Rahul Dhanwani
Welcome!
|
Rahul Dhanwani, you are invited to the Teahouse! edit
|
Hi Rahul Dhanwani! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC) |
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
January 2017 edit
Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Sergio Ramos, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Messi edit
Hi Rahul. Your edit was fine except it needed trimming and the grammar needed tidying up. Its important to keep the GA (good article) rating for the article. RichardHarris22 (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
RichardHarris22 edit
I want to mention these 4 goals as they are part of 2 individual records. Good Article (GA) rating doesn't mean that the content should be trimmed excessively. Every editor has his/her point of view on the matter and he/she can edit the article accordingly. If you have any problem with other users editing the pages you like then I advise you to understand the guidelines first.
You are advised to edit what you don't like not remove it to prove your supremacy. You don't own these pages. They belong to the community and you are a PART of it so don't behave like a Dictator. Use your skills to make Wikipedia better by making actual contributions instead of removing work of other editors.
If you remove my content, I will put it back. And if this behavior continues then I will have to contact the administrators. So don't revert my edit again. It is for the best. Rahul Dhanwani (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
ANI notice edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User appears to be going on a crusade against another editor. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
In the recent discussion on the talk page, only one person responded and they opposed the addition of those goal details, and you have had the addition reverted by multiple other editors on the article itself. That means you do not have a consensus to add the details - in fact, there's a strong consensus that you should not. So do not add that information again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- I know that only one person responded and he opposed it at first. The purpose of discussion was to explain the concerned editor/s the reason of my proposal to add these goals and I have replied to each of his arguments and asked him that he has any other concern or not and there has been no reply from him. So you cannot say that there is strong consensus against me when there are no new issues. It is just your personal opinion.Rahul Dhanwani (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- The fact that you argued against the opposer to further explain your own reason does *not* mean the opposer's oppose does not stand, and they have not reversed their opinion. My opinion? Well, that's what we do here - a disinterested third party judges the consensus, not the editor who wants to make the change. With the editors who have reverted your addition, I now count about five or six who oppose you (for reasons that are consistent with Wikipedia policy) and none who support - and in my judgment that most certainly is a consensus against you. Now, as you are clearly not intending to listen, I will not waste any more time explaining it to you further. Do not add those details again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- What you call argument is actually an explanation of my reason to propose an edit and a person with knowledge will understand it. On the article talk page, after addressing an editor, I asked him to reply if he has any more issues with my proposed edit. He did not reply which means that there are no problems with my proposed edit. And still if you are unable to understand, let me know, I'll explain further.Rahul Dhanwani (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Boing! said Zebedee was quite clear. He said "you do not have a consensus to add the details - in fact, there's a strong consensus that you should not. So do not add that information again." And he is quite correct - at least four different editors have so far reverted your insertion of that information. So please do not do so - you have already been blocked twice for doing the same thing. I am unsure how many times you have to be informed of the same simple concept. Black Kite (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm discussing the matter on article talk page so don't jump to any conclusion before discussion comes to an end. And the 4 editors that have reverted my edition are- RichardHarris22 (Sockpuppet who was blocked before participating in discussion), Black Kite ( Reverted for no reason when I was trying to discuss the matter with RichardHarris22 and then blocked me when I was discussing it with him), Qed237 (I'm discussing the matter with him and waiting for his reply) and Boing! said Zebedee ( Reverted even when he couldn't find any fault with edit). I repeat the facts are important and I have discussed the matter.Rahul Dhanwani (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Rahul, I am going to offer you some friendly advice on top of what Black Kite has said above. You need to allow time for a discussion to take place in order to obtain a clear consensus. Sometimes this may take weeks even months, you cannot rush it especially if it involves a living person. Be patient. At the moment, you are not doing yourself any favours by arguing with Boing! said Zebedee either on this talk page or the article talk page either. That is coming across as it's your way to edit the article and no other way is allowed. Some admins could view that as you not being here to build an encyclopedia and that can lead to an indefinite block.--5 albert square (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- 5 albert square, I'm being patient and ready to discuss. I understand that it will take time but I want to add that these facts are important and need to be added to the article. I'm not in any rush, it was Boing! said Zebedee's advice to wait for 7 days and I have done so. I have invited people to discuss and addressed their concerns. I have asked them to discuss any other concerns they might have but as the discussion indicates, there are no replies which means that there are no concerns.Rahul Dhanwani (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'll also add that consensus means you must have other people supporting you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- I must remind you that when facts are genuine and important, they need to be added. I understand that you don't want me to edit at all costs but that is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is encyclopedia that aims to allow anyone to edit articles.Rahul Dhanwani (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Except that you need consensus to insert that information, and you don't have that. You don't appear to understand this issue, so I will say this very clearly now - if you insert that information again, I will block you again. I hope I don't have to do that, but it is your choice. Black Kite (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- You don't seem to understand the what is going on here. I'm discussing the matter on article talk page, read the discussion carefully on the article talk page. My edit is flawless and has genuine reference links and that is the reason why only one editor has raised concerns against it and I have addressed it too. When I asked the editor to reply if he has more concerns with my edit, he didn't, which implies that there are no concerns remaining.Rahul Dhanwani (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Enough editors have explained the situation to you. If you are not competent enough to understand this (which from your reply it appears you clearly are not) then unfortunately we can do no more for you. Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Enough explanations have been provided for my edit proposal. I want the discussion on article talk page to continue. If you don't want to participate, its your choice.Rahul Dhanwani (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- Just to clarify something. Rahul, you said "it was Boing! said Zebedee's advice to wait for 7 days" - I think what I said was that such discussions are usually left open for at least 7 days (when you had initially placed a 2-day limit on it). But the key point is that I meant the discussion should be kept open for at least 7 days before a consensus is judged, not and then make your change regardless of consensus. Consensus is the key thing here, and you must not make your change unless you have consensus, no matter how long the discussion is left open. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- It was your advice and I had wait for 5 days to edit the article just to follow your advice. The actual discussion with editor who had a concern ended in 2 days and no issues have been raised since then and this implies that my proposed edit is flawless. Still I will wait 7 more days for editors to discuss the matter on article talk page. And if there is no one opposing it, then I don't see any reason to prevent these facts from being added to article. It is not mandatory that opinions remain rigid from beginning to end. You think that if someone said one thing then he/she can't change his/her mind about it no matter what happens. The purpose of discussion is to explain why an editor has proposed an edit and this may lead to change in opinion of other editors who may oppose in beginning but may stop opposing when explained about the matter. You and Black Kite need to understand this.Rahul Dhanwani (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- But there *is* somebody opposing it, and nobody supporting it. The editor who opposed can not be judged (certainly not by you) to have changed their mind unless they explicitly say so - you can not assume they have changed their mind just because they did not respond to your further "explanation". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- He *was* not opposing the content. He *was* concerned about the length of article and I have already replied him convincingly for that concern. And I asked for response if he had any other "concerns" which he hasn't done yet which means that there is (actually never was) no problem with my edit.Rahul Dhanwani (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- No, you must not interpret another person's opinion yourself, and it is not for you to decide that your reply was convincing! For that, the other editor would have to have said so himself, and he did not. He might have chosen not to reply further for any number of reasons, none of which you can determine, and unless he explicitly says he has changed his mind and supports you then his oppose still stands. Anyway, we'll see if any further opinions are offered. (I will make one more point, and that is that I have no opinion either way on the content itself - my revert was only to restore the status quo ante, which is a generally accepted practice when article additions are contested.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- It is up to me to decide that my reply is convincing. He might have chosen not to reply further for any number of reasons, none of which you can determine one reason is that my edit is flawless and his issues have been addressed. It is not up to you to say that he still opposes my edit unless he explicitly says he has not changed his mind.Rahul Dhanwani (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oh dear, I think that's the most arrogant case of WP:IDHT I've ever come across here - and I've been here a long time. If you continue to refuse to listen to anybody's opinion but your own, I predict you won't be editing here for very much longer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- I try to modify my proposed edit whenever an editor questions it but I think that you don't (or don't want to) understand this thing. You may use any term for it but I'm defending my edit because my facts are true. I have been here for 2 years and I had no problem until a Sock-puppet began an edit-war against me. You failed to understand it at that time and same is true now. Its fine that you are against me, but that doesn't change the importance of my facts, they are true and important till someone else achieves better.Rahul Dhanwani (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- I am not denying your facts, and I am not against you - I have no opinion either way on what level of detail should be included in the article. All I want, as an admin, is for it to be decided by proper consensus. I'm encouraged by the latest developments, and I think it is going reasonably well. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but now this is looking more or less like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT with trying to continue a discussion even after being closed. Basically you refuse to listen at other editors and still not a single editor has supported your views. It is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on, and focus on other topics. This discussion is not going to lead anywhere. Qed237 (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- I have heard to each and every suggestion of all editors. I have agreed to change my proposed edit multiple times. I have provided references for the same. I have stated reasons for the proposals. Try to see it from my point of view that people are unaware of the fact and must know it.Rahul Dhanwani (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- This will be my final edit in this discussion. Try and read what everyone has written and WP:DROPTHESTICK. I will consider WP:ANI otherwise. Qed237 (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- You don't want to discuss, that is your problem and you are free to stop. But you do not get to decide when I should stop. Keep your threat to yourself. You participated in discussion, that is appreciated and now you don't to contribute, you are free to go. Rahul Dhanwani (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
ANI edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Rahul Dhanwani's behaviour. Kante4 (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
February 2017 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)ArbCom 2017 election voter message edit
Hello, Rahul Dhanwani. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)