User talk:JoJo Rabbit11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


July 2020[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Conversion of non-Islamic places of worship into mosques has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 2020 Delhi riots, you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 13:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


plz discuss my edits subjectively that looks disruptive to you— Preceding unsigned comment added by JoJo Rabbit11 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please read wp:ONUS, you are the one who is meant to make a case.Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


i read [wp:ONUS] . now, you may submit, what looks disruptive to you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.124.142.82 (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No you have not "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." which means you make a case at the talk page and get wp:consensus for your change (see also wp:brd). In addition (below) I have already told you what is wrong with your edits.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

as you said my edit is disputed. plz elaborate how it is disputed. tahir hussain alleged to plan the delhi riots as chrgesheeted by delhi police. what dispute did you find in this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.124.142.82 (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page, this has been discussed Ad nauseam. To summarise, it violated wp:blp and wp:crime, and well as possible wp:npov and wp:undue. I am not rehashing the same arguments here as have already been posted at the article talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


wp:blp has been used inappropriately in this wiki page. example- kapil mishra has been referenced many times in the riots inspite of the fact he was not convicted. however tahir hussain despite him convincing in the riots the chargesheet filed by delhi police — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.124.142.82 (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do not say he did anything, we repeat what RS CLAIM ABOUT WHAT SOMETHING HE SAID DID. This has all be discussed over at the talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


when you accept hussain may have done something . then why the allegation for hussain not reflect on the wiki page form tahir hussain just like kapil mishra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.124.142.82 (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read wp:rs and wp:or, what I think is irrelevant we go with what non wp:primary sources say. Now You have had this explained to you, not wither take this to the talk page and make your case or stop trying to add this.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
you called wp:rs to justify not mentioning tahir hussain. however the same source that i cited is used multiple times on this page. hence your justification to revoke wp:rs stands null.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JoJo Rabbit11 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice[edit]

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 India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

Doug Weller talk 13:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please reads wp:blp and wp:crime a number of your recent edits violated those.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JoJo Rabbit11, I notice that you have already received a discretionary sanctions alert. So you need to follow WP:BRD. Failure to do so can invite sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPA[edit]

At this point in the game I think I need to point you to wp:spa.Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

Warning icon You are making serious errors when you present citations, including giving wrong authors, article titles, and missing out article dates. For example:

  • This edit gave this citation as: Hussain, Tahir. "Anti Hinsu Delhi Riots". The Print. Retrieved 28 September 2020.
    • The correct author of the article was: Aneesha Bedi
    • The correct title of the article was: Ex-AAP councillor Tahir Hussain ‘confessed’ he planned Delhi riots, police says in report
    • As it was a news report, we need the article date, which was: 3 August 2020
  • This edit gave this citation as: Adityanath, Yogi. "Hathtas case". NDTV. Retrieved 3 October 2020.
    • The correct author of the article was: Alok Pandey
    • The article's by-line states that it was edited by: Chandrashekar Srinivasan
    • The correct title of the article was: UP Government Committed To Safety, Security Of All Women: Yogi Adityanath
    • As it was a news report, we need the article date, which was: 2 October 2020
  • This edit gave this citation as: Katiyar, Vinay. "Congress demolished Babri". Toi. TOI. Retrieved 3 October 2020.
    • The correct author of the article was: Arshad Afzal Khan
    • The correct title of the article was: Congress demolished Babri, no other mosque will be touched: Vinay Katiyar
    • As it was a news report, we need the article date, which was: 1 October 2020
    • The correct agency was: TNN

If you continue to make a complete mess of citations, other Wikipedia editors need either to correct them, or to delete your edits.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Heba Aisha. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions 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. Thanks. Heba Aisha (talk) 08:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, I'm Toddy1. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, The Wire (India), 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. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. You placed your personal commentary next to an existing citation. But the citation did not mention the things you added. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to The Wire (India). Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I have already cited the source, didn't you find the rference for the citaion?— Preceding unsigned comment added by JoJo Rabbit11 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You need to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. The source you added did not do this.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I cited Alt News. On many occasion the source has been used on wiki. Isnt this source reliable. If not reliable, why it been continously used ? The Wire (India) has misreported false news— Preceding unsigned comment added by JoJo Rabbit11 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The citation has to mention the stuff you are citing it for. It did not.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:25, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The citation did mention that 1.33 Crore Rs was spent by UP government . However The Wire mention the figure incorrectly as 133 Crore.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JoJo Rabbit11 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source cited supports that on one occasion, nearly every mainstream news organisation (including The Wire) reported a figure as 133 when it should have been 1.33. To go from that to a claim that "The website has published fake news" or "The wire published misleading reports" is not justified by the source.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem icon This edit of 05:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC) to 2020 Hathras gang rape and murder has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to wikipedia so didn’t know about copyrights. Thanks to you for pointing the mistake. However, I read copyright and it does mention texts from open source can be used in wikipedia, until it violates copyright policy. At this point I would like to mention that my this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Hathras_gang_rape_and_murder&type=revision&diff=982102788&oldid=982102771 copies the text that is being feed by Press Trust of India. The edit has been corrected and put up in my own words with proper citation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JoJo Rabbit11 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, I'm ChunnuBhai. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to 2020_Hathras_gang_rape_and_murder seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Hello This is a friendly reminder to adhere to neutral point of view while editing wikipedia articles. Conjectures and accusations may not be presented as facts, but may be presented as accusations using suitable qualifying adjectives. Please read MOS:QUOTEPOV ChunnuBhai (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you point out the bias in specific that can be corrected. 4 PFI mens have been arrested in connection with Hathras case and this is a fact. WHat bias would you like to point.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JoJo Rabbit11 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have made following changes to the page that includes your material in the appropriate section and the reason for doing so. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=982304892&oldid=982302873&title=2020_Hathras_gang_rape_and_murder&type=revision&diffmode=source ChunnuBhai (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive and tendentious editing. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | tålk 10:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have not mentioned what bias did you find in my edit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JoJo Rabbit11 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please sign your posts by adding four tildes, ( ~~~~.) at the end. I'm not blocking you for one edit but for consistent tendentious editing in many edits. Many other people have already given specifics about your bias, both in the warnings on this page, and on Talk:2020 Delhi riots (which Slatersteven pointed you to above), and other relevant talkpages. You can't just ignore article talkpages when you add controversial material to articles. I see you have not edited a single talkpage. Bishonen | tålk 10:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
relevant edit about the bias that I see is this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Hathras_gang_rape_and_murder&diff=prev&oldid=982302174&diffmode=source . You have used the phrase "old tears in private parts, but no rape." in double quotes which is no where mentioned in the sources as is. This is your (mis)interpretation. ChunnuBhai (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


This is the source I have cited https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/hathras-gang-rape-autopsy-report-shows-victim-was-strangled-suffered-cervical-spine-injury-2303696 , this has clearly mentioned what I mentioned in the double quote. JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 11:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is another source https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/delhi/2020/oct/02/hathras-gang-rape-victim-had-healed-tears-in-private-parts-finds-autopsy-2204744.html which talk about "old healed tears of hymen" and also it did not mention the cause of death as rape. My interpretation in the double quote is synonyms to what the two source I cited. Hence your allegation of bias on me is not proper. JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 11:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you only mention the phrase "old tears in private parts, but no rape" ( both sources do not use the phrase as is, so as to mention it in double quotes ) and dont mention the other parts of the same sources that mention 'blood clots in hymen', and 'intercourse may have happened 10-15 days ago', and 'The injuries would have healed during her medical treatment.', it shouws a bias in the edit. ChunnuBhai (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
what I have mentioned in the double quote is my representation, I believe its not necessary to copy the exact phrase from the source. The autopsy report did not mention the cause of death as rape. That is what I mentioned in the phrase. I have just highlighted this fact by double quoting it. Also an 'intercourse may have happened 10-15 days ago' didn't indicate a rape has been happened, it might be consensual sex. JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 12:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please read MOS:PMC for proper usage of quotation marks.ChunnuBhai (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JoJo Rabbit11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe I was blocked for editing 2020 Hathras gang rape and murder. I deny the allegation you put on me. Indeed, previously I have made technical errors before (and also at one point I mentioned on the talk page that I am new to wikipedia editing), but that wont stand a solid ground for blocking me. I mostly suspect, the moment when I put the name of 4 Muslim suspects arrested from Mathura toll plaza in connection with 2020 Hathras gang rape and murder , that irritated the senior editors, however they conveniently mention upper caste hindu Thakur in this article. They emphasize at one point during discussion on this article that the point of view shall be neutral. However, I found this article to be highly biased against Yogi government and upper caste Hindu. The clique of editors managing this page are biased and the same is being reflected in this article JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The discussion above this unblock request is seriously concerning. We don't want your interpretation here, and using quotes to provide it is totally inappropriate and outright misleading. See WP:NOR. Yamla (talk) 10:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Warning icon Please stop editing your unblock request from yesterday.[1][2] Anyone reviewing it needs to see what you wrote and how it was responded to.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My unblock request has been reviewed or it is still to be reviewed? I am just updating my request JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 07:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your unblock request was declined. You are not permitted to modify or remove a declined unblock request for your currently active block; do not do this again. You are free to make a new unblock request. There's a chance this will be successful if you clearly show you will never again add your own interpretation, and you understand your use of quotes was totally inappropriate. I further encourage you to talk only about your own inappropriate actions, as the actions of others are not relevant here. See WP:GAB. --Yamla (talk) 10:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on NDTV page[edit]

Copyright problem icon Your edit to NDTV has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Tayi Arajakate Talk 06:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • : On 14 Oct 2020 NDTV was allegedly involved in tweeting fake news after jewellery store Tanishq put down a controversial ad. I think this information shall be added on NDTV page. Tayi Arajakate reverted my previous edit reg the information that I have added earlier. I have taken the information from the citation and put it up in my words. I think I didn’t violated the copyrights. JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 06:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please carefully read what constitutes copyright violations, the essay on close paraphrasing may be helpful for you. Excessive copying of quotations from a single source may also constitute copyright violation. In addition, don't add section heading for other's comments, it breaks attribution. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The quotation I copied is the statement "as it is" from the SP Kutch city East. Apart from that all the text is been written by me. JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JoJo Rabbit11, I would again recommend reading the essay I linked above. It doesn't matter if you wrote it by hand or not. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I read the essay on Close Parapharsing, but i didnt get what point you would like to make. JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 07:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of what you wrote in that section is a close paraphrasing of the cited source. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, I am again writing the section keeping in mind the suggestions you made. JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 08:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning[edit]

Hi, JoJo Rabbit. You may recollect that I blocked you for tendentious editing a few weeks ago. I can see that your editing remains tendentious. Example: for this edit, your source is an article in Zee News. You don't provide the name of the author of the article, but it is in fact Yogi Adityanath, for whom Zee News is in this instance serving as a channel. Yogi Adityanath is the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh and a Hindutva activist. See our article about him. He is in no way a reliable source for love jihad (which happens to be one of his favorite subjects). Please use high-quality sources, not Hindutva activists and islamophobes, or you will be blocked for much longer. This is a warning. Bishonen | tålk 17:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

PS, I believe I misunderstood the layout of the Zee News article: the name in the place usually occupied by the author of the piece, Yogi Adityanath, was not that of the author but a tag, indicating that the anonymous article was relevant to Adityanath. That doesn't make much difference to my view of your tendentious editing, though. The source article is an uncritical purveyance of Adyanath's Hindutva conspiracy theory that love jihad is an "international plot". Also, the case as described doesn't fit in the article Love Jihad; it isn't an example of Muslim men targeting non-Muslim women for conversion to Islam, but instead of a Muslim man pretending to be a Hindu — the opposite of making the woman convert. Bishonen | tålk 22:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks Bishonen , for pointing out your mistake. Further I would like to finetune the serious concerning mistakes you have done while reviewing my edit this edit while being an administrator. and your mistakes are as follows.
1. You mentioned I didnt named the author, but as a matter of fact I did mentioned the name of the editor as Namrta Agrawal.
2. You mentioned Yogi Adityanath is the author of the article. However you are wrong, Author is Zee Media Bureau and the editor of the article is Namrta Agrawal.
3. You mentioned "for whom Zee News is in this instance serving as a channel". Can you provide wp:rs justifying your allegation.
4. You mentioned "He is in no way a reliable source for love jihad ", However I didn't cited any "He" instead I did mentioned an article in Zee News and the author of the same is Zee Media Bureau and the editor is a "She".
5. You mentioned Zee news is not a reliable source. However I can point you towards many occasions where Zee news has been used as a wp:rs (a) 2020 Hathras gang rape and murder (b) Citizenship Amendment Act protests (c) 2019 Indian general election etc.
The comments you made above this paragraph seems to be laden with prejudice and is seriously concerning while being an administrator. Yogi Adityanath is a hindu nationalist and also the CM of worlds most populas state and have an excellent track record in terms of maintaing his public support, He has been elected to the Parliament from Gorakhpur for five consecutive terms (in 1998, 1999, 2004, 2009 and 2014 elections). You cant randomly term him as an unreliable source even if he have been written an article. His interview, comments, actions mentioned in any wp:rs must be cited without any prejudice. The Zee news source [[3]] states and i quote "As per reports, a Muslim tenant changed his name to live in the house and then cheated the landlord's daughter in the name of 'love' for almost two years." However you stated " Also, the case as described doesn't fit in the article Love Jihad; it isn't an example of Muslim men targeting non-Muslim women for conversion to Islam". The source that i cited clearly mentioned of the words "Love Jihad". And, you are stating that is not a case of love jihad hence by forcing your point of view which is against wp:npov. So I kindly request you to restore the edit I previously made. JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Forcing my point of view? WP:NPOV applies to articles, not to talkpages or discussions. I have never edited the article, you know. It wasn't I who removed your edit. I caution you against restoring it. As for your source, reliable sources are supposed to have a reputation for factchecking and accuracy, per WP:REPUTABLE. Read the Wikipedia article on Zee News, especially the section Cases of fabrication. The subsection Coverage of 2020 Delhi election results is of particular interest, as showing a blatant Hindutva POV. Reliability of sources varies depending on context, and I don't have the time or interest to check on how Zee News is used in the articles you mention, but it obviously does not have a reputation for factchecking and accuracy. I rather doubt it ought to be used as a reliable source anywhere. Bishonen | tålk 11:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
BishonenI would like to bring your notice to two issue that are related with your Final Warning issued to me. And they are (6) Forcing your point of view (7) Holding Prejudice. These are Explained as below.
(6) Forcing your point of view You stated in the previous para "WP:NPOV applies to articles, not to talkpages or discussions." However you did issue The Final Warning in connection to this edit. And warned me against restoring the page. Henceby, agreeing on to the removal of the incident itself and the source i used. Hence-by agreeing that this is not a case a Love Jihad. However i have already mentioned "The source that i cited clearly mentioned of the words "Love Jihad"."
(7) Holding Prejudice. You earlier stated in point No. 3 above "for whom Zee News is in this instance serving as a channel". And you didnt provided any WP:RS for the same?
Now coming on to the matter of source I used. There are many instances where the WP:RS used in wikipedia often surrounded with controversies (and the controversy is not only limited to Zee News). To justify my instance i will take an example of NDTV. This organisation is marred by controversies including unethical journalism [[4]] to false news reporting [[5]]. But NDTV is cited pretty frequently on wiki as WP:RS without any questining. WHy only bias with ZEE News.
(8) The point I want to make if any source of news is cited at many instances. Why to barr/revert/issue of warning on some selective instances? If you dont like it per WP:REPUTABLE. WHy to use it all.
(9) You stated " I don't have the time or interest to check on how Zee News is used in the articles you mention, ". Without getting indepth on a subject, you issued Final Warning which is pretty bad on part of an adminstrator. JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 07:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon JoJo Rabbit11, please remember that everybody makes errors of judgment some of the time. This time, Bishonen got something wrong. We all do. Please drop it here. Baiting admins is not smart. If you think that information from the Zee News article belongs in the Wikipedia article, the best thing to do would be to discuss it on the article talk page. Some of the points you are raising above are relevant there.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toddy1 I am pretty glad that you are acknowledging on Bishonen behalf that he has made judgemental error as an admin. But, it would be pretty appreciable and in good hope of wikipedia community that Bishonen would have acknowledged his error point wise. Specially point No 6, 7and 9 . JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Acknowledging on my behalf"? Have you forgotten that I myself acknowledged my error concerning the author of the Zee News piece before you even saw it? (Hardly a "judgmental" error, but caused by Zee News's unusual layout.) Your other points are nonsense, and my warning stands. Please don't edit tendentiously, and do use high-quality sources (=sources that are appropriate in context), or you will be sanctioned. Bishonen | tålk 10:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Bishonen You are talking vaguely. Requesting you to respond on point No 6, 7and 9 in a logical manner. What is your basis of saying "for whom Zee News is in this instance serving as a channel".,JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 11:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JoJo Rabbit11, Yogi Adityanath wouldn't be a reliable source on Love Jihad, it shouldn't be hard to understand why. I wouldn't even consider Zee News to be a reliable source for most things. If you want to dispute the reliability of the news channel itself then you should take that to the reliable sources noticeboard. Tayi Arajakate Talk 11:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tayi Arajakate Thanks for (partially) responding to point no 6 on Bishonen behalf. I love to copmare the reliability of Zee News & NDTV side by side on reliable sources noticeboard. I am still waiting for a logical end on point No. 7, 8 and 9. JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 11:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JoJo Rabbit11, I'm not responding on anyone's behalf. I chipped in thinking you might drop it because you're digging your own grave at this point. It is not clear what your points mean, all it looks like is that you're trying to argue that Zee News is reliable. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tayi Arajakate You this statement "you're digging your own grave at this point" is a slang mostly used in low budget Bollywood films is uncalled and unprofessional. Personally I am ignoring this but as far as the wikipedia comminuty is concerned its concerning. Best Regards. JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JoJo Rabbit11, are you saying that you are a professional Wikipedia editor?-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JoJo Rabbit11, I have never seen "you're digging your own grave at this point" being used in bollywood films. 99% of Bollywood films are in HIndi/Urdu. ChunnuBhai (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RFC at 2020 Hathras gang rape and murder[edit]

You initiated the formal request for comment procedure at Talk:2020 Hathras gang rape and murder#International conspiracy to incite caste based riots updation. So it would probably be best to wait and see what it produces before trying to add material to the article on that topic (broadly construed).

If you are not sure what to do, read the article on RFCs.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to do internal links[edit]

In a recent talk page post you posted:

[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Hathras_gang_rape_and_murder#Reactions]] which produced [[6]]

I think you meant to produce:

2020 Hathras gang rape and murder#Reactions. The way to generate that is [[2020 Hathras gang rape and murder#Reactions]]

It is against the rules for other users to correct your post. So if you made a mistake in the format of the links, please could you correct them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you are helpful in the past too. I will keep note of your suggestions. JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of minor edits checkbox[edit]

Information icon Hi JoJo Rabbit11! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Ganges that was not. You added:[7]

The main objectives of Nmamai Gange project is to improve the water quality by abatement of pollution and rejuvenation of river Ganga by creating infrastructure like sewage treatment plants, river surface cleaning, bio diversity conservation, afforestation and public awareness.[1]
  1. ^ "Namami Gange Programme". nmcg.nic.in. Retrieved 27 November 2020.

"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. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make legal threats as you did at Talk Bhutan-India relations[edit]

Please see WP:NLT Aghore (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its not legal threat its a warning. Accountability shall be established against those who will play with the sovereignty of India. Plz be informed. ThanksJoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah this is enough, that's a very obvious legal threat. @Bishonen: could you take a look at this? Tayi Arajakate Talk 09:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't hink that's a legal threat. Also, if it should devolve into a legal threat, several administrators and the founder of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, are already discussing with JoJo Rabbit11 at Talk: Bhutan-India relations. There's surely no need for me to step in as well. Bishonen | tålk 12:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks @Bishonen: The matter seem to be resolving upon the intervention of Jimbo Wales. JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Bhutan–India relations. 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. —valereee (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at NDTV, you may be blocked from editing. — Newslinger talk 15:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop gagging here, NDTV has produced failed fact and the same shall be corrected.JoJo Rabbit11 (talk) 15:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates[edit]

Please could you learn how to complete citation templates correctly. In this edit you added this citation:

{{cite web |last1=Bureau |first1=Times Now |title=Farmers’ protest at Tikri border: Group demands release of Umar Khalid, Varavara Rao, others |url=https://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/farmers-protest-at-tikri-border-group-demands-release-of-umar-khalid-varavara-rao-others/693269 |website=Times Now |access-date=11 December 2020}}
Bureau, Times Now. "Farmers' protest at Tikri border: Group demands release of Umar Khalid, Varavara Rao, others". Times Now. Retrieved 11 December 2020.
  • "Times Now Bureau" is the agency. Times Now do not employ a Mr Bureau, whose first names are Times Now.
  • {{cite news would be better than {{cite web.
  • The date of the story is 11 December 2020, so that should go into the template as |date=11 December 2020
  • If you do it as |work=[[Times Now]] this shows a wikilink to the Wikipedia article on the news organisation Times Now. This makes it easier for readers to evaluate the source.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020: blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely as not being here to build an encyclopedia. After my final warning above, you have continued to edit tendentiously, often using lousy sources, blogs and the like, as you did at NDTV,[8]. You attacked and insulted a user who reverted and warned you here; and here, you failed to distinguish between allegation and fact (which were properly distinguished in the sources). These recent edits together with this talkpage section shows editors in vain trying to advise you; I don't know if it is that you can't, or that you won't, edit according to WP:NPOV. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 15:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Stop hand
Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JoJo_Rabbit11&oldid=1048422544"