Creati1

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia for violating Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppetry. Using or creating new accounts to avoid violating the three revert rule, to edit war, or avoid a block or ban are considered violations of policies regarding sockpuppets. If you wish to contest a block, do not create new accounts to do so, please e-mail the blocking administrator instead. Ckatzchatspy 17:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. Specifically, your edit to User talk:Ckatz may be offensive or unwelcome. In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' userpages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to Wikipedia:User page for more information on User page etiquette. Thank you. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC) {{sock

I certainly appreciate your sentiments. However Ckatz has continuously vandalized user's page[1] and [2]. Besides anything written about her on the user's talk page is completely blanked by her. Her past problems are written up here at ANI[3]. I will greatly appreciate if her vandalism can be curbed. Cheers. Creati1 (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Original research is not permitted on Wikipedia. Such material must be vetted by peer review or other such academic efforts and documented to a level as to pass verifiability and reliability of sources. Having apparently failed that, your continued persistence caused you to violate Wikipedia's standards, leading to appropriate blocking and banning. This isn't your playground. If you don't play by the rules, you can't stay here. Sorry. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I accept some of your charges and was not aware of the original research criterion. That will never happen again. However there are so many articles published in internationally reputed journals which has been systematically removed by Ckatz in the last 2 years! Her vendatta can be gleamed at all the blocks she has put. For example in the dew article the article was published in the most prestigious journal Desalination. Does that not count as an encyclopedic material?

Cheers Creati1 (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

If this material was re-added soon after your treading into policy violation waters, it's common practice to impulsively revert such additions as it becomes block evasion. Failing to cooperate with policy (we expect you to read information we provide for you) pollutes the value of anything you try to add, as it means you have ignored our reasons for excluding it, without discussion. Discussion is important.

Nevertheless, if you are, in fact, Akraj (talk · contribs), then it is plain that the information you attempted to add in Dew was self-serving, meaning you have a conflict of interest and yes, even if it was published (though only one source for this obscure study was provided), it is considered original research if you are the one attempting to add it to Wikipedia (without additional independent supporting references). There did not appear to be any sources offered that vetted the study. Moreover, such an obscure and vastly under-documented topic is likely not appropriate material for Wikipedia. (Yes, other crap exists, but that's no reason to add more.)

Sadly, you have already made it next to impossible for anyone to accept this information now by your failure to cooperate with our policies. If it really is valuable to Wikipedia, someone else sooner or later will undoubtedly verify and add it, conforming with our sourcing policies. (Note that it shouldn't be you with another user name.) The goal you should have upon joining Wikipedia is to help with all articles you feel comfortable with, adding material that conforms to our policies, and other copy-editing type work, if you so desire. It is inappropriate for you to continually badger a user over something you feel hurt by. This is both beating a dead horse and disrupting to make a point. If Ckatz's actions truly require review, someone else has undoubtedly begun a review. Administrators like Ckatz are generally given such privileges because they have proven the value of assuming good faith -- something I invite you to do with respect to her 2+ years of making sure Wikipedia is a quality encyclopedia.

As an admitted sockpuppet, you will have to work out being allowed to edit here again with the blocking admins from your original account. Take this time to read up on what Wikipedia is and is not. If you still want to help, that's great. Make amends and rejoin us with renewed vigor. If you disagree with how we work here, then honestly, it might not be the place for you. Please consider all counsel offered to you by all of the experienced users here. Respectfully, - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Your advice is appreciated. Thanks and cheers. Creati1 (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment The problems with Akraj stretch back quite some time, and involve a long list of block-evading sockpuppets. This individual has repeatedly tried to use Wikipedia for self-promotion, through the use of flowery text, repeated insertion of links to several self-published opinion pieces and papers, and countless incidents of edit warring and abusive behaviour. He is well aware of what is permitted on the site, and what is not, having been warned repeatedly over the yeas. The "articles published in internationally reputed journals" that he refers to were not "systematically removed", as claimed, but instead tracked down as additional instances of such abuse. Often, the links would be presented as being vetted and verified by said journals, when in fact they were often identified by the publications as being user-submitted contributions, typically filed in opinion sections. Articles would be moved repeatedly to new servers, then reposted here; projects that Mr. Rajvanshi is involved in would appear in articles as supposed "references" or examples, with fluffy, non-encyclopedic writeups. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Good to know. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)