User talk:Raymond3023

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You have been unblocked following a successful appeal to the arbitration committee. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What were you doing here? CityOfSilver 14:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confused an entry[1] thanks for rectification. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

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.

Template:Z33

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. Happy editing, —MBL Talk 06:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] 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)[reply]

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You have been topic banned from the WP:ARBIPA area for three months.

You have been sanctioned for misrepresenting what sources say and a repeated failure to understand this issue.

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please go to WP:TBAN and read the information there to see 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 against the ban, please say so below or on my talk page and I will explain how to do it. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to copy the below to WP:AE. Do you want me to do it? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that, I can copy now. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per the appeal discussion the topic ban is lifted you have agreed for the next six months to:

• Not remove any WP:G5 tags from WP:ARBIPA articles
• Abide by WP:1RR with all autoconfirmed editors (10 edits, 4 days) on WP:ARBIPA topics
• Ensure the sources you're using fully and accurately back up the content you're proposing. You will be required to produce the necessary excerpts from sources if challenged by an experienced editor
• Take care not to misrepresent the validity or reliability of a source

Failure to abide by any one or more of these conditions may result in an immediate topic ban or block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Raymond3023 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Raymond3023 (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

WP:ARBIPA [2]

Administrator imposing the sanction

NeilN (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

I am sanctioned for "misrepresenting what sources say and a repeated failure to understand this issue", there hasn't been any "repeated failure to understand this issue", I have never been alleged of misrepresenting source. And NeilN claims I am responsible for the misrepresentation of the source on an article,[3] that I was originally attempting to rescue from a G5 deletion, "mostly because it is notable and meets WP:LASTING".[4] While I had already acknowledged that I should be more cautious with checking the content on the article that I am rescuing from G5,[5] NeilN still went ahead to sanction me despite without giving any other admin a chance to discuss, despite he had echoed that unless "another admin objects, I'm thinking of implementing a three month topic ban".[6] Again, I will be more cautious with checking article and sources when I am taking responsibility of G5, but I find this sanction to be unjustified. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.