User talk:Rajarule

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Rajarule, 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 take 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! - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chattar[edit]

Hi, I have had to revert you again at Chattar. It's good that you were trying to provide sources but unfortunately you were mostly using ones from the British Raj era and they are not considered reliable on Wikipedia. Also, you really need to add the citations to each statement in the article, not just list the sources at the end. Without footnotes, it is impossible for the reader to determine which statement is supported by which source. WP:Citing sources has some guidance about this but it is a long read, sorry. I can help you if you want but you're going to have to tell me which source belongs with which statement. We'll need page numbers also. - Sitush (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am little confused here. There is tons of information available on Wikipedia which comes straight from the British Raj times. If you nullify any information from that era, then we will have a blank page for 200-300 years of history which sounds rather ridiculous I'm afraid. In fact due to the privilege of better research and technology mechanisms British have had on their disposal, any research on majority of neutral subjects such as Castes and tribes is way more credible than most of the biased authors of today. If for a second, we agree with your perception of a reference being non reliable from Raj times, then majority of the research work in other major fields will lose authenticity which obviously is not the case. We must admit that it was amazing effort by researchers and authors of them times to bring history, cultures, folk lore and traditions of historic caste system in recorded shape which is the major source of information for caste system in South Asia today. If you have any personal disagreement with authors of British Raj, then I respect you feelings and completely understand what you mean. I am also not very fond of colonialism but history is history. I'm trying to revert the article into original form and seek your help as you keep on deleting the references which I was trying to edit. I have less expertise level on Wikipedia and this vandalism is not helping the readers at all my friend. Regards

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_172#Are_British_Raj_ethnographers_unreliable.3F. We don't use Raj sources. That someone may have done elsewhere at some point is not an excuse for you to do the same when consensus is clear. Similarly, tareeks/tarikhs are not reliable.

You are edit warring now and, while some leeway is given to new contributors, it is behaviour that ultimately will not be tolerated. - Sitush (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean by Raj sources? And by Tarikh do you mean date? Do you mean any litereature published during colonial times is considered Raj source or any material published under the supervison of colonial pwer is Raj source? Also as a student kindly guide me how to put some one under the vandalism watch? Kindly read the Wiki guidance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing Regards

I seek 3rd party's intervention to resolve this issue. As it seems you have grudges against research conducted in Raj times which clearly makes you biased.

Did you read the link to the community discussion that I gave you above? It is clear enough. - Sitush (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the article and thnak you for sharing but you have not answered my question. Do you cinsider any material coming from Raj times as Raj Era source or a material being published under the supervision of Colonial powers as RAJ SOURCE?

Pretty much, yes. There may be the odd exception but I can't think of one right now. - Sitush (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

- Sitush (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Chattar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Arjayay (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning[edit]

I see above that Sitush, who is an experienced editor, has been giving you good advice, and you have responded with nonsense about him having "grudges" against Raj era research, and being biased. If you don't start listening, and stop inserting material based on Raj sources (which are outdated and unreliable), you will soon find yourself topic banned from Indian articles. Bishonen | talk 13:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Intellectual Bullying[edit]

Dear Bishonen

Thank you for kind reply. I am completely baffled by the amount of bullying I am witnessing by my respected colleague Mr Sitush. Now as his old mate, you have come to justify his unethical act of vandalism in the name of Raj Era where you are brushing each and every author under the same carpet just because they were born in colonial times. I have been very respectful and expressed my concern with Mr Sitush but seems like I have pressed the wrong nerve. I am not going to be intimidated by this bullying and Mr Sitush has been issued the warning already if he tries to disfigure the article with authentic references. I would request you to kindly defuse this rather unpleasant situation by constructive talk rather than arguing like school going kids. Whole of the Indian sub continent's history is largely based on the information provided by many of the authors of colonial times which is still considered valid and widely read. It is true that that some of the Raj Era authors were influenced by the political factors of that time but it doesn not mean that they disfugred the historical quotes or references they took from the scared books like Vedas. I once again request you to refrain from such unethical tactics and just beacuse Mr Sitush is an old editor doesn not necessarily mean that he is always right.

Regards[ [User:Rajarule|Rajarule]]

Sitush is right not because he's an old editor, but because he is well read in modern academic literature in these subjects. I'm not his "old mate" but a wikipedia administrator, and I was serious when I warned you that you may be topic banned from Indian articles. It's pretty rare that books a century old are acceptable as Wikipedia references in any subject, especially not when modern academic works of high quality exist; it's not just the Raj authors. Bishonen | talk 20:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Bishonen

Thank you for reply and I must reiterate that if I'm objecting against any miscoduct then please do not take it personal. If for a second I believe that Sitush is well read in modern academic literature then he must have done some research work with publications in certified journals or has he written any books? Can you send me the links of any of such publications Mr Sitush or you have published recently? I want to read the articles for my knowledge. In case you or Sitush really have published any of such research work then where did you take the primary information about thousands of years old caste system in Indian sub continent from? If you have taken the information from old literature then it makes your research invalidated as well due to the reason century old info is not valid any more as per you understading.

If you or Sitush haven’t published anything then your credibility is absolutely zero I'm afraid. Authors and researchers of those colonial times were people of great academic calibre and in majority of the cases great dignity who went out in difficult times of communications, walked hundereds of miles on foot without electricity or comfort of any modern tools, physically met with the elders of the tribes to gather information which me, you or Sitush have never done in our lives I'm sure. What you and Mr Sitush have done is completely disfigured an article with historic quotes which those authors took from the books like Vedas. You also deleted the names of places which had Chattari rulers in history. You are simply stuck on an absurd idea that all of the researchers hailing from Colonial times were funded or influenced by the British rulers which is nothing but a myth. I will try to revert the article in original form and if you fiddle with it without credible reasons then will issue a warning and you may be banned from doing any ammendmants on articles from Indian sub continent. I have also opened the issue for arbitration but looks like you and Sitush due to some political reason or other complexities related with Raj times, do not want to listen to my repeated requests to have constructive talk.

I worked hard to construct the article into original form but you keep on vandalising it which is not helping. I request the neutral readers that if they are reading this conversation then please feel free to help in arbitration and help me from this act of co-ordinated intellectual bullying.

I'm afraid it's you who don't understand. I have no intention of "fiddling" with Chattar. I have never edited it — despite your wild and whirling accusations that I have disfigured it and "keep on vandalising" it — and I won't start now. I'm acting purely in an administrative capacity, not as an editor, with regard to Chattar, and I will simply topic ban you if you insert your preferred and problem-filled version yet again. I won't come here to reply to you again, since you don't seem to be taking on board anything I say, and I'm a little tired of your attacks. Bishonen | talk 17:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Dear you have failed to answer my query yet again and using simple way of topic banning as you have answer for none.

May 2017[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

Insert your reason to be unblocked here

Decline reason:

Your unblock request does not address the reason for your block, which is that you are believed to have used multiple accounts in violation of WP:SOCK. Yamla (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2017 (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.

Dear editors I have been issued block notice despite the fact that I tried to use all the available channels as per the guidelines of Wikipedia. I have openly but respectfully expressed my concerns but I have not been approached by any other colleague but the few I basically fell out with over the credibility of an article. I kindly request to uplift the block so that I can give input due to following reasons;

I have previously tried to engage with the disputing parties in good faith but it was all in vain. I have given genuine reasoning in support of the article. I was given subject ban which frustrated me and apologise for that. Distortion of history is not going to help anyone we must protect public interest. I have no hard feelings against anyone and willing to work in best interest of masses as per my capacity. I requested for mediation but still awaiting for the outcome by neautral jurors. Please help me resolve the issue and allow me to be the part of this beautiful community who are working towrards the spread of knowledge.

Hello Yamla there must be some misunderstading as I havent not used multiple accounts if check my IP address. I have requested for arbitraion/ mediation using the same account. I never tried to use some other device to avoid detection and I am being honest. Kind regards

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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Rajarule (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

First, you say "I havent not used multiple accounts". Than it turns out that you did, and you claim that It was River10. Than, it turns out that there was also User:Rajrule. Now, I can't trust you since you are obviously not telling the truth. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2017 (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.

I am only inteding to use this account as anyother ID I have forgottoen the log in details. I did not even know that why I was penalised for initially and I am sorry for that. Wikipedia should not be a battle ground for propogating ones ideologies and distortion of history should be stopped. If I use anyother ID then block me again permanantly. Regards

Please identify the other account(s) you have used, for which you have apparently forgotten the password(s). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was River10. I do not intend to use multiple accounts as I would like to be active and participate more positively on this great plate form of knowledge. I am being honest and the way certain people have shown their skill levels to shut any objecting voice to their views; I would not be amazed if they have access to multiple accounts and I really hope that is not the case. I have not used any other device to avoid detection if I were in bad faith. I am not experienced user, not very active and still learner so be patient with me and don’t go unnecessarily harsh on me as I am already under pressure and feeling like an alien due to all kinds of bans and sanctions when I was trying to engage through Wikipedia guidelines. I even requested for mediation but if someone tried to help even that voice was silenced. All I did was to object certain editor’s monopolising attitude, forceful propagation of their views and attempts to distort history in the name of so called Raj era’s invalid research work. Freedom of speech must not be silenced using command on Wikipedia tools. It is against broader public interest in my opinion. I apologise for the mistakes I made and nothing was intentional or in bad faith as I mentioned before. Kind regards

What about User:Rajrule? And as for "I am not experienced user, not very active and still learner", you have been here since 2009 with your User:River10 account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is doesn’t make me experienced as I have not been active otherwise I would have tried to contest for elite panel of editors. I am intending to be active now and you will see my this user ID from now on.

You edited using your River 10 account on the account's userpage as recently as March this year, and used the account to edit Chattar in February this year. I have trouble believing that you have forgotten the login details; also you have ignored the question about Rajrule. As an aside, I remind you that many editors here, including the two who have posted on this page, edit by using pseudonyms. To request that they give details of theie publications, if any, which would involve the revelation of their IRL identities, is not allowed. See outing policy. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody ever told me there was an elite panel of editors - how do I apply to join? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ Boing, elite panel of editors was a joke but I think it is a good idea to start one though. I can imagine seasoned editors having a secret meeting, with their cigars, sunbathing in some remote island ;).

@ Anthony, I was not writing about some top secrets so that I need to be so discrete as your research on my user ID depicts me to be so. Trust me people do forget quite often and in my case, I am not as good in memory as you might be even if I had this ID for ages. At least I was honest to admit. For someone to have multiple IDs and dodge detection wouldn’t be difficult but I do not have any such malicious intentions. As far as asking someone to disclose their publications, I just realised after reading your comment that it was quite stupid of me to ask and I apologise. Of course by doing so they would disclose their identity and I did not think that way. Having said that I am quite confident (after reading the respected fellow's views about authentic research of old times) that they do not have published even a single article. Otherwise they would not nulify some one's hard work by simplpy naming it Raj Era publication.