Jump to content

User talk:RamaKrishnaHare

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

Welcome!

[edit]
Hello, RamaKrishnaHare!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips
  • Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
  • It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
  • If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
  • Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
  • When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
  • If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
  • Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

February 2023

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Swastika shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Binksternet (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

can you please host consensus because I don't know to do so RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


i don't by any means want to personally attack you or want to engage in any edit war or harm your feeling in any way, if it happen by any means assume good faith, because i believe in Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam. all of my reverts were clarified and was sourced, no sign of any edit war, i have read the guidelines of edit war and strictly abide to them so please remove the warning from my talk page, i would be your grateful RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
wait... i only have reverted your edit 2 times, not even 3 times,i haven't even broke the three revert rule, i find this warning completely false and personal attack on me.RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) The three-revert rule is not a safe line that one can hide behind it. It's just an indication that edit war is in progress. Even if there are no three-reverts, if there is tendentious editing, that could be seen as an edit war. Hope this helps — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
if that is the case than i am sorry RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
but Wikipedia's consensus page is too technical to understand for me, can you please tell me how to establish consensus on that page RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You just start a new section (if there is not an ongoing one) in that article's talk page and discuss what you want to change and provide the sources for it. At some point other editors might agree with you and there is consensus for your proposed changes. If the editors do not agree, then there is no consensus. If there is an agreement on something else, then that would have the consensus. All you have to do is discuss, raise concerns, answer questions and in the process reach an agreement — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
binksternet started a discussion is that enough or i have to do so too? RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We just continue the existing conversation — DaxServer (t · m · c) 19:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Elster reverts

[edit]

I’ve been trying to get back to this page since seeing that, you responded to my initial post, but I’ve been dogged with more of the same thing on the same page. Your request for a citation is not unreasonable, but a better course than mass reverting (which wipes out everything with no explanation what your specific grievances may be with any single item or number of them) would be to identify the specific concern and use a “citation needed“ template, which is the standard form for requesting a citation when one is needed. Or, before you prove hair-trigger with your mass reverts, clicking on the link to the reference page to see if the claim made about it is accurate. If so, a citation may or may not be required. If it is, again, being constructive, rather than just purging new edits willy-nilly you could find that citation and copy it into the original article. Doing this will give you valuable practice in how to use the encyclopedia, how to edit it, and what its features are, which is a much better application of your time (in terms of the net result for you, and for the rest of the encyclopedia’s editors and users) than doing new changes patrol without the experience to back it up.

Just so that you know you are being heard (and do indeed seem to be a very good citizen who is attempting to fit in well at the encyclopedia) I went back and cited the single claim I had added to the Operation Elster page, regardless that it is fundamental, undisputed, and widely known as the cause for the failure of Operation Pretorius that preceded it. Good luck. 2601:196:180:8D80:A9F1:E6B0:852F:B49E (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and PS: though it is a natural instinct, it’s not really good form to purge critical comments from your talk page. (Vandalism or outright abuse, that is something else.) You can, but it’s better to learn from them, and demonstrate by your actions that whatever has been raised has been addressed, and you have grown and improved as a Wikipedia editor.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:196:180:8D80:A9F1:E6B0:852F:B49E (talk)

Thank you for your valuable suggestion and time you've taken to write such a helpful guide to a new editor like me. Sorry for mistaking you as a disruptive vandal because edits done by not logged in users or even new users without refrences is generally taken as “Non-Reliable” again sorry for all the problems you faced. I generally use “citation needed” template wherever i can but at your case i just mistaken your valuable addition as a repeating vandalism. You seem to be an experienced and legitimate editor, so why don't you consider making an account? That will significantly reduce unnecessary revertal of any genuine edit of yours and also help other users to appreciate your contributions made on this platform. After editing for 27 days and adding content on different articles i discovered during researching on wikipedia with citations, i decided to try recent change patrolling for today. Only to just sake of experiment with new things. From now on i will be more careful while reverting new changes. to make things clear, i deleted our previous conversation because it was without topic and to be honest at that time just thought of you as another unlogged vandal. that being said, i really appreciate your efforts, thanks. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ram. I’ve been trying to get back here ever since your last post to send a warm acknowledgment (but have had my phone fall into the black hole of wide ranging “range blocks” where IP‘s are blocked by the thousands to prevent vandalism. Fortunately the phone’s IP is constantly being changed, and one can only hope the roulette wheel stops favorably soon.).
You are on the right track, and have the right attitude! 2601:196:180:8D80:D072:854E:D75A:B4C3 (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Ram. Don’t know if you ever saw this acknowledgment. I see you have been learning how things work at Wikipedia since I left it. It’s not as easy as one might think. There are rules, rules, and more rules. And everybody has their feelings, which can easily be hurt.
We all go through it, registered or not. Perhaps the single greatest trait or strength one can have to weather at all successfully is one that appears to come naturally to you: natural and sincere contrition when wrong, even unknowingly so, which is very hard on one.
I see you have rollback rights now. Use them wisely, and patiently. And if you haven’t already, read up at the Wikipedia Manual of Style on an article, entitled “Don’t Bite the Newbies“. I’ll see if I can find a direct link to it after I post this, because I can’t have two windows open at once. (when one is an editing mode) on this iPhone).
Here it is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers2601:196:180:8D80:ADA2:986A:1D5F:F14D (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello (btw, what can i call you?), and yes i saw that acknowledgement of yours (sorry for not replying, actually i have exams going on). it's very kind of you that you are caring that much. but don't worry i have improved and learned from previous case in which i reverted your unsourced but constructive edits. and the admin HJ Mitchell granted me Rollback rights only after reviewing my vandal reverting patterns. and yes, i don't "bite" new comers, and i have read that Wikipedia guideline. Again, thanks!
Just a friendly request, why don't you consider making an account? It would be very useful and hey we can talk further without you being lost after your ip being changed. Have a Nice Day ! RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

May I Ask why 2 of the images on your userpage are of an excessively large size? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

just noticed now, will fix this, actually i made thise userboxes in mobile so maybe unfit for pc versions. thanks for informing RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! IF you need help I'm willing to change the sizes to not be excessively large. HOwever I hope you are aware of what is and isn't appropriate for userboxes (see WP:UBCR) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your concern, i used the images from Wikimedia commons RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've adjusted the image sizes and added parameters that were missing to the userbox templates. Per the template images should typically not exceed 90x45px in size, however your temples userbox isn't of an excessively large size so that one seems fine. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh thank you man, i was having hard time doing so. you are a saviour. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, all I had to do was add a parameter to the images to set them to a specific size. The captions aren't necessary since they're in a userbox. I've made a userbox myself, located at User:Blaze Wolf/Userboxes/Opera GX. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh nice, you seem to be an amazing person. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out new users!

[edit]

Noticed your patient and helpful commentary/editing/fixups on Dissociative identity disorder and wanted to say thank you! Lizthegrey (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

forgot to reply here, my pleasure ☺️ RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted

[edit]

Hi RamaKrishnaHare. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your valuable suggestions and granting me rollback. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell: Was this a great idea? I see an edit warring warning. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
please check that in detail, that warring warning is old and i've improved and never misused rollback. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i asked rollback for recent changes patrolling and you can check i have never used rollback other than recent changes. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

[edit]

You have recently been editing India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an 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 special powers 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 practice;
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.

Removal of talk page content.

[edit]

If I see you doing this again [1] I will report the matter. It is entirely contrary to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines to remove other people's comments - or to remove (or substantially edit) your own, after such edits have been responded to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

but nobody was replying ??? that's why i removed RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
is this too a some sort of crime? and does the same apply to the talk page of mine as well? because if that is the case then i have seen many experienced editors remove completed discussions from their talk page too. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is obliged to reply, and nor is it reasonable to assume that replies will come immediately. And frankly, given the self-evident fact that the sources you cited in no shape or form supported the content you added, I see no reason why anyone would see the need to respond further. Not that it matters, since regardless of whether there were further replies, your removal of a thread from an article talk page after it had been responded to was grossly improper. Don't do it again.
Regarding your own talk page, you are permitted some leeway, though there are restrictions as to what you may or may not do: see WP:REMOVED. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for making me aware of that. Sorry for being wrong there. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok got it.RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Caste" lede

[edit]

Hey RamaKrishnaHare,

I hope you're having a good day. I saw that you reverted my edit of the introduction of the Caste article, with the suggestion to bring it up on the talk page first. In fact, there is already an active discussion there, with several editors having raised the concern that the introduction is too technical (and indeed the article itself contains a corresponding tag). I understand if you don't think my edits were accurate or appropriate, but there's clearly agreement that it needs some form of rewriting. Could you weigh in with your thoughts on the talk page? Tserton (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are doing a mistake here, I have not reverted your edits, the user Fowler&fowler have reverted your edits.
thanks RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right – sorry about that. I must have seen your name in the "restored version by" field and autopiloted to thinking your were the reverter. Apologies! --Tserton (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no problem RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Help with a Draft

[edit]

Hello, i've made changes to the draft of Jagadish Palanisamy, removed sections that cannot current be cited and also changed a lot of citations. Please let me know if you can help with this article! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syler.mi4 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have seemingly no connection with the article you have mentioned. i think it might be mistake. please inform the true owner of draft. RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

[edit]
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.
Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Girth Summit (blether) 11:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
why? reason? RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
can anyone give the reason to block? which technical logs indicate that this account has been used abusively and where? RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The CheckUser policy prohibits me from giving specifics, but you know what you have been doing recently. You can request an unblock by following the guidance at WP:GAB, and another CheckUser will review my block - if they think I have erred, they will unblock you. Girth Summit (blether) 11:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
can you just provide an overview, not details RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the broadest possible terms, I'll say that editing while logged out in order to evade scrutiny is not permitted. Girth Summit (blether) 11:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well that now you know so, i want to say sorry for editing while being logged out. but are my allegations baseless? that guy User:Iskandar323 is really doing the edit of his interests. Marking Hindutva as terrorism???? RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, you can request unblock and another CheckUser will consider your request. I have no view on any of the content matters in question, but I will not stand by and watch while people log out to make personal attacks and assume bad faith on the part of other editors. Girth Summit (blether) 12:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be a nice man, thanks for reply. by the way thanks for blocking as now i have realised that there is no benefit in putting time in these things and also was thinking about taking a break. thanks man 🙏 RamaKrishnaHare (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RamaKrishnaHare&oldid=1158335584"