User talk:Rushikesh90

Welcome!

Hello, Rushikesh90, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Pagalguy.com, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Tea House, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! JNW (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Pagalguy.com

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 Pagalguy.com requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, 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. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about 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 "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. JNW (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Talk:Sambhaji. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Your edit at Talk:Sambhaji seems to assume other editors are editing in bad faith. Please assume other editors are editing in wp:good faith. The fact you disagree with them does not mean they are engaging in "very deliberate and opportunistic timing". Valereee (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced that is the case. Since I have given very valid points and secondly it’s in best interest of lot of anti India and anti Hindu agents to show the king Sambhaji in bad light. My edit is just pointing out the facts. If you think otherwise you can counter with valid arguments as well. Rushikesh90 (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here in an editor capacity. I'm here in an admin capacity. Which means it doesn't matter whether I agree with the content you're trying to add (and in fact I haven't even looked at it.) As an admin, the only thing I'm concerned with is your behavior, and you are required to behave in a way that shows you're assuming good faith by other editors. You are free to privately think they're acting in bad faith. You can't make such accusations without evidence.

You've just done so again with anti India and anti Hindu agents. Please do not do it again. Consider this a final warning. Valereee (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

_signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am really not interested in what you think. And I don’t even care if you ban me or give warnings. I am not expecting you to respond or reply anywhere let alone in my page. So from now onwards never again write any message on my page or profile. Just remember you are not a judge or historian so if you are admin you have to be in support of law of country otherwise you risk banning Wikipedia itself. I think this is reason enough not supporting content that is against India and Hindu religion. If you cannot understand this I don’t expect you to be able to administer any page at all. Rushikesh90 (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor can leave appropriate notifications on your user talk, and in some cases (such as opening a section on a noticeboard) it is required for them to do so. You can ask that someone not post anything here that isn't strictly necessary, if you like, but a neutral alert about contentious topics is considered necessary if you haven't had one before. Valereee (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for continued tendentious engagement around Sambhaji topics, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Sambhaji, Talk:Sambhaji, Execution of Sambhaji, and Talk:Execution of Sambhaji).

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: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. 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.

_signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RosguillI intend to appeal this block and I need detailed explanation on the reason as given in the link Guide_to_appealing_blocks Rushikesh90 (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

The explanation for the block is in the block log, and also visible on your contributions page. Here it is for convenience: persistent tendentious engagement at Sambhaji and related pages, culminating in a baldfaced attempt to pass off LLM text as a valid argument at Special:PermaLink/1277990704#Discussion_about_removing_James_Laine_as_source. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before appealing I would like you to remove any mention of other related pages because there other editors accepted my request and my edits are still valid. Rushikesh90 (talk) 07:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding other page, I was referring to the comment leading off this section of Execution of Sambhaji. In light of CoffeeCrumbs' response, your edit to the article itself seems to be a "broken clocks are right twice a day" situation, as your initial basis for contesting the issue was wrong and unhelpful, there just happened to be other, more valid reasons for removing the content in question that were left for other editors to identify. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right below I have got comment "@CoffeeCrumbs The IP seems to be right. The inclusion of "Sambhaji tolerated instances of rape and murder committed by his army during these conflicts" seems reduntant for this topic, it should only stay on Sambhaji. I find no reason for such Inclusion. Heraklios 16:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)" Which even CoffeeCrumbs accepted. Only thing is here there was misunderstanding of words which I explained. If someone contested my edits, I would have answered on talk page also. I dont see any reason to any kind of block here. If you still see fit I will go ahead and appeal anyway. Rushikesh90 (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are allowed to appeal the block at your discretion, and as it's just a partial block and you still have access to edit WP:AE, you can go directly there to make the appeal rather than requesting it be copied over. No comment on your further arguments, your case will be assessed by other admins. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]