User talk:Rajpurohit-Veer

Welcome!

Hello, Rajpurohit-Veer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you edited was Rajpurohit, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Sitush (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Hello, I'm Sitush. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Rajpurohit, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that you are new here and will not be familiar with how Wikipedia operates - no problem, as we all have to start somewhere.

I think you'd benefit from reading our policies regarding verifiability and reliable sources. If it was your intention that the three links at the bottom of your recent contribution to Rajpurohit should be the sources then you could also take a look at WP:Citing sources, although since they are not in fact reliable it probably would make no difference in this case.

You should also appreciate that we reflect the statements made by all reliable sources. It is because of this that we do not usually just throw away existing sourced content in short articles: if reliable sources disagree then we should reflect that disagreement rather than show one preferred version. This forms a part of our policy regarding neutrality and your user name might indicate that you have a problem in this regard due to a potential conflict of interest.

Finally, you need to be aware that edit warring can lead to people being blocked from contributing, especially if they are contravening other basic policies such as those mentioned above. It is far better to discuss and seek consensus for your changes. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Rajpurohit has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Ish dar ian 03:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rajpurohit. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Please stop reinserting copyrighted material. Ish dar ian 07:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rajpurohit

Hi RV. I have checked out the links you have added into the article and the text you have added is copied word-for-word from this site. Down at the bottom, you'll notice the page has a copyright notice, meaning that the text you've added to the article cannot be copied in the way you have done. I am currently at three reverts and cannot undo your edit, however, I am requesting that you self-revert your edit. Please take this under consideration, as copyright violations are taken very seriously on Wikipedia. Ish dar ian 02:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RV, I have explained to you multiple times that the edit you keep making is a copyright violation. Please, do not reinsert that information again. Next time you do, I will report you to the Administrator's Noticeboard for repeated copyright violations. Ish dar ian 03:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ish dar ian 03:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm what was said elsewhere and above - copyrighted information cannot be cut and pasted into Wikipedia in that manner. We can contain small quotes with proper source information, but in general information to be reused in Wikipedia needs to be released under an open license such as the Creative commons licensing.

If you are someone in a position of authority with the organization publishing the other website, you can review the licensing and put a Creative Commons type license on it, listing that status on the other web page. Then you can re-use content in Wikipedia.

If you are NOT the owner or an agent of the owner for that other website, you are not legally allowed to do that, and Wikipedia policy doesn't let you either. If you keep doing it and you don't have legal right to, we will block you from editing.

Please follow up on the noticeboard discussion.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also - I have protected the article for the time being so nobody can edit it, except Wikipedia administrators. If the copyright violation is confirmed then that material will be removed until discussion is resolved. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Nyttend (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rajpurohit. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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; 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. Sitush (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I've just reverted you again and, of course, I'm not the only person who has been trying to stop your disruption. You've had explanations regarding various problems with your repeated reinstatement of the disputed content but you seem unwilling to change your ways even after the recent block. To recap some of the issues:

Copyright infringements are not acceptable
Unsourced statements are not usually acceptable, certainly in caste-related articles
Blogspot-hosted items are almost never reliable sources
Statements need to be phrased in a neutral manner and articles should address all points of view

Edit warring when you are failing to comply with the above (and more) will result in you receiving increasingly long blocks, although some people might even jump direct to a competence block at this stage. You may not yet be aware of the situation but there are also a set of special sanctions in place for caste articles and these can result in accelerated responses to poor behaviour. I suggest that you take note of the information in the box below, that you desist from repeating your recent edits and that - if you really still do not understand - you open a discussion on the article talk page. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.

I've now reviewed what has been going on over a prolonged period at the article. I wonder if you have been encouraged by, for example, Arunsingh2, Inder manawat, Sohan rajpurohit, Kuldeep Singh Rajpurohit Kherapa, Neo rajpurohit, Seodilip4u or Rajpurohit-Vikram. Working in concert can give rise to accusations of meatpuppetry and unfortunately it is quite common for members of various castes to see a frustrated note on a community web forum and take up arms, so to speak. It rarely achieves anything because the Wikipedia fundamentals - verifiability, reliability, neutrality etc - tend never to be followed.

Wikipedia's concept of consensus is not a vote as such because all arguments that fail to comply with policy are immediately discarded, and thus if you are breaching the rules then it is pointless to say (as you have recently suggested) that other people agree with you. You really do need to understand them and the best way to do that is usually to engage in meaningful, civil discussion. People are willing to help you and most of us do share a common desire to disseminate valid information ... but you have to meet us half way. - Sitush (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

As you can see from your block log, I've imposed the block because of "Editwarring, asking for meatpuppets, repeatedly adding long texts completely without reliable sources".

Editwarring: all of your edits at Rajpurohit over the last several days are simply undoing what other people have added, without good cause such as the removal of copyright infringement
Asking for meatpuppets (see WP:MEAT or our article on the concept of "meatpuppets" — your edit here
Repeatedly adding long texts completely without reliable sources: the texts you've been editwarring to get into Rajpurohit.

Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block extended due to block evasion

It is self-evident that Enclipse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is you. They are indefinitely blocked, and this main account is reblocked for a month from now. If you were not previously aware of our policy on multiple accounts or our policy on block evasion review those now and abide by them. Further abuse will result in longer blocks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for a period of indefinite for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rajpurohit-Veer. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here.User Sitush just want to dominate, and dictate the Rajpurohit Page, Many Rajpurohit Community members try to correct the page with Correct citations, and info. User Sitush just undoes all the changes. Not sure what point he is trying to proove ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here.User Sitush just want to dominate, and dictate the Rajpurohit Page, Many Rajpurohit Community members try to correct the page with Correct citations, and info. User Sitush just undoes all the changes. Not sure what point he is trying to proove ~~~~

Decline reason:

Please discuss your own actions, not those of the others. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Max Semenik (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2014 (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.

RV, I've just copied your request outside the box, as the instructions explained should be done. That should trigger a review from someone in due course. - Sitush (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]