User talk:Sumeysh

September 2018

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. MBlaze Lightning 16:23, 6 September 2018 (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 below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 05:47, 7 September 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I do not understand how what I have added to Wikipedia can be considered as spam. As a practicing lawyer, I know that it is very important for people to have practical information on different laws and how they function. That is missing in almost all articles on Wikipedia which focus on Indian Laws. The information present is full of legalese and technical information, which is not accessible or understandable for anyone who is not a lawyer. Please ask a person who is qualified to review what I have uploaded to check this. I can understand how this can come across as spam to someone who does not understand how laws function and the challenges non-lawyers face in understanding legal text. As for the charge of promotion, I have been sharing links to one resource because there is only one resource in India which is currently explaining Indian laws. Please understand this distinction. There are various sources and website where once can read legal text of laws in India, there is only one resource, which is explaining Indian law for non-lawyers. That is the resource I have been sharing. If you can find any other resource suitable for this purpose, please apprise me of the same Sumeysh (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have neglected to address the fact that you work for the organization whose website you have been spamming. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:59, 7 September 2018 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Agreed, but how does that affect the relevance of the content? Is the content not helpful? Is it not adding to the quality of the Wikipedia article? Is it not helping people who are coming on to Wikipedia to understand how the law functions? I don't understand how this is an issue as long as it is helping to improve the quality of content available on Wikipedia. It's not like I am blindly dumping content on Wikipedia, I am adding only limited information from the website which adds to the article. If that is the only issue, then I am willing to add multiple sources for the information I shareSumeysh (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is considered undisclosed paid editing, and it is not allowed, period. You agree that you have this conflict of interest as well. If you were to be unblocked, one provision would be that you do not edit about your company, or items related to your company again. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2018 (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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I have been through the rules again, and also talked to some people who edit wikipedia more frequently. Realize I am definitely in the wrong here. Unconditional apologies. I thought this operated more like quora, where it's okay to share company links as long as you are adding useful info. My mistake, should have read the rules more carefully. Just wanted to clarify, is it okay if I remove the links from the text added, and let one link remain in the external references section of the page? Or should I remove that as well. I hope, even if I am required to remove all the links, only the text can still remain, because from an objective analysis, it is useful for anyone looking to read about this law. Let me know about this. (talk) 04:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, while I agree that I am in the wrong here, I don't understand how this qualifies as vandalism? Also the fact that the IP address I am using is blocked and when anyone at my workplace tries to make a wikipedia account, they are informed that the IP address is blocked due to vandalism by Sumeysh is quite unfair. While I do beelieve that I am definitely in the wrong here, terming it as vandalism and displaying the same publicly is unfair and slightly capricious Sumeysh (talk) 05:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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=I have been through the rules again, and also talked to some people who edit wikipedia more frequently. Realize I am definitely in the wrong here. Unconditional apologies. I thought this operated more like quora, where it's okay to share company links as long as you are adding useful info. My mistake, should have read the rules more carefully. Just wanted to clarify, is it okay if I remove the links from the text added, and let one link remain in the external references section of the page? Or should I remove that as well. I hope, even if I am required to remove all the links, only the text can still remain, because from an objective analysis, it is useful for anyone looking to read about this law. Let me know about this. ([[User talk:Sumeysh#top|talk]]) 04:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC) <p>Additionally, while I agree that I am in the wrong here, I don't understand how this qualifies as vandalism? Also the fact that the IP address I am using is blocked and when anyone at my workplace tries to make a wikipedia account, they are informed that the IP address is blocked due to vandalism by Sumeysh is quite unfair. While I do beelieve that I am definitely in the wrong here, terming it as vandalism and displaying the same publicly is unfair and slightly capricious [[User:Sumeysh|Sumeysh]] ([[User talk:Sumeysh#top|talk]]) 05:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC) |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 have been through the rules again, and also talked to some people who edit wikipedia more frequently. Realize I am definitely in the wrong here. Unconditional apologies. I thought this operated more like quora, where it's okay to share company links as long as you are adding useful info. My mistake, should have read the rules more carefully. Just wanted to clarify, is it okay if I remove the links from the text added, and let one link remain in the external references section of the page? Or should I remove that as well. I hope, even if I am required to remove all the links, only the text can still remain, because from an objective analysis, it is useful for anyone looking to read about this law. Let me know about this. ([[User talk:Sumeysh#top|talk]]) 04:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC) <p>Additionally, while I agree that I am in the wrong here, I don't understand how this qualifies as vandalism? Also the fact that the IP address I am using is blocked and when anyone at my workplace tries to make a wikipedia account, they are informed that the IP address is blocked due to vandalism by Sumeysh is quite unfair. While I do beelieve that I am definitely in the wrong here, terming it as vandalism and displaying the same publicly is unfair and slightly capricious [[User:Sumeysh|Sumeysh]] ([[User talk:Sumeysh#top|talk]]) 05:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC) |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 have been through the rules again, and also talked to some people who edit wikipedia more frequently. Realize I am definitely in the wrong here. Unconditional apologies. I thought this operated more like quora, where it's okay to share company links as long as you are adding useful info. My mistake, should have read the rules more carefully. Just wanted to clarify, is it okay if I remove the links from the text added, and let one link remain in the external references section of the page? Or should I remove that as well. I hope, even if I am required to remove all the links, only the text can still remain, because from an objective analysis, it is useful for anyone looking to read about this law. Let me know about this. ([[User talk:Sumeysh#top|talk]]) 04:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC) <p>Additionally, while I agree that I am in the wrong here, I don't understand how this qualifies as vandalism? Also the fact that the IP address I am using is blocked and when anyone at my workplace tries to make a wikipedia account, they are informed that the IP address is blocked due to vandalism by Sumeysh is quite unfair. While I do beelieve that I am definitely in the wrong here, terming it as vandalism and displaying the same publicly is unfair and slightly capricious [[User:Sumeysh|Sumeysh]] ([[User talk:Sumeysh#top|talk]]) 05:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

You don't need to make multiple unblock requests for new comments, so I have merged the two. Regarding the "vandalism" thing, you are not blocked for or accused of vandalism - the message given to the IP will be some sort of generic one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But that is what is happening! Anyone who is using the same IP address, if they try to create a wikipedia account, it says this IP address has been blocked because of vandalism, and with my name on it. This is really unfair, I am not a Vandal!