Hello, I'm
Hey man im josh. I noticed that you recently removed content from
Bulleh Shah without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
Hey man im josh (
talk)
13:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Canterbury Tail. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page, or take a look at our
guidelines about links. Thank you.
Canterbury Tail
talk
12:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
PhilKnight (
talk)
14:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Bytepie ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Dear Admin 'PhilKnight', I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to appeal the block on my Wikipedia account and address the concerns raised regarding my addition of external links. I understand that my edits were flagged as potential spam due to the inclusion of links to mysticbooks.org, and I would like to provide further clarification and context to rectify any misunderstandings. Firstly, I acknowledge that some of the external links I added may have overlapped with existing links in the external sections of the pages. Upon reflection, I now understand that these redundancies may have been perceived as adding zero value to the encyclopedia. I apologize for any confusion caused and assure you that it was not my intention to clutter or dilute the content.
I recently sent User:'Canterbury Tail' an email on Wikipedia regarding the removal of external links that I added. I wanted to reiterate my willingness to engage in a more detailed discussion and seek their guidance on the matter before proceeding further with any edits.
My primary objective in including the mysticbooks.org links was to offer a consolidated resource for audiobook and ebook versions of relevant books, as well as comprehensive author pages for the convenience of readers and enthusiasts. Mysticbooks.org aims to aggregate these resources in one place, making classical literature more accessible to a wider audience. However, I understand that the perception of self-promotion or advertising may have overshadowed this intention. In light of the concerns raised, I would like to propose the following solutions to address the issue of redundancy and demonstrate the value of the mysticbooks.org links:
I am willing to review and revise the external links to ensure that they do not duplicate existing resources. This will help streamline the external sections of the pages and avoid any perceived spamming.
Instead of including direct links to mysticbooks.org, I can focus on enhancing the existing external links by providing additional information and context in the citations or references sections. This way, readers can still access the relevant resources without the need for separate links.
I am open to collaborating with other editors and administrators to ensure the external links I provide align with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. By seeking guidance and input from experienced members of the community, we can collectively determine the most appropriate and valuable inclusion of resources.
I genuinely believe that the inclusion of mysticbooks.org can add value to the encyclopedia by offering a consolidated platform for audiobooks, ebooks, and comprehensive author pages. My aim is to contribute to the accessibility of classical literature and provide a resource that benefits readers and enthusiasts alike.
I kindly request that you reconsider the block on my account and allow me the opportunity to rectify the situation. I am committed to adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, and I am eager to collaborate with the community to ensure the highest quality of content.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response and guidance in resolving this matter.
Sincerely, Bytepie
Decline reason:
Every spammer says they're adding a valuable resource. From
Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks: "As an advertising-only account, you will not be unblocked unless you indicate that you will stop your promotional activities.
"
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
21:20, 24 May 2023 (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.
Bytepie ( talk) 18:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Bytepie ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Thank you for your response. I understand the concerns raised and I am committed to complying with Wikipedia's guidelines regarding promotional activities. While I am disappointed to be categorized alongside typical spammers, I want to emphasize that my intentions were sincere and aimed at providing valuable resources. Nonetheless, I fully acknowledge the need to improve and will unequivocally refrain from including any redundant or promotional links in the future. Again, Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Decline reason:
This looks like AI generated malarkey. It does not address the reason for your block. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 08:55, 25 May 2023 (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.
Bytepie ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I don't understand what more do I need to say or acknowledge before I get the ban lifted. I have said again and again about adhering to wikipedia's content guidelines. You have measures clearly that checks articles daily. What am I not addressing here.
One user said it post zero value, I tried to have a discussion with him. I asked him in the email what am I doing wrong and how can I make it right and that I want to follow the guidelines but I was met with a ban. You people are simply biting the new guy here, clearly. People here have already made up their mind about my intentions and willingness to amend.
I simply followed a pattern already present in the links there. There are already redundant links present sharing the same thing in external links. Go vet them again, since this platform is also about transparency and equality.
I read the guidelines for appeal. And I have tried to be respectful and emphasized repeatedly that I will not post links and tried to keep a good faith in the system as mentioned in the guidelines. I did not know that what I was doing is considered a spam. Now I have been labeled as AI.
There is nothing I say or can say that will make you people see otherwise. I want to delete this account and forget I even tried.
You guys have made it pretty clear that there is no space here once anybody makes a mistake.
So respectfully request, lift the ban so that I can ask for deletion. As vigilant staff you all are, I assure you I just wants to be deleted. I once donated to wikipedia as well and I don't want this email to be remembered as the guy who was last known on wikipedia as a spammer.
Regards, Bytepie ( talk) 11:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It is not possible to delete an account for legal reasons, as all edits must be attributable to someone. If you no longer wish to participate here, just stop using and abandon your account. Measures like vanishing are only done for accounts in good standing, you won't be unblocked merely to vanish. 331dot ( talk) 11:22, 25 May 2023 (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.
We are absolutely willing to move past mistakes, but you must acknowledge what you did wrong and tell us what you will do differently in a way that demonstrates an understanding of the issues raised, and relevant policies. 331dot ( talk) 11:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
I received your email, As a matter of policy I only discuss Wikipedia matters on Wikipedia, for openness and transparency(unless the most sensitive personal information is involved). I don't know what articles you read, but as I said, it is not possible to delete an account, and vanishing is not an option for you as you are blocked. 331dot ( talk) 11:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Bytepie ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
What I understand from the appeal getting rejected is that I should submit appeal when I have meaningful content to add. I wanted to submit this appeal sooner but never had a good reason to edit any article. I think now I have. The recent shutdown of computer systems around the world happened due to crowdstrike pushed a faulty update. Which was because of a null pointer exception or error. I want to add this incident into null pointer article where it mentions that it can result in error when a system tries to access a null or void value which is true and we just learned how massive the problem can be in this crowdstrike case. This addition will help understand the scale of the problem in some cases when working with pointers.
Article in which I want to add more context for null pointer error.
/info/en/?search=Null_pointerNotes:
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 was blocked for posting links to my own site. I did not understand the rules clearly and I thought I am adding meaningful links. I believed I was getting sidelined needlessly and in haste I repeated the mistake resulting in the block. When I tried to appeal it I didn't understand the proper way to submit appeal and they were repeatedly rejected. I want to reaffirm that I will not add anything(link including, spam etc) that violates wikipedia's guidelines and apologize for doing so in the past.
What I understand from the appeal getting rejected is that I should submit appeal when I have meaningful content to add. I wanted to submit this appeal sooner but never had a good reason to edit any article. I think now I have. The recent shutdown of computer systems around the world happened due to crowdstrike pushed a faulty update. Which was because of a null pointer exception or error. I want to add this incident into null pointer article where it mentions that it can result in error when a system tries to access a null or void value which is true and we just learned how massive the problem can be in this crowdstrike case.
This addition will help understand the scale of the problem in some cases when working with pointers.
Article in which I want to add more context for null pointer error.
/info/en/?search=Null_pointer |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 was blocked for posting links to my own site. I did not understand the rules clearly and I thought I am adding meaningful links. I believed I was getting sidelined needlessly and in haste I repeated the mistake resulting in the block. When I tried to appeal it I didn't understand the proper way to submit appeal and they were repeatedly rejected. I want to reaffirm that I will not add anything(link including, spam etc) that violates wikipedia's guidelines and apologize for doing so in the past.
What I understand from the appeal getting rejected is that I should submit appeal when I have meaningful content to add. I wanted to submit this appeal sooner but never had a good reason to edit any article. I think now I have. The recent shutdown of computer systems around the world happened due to crowdstrike pushed a faulty update. Which was because of a null pointer exception or error. I want to add this incident into null pointer article where it mentions that it can result in error when a system tries to access a null or void value which is true and we just learned how massive the problem can be in this crowdstrike case.
This addition will help understand the scale of the problem in some cases when working with pointers.
Article in which I want to add more context for null pointer error.
/info/en/?search=Null_pointer |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 was blocked for posting links to my own site. I did not understand the rules clearly and I thought I am adding meaningful links. I believed I was getting sidelined needlessly and in haste I repeated the mistake resulting in the block. When I tried to appeal it I didn't understand the proper way to submit appeal and they were repeatedly rejected. I want to reaffirm that I will not add anything(link including, spam etc) that violates wikipedia's guidelines and apologize for doing so in the past.
What I understand from the appeal getting rejected is that I should submit appeal when I have meaningful content to add. I wanted to submit this appeal sooner but never had a good reason to edit any article. I think now I have. The recent shutdown of computer systems around the world happened due to crowdstrike pushed a faulty update. Which was because of a null pointer exception or error. I want to add this incident into null pointer article where it mentions that it can result in error when a system tries to access a null or void value which is true and we just learned how massive the problem can be in this crowdstrike case.
This addition will help understand the scale of the problem in some cases when working with pointers.
Article in which I want to add more context for null pointer error.
/info/en/?search=Null_pointer |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Again, I apologize for past mistakes and hope that you will allow me to contribute.
regards, Bytepie ( talk) 10:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Hey man im josh. I noticed that you recently removed content from
Bulleh Shah without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your
sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thanks.
Hey man im josh (
talk)
13:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
Canterbury Tail. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page, or take a look at our
guidelines about links. Thank you.
Canterbury Tail
talk
12:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
PhilKnight (
talk)
14:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Bytepie ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Dear Admin 'PhilKnight', I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to appeal the block on my Wikipedia account and address the concerns raised regarding my addition of external links. I understand that my edits were flagged as potential spam due to the inclusion of links to mysticbooks.org, and I would like to provide further clarification and context to rectify any misunderstandings. Firstly, I acknowledge that some of the external links I added may have overlapped with existing links in the external sections of the pages. Upon reflection, I now understand that these redundancies may have been perceived as adding zero value to the encyclopedia. I apologize for any confusion caused and assure you that it was not my intention to clutter or dilute the content.
I recently sent User:'Canterbury Tail' an email on Wikipedia regarding the removal of external links that I added. I wanted to reiterate my willingness to engage in a more detailed discussion and seek their guidance on the matter before proceeding further with any edits.
My primary objective in including the mysticbooks.org links was to offer a consolidated resource for audiobook and ebook versions of relevant books, as well as comprehensive author pages for the convenience of readers and enthusiasts. Mysticbooks.org aims to aggregate these resources in one place, making classical literature more accessible to a wider audience. However, I understand that the perception of self-promotion or advertising may have overshadowed this intention. In light of the concerns raised, I would like to propose the following solutions to address the issue of redundancy and demonstrate the value of the mysticbooks.org links:
I am willing to review and revise the external links to ensure that they do not duplicate existing resources. This will help streamline the external sections of the pages and avoid any perceived spamming.
Instead of including direct links to mysticbooks.org, I can focus on enhancing the existing external links by providing additional information and context in the citations or references sections. This way, readers can still access the relevant resources without the need for separate links.
I am open to collaborating with other editors and administrators to ensure the external links I provide align with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. By seeking guidance and input from experienced members of the community, we can collectively determine the most appropriate and valuable inclusion of resources.
I genuinely believe that the inclusion of mysticbooks.org can add value to the encyclopedia by offering a consolidated platform for audiobooks, ebooks, and comprehensive author pages. My aim is to contribute to the accessibility of classical literature and provide a resource that benefits readers and enthusiasts alike.
I kindly request that you reconsider the block on my account and allow me the opportunity to rectify the situation. I am committed to adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, and I am eager to collaborate with the community to ensure the highest quality of content.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response and guidance in resolving this matter.
Sincerely, Bytepie
Decline reason:
Every spammer says they're adding a valuable resource. From
Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks: "As an advertising-only account, you will not be unblocked unless you indicate that you will stop your promotional activities.
"
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
21:20, 24 May 2023 (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.
Bytepie ( talk) 18:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Bytepie ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Thank you for your response. I understand the concerns raised and I am committed to complying with Wikipedia's guidelines regarding promotional activities. While I am disappointed to be categorized alongside typical spammers, I want to emphasize that my intentions were sincere and aimed at providing valuable resources. Nonetheless, I fully acknowledge the need to improve and will unequivocally refrain from including any redundant or promotional links in the future. Again, Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Decline reason:
This looks like AI generated malarkey. It does not address the reason for your block. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 08:55, 25 May 2023 (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.
Bytepie ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I don't understand what more do I need to say or acknowledge before I get the ban lifted. I have said again and again about adhering to wikipedia's content guidelines. You have measures clearly that checks articles daily. What am I not addressing here.
One user said it post zero value, I tried to have a discussion with him. I asked him in the email what am I doing wrong and how can I make it right and that I want to follow the guidelines but I was met with a ban. You people are simply biting the new guy here, clearly. People here have already made up their mind about my intentions and willingness to amend.
I simply followed a pattern already present in the links there. There are already redundant links present sharing the same thing in external links. Go vet them again, since this platform is also about transparency and equality.
I read the guidelines for appeal. And I have tried to be respectful and emphasized repeatedly that I will not post links and tried to keep a good faith in the system as mentioned in the guidelines. I did not know that what I was doing is considered a spam. Now I have been labeled as AI.
There is nothing I say or can say that will make you people see otherwise. I want to delete this account and forget I even tried.
You guys have made it pretty clear that there is no space here once anybody makes a mistake.
So respectfully request, lift the ban so that I can ask for deletion. As vigilant staff you all are, I assure you I just wants to be deleted. I once donated to wikipedia as well and I don't want this email to be remembered as the guy who was last known on wikipedia as a spammer.
Regards, Bytepie ( talk) 11:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It is not possible to delete an account for legal reasons, as all edits must be attributable to someone. If you no longer wish to participate here, just stop using and abandon your account. Measures like vanishing are only done for accounts in good standing, you won't be unblocked merely to vanish. 331dot ( talk) 11:22, 25 May 2023 (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.
We are absolutely willing to move past mistakes, but you must acknowledge what you did wrong and tell us what you will do differently in a way that demonstrates an understanding of the issues raised, and relevant policies. 331dot ( talk) 11:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
I received your email, As a matter of policy I only discuss Wikipedia matters on Wikipedia, for openness and transparency(unless the most sensitive personal information is involved). I don't know what articles you read, but as I said, it is not possible to delete an account, and vanishing is not an option for you as you are blocked. 331dot ( talk) 11:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Bytepie ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
What I understand from the appeal getting rejected is that I should submit appeal when I have meaningful content to add. I wanted to submit this appeal sooner but never had a good reason to edit any article. I think now I have. The recent shutdown of computer systems around the world happened due to crowdstrike pushed a faulty update. Which was because of a null pointer exception or error. I want to add this incident into null pointer article where it mentions that it can result in error when a system tries to access a null or void value which is true and we just learned how massive the problem can be in this crowdstrike case. This addition will help understand the scale of the problem in some cases when working with pointers.
Article in which I want to add more context for null pointer error.
/info/en/?search=Null_pointerNotes:
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 was blocked for posting links to my own site. I did not understand the rules clearly and I thought I am adding meaningful links. I believed I was getting sidelined needlessly and in haste I repeated the mistake resulting in the block. When I tried to appeal it I didn't understand the proper way to submit appeal and they were repeatedly rejected. I want to reaffirm that I will not add anything(link including, spam etc) that violates wikipedia's guidelines and apologize for doing so in the past.
What I understand from the appeal getting rejected is that I should submit appeal when I have meaningful content to add. I wanted to submit this appeal sooner but never had a good reason to edit any article. I think now I have. The recent shutdown of computer systems around the world happened due to crowdstrike pushed a faulty update. Which was because of a null pointer exception or error. I want to add this incident into null pointer article where it mentions that it can result in error when a system tries to access a null or void value which is true and we just learned how massive the problem can be in this crowdstrike case.
This addition will help understand the scale of the problem in some cases when working with pointers.
Article in which I want to add more context for null pointer error.
/info/en/?search=Null_pointer |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 was blocked for posting links to my own site. I did not understand the rules clearly and I thought I am adding meaningful links. I believed I was getting sidelined needlessly and in haste I repeated the mistake resulting in the block. When I tried to appeal it I didn't understand the proper way to submit appeal and they were repeatedly rejected. I want to reaffirm that I will not add anything(link including, spam etc) that violates wikipedia's guidelines and apologize for doing so in the past.
What I understand from the appeal getting rejected is that I should submit appeal when I have meaningful content to add. I wanted to submit this appeal sooner but never had a good reason to edit any article. I think now I have. The recent shutdown of computer systems around the world happened due to crowdstrike pushed a faulty update. Which was because of a null pointer exception or error. I want to add this incident into null pointer article where it mentions that it can result in error when a system tries to access a null or void value which is true and we just learned how massive the problem can be in this crowdstrike case.
This addition will help understand the scale of the problem in some cases when working with pointers.
Article in which I want to add more context for null pointer error.
/info/en/?search=Null_pointer |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 was blocked for posting links to my own site. I did not understand the rules clearly and I thought I am adding meaningful links. I believed I was getting sidelined needlessly and in haste I repeated the mistake resulting in the block. When I tried to appeal it I didn't understand the proper way to submit appeal and they were repeatedly rejected. I want to reaffirm that I will not add anything(link including, spam etc) that violates wikipedia's guidelines and apologize for doing so in the past.
What I understand from the appeal getting rejected is that I should submit appeal when I have meaningful content to add. I wanted to submit this appeal sooner but never had a good reason to edit any article. I think now I have. The recent shutdown of computer systems around the world happened due to crowdstrike pushed a faulty update. Which was because of a null pointer exception or error. I want to add this incident into null pointer article where it mentions that it can result in error when a system tries to access a null or void value which is true and we just learned how massive the problem can be in this crowdstrike case.
This addition will help understand the scale of the problem in some cases when working with pointers.
Article in which I want to add more context for null pointer error.
/info/en/?search=Null_pointer |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Again, I apologize for past mistakes and hope that you will allow me to contribute.
regards, Bytepie ( talk) 10:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)