User talk:Bytepie

July 2022

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

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

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

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=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 <span data-dtsignatureforswitching="1"></span> |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=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 <span data-dtsignatureforswitching="1"></span> |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=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 <span data-dtsignatureforswitching="1"></span> |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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