User talk:LakshmanReddy72

Welcome!

Hi LakshmanReddy72! I noticed your contributions to Aloukika and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Atlantic306 (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite and suggestions.

LakshmanReddy72 (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki project Andhra Pradesh

This user participates in
WikiProject Andhra Pradesh.

LakshmanReddy72 (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

If you can't justify your edits, then don't do it. Making edits according to the sources isn't vandalism. If you still don't understand the basic rules of Wikipedia editing and behaviour. Then I suggest learning some more skills and come back later. Wikipedia isnt a personal opinion page. Lord kai07 (talk) 06:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lord kai07:

My intention was neither to personally attack you nor to offend. As you mentioned in the edit summary, the text says -

After bringing the son of Jarasandha under his sway by conciliation and making him pay tribute, the hero then accompanied by the monarchs he had vanquished, marched against Kansa. And making the earth tremble by means of his troops consisting of the four kinds of forces, the foremost of the Pandavas then encountered Karna that slayer of foes. And, O Bharata, having subjugated Karna and brought him under his sway, the mighty hero then vanquished the powerful king of the mountainous regions. And the son of Pandu then slew in a fierce encounter, by the strength of his arms, the mighty king who dwelt in Madagiri. Reference [1].

From the above citation, we can clearly see Pandava Bhima subjugated Karna, as you pointed out as well in your recent edit summary.

First, let's look at your edits in Rajasuya conquest one by one. You changed "Bhima defeated Karna" to "Karna defeated Bhima" here [2], then here too [3] and then here again, [4]. You added portions like Karna didn't want to fight, etc, all the while claiming sources are right, when clearly the cited source says nothing of that. Can I understand why? I created talk page topic precisely for this but you ignored it, until the recent comment. Few days ago, you finally read the part in KMG and realized that Karna was indeed subjugated. But then, instead of shortening the portion, you completely removed the paragraph here. [5]. Can I ask again, why?

To summarise you have edited Rajasuya conquest part multiple times to reflect Karna was the victor without any sound argument, going against the cited source. When prompted you ignored me and recently completely removed the part stating Karna was only "subjugated".

Now you come to my page, and speak in this tone for calling out your editing! LakshmanReddy72 (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and I did removed my edits afterwards after finding them wrong! Besides that you Just assumed subjugation= defeat. Without any discussion. Yet you blame for those edits. Very well! Then you specifically claimed that I vandalised the page,even Though you did the same thing by using assumptions.I did correct my mistake later on after finding out the sources. So I don't really understand why did you raise a discussion for that matter.Lord kai07 (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :@Lord kai07:

You did not remove any of your edits. I have checked the edit history of Bhima page. You however reverted multiple times to your version when someone else indeed "corrected you".

I did not assume anything. I merely reverted your deletion. Even if Karna was "subjugated" you never should have removed that part.

I raised the talk page topic some fifty days ago. I could have easily reverted your edits at the time but I wanted to get to know your point of view. But you continuously ignored it and went on vandalising the Rajasuya conquest part until I was forced to revert it. LakshmanReddy72 (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Hello, I'm DaxServer. I noticed that you recently removed content from Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:24, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I will use sandbox from here on. I think the edit might have been a mistake.

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

— DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]