User talk:Bksuper

February 2025

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. [1] MrOllie (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. MrOllie (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not added any inappropriate external link. The link was completely relevant and in-fact was more relevant as compared to earlier link. Though I am new to Wikipedia and doesnt have much understanding with respect to blocking from editing.

But with your message it seems you are some big person and some big authority who can block me from editing on your own whims and fancy without having any clue with respect to Indian Income Tax Laws, Companies Act and practices in India with respect to the subject I edited.

Since, you think that I should be blocked from editing Wikipedia pages, thereby kindly proceed and block.

Thank you Bksuper (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. MrOllie (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Goods and Services Tax (India). -- Fyrael (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, forgot to add the source. Did the changes and added the source.

Thanks Bksuper (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2025 (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 believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. PhilKnight (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bksuper (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bksuper (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bksuper (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, after several edits. Somehow, I have started feeling nice about editing the wikipedia pages. :The mistakes done will not be repeated. :Requesting for the unblock. Bksuper (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2025 (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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 22:07, 11 February 2025 (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 accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Hi, :I Already followed the instruction and used the template, still writing, as the last and final approach to wikipedia and the admins. :I understand the reason why I am being blocked. The reason, why I am blocked is the addition of irrelevant/promotional sources/reference. The edits that I would be doing in the future will not be disruptive in nature as I have learned the quality of source which are required to be included in the edits. To find a source, I will find out for relevant and quality sources such as credible publishing houses such as BBC or Government websites such as the website of Government of Malasyia or USA. Requesting and Appealing for the unblock, reason being the activities I did will not be repeated, which is not actually the activities but only one activity that is addition of links to personal websites that belongs or affiliated to myself or familiar to me, it doesnt mean that I am only here for promotional and advertising on behalf of some people or some personal agenda. . :Now, it took a lot of courage to admit and type this. :As my last message/reply/contribution to wikipedia and the administrators is that I am very new to wikipedia and I think I can contribute a lot to the pages of wikipedia. :If unblocked, will take it as a last chance and wont repeat the activity which led to the block but also will not message/text as a self respect. :Thank you so much Bksuper (talk) 9:57 am, 12 February 2025, last Wednesday (3 days ago) (UTC−9)

Accept reason:

User now seems to understand the reasons for the block and has pledged not to repeat those actions. Welcome back. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox thank you so much for giving me the opportunity and unblocking me, I assure you along with all the administrators that I will be useful here with complete relevancy, thanks again Beeblebrox. Bksuper

(Non-administrator comment) Hi @Bksuper:, I'm not sure if English is your first/native language, but it's a little difficult to understand your appeal above.

Appeals need to follow a specific format where you show that you understand why you were blocked and how to avoid doing the same thing in future. Blocks are to prevent disruption, so you need to present evidence to admins that you won't continue to cause disruption if unblocked.

Can you please start by reading WP:Guide to appealing blocks to see exactly what you need to do as part of your appeal?

Once you've done that, you need to:

Explain why your actions led to you being blocked (show you understand the problem);
Explain why this was disruptive;
Explain exactly how you'll avoid this going forwards (you need to be specific - e.g. "In future I'll find sources by doing X" or "I'll avoid edit warring by doing Y").

Lots of blocked editors are too general in their reply and either can't or don't prove that they know how to change their editing. We can only see the problems you've caused, so you now need to show everyone why it won't happen again - unfortunately no-one else can do that for you.

Everyone's a volunteer here, so it's not fair on them if you're unblocked before you understand how to edit properly. Admins have a responsibility to protect other editors and Wikipedia in general, so they must be strict when asking you to prove you won't cause more disruption if unblocked.

I hope this makes sense and you understand how important it is that you can show you can be a productive editor in future. Even if you didn't mean to be disruptive it still happened, so we need to find out how to stop it from happening again.

Please carefully read through the guide I've posted, then the warnings on your Talk page to understand why you were blocked. I'd recommend you give a bit more detail than you have (it can be in reply to my post here) to show that you understand why you were blocked and how to avoid doing it again going forwards. Blue Sonnet (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Blue Sonnet, thanks for all the help, really appreciate your message. Read your message carefully and the article shared. I understood 2 things from the article. 1) That I need to first understand why I was blocked and 2) I will have to explain as to why it will not happen again.

1) Why I was blocked- I was blocked because I was adding the source link which were irrelevant/promotional in nature. I got the warning earlier but I dint completely notice and kept on adding such source link.

2) How I will avoid this going forward: I have learned the policy related to adding of the source that source must be a reliable source such as a credible publishing house such as BBC or some reliable government source. Source like personal blog or personal website are not credible source which I was adding earlier. Thereby, If I am being unblocked, then while finding the source, I will make sure that the source is not a personal blog or a personal website but a credible government website or news publishing house which is credible.

3) Further, I joined wikipedia as user to usefully contribute, I was not involved in any kind of edit warring or vandalism which can be checked by my last edits. The only mistake was to add source links of some personal websites/blogs which was irrelevant/promotional in nature, thereby I am not going to make a disruption to wikipedia in any manner as this can be the last think I could imagine to do in life.

Thanks Bksuper

Your submission at Articles for creation: ITR U Updated Return (February 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Cinder painter was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:ITR U Updated Return and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Cinder painter (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bksuper! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Cinder painter (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Updated Return of Income (February 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Utopes was:

This submission provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. Please see the guide to writing better articles for information on how to better format your submission.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Updated Return of Income and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Updated Return of Income has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Updated Return of Income. Thanks! Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi UTOPES,

Thanks for the help with the comment. It helped me guide, inserted the relevant section on the relevant page as suggested.

Thanks Bksuper (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]