Jump to content

User talk:RobertJudeson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Although some prefer welcoming newcomers with cookies, I find fruit to be a healthier alternative.

Hello, RobertJudeson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.



Why can't I edit some particular pages?
Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.
Where can I experiment with editing Wikipedia?
Use the main sandbox or create your own personal sandbox to experiment.
How do I create an article?
See how to create your first article, then use the Article Wizard to create one, and add references to the article as explained below.
How do I create citations?
  1. Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
  2. Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
  3. In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
  4. Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
  5. Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
  6. In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
  7. If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?
A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.

May 2024

[edit]

Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that in this edit to Konkani language, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 06:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Saraswat Brahmin. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Ekdalian (talk) 08:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Karhade Brahmin. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Ekdalian (talk) 07:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hi RobertJudeson! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Karhade Brahmin that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. You added an entire section marking the edit as minor! Ekdalian (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ekdalian.
It seems to be selected unknowingly,anyhow the whole section is perfectly cited page by page.Thanks for this information related to minor edit.I’ll take care of this in future. RobertJudeson (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
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 contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the 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.

Ekdalian (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raj era sources

[edit]

Hi. Just a heads up that Raj era sources are not considered reliable on Wikipedia, particularly when they relate to caste matters (see WP:RAJ). I see you've added one at Saraswat Brahmin. You should remove it and not add these sources to other articles. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please use article talkpages

[edit]

RobertJudeson, I noticed that you have recently been involved in edit-warring at several articles including Karhade Brahmin and Saraswat Brahmin, and that you are communicating almost exclusively through edit-summaries. In fact, you have yet to edit any article talkpage.

Please see WP:BRD for the suggested approach to reach consensus instead of continuing along the current path that will likely lead to sanctions. Let me know if you have any questions about the process. Questions about sources or content though should be taken up with fellow editors at the concerned article talk page, or at a relevant noticeboard such as WP:RSN. Abecedare (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Abecedare.
I am unable to understand why my edits are reverted inspite of good sources.They can use talk page,I will be happy to clarify my edits.when I initiated talk with Ekdalian,he deleted my talk and didn’t wish to continue but reverted multiple times.Not getting what’s happening. RobertJudeson (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RobertJudeson, instead of user talkpage, try using the article talkpage (say, Talk:Karhade Brahmin) and lay out what changes you are proposing to the corresponding article, along with the sources and, ideally, relevant quotes from those sources. That way all editors interested in the article can participate in the discussion. Abecedare (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare.
Thank you for this link but they are experienced editors if they had issue they would have initiated talk.They didn’t,I initiated two times with Ekdalian he reverted my talk as like I am nothing.secondly initiated sockpuppetry against me for opposing revert,see his edits.With good faith I may neglect this but this is not good move.@Abecedareyou are admin you have full rights.Please see my edits in karhade and Mohyal,I have given JSTOR,Specially meant for caste/social but they reverted!.Please ask them not to interfere in well cited articles.If they don’t want, they can feel free to talk,I will be ready.See my contributions from the day I joined,My intension is not to hurt any caste/person instead intercaste dispute was a part of Indian society. RobertJudeson (talk) 07:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BRD, the onus is on you, not the other party/parties reverting you, to open the discussion on the article talk page. Calling in admins for help at this stage is like bring guns to a knife fight. – robertsky (talk) 09:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Robertsky.
You are right Abecedare sent a link about talk which I understood but only one thing I felt odd is member with 8 edit(18 day account) has lodge Sock puppet investigation ,I have spent 2 months still unaware how to lodge Sock puppetry investigation.Ekdalian has commented against me in that.I expect all should collaborate towards contributing Wikipedia.That’s what my concern is. RobertJudeson (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare@RobertskyThank you. RobertJudeson (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

[edit]
Hi @NinjaRobotPirate.
This is the only account I have.Kindly recheck your investigation.Moreover have you seen the evidence provided by the opponents?.RobertJudeson (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Make an unblock request if you want to be unblocked. It should be easy for any other CheckUser to verify that the block is correct. To save you some time, I'll point out that I've already investigated the case as thoroughly as I'm going to, and you won't change my mind by proclaiming your innocence. I'm also not going to believe "it was my brother/roommate/friend". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirateNo I am not making you to believe anything but clearly I am affirming I and myself along is using this device and this is my one and only account!.Kindly recheck once. RobertJudeson (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just told you to make an unblock request instead of pinging me. Since you're ignoring what I say, I've muted you and will no longer receive your pings. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate.
Ok man not a problem.Have a nice day. RobertJudeson (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Re-evaluation of Sockpuppetry Accusation and CU Investigation

[edit]
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).

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

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia Administrator,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concern regarding the recent categorization of my account as a sockpuppet on Wikipedia. I believe this classification is erroneous and wish to request a proper CheckUser(CU) investigation to clear my account's standing.

link:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joshi punekar Evidence:Completely weak as there is nothing to show as accepted by opponent. Initiator:The person who initiated this is himself sock.User:Chen_Xiao_Kai

Admin 1:Almost turned down the case for additional details.

CU:second admin reply is there in the link where he is mentioning broader IP and Interaction link consideration. Interaction link:https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Joshi+punekar&users=RobertJudeson&users=Brittlee1990&users=Karanth1234&users=Madhwahari&users=Richardadmi&users=Pondakar&users=Goyambab&users=Rajeshfadnavis&users=Ramarao1234

As I saw the Interaction link I found zero similarity with other users in any pattern.

I have always strived to contribute to Wikipedia in good faith and in accordance with its guidelines and policies. I am confident that a thorough CU investigation will reveal that my account has been used solely by me and in compliance with Wikipedia's standards.

The sockpuppetry categorization has not only affected my contributions but also my reputation within the Wikipedia community. I kindly ask for a detailed review of my account's activity and a reconsideration of the current classification. I am more than willing to provide any additional information or clarification that may assist in this process.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to a resolution that accurately reflects my genuine participation and contributions to Wikipedia.

Regards, RobertJudeson (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 21:23, 29 June 2024 (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.

Hi User:Jpgordon. In that case can you tell me the name of the account which you feel I am sock as per your CU? RobertJudeson (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RobertJudeson, you are already familiar with the SPI case as indicated in your unblock request. That includes information on the sockmaster as well as previously found sockpuppets. Liz Read! Talk! 08:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RobertJudeson&oldid=1232133839"