Saurabh.bagchi.1
Welcome!
editHello, Saurabh.bagchi.1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.
I noticed that one of the first articles you created or edited appears to be an article about yourself. Creating an autobiography is a common mistake made by new Wikipedians—as this is an encyclopedia, we wouldn't expect to have an article about every contributor. Your user page, however, is a great place to write about yourself, making sure to stay within user page guidelines. Just click your user name at the top of the screen when you are logged in, and edit it normally.
The page you created about yourself may well be deleted from the encyclopedia. If it is deleted and you wish to retrieve its contents, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page. If your contributions to an existing article about yourself are undone and you wish to add to it, please propose the changes on its talk page.
Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Simplified Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! GeneralNotability (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Saurabh Bagchi (July 26)
edit
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Saurabh Bagchi and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Saurabh Bagchi, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, 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.
|
Hello, Saurabh.bagchi.1!
Having an article 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! DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
|
Your submission at Articles for creation
edit - If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to the submission and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, 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.
In response to rejection on 26 Jul by DGG, I made the following changes. They make the article relevant to someone looking for technical topics, not just the person.
Reasons for rejection: This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
---
- Independent reference to Google Scholar to show highly cited in dependable computing.
- Added cites to Wikipedia entries for Tippecanoe county, IoT.
- Added cites to work that builds on work in wireless security.
- Added cite to commercial wireless packet sniffers.
- Added cites to work between LLNL and Purdue on debugging of supercomputer problems.
- Added cite to patent on reliable storage patented and commercialized by AT&T based on the research paper.
Wikipedia and copyright
edit
Hello Saurabh.bagchi.1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Wireless sensor network have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.
- You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
- Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
- Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
- If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
- In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
- Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Blocked for sockpuppetry
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GeneralNotability (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Saurabh.bagchi.1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Here is what happened and it seems unnecessarily antagonistic on the part of the Wikipedia editors. (1) I created a page on myself with impartial technical information about the technical field of reliability of distributed systems. Any terms that may be considered peacock terms are backed up by hard numbers and facts which have independent references. (2) Editor DGG returned the article saying: "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject." (3) I added even more references, with links to even further independent sources. I put the message in my edit: " Independent reference to Google Scholar to show highly cited in dependable computing.
Added cites to Wikipedia entries for Tippecanoe county, IoT. Added cites to work that builds on work in wireless security. Added cite to commercial wireless packet sniffers. Added cites to work between LLNL and Purdue on debugging of supercomputer problems. Added cite to patent on reliable storage patented and commercialized by AT&T based on the research paper."
(4) DGG now rejected the submission stating: "I am not going to help anyone write an article about themselves here. There has proven to be almost nobody who can do so properly, and even if it were in some case done properly, I can not think of any circumstances when it is appropriate to the spirit of Wikipedia . When someone who knows a person's notable work wants to write an article about them, then there can be an article. Since you're clearly notable, I might consider it myself, except I do not really fell intellectually secure in your specialty." (5) I find this strange because autobiographies are not banned. In fact when I look at several of my colleagues who have Wiki entries the first entry was made by that person himself/herself in a vast majority of the cases. (6) I then requested a junior faculty member at a *different* institution but who is in my area of work to put that material in. This is the user "Tiwiki123". I shared the material that I had written with the user. Now my account gets blocked for sockpuppetry. (7) I have contributed quite a bit of technical material on computing topics without logging in. And if I had created the entry for "Saurabh Bagchi" I would have been spared this long unproductive hostile reaction. So can some suitable editor please put an end to this back-and-forth.
Decline reason:
So what you are describing is called meatpuppetry. As we have no way of knowing who is sitting at the computer operating any particular account, when two accounts are doing the same thing, we must treat them as if they were operated by the same person. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2020 (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.
It is true that autobiographies are not absolutely forbidden, but they are highly discouraged, as people naturally write favorably about themselves. I have been a Wikipedia editor for many years, and I have yet to see someone successfully write about themselves, even though it is technically possible. You would have to, in essence, forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about you, showing how you meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Most people cannot do that about themselves. Are you the one person among the millions of Wikipedia editors who is able to write about themselves in the proper manner? Possible, but not likely. 331dot (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Saurabh.bagchi.1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I would like to re-request an unblock. The fundamental reason behind DGG's initial rejection (though unstated in the original rejection) is that autobiographical material is not allowed. I understand that now ... though I wish this were made more explicit in Wikipedia's guidelines. I would like to be able to contribute technical material under my name in my areas of expertise of reliability and security of computing systems, and not material to this autobiographical page. So this perennial block is counter-productive.
Decline reason:
That sounds reasonable. However, you haven't commented on the sock puppetry, which is the reason for the block. In your next unblock request, you should address this reason. PhilKnight (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2020 (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.
Saurabh.bagchi.1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Regarding the sock puppetry reason for blocking, this was a newbie error on my part. I was *not* creating multiple accounts. Rather since an autobiography is (as I understand now) frowned upon, I requested a collaborator to populate the page and the collaborator used the same technical material. Note that the technical material meets the standard for Wikipedia articles --- there are independent sources cited, peacock terms are strenuously avoided, and quantitative facts and figures (with citations) are provided for any claims.
Decline reason:
Your unblock request does not acknowledge that getting someone else to write the article for you (i.e. WP:MEAT) is not allowed. Your continued attempts to argue that the content in the edits to your biography was policy-compliant are also concerning. signed, Rosguill talk 22:46, 21 September 2020 (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.