Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sri Lanka Armed Forces article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Sri Lanka, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Sri Lanka Armed Forces. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Sri Lanka Armed Forces at the Reference desk. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
extra information
edithttp://www.rootsweb.com/%7Elkawgw/cdf.html It had good information on history of Ceylon military history CooldogCongo
Add the Sri lanka Army Service Branch Flag
editFile:The Sri Lanka Army Flag And Crest.JPG Add This
link to peace keeper scandal full article
edit@Cossde:, please see MOS:UNDERLINK
"In general, links should be created for:
Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully. This can include people, events, and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question."
This is not a controversial addition, so I am adding it back as per Wikipedia policy, which is absolutely clear on these matters. Oz346 (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- It is a controversial addition, the above RFC as concluded it as it is. You are going beyond it. Cossde (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it is controversial to put a mere link to the topic page of the actual incident. But I've requested a third opinion to solve this impasse. Oz346 (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Then why did you revert my change, without going to a third opinion? I request you to refrain from edit waring. Cossde (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I reverted your change, because it makes no sense. Does every edit need to be approved by rfc to be added? I'm going to third opinion now, because you still have not provided an adequate reason for removal of the link, and it is clear we have now reached an impasse, as you refuse to budge from your position. I could not assume that you would still disagree. Before going to third opinion, there needs to be a talk page discussion. Oz346 (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Then why did you revert my change, without going to a third opinion? I request you to refrain from edit waring. Cossde (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it is controversial to put a mere link to the topic page of the actual incident. But I've requested a third opinion to solve this impasse. Oz346 (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 Response to third opinion request:
|
| The consensus of the previous RFC supported the inclusion of mentioning this information in the article. Linking to a related article that goes into more detail is perfectly reasonable. So far there doesn't appear to be a policy related argument against linking. In light of that, I would support linking. Nemov (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
- Although I don't agree with your view on the matter, I will respect it and let this stand. Cossde (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)