User talk:Katie Shah

September 2023
Dear Katie Shah,

Hello and welcome to wikipedia. As I have seen your activities on Bhagwa Dhwaj till now, I suggest strongly to go through wikipedia's guidlines and verifiability of sources. You have cited sources incorrectly and did some "reverts" on my edits which, as I know, only admins have the right to do and any auto confirmed or ip addresser can't. I am myself not an admin so I can't say you, but it is an advice from me and kindly tell me why did you "reverted" my edits in the infobox. I would also be taking this issue of yours on the talk page of Bahgwa Dhwaj.

Hope you will reply soon.

The Yamantakks (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Dear Yamantakks,
 * Thank you for the message, I am learning how to use this site still so I appreciate tour message. The reason for reverting was less so for your edits but for other users who have been constantly ommiting my references to the wider usage of this symbol and positioning the page to suggest the symbol is a weapon and removing the sanctity and reverence that people have for the symbol. I apologise if I unknowingly omitted any of your categorising/additions of images- that was not my intention and it seems we are on the same side to ensure this page is edited in a way that is true to what it symbolises.
 * Thank you Katie Shah (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear Katie Shah,
 * Thanks for your kind message and till now I am also not that much expirienced, but if you want to discuss this issue further, I would happily discuss it and, I strongly advice you not to take any of these action yourself but rather discuss that in the help desk before. If you would constantly take action yourself than you will face some serious issues, and the page will be semi-protected. You may reply to me further telling me the issue and I may also take that there. And fo the information, I also added the section of the connection of RSS and Bhagwa Dhwaj which I tried to be mostly neutral and before even citing some unreliabke or biased things, I hurt to say that, like Panchjanya which is said to be connected with RSS, I talked over that in the Help Desk, which will give me some help if I was questioned.
 * Regards
 * The Yamantakks (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, Katie. It seems to me, looking at the history of Bhagwa Dhwaj, that you are engaging in an edit war to try to enforce your view of what should be in the article.
 * I understand that you are a new editor, and probably didn't realise this. Once somebody reverts an edit you make, you should not simply reapply the edit, but open a discussion (usually on the article's talk page). Wikipedia works by consensus, so what you will need to do is to persuade other editors of your view, or reach a compromise with them.
 * Talking about "the true meaning" and "removing the sanctity" are not usually helpful in such a discussion, because Wikipedia deals in verifiability, not truth; and the "sanctity" or any other value associated with a subject is irrelevant to arguments about what should be in an article.
 * Please understand that I am not challenging your view of what should be in the article - I am neither for nor against your view, as I have neither knowledge nor interest in this subject. I am concerned with explaining how consensus is achieved in Wikipedia. ColinFine (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Katie Shah! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Bhagwa Dhwaj 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. TylerBurden (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)