User talk:Raymond3023
Welcome!
{{help me
- 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
December 2017
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)
What were you doing
]- Confused an entry[1] thanks for rectification. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert
Please carefully read this information:
The
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. 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)
- 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)
Faith healing
Raymond, I have read the
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)
- @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)
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.
I just saw your message about
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.
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
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
If you wish to appeal against the imposition of the ban, see
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)
- Just noting that issue was resolved at talk page of
- No, they are not. You are plain wrong there. - Sitush (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
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
- 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)
- 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)
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
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
The
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
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at
Space industry in India moved to draftspace
An article you recently created,
Your submission at Space industry in India has been accepted
DYK for Space industry of India
On 17 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Space industry of India, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the space industry of India has supported the launch of more than 100 domestic satellites and more than 300 foreign satellites? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Space industry of India. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Space industry of India), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
RfC:Mentioning of Narendra Modi's marriage
Greetings,
For your information, a RfC discussion has been initiated (One point in discussion is in relation to discussion topic Child marriage in India which you were previously involved in editing.)
Request for Comment has been started @ Talk:Narendra Modi#RfC:Mentioning of Narendra Modi's marriage
Thanks for inputs
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Topic ban removed
Hello Raymond, I hope you're well. I have closed your appeal as successful having found consensus to remove your topic ban from India-Pakistan related topics. As such you are no longer under a restriction and may edit those topics again. Let me know if you have any questions, and I look forward to your productive contributions in the area. — Wug·a·po·des 22:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- @Wugapodes: Thanks. The entry logged here needs to be updated as well. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Merger discussion for Masih (surname)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
FYI. You had voted before. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
Contentious topics reminder
You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)