User talk:RuudVanClerk: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:09, 12 May 2022

Please do not delete complete Soorma section from muslim rajpoots without discussing on talk page first.Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

welcome to wikipedia

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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

. Thanks LukeEmily (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General sanctions notifocation for South Asian social groups

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 discretionary sanctions—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.

About Upper Backward Castes

Hello. I notice that you have repeatedly added a "notability" tag to this article, and you have restored it when it was removed. When you add any kind of tag to an article, you are supposed to go to the article's talk page and explain why you added it, or what your objection is. Talk page discussion, not edit summaries, is the way to work out this kind of disagreement. I note that the subject does have sixteen references, most of which appear to be Reliable Sources, so it is unclear why you are calling it non-notable. Make your case at the article talk page, and do not edit war. Thank you. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MelanieN Sure I will happily explain it, thank you for letting me know as I seem to have forgot to do so. Btw could you please address by post on the administrators noticeboard please:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1085308374

It’s concerning that my repeated attempts to have this amicably resolved by notifying the administrators have been ignored. RuudVanClerk (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Lord 0f Avernus

Hello, RuudVanClerk. You have new messages at Lord 0f Avernus's talk page.
Message added 10:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hi, Please refrain from WP:FOLLOWING me on wikipedia, i understand one can have similar interests but if you keep following me to any new page i visit it raises suspicion of WP:SOCK , i have already got tagged as your sock in an investigation once in your WP:EW with some other user. I dont want to get tagged again, So if you have kept a tab on my edit history i would request you to untag me. I know its not against the rule per se but i will have to get this in the notice of an admin, otheriwise. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I followed you? RuudVanClerk (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, see this [1] , if its a coincidence , I apologize.

But it looks highly circumspect that you made you first edit on this page just hours after i made my first edit on this page. Lord 0f Avernus (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a coincidence. If you see my edit history, you will note that I edit in relation to various social groups in the North-West. RuudVanClerk (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BRD

Hi! I don't know if you're aware of the WP:BRD principle: if you make a bold change and it's reverted, the onus generally is on your to start a discussion and get consensus for your changes. This is especially the case for page moves: because of the repercussions on redirects and other articles, repeated moves can be disruptive. If a bold move is reverted, then generally your next step is to start an RM discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If would first need to be established that the change or edit is bold but I am happy to discuss this on the respective article talk pages. RuudVanClerk (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, really have a look at WP:BRD. The word "bold" here isn't some characterisation for a daring action, it simply refers to any action performed without prior discussion. Most edits on the Wikipedia are bold, and the crucial question here is on how to proceed if they're reverted. – Uanfala (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that this is beginning to look what people here would normally refer to as disruption. If your bold move is reverted, then you should get consensus for the new title via an RM discussion, not continue making the move over and over again after it's been reverted. – Uanfala (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala This seems to be a case of Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot as you have now unfortunately breached the 3 revert rule. Very sad that it has got to this stage! RuudVanClerk (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I breached WP:3RR? – Uanfala (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note regarding Rajput-related articles and editing

RuudVanClerk, as you may have noticed I have over the past day responded to complaints and issues stemming from Rajput-related articles at various venues including my talkpage, ANEW, ANI, Talk:Rajput and Talk:Zamindars of Bihar. I am dropping this note to you (and other involved editors) in order to remind you all of the WP:GSCASTE and WP:ARBIPA discretionary sanctions applicable to this subject area, and since the edit-warring, grievance collection and tit-for-tat complaining that I have observed has become disruptive. Setting aside the questions of past interactions and who-is-more-to-blame for now, please try to model your individual editing (which you alone control!) in the future to be in line with wikipedia's content and conduct policies and best practices. Abecedare (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Information

Hi, I saw your comments on a page I think it would be better if you can go through Wikipedia: Talk page guidelines as well as some of the other rules. Please do remember there is already WP:GSCASTE in place, so every editors should keep that in mind while editing and replying on talk page. Thanks and Best RS6784 (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Khanate of Sibir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kalmyk. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these [[User:DPL bot|opt-out instructions]]. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 06:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
-== Verifiability ==
-Hi! This is a follow-up to that revert from the other day. Sorry I didn't get the time to write earlier.
-So, in the discussions at [[Talk:Jat Muslim]] and [[Talk:Peripatetic groups of Afghanistan]] it struck me how your sources didn't ''quite'' seem to support your statements. I thought at first it may be down to lack of awareness of [[WP:OR|the policy on original research]]. But then I checked two of your article edits:
-* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhan_Singh&diff=1086661803&oldid=1086661555 Here] you changed a sentence, which had two in-line citations at its end, to make a very strong claim that as far as I was able to tell wasn't present in any of those two sources cited. Your addition was not only unsourced, but it was positioned in a way that made it look as though it was sourced.
-* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peripatetic_groups_of_Afghanistan&diff=1086152834&oldid=1086146577 Here] you supported a "Jat" origin hypothesis with a citation of Rao's excellent 1982 French-language monograph. This is precisely the sort of rare, difficult to find, studies whose results we should strive to make accessible here, even if it takes a lot of extra effort. So that's great so far. However, when I found the book in a library and checked the page you were citing, it turned out not to contain any relevant content at all.
-I find all that puzzling, especially given how in discussions you yourself always insist on following the sources. I imagine you've seen others here talk about the need to follow the sources, and you probably try to be a good wikipedian by emulating that way of speaking. But this is not just a way of speaking. When someone writes "We should stick to the sources", this is not a symbolic exercise, it's a very literal statement. It means exactly what it says. You can have a look at [[WP:V|the verifiability policy]], which explains the underlying principles in detail. – Uanfala ([[User talk:Uanfala|talk]]) 12:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
-:Hi! Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention! I have had a read-through of what you have posted and unfortunately I disagree with it in its entirety.
-:Firstly, Im not sure if you have read the sources but they for the Kadam Singh article the sources do indeed support the claim as you can see with references to “rioting and looting.”
-:Secondly, I also have both a digital and physical copy of Aparna Rao’s work and they do indeed contain relevant content. Again, I will repeat that we do indeed need to stick to the sources and refrain from original research. But I must thank you for notifying me on my talk page, as I I have now had a chance to revert your edits which were made without consensus so thank you very much. [[User:RuudVanClerk|RuudVanClerk]] ([[User talk:RuudVanClerk#top|talk]]) 12:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
-::You appear to be seeing something that I don't. Would you mind providing quotes then? Thanks! – Uanfala ([[User talk:Uanfala|talk]]) 12:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)