User talk:Raghavendrax

June 2020

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Remittances to India, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Raghavendrax, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to List of inventions and discoveries of the Indus Valley Civilisation does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! IamNotU (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discretionary sanctions for all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan

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 India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

--IamNotU (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South Asia / Indian Subcontinent

Please stop changing "South Asia" to "Indian Subcontinent" in various articles. Doing so without good reason or consensus may be considered disruptive to Wikipedia. Thanks for your understanding. --IamNotU (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to OpIndia—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 09:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at OpIndia, you may be blocked from editing. — Newslinger talk 09:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Citizenship Amendment Act protests. — Newslinger talk 09:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement request (India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan)

I have requested arbitration enforcement in response to your verifiability policy violations in the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan topic area. Please see WP:AE § Raghavendrax for details. — Newslinger talk 09:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Rajesh Exports. Your edits to Aptech were also unsourced and have been removed. Please be sure to provide reliable sources for such figures, thank you. IamNotU (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He's doing it on Remittances to India as well. --LilHelpa (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LilHelpa, there's a warning about that above, but to be fair, the information in that article had been extensively vandalized and Raghavendrax was actually putting it back to what the source said (more or less). Why they reverted your punctuation fix I can't say... anyway, I spent some time today and cleaned up the article. --IamNotU (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic banned indefinitely from pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed

You have been sanctioned based upon the evidence presented at the linked AE discussion: [1]

This sanction 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. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Raghavendrax has violated the topic ban in Special:Diff/961196177. I'm not sure if Raghavendrax understands the topic ban, since they did not acknowledge the arbitration enforcement request or any of the messages on this page. — Newslinger talk 05:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Raghavendrax, if it is true that you do not understand what the topic ban means, you are welcome to ask me any questions you may have in regards to it. However, abiding by a topic ban is not optional, and future violations will result in longer or indefinite blocks. So if you do indeed have questions, it would be best that you ask them before making further edits. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: At this point, it looks like Raghavendrax is simply ignoring the topic ban, considering the history of the Paridhan article (last version before redirection) and these two edits (Special:Diff/961562088 and Special:Diff/961562003) on the Patanjali Ayurved article. — Newslinger talk 11:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is just a standard admin sanction, and not an AE block, so you can appeal normally. However, before restoration of your editing privileges can be considered, you will need to demonstrate that you understand what the topic ban means, and agree that you will follow it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]