User talk:Gettingthere

Welcome!
Hello Gettingthere, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place   on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. – Mato (talk)

 why do my edits to this page disappear when i save them? All my practice edits to sand box also disappeared when I clicked save.


 * There are replies at Help desk
 * If you request help here then don't write the seen on the rendered page. They have to be written in another way in the source if somebody wants to show what to write without actually requesting help. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Your expansion of the article has taken away the crucial balance that it previously had. It now lacks neutrality and balance with the overwhelmning portion of the text referring to/promoting Roberts's argument (which looks more like a hypothesis to me) than giving encyclipedic information about the book. Hence I will be reverting it shortly. Uthay6505 (talk) 00:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Original arguments are not allowwed in Wikipedia. Have moved arguments you placed in article Tamil Tigress to the article's discussion page. Uthay6505 (talk) 01:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Changed reference 1 in Indo-Sri Lanka Accord. The previous one was merely linking to the ICLQ home page and not to the abstract of relevant article. This one does and also followed the instruction given on that abstract on how to cite the article. Interested in this reference because I used the same (along with the relevant sentence from Indo-Sri Lanka Accord in editing Tamil Tigress Gettingthere (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Reporting biased editing to Tamil Tigress
I want to report biased editing by 203.45.18.13 and 150.101.116.203.

Revision by 203.45.18.13 as of 20:01, 5 September 2011 included biased non neutral and potentially libelous language such as "fraudulently marketed", "put in context the fraudulent nature of the publisher.." Also the revision by 150.101.116.203 as of 10:55, 5 September 2011 also used the same libelious, biased words "fraudulently marketed" and used unsupported statements like " Actually the female author has never been a member of ....". These two revisions seem to have been made by the same person.

I also want to report 139.163.138.11 for vandalism. His revision as of 01:28, 6 September 2011 was not restricted to removing libelous language but used the above edit by 203.45.18.13 as an excuse to remove a lot of relevant, supported, verifiable information presented in a neutral manner.

I have reverted all the above. Am I in the correct place for reporting them?Gettingthere (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Tamil Tigress
The same user is coming on 150.101.116.203, 203.45.18.13 and now(12:51 6 September 2011, 11:40 6 Sep. 2011, 11.38 6 Sep. 2011) on 202.92.71.104 and making the same malicious revisions. What can be done other than keeping my eyes glued on the page, I don't know. Please help. Gettingthere (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The same user is coming on 150.101.116.203, 203.45.18.13 and now(12:51 6 September 2011, 11:40 6 Sep. 2011, 11.38 6 Sep. 2011) on 202.92.71.104 and making the same malicious revisions. What can be done other than keeping my eyes glued on the page, I don't know. Please help.Gettingthere (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have filed a request for the page to be semi-protected for a short period, to see if this disuades the vandalism. Mato (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: An admin has semi-protected the page for a few days to see if this helps. Mato (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Mato. I saw that it had been done. Load off my mind.Gettingthere (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No Original Arguments
No original arguments are allowed in Wikipedia. Have removed arguments you placed in Tamil Tigress in the article's discussion page. Uthay6505 (talk) 01:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Gettingthere; I disagree wth your arguments on the 'Tamil Tigress' discussion page. Your quoting from the 'Throsby interview' does not in itself violate guidelines on original research or primary sources No original research. But your selectively quoting from the interview and then drawing a conclusion in saying "There is thus an attempted projection of Sri Lankan Forces into her fighting experiences, from which they should in reality have been absent. A possible motive for creating this imagined context is given by Niromi in her Throsby interview." is definitely in violation of OR guidelines. You are making an original argument (eg "There is thus an attempted projection..."), making an inference (eg "A possible motive..."). By no means are these plain descriptive statements. If you want to revert the changes, first make sure that you address what I have said above. Instead, if you keep simply reverting changes everyubody else makes, you will be blocked for disruptive editing. Uthay6505 (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

3rr
fyi, per WP:3rr, reverting any one page more than 3 times in 24 hours is almost always grounds for an immediate block - even if you think your version is better. Kevin (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I need help with editing of Tamil Tigress.

 * I have discussed these issues excessively on the talk page. The edit I'd like to preserve is my reverted revision

...


 * What is the best thing to do. Should I post an editor assistance request too?


 * I feel that these editors are disregarding the Common Sense rule and trying to turn Wikipedia into a rigid legalistic forum where it is possible to suppress relevant information based on technicalities. And badly argued technicalities at that. Gettingthere (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have responded on the talkpage, and made some edits to the article. My comments were: "It is appropriate to mention and give brief details of concerns raised in reputable sources about the truth and accuracy of the book. These concerns, however, do need to be of proportionate length. See WP:UNDUE for details. It is also important to give a neutral and sober account of any concerns raised. I have changed the title of the section from Controversy to Authenticity, in order to tone it down a little. However, there does appear to be a fair little wind being blown up about the accuracy of this book by Michael Roberts and Arun Ambalavanar so it might well end up being a controversy. The section needs careful development (and there does seem enough material to expand it a bit more) - always use reliable sources, remain neutral - do not get drawn into the debate and be careful not to present the concerns as a valid argument, keep quotes to a minimum - it is better to summarise neutrally than to use emotive statements, and engage in discussions on this talkpage when in doubt, or if anyone has questioned or challenged an edit." I hope that helps   SilkTork   ✔Tea time  23:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Your expansion of the article Tamil Tigress has removed crucial balance that the previous version had. It now lacks neutrality and balance. The overwhelmning portion of the text is referring to or promoting Roberts's argument (which looks more like a hypothesis to me) than giving encyclipedic information about the book. Hence I will be reverting it shortly. Uthay6505 (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Gettingthere. Firstly, my relationship with Rec006 is a metter between me and the Wikimedia Foundation and/or Wikipedia admin. it has nothing to do with you, hence am not interested in getting into a conversation with you on this.


 * Now, could we focus on the iseue. Please read the section under 'Balance' in Neutral point of view/Examples. I'll wait for a few hours for you to consider whether your last edit or the prvious one has the right balance - before I change it.


 * Also thanks for your 'welcome to wikipedia' on my talk page, though should say I have been an editor for a longer period than you have and have done far more edits on a wide range of topics than you have - not that it matters to me Uthay6505 (talk) 03:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The welcome message is included in the warning template, I used. Surprised you didn't know this despite your claimed editing experience.Gettingthere (talk) 06:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC

My experience has been with editing/debating, not warning people. I can see that you are much more comfortable with the latter - not used to being challenged I guess… Anyway, hope you are thinking about the issues I raised about balance in the article – which is the only issue at stake here. Uthay6505 (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)