Hello, RobertJudeson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
<ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>
, copy the whole thing).==References== {{Reflist}}
Hello, I'm
Adakiko. I noticed that in
this edit to
Konkani language, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Adakiko (
talk)
06:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Saraswat Brahmin. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Ekdalian ( talk) 08:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Karhade Brahmin. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. Ekdalian ( talk) 07:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi RobertJudeson! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at
Karhade Brahmin that may not have been. "
Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as
typo corrections or reverting obvious
vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. You added an entire section marking the edit as minor!
Ekdalian (
talk)
14:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in South Asian social groups. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
Ekdalian ( talk) 08:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Just a heads up that Raj era sources are not considered reliable on Wikipedia, particularly when they relate to caste matters (see WP:RAJ). I see you've added one at Saraswat Brahmin. You should remove it and not add these sources to other articles. -- RegentsPark ( comment) 18:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
RobertJudeson, I noticed that you have recently been involved in edit-warring at several articles including Karhade Brahmin and Saraswat Brahmin, and that you are communicating almost exclusively through edit-summaries. In fact, you have yet to edit any article talkpage.
Please see WP:BRD for the suggested approach to reach consensus instead of continuing along the current path that will likely lead to sanctions. Let me know if you have any questions about the process. Questions about sources or content though should be taken up with fellow editors at the concerned article talk page, or at a relevant noticeboard such as WP:RSN. Abecedare ( talk) 18:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This account has been
blocked indefinitely as a
sockpuppet of
Joshi punekar (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
logs ·
block log ·
arb ·
rfc ·
lta ·
SPI ·
cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is
allowed, but using them for
illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban
may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by first reading the
guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
13:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC) |
RobertJudeson ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Dear Wikipedia Administrator,
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concern regarding the recent categorization of my account as a sockpuppet on Wikipedia. I believe this classification is erroneous and wish to request a proper CheckUser(CU) investigation to clear my account's standing.
link: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joshi punekar Evidence:Completely weak as there is nothing to show as accepted by opponent. Initiator:The person who initiated this is himself sock. User:Chen_Xiao_Kai
Admin 1:Almost turned down the case for additional details.
CU:second admin reply is there in the link where he is mentioning broader IP and Interaction link consideration. Interaction link: https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Joshi+punekar&users=RobertJudeson&users=Brittlee1990&users=Karanth1234&users=Madhwahari&users=Richardadmi&users=Pondakar&users=Goyambab&users=Rajeshfadnavis&users=Ramarao1234
As I saw the Interaction link I found zero similarity with other users in any pattern.
I have always strived to contribute to Wikipedia in good faith and in accordance with its guidelines and policies. I am confident that a thorough CU investigation will reveal that my account has been used solely by me and in compliance with Wikipedia's standards.
The sockpuppetry categorization has not only affected my contributions but also my reputation within the Wikipedia community. I kindly ask for a detailed review of my account's activity and a reconsideration of the current classification. I am more than willing to provide any additional information or clarification that may assist in this process.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to a resolution that accurately reflects my genuine participation and contributions to Wikipedia.
Regards, RobertJudeson ( talk) 19:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 21:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
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.
Hi User:Jpgordon. In that case can you tell me the name of the account which you feel I am sock as per your CU? RobertJudeson ( talk) 03:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, RobertJudeson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
<ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>
, copy the whole thing).==References== {{Reflist}}
Hello, I'm
Adakiko. I noticed that in
this edit to
Konkani language, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an
edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
Adakiko (
talk)
06:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Saraswat Brahmin. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Ekdalian ( talk) 08:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Karhade Brahmin. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. Ekdalian ( talk) 07:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi RobertJudeson! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at
Karhade Brahmin that may not have been. "
Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as
typo corrections or reverting obvious
vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. You added an entire section marking the edit as minor!
Ekdalian (
talk)
14:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in South Asian social groups. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
Ekdalian ( talk) 08:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Just a heads up that Raj era sources are not considered reliable on Wikipedia, particularly when they relate to caste matters (see WP:RAJ). I see you've added one at Saraswat Brahmin. You should remove it and not add these sources to other articles. -- RegentsPark ( comment) 18:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
RobertJudeson, I noticed that you have recently been involved in edit-warring at several articles including Karhade Brahmin and Saraswat Brahmin, and that you are communicating almost exclusively through edit-summaries. In fact, you have yet to edit any article talkpage.
Please see WP:BRD for the suggested approach to reach consensus instead of continuing along the current path that will likely lead to sanctions. Let me know if you have any questions about the process. Questions about sources or content though should be taken up with fellow editors at the concerned article talk page, or at a relevant noticeboard such as WP:RSN. Abecedare ( talk) 18:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This account has been
blocked indefinitely as a
sockpuppet of
Joshi punekar (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
page moves ·
block user ·
logs ·
block log ·
arb ·
rfc ·
lta ·
SPI ·
cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is
allowed, but using them for
illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban
may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by first reading the
guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
13:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC) |
RobertJudeson ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Dear Wikipedia Administrator,
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express my concern regarding the recent categorization of my account as a sockpuppet on Wikipedia. I believe this classification is erroneous and wish to request a proper CheckUser(CU) investigation to clear my account's standing.
link: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Joshi punekar Evidence:Completely weak as there is nothing to show as accepted by opponent. Initiator:The person who initiated this is himself sock. User:Chen_Xiao_Kai
Admin 1:Almost turned down the case for additional details.
CU:second admin reply is there in the link where he is mentioning broader IP and Interaction link consideration. Interaction link: https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Joshi+punekar&users=RobertJudeson&users=Brittlee1990&users=Karanth1234&users=Madhwahari&users=Richardadmi&users=Pondakar&users=Goyambab&users=Rajeshfadnavis&users=Ramarao1234
As I saw the Interaction link I found zero similarity with other users in any pattern.
I have always strived to contribute to Wikipedia in good faith and in accordance with its guidelines and policies. I am confident that a thorough CU investigation will reveal that my account has been used solely by me and in compliance with Wikipedia's standards.
The sockpuppetry categorization has not only affected my contributions but also my reputation within the Wikipedia community. I kindly ask for a detailed review of my account's activity and a reconsideration of the current classification. I am more than willing to provide any additional information or clarification that may assist in this process.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to a resolution that accurately reflects my genuine participation and contributions to Wikipedia.
Regards, RobertJudeson ( talk) 19:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon 𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 21:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
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.
Hi User:Jpgordon. In that case can you tell me the name of the account which you feel I am sock as per your CU? RobertJudeson ( talk) 03:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)