User talk:Rizhwickh

Hello, Rizhwickh, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Atomic theory. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you bullying me? I will revert it back if you don't give proper reason for its removal.Rizhwickh (talk) 05:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You made an edit, someone else disagreed with it, you made it again instead of starting a discussion with that person. That's not a way to reach Wikipedia:Consensus. I undid your edit as a non-personal action, returning to the status quo before your edit that was disputed. That other editor made specific objections to your edit. I encourage you to start a discussion and come up with more reasons that your edit is good, rather than just saying you disagree with the other editor's action itself. As I noted above, merely repeating your same edit will just lead to your being blocked, which means your idea will not be implemented even before others have a chance to discuss it. DMacks (talk) 09:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Chandragupta Maurya, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Begoon 07:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Chandragupta Maurya, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Begoon 13:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chandragupta Maurya; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Begoon 13:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're now well past the WP:3RR limit, and you've reverted contrary to the expressed opinions of several editors, multiple times. I don't want to start a discussion at WP:ANEW, because that will be likely to get you blocked, so please self-revert and start a talk page discussion so that I don't need to do that. Whilst, as I say, I don't want to see you blocked, I also won't stand by while you barge through your preferred changes against policy and without regard for other editors, so I advise you to take advantage of this opportunity. Thank you. -- Begoon 14:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened a section at Talk:Chandragupta Maurya#Content removals by Rizhwickh in case you are not clear where to discuss this. In order to avoid a WP:ANEW report being necessary, and a possible block, please self-revert and try to reach consensus there. Please do not ignore this opportunity. Thank you. -- Begoon 14:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Begoon 15:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violating the 3 revert rule and personal attacks. 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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 16:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Rizhwickh! Your additions to Shikharji have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important alert

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.

Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism and Jainism

I restored parts from this version from 2021 on my edit there. There was no need for you to restore the misrepresentation.

This source made no mention of a "genocide".

An IP reverted your edits and you falsely claimed the IP to be a sock and also falsely claimed that your edit was assisted by Huggle.[1]

Stop this disruptive editing. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Improperly marking revert as minor and falsely claiming that I provided no explanation is also disruptive. If you reverted again with another disruptive tactic then I will have to report you. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the latest report on WP:AN3 about your rampant edit warring. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Jainism and Hinduism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. clpo13_(talk) 23:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C and Clpo13: This user has been blocked after the recent AN3 report, where I saw that Clpo13 made mention of the earlier block. I checked the earlier edit warring report where El C was acting and that reported edits include the reverts with false edit summaries[2] that this user is making even today.[3] This editor apparently lacks any edits to article talk pages or even on his own talk page whenever any concerns were raised about their edits in violation of WP:LISTENTOUS. I am thinking a topic ban from at least edits related to Jainism, which is their only focus, would at least halt the obvious chances of repetitive disruption. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I remember 2019 (the year), vaguely, but I don't remember this! El_C 05:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Swastika, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 21:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

Hello, I'm Fowler&fowler. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to India have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Please read WP:FAOWN. Please spend days, sometimes weeks, achieving a consensus for their edits on the talk page, Talk:India Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It did not appear constructive to whom? You and your vested interests? Rizhwickh (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C and Doug Weller: Don't you think that this type of uncollaborative attitude warrants topic ban from ARBIPA? Some other recent examples of his disruptive editing from this month include POV pushing,[4][5][6][7][8],edit warring by marking edits as minor[9] despite warning above,[10] never ending edit warring over useless assertion,[11][12], false assertion of using WP:HG [13] after being warned against it above.[14] This user has been blocked 2 times and has no willingness to abide by policies and ever use article's talk page. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 all pages and discussions concerning India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.

You have been sanctioned for persistent disruptive and tendentious editing.

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. Doug Weller talk 15:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban violation

@Rizhwickh: You are topic banned from anything related to Afghanistan, India and Pakistan per the section above. You violated your topic ban with two edits you made today.[15][16]

I am not reporting you because this was your first violation. Consider complying with your topic ban. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: This user's every single edit since my above reminder is a topic ban violation. I don't think this user is willing to comply with the topic ban. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for TB violations, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing.

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.

Doug Weller talk 08:53, 5 July 2022 (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."