Hi, this is my discussion page. Do not hesitate to leave a message for me. Old messages are eventually archived.
Archives (Index) |
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
The following topic ban now applies to you:
You have been indefinitely topic banned from pages connected with India and/or Pakistan, broadly construed.
You have been sanctioned for the reasons I have explained here.
This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period to enforce the ban.
If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | tålk 20:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Immigration to Sweden, you may be blocked from editing. bonadea contributions talk 17:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I see you added "the 2020 Sweden riots" to Immigration to Sweden, sourced to media from 2016 and 2017, or perhaps not sourced at all; your edit is unclear concerning what sources it invokes, but none of them are current enough to source 2020 events. And this after Bonadea warned you about the same thing above, and reverted you with an explanatory edit summary. You have been blocked for 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. 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 18:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC).
Dr2Rao (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was about to copy the references cited at the 2020 Sweden riots but was blocked just before that. I should have been given more time. Very unfair [I was editing the article I just mentioned which is why I was delayed]. ~~~~
Decline reason:
Don't make edits without including references. Its that simple. You don't seem to understand what you did was not good, so I'm declining. Otherwise, bonadea provides excellent advice, please take it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:26, 9 September 2020 (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.
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I want to keep the last 3 threads and archive the rest of this talk page. I tried and failed. Please help me.—Dr2Rao (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
)) and ((tq|wherever I have put them at the top of this page?—Dr2Rao (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Dr2Rao, these edits of yours changed neutral wording to emotional, non-neutral, wording. I can't find that your text is copied from within the article either, as you claim. Your anti-muslim editing is becoming very disruptive. This is a final warning. If you can't or won't edit any topic without disrupting it, it's getting to be time for an indefinite block. It's a pity you didn't listen to Bonadea's good advice here. Bishonen | tålk 20:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC).
Islam permits men to have sexual intercourse with these kidnapped sex slaves and there is no limit on the number they could keep.—Dr2Rao (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
A free man may marry four free women and female slaves, not more and he may take as many concubines as he wishes from among his female slaves. If a man has four free [wives] and a thousand concubines and wants to buy another [concubine] and a man reproaches him for that, it will be as if [that man] had committed unbelief. And if a man wants to take a concubine and his wife says to him "I will kill myself", he is not prohibited [from doing so], because it is a lawful act, but if he abbtains to save her grief, he will be rewarded, because of the hadith "Whoever sympathizes with my community,God will sympathize with him." Muhammad Ala al-Din Haskafi, seventeenth century Hanafi jurist, Al-Durr al-Mukhtarand
The status of concubine was informal, however; law and custom allowed a master to have sex with any of his (unmarried) female slaves. The "these kidnapped" was added due to the second sentence of that paragraph.—Dr2Rao (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Islam permits men to have sexual intercourse with these kidnapped sex slaves and there is no limit on the number they could keepand the sentence found further below (which I read and changed) was
Islam permits men to have sexual intercourse with them and there is no limit on the number of concubines they could keep, unlike in polygamy where there is a limit of four wiveswhich is almost the same.—Dr2Rao (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
allowed a master to have sex with any of his (unmarried) female slavesfrom the source to
sex slaves.—Dr2Rao (talk) 11:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
allowed a master to have sex with any of his (unmarried) female slaves]. That's all.—Dr2Rao (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
((unblock|reason=As a relatively new editor, I apologise and deeply regret what I did which is mentioned just above. I promise that if I am unblocked, I will be a productive editor and will not indulge in this kind of behaviour again [I have been well behaved after my Topic ban mentioned at the top of this page except for the instance mentioned just above this]. I ask for one more chance as per WP:ROPE. I promise that I will not let any of you down. I am grateful that you are taking the time to review my request. The block is no longer necessary because I understand what I have been blocked for, I will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and will make useful contributions instead. I have always been citing references and avoiding reverting any edit after being warned. I discuss any reversion by others on the "Talk" page of the article. Thank you! ~~~~))
. —SpacemanSpiff 02:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)