User talk:Rizhwickh

Hello, Rizhwickh, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place  on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Your first article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
 * And feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

July 2019
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Atomic theory. 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. DMacks (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you bullying me? I will revert it back if you don't give proper reason for its removal.Rizhwickh (talk) 05:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You made an edit, someone else disagreed with it, you made it again instead of starting a discussion with that person. That's not a way to reach Consensus. I undid your edit as a non-personal action, returning to the status quo before your edit that was disputed. That other editor made specific objections to your edit. I encourage you to start a discussion and come up with more reasons that your edit is good, rather than just saying you disagree with the other editor's action itself. As I noted above, merely repeating your same edit will just lead to your being blocked, which means your idea will not be implemented even before others have a chance to discuss it. DMacks (talk) 09:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Chandragupta Maurya, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Begoon 07:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Chandragupta Maurya, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Begoon 13:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Chandragupta Maurya; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. Begoon 13:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * You're now well past the WP:3RR limit, and you've reverted contrary to the expressed opinions of several editors, multiple times. I don't want to start a discussion at WP:ANEW, because that will be likely to get you blocked, so please self-revert and start a talk page discussion so that I don't need to do that. Whilst, as I say, I don't want to see you blocked, I also won't stand by while you barge through your preferred changes against policy and without regard for other editors, so I advise you to take advantage of this opportunity. Thank you. -- Begoon 14:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've opened a section at Talk:Chandragupta Maurya in case you are not clear where to discuss this. In order to avoid a WP:ANEW report being necessary, and a possible block, please self-revert and try to reach consensus there. Please do not ignore this opportunity. Thank you. -- Begoon 14:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Begoon 15:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violating the 3 revert rule and personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. El_C 16:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Rizhwickh! Your additions to Shikharji have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted.  All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Translation. See also Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Important alert
Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hinduism and Jainism
I restored parts from this version from 2021 on my edit there. There was no need for you to restore the misrepresentation.

This source made no mention of a "genocide".

An IP reverted your edits and you falsely claimed the IP to be a sock and also falsely claimed that your edit was assisted by Huggle.

Stop this disruptive editing. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Improperly marking revert as minor and falsely claiming that I provided no explanation is also disruptive. If you reverted again with another disruptive tactic then I will have to report you. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * See the latest report on WP:AN3 about your rampant edit warring. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Jainism and Hinduism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. clpo13(talk) 23:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This user has been blocked after the recent AN3 report, where I saw that Clpo13 made mention of the earlier block. I checked the earlier edit warring report where El C was acting and that reported edits include the reverts with false edit summaries that this user is making even today. This editor apparently lacks any edits to article talk pages or even on his own talk page whenever any concerns were raised about their edits in violation of  WP:LISTENTOUS. I am thinking a topic ban from at least edits related to Jainism, which is their only focus, would at least halt the obvious chances of repetitive disruption. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I remember 2019 (the year), vaguely, but I don't remember this! El_C 05:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

February 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Swastika, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 21:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

June 2022
Hello, I'm Fowler&fowler. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to India have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Please read WP:FAOWN. Please spend days, sometimes weeks, achieving a consensus for their edits on the talk page, Talk:India Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

It did not appear constructive to whom? You and your vested interests? Rizhwickh (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't you think that this type of uncollaborative attitude warrants topic ban from ARBIPA?  Some other recent examples of his disruptive editing from this month include POV pushing,,edit warring by marking edits as minor despite warning above, never ending edit warring over useless assertion,, false assertion of using WP:HG after being warned against it above. This user has been blocked 2 times and has no willingness to abide by policies and ever use article's talk page. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban violation
You are topic banned from anything related to Afghanistan, India and Pakistan per the section above. You violated your topic ban with two edits you made today.

I am not reporting you because this was your first violation. Consider complying with your topic ban. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This user's every single edit since my above reminder is a topic ban violation. I don't think this user is willing to comply with the topic ban. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022
To enforce an arbitration decision, and for TB violations, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Doug Weller talk 08:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."