User talk:Tomatofarm

KMP

Wikipedia is not a party website. You have to add sourced neutral content. The edits you have been doing to the KMP article are being done from the point of a paty follower/fan. Please see WP:NPOV to understand what sort of content can be added and what cannot be.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

Please stop adding unsourced fan language to the Kongunadu Munnetra Peravai article. After i have informed you that this is not according to wikipedia policies. You are adding them back after logging out. Such activities are considered disruptive behaviour in wikipedia. If anyone (like me) disagrees with your actions discuss this at the article's talk page before reinserting your edits.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kongunadu Munnetra Peravai. 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. If you edit this again in the next 24 hours I will have to block you. Please start discussing your edits on the talk page Dougweller (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Talk:Kongu_Vellalar, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Sitush (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Labeling good faith edits as vandalism is considered a personal attack. I see you've been warned for this previously. What can you accomplish if you are blocked? Please rethink your approach to resolving problems. Tiderolls 02:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that. I will not continue this. But Sitush is removing contents partially and intentionally maintaining some to give bad image about the social group. What about that ? He needs to keep the original content and ask for more citations. He is keep on removing without discussing in talk page. Does this not amount to Vandalism ? Tomatofarm (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Edits made in good faith are not vandalism. Vandalism is the intentional harming of the encyclopedia. What you describe sounds like a difference of opinion. Tiderolls 02:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. If someone is not satisfied with the references cited, will they ask for more citations or will they remove the content(along with references) without discussing it in the talk page? I am not trying to prove that my actions were right but this is what Sitush did before you intervened. I have requested Sitush to bring back the original content and requested him to ask for more citations. I will try to cooperate with him to resolve the issues Tomatofarm (talk) 03:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in a position to comment on particular discussions on the article's talk page. It could be a matter of idiom, but you have said several times "ask for more citations." Either the content is supported by reliable sources or it is not. The reliability of the sources, as well as the weight given to the particular content, is a matter for talk page resolution. It is the responsibility of the editor that adds the content to provide sources; sources do not have to be "requested" by editors that contest the addition. Having said that, I applaud the fact that you have taken your concerns to the talk page. Frustrations are sure to arise when editors are passionate about their work; succumbing to this frustration is definitely counterproductive, however. Regards Tiderolls 04:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]