User talk:Kanewiki01

May 2023
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * But i have added references so there is no point to reverting it back Kanewiki01 (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Please sir stop showing so much biasness against the film, i have added references in the support subheading. the wikipedia page only shows the negative flaws and ignores the positive outlooks. Thus, I collected information from all the sources and provided the information with references. You have to give reason before reverting it back Kanewiki01 (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Every single part of your edit is problematic in one respect or another. None of your edits are formatted properly, you are changing sourced descriptions such as "negative reception" to "positive reception", removing other reliably sourced content and changing them with the use of deprecated sources. This kind of conduct is purely disruptive. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 12:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So i just added support subheading under response with valid references. Now, this is pure neutral. Wiki page provides all negative responses but it doesn't knows positive feedback and support after it is released. Kanewiki01 (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have not changed any description like negative reception to positive reception. It was changed by any other user, you can check the history of that page. Kanewiki01 (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes you did change that among a host of other things, Special:Diff/1155497296. And your latest edit is still improperly formatted and written like tabloid headlines, includes removal of sourced content and most of the addition even if were to be properly written is either undue, synthesis or already mentioned in the above section, making it a repetition. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 12:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Under the response heading, there are many repetitive stuffs such as ban and protest is already discuussed above. So why would that not be removed? That's in no way a neutral wiki page. Negative phrases can be repeated many times under several headings but positive ones are to be removed instantly. Is it not ironical? Where is it written that bolywood supported the movie? and Prime minister's statement should be given more importance so it must be written seperately. Where is it mentioned that Kerelea Catholics supported the movie and facts? Still the content I am adding is termed as repetitive. Kanewiki01 (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In the main introductory head, it is stated that BJP supported the movie to win over karnataka election but still BJP lost it and the reference given is by outlookindia. How could it be serious? It looks as if a kid has written it. There has been many cases filed against outlookindia by tatasons and other companies. outlookindia has very less subscribers and is totally not credible but still people are using those references and it is not being removed. Kanewiki01 (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Welcome!
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:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

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: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
— DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 17:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk:The Kerala Story: a warning
Hi, Kanewiki. There is by now so much writing at Talk:The Kerala Story (especially writing by you) that I'm afraid you may miss my block warning, so I'm putting it here as well. I just replied to your post where you claimed that you "looked into an article in wikipedia it says that the judgement of courts are reliable source under wikipedia so Supreme court's judgement is highly authoritative". The Wikipedia page you were talking about was Identifying reliable sources (law). This was so worrying that I thought I'd better warn you to stop wasting everybody's time or you may be blocked from the page. This is what I posted there:
 * That's an essay, not a policy, and it says nothing about Wikipedia being able to use a judgment in a court of law as a reliable source. Not a word. And of course we can't do that — it would fly in the face of common sense. Kanewiki01, you are seriously beginning to waste people's time here, and I'm beginning to consider blocking you from this page. Please don't offer Wikipedia pages, such as Identifying reliable sources (law), here without first having made an honest effort to read and understand them.

I hope that was quite clear. Bishonen &#124; tålk 21:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC).


 * It was my fault to not read it carefully but my other points are valid and cannot be ignored. Even if fictionalized story cannot be removed but the support heading should be added under response heading. Kanewiki01 (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making over the top personal attacks based upon editors' presumed religion. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page:. Abecedare (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)