User talk:Kalanishashika

Welcome!
  Hello, Kalanishashika!  Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

  Getting Started

Tutorial Learn everything you need to know to get started. Introduction to contributing • Editing

• Referencing

• Images

• Tables

• Policies and guidelines

• Talk pages

• Navigating

• Manual of Style

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.

Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Kalanishashika (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
TarnishedPathtalk</b> 15:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @TarnishedPath, thank you for letting me know. Please let me know any non-constructive edits I have done. So I can avoid such in the future. Kalanishashika (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Hi Kalanishashika! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Tamil genocide several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree&#32;at, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you.---Petextrodon (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Petextrodon, thank you for bringing this to my attention. However I feel that you are equally guilty since you have reverted three times withing a 24 hour period, , . Kalanishashika (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kalanishashika My reverts are within the limits and they were justified as you yourself have now admitted you cited the wrong explanation to support your revert.---Petextrodon (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Petextrodon, are you saying that what you did was correct? As you may say please show me the Wikipedia policy that says so. Kalanishashika (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Petextrodon (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

June 2024
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Tamil genocide. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ''With Special:Diff/1230184596, Special:Diff/1230184834 and Special:Diff/1230185235 you've made three reverts within 24 hours. Please be mindful not to violate WP:3RR <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>''<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 09:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * A series of consecutive edits only counts as one revert, for the purposes of the 3RR rule. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your comments. I was warned of edit waring earlier and there for careful. I didn't think the content changes I did fall under edit waring since I gave exact reasons for newly added content removal. However, I feel Oz346's revert with accusations against me is both disruptive and uncivil. Hope you could look into it. Kalanishashika (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kalanishashika removing sourced material, where the author is a subject matter expert, with edit summaries such as "Removed newly added content since there is no agreement that the source is reliable in RSN" is disruptive. Your subjective view that there was no consensus does not make a source unreliable. Further Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources is not the point of truth on whether community consensus determines sources to be reliable or not. Such discussion occur at WP:RSN. Kind Regards, <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 04:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @TarnishedPath, I agree on all points mentioned above. Doesn't BOLD, revert, discuss cycle state that content that has been added if contested needs to be agreed on and although reliability sourced material needs included with WP:INDISCRIMINATE, relevant information should go to the relevant article. Verifiability says that the editor who introduce the content needs to prove that the source is reliable, I took the source to RSN and it was not confirmed as a reliable source. I was quoting the Wiki Project since other editors used it to justify other sources used in the article. If you say it's not the point of truth, I am ok with it. However, then we will have to reclassify a lot of sources referred to it. Should we take all of these to RSN? Kalanishashika (talk) 12:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The WikiProject may be useful insofar as it gives the opinions of some editors, however I'd note that what I saw just from looking at a screen full was a bunch of discussions with extremely limited participation. I don't know that it's particularly useful for determining community consensus. Now at the same time I wouldn't suggest taking every source to WP:RSN because there may be sources which upon a reading of WP:RS the reliability is clear and no one in talk disagrees. Please also note that BRD is an explanatory essay and is not compulsory. The compulsory policies are WP:EPTALK and WP:EW. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 12:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @TarnishedPath, I agree with you, and have mentioned this in the talk page . So don't want to repeat it here. Kalanishashika (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)