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)


 * 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)
 * I only added an enhanced image of the person. Bytepie (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

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)

 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:. PhilKnight (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Appeal to Lift Account Block and Address External Links Concerns
Bytepie (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What is your connection to mysticbooks.org? Canterbury Tail talk 18:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am the sole developer and creator of mysticbooks.org. I have independently worked on the site, investing my own time and resources without any external sponsors or funding. The purpose behind creating mysticbooks.org was to provide a consolidated platform for audiobooks, eBooks, and comprehensive author pages, making classical literature more accessible to a wider audience. I am committed to upholding the quality and integrity of the site and ensuring that it aligns with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Bytepie (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And now you were spamming links to it. You will not be unblocked to promote anything. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes lord!
 * I am sure All spammers are transparent. Bytepie (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Delete my account
We are absolutely willing to move past mistakes, but you must acknowledge what you did wrong and tell us what you will do differently in a way that demonstrates an understanding of the issues raised, and relevant policies. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I received your email, As a matter of policy I only discuss Wikipedia matters on Wikipedia, for openness and transparency(unless the most sensitive personal information is involved). I don't know what articles you read, but as I said, it is not possible to delete an account, and vanishing is not an option for you as you are blocked. 331dot (talk) 11:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * okay. Then at least give me chance to amend. Why am I repeatedly denied. Bytepie (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * How or what are the words you want to hear. If I was a spammer why am I wasting my time here. Please read above requests I made for requesting to get unblocked. What you have said, have I not already said it multiple times.
 * What is the magic phrase I am missing? Bytepie (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (ec) I don't want you to tell me what I want to hear. I want you to do as the block notice asks. You may not be a spammer by profession but that's what you were doing. You say your goal is "My aim is to contribute to the accessibility of classical literature and provide a resource that benefits readers and enthusiasts alike." That's a good thing to do, but not on Wikipedia. We won't unblock you to, in the short term, contribute about or link to your website. If that is all you want to do here, we are all just wasting time here. Please read Conflict of Interest and tell us what edits you will make in the short term that are unrelated to your website. Once you have a good edit history demonstrating your understanding of relevant content and sourcing policies, you may later be permitted to indirectly make COI edits, but not now. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You say above in your second appeal "I want to emphasize that my intentions were sincere and aimed at providing valuable resources" then in the very next sentence you say " I fully acknowledge the need to improve and will unequivocally refrain from including any redundant or promotional links". You use those words because it seems like you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that you will not promote your own website mysticbooks.org.
 * So now to your third appeal - you say you don't want your account any more, you want to be deleted. That's not possible, as your contributions are now baked into the history of the articles that you edited. You can of course walk away from your account. You can also setup a new account and edit under a completely different name - but if you come back to any of the articles you previously edited and do anything similar it's highly likely you'll be spotted and blocked again - that's sockpuppetry WP:SOCKPUPPET 10mmsocket (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay lets take a different tack here. If you were to be unblocked, please give us an example of what kind of edits you would make on Wikipedia. You've got to understand it from our point of view, you have admitted that mysticbooks is your site, and your entire edit history was basically advertising that site and promoting it (other than uploading a high res image that was AI adjusted.) What impact will your relationship with mysticbooks have on your editing on Wikipedia? Canterbury Tail talk 11:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Have I done it in way that is unrelated and destroyed the sanctity of the article? I wish somebody stopped me at the very first article I added the link to. I would have not posted it on other books.
 * I am not here to force the site on wikipedia.
 * As per my intentions on what I will do other than this. I will not do anything at all, unless I have something to edit. Bytepie (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you don't have edits you want to make, there is no need to remove the block, as blocks only prevent editing. You are welcome to request unblock when there is an edit you wish to make. There is no deadline for this, take all the time you need. 331dot (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It should have been pretty clear when I said I will not post promotional links. It should mean my site and everything else too? Does it not? Bytepie (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * But you are not telling us what you will do instead. 331dot (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As I replied above, I am not an active contributor. I don't have anything planned. Bytepie (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * some edits I made earlier were on IP. I made this account when I tried to upload a better image for a page known as Baba Bulleh Shah.
 * He is known as a Sufi saint in South Asia. but that edit was reverted too. you can check above why was it reverted. Bytepie (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That image is a copyright violation by the way. It was not your image to upload under that licence. It will be deleted at some point. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * yes, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I thought it must have been already deleted since it was months ago.
 * The image I uploaded was enhanced version via ESRGAN. His paintings are common in South Asia.
 * There is no good version online but local markets have the newer versions readily available.
 * But I understand why it was not updated. Bytepie (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @10mmsocket also the current version is not free to use as well but it was used enough online that people stopped caring who originally made it. Bytepie (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm that the offending image has now been deleted for copyright infringement from Wikimedia Commons 10mmsocket (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am glad you took care of that. Bytepie (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems to be the only option. Bytepie (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)