User talk:Rudhr.rudhr.54

Rudhr.rudhr.54, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Rudhr.rudhr.54! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Liz (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Dhedh

Hi, Wikipedia is not censored and is intended to reflect what is said by reliable sources. As such, even though you may not like it, you cannot make changes such as the ones you recently tried to do at the Dhedh article. - Sitush (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Hello, I'm JimVC3. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Dhedh have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. JimVC3 (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Dhedh shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

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.

- Sitush (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Vankar. Sitush (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Dhedh. Sitush (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Vanamonde (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rudhr, as I'm sure you have noticed, I have blocked you from editing. Verifiability is a core policy on Wikipedia. All content needs to be supported by reliable sources. Also, content that is supported by sources should not be removed with no explanation. That is considered disruptive, and you can be blocked for it. Please, do not see this as a punishment, but as an opportunity to read and understand the policies I have linked here, so that you may contribute constructively in the future. Please also note that using another account to avoid this block is prohibited; and by doing so, you will not ever get a page to look like what you want, because it can and will be protected. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing?

You removed what appear to be two valid citations and mentioned some putative source in your edit summary. High school books are not usually considered to be reliable sources on Wikipedia and, of course, Indian high school books have had particular problems (eg: the NCERT scandal). Furthermore, and I am fairly sure I have told you this somewhere before, our policy regarding neutrality means that we should not remove well-sourced statements but rather show all valid opinions regarding the matter. - Sitush (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No sooner did the block expire than you went straight back to the exact same behaviour (the threats don't exactly help your case either). Your account is now blocked indefinitely; you will need to convince an administrator that you can contribute productively here before you will be allowed to edit again. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unblock

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).

Rudhr.rudhr.54 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have give a reliable source content and also I I give book name and publisher name but why block me I don't know what I give a correct and right information about the topic Rudhr.rudhr.54 (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You said in an edit summary "if you block me then i will do it with other account and also othe mobile and other IP adress. " Threats to sock to continue to post disruptively are a clear cut reason to block a user. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2017 (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.

Yes I said that because he give me a warning to block me because I am not give a reliable source but now I give a reliable source so why you block me now ? Rudhr.rudhr.54 (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

Rudhr.rudhr.54 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

yes except and I said there but he give me a warning to block me without any acceptable reason and second one I am belong to this cast and I also know every detail my cast and also I belong to this area so I know everything about this page about my thoughts and opinion this is fake page made by any person and I also told you that this is illegally page respectively to our Indian Constitution Rudhr.rudhr.54 (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. I'll also note that Wikipedia is not bound by the Indian constitution, that legal threats won't help your case, and that we require reliable published sources, not personal opinions. Huon (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2017 (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.

Rudhr.rudhr.54 (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rudhr, it looks like you did in fact sock - here and [1]. The first of those is where the constitutional issue mentioned, which you note above. Wikipedia isn't based in India and is not censored - the Indian constitution has no bearing on the content of our articles. - Sitush (talk) 05:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

Rudhr.rudhr.54 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

ok ok but you think they writers are right and our government's High School syllabus is wrong ok then what about and how show you said that their writers all right respectively to this topic and how you think that I don't understand what you are doing but I last told you unlock me and also about my editing about that topic I was right there but you don't understand it I think you are a big fool. which type of man ! Look man you don't see any other writer only you see some writers they think they are right but this is not reality I think you never understand what is right and wrong Rudhr.rudhr.54 (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. only (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2017 (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.

August 2017

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

only (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Rudhr.rudhr.54 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #19176 was submitted on Sep 07, 2017 20:55:52. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Rudhr.rudhr.54 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #19665 was submitted on Nov 02, 2017 19:40:49. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]