User talk:Raymond3023

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Raymond3023! Thank you for your contributions. I am WereSpielChequers and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! ϢereSpielChequers 18:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Unblocked

Following your successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, your block has been lifted.

Let me be the first to welcome you back, and wish you happy editing.

For the Arbitration Committee, GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Unblocked

You have been unblocked following a successful appeal to the arbitration committee. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable?

How do you decide a source is unreliable? What research did you do about ANHAD before undoing the edits? Wikiercomer (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The website that you are using is unreliable because per WP:RS, your source contradicts, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." Therefore it is unreliable. And the official website link that you changed to, it is not working. I have removed the current official link (anhadin.net) too now, because it is not working as well. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Some advice

Hello Raymond3023. It is no big deal, but I wanted to mention that your edit to Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics asking for input in a discussion elsewhere about Caste, was not very neutral. If asking for input in this manner, it is best to be neutral, because otherwise one increases the risks of being seen as violating the WP:CANVASSING guideline. I recommend being more careful with such notifications in future. MPS1992 (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The cited book has been misrepresented, and the term has no existence in this context. There is no other alternative to this misrepresentation other than replacing it with what has been easily sourced. Raymond3023 (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

List of Pakistanis by net worth

What were you doing here? CityOfSilver 14:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Confused an entry[1] thanks for rectification. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Raymond3023, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, —MBL Talk 06:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

@MBlaze Lightning: thank you and best wishes to you! Raymond3023 (talk) 11:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Editing my content

Why are you changing my contents? Profhilal (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Because you claimed 1100 deaths, the source [2] said 96 deaths, not 1100 deaths. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Why did u change the pics

King Rishab Dugar (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Reverted

On Child marriage in India I've reverted your edit [3] which reverted sourced edits without any proper explanation. Since I was reading about Hinduism-related article, I came across your edit. I checked the earlier version and sources to be sure and did not see anything wrong. Please refrain from such actions. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you checked. There was much self-promotion, copyvio, and false claims of the sourcing that's why I reverted the whole. I have replied on talk. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Raymond, while the content you reverted did include some promotional material, you need to make that clear in your edit summary. Also, by reverting, rather than removing the offending content, you also reinstated some appalling grammar. You also removed academic sources discussing child marriage in ancient India, while leaving in content discussing the role of the Muslim rulers of Delhi. Given how narrowly you recently escaped a topic ban, this isn't acceptable behavior. You need to be a lot more careful about what you remove and what you are reverting to. Vanamonde (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I was restoring an earlier version as per my edit summary because new content also had the copyvio from Google Books. When someone makes number of problematic edits, then we can revert to earlier stable version. But it's not a bad suggestion to check if there were improvements and I had to provide accurate edit summary. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Faith healing

Raymond, I have read the canvassing article and I do not see how I am in violation of it because I notified everybody in previous RFC regardless of how they voted and I did so publicly (no sneaky off-wiki emails) and I notified for example the reliable sources noticeboard,[4] Consider the following sentences in the Wikipedia canvassing article: Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)

The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it.

Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief

I don't see how I did anything wrong when the above is considered. Can you identify the part of the canvassing policy I breached; if you cannot I respectfully ask you to remove the canvassing flag you added beside the vote on faith healing talk.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

As you can see Wikipedia actually recommends notifying people who have been involved in previous discussions which would include the previous RFC and I did so neutrally.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Literaturegeek: You posted this message here[5] 7 minutes after I had already removed the "canvassing flag".[6] Raymond3023 (talk) 08:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I must have been typing message as you did self-revert. Thanks Raymond. :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Just piggybacking here, but just letting you know I altered your last message at the talk page where you outdented and seemed to accidentally delete my text (I had mobile troubles today too). If you intended something other than my intended "fix" for threading, feel free to fix it however you see fit. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I just saw your message about WP:AE on the talk page and thought I'd chime in since I don't know how familiar you are with it. Generally, AE is meant to deal with disruptive behavior on talk pages in discretionary sanction topics. Usually, that means cases of an editor displaying battleground behavior and not focusing on content, etc., both of which I do have diffs of. That's also why I try not to comment on editor, but focus on the content or rationale violating WP:PSCI, etc. instead.

That being said, advocacy related to trying to claim something is not a pseudoscience, not being a scientific consensus, etc. is something the DS are meant to combat in this particular topic. I wouldn't quite bring that up at the talk page like you did,[7] but that's more of something to deal with on an editor talk page or else at an admin board like AE. I could have filed an AE awhile back for all those reasons, but I was trying to focus on the content at the time. If things get worse, I may revisit that, but hopefully that answers your question for theoretically where an AE in this subject can go. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Farawahar (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit war

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are indefinitely banned from all edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed. You are warned that any further disruption or testing of the edges of the ban will be met with either an indefinite topic ban from all topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan or an indefinite block, without further warning.

You have been sanctioned per this AE discussion.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please go to WP:TBAN and read the information there to see what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal against the imposition of the ban, see WP:AC/DS#sanctions.appeals which explains the ways in which you may appeal. Additionally, you may ask for this sanction to be removed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard after six months of positive contributions to Wikipedia. GoldenRing (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Deleting other people's post

You probably should not have done this. Yes, they're likely a sock but Kautilya3 can deal with it and you are inherently involved with the complaint, regardless of whether it was justified. - Sitush (talk) 05:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Sock comments are always removed no matter where they were added and others can view the page history if they are interested. Unless it was a report about BLPvio/copyvio/vandalism, it would be fine but this is a case of harassment and trolling. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

No, they are not. You are plain wrong there. - Sitush (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Just noting that issue was resolved at talk page of WP:SOCKHELP. Raymond3023 (talk)

Clarification and Amendment

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_India-Pakistan regarding the ARE decision that affected you. — MapSGV (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Reverting newbies

Raymond, reverting as you did here with no edit summary and no warning is disruptive and discourteous to anyone else watching the page. When the editor you are reverting is a newbie, it is also bitey; if the editor is a suspected sock, you have to mention that fact. Please take more care in the future. Vanamonde (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I cannot agree with this. A user may feel it is disruptive and discourteous to link a sock edit (spamming email addresses) with them. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong; first because I'm not referring to the sock edit at all, second because even with sockpuppets, you have to make it clear why they're being reverted (ie "sock of [sockmaster]" in the edit summary). If you disagree, feel free to make your case at an admin noticeboard; but you'd be wasting your time. Vanamonde (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

He is correct that you are linking to a sock's edit as "here" who was spamming email addresses, he was reverting my removal of email spam[8] which is obvious to anyone. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request closed

The India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request filed on 23 May 2018 (the appeal of certain arbitration enforcement actions by GoldenRing) has been closed as unsuccessful. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikiexplorer13

Hello. Just so you know, I've created an LTA case page for Wikiexplorer13, see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Wikiexplorer13. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 07:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Rohingya

Why did you remove my recent edits on Bengali-Assamese languages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:B389:19F2:315B:BD9C:E08E:F88B (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

My edits on Talk: Astrological Sign

Please leave my recent edits on the talk page alone, esp. if they are correcting what was then inaccurate paragraphs and properly spelling a few words. 12.218.47.124 (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:REFACTOR. You can't edit other's posts or comments. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Raymond3023. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. —Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 17:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Result of your arbitration enforcement appeal

I have closed your appeal of your topic ban at WP:AE as declined. This has been logged at the arbitration enforcement log. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

January 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2021 Farmers' Republic Day parade; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Walrus Ji (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)