Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Tamil People

Comments
There have been no attempts at discussing this at the article talk page. The proposer tried to add some content to the lead of the article and it was objected to by me and Kanatonian twice. There have been no steps taken to talk about the content and build consensus. There is no need for this mediation. --Sodabottle (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC) I provided sufficient explanation in edit summary as to why the article needed changing. Hence, there have been steps taken to engage both Sodabottle and Kanatonian No explanation or attempt of justification at removal was produced by either party. My first edits were refined with the help of Sodabottle. But no further attempts have been made by those resisting the change despite quotations of evidence and proof. There was one attempt made by Sodabottle in which he questioned the veracity of the opinion of the person in quotation and supplied that it was an individual view but provided no other citations to prove otherwise. Attempts to build consensus are on Kanatonian's talk page and in edit summaries. I have no idea to link that. Hence this article does indeed require mediation. Especially due to the kind of blatant untruths Sodabottle seems intent on pushing forth (No attempt to talk?/engage?/build consensus? I have already presented proof) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwinrk92 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "blatant untruths" huh?. An article's talk page is the first venue to take this to. You made no attempt to open a discussion in the talk page or discuss it with me. Now you are just edit warring, when your additions are questioned. As the person adding the content, the burden of proof is on you to establish consensus for your proposed additions. Especially for a FA that has been in stable state for a few years now. Take this discussion to the article's talk page first and thrash. And BTW, read how mediation works - all parties involved have to agree to take up mediation and it is done only after normal discussions fail. You have the wrong idea about how consensus building works in Wikipedia--Sodabottle (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)