User talk:Bytepie

July 2022[edit]

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)[reply]

Okay, Let me enhance your already input image and improve upon it so that I can mention the source back to the original Image. Bytepie (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only added an enhanced image of the person. Bytepie (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming[edit]

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)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. PhilKnight (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to Lift Account Block and Address External Links Concerns[edit]

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).

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)[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.

Bytepie (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is your connection to mysticbooks.org? Canterbury Tail talk 18:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am the sole developer and creator of mysticbooks.org. I have independently worked on the site, investing my own time and resources without any external sponsors or funding. The purpose behind creating mysticbooks.org was to provide a consolidated platform for audiobooks, eBooks, and comprehensive author pages, making classical literature more accessible to a wider audience. I am committed to upholding the quality and integrity of the site and ensuring that it aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Bytepie (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And now you were spamming links to it. You will not be unblocked to promote anything. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes lord!

I am sure All spammers are transparent. Bytepie (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to Lift Account Block[edit]

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).

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)[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.

Delete my account[edit]

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).

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)[reply]

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)[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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

okay. Then at least give me chance to amend. Why am I repeatedly denied. Bytepie (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How or what are the words you want to hear. If I was a spammer why am I wasting my time here. Please read above requests I made for requesting to get unblocked. What you have said, have I not already said it multiple times.

What is the magic phrase I am missing? Bytepie (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I don't want you to tell me what I want to hear. I want you to do as the block notice asks. You may not be a spammer by profession but that's what you were doing. You say your goal is "My aim is to contribute to the accessibility of classical literature and provide a resource that benefits readers and enthusiasts alike." That's a good thing to do, but not on Wikipedia. We won't unblock you to, in the short term, contribute about or link to your website. If that is all you want to do here, we are all just wasting time here. Please read Conflict of Interest and tell us what edits you will make in the short term that are unrelated to your website. Once you have a good edit history demonstrating your understanding of relevant content and sourcing policies, you may later be permitted to indirectly make COI edits, but not now. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You say above in your second appeal "I want to emphasize that my intentions were sincere and aimed at providing valuable resources" then in the very next sentence you say " I fully acknowledge the need to improve and will unequivocally refrain from including any redundant or promotional links". You use those words because it seems like you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that you will not promote your own website mysticbooks.org.

So now to your third appeal - you say you don't want your account any more, you want to be deleted. That's not possible, as your contributions are now baked into the history of the articles that you edited. You can of course walk away from your account. You can also setup a new account and edit under a completely different name - but if you come back to any of the articles you previously edited and do anything similar it's highly likely you'll be spotted and blocked again - that's sockpuppetry WP:SOCKPUPPET 10mmsocket (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay lets take a different tack here. If you were to be unblocked, please give us an example of what kind of edits you would make on Wikipedia. You've got to understand it from our point of view, you have admitted that mysticbooks is your site, and your entire edit history was basically advertising that site and promoting it (other than uploading a high res image that was AI adjusted.) What impact will your relationship with mysticbooks have on your editing on Wikipedia? Canterbury Tail talk 11:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have I done it in way that is unrelated and destroyed the sanctity of the article? I wish somebody stopped me at the very first article I added the link to. I would have not posted it on other books.

I am not here to force the site on wikipedia.

As per my intentions on what I will do other than this. I will not do anything at all, unless I have something to edit. Bytepie (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have edits you want to make, there is no need to remove the block, as blocks only prevent editing. You are welcome to request unblock when there is an edit you wish to make. There is no deadline for this, take all the time you need. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should have been pretty clear when I said I will not post promotional links. It should mean my site and everything else too? Does it not? Bytepie (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But you are not telling us what you will do instead. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I replied above, I am not an active contributor. I don't have anything planned. Bytepie (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

some edits I made earlier were on IP. I made this account when I tried to upload a better image for a page known as Baba Bulleh Shah.

He is known as a Sufi saint in South Asia. but that edit was reverted too. you can check above why was it reverted. Bytepie (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That image is a copyright violation by the way. It was not your image to upload under that licence. It will be deleted at some point. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yes, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I thought it must have been already deleted since it was months ago.

The image I uploaded was enhanced version via ESRGAN. His paintings are common in South Asia.

There is no good version online but local markets have the newer versions readily available.

But I understand why it was not updated. Bytepie (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@10mmsocket also the current version is not free to use as well but it was used enough online that people stopped caring who originally made it. Bytepie (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm that the offending image has now been deleted for copyright infringement from Wikimedia Commons 10mmsocket (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you took care of that. Bytepie (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems to be the only option. Bytepie (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]