User talk:Joshipti

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Shekhar Chandra Joshi, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. GSS (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

We should stop editing Shekhar Chandra Joshi. Work on Draft:Shekhar Chandra Joshi instead. After the draft is complete, it can be moved to mainspace.

To answer this comment, click here. (Repeated ignoring of advice without talking may lead to a poor conflict resolution.) --Gryllida (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Shekhar Chandra Joshi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.kunainital.ac.in/visual-art.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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 removed 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Category:Academic Profile requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria 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 removed 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. —swpb^T 13:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted.

Please take this opportunity to be sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I'm blocking you because you have repeatedly re-added copyrighted material about yourself to Wikipedia, despite multiple editors telling you that you cannot add copyrighted material to Wikipedia and warning you to stop adding this content. It also doesn't help that you're writing about yourself, something that is highly discouraged on Wikipedia, especially because writing your own page can be seen as self-promotion. You seem to be deliberately ignoring all of these warnings and I have to assume that if left unblocked, you would only continue on in this behavior. You've tried to add this content to multiple pages: Shekhar Chandra Joshi (three times), User talk:Joshipti (twice), User:Joshipti (once), and Draft:Shekhar Chandra Joshi (once). This doesn't include your attempt to add content to Category:Academic Profile. Wikipedia is not a place to upload your personal resume or profile.

You might be able to get unblocked, but a condition of the unblock would be that you would be restricted from writing about yourself on Wikipedia. If you pass notability guidelines then an unrelated editor will create the page. Now I have to also caution you that asking other people to create the page would still pose a WP:COI and might even be seen as a case of block evasion, to a degree. On top of this you would also have to show that you understand the reasons for your block and give an example of how you will edit Wikipedia if you are unblocked. If you respond to this by reposting the same copyright content on your talk page, access to this page will be revoked. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

• It also looks like there was an attempt to add this same content to the usertalk of Shekharpti. I've deleted the content and blocked that user for copyright issues. I'm mentioning this because you will now need to state how the two of you are affiliated with one another. Is this you under a different account or a different person entirely? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for a period of indefinite for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joshipti. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Katietalk 14:50, 2 November 2016 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Dear Sir/ Ma'am, My account with the username joshipti has been blocked for some reason. I would request you to please reactivate my account so that I can write an article and contribute my thoughts to the world. Unfortunately, I tried using a different User Id with the same name that made me block. Request you to kindly allow me to run my User Id. I would be very thankful to you. I was actually not aware of what I did. I feel very sorry for doing that though that was not intentionally. Also, I would like to tell you that the hyperlink I added says copyright violation but that was not actually the same but still if it says violation i won't consider it. Kindly help me with the issue. Thank you for considering my sincere apologies in advance

Decline reason:

It seems that despite multiple people explaining the problems with your past conduct you still do not understand what the issues are. You also have not, despite Peridon's request below, explained what you would write about if unblocked. Thus I have to conclude that the same issues are likely to recur if you were unblocked, and cannot unblock you. Huon (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2016 (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.

Do you understand that Wikipedia is not for writing about yourself? Also, that it is not a place for communicating "your thoughts to the world"? What would be editing about if you were to be unblocked? Peridon (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

No I would not write about myself. it was my mistake that I mistakenly put a hyperlink to that page due to which the copyright violation happened. I will remember it from next time. I will also remember not to change your username if you are blocked. I feel sorry for the mistake I did Kindly accept my apologies. Joshipti 11:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Putting a link to somewhere is not a copyright violation. The violation lies in copying the text to here. Peridon (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2016 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Dear Sir, I understand your point it was my mistake and I am accepting it. I would request you again to please unblock me. I would not repeat such mistakes again and the mistakes that happened was not intentionally. I am again and again apologizing for the same but you are not accepting my apologies. Its a humble request to you please unblock my IP and my account. I would be very thankful to you. Please Joshipti 09:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

JamesBWatson says it better than I could, below. Yamla (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2016 (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 your previous unblock request was declined, you were told that it was because you had not shown that you understood what the issues are, and because you had not explained what you would write about if unblocked. In your new unblock request you say that you "would not repeat such mistakes again", but you still give no indication that you know what the "mistakes" were, nor do you say anything at all about what you will write about if unblocked. Your new unblock request is likely to be declined for the same reason as the earlier one unless you (a) explain what you think the "mistakes" were, and (b) give some indication of what editing you will do if unblocked, and how it will differ from what you did before. It is usual to decline unblock requests which just say "I won't make the same mistake again" without showing an understanding of what the problems were. The main reason for that is that experience over the years shows that very often when an editor says that, very often he or she actually does not understand the reason for the block, and is therefore likely to do make the same mistake again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2016 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Requesting you to please unblock its been 5 months now. I understood your reason. I wont use any copyright.Kindly unblock me. Joshipti 17:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

So? You have been told above that you need to go into further detail about what you have understood from your experience and our policies, and yet you have not done so. This makes me seriously doubt that you have actually read and understood said policies, and that you're just going through the motions in order to get unblocked. MER-C 12:53, 14 March 2017 (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.

Copyright was not the only issue here. You need to address your block evasion and sockpuppetry. --Yamla (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply