User talk:Raghu iitm

October 2019[edit]

Hello, I'm Harshil169. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Diwali, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 16:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Siege of Seringapatam (1799), it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. PrasieTheSun (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Srirangapattana[edit]

Please don't change the word "Seringapatam" to "Srirangapattana" in the page Siege of Seringapatam (1799). Although your version of the name could be true, it's still disputed and the page was created as "Seringapatam" PrasieTheSun (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SriRanga Pattana is not a disputed name. It is an historical name listed multiple times in the Vijayanagara history. Seringapatam is a Corrupted name written by foreigners. How idiot is to accept a corrupted name and suppressing the original name. I am surprised that Wikipedia has editors who are idiots. Raghu iitm (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification[edit]

I do not understand why the name is disputed. Western people always pronounced the name of Indian cities wrong. Vijayanagara Kingdom was called by Portuguese as Bisnager. That does not mean Bisnager is the correct name. You should quote both names and please do not publish the topics with a narrow view. You should include Srirangapattana as another name, it's not disputed. Raghu iitm (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Dravidian languages, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Austronesier (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Faizabad district, you may be blocked from editing.
It clearly states, in big red letters "Notice: please do not change Faizabad to Ayodhya in this article" - Arjayay (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If Government officially declared it as Ayodhya District. What is the point in keeping Faizabad District page. Raghu iitm (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia follows WP:COMMONNAME policy. Name changes by government doesn't apply. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again it's contradicting Wikipedia policy. Explain me. 90% call a place with one name which is again supported by Government or 10% people refer it by another name then what is common name?. You are saying 10% usage as common name. That's the stupidity of Wikipedia. The whole world call Munich and Germans call it as Muenchen which is an acceptable fact but names of Indian cities which does not know to the outside world are are spelled incorrectly or deliberately made incorrect. This will one day force Governments to ban Wikipedia for passing the same reasons.

Srirangapatna is written as Seringapatam. But the idiots within Wikipedia community are deliberately blocking the change. I have many such cases of Indian city names are wrongly written in Wikipedia and community idiots are blocking the corrections showing useless guidelines. Raghu iitm (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Siege of Seringapatam (1799). WP:COMMONNAME and the reason to stick to Seringapatam has been explained to you, several times - Arjayay (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocking the correct information to be added to Wikipedia in the name of Vandalism and bla bla. I have added the information along with a reference. You have removed my content without even reading the reference. There are many books about Srirangapatna, many are written by Indian authors and few are written by Foreigners who wrote anglicised names. You are Vandalising the Wikipedia in the name of Common Name. I am will make sure Srirangapatna is included in the Wikipedia even if I had to approach court. You have removed the topic which was quoted with the reference. Raghu iitm (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced additions[edit]

Hi. I came to warn you about adding personal reflections and unsourced additions to articles but see you have already been much warned. So, here's the warning. Any further WP:OR or unsourced additions will lead to escalating blocks. Best wishes. --regentspark (comment) 12:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell me which topic you are mentioning about. I can add references to all the topics you are pointing. May be a reference is missed. Please mention the topic. Raghu iitm (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much everything you've added is either unsourced or not reliably sourced. For example, rangoli.in is not a reliable source in your recent addition to the Rangoli article. I suggest you read WP:RS and WP:V before making any further edits. --regentspark (comment) 14:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol...You are making baseless allegations and putting the Authors into defensive position. What do you mean by everything is unsourced? Rangoli article is only reorganized. Everything was already in there. The additional content which I have written is clearly referenced. The question is weather the source is reliable or not? Of course it has to be reviewed by the community. That's what community is all about. Raghu iitm (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure but ok. Regardless, it is never a bad idea to review the policies of sites that you intend contributing meaningfully to and you should take a look at WP:V. Best. --regentspark (comment) 20:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Raghu iitm (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Nandini Rao Gujar[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Nandini Rao Gujar, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for 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 deleted 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. KartikeyaS (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Despite repeated warnings, you have continued to edit in a disruptive fashion. After being warned for failing to cite information above, you proceeded to use two falsified citations at Nandini Rao Gujar, consisting only of the text "citation required". Failing to cite is bad, but using fake citations is exponentially worse. Accordingly, and given the previous history, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing. If you believe this decision to be in error, please review the guide to appealing blocks. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, I note you made a legal threat above. [1] It seems no one noticed that at the time, but you should have been immediately blocked for that as well.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am still editing the page. In my talk page I have clearly mentioned that this page would take couple of days to complete. You can not block me for that. There is nothing false in the information quoted, I have requested for the reference. I am waiting for the same. Raghu iitm (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your question on legal threat is not acceptable. I have not threatened any individual or Wikipedia in the text I have written, please read it carefully. The legal mention was only to confirm myself regarding if it is legal to use a unknown name (not to be confused with Common name) Raghu iitm (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you believe the block to be in error, please read the guide to appealing blocks for instructions on how to appeal it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:34, 19 March 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Nandini Rao Gujar page was still under development. It has been clearly mentioned in my talk page. The page has been deleted while I was still working. The reason stated is that I have falsely cited two references where I had no such deliberate intentions. As the community is aware it takes time to consolidate all the information, no time has been allowed.

Secondly, I have been given another justification that I have legally threatened someone. I have not threatened any individual or Wikipedia. My statement was really old and it was to clarify myself rather than threatening any individual or Wikipedia.

Therefore, I request the community to review my case and unblock me.

I also request the community to restore Nandini Rao Gujar pageRaghu iitm (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you wanted to slowly construct a page, you could have used your sandbox. You instead chose to create a live article. The page was inappropriate in tone (as in, blatantly promotional), and you indeed added footnotes that gave the false impression to the casual reader that the content in question was sourced. Even in a work in progress there would be no reason to add something that looks like a citation but isn't one, and even in a work in progress there would be no reason to add content for which you don't have reliable sources. I am declining this request. Huon (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2020 (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.

Thank Huon (talk) for your views. I am still not convinced with the reason for blocking. I believe its a harsh punishment for the users like me who are not aware of Sandbox feature. Do you have a problem if I request for Check user arbitration. Raghu iitm (talk) 05:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to request another review of your block as you did above, but I don't see how Checkuser would be relevant. Huon (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]