Raymond3023 (talk | contribs) Undid revision 828730445 by TripWire (talk) Tags: Undo Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Literaturegeek (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
::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. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 12:33, 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. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|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. [[User:Raymond3023|Raymond3023]] ([[User talk:Raymond3023#top|talk]]) 05:45, 19 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. [[User:Raymond3023|Raymond3023]] ([[User talk:Raymond3023#top|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,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=830868170] 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.--[[User:Literaturegeek|<span style="color:blue">Literaturegeek</span>]] | [[User_talk:Literaturegeek|<span style="color:blue">''T@1k?''</span>]] 05:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:04, 18 March 2018
Welcome!
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)
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
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. 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)
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 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)