User talk:Jai22

September 2017

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. —SpacemanSpiff 09:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Scholarscentral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 06:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As was already mentioned to your most recent sock -- Dean077, representatives of OMICS are community banned. —SpacemanSpiff 06:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Spiff OMICS users may be banned from OMICS wiki site, not from entire wiki editing. That might be different discussion. You are violating wiki rules. Please unblock my account. Jai22 (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive906#Proposed site ban for representatives of OMICS Publishing Group. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:08, 15 September 2017 (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).

Jai22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please unblock, Spiff is blocking accounts without following wiki guidelines. I request preliminary investigation and unblock the account. Sincerely, Jai22 (talk) 06:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:49, 15 September 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.

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).

Jai22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:51, 17 September 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.

I am copying for your reference. Please read "site ban representatives of OMICS Publishing Group" for OMICS wiki site only, even to OMICS site "People with direct COI have a right to contribute only if they do it reasonably; The continual advocacy that has marked their contributions is unacceptable. Therefore future blocks can be enacted citing this ANI case as the rationale"

The proposal by Nomoskedasticity to site ban representatives of OMICS Publishing Group has been carried by clear consensus of the community. An article ban for Nomoskedasticity suggested by Tiptoethrutheminefield did not gain traction. The claim in the single oppose by Tiptoethrutheminefield that a blanket ban is impossible to enforce may be accurate but physical blocking of identifiable users can be carried out under the aegis of the consensus carried by this discussion and adequately summed up succinctly by DGG: The simplest way to handle this is to think of them as meatpuppets. People with direct COI have a right to contribute only if they do it reasonably; The continual advocacy that has marked their contributions is unacceptable. Therefore future blocks can be enacted citing this ANI case as the rationale.

THe actual OMICS Publishing Group article which has been kept is tangential to the ban discussion and appears to have had no effect on the community's decision here.

I request Boing! said Zebedee and Spaceman read carefully and take the decision. Apologies, if I commit any mistake. Here with I am reconfirming that i will follow the wiki contributor guidelines for editing. Jai22 (talk) 07:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]