User talk:RuudVanClerk

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 South Asian social groups. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose page-specific restrictions , when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions . 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.

Hello. I notice that you have repeatedly added a "notability" tag to this article, and you have restored it when it was removed. When you add any kind of tag to an article, you are supposed to go to the article's talk page and explain why you added it, or what your objection is. Talk page discussion, not edit summaries, is the way to work out this kind of disagreement. I note that the subject does have sixteen references, most of which appear to be Reliable Sources, so it is unclear why you are calling it non-notable. Make your case at the article talk page, and do not edit war. Thank you. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN Sure I will happily explain it, thank you for letting me know as I seem to have forgot to do so. Btw could you please address by post on the administrators noticeboard please:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1085308374

It’s concerning that my repeated attempts to have this amicably resolved by notifying the administrators have been ignored. RuudVanClerk (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RuudVanClerk. You have new messages at Lord 0f Avernus's talk page.
Message added 10:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hi, Please refrain from

Where have I followed you? RuudVanClerk (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, see this [1] , if its a coincidence , I apologize.

But it looks highly circumspect that you made you first edit on this page just hours after i made my first edit on this page. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a coincidence. If you see my edit history, you will note that I edit in relation to various social groups in the North-West. RuudVanClerk (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I don't know if you're aware of the

If would first need to be established that the change or edit is bold but I am happy to discuss this on the respective article talk pages. RuudVanClerk (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, really have a look at

WP:BRD. The word "bold" here isn't some characterisation for a daring action, it simply refers to any action performed without prior discussion. Most edits on the Wikipedia are bold, and the crucial question here is on how to proceed if they're reverted. – Uanfala (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Just to let you know that this is beginning to look what people here would normally refer to as disruption. If your bold move is reverted, then you should get consensus for the new title via an

RM discussion, not continue making the move over and over again after it's been reverted. – Uanfala (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@Uanfala This seems to be a case of Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot as you have now unfortunately breached the 3 revert rule. Very sad that it has got to this stage! RuudVanClerk (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I breached

WP:3RR? – Uanfala (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

RuudVanClerk, as you may have noticed I have over the past day responded to complaints and issues stemming from Rajput-related articles at various venues including

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at

You have been blocked indefinitely as not being here to help build an encyclopedia and for POV-pushing, battleground editing, and (the most serious issue) misuse of sources. Compare this discussion. You can request unblock by placing {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page. Bishonen | tålk 15:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

The article Treatment of Sikh workers in Italy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article was created by a user who recently got blocked for persistent misrepresentation of sources. Even if this article is source-checked and then rewritten, its topic is still likely not

notable: there doesn't appear to be anything special about the treatment of Sikh workers in Italy that's different from e.g. what happens to Punjabi workers more broadly. Probably the article with the narrowest scope that can reasonably be written on this topic is Indian immigrant labourers in Italy

.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the