user talk:Karnataka

I regularly blank this page without keeping an archive of talk messages. Check the page history for all messages I may have received from others.

Your multiple pings

Re your recent multiple pings [1], I believe a long standing version that’s unchallenged for over 7 months do have consensus. I think you may want to review the following,

and revert self (articles), as well as strike out the untrue claims about me on article talk pages. Anyway I think I’m out of this for now. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dustfreeworld i think it will be better if you reply on the talk pages instead of telling me here to revert the edits... based on the first link, you've now seen disagreement and we should just work to find a new consensus! :) — Karnataka 04:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is appropriate and polite enough that I come to your talk page to ask you to strike out your untrue claims about me.

FYI, you shouldn’t have violate WP:PRESERVE. You can try to seek new consensus on article talk pages, but *not* making edits that violate the editing policy, and misinterpreting consensus, and at the same time making untrue claims about other editors. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dustfreeworld i haven't made any untrue claims about you in any of the two talk pages that I edited, if i had made any claims at all about you (which i haven't done anyway). i have not misinterpreted consensus in any of the three pages that i removed the logo from - including the Suicide prevention page where i have "fixed" the problem (wp:preserve...) by adding another suitable illustrative image for the lead. there has been no discussion about the addition of the logo, meaning consensus by silence (which you showed me) was the assumed consensus.

what i am trying to say is that the consensus by silence post (which you showed me) has a blue box at the top that states how consensus by silence can be assumed until there is evidence for disagreement. there already was evidence of disagreement when you edit was reverted three times, and i have also stated my disagreement at the talk page now. — Karnataka 09:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue claim; WP:PRESERVE

This is what you said:

“@Dustfreeworld added this ... There is already no consensus to add crisis hotlines as a hatnote, and adding the same thing in image form at the top seems to be POV-pushing the same idea behind adding crisis hotlines at the top.” FYI, as mentioned above, consensus can be achieved through editing, and no policy requires that adding an image (or hatnote) to an article requires prior consensus (you misinterpreted and keep saying no consensus); and my version *did* achieve consensus as a long standing version that hasn't been disputed for over 7 months. Your pov pushing claim is clearly untrue. Also, you have edited the pages to your preferred version that is deviating from consensus.

You have just admitted that you have removed the image from at least two of the pages, which is violating WP:PRESERVE. You do need prior consensus on talk before doing that.

PS. Disagreements in editing are normal, but you can't cite disagreement over half-a-year ago to imply that I've done something wrong while in fact I have not. Please also review WP:BRB. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dustfreeworld, consensus can be achieved through editing, but consensus cannot always be achieved through editing.

Your edit adding the image was reverted twice. You even added the hidden-comment as a way to keep the edit on the article. One of the removers also suggested that you go to Talk, but you reverted their edit instead. Your re-additions: Special:Diff/1190507116 Special:Diff/1190702444 None of this really showed a consensus built through successive edits since none of your two reversals added any changes, just the hidden-comment.

Your edit summary states if they were really not mentioned but are related to the subject, we SHOULD have them added - this is what needs discussion, and I have started such discussion on both talk pages.

Now, about my edits, I'll discuss how I have a just reason and not violated Wikipedia:PRESERVE. My removals had a rationale - see the talk pages. I had stated that the image was unsuitable as an image in the lead - see MOS:IMAGELEAD. I had also stated that crisis hotlines were not related to suicide or suicide ideation enough to be featured in the lead as an image - see MOS:IRELEVant. For suicide prevention, crisis hotlines were relevant and I had selected an image - not a logo - that showed prevention measures in action. This is illustrative aid that is representative of the topic - see MOS:LEADIMAGE. — Karnataka 11:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]