User talk:Samyakesesem

September 2020

Hello, I'm GermanJoe. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt

How to know which article was edited out by moderator? ,...... Samyakesesem (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Hello, Samyakesesem, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Esesem (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. RegentsPark (comment) 18:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plz com Samyakesesem (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plz connect the accounts Samyakesesem (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Samyakesesem: The accounts cannot be connected. But, if you login as @Esesem:, you can ask for that account to be indef blocked so that you don't accidentally use it (that way, we'll know that you and Esesem are the same). Then, you can continue editing with this account. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a part of my input have been deleted. But I honestly didn't copy them anything directly from the book. I had myself written a short summary by compressing around two pages and added them. I dont know why it got deleted under 'copyright' issues, but I will leave it here. Samyakesesem (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Please only use scholarly sources for the article on Gandhi. He is a much researched person and it is relatively easy to find good sources for anything about him that is relevant. The mkgandhi faqs you're using are not acceptable as a source. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the honest reason this time. However the Wikipedia article seems incomplete. I will use some other source next time for editing. Samyakesesem (talk) 05:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020 copyright essentials

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Mahatma Gandhi, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless used with permission. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is the teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my latest input just now. This time there is no copying of any sentence. Even if some words or phrases look similar to the original, it was unavoidable. I have added extra references too. Samyakesesem (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Your edit to Mahatma Gandhi has been removed in whole or in part, 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 very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission, as you did at Muddiman Committee. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.

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 ~~~~}}. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 21:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You had several warnings for this on your previous account User:Esesem as well as this one. Looking at a recent edit of yours to Muddiman Committee, I found overlap with the Banglapedia source, which is not under an acceptable license, therefore meaning we cannot copy from it. I've bolded the similarity:

"Lord Birkenhead, the Secretary of State for India, stated that actions would be taken on the basis of the majority report. The majority view, made by officials and loyalists, stated that the existing Constitution was working in most provinces and was affording valuable political experience. Detailed recommendations were made for improving machinery of the government as they felt that the system had not been given a fair trial. The minority view was that dyarchy had absolutely failed and could not succeed at all in the future. According to them, it was only a fundamental change in the Constitution with a provision for automatic progress in the future, which could bring about the improvement.'"

I understand that it is difficult to paraphrase some material, but in this case there were several phrases that didn't need to be included in the article. If you want to be unblocked, you'll need to prove a much better understanding of paraphrasing and stating content in your own words. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 21:57, 21 April 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I understand that lines should not be copied. Yet it is necessary to copy a few lines. I guess, according to you, I copied too many lines in this case. But I used words that explained the subject accurately and even changed/replaced them so that won't confuse the reader. I don't intend to copy anything ever again. Anyhow, it's good if this account is unblocked. But even if its not, it's okay. I have been wanting to disable this account because it has parts of my real name in it. I wanted to open a new anonymous account and use it. And there are some flaws in the guidelines. It's complicated, and too much technical for an untrained person. Further, I don't think any administrator can check physical books to know if texts are copied. Administrators can only check online articles. There are several paragraphs in many articles without even a single source. I don't think any administrator can take any action in those cases. Also Muddiman Committee that I edited wasn't a protected article. I had no intention to harm Wikipedia. If some of my content is objectionable, then those parts could have been removed without blocking my account per se. It's a punishment to a genuine user despite Wikipedia claiming otherwise.Samyakesesem (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

In order to lift the block, we need to be certain that you understand how copyright works on Wikipedia. To allow the reviewing administrator to assess your understanding, please respond to the following questions in your next unblock appeal, explaining in your own words:

What is copyright?
How is Wikipedia licenced?
Why is copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia?
Under what circumstances can we use copyrighted content?
How do you intend to avoid violating the copyright policy in the future?

Your answers will enable us to establish whether or not you should be unblocked. Yamla (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2021 (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.

Note also that you are blocked. You the person, not just this account. If you set up another account, this would be a violation of WP:EVADE and WP:SOCK. Until this account is unblocked, you are not permitted to edit here. --Yamla (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

1. Copyright is the legal right to copy a material 2. Wikipedia's text and many of its images are co-licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). (CC BY-SA)= we can copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. and can modify the material for any purpose, even commercially. But exact copying from Wikipedia isn't allowed unconditionally. Credit has to be given, and changes have to be indicated. 3. Copyrighted content not allowed on Wikipedia to avoid legal challenges and harm Wikipedia's reputation for originality 4. Copyrighted content can be used with permission from original authors, or under certain circumstances, e.g. for giving quotation for context. 5. I will write all of the content in my own words, to be safe. P.S. Also I do want to edit under another anonymous username. There have been news of attacks on editors.Samyakesesem (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You would need to demonstrate your understanding of copyright before we unblocked you. You also need to explain who Wardogme (talk · contribs) and Thinmanstrong (talk · contribs) are, because it looks to me like you decided to resort to sock puppetry instead of following our rules. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2021 (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 is not correct. You have missed WP:FAIRUSE. --Yamla (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I don't need you to unblock. It's humiliating to face unnecessary harassment as a user, just for a mild copy in an unknown stub article. You can't expect me to do a PhD in copyright laws. Neither am I a lawyer who can understand the complicated rules and regulation you are asking me to read. I don't even know what I wrote incorrectly in my request. You are also not telling me the exact reasons. This is a broken system, there is also no method of appeal to higher authorities except for administrators. Samyakesesem (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Those are me. I know you guys can track my IP, and I knowingly did not change my device and internet connection. I faced unnecessary harassment here, and I understand that revolution is an inalienable right of mankind. May sound high sounding, but when so many articles are being written on Wikipedia without even a single reference, I am being indefinitely blocked for some editing of a stub article. It's unfair and malicious policy. Plus it's unfair to ask a general user to do detailed research on copyright rules before getting unblocked. Earlier I have stated my understanding of copyright in layman's term, that should have sufficed. Further I was not told exactly what I should write from that huge library of rules. Language of admins is ambiguous. Users like me are harassed and humiliated by admins, as if we are some criminals. Most users don't have expertise, unlimited time and patience to be asked to read pages of legal documents and answer questions like a university exam. Samyakesesem (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not a legitimate unblock request. Talk page disabled. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:56, 14 May 2021 (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.