User talk:RudyRowdy

Welcome
Hello RudyRowdy and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to Kunal Kamra, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox (but beware that the contents of the sandbox are deleted frequently) rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ; this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Lard Almighty (talk) 12:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Kunal Kamra, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I would like to know how this was vandalism and against wiki's policies. The political stand that Mr Kamra takes is well backed by his tweets and the use of the word "hatred" in his tweets is evident. So if I quote him and have prrof how does this go against wiki's vandalism policy and I would like to rebuke this. Cause I believe all you are doing right now is obstructing me from publishing facts which are backed by proof RudyRowdy (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Please read the policy on articles about living people. Thank you. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes I did read the policies and nowhere does it state that if you specify contents with a neutral point of view is it vandalism. RudyRowdy (talk) 06:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You are breaching the neutral point of view policy as well as not using reliable sources. On a BLP those are very important policies. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Sonhis own tweet where he portrays his hatred towards PM Modi is unreliable to you? How is stating that he hates Me Modi a breach of neutrality? Just because you think so? RudyRowdy (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, because it does not constitute a reliable source (and you actually did not provide any sources for your edits). If you can find a newspaper or other reliable source that is reporting that he hates Modi, that would be fine as long as it is done in a neutral way. Statements like "but Kunal's hatred towards PM Modi and lack of general understanding of the public mood caused him to commit such an act" are also classed as original research and not allowed. The situation has now been fully explained to you. Please only edit Kamara's pages if you can provide reliable sources to back up your statements. Otherwise you will be blocked. Thank you. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Well him saying that he hates PM Modi is not reliable enough for you? But a newspaper has to report it? And why do you keep saying I'll be blocked? Go ahead and stop threatening me for no apparent reason I have reliable proof whereas the onus of proving me wrong lies on you RudyRowdy (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You clearly don't understand how Wikipedia works despite having the various policies pointed out to you. You also appear to have an agenda. That is why you risk being blocked. It's not a threat, it's s warning. I won't waste any more time arguing about this with you. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh it seems only you understand how Wikipedia works? Because a thing was unsourced but still can be provided with a valid source it constitutes vandalism? And not one policy of vandalism applies to that, and just pointing out policies vaguely makes no sense whatsoever! And if I had an agenda things would be defamatory not unsourced RudyRowdy (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll try one last time. The biographies of living persons policy states:

"Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."
 * You have not provided a reliable source for any of the additions that you made. That is why they were removed (not by me). They are also potentially defamatory. For them not to be defamatory at least one (and preferably more) reliable inline citations would be required. Do you have, for example, a reliable source that states that his "lack of general understanding of the public mood caused him to commit such an act"? If not, you cannot state this in a Wikipedia article. It is original research and potentially defamatory.


 * I hope this is clear to you now and that you will not readd the removed content. Thank you. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Kunal_Kamra. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)