User talk:Jhy.rjwk

Pleasae discuss article content on Article talk page, and ping me from there. 

DS alert
My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

RFC at The Kashmir Files
Jhy.rjwk, I have reverted your recent changes to the header of the RFC at Talk:The Kashmir Files. As you'll note, proposals for the RFC were invited nine days back and reminders sent 4 days, 1, day, and 2 hours before the RFC went live. After editors have already started commenting on these proposals, it is not okay to change the underlying content of the RFC. If you wish, you can introduce an alternate proposals as a comment in the Dicussion section, and others are free to express their views on it. Abecedare (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Okay, started a new section for more RFC. Also note, No content of the previous Proposals was changed. Thanks. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 04:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This edit was disruptive. I have reformatted your addition so that your comment is correctly attributed to you and time-stamped. Please note that any continued disruption to the RFC may result in discretionary sanctions. Abecedare (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reformating and reminding the Signing, but please let me know why you consider that edit disruptive. It was a good faith edit including an alternate proposal as suggested in your last message. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The part I objected to was the addition of the section heading "Lead RFC Continued" since it broke the structure of the RFC, drew undue attention your proposal/!vote, and gave the mis-impression that the (unsigned) content that followed was a fundamental part of the RFC rather than a user comment. As you are well aware, the page has been a venue of frequent disruption and heated debate (even the subject of the lede sentences has been discussed at such great length that it occupies >four archive pages). So, as I hinted here and at the note at top of the Survey section, edits that are likely to (even unintentionally) derail or disrupt the current process to reach a consensus are likely to see a swifter and stricter admin response than a "regular" talkpage.
 * PS: You may wish to move your !vote for Proposal D (not the proposal itself!) to the Survey section, though it is also fine as it is since the RFC closer is unlikely to miss it in either case. Abecedare (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for that information. Sorry, about the confusion due to RFC continued title, which was not appropriate. Thanks again. Jhy.rjwk (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)