Welcome to Wikipedia, Raymond3023! Thank you for your contributions. I am WereSpielChequers and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! ϢereSpielChequers 18:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following your successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, your block has been lifted.

Let me be the first to welcome you back, and wish you happy editing.

For the Arbitration Committee, GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been unblocked following a successful appeal to the arbitration committee. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you decide a source is unreliable? What research did you do about ANHAD before undoing the edits? Wikiercomer (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The website that you are using is unreliable because per WP:RS, your source contradicts, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." Therefore it is unreliable. And the official website link that you changed to, it is not working. I have removed the current official link (anhadin.net) too now, because it is not working as well. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Raymond3023. It is no big deal, but I wanted to mention that your edit to Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics asking for input in a discussion elsewhere about Caste, was not very neutral. If asking for input in this manner, it is best to be neutral, because otherwise one increases the risks of being seen as violating the WP:CANVASSING guideline. I recommend being more careful with such notifications in future. MPS1992 (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. 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. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The cited book has been misrepresented, and the term has no existence in this context. There is no other alternative to this misrepresentation other than replacing it with what has been easily sourced. Raymond3023 (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What were you doing here? CityOfSilver 14:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confused an entry[1] thanks for rectification. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Raymond3023, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018. Happy editing, —MBL Talk 06:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

@MBlaze Lightning: thank you and best wishes to you! Raymond3023 (talk) 11:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you changing my contents? Profhilal (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because you claimed 1100 deaths, the source [2] said 96 deaths, not 1100 deaths. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why did u change the pics

King Rishab Dugar (talk) 04:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On Child marriage in India I've reverted your edit [3] which reverted sourced edits without any proper explanation. Since I was reading about Hinduism-related article, I came across your edit. I checked the earlier version and sources to be sure and did not see anything wrong. Please refrain from such actions. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you checked. There was much self-promotion, copyvio, and false claims of the sourcing that's why I reverted the whole. I have replied on talk. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond, while the content you reverted did include some promotional material, you need to make that clear in your edit summary. Also, by reverting, rather than removing the offending content, you also reinstated some appalling grammar. You also removed academic sources discussing child marriage in ancient India, while leaving in content discussing the role of the Muslim rulers of Delhi. Given how narrowly you recently escaped a topic ban, this isn't acceptable behavior. You need to be a lot more careful about what you remove and what you are reverting to. Vanamonde (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was restoring an earlier version as per my edit summary because new content also had the copyvio from Google Books. When someone makes number of problematic edits, then we can revert to earlier stable version. But it's not a bad suggestion to check if there were improvements and I had to provide accurate edit summary. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond, I have read the canvassing article and I do not see how I am in violation of it because I notified everybody in previous RFC regardless of how they voted and I did so publicly (no sneaky off-wiki emails) and I notified for example the reliable sources noticeboard,[4] Consider the following sentences in the Wikipedia canvassing article: Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)

The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it.

Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief

I don't see how I did anything wrong when the above is considered. Can you identify the part of the canvassing policy I breached; if you cannot I respectfully ask you to remove the canvassing flag you added beside the vote on faith healing talk.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see Wikipedia actually recommends notifying people who have been involved in previous discussions which would include the previous RFC and I did so neutrally.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 05:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Literaturegeek: You posted this message here[5] 7 minutes after I had already removed the "canvassing flag".[6] Raymond3023 (talk) 08:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I must have been typing message as you did self-revert. Thanks Raymond. :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just piggybacking here, but just letting you know I altered your last message at the talk page where you outdented and seemed to accidentally delete my text (I had mobile troubles today too). If you intended something other than my intended "fix" for threading, feel free to fix it however you see fit. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your message about WP:AE on the talk page and thought I'd chime in since I don't know how familiar you are with it. Generally, AE is meant to deal with disruptive behavior on talk pages in discretionary sanction topics. Usually, that means cases of an editor displaying battleground behavior and not focusing on content, etc., both of which I do have diffs of. That's also why I try not to comment on editor, but focus on the content or rationale violating WP:PSCI, etc. instead.

That being said, advocacy related to trying to claim something is not a pseudoscience, not being a scientific consensus, etc. is something the DS are meant to combat in this particular topic. I wouldn't quite bring that up at the talk page like you did,[7] but that's more of something to deal with on an editor talk page or else at an admin board like AE. I could have filed an AE awhile back for all those reasons, but I was trying to focus on the content at the time. If things get worse, I may revisit that, but hopefully that answers your question for theoretically where an AE in this subject can go. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Farawahar (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are indefinitely banned from all edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed. You are warned that any further disruption or testing of the edges of the ban will be met with either an indefinite topic ban from all topics related to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan or an indefinite block, without further warning.

You have been sanctioned per this AE discussion.

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 go to WP:TBAN and read the information there to see 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 against the imposition of the ban, see WP:AC/DS#sanctions.appeals which explains the ways in which you may appeal. Additionally, you may ask for this sanction to be removed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard after six months of positive contributions to Wikipedia. GoldenRing (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should not have done this. Yes, they're likely a sock but Kautilya3 can deal with it and you are inherently involved with the complaint, regardless of whether it was justified. - Sitush (talk) 05:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sock comments are always removed no matter where they were added and others can view the page history if they are interested. Unless it was a report about BLPvio/copyvio/vandalism, it would be fine but this is a case of harassment and trolling. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not. You are plain wrong there. - Sitush (talk) 07:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that issue was resolved at talk page of WP:SOCKHELP. Raymond3023 (talk)

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_India-Pakistan regarding the ARE decision that affected you. — MapSGV (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond, reverting as you did here with no edit summary and no warning is disruptive and discourteous to anyone else watching the page. When the editor you are reverting is a newbie, it is also bitey; if the editor is a suspected sock, you have to mention that fact. Please take more care in the future. Vanamonde (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree with this. A user may feel it is disruptive and discourteous to link a sock edit (spamming email addresses) with them. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 13:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're wrong; first because I'm not referring to the sock edit at all, second because even with sockpuppets, you have to make it clear why they're being reverted (ie "sock of [sockmaster]" in the edit summary). If you disagree, feel free to make your case at an admin noticeboard; but you'd be wasting your time. Vanamonde (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He is correct that you are linking to a sock's edit as "here" who was spamming email addresses, he was reverting my removal of email spam[8] which is obvious to anyone. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The India-Pakistan arbitration amendment request filed on 23 May 2018 (the appeal of certain arbitration enforcement actions by GoldenRing) has been closed as unsuccessful. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just so you know, I've created an LTA case page for Wikiexplorer13, see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Wikiexplorer13. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 07:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my recent edits on Bengali-Assamese languages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:B389:19F2:315B:BD9C:E08E:F88B (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave my recent edits on the talk page alone, esp. if they are correcting what was then inaccurate paragraphs and properly spelling a few words. 12.218.47.124 (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:REFACTOR. You can't edit other's posts or comments. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Raymond3023. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. —Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 17:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed your appeal of your topic ban at WP:AE as declined. This has been logged at the arbitration enforcement log. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Raymond3023. Thank you.Walrus Ji (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Space industry in India, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Space industry in India, 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 . 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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 07:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Space industry of India, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the space industry of India has supported the launch of more than 100 domestic satellites and more than 300 foreign satellites? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Space industry of India. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Space industry of India), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

For your information, a RfC discussion has been initiated (One point in discussion is in relation to discussion topic Child marriage in India which you were previously involved in editing.)

Request for Comment has been started @ Talk:Narendra Modi#RfC:Mentioning of Narendra Modi's marriage

Thanks for inputs

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Raymond, I hope you're well. I have closed your appeal as successful having found consensus to remove your topic ban from India-Pakistan related topics. As such you are no longer under a restriction and may edit those topics again. Let me know if you have any questions, and I look forward to your productive contributions in the area. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: Thanks. The entry logged here needs to be updated as well. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Masih (surname)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 07:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. You had voted before. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]