvelazad,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged M Shahriar Azad Bhuiyan for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can , but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

GrabUp - Talk 19:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking me is unfair as I have always tried my best to follow Wikipedia's policies. I have not violated any rules, yet I have faced rude and uncooperative behavior. My intention was never to market or promote anything, and my Wikipedia account has been active for 18 years. This is simply injustices. Where can I re-appeal regarding this issue? Suvelazad (talk) 07:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on M Shahriar Azad Bhuiyan, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly contest the speedy deletion of this article. The subject, Mohammad Shahriar Azad Bhuiyan, is a notable economist and finance professional with published research in reputable journals, citations on Google Scholar, and a proven impact on Bangladesh’s financial sector.

1. Notability (A7):

• The subject meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines as a recognized expert in economics and finance.

• He has authored research articles that have been cited multiple times in scholarly works.

• His contributions to economic policy discussions have been featured in well-established media and financial publications.

2. Advertising Concern (G11):

• The article is written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone and does not serve promotional purposes.

• It presents verifiable facts supported by independent, third-party sources.

• Any concerns about promotional language can be addressed by making further refinements rather than deleting the page outright.

I request that this article be reviewed for improvement rather than deleted. I am open to making necessary edits to align with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Suvelazad (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking me is unfair as I have always tried my best to follow Wikipedia's policies. I have not violated any rules, yet I have faced rude and uncooperative behavior. My intention was never to market or promote anything, and my Wikipedia account has been active for 18 years. Suvelazad (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

However it is injustice to block me, I try my level best to follow the Wikipedia policy, whereas you guys are very rude in nature and non co-operative. I don't have any intention to marketing or something promoting with the profile and my Wikipedia account is 18 years old! Suvelazad (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you response to my reply? Suvelazad (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Suvelazad: Just so you know, the administrators may not see your replies here, as they do not get pinged or notified whenever you comment on your talk page. If you’d still like to be unblocked, you would have to make another unblock request as you did before. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 19:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But I cant make comment over there, its not fair of judgement Suvelazad (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I would like to appeal this block and seek guidance on how to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. I acknowledge that my edits may have unintentionally violated Wikipedia’s policies, particularly regarding neutrality and notability. However, my intention was to provide well-referenced, factual content about a subject with verifiable contributions to finance and economics.

I am willing to revise my approach, ensuring all edits strictly follow Wikipedia’s neutrality, reliable sourcing, and notability guidelines. I seek advice on how to improve my contributions to align with Wikipedia’s standards. If there were specific concerns regarding my edits, I would appreciate clarification so I can address them appropriately.

I respectfully request reconsideration of this block and guidance on how to move forward as a constructive Wikipedia contributor. Thank you. Suvelazad (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We do not consider chatbot-generated requests. GPTZero score: 100%. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:29, 31 March 2025 (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.

Suvelazad (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I respectfully request a review of the indefinite block...

Decline reason:

I have looked at your deleted biography and it contains "Bhuiyan is a renowned economic columnist and capital market analyst, widely recognized for his insightful contributions". This is promotional text, and you recreated this article. You need to recognize that your editing was disruptive. PhilKnight (talk) 08:38, 5 April 2025 (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.

Suvelazad (talk) 07:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have received your email. I suggest you focus your efforts on editing a new subject instead of trying to rewrite the deleted biography for now. The Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial could be a useful resource for you. I suggest you write a new unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 09:36, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your time and the feedback regarding my previous edits. I understand now that the biography I created did not fully comply with Wikipedia’s neutral point of view and may have included wording that came across as promotional. That was not my intention, and I truly apologize for the oversight.

  I’ve taken time to go through the NPOV tutorial as suggested and I now have a clearer understanding of the importance of tone, neutrality, and verifiable sourcing in Wikipedia articles.

  I respectfully request that my editing privileges be restored.

  Thank you for considering my request. Suvelazad (talk) 10:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having declined an unblock requesr, I am not going to unblock you. I suggest you post another unblock request to be reviewed by another admin. PhilKnight (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Dear Admins, I understand that my previous edits and the tone of the article I created may not have fully aligned with Wikipedia’s neutrality and notability standards. I now realize that certain phrases, such as "renowned" or others, may have come across as promotional, and I sincerely regret that. My goal was never to violate Wikipedia's principles. I’ve been a registered user for 18 years and have deep respect for the values of this community. I am not here to promote myself but to contribute responsibly, based on verifiable facts and neutral tone. I’ve published peer-reviewed research on topics such as financial markets and development economics, with citations on platforms like Google Scholar, and I hoped to document those contributions appropriately. I’m more than willing to revise my approach, remove any promotional language, and follow all editorial guidelines. I kindly ask for another opportunity to demonstrate my intent to contribute meaningfully and in good faith. If another admin would be willing to review this, I would be most grateful. Suvelazad (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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) 15:12, 8 May 2025 (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.

When you make a request, your initial text should replace the words "your reason here". I've fixed this for you. 331dot (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've had an account since 2007, but you made no edits until 2013, and the bulk of your edits have been recent, so for all intents and purposes you're a new user. What is your relationship with the subject of your edits? 331dot (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. You're right that while my account was created in 2007, I became more active recently—especially after developing a stronger interest in contributing to Wikipedia on topics aligned with my professional background.

Regarding my relationship with the subject: I am the subject of the article. My intention was never to promote or advertise myself, but rather to present a neutral, well-sourced biography in accordance with Wikipedia’s standards.

However, I must also express that I did not feel I was given a fair chance to engage or correct the issues. Instead of being guided or given constructive feedback, I was blocked, which I believe was a harsh action for someone sincerely trying to contribute as a researcher. I reaffirm that I am not here for promotion or marketing—I am a researcher with published work, and my goal is to support and build the encyclopedia with reliable, verifiable content.

I appreciate the work of Wikipedia administrators, and I am open to guidance on how to improve and contribute within community norms. I would be grateful for a second chance to demonstrate my sincerity and commitment. Suvelazad (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you have attempted to create an article about yourself, I recommend you review Wikipedia's guidelines on autobiographies. Once you have, please reply to this message describing how you would apply this guideline if unblocked. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have read and reviewed the Wikipedia:Autobiography guideline carefully. From what I understood, creating an autobiography on Wikipedia is not strictly forbidden but is strongly discouraged due to the potential for bias, especially in terms of neutrality and conflicts of interest.

However, I would like to ask for clarification — if I write an article about myself that is strictly factual, well-sourced from reliable and independent third-party references, and avoids any form of marketing or promotional tone, would it still go against Wikipedia’s standards?

My intention is not to promote myself, but to contribute accurate, verifiable information that meets Wikipedia’s notability and content guidelines.

I appreciate your time and consideration, and I’m open to any suggestions you may have on how to proceed appropriately within Wikipedia’s policies. 27.147.157.138 (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GPTZero says this unblock request is AI-generated. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:22, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I understand that the content may have been flagged as AI-generated. However, I’d like to respectfully ask — is it against Wikipedia policy to use AI tools to assist with communication, especially for users whose first language is not English?

English is not my native language, so I sometimes use language tools to help me express my thoughts more clearly and professionally. My intention is always to communicate respectfully and effectively, not to mislead or violate any rules.

If there are specific concerns about the content of my request, I would be grateful for your guidance so I can make the necessary revisions myself. I’m committed to following Wikipedia’s guidelines in good faith. Suvelazad (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We much prefer to communicate with other humans directly. An AI cannot tell us what is in the operators mind, and cannot capture the specifics of a situation no matter what it is fed. (my detector shows you wrote your comment with an AI)

If your English skill is such that you are not confident enough to write in English without using an AI, you may want to consider editing the Wikipedia of your primary language. There is nothing special about the English Wikipedia, it is not the "premier" Wikipedia. Additionally, other language Wikipedias often need help just as much, if not more, than this one.

I would only consider unblocking you if you agreed to temporarily refrain from writing about yourself. This would not be a permanent restriction, but we will want to see through edits in other areas that you understand relevant policies.331dot (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I understand the concerns that have been raised, and I’m willing to temporarily stop editing anything related to myself. I plan to write my biography again later, and when I do, I’ll make sure it’s written in a neutral tone and follows Wikipedia’s policies regarding promotion and marketing.

I also want to express that I’ve felt a bit disheartened by how some of the interactions have gone. I’m not here to fight with anyone—I just want to contribute in a positive and constructive way. I really respect Wikipedia as a platform and have no intention of doing anything that would go against its values.

As a personal suggestion, maybe Wikipedia could think about having a system where certain edits—like autobiographical ones or those with a potential conflict of interest—go through an admin review before being posted. I believe that kind of process might help avoid misunderstandings, reduce the need for deletions, and make it easier for people who genuinely want to help without feeling discouraged. Suvelazad (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do effectively have just such a system in place, whereby conflict-of-interest (COI) edits go through a peer review (although not necessarily by admins, experienced non-admin editors also contribute). The way this works is that if you have a COI in a subject you wish to create an article on, you should create it in the draft space and put it through the 'Articles for Creation' (AfC) review process, where experienced reviewers check the draft for suitability for publication, rather than creating an article directly in the main article space like you did with M Shahriar Azad Bhuiyan. And once the article is published, you should not edit it directly, but should instead make edit requests via the article talk page, for disinterested editors to review the request before actioning it. This is to allow COI editors to contribute, while ensuring that their COI does not adversely affect Wikipedia article quality.

I will pick up on another point which has come up a couple of times in this connection: if you do resume writing about yourself (or indeed, any subject), it isn't enough that your edits are factual and written in a neutral tone, they must be supported by referencing reliable published sources, and the referencing must be such as to make it very clear where each piece of information has come from. I have just looked at (the last deleted version of) M Shahriar Azad Bhuiyan, and there are only two citations, both referencing the same source (Google Scholar), supporting almost nothing in that article, while the vast majority of it, including personal details such as date of birth and educational background, was entirely unreferenced. For all I know, everything you wrote there may be correct (I've no doubt that you know your own birth date!), but that isn't the point; the point is that everything must be readily verifiable from reliable sources. In fact, this point goes even deeper: we don't want you to use Wikipedia to tell the world about yourself, we almost exclusively want to know what independent and reliable third parties (especially secondary sources) have said about you and what makes you worthy of note. This means that if a piece of information doesn't come from such a source, it arguably shouldn't even be included in the article. So if you do get yourself unblocked and one day have another go at writing this, you really must forget everything you know about yourself, and instead find appropriate published sources that have written about you and merely summarise what they have said. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to clarify that while the article on M Shahriar Azad Bhuiyan included 13 citations, I now realize that I didn’t properly mention or format them in the correct way. I wasn’t fully aware of how referencing works on Wikipedia, and I came to understand the issue more clearly from your observation. I appreciate that two of the sources mentioned (Google Scholar) were highlighted, but I take full responsibility for not citing the others properly or clearly enough.

This experience has helped me understand that neutral tone alone isn’t enough — everything must be verifiable with clearly formatted, reliable sources. I also wasn’t familiar with the AfC process before and found it quite difficult to follow at first, but I’ll make sure to use it correctly from now on and will submit any future edits through the talk page, as per the COI policy. Suvelazad (talk) 09:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you won't be editing about yourself, what topics might you edit about instead? I would say that you should do this for 6 months or 250 edits(whichever takes longer to reach) before asking to be permitted to indirectly write about yourself. 331dot (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I’m happy to focus on other topics. I’m fine with the 6-month or 250-edit guideline and will follow it accordingly. Suvelazad (talk) 09:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. What topics might you edit about? I'm not looking for a promise as to what you will do, just a general idea. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am an expert in development economics, with a strong focus on sustainable economic growth, financial market development, and policy analysis in emerging economies. Suvelazad (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]