User talk:Ror84here

December 2019

Your recent editing history at Ror shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (May 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly and verifiably has been released to the world under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license or into the public domain and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure. Note to reviewers: do not leave copyright violations sitting in the page history. Please follow the instructions here.

You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

User:Ror84here/sandbox may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page. or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LittlePuppers (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ror84here! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! LittlePuppers (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Ror84here/sandbox

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Ror84here/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://historum.com/threads/history-of-ror-in-haryana-india.133204/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LittlePuppers (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

no there is nothing copy paste from any website as this data is also present on all websites but I provide the main source of this data as a refernce for this a

book name : In the Archaeological Survey of India Report for the year 1871-72, A.C.L. Carlleyle : https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.63200/page/n231/mode/2up

have a view on it as i gatherd all the info from this book and nothing is fake and copied from any other website . I think you can be more supportive as I want to show only info about the Raja Ror ruler of Kagarol mentioned in this book you can verify from there the link I mentioned . Ror84here (talk) 07:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Raja Ror (May 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by CommanderWaterford were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Raja Ror and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Raja Ror, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hey have look on this link and this book named

the Archaeological Survey of India Report for the year 1871-72, A.C.L. Carlleyle ::

link - https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.63200/page/n231/mode/2up

you can verify that it is written there as mentioned about Raja Ror and his buried fort . Ror84here (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caste-related details in biographies of living people

The mention of caste requires self-identification in the case of living people – see here for details. So add the caste-related detail only if the person self-identifies with it. - NitinMlk (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh that correct but in case of neeraj chopra it is not disputable as he clearly mention him as Ror in many articles and news and magzines so I did not think it will create any issue Ror84here (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert notice

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 enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—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 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.

- NitinMlk (talk) 08:31, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop creating BLP violations by repeatedly adding caste claims about Neeraj Chopra - none of your sources shows self-identification NitinMlk (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are likely to be blocked or topic banned if you revert me again at Ror. - Sitush (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Wait !! first thing is that now you are removing some sources from Ror page if you want you can delete Ror page permanently, I think it is the best solution instead of displaying caste info you are creating nonsense, as you can check other castes pages there are lot of things that got mentioned without sources even.Ror are kshatriya they have population around 750000 and that is clearly mentioned nor it compare genetically with other caste nor it contain any genetic information it is sourced by american publisher and in research so why you are taking it as genetic report. Ror84here (talk) 10:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? The removed source, which was also queried on the article talk page, was "The Genetic Ancestry of Modern Indus Valley: Populations from Northwest India: Supplemental Data". The American Journal of Human Genetics. 103 (6).

In what universe is that not a genetics paper? - Sitush (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yea that is a study of genetics but the information that I extracted from it does not contain any genetic details it only contains population info as mentioned about Rors somewhere,not mentioned their Dna or comparison with other castes. Data is well sourced and are correct. Ror84here (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We can't pick and choose, we don't mention varna in lead sections and I have a suspicion that paper has copied some stuff from another Wikipedia article. You really need to sort this out at the article talk page where everyone can see it. But you won't get your way even there because there are past discussions about it. It is the existence of those discussions which means you are editing warring against consensus - you need to change that and then, if successful, you can amend the article. - Sitush (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Neeraj Chopra. Even after all previous explanations, you have yet again added caste details at Neeraj Chopra! Please stop creating BLP violations. NitinMlk (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First caste one he is Ror second thing I have mentioned it from sources and its clearly visible that he is a Ror so why Wikipedia gets more irritated .I think quora is far more better than this this irritating Wikipedia . If wikipedia did not want to display such content than why you started wikipedia .For Blp violation there is no Blp violation I have read that his caste is not disputable nor he is jaat nor khatri . He mentioned himself as Ror Maratha . https://www.hindustantimes.com/brunch/pm-modi-mark-zuckerberg-all-messaged-me-says-junior-javelin-world-champ-neeraj-chopra/story-5uITOtniwhY3Ng3AMeJRhP_amp.html Ror84here (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read your link again. Nowhere in it does he call himself a Ror in answer to a question - the writer says it & provides no evidence. You may indeed find Quora a better outlet. - Sitush (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Writer did not get any dream of that he was a Ror maratha,It was actually a conversation that results in mentioning of his caste. Ror84here (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all you know why rules are created ? To avoid traitorous facts as you clearly know that he is Ror and he is not linked to any other caste many proofs are present over google to proof this points and all are mentioning him Ror, But you are using these rules at worst as you can. First of all understand why BLP policy created to hide information or to avoid disputes or false claims. Because in this case neither there is any false claim nor its disputed and his family mentioned themselves as Ror I think they need Wikipedia's confirmation for that also. If some one claim him as particular identity why wikipedia wants clarification I think it' against the liberty of individual. Being English native speaker it will be difficult for you to read this as mentioned in urdu language so check also https://epaper.punjabkesari.in/ms/icici/haryana/2021-08-10/main-panipat#pages/6 Ror84here (talk) 07:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 09:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently caste promotion, which is forbidden, is your only interest on Wikipedia. Bishonen | tålk 09:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

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).

Ror84here (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hey!!I have only updated some data based on sources as I have provided reference for that I updated, also I discussed that in talk pages also, Unblock me please,I have contributed to wikipedia from 3 years and I have not faced that issue in past.

Decline reason:

This seems to be a case of using Wikipedia as a battleground – temperamentally relatively mild, but disruptively insistent content-wise ([1]), and at least with accusations of manipulation (Special:Diff/1037735013), "creating nonsense" (Special:Diff/1037900510) and misusing rules (Special:Diff/1038054794). This behavior is incompatible with a collaborative project to build a neutral encyclopedia, and your request seems to indicate that this is unlikely to have changed in the meantime. I recommend taking the standard offer. If you do, please explicitly agree to a topic ban from all pages about social groups, be they castes, communities, tribes, clans, kootams, gotras etc., explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Without such an agreement, I believe that the probability of anyone accepting your request is low. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2021 (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.

Ror84here (talk) 11:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This account is only 1 year and 7 months old, do you have another account? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No only one I have It have been 1 year and 7 months then. Ror84here (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|It have been approx 2 years when I joined wikipedia community }} Ror84here (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to be an unblock request; I have added "nowiki" tags around it for now. It's one year and seven months since 2019-12-29, by the way, and the block is limited to the English Wikipedia. You are not blocked from editing any other Wikipedia (see meta:Complete_list_of_Wikimedia_projects for a list). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Ror84here (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hey unblock me from English editing as well as a reader its my preference also that Wikipedia will display correct information about page that relates me and I also respect Wikipedia's moral and values but I only want to add information for a specific topic to make Wikipedia a better place for readong and gathering knowledge about specific topic,I think I can provide sources too I am unaware of that sources that aren't acceptable as well,It's upto you If you want to stop me from editing that's fine I have no issue Ror84here (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've been given a pathway to being unblocked above; I concur with ToBeFree that it's unlikely anyone with unblock you without you taking it. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2021 (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.

Concern regarding Draft:Raja Ror

Hello, Ror84here. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Raja Ror, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]