User talk:ChamithN/Archive 28

Please comment on Talk:Voting method
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Voting method. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

13 reason why, edit reverted
Why would you revert my edit? it took me hours to type and research all the flaws that were present in that page.
 * That's exactly why it was reverted. You should not use Wikipedia as a platform to put forward your own opinion on the matter. My suggestion is that if you want to compensate for the time you spent researching and typing, start a blog and publish your analysis there. -- ChamithN   (talk)  12:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Gary Oldman
I propose changing:

Regarded as one of the greatest living actors,

To:

Highly regarded by critics, audiences and peers,

Since this version would have the full attribution you are looking for. No use in me making any further edits as Sro23 clearly has an obsession with the article going way back, and thinks everyone editing it is a "troll". Wikipedia should be about content, not user squabbles, anyway. 185.51.229.73 (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please take it to Talk:Gary Oldman. I don't want to go into the trouble of keeping track of the same discussion on two separate pages. -- ChamithN   (talk)  00:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sciences Po
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sciences Po. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Isaac Newton in popular culture
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Isaac Newton in popular culture. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Xbox One
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Xbox One. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 July newsletter
The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Category talk:Deaths by type of illness
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Deaths by type of illness. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Islamic calendar
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Islamic calendar. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

AUTHENTIC INFORMATION FOR JESUS MIRACLE CRUSADE
[edit source] Hi, ChamithN, I'm Mark, member of Jesus Miracle Crusade, would like to inform you, as a member of this church (JMCIM), I want to improve our Church information here in Wikipedia, kindly help me if how can i edit and put only an authentic information about our church? based on our official websites... Thank you.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmcim1975 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Calendar
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Calendar. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:0.999...
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:0.999.... Legobot (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Taxonbar
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Taxonbar. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 August 2017
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vegeta (condiment)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vegeta (condiment). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Google memo
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Google memo. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

/* Complaining about bossy user */
Wikipedian MezzoMezzo is being very arrogant and bossy he always edits the article i write and calls it my POV, however it's instead his own grudge against the person i am writing regarding. Even his knowledge regarding the subject is valued, please take action or such wikipedian will never let new users and true facts to appear on Wikipedia.Thanks,--Saudmujadidi (talk) 06:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Saudmujadid, I do not have the authority over other Wikipedians; I'm just a regular Wikipedian like you. If you think you are being treated unfairly, I suggest you contact an administrator. The best place to do that is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Cheers! -- ChamithN   (talk)  10:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sri Lanka Transport Board, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Omnibus ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Sri_Lanka_Transport_Board check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Sri_Lanka_Transport_Board?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Help with article?
Hi,

I noticed your interested in computer security articles and I thought I'd ask if you might be willing to take a look at a related article. I'm a consultant to AlienVault, a leading cybersecurity software and threat detection firm. The article about them could use a number of updates. I've made my suggestions at the bottom of Talk:AlienVault. As a paid consultant, according to Wikipedia policy, I must have all my suggestions independently reviewed and approved. If you have any time to take a look, I'd very much appreciate it. Best, Ed

BC1278 (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)BC1278
 * Hi BC1278, I've reviewed your request at Talk:AlienVault. We can continue our discussion there. -- ChamithN   (talk)  06:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Anonymous activity
Hello

I would like to known why you have reverted my whole paragraph on Anonymous activity in 2014. There I mentioned that the group provided a conspiracy theory on the vanishing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 and declared war on the Rotschild family. The statement was watched by hundred thousands people on YouTube. Why is this irrelevant?

Thank you Arcturus78 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:PSCI and WP:ELNO. -- ChamithN   (talk)  20:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah ok, I interpreted by paragraph more as a recount of relevant Anonymous activity, rather than the description of a conspiracy theory and I mentioned twice that their allegations were ungrounded, however, I see the point. Arcturus78 (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest you also read WP:OR since the paragraph you added sounded more like a subjective analysis. And, another thing I wanted to mention is that when reverting your edit, I forgot to assume good faith; that was a mistake on my part. -- ChamithN   (talk)  20:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

US Softpower30 - factoid.
I said that they could remove and that I wouldn't protest that, but I don't understand how my source isn't reliable, given that it isn't news-speak. Second, why is okay for the UK article to present is political and cultural influence accolades and not the United States? Soft power 30 is a British index ranking organization to be honest, not American. NocturnalDef (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, first of all, it wasn't me who reverted your edit but . Secondly, from what I can see, they reverted your edit for making a significant change to the lead without prior consensus, not because the source isn't reliable. You might want to start a discussion at Talk:United States if you wish to reintroduce it to the article. Finally, the purpose of the lead is not to "present political and cultural influence accolades", but to accurately and succinctly summarize the entire article. -- ChamithN   (talk)  03:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that you already have a discussion ongoing at Talk:United States regarding different matter . If I were you, I would wait until the dust settles before reintroducing the content in question, in case if you are planning to. -- ChamithN   (talk)  03:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Us Softpower30 - sources
But you just told me that my source wasn't reliable, now you're telling me it is? Also, you haven't answered my question; why is okay for the UK to discuss their political influence and not the US article. And why suddenly am I not allowed to discuss the matter on talk? I've been trying to discuss it with them but have the time they just ignore it. Only now they are taking notice to it. NocturnalDef (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

And you just told me to introduce the matter on talk and now that you found out that this was exactly what I've been doing, you tell me to drop the discussion? Why? I am very confused with this flop-flopping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NocturnalDef (talk • contribs) 09:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I never told you anything remotely close to sources not being reliable. In fact, this is the only interaction I've had with you in the article space so far. And, because has already asked you to read Other stuff exists at Talk:United States, I didn't feel the need to answer your question why is okay for the UK to discuss their political influence and not the US article. To be honest, like User:Regentspark has already mentioned, I have no issues with political influence of the US being mentioned in the lead as long as you provide reliable secondary sources to back up that statement made by the primary source (Soft Power 30 in this case). You are allowed to discuss the matter on talk. Who said you are not? I suggested that you should continue your discussion at Talk:United States because that way you'll be able to get more input from other editors, not because I wanted to shut you up. On a different note, I did not participate in that discussion since I think other editors have already summed up my opinion on the matter and I had nothing else to add. --  ChamithN   (talk)  09:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I told you to introduce the matter on talk because I wasn't aware that you already had started a discussion there.  I was initially confused as to why there's a thread on my talk about an edit I never made/reverted. And what I meant by "wait until the dust settle before reintroducing the content in question" is that you should not reinsert the content to the article posthaste, as you were already on the verge of violating WP:3RR.   --  ChamithN   (talk)  10:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

USA Softpower30 - reply
It's what you wrote on my page, not this particular one - and I quote: "Hello, my name is ChamithN, I've noticed that you made a change to an article, United States, but you did not provide a reliable source..."

Regardless, I went over the page regulatory and while it does mention that other articles would provide details contrary to the rules which does not justify a similar edit to another article, I hence the question; then why isn't the political reference on the UK article being removed in contrast to the American article? Why is there only biased attention to one article and not the other, since both articles are breaking the rules? NocturnalDef (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * It's what you wrote on my page, not this particular one - and I quote: "Hello, my name is ChamithN, I've noticed that you made a change to an article, United States, but you did not provide a reliable source..."
 * That's a templated (predefined) message -- which is supposed to be posted on the talk page of the user being reverted for not providing a source, which was the issue in your case, or for providing an unreliable source (Uw-unsourced1). -- ChamithN   (talk)  03:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Regardless, I went over the page regulatory and while it does mention that other articles would provide details contrary to the rules which does not justify a similar edit to another article, I hence the question; then why isn't the political reference on the UK article being removed in contrast to the American article? Why is there only biased attention to one article and not the other, since both articles are breaking the rules?
 * Probably because the two sources cited in the UK article (this and this) are not primary sources? You've been already told multiple times that you could mention the political influence of the US in the article as long as you provide secondary sources to go along with the primary source you cited. Shouldn't your focus be on finding secondary sources that support your addition instead of looking for discrepancies between the two article? --  ChamithN   (talk)  04:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Jeff Buckley
Before you revert me again, please take the time to read MOS:NICKNAME. Cheers. 86.161.26.125 (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit because you didn't provide a valid explanation in your edit summary as to why you removed that "common nickname". Also, I was not aware of MOS:BIO's pointers regarding hypocorisms. Thanks for pointing it out. Best, --  ChamithN   (talk)  23:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

nonsense
Hi, come on man, why if i make article of my country with source you always deleted it with reason nonsense, and when you make article about Japan even it nonsense you tell that is truth.. It's very subjective.. be objective man.. it's wikipedia, great site.. give respect to this site.. Orang depok1 (talk) 08:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I haven't deleted any articles since I'm not administrator. You should instead take it up with the admin who deleted your article, not me. Secondly, what you removed from Japan is not nonsense; it's properly sourced, both in that article and under Great_power. Thirdly and finally, if you are going to claim something is "nonsense", at least have the common decency to explain why you consider it so. -- ChamithN   (talk)  07:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, my friend, first I'm not telling you mean you alone, i mean you and your friends,believe me i know what Japanese for Asia person talking about if you know what i mean, it's not working man, we all in Asia now Japan not great and we even shy when we look Japanese movie.. Second my article about my country is relevant and the truth not just opinion like from physician or sociologist opinion or something like that, UNESCO and UN said that, how it can be nonsense than your? Third, I don't have to give any source to it since i'm Asian, we are Asian know more about Japan than you, American, and than your source itself.. so you wanna fact or you just wanna opinion? it's your choice, myman.. Best regards..Orang depok1 (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * believe me i know what Japanese for Asia person talking about if you know what i mean, it's not working man, we all in Asia now Japan not great and we even shy when we look Japanese movie -- your opinion
 * we are Asian know more about Japan than you, American, and than your source itself. -- a generalization
 * so you wanna fact or you just wanna opinion? -- well, aren't you hilarious?
 * Seems like you have trouble discerning what's subjective and what's not. I'm not going to participate in this pointless discussion anymore. Best regards to you too. -- ChamithN   (talk)  11:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

thanks or your attention to me.. dear.. first in fact you don't know what is fact and what is opinion.. cause you said fact as opinion and opinion as fact.. give me reason why fact of life in Asia as an opinion and your opinion as a fact? give me an answer.. Best regards..Orang depok1 (talk) 05:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Eliza Taylor
Eliza has another sister called Nico Taylor on her fathers side but they dont see much of each other because she lives with her mother — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:4114:3900:F41E:E6FA:8E88:9F61 (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide a source for that? -- ChamithN   (talk)  11:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:USS Nimitz UFO incident
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:USS Nimitz UFO incident. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Deaths in 2018
Hi, please note that when you add persons to the Deaths in 2018 article, they should be added in alphabetical order for each date. Thanks. --Marbe166 (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for letting me know. I expected that to be the case, but it was not in alphabetical order when I added, so I didn't think much about it. I'll definitely make sure to add them in alphabetical order the next time. Cheers! --  ChamithN   (talk)  07:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * D'oh! I just noticed that the entries are listed alphabetically by surname, not by first name; it's even mentioned at the top of the page. I should have been more careful. My bad. -- ChamithN   (talk)  07:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin scalability problem
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin scalability problem. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Darwin (operating system)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Darwin (operating system). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:209 (number)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:209 (number). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Heat-not-burn tobacco product
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Heat-not-burn tobacco product. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 February 2018
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:ReleaseTheMemo
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:ReleaseTheMemo. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:CBAN for Krajoyn
On Administrators' noticeboard, I have started a discussion of a potential CBAN of Krajoyn which you might have been involved in.

The discussion is linked at WP:CBAN for Krajoyn. Iggy (Swan) 19:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)