User talk:Chartinael

Your edit in the article Sinhala language

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]

Vaccine controversy

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]

October 2010

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]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Lagoo Sab, it is not good practice to call editing a section for structure and style unwarranted edit-warring while throwing mud at the accused. For keepsake reason: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring&action=historysubmit&diff=401137935&oldid=401131394 Chartinael (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive655#Pashto_language

Edit-warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Also let this be a warning. Please stop deleting valid sourced material from the Afghanistan article. Thank you.--Lagoo sab (talk) 12:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find three reverts he made in the article, before you send someone such warning ensure if it would be appropriate. Petrb (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He got blocked for 3rr here, did I say he did 3rr in Afghanistan article? It is inappropriate to pop up on talk pages and disturb people with nonsense.--Lagoo sab (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you wanted to 3RR me on Afghanistan. You are a single purpose user. You don't know what else there is on Wikipedia. And, any user can drop by on my pages if they want. You use that right quite frequently, honey. Chartinael (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All things aside, LS is right. You're edit warring, and it's not acceptable. Please follow WP:BRD because you're skirting the line. If someone reverts you, then wow, that sucks. Take it to the talk page and gauge consensus. If you don't get it, follow WP:DR. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chartinael, try not to revert something you don't like more than once, twice at the very, very most but not often. More than one revert doesn't help in the long run. sources and consensus always out, even when they're flawed. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly try not to. I am suprised that Magog keeps supporting as well as assuming GF with Lagoo Sab but doesn't extend the same curtesy towards me. I know he prefers blocking over temporary page protection. I prefer it the other way around even if it is always the wrong version. Chartinael (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pashto language

Chartinael, you changed 40 million to 20 million Pashto speakers in Pashto language, which is incorrect. The 19 millions are speakers of the Southern Pashto (PBT) dialect and there are 2 more dialects ( which are PASHTO, NORTHERN - PBU and PASHTO, CENTRAL). Notice that the PASHTO, CENTRAL states "No estimate available" so be very carefull before you make sudden changes as you did from 40 million to 19 million.--Lagoo sab (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be frustrated for some reasons but Wikipedia is not a place to do these things. Trust me, I don't get frustrated over people making percentages small, in the long run the accurate figures remain in the article. This is the main reason why I don't even think about adding poor sources and POVs, because they all will be gone evetually.--Lagoo sab (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are using outdated sources again.7,920,000 9,720,70 2,680,100 and if you wish 95,000. Read up on what ethnologue is. Chartinael (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That what you do is W:OR, combining different results to form your own conclusion User:Future Perfect at Sunrise.--Lagoo sab (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is all the same source. I am suprised you complain considering that you suggested that there was a need to add all figures together. Chartinael (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uwo222's edits

Have you seen his other edits? He's deleting references, making changes to sourced statements all over the place. All his edits are without any explanation, and have something to do with making "Aryan" an exclusively Indian concept. Kurdo777 (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, strangely so. But he is the reincarnation of Flobot222 and he has been trying the same - if I recall correctly. I guess, one to have an eye on. Oh, am I not supposed to be your sock? छातीऀनाएल - chartinael (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

Back in December, you were one of the people who supported User:QuackGuru when a site ban for disruption and POV pushing was proposed. There are once again serious disputes involving this editor. Please consider helping to resolve the current dispute at Talk:Chiropractic. I am hoping that since you are one of the few editors on record as supporting his involvement, that he will be inclined to listen to what you have to say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my absence. I will look into the issue within the next few days. छातीऀनाएल - chartinael (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]