User talk:Ram1055

Hi Ram1055. You sent me a message indicating you'd removed some changes I made to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Feltes. Can you help me and explain why the source wasn't reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.148.129 (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ram please don't change my edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singh10052003 (talk • contribs) 07:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Singh10052003, your comments were vandalism. Please review the WP policies before continuing to edit. ~RAM (talk) 07:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit to the plot description "The locals are sullen and uncooperative". This is a key aspect of the film's storyline. The local youths are aggressive and try to frighten the investigating team away by burning a sheep alive. A local man leaning against the wall of the church while his wife attends a service inside refuses to respond verbally to Grey's character, who attempts to engage him in conversation. Another local, when asked for directions to the church by Grey and Deacon, refuses to say anything. The locals in the pub become aggressive and close ranks against Grey and Deacon after the priest's death. Clearly these aspects of the plot contribute to the atmosphere of the film. I fail to see why you regard my edit as 'vandalism'. Have you actually seen the movie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.182.136 (talk)

Hello, I believe the revert was justified, and note it was previously reverted by an administrator (MaterialScientist). Please review the policy on edit warring WP:EDITWAR. If you have further questions, let me know. ~RAM (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please next time don't mention my name on behalf of anyone else..... Regards.Cengizsogutlu (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cengizsogutlu, I am not sure where I did that. I have never seen your user page. Please link to where I would have done that.

Kind regards. ~RAM (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T%C3%BCrksat_5A&action=historyCengizsogutlu (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cengizsogutlu, I reverted an edit back to an edit by you. Wikipedia automatically (or scripts built into wikipedia) automatically note who the editor was that you are reverting to. It's a good thing that your name was listed, as you had a good edit :) ~RAM (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought the article was vandalized by me by adding my name, sorry im new and I got a little wrong.Cengizsogutlu (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cengizsogutlu, No, If you look closely at the message: Reverting edit(s) by 2A00:20:100F:EDB2:0:5D:14B8:1001 (talk) to rev. 999020084 by Cengizsogutlu - you'll note that I reverted edits made by the IPv6 Address to that revision number made by you.

Please be more thoughtful before making accusations of other users. :) ~RAM (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm not engaged in an edit war, I have reported IP disruptive editing on this page several times, including at the request for page protection only half an hour ago. IP editors (whose addresses come from the university where the subject of the article was the vice-chancellor) are adding content that is not supported by sources and violates WP:POV and WP:BLP. Last time this happened I went through the material that the IP addresses added and improved the page where it was supported by sources. Most of it was not. Deus et lex (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Michael Spence (legal scholar) for history (which has a link to the diff with the first request where the reason the edits are disruptive was explained). Deus et lex (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see you use an automated rollback tool, so apologies if your edits were done by a bot, but I thought it was worth explaining the history and why a warning is unjustified. Deus et lex (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deus et lex, while I appreciate the justification, the WP:EW page says that you should still justify the content on the article talk page and have another editor come and determine what content should be kept. It appeared that the IP editor was adding content, it has now been removed from the page history, and some of their revisions did stay which you went back and forth with a rollback. In the future, you should take the issues to the talk page :) ~RAM (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I did raise at the talk page last time, and yesterday put a note on the IP editor's talk page to discuss the changes there (it is the same editor who keeps jumping IP addresses). My comments were ignored until after you intervened. Deus et lex (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ram1055 - thank you for your message regarding a deletion from Douglas Alexander's page - you mentioned that I did not adequately provide a reason for the deletion - apologies - I thought I did in the edit summary. I mentioned that the section was no longer a valid entry as an independent review into the allegations has now been published which states that the allegations were false. These findings has been published on the Unicef UK website and covered in Third Sector News, The Guardian, and The Times Scotland so it seems reasonable that this section be deleted. I can certainly provide links to the coverage if helpful. Thanks 82.23.221.62 (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ram1055, I see there has already been a discussion about this on the talk page of the article; I just need to make this clear before granting rollback.

• Removing unsourced or poorly sourced information is fine. Replacing, adding (or re-adding) information usually requires a reliable inline citation that directly supports the contribution and consensus for inclusion.
• Special:Diff/999009563 is concerning for multiple reasons, and while the policy was mentioned in the discussion, I need to explicitly point out: The request in the edit summary of that diff is directly contrary to WP:BLPPRIMARY.

Before using rollback, please read the entire WP:BLP page.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ram1055. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• 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 troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ram, you undid changes we made to the wiki page for our school, and we don't understand why.

We provided an explanation for each change. You asked for a citation, but it is impossible to provide you with citations for the changes we made.

As an example, Keshia Chante attended the school for a very brief period of time in grade 7, then moved away, so to have her listed as an alumna of the school is misleading. In general, claiming someone as a member of the alumni indicates that the person graduated from the school, or at least attended for a significant period of time. There is no possible way we can show a source or citation to 'prove' that she was only with us for a part of grade 7, as we are precluded from sharing personal school records. (Although I do note that her own wiki page indicates she went to the school only for grade 7 and then moved, so perhaps that is sufficient as a citation?)

Another change you made was removing the reference to our planned new initiative of the Full Contact Chess club at the school. We plan to run it starting September this year (2021), so, again, there is no citation possible. It is simply a statement of the program we will be running, which is useful information.

We appreciate your efforts to make wikipedia as accurate as possible, but to insist on citations where none are possible ironically makes it less accurate, instead.

Hopefully, this addresses your concerns, Ram.

And hopefully we have responded in the correct mode/manner using this page, as clicking on the link you provided did not bring us directly to your talk page

174.94.21.175 (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note.

I'll start with the chess club. The information there is not really encyclopedic, nor is it sourced properly. Take a look at WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:RS for more on that. Another important policy to note is WP:GNG.

As far as Keshia goes, I apologize if I made a mistake there. I reviewed her individual page, and it is worded pretty vaguely. There really isn't a reliable source saying anything there. WP:BLP has a pretty high burden for sourcing information on living people. Do you have any sources to show where she did go to school? If not, then it would make most sense to remove the listing.

As far as the page itself goes, there is a lot on the page that relies on self published sources and/or is not of any encyclopedic value. The page could certainly use major rework. Thank you for trying to make that page better. ~RAM (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we get it. Wikipedia isn't, or at least you aren't, actually interested in important, and correct, information for schools. If you knew anything about how schools work, you would know that asking for verified sources for almost anything would be an impossible task. So, why bother listing our school at all?

Please note that you accepted Keshia Chante as an almuna without any supporting citations. Why? Why do so in the past, when you have a current source, from school staff, telling you that it is incorrect? To be consistent, shouldn't you remove her from our site, until you receive an authoritative source for listing her as a member of the alumni?

And our listing of the full contact chess team, prospectively, should be allowed, as it is both accurate and helpful for those who want to know what's happening at our school.

And I agree that our page could use more supporting information, but, again, if you know anything about how schools work, you would know that the best we can do is provide updated and accurate information to the best of our abilities.

Being rigorous is fine, but you also have to understand context. Being pedantic serves nobody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.94.21.175 (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ram1055. I see you reverted my edit on Polandball. I appreciate you trying to help Wikipedia, but i'm not sure what I did exactly wrong. I reverted one because somebody deleted my Canadaball picture (Why don't they delete the Polandball picture then?) and I reverted another edit because somebody's other edit was reverted while he was just trying to help. Please reply. Regards, DinosaurTrexXX33 (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DinosaurTrexXX33, Your edits were unsourced and not constructive. You also were reverted before by another editor, you should review the policies on WP:EDITWAR. ~RAM (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How were my edits unsourced? It was just a countryball you know, why don't you take down all the countryball pictures if you are gonna take mine down? Why does it have to be just me? You saw the polandball picture on the front page! If you think I made a mistake, you can reply. DinosaurTrexXX33 (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DinosaurTrexXX33, the picture was not constructive to the article. ~RAM (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I explained the reasoning for my edit in my edit summary, but since I don't know if you read it since it was reverted very soon after I made the edit, here it is. "spirit phone exists, and since it has an article and that article includes it as part of the "Neil Cicierega Chronology" i think it should be here too." To elaborate, the article Spirit Phone contains it as part of the chronology, where as the articles for the mouth albums do not. I might be slightly biased as a Lemon Demon fan myself, but I believe there should be consistency between the articles. Thank you. Casualdejekyll (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casualdejekyll, my apologies. It appears that I made a mistake. I have reverted my edit. There is a ton of vandalism at the moment, and it appears I pressed the wrong key! Let me know if you have any further questions. ~RAM (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, caught by a misfired filter or something. Makes sense. casualdejekyll (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]