User talk:RudolphHitz

April 2021

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Vinayak Dev, from its old location at User:RudolphHitz/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Iflaq ^(talk) 17:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts

Hi. You appear to be editing from more than one account (User:Rodotype)). Please note that that is not permitted except in a few cases (see WP:MULTIPLE)--RegentsPark (comment) 19:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello REGENTSPARK, that is for only public networks for the purposes of keeping my primary account secure. Please do check the sources that I have attached in the WP:Kingdom of Jeypore, if it cannot be used then please let me know. Thank you RudolphHitz (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's permitted. But you should make that clear on the user pages of both accounts. You don't want to be accused of sock puppetry so it is best to be upfront about everything.--RegentsPark (comment) 19:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh Okay. Thank you for this information. I will make sure I do that. RudolphHitz (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

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. Bishonen | tålk 15:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Disruptive editing at Kingdom of Jeypore

Promotional caste sites such as Indianrajputs.com are never reliable sources. Please stop trying to push your version into the article and attacking other editors in edit summaries. Bishonen | tålk 15:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Attacking ?? Seriously ??? You call that attacking. RudolphHitz (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC) RudolphHitz (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted an explanation behind the removal. I know and understand the guidelines of Wikipedia and I am pretty sure that’s not “attacking”RudolphHitz (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC) RudolphHitz (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I call this completely unfounded accusation of "disruptive editing" attacking, yes. But that was not my main point. I hope you understand the problem with your source, because it's a major problem. As RegentsPark has told you on the article talkpage, you should generally use academic sources for historical content. A fansite like Indianrajputs.com is miles from being a reliable source for historical content (or, really, a reliable source for anything). Bishonen | tålk 15:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Well, then I would advise you to choose your words wisely and appropriately. I am a Wikipedia contributor and user just like any other user. You do have a lot of edits and tag of an administrator but you should treat other users with the same respect that you expect from them. If a user/administrator edits something without giving a proper explanation then that is very much a disruptive editing and if someone questions that user/administrator then that is not “ATTACKING”. I have seen many old administrators face penalties for disrespecting other users. Therefore, I humbly request you to use your words wisely and thanks for the explanation. RudolphHitz (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC) RudolphHitz (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 09:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my post here for a more detailed rationale. Bishonen | tålk 09:35, 13 June 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was in the middle of Arbitration talks and one admin Bishon blocked me, can you please explain what is going on, who is this man to block me when I am talking to the Arbitration guyRudolphHitz (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Wikipedia editors are expected to assume good faith when dealing with each other. Accusing another editor of cronyism is considered a personal attack. There is no reason to think there is any conspiracy against you. Your block is only for 48 hours, once it has expired please be careful about how you treat the other editors here. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:14, 13 June 2021 (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.

RudolphHitz (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take note: there is no cabal, and Bishonen is a woman. If you want to be unblocked you have to show that you understand the problem with making personal attacks and promise to stop doing that. Jehochman ^Talk 10:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh I see! But still why this woman ? The arbitrator could have blocked me if he thought I breached good faith policy because he was the one in the conversation. Why did this Bishonen pop up in the middle of a conversation that has nothing to do with her. She interfered yesterday as well but I ignored her.

This is really aggravating because I thought the arbitration talks are just between me and the arbitrator, not random admins popping up and telling me what to do. Why can’t they just stay away from my arbitration appeal. RudolphHitz (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC) RudolphHitz (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators don’t block when you insult them (a poor tactic if you want them to take your appeal seriously). You posted to a talk page so everybody will feel welcome to opine. If you want a more structured discussion use the requests for arbitration project page WP:RFAR (after reading Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration, and if appropriate). Jehochman ^Talk 13:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You completely misunderstand Arbitration. You don't use the committee's talk page to talk to an Arbitrator, and individual Arbs don't take on cases. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. It is not in any way an appropriate forum for your issues. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel pity for you that you are contemplating my question to be a “tactic”. It’s not a tactic, it was just a simple question, so just give a straight forward answer if you can or don’t give at all. I will use the requests for arbitration project page, I hope there I can explain my grievances to one person and one person alone, without interferences. RudolphHitz (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC) RudolphHitz (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, is there any way to complain against the attitude of an administrator or are they invincible in Wikipedia. RudolphHitz (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC) RudolphHitz (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there is. You can post a complaint (with evidence — diffs — or it won't be taken seriously) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I don't mean to entrap you into doing that, though. You should be aware that a boomerang is quite a common outcome there. Indeed, in my personal opinion, a boomerang is quite likely if you post a complaint against one or more of the many admins who have attempted to advise you. But that's my opinion. It's certainly something you can do, after your block expires. Bishonen | tålk 17:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Your alt account Rodotype

First the name really should be similar to yours, eg "RudolphHitz alt). Not required but in the circumstances detailed below it seems important.

On the 13th you edited with your account at 9:57 and 11:09, and your public computer account at 10:08 and 10:15 - in other words 11 minutes after using this account.

On the 12th I see an edit from this account at 13:42 followed by one from your other account at 14:12.

Why are they so close together?

Doug Weller talk 13:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because Dear Doug, my RudolphHitz account is on my phone and Rodotype is in my office PC. I hope that clarifies your 007 investigation.

I believe I can use my accounts whenever I want to or do I have to seek your permission before using them ? RudolphHitz (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC) RudolphHitz (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, why don’t you go to the unblock section and answer my question instead, can you ? RudolphHitz (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC) RudolphHitz (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Dough Weller: there has been another disruptive editing on the WPKingdom of Jeypore recently by one user named SangramZ, he has reverted the sourced content edit of Jethwarp on the information box. He has also done some disruptive editing on WP:Jeypore. I request you have a look at it. RudolphHitz (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC) RudolphHitz (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I'm concerned about your alt name. See Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppetry#How_different_can_alt_names_be_if_used_to_edit_similar_articles. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a need for you to have an alt account, but if you must it should the username needs to make it clear it's your alt - the topics are far too similar. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reading material

While you are blocked, you may wish to take the time to read up on some strategies for editing Wikipedia and working with other editors collaboratively.

For starters, I recommend reading Assume good faith. We all need to treat each other in a way that assumes their intentions are genuine – that they are here with the best interests of the project at heart, and that they want to work with other contributors to write the best possible materials. When you make snide or accusatory comments to other people assuming they have bad intentions (like accusing me of cronyism), this adversely impacts your ability to work with other people, and instead turns editing into a battleground, which is not an effective way to build anything.

Secondly, I recommend reading about the bold, revert, discuss cycle. There is nothing wrong with updating and fixing articles, and all editors are encouraged to do so. And your edit will be seen by many people, and if any of them disagree that the edit is an improvement, it is appropriate for them to revert it. And then your job, as the person who proposed the update, is to start a discussion on the talk page, explaining your ideas, clarifying your sources, and hearing their concerns in order to make the update even better. This is how the collaborative editing process works, and it's how we built this encyclopedia.

Finally, it is your responsibility at all times to remain civil. Be kind in your dealings with the other editors, focusing on how you can work together rather than on how you can "win" an argument. Don't mock, ridicule, or cast aspersions. Instead, ask questions, listen to the answers, and offer compromises whenever you can.

As you gain more experience editing Wikipedia you can see how these and other principles work together to make article-writing fun and rewarding. Anyone with good intentions and a desire to work collaboratively is welcome to join in. Happy editing. – bradv🍁 15:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Odiahistory per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Odiahistory. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Vinayak Dev has been accepted

Vinayak Dev, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Vinayak Dev for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vinayak Dev is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinayak Dev until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Goldsztajn (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]