User talk:Rakyra

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Rakyra, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Rickyurs (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Hinduism and LGBT topics, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dr. K. 07:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did at Namaste, you may be blocked from editing. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. Dr. K. 07:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Shikara (2020 film). Dr. K. 07:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the advice[edit]

Hi Rakyra. Please read the links above, about how Wikipedia works, to iprove your contributions. The way you're editing now, you'll be blocked as early as today. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:05, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but if you aren't going to have the courtesy to read the guidelines and policies, I'm not sure you should be editing[edit]

I'm also not sure that you understand that this is an encyclopedia and should be written in a formal tone. For instance, "Decriminalization of Homosexuality in India was a major good step towards a bright future!" reads like an opinion piece in a newspaper. "To know and explore more about Hindu Nationalism, we must explore how and why it emerged. What was the reason behind this sense of Nationalism and how did it come into existence? Well, this Hindu Nationalism comes from anger. Anger of the Mughals and the British destroying their Ancient Hindu Civilization and Westernizing India. The anger of the Mughal Empire or British Empire shown as bad guys in all history books, like Nazi Germany is. And anger of being shamed on Social Media and Television for being Hindu. To combat Hindu Nationalism, we must end this anger." reads like some sort of proclamation. Please understand that I agree that nationalism needs to be fought. And your sources. You need to read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS carefully. We also have a list of sources at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources that have been vetted. The Daily Mail simply cannot be used. We like academic sources where appropriate. We are also the English language Wikipedia. Thus we use the names that are the most commonly used in English sources, not Indian. You didn't read the discussions at the top of the talk page for Adam's Bridge, right? Try reading WP:COMMONNNAME. Did you know that the Tamil version of Wikipedia also calls it Adam's Bridge? Doug Weller talk 10:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanction alert[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 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.

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.

Please note the specific editing restrictions for the 2020 Delhi riots article, which are listed in the edit-notice and also at the top of the article talkpage. Your recent edits violated those restrictions and repetition will lead to blocks/topic-bans. You are welcome, of course, to propose changes on the talkpage and try to establish consensus. Abecedare (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violation of the discretionary sanctions applicable on the page 2020 Delhi riots, despite them being pointed out to you, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Abecedare (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Sorry, I didn't realize how many different people were upset about the same issues at Adam's Bridge, so I've restored the previous block. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Biryani, you may be blocked from editing. - Arjayay (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Biryani. - Arjayay (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2020 (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 ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 08:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summaries at Biryani and your edits at Talk:Biryani are entirely unacceptable and make it clear that you are not here to build the encyclopedia but are on some sort of mission. Wikipedia is not a site for "righting great wrongs" and Wikipedia is not a battleground. Doug Weller talk 08:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]