User talk:Chartinael: Difference between revisions

• Languages and Linguistics (esp. Indo-Iranian, Irano-Aryan & Indo-Aryan)
• Scienes (esp. Mathematics, Physics and Astronomy)
• Literature (esp. Science Fiction and Fantasy)
• Philately (esp. South Asian/Ceylon)

Whether you like it or not, only Sinhala and the Vedda language are indigenous and native to Sri Lanka. Tamil, unfortunately is not indigenous and native to Sri Lanka, however much we would like it to be. We can't begin to write history, because of your political problems, with the Sri Lankan state. Sri Lanka has infact been quite accomodating, and given Tamil the status of an official language. I think you should be happy with that, and work to build a more stable status for the Tamil language and Tamil people in Sri Lanka, instead of agitating and provocating the Sinhalese, by trying to distort the history of the island.

What I have written is about Sinhala being native to Sri Lanka. If you don't like it, then you are showing one of the majour causes for the ethnic conflict, namely Tamils having problems accepting the proven and written hitory of the island and themselves. Tamil can't be made native to Sri Lanka, however much Tamils distort history, and resort to violence and bomb and destroy the Sinhalese. Even if your mono ethnic, Tamil state of Tamil Eelam is achieved, Tamil will still be native and indigenous to Tamil Nadu, not anywhere else.

If you revert my edit, give a reference which says that Sinhala is not native to Sri Lanka and that Tamil is native to Sri Lanka. If you don't give a reference, I'll revert your edit. SriSuren (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you are wrong nonetheless. Both, Tamil and Sinhala, arrive BC to the island. Your insistance that sinhala is native and tamil is not reinforces the conflict, btw. Sinhala and Tamil BOTH are not objective regarding their claims to the island. Chartinael (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry sir but i will not tolerate a rude article that is biased and rude. I will not be silent just becouse it doent appease u. Its called freedom of speech so stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gummy hugs (talk • contribs) 12:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lemma is not rude and it represents acadamic consensus. Maybe it would be a good idea to learn a bit more about human physiology before you start removing statements and realize that maybe it is you that is biased? Chartinael (talk) 13:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pashto language. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lagoo reverted my well sourced clean up edits. The issue has already been taken to the discussion page. Relevant edits:

October 20th ethnologue references ethnic population of about 50 mio to actual speaker population as referenced on ucla language project, encyclopaedia iranica and whatever the third source is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pashto_language&action=historysubmit&diff=391805854&oldid=391040132

October 26th, changed pashtun speakers again to ethnicity as source states (btw source says "possibly"), added references for the history as official language in Afghanistan all academically referenced

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pashto_language&action=historysubmit&diff=392961092&oldid=392882621

October 28th, Lagoo takes out referenced speaker numbers and replaces with ethnic population numbers. Some wording and formation changes. Nothing major, but takes out official language section with references and replaces with lengthy direct quote from ucla language project about national language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pashto_language&action=historysubmit&diff=393363858&oldid=392961092

I then leave his highballing population numbers but add lower numbers as well. I readd the part about the official language and do some cleaning up in the infobox as in add language tree, take out unreferenced superlative about karachi and other encylopadic stuff like taking back the citation needed stuff, lagoo took out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pashto_language&action=historysubmit&diff=393385693&oldid=393363858

Then follow lagoo reverts:1, 2, 3

Lagoo cherry picks sources which is an utter no-go. There is an academic paper referencing speaker population of about 40 million. I have no issues with the numbers, but they must be properly referenced. Academic print wins out on websources.

I am thus claiming cause and exemption. Chartinael (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To take out sourced material is unencyclopaedic, to replace with material not supported by the sources violates a core policy, such as Verifiability. If a source does not support what the article states, such statement is to be removed. WP:BOP Reverting to enforce core policies is not to be considered edit warring. Chartinael (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.