User talk:Princeneil
Princeneil (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Dear Sir, I am not violating any rule I just want to upload Wikipedia article on my published research work in scientific International Journals with good sources, I am not uploading are making article on my original unpublished research. My research is published in International Scientific Journals.. I came here for that purpose, but when I uploaded article , you have directly blocked my account. I am agree and I apologize that I created multiple accounts, I am sorry for that but my intention is not to break or violate Wikipedia policy. I hope you will help me to unblock my account. kindly unblock me, then I will only use this account for further correspondence and I will not violate any policy, but please also help me that how can I transfer my copyrights to Wikipedia so that Wikipedia can use my research material that is published in different Scientific Journals and Books? I am waiting, Thanks
Decline reason:
You say you're not violating any rules but you are. You are violating policies on original research and what is acceptable on our pages. You are also using multiple accounts which violates our sockpuppetry policy. There is no reason to unblock this account at this time. only (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
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.
Princeneil (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Dear sir, I am not talking about my previous article which was not published before and you were right that original research is not acceptable in Wikipedia, but I am talking about my new research work which has been well published in different International journals and Books, I being author of that research want to make Wikipedia article on them, I retain all the copyrights of my research, I want to transfer to Wikipedia under their desired License policy so that Wikipedia can use my well published research work, you are not trying to consider my actual problem sir. Kindly unblock me and I promise I will never use any other account further more, you kindly unblock this account and give me proper way so that I can properly create Wikipedia article on my published research. I know I have made many violations and I used different accounts, but I was unaware that how Wikipedia article is created. Now this is my first and original account, I want to use only this account. I don't want to make violation any more, please kindly unblock me
Decline reason:
As far as I can tell, the articles created by your most recent sockpuppets were simply copied and pasted from existing articles or other websites and then attributed to your "theory." Given that you've been doing this for 3 years with over 20 sockpuppet accounts, the "I didn't know how Wikipedia works" argument makes about as much sense as your nonsense articles. Mr.Z-man 16:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
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.
Princeneil (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Sir I want to upload my published research to wikipedia, how can I transfer copyrights to wikipedia so that Wikipedia can use text, images, and material provided in my research paper? I am looking for that help and some one has blocked my account, kindly unblock me
Decline reason:
With all respect, we don't want your copyrights. Sorry, but that's not what Wikipedia is here for. We are not here to publish your research - see WP:OR. Several people have blocked accounts of yours because you will not accept that we are not going to be used to publicise your research. If you can produce reliable independent sources WP:RS to show that the scientific community has taken notice of your theory, and has considered it worthy of serious discussion, then please do so. If you don't, and you go on posting the same sort of unblock request, you will lose your access to your talk page. All your talk pages. Peridon (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
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.
Please do not remove declined requests as these are important for review by other admins. Mr.Z-man 19:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Princeneil (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Dear sir, this is my final unblock request. I want to tell you all the things that may help you to review my research work and give you a real reason that why my account should be unblocked. And I want to tell you that I will not use any other account anymore. Please read my final request and then judge me. Dear sir, these are two main research papers which was published after peer review process, You can find these papers at this link. http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/pages/v4i3.html (ISSN:2278-4861)( This is published by the International Organization of scientific research with good impact factor and citations, you can check detail at this link http://www.iosrjournals.org/index.html) and my 2nd research paper is available at this link. http://www.ijcaonline.org/archives/volume84/number16/14658-2551 (ISBN: 973-93-80879-36-7)(This research paper has been published by the foundation of computer science New York USA . You can read the information about it at this link. http://www.ijcaonline.org/ "pentState university, University of Washington, and Georgetown University are affiliated and host the complete bibliography including the abstracts of the IJCA published articles via OAIster database. The hosting rights are also available with Worldcat.org via OAIster.) I think this itself shows the reliable source. And Now these are the other sources and links on which researchers and people are still working on the topic on which I have done research and they have considered this work to be serious. Here are links. https://plus.google.com/103853099989715601774/posts/NaZBHLJvioG http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/Charge-Energy-Eqivalence-E%3Dqc%5E2_19752.html http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02733781#page-1 http://www.toequest.com/forum/mathematics/4479-relativistic-spin.html http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037596019290982R http://www.researchgate.net/publication/233728601_On_the_Mass-Energy_and_Charge-Energy_Equivalences This is the best that I can realize you that the topic on which I have done research is worth considerable still. when I create article on Wikipedia, I will not put article name as "Asif's theory or equation" being myself author of that research paper. It will be neutral. Now I'm waiting for your kind response that you should kindly unblock me. and please kindly don't think that I am here to publicize my research work, I do not need any publicity, creating article on Wikipedia doesn't mean that I'm doing my publicity on Wikipedia. I want to follow all rules now and I'm ready for that if any one of you can help me and unblock me. Thanks
Decline reason:
No indication that you understand the past issues or that they will not be repeated. Also per JohnCD below. Huon (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
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.
{{help me}} Is there any one who can help me and unblock me since I have left unblock reason alsoPrinceneil (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- I have removed a duplicate unblock request, and disabled your "helpme" because it will not be effective: only administrators can respond to your unblock request, and they will be aware of it because all unblock requests are listed in a category which they patrol.
- Because I have blocked so many of your socks in the past I will not respond to it myself, but will leave it to another admin; but to explain why Wikipedia is not for what you want to do I draw your attention to WP:No original research which includes:
"If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery."
- I had a look at some of your links; none of the third-party sources I checked mention your research. Just because they discuss a topic that vaguely resembles yours does not mean they discuss your theory. Huon (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Princeneil (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Ok sir I understand, I will not write any article until and unless my research (theory) gets reliable sources. But kindly unblock my account as I have already apologize for all past issues. Princeneil (talk) 7:08 am, Today (UTC+0)
Decline reason:
Declined due to continued sockpuppetry (as User:Scientist LG). Yunshui 雲水 14:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
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.
WP can never help me that's why i made violation and multiple accounts. when I was new 3 years ago, most of your editors told me that 1st you publish your paper, then we put it as reliable citation into corresponding article, now my work is well published in reliable Journal new York USA. but you all are just abusing me and my research work. I couldn't have thought about it that you will behave like this, although i was apologizing from 3,4 days for past issues. Since thousands of WP articles i have noticed that have no reliable source even no any reference at all, but you are not talking to them, I have lists of such WP articles . but you are only abusing me. I was not writing WP article on my published research now, but I was trying to put it as reliable source and citation for other WP articles(without giving my own name as asif's theory or equation even it has been published with my name as honor). Now I have understand that WP is just abusing site nothing else, do block all my accounts, do not unblock me!!! Princeneil (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Notes
[edit]First, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Second, at least one of the sites you have published at is a pay-to-publish site. That cannot show notability. Nor can the other, which solicits unpublished research for its issues. What we need is not the publication of the research. Anyone can publish things. We need reliable independent sources that review or discuss the research that has been published. Self-published work may not be as easy to get independent reviews for. Third, please do take note of what we are telling you. Whatever someone has told you before, those of us that have been blocking you or declining to unblock you are administrators. We are not superior to other editors. We do have some extra editing buttons, though. But we are selected by the community because we are reckoned to have a good knowledge of how Wikipedia works, and a good knowledge of the policies that govern editing here. If we are telling you what we are telling you, it is because we are trying to get you to understand the true position here. Fourth, if you go on creating accounts to get publicity for your research, you may end up being banned from the Wikipedia community totally. You seem only interested in putting forward your own work, and not in helping to build the encyclopaedia. Peridon (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- with due respect Peridon my intension is not to get publicity on WP. I'm sorry for all my past issues and violations, i don't want to violate any WP rule from now. I've got your all points. Since I am researcher and work with my community and in Research Laboratories, and I have much experienced in research field .
- I always published my paper in those journals which have peer review process then even they ask for publication fees. Since Oxford journals are considered to be the best in the world, but they also need fees for publication. When my papers were published, they gone under long peer review process and modification according to their expert's comments before they got published. It doesn't mean that the journals which take fees for publication are just fake. If it is so, then why Oxford and other best journals(having registered impact factor, ISSN and ISBN) ask for fees before publication???
- None of you is trying to get my point that what I'm actually saying. I'm not trying to make an WP article about my original theories and research work directly, I know my research work doesn't have reliable sources right now since it is published some time ago but I wanted to put it in other article as source of citations to corresponding WP articles such as electromagnetism and maxwell's equation and I put message on their article's talk page to discuss all these things there before direct editing but admin blocked me without knowing my intention that I am not violating any rule. since I am doing research on Einstein's theory, electromagnetism, modern Electrodynamics, Electromagnetic waves and radiating system from last 6 years but since I am poor and in our country, no one helps me.
- I have read all WP policies and I apologized for my past issues, I have stoped making new accounts, I wanted to be contributer in WP. I was here to contribute for WP not for my own publicity. This is what I'm trying to tell you so that you can get my actual point Princeneil (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Princeneil (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
now its my humble request to admin that kindly unblock me as I have told you all the thing honestly that i don't want to violate any rule further and again I'm sorry for all past issues and I swear such violations will not be repeated in future from my side and i will not use or create new account, i want to use this account only as it is my 1st basic account. please unblock me sirPrinceneil (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You have been told over and over again why what you are trying to do is unacceptable on Wikipedia, and you just don't seem to get it. Despite your claims that "such violations will not be repeated", everything you have written in the statement above this unblock request indicates that you still don't understand. Posting links in other articles and talk pages to publicise your ideas is no more acceptable than writing an article to do so. If you are only here to write about your own "theory", then Wikipedia is the wrong place to do so. If you wish to make constructive contributions on other subjects, please indicate what you plan to do. Your talk page access is likely to be removed if you make any more unblock requests that don't actually show that you intend to do something radically different from what you have done in the past. Your endless unblock requests, none of which has the remotest chance of success, are a waste of time for Wikipedia administrators, who could be doing something more useful than telling you yet again what you have already been told innumerable times. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
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.
Princeneil (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
my respected dear Admin, I'm telling you that I will not put my work in WP as article(I will not write article on my theory). But I want to contribute something for other topics in WP articles that needs modifications(not related to my work) and I want to work for Wikipedia not for my own publicity, I want to make constructive contributions on other subjects like in physics, mathematics, electronics engineering. I want to do something radically different from what I have done in the past. That's what I am saying my dear. And I have already apologized for all past issues and I have clearly read and finally have understand that WP is not for Original research work. I want to work like other editors and users do work. I will follow all WP rules from now and I will use only this account and will not make any violation in future. Now I hope it is clear to you that I'm not here for my own publicity purpose. please kindly unblock me sir Princeneil (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
On December 31 you swore that you would not create other accounts. On January 2 you started editing as User:Scientist LG and promoted your own research on multiple talk pages. In short, you lied. I see no reason to trust your assurances today. Talk page access revoked. Huon (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
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.
- Since declining your last unblock request, I have looked extensively at the history of your editing, both from this account and from sockpuppets. If I had done that before declining the unblock request, I would certainly have removed your talk page access when I declined that request. I see that, in all essentials, everything that you have recently done you had already done repeatedly years ago, including trying to get publicity for your "theories" by posting about it in existing articles and talk pages, saying that you understood and would not do the same again, saying that you would not use any more sockpuppets, etc etc. You say that you intend to make contributions on physics, mathematics, and electronic engineering. Perhaps, to help the administrator who will assess your current unblock request, you could be more specific about some of the actual edits you are likely to make, particularly since your past contributions do not inspire confidence in your ability to write coherently or comprehensibly on those subjects. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you sir, I agree that I made too much violations in the past. I admit all these things, but actually I was not aware of WP policies that how WP works and didn't know about editing etc. I was just trying to put my theory on WP, I admit I was wrong my dear. I have enough knowledge in Modern physics, mathematics, electronics engineering and I can judge that what is right and what is wrong in these subjects as I'm researcher in these fields. I wish that whenever and whatever the time i get free, I want to contribute only for WP without my own publicity. I have understand all WP policies when some of your editors told me that read this first, read that first etc and I have now read carefully all WP policies, and I'm also aware of WP editing now. I want to contribute for WP according to WP rules and policies, not for repeating same past issues and violations.Princeneil (talk) 11:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- For the record, his latest sockpuppet is user:JhonASF, created today at 16:12, now blocked. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 18:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
AN/I
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Long_term_sockpuppeter_back 220 of Borg 08:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
You are free to request an unblock now if you wish to, but, considering that right up to today you have been creating sockpuppets, lying (e.g. claiming to be a new editor), using Wikipedia to repeatedly re-create a deleted self-promotional page, and attempting to use subterfuges to hide what you were doing, my guess is that the likelihood of an unblock now is pretty low. My advice is to go away for six months, during which time you do not create any accounts and do not edit at all, then come back and make an unblock request, explaining how you intend to edit in the future, and how that will be different from how you did so in the past. In any case, every time you evade your block by creating a new account, you make it less likely that any administrator will unblock you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
[edit]
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Princeneil, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
220 of Borg 13:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
[edit]Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Princeneil, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.