User talk:Rajuonline: Difference between revisions

Hello, Rajuonline! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Sting au Buzz Me... 12:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

...

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sonia Gandhi. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please discuss on the talk page before adding any controversial material Yes Michael? •^Talk 10:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was not vandalism. It is a fact that Subramanian Swamy has applied for permission to prosecute Sonia Gandhi, the reference to Expressbuzz news portal is given, other news sources can be found by Googling. The same is also uploaded on Mr Swamy's website. Raju Das 11:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not disputing the verifiability of the material. I only say that controversial material like the one you just added needs to be discussed, and should be included if consensus is gained. Please start a new section regarding your edit in Talk:Sonia Gandhi. Let us discuss it there. Regards, Yes Michael? •^Talk 11:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent . Let us wait for a few days to see if anyone replies. If not, then we can sort the matter by ourselves. Yes Michael? •^Talk 11:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Raju Das 11:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Euryale ferox, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assamese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on OpIndia.com requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Omni Flames (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rajuonline. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rajuonline. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article OpIndia.com has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I am unable to find evidence that this website meets the general threshold for notability. There are passing mentions in some reliable sources, but nothing in depth; the article as it stood before my cleanup relied on self-published sources and twitter.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Vanamonde (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article OpIndia.com 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/OpIndia.com until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Vanamonde (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, you may be blocked from editing. Vanamonde (talk) 08:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove an Articles for deletion notice or a comment from an AfD discussion. MT Train^Talk 08:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that you are not here to contribute to an encyclopaedia, but rather push an agenda. On any further disruption from you in any form, you will be blocked. —SpacemanSpiff 07:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier when a wiki page on OpIndia was created, it was deleted despite protests. And now someone has created the page to malign OpIndia. So who is using Wikipedia to spread propaganda? Raju Das (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been created by me in pursuance with the coverage of the website in reliable sources. If you find any reliable source that runs against the general theme of the article, please mention the source (along with your proposed changes) at the t/p. If you deem any source which is currently used over the article as unreliable, please raise a query at WP:RSN. Ditto for using any fringe source or source, already declared unreliable by RSN. ∯WBG^converse 16:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called ‘reliable sources’ you have quoted to malign OpIndia are ideological opponents of the website, and OpIndia has exposed them spreading fake news several times. No wonder they hate OpIndia and accuse it of spreading fake news. It is like quoting Apple fan pages to claim how bad Windows or Android is. Those sources are anything but neutral on the ideological point. If you created the page without any mala fide intentions, I request you to remove the outright defamatory comments (although it remains a mystery how the page was created just a week before Kapil Sibal mentioned OpIndia in Supreme Court, I would like to believe that was just a coincident).

I would go through the reference links of the fake news claim later and post detailed counter to them individually later on the talk page of the article. Raju Das (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what ideological opponents and/or Kapil Sibal, you are talking about. As I said, RSN is that-way. We don't accept Original Research, so counter the content iff you have reliable sources from MSM, backing them up. ∯WBG^converse 17:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will post those details later on the talk page of the article, will need some time to go through the references you have quoted. And SpacemanSpiff blocked me from editing for just asking why it was final warning!!! What is happening? Are some big players involved in this game and am I in trouble? Please tell me, I don't want to be in trouble. Raju Das (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To Spaceman]]Spiff, I want to know why it was final warning? Where was the first warning? How can you issue final warning at the first instance? - Raju Das (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. 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 17:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

.

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I didn't do any advertising or self-promotion as alleged, I had just asked why I was issued a final warning at the first instance. Raju Das (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I didn't do any advertising or self-promotion as alleged, I had just asked why I was issued a final warning at the first instance. [[User:Rajuonline|Raju Das]] ([[User talk:Rajuonline#top|talk]]) 17:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I didn't do any advertising or self-promotion as alleged, I had just asked why I was issued a final warning at the first instance. [[User:Rajuonline|Raju Das]] ([[User talk:Rajuonline#top|talk]]) 17:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I didn't do any advertising or self-promotion as alleged, I had just asked why I was issued a final warning at the first instance. [[User:Rajuonline|Raju Das]] ([[User talk:Rajuonline#top|talk]]) 17:57, 3 December 2019 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• You have been spamming and whitewashing this article for months, you've been warned earlier about it, that you can't understand that isn't an excuse. —SpacemanSpiff 17:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created just a few weeks ago, last month, so how can I spam and whitewash it for months? You may see its history or ask its author when it was made. The earlier article on OpIndia was different, and in that article, there was a delete proposal which I had opposed. I was earlier warned for removing the deletion tag, but eventually, the article was deleted, which means that those warnings are history now. So how can I be blocked now for those warnings? This article is new, and I have reverted changes here just only once, and I am ready to debate its content on its talk page so that it becomes public. By blocking me, you ensured that now I can't do a healthy debate on the claims made in the article. Please unblock, I will not edit the article further but want to debate it on the talk page of the article. Raju Das (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current article was created on 10th November 2019, while my warnings are from 2018, so you clearly erred in blocking me. I didn't remove the delete tag from the earlier article after the warning, so those warnings should expire and should not apply on a different article even if the subject of the article is same. Moreover, I reverted changes in this article only once, so a direct final warning and block is totally unfair. Raju Das (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• you've been spamming on this topic for over a year, that the earlier spam was deleted doesn't excuse the current behavior. I'm not going to unblock you as you clearly don't understand what an encyclopaedia is. —SpacemanSpiff 18:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is totally unfair, I didn't spam, I only removed the deletion tag. How can this be spamming? I didn't insert any advertising or promotional material in both the articles as you are alleging. I just opposed the deletion of an article, a difference of opinion, not spamming. Also, this is not an even a continuous topic, that was a different article, this is a different article. You didn't even know that it is a different and new article, now justifying your mistake. Why you don't want to unblock despite promising that I would not change the article but will only post comments in its talk page? Raju Das (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]