User talk:Dr2Rao

Hi, this is my discussion page. Do not hesitate to leave a message for me. Old messages are eventually archived.

Archives (Index)

User talk:Dr2Rao/Archives/2020/June

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

The following

topic ban

now applies to you:

You have been indefinitely topic banned from pages connected with India and/or Pakistan, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons I have explained here.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an

WP:TBAN to understand 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 the ban, please read

the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | tålk 20:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@Bishonen: Please can the above topic ban also be applied to Souniel Yadav, since Dr2Rao was merely a sockpuppet of Souniel Yadav. It is possible that in a year or two, Souniel Yadav will apply for the standard offer and be unblocked. The topic ban should still apply to him/her.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1: I'll reply on your page. Bishonen | tålk 14:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Immigration to Sweden, you may be blocked from editing. bonadea contributions talk 17:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you added "the 2020 Sweden riots" to Immigration to Sweden, sourced to media from 2016 and 2017, or perhaps not sourced at all; your edit is unclear concerning what sources it invokes, but none of them are current enough to source 2020 events. And this after Bonadea warned you about the same thing above, and reverted you with an explanatory edit summary. You have been blocked for 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 18:18, 8 September 2020 (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).

Dr2Rao (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was about to copy the references cited at the 2020 Sweden riots but was blocked just before that. I should have been given more time. Very unfair [I was editing the article I just mentioned which is why I was delayed]. ~~~~

Decline reason:

Don't make edits without including references. Its that simple. You don't seem to understand what you did was not good, so I'm declining. Otherwise, bonadea provides excellent advice, please take it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:26, 9 September 2020 (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.

Dr2Rao, there are no sources that could support your claim in the article, and it is not a claim that would belong in that article anyway, so please do not insert it again once your block is lifted. There have apparently been concerted attempts to make it seem as if the Malmö riots were instigated by Muslim immigrants, but there are no reliable sources supporting this (after all, it started with supporters of a far-right activist protesting the fact that he was not allowed into the country, and acting on purpose to try to stir up religious strife), and there can be no possible reason to add unverified speculations about one specific incident to an article designed to cover immigration as a general phenomenon. If nothing else,

WP:UNDUE

applies.

It would probably be a very good idea for you to edit only articles that have no connection at all to religion, ethnicity, or nationalism, of any flavour, for some considerable time. Just my advice as a fellow editor. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 20:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To all my talk page stalkers, if I am right, I have to cite references that say exactly what my sentence says, it is not which article I edit, right?—Dr2Rao (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is much more complicated than that:

• You have restrictions on what articles you are allowed to edit. (Your topic ban.)
• You need to actually read the sources you are citing, so you know what they say.
• You need to write from a neutral point of view, which means representing without editorial bias, what the source actually says on the topic of the Wikipedia article.
• When selecting sources for an article, you must do so from a neutral point of view, which means representing fairly and proportionately all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
• You need to put the citations in as you write. If this is hard for you, use a user sandbox (such as User:Dr2Rao/Sandbox 01) to develop new versions of article paragraphs before pasting the paragraphs into articles.
• You need to obey rules on copyright.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks Toddy1.—Dr2Rao (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I want to keep the last 3 threads and archive the rest of this talk page. I tried and failed. Please help me.—Dr2Rao (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've only just (in the last hour) placed the archival template, but the archive bot only runs once a day (I believe it's at some point overnight). Please be patient, though obviously if it's still not working by tomorrow feel free to restore the {{help me}} template above and someone will give you a hand. Primefac (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks Primefac.—Dr2Rao (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, am I supposed to remove the }} and {{tq| wherever I have put them at the top of this page?—Dr2Rao (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're referring to, but you generally don't have to remove anything in order to have a page archived. Primefac (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Primefac, it worked!—Dr2Rao (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it! Primefac (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr2Rao, these edits of yours changed neutral wording to emotional, non-neutral, wording. I can't find that your text is copied from within the article either, as you claim. Your anti-muslim editing is becoming very disruptive. This is a final warning. If you can't or won't edit any topic without disrupting it, it's getting to be time for an indefinite block. It's a pity you didn't listen to Bonadea's good advice here. Bishonen | tålk 20:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I have copied the citations from where I got the sentences now, please take a look, they do say that.—Dr2Rao (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the sources you cited this time? VR _talk 02:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did.—Dr2Rao (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Ok, then post the quotes from both of the sources you used in this edit. I checked Ali page 51 and it doesn't talk about this at all. So I'd be curious to what you were able to find.

And Saad page 243 says "Unlike the number of legal wives, who were limited to four only (4:2) there was no legal limit to the number of concubines."

This roughly corresponds to what the wikipedia article originally said: "Men were permitted to have as many concubines as they could afford" was what the source said. You changed it to: "Islam permits men to have sexual intercourse with these kidnapped sex slaves", which is not supported by the source. And now you're putting citations on it to make it seem like it is.VR _talk 02:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The full sentence I added was, Islam permits men to have sexual intercourse with these kidnapped sex slaves and there is no limit on the number they could keep.—Dr2Rao (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kecia Ali says, A free man may marry four free women and female slaves, not more and he may take as many concubines as he wishes from among his female slaves. If a man has four free [wives] and a thousand concubines and wants to buy another [concubine] and a man reproaches him for that, it will be as if [that man] had committed unbelief. And if a man wants to take a concubine and his wife says to him "I will kill myself", he is not prohibited [from doing so], because it is a lawful act, but if he abbtains to save her grief, he will be rewarded, because of the hadith "Whoever sympathizes with my community,God will sympathize with him." Muhammad Ala al-Din Haskafi, seventeenth century Hanafi jurist, Al-Durr al-Mukhtar and The status of concubine was informal, however; law and custom allowed a master to have sex with any of his (unmarried) female slaves. The "these kidnapped" was added due to the second sentence of that paragraph.—Dr2Rao (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• What nonsense, Dr2Rao. You're just trying to obfuscate. I was not complaining about this edit, where you did copy a reference; that was all right. But in these edits you added text only, in both cases with the edit summary "Copied from further below". Was that true? A search fails to find it, and I don't believe it. Bishonen | tålk 09:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, this reference and the sentence preceding it is copied from further below - please do a "search" or "find in page", you will find it. These references and the sentence preceding it are also found further below although I have changed it a bit - I added the sentence Islam permits men to have sexual intercourse with these kidnapped sex slaves and there is no limit on the number they could keep and the sentence found further below (which I read and changed) was Islam permits men to have sexual intercourse with them and there is no limit on the number of concubines they could keep, unlike in polygamy where there is a limit of four wives which is almost the same.—Dr2Rao (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I shortened, allowed a master to have sex with any of his (unmarried) female slaves from the source to sex slaves.—Dr2Rao (talk) 11:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the same. The difference between them is exactly what I'm criticizing: it's the difference between the original, neutral, wording and your emotional, non-neutral wording. If you think it's "almost the same", why would you even change it — why bother? OK, now I've explained my warning to you three times, I'm not going to do it again, I'm done. Bishonen | tålk 11:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, I expanded "them" to "sex slaves" because, "them" would not have made sense [besides the source says allowed a master to have sex with any of his (unmarried) female slaves]. That's all.—Dr2Rao (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of Indefinite for Long term WP:TE, after being alerted to policy violations with a final warning, indulging in passive aggressive edit summaries. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —SpacemanSpiff 02:58, 21 September 2020 (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).

Dr2Rao (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As a relatively new editor, I apologise and deeply regret what I did which is mentioned just above, here. I promise that if I am unblocked, I will be a productive editor and will not indulge in this kind of behaviour again [I have been well behaved after my Topic ban mentioned at the top of this page except for the instance mentioned just above this]. I ask for one more chance as per

WP:ROPE. I promise that I will not let any of you down. I am grateful that you are taking the time to review my request. The block is no longer necessary because I understand what I have been blocked for, I will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead. I have always been citing references and avoiding reverting any edit after being warned. I discuss any reversion by others on the "Talk" page of the article. Thank you! —Dr2Rao (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2020‎ (UTC)[reply

]

Decline reason:

Likely

sockpuppet of Souniel Yadav. The above unblock request, which leads with the phrase "As a relatively new editor", resembles two separate unblock requests (Special:Diff/953398329 and Special:Diff/953615128) posted by Souniel Yadav on 27 April and 28 April, respectively, which use the same phrase near the beginning. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav § 01 September 2020 for behavioral evidence. — Newslinger talk 05:09, 22 September 2020 (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.

Newslinger, I copied that because I didn't know how to draft an unblock request. Can I apply for adoption?—Dr2Rao (talk) 06:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There were other similarities noted in the report filed at

sockpuppetry that I had re-blocked you for. If you currently have access to the Souniel Yadav account, an unblock request would need to be made from that account. — Newslinger talk 06:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Newslinger, I am not Souniel Yadav. Can I be adopted for training and apply for getting unblocked after that?—Dr2Rao (talk) 07:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some administrators may accept an unblock request on the condition that the unblocked editor is adopted by a mentor. If you are able to convince another administrator that you are not Souniel Yadav, then yes, you can propose mentorship as part of the unblocking agreement. — Newslinger talk 08:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newslinger, you closed the SPI against me, so please remove what you posted on my user page here as well (I am not Souniel Yadav and if you want, I can reveal my real identity to you). How should I draw the attention of an admin to adopt me?—Dr2Rao (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I am not convinced by your explanation. I find it hard to believe that a rational editor would copy an unblock request written by someone they were listed under a sockpuppet investigation with, especially when that original request was declined. You would also need to explain the other similarities brought up in the investigation. For example, why did both you and Venue9 (a suspected sockpuppet of Souniel Yadav) post substantially similar messages in Hindi on User talk:Chambailpankaj?

• Special:Diff/960750191: {{U|Chambailpankaj}}, पंकज जी, आप सोनिया गांधी की "ओरिजिनल" नाम, विकिपीडिया पर डालने की कोशिश कर रहे थे। आप कृपया [[Talk:Sonia_Gandhi#Request for Comments|यहां]] जा कर, "सपोर्ट" डाल सकते हैं। धन्यवाद।-[[User:Dr2Rao|Dr2Rao]] ([[User talk:Dr2Rao|talk]]) 18:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Translation: {{U|Chambailpankaj}}, Pankaj ji, you were trying to put Sonia Gandhi's "original" name on Wikipedia. You can go [[Talk:Sonia_Gandhi#Request for Comments|here]] and enter "Support". Thank you.-[[User:Dr2Rao|Dr2Rao]] ([[User talk:Dr2Rao|talk]]) 18:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• Special:Diff/954561472: {{U|Chambailpankaj}}, पंकज जी, मेरा अकाउंट अभी ऑटो-कनफर्म नही हुआ है, इसी लिए मै आप से सहायता मांग रहा हूं। मेरी अंग्रेज़ी अच्छी नहीं है इसी लिए हिंदी में लिख रहा हूं। आप सोनिया गांधी की "ओरिजिनल" नाम, विकिपीडिया पर डालने की कोशिश कर रहे थे। आप कृपया [[Talk:Sonia_Gandhi#Birth name controversy|इन पुस्तकों]] का उल्लेखन दे कर उस नाम को वहां डाल सकते हैं। मैंने जो [[Wikipedia:Teahouse#Help_with_editing|यहां]] लिखा है, उसे भी वहां, सोनिया जी के लेखन में लिखिए। धन्यवाद।[[User:Venue9|Venue9]] ([[User talk:Venue9|talk]]) 02:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)}}

  Translation: {{U|Chambailpankaj}}, Pankaj ji, my account is not autoconfirmed yet, that is why I am asking for help from you. My English is not good, that is why I am writing in Hindi. You were trying to put Sonia Gandhi's "original" name on Wikipedia. You can put that name there by mentioning [[Talk:Sonia_Gandhi#Birth name controversy|these books]]. Write what I have written [[Wikipedia:Teahouse#Help_with_editing|here]] as well, in Soniaji's writing. Thank you.[[User:Venue9|Venue9]] ([[User talk:Venue9|talk]]) 02:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)}}

Providing personal identification would not be helpful here, since I do not know Souniel Yadav's identity and I have no way of authenticating whether the identification actually belongs to you. Please note that the

sockpuppetry for any type of unblock (including one with a mentorship requirement) to be considered from this account. Based on the behavioral evidence, I think the chance of an unblock being granted is low, but the decision lies with the next reviewing administrator. — Newslinger talk 22:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Not going to handle the request myself, obviously, but your assertion that you deeply regret the above doesn't carry much weight when you were defending it and refusing to accept any wrongdoing shortly before the block, and you still haven't identified what you were doing wrong. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the "them" in that edit and since Bishonen did not accept it, I left it as unacceptable to wikipedia. I will be extra careful in future.—Dr2Rao (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. — Newslinger talk 05:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{adopt me|date=September 2020}}

I can say with certainty that you know better than this. — Newslinger talk 09:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 — Newslinger talk 09:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]