User talk:Dr2Rao

	; Archives (Index) ;
	User talk:Dr2Rao/Archives/2020/June;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Hi, this is my discussion page. Do not hesitate to leave a message for me. Old messages are eventually archived.

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You have been indefinitely topic banned from pages connected with India and/or Pakistan, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons I have explained here.

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 read WP:TBAN to understand 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 the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | tålk 20:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Immigration to Sweden, you may be blocked from editing. bonadea contributions talk 17:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I see you added "the 2020 Sweden riots" to Immigration to Sweden, sourced to media from 2016 and 2017, or perhaps not sourced at all; your edit is unclear concerning what sources it invokes, but none of them are current enough to source 2020 events. And this after Bonadea warned you about the same thing above, and reverted you with an explanatory edit summary. You have been blocked for 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 18:18, 8 September 2020 (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).

Dr2Rao (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was about to copy the references cited at the 2020 Sweden riots but was blocked just before that. I should have been given more time. Very unfair [I was editing the article I just mentioned which is why I was delayed]. ~~~~

Decline reason:

Don't make edits without including references. Its that simple. You don't seem to understand what you did was not good, so I'm declining. Otherwise, bonadea provides excellent advice, please take it. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:26, 9 September 2020 (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.

Dr2Rao, there are no sources that could support your claim in the article, and it is not a claim that would belong in that article anyway, so please do not insert it again once your block is lifted. There have apparently been concerted attempts to make it seem as if the Malmö riots were instigated by Muslim immigrants, but there are no reliable sources supporting this (after all, it started with supporters of a far-right activist protesting the fact that he was not allowed into the country, and acting on purpose to try to stir up religious strife), and there can be no possible reason to add unverified speculations about one specific incident to an article designed to cover immigration as a general phenomenon. If nothing else, WP:UNDUE applies.

It would probably be a very good idea for you to edit only articles that have no connection at all to religion, ethnicity, or nationalism, of any flavour, for some considerable time. Just my advice as a fellow editor. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 20:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To all my talk page stalkers, if I am right, I have to cite references that say exactly what my sentence says, it is not which article I edit, right?—Dr2Rao (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is much more complicated than that:

You have restrictions on what articles you are allowed to edit. (Your topic ban.)
You need to actually read the sources you are citing, so you know what they say.
You need to write from a neutral point of view, which means representing without editorial bias, what the source actually says on the topic of the Wikipedia article.
When selecting sources for an article, you must do so from a neutral point of view, which means representing fairly and proportionately all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
You need to put the citations in as you write. If this is hard for you, use a user sandbox (such as User:Dr2Rao/Sandbox 01) to develop new versions of article paragraphs before pasting the paragraphs into articles.
You need to obey rules on copyright.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks Toddy1.—Dr2Rao (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I want to keep the last 3 threads and archive the rest of this talk page. I tried and failed. Please help me.—Dr2Rao (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've only just (in the last hour) placed the archival template, but the archive bot only runs once a day (I believe it's at some point overnight). Please be patient, though obviously if it's still not working by tomorrow feel free to restore the {{help me}} template above and someone will give you a hand. Primefac (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks Primefac.—Dr2Rao (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, am I supposed to remove the }} and {{tq| wherever I have put them at the top of this page?—Dr2Rao (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're referring to, but you generally don't have to remove anything in order to have a page archived. Primefac (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Primefac, it worked!—Dr2Rao (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it! Primefac (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing: final warning

Dr2Rao, these edits of yours changed neutral wording to emotional, non-neutral, wording. I can't find that your text is copied from within the article either, as you claim. Your anti-muslim editing is becoming very disruptive. This is a final warning. If you can't or won't edit any topic without disrupting it, it's getting to be time for an indefinite block. It's a pity you didn't listen to Bonadea's good advice here. Bishonen | tålk 20:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I have copied the citations from where I got the sentences now, please take a look, they do say that.—Dr2Rao (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the sources you cited this time? VR _talk 02:39, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did.—Dr2Rao (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Ok, then post the quotes from both of the sources you used in this edit. I checked Ali page 51 and it doesn't talk about this at all. So I'd be curious to what you were able to find.

And Saad page 243 says "Unlike the number of legal wives, who were limited to four only (4:2) there was no legal limit to the number of concubines."

This roughly corresponds to what the wikipedia article originally said: "Men were permitted to have as many concubines as they could afford" was what the source said. You changed it to: "Islam permits men to have sexual intercourse with these kidnapped sex slaves", which is not supported by the source. And now you're putting citations on it to make it seem like it is.VR _talk 02:53, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The full sentence I added was, Islam permits men to have sexual intercourse with these kidnapped sex slaves and there is no limit on the number they could keep.—Dr2Rao (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kecia Ali says, A free man may marry four free women and female slaves, not more and he may take as many concubines as he wishes from among his female slaves. If a man has four free [wives] and a thousand concubines and wants to buy another [concubine] and a man reproaches him for that, it will be as if [that man] had committed unbelief. And if a man wants to take a concubine and his wife says to him "I will kill myself", he is not prohibited [from doing so], because it is a lawful act, but if he abbtains to save her grief, he will be rewarded, because of the hadith "Whoever sympathizes with my community,God will sympathize with him." Muhammad Ala al-Din Haskafi, seventeenth century Hanafi jurist, Al-Durr al-Mukhtar and The status of concubine was informal, however; law and custom allowed a master to have sex with any of his (unmarried) female slaves. The "these kidnapped" was added due to the second sentence of that paragraph.—Dr2Rao (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of Indefinite for Long term WP:TE, after being alerted to policy violations with a final warning, indulging in passive aggressive edit summaries. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. —SpacemanSpiff 02:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]