User talk:Rtiact

Welcome!

Hello, Rtiact, and

welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

sign your name

on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Phgao 12:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{

helpme

}} I am trying to develop the template http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:WikiProject_Brahmoism
It is based on this template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:IndicL
It is supposed to add the main article to Category:Brahmoism when the template is inserted into the Talkpage of the article (as per {{IndicL}}.
Instead I find it inserts the Talkpage into Category:Brahmoism.
A careful compare with the code of {{tl:IndicL}} == no result.
Then backtracked and found that {{IndicL}} was also inserting the TalkPages into its indicated Category.
My Query: is there a way to insert the main article into a Category by placing the template on the Talkpage? If so, what mods does my Template's code need? Rtiact (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the IndicL template is being misleading; it doesn't mean "articles", it means "pages". There's no way to have a category on a talk page control what categories the talk page's article is in. A template on a talk page can only affect which categories the talk page is in, it cannot affect the article itself. A Wikiproject template should not be trying to change the categories of the article anyway, if it's relevant to Brahmoism the article should be placed in that category regardless of its Wikiproject status. --Golbez (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have read the evidence against me, ie. the RFCU http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ronosen.

I am not a puppet of User:Ronosen
I do not use open proxies as claimed by User:Alison.
I have never disruptively edited, nor is it my intention to do so ever.
It is correct that I have made several edits to the article on Ronen Sen - not only the edit which User:Priyanath has diffed. However, Ronen Sen is eminently notable being India's Ambassador to the United States; the linkage between "Ronen" Sen and "Ronosen" is far fetched.}
It is correct that I was aroused to reactivate my Wiki account based on that recent vandalism threat posted at the
Keshub Chunder Sen from admitted sockpuppets of Ronosen like User:Reformed brahmovandal
.

I must respectfully question why the several previous RFCUs to trace out sockpuppets of Ronosen did not tag my account earlier (I have been here for about 1 year). I suspect that I am only found guilty by association, specifically for my good faith in joining Wiki Project

WP:Brahmo

or for off-wiki association with "Sroy1947" and "Project_brahmo".

A friendly soul at Wikipedia has disclosed User:reformedbrahmovandal's logs to me. He was IP blocked by "Zzuuzz" for abusing an open proxy "74.63.84.101" titchyninja.com on 26th July 2008 which was exclusively used by Ronosen.
I appreciate that requests for unblock where CU evidence is involved is difficult. However, I apprehend that the premise (ie, everyone is a puppet of Ronosen) of the Admin doing the RFCU is faulty. It needs a fresh perspective based on these 2 recent diffs from admitted Brahmo Vandal:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump&diff=prev&oldid=227865310 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics&diff=prev&oldid=227860374

As this is my first unblock request, please also guide me how to improve it.

Decline reason:

The checkuser analysis provided at

Guide to Appealing Blocks for more information. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:17, 30 July 2008 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

In addition to what I wrote earlier:- * * From what I can decipher, I have been clubbed with 3 other editors as sockpuppets of Ronosen on the basis of IP addresses matches. *

WP:Brahmo

into a honeypot so as to eliminate Brahmo editors out of Wikipedia, leaving the field clear for their POV pushing. *Seeing the public evidence in this case, I voice my concern that my account and a related realword identity "Sroy1947" are being harassed by being associated with Brahmo vandals like Ronosen. If there was any specific evidence (especially checkuser evidence)for these 2 accounts, surely this would have emerged in the 2 previous RFCUs conducted on Ronosen (1 conducted by User:Alison and another by User:Sam_Korn). * I am especially concerned that editing through conventional ISPs with standard browser configurations I am being clubbed with vandals like Ronosen who repeatedly abuse proxy configurations and who appear to know the checkuser mechanisms (like IP, browser, OS, configurations) well enough to mimic these things sufficiently to cause collateral damage on established editors with NPOV history and good track record.

Decline reason:

Please shorten your request.

a/c) 05:08, 31 July 2008 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Please unblockme for the following short reasons * I am not a sockpuppet of Ronosen, despite the Checkuser evidence (more on this later) *

WP:Brahmo from Wikipedia, you are opening the floodgates for "spammers"and SEOpeopleout to hijack our religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Brhmoism

* I have no intention of going to Arbcom since I am given to understand it is a essentially a place for admins to squabble.

Decline reason:

Your request is still too long. It also contains irrelevant material, such as allegations against other users and what appears to be a rant about brain cells. — Sandstein 15:04, 31 July 2008 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Reasons for unblock request are: * This account is not a SPA of Ronosen. * The Checkuser fingerprints are spoofed by Ronosen (in the interest of brevity, am not repeating all the links from previous unblock requests above.). Since the evidence is highly technical (and involves "outing") I am unwilling to place it on a publicly viewable channel. (I am also aware of Wikipedia's public posture that CU is as unsinkable as the Titanic and all that) * Ronosen's SPA's have demonstrated at Wikipedia some knowledge of Checkuser mechanisms / internals - AND have made threats pursuant to this directed at User Priyanath who filed the RFCU. User Priyanath has already informed other Admins/clerks about this. * To investigate if the CU mechanism is susceptible to "gaming" (the SPA's term, not mine, as used off-wiki) I am again formally requesting that this case only be handled by Admins with Checkuser privileges..

Decline reason:

Since your reasoning focuses mainly on private information relating to the checkuser tool, you should request unblocking by emailing the unblock list at unblock-en-l AT lists DOT wikimedia DOT org. Make sure to include all information relating to specifically to your block - this is provided for you under the "Additional Information" header in your block message - as well as all other information you have in regards to the checkuser. If you require the specific attention of a checkuser, please clearly specify that in your email and the subject heading. Please note that this does not guarantee you will be unblocked: The users granted access to the Checkuser tool are highly trusted and have a high level of knowledge about their duties. Any likelihood of a false entry would have been investigated and disproved before marking the case as confirmed. —

a/c) 20:56, 31 July 2008 (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.

Category:Brahmoism Talkpages

Category:Brahmoism Talkpages, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor^(talk) 11:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]