User talk:ChamithN/Archive 7

Challenged content MUST be properly sourced before being restored
Please read the policy. While unsourced content may be tagged before removal, tagging is optional.

Once content has been removed it is REQUIRED to have appropriate sourcing before being restored]]. And a source at merely states a project is being considered is NOT appropriate sourcing to verify that it is filming. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello!.Yeah I've read it.Thank you.I reverted your edits because it seemed like your edits damaged the page's layout.As per WP:BURDEN If the material is verifiable, you have to encourage editors to provide an inline citation by using citation needed tags before considering whether to remove or tag it.But it also states not to leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people.I think that's why you removed un-sourced content.Thanks a lot for pointing out mistakes I made.Have a nice day.-- Chamith   (talk)  13:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The maintenance tags make the page look like a complete mess
It's obvious to anyone these exaggerated extra maintenance tags on the history section Hazara people make the whole page look like a complete joke and pointless ( and it looks so " DELIBIRATE " I must say ). Tags like " weasel words " were added to make any reference with historical connection with Mongols unreliable. It gives the idea to any reader of this wiki page that the history of Hazara people isn't reliable.

I've already made appropriate references and citations but you choose to remove it anyway. Some these extra tags you allowed are not necessarily anyway since on the " language " and " genetic " section of the wiki page which mentions their strong relationship with Mongols. If that's not enough evidence I don't know what makes you think other wiki pages are okay, you should be doing the exact same thing like you did on the Hazara people's pages I've seen. I have yet to see other wiki pages with so many exaggerated maintenance tags in a small section itself. I have a few moderator friends and they don't do this. Why make the page look like a complete mess? because I really don't see the point of this other than to make the page look like as unreliable as possible.WorldCreaterFighter (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your point.But according to WP:MAINT maintenance work is a vital part of keeping Wikipedia running optimally.Readers must be notified that some parts missing citations or whether they are dubious.We do this by tagging them for maintenance.This also helps other copyeditors/editors to improve page by providing citations to relevant areas.If I reverted references you added then I'm sorry,I reverted your edits as a whole because you removed lots of maintenance tags.But you can add those references back.To remove maintenance tags you can provide references or clarify dubious content.Talking about other wikipedia articles-Maintenance tags are marked by other editors,There are large no. of articles still need to be tagged,Readers who notices those articles will tag them for maintenance.Remember, Maintenance tags are vital in the process of improving articles.Even though they look messy,they are necessary-- Chamith  (talk)  02:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice sig
Yours is one of the more interesting signatures that I've seen. Attractive, but not intrusive. You should add it to our growing collection, here. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 11:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks.Yet I too have to agree that it is intrusive.Colorful signs can cause annoyance to most users.Anyway yeah I'll add my sign to it.Thank you again for the link-- Chamith  (talk)  11:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I said it's not intrusive! It's not too bright like some of the others. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Nick Saban
Not sure why you reverted a change. First I removed it because no one had documented the accusation. Then it was changed with documentation and I simply changed the title to more accurately reflect the issue (medical redshirts instead of oversigning). I wish the article to be both sources and accurate. Not sure why making a change (although I agree with the argument on the talk page that if the issue doesn't have a wiki page then it sounds like it is not sufficiently important to have an entry on an individual's page). 157.89.21.171 (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi,In wikipedia we have to keep headings simple.Longer,complex headings might confuse some readers,So I had to change your edit.-- Chamith  (talk)  16:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

About an edit you made
Hi ChamithN, I'm surprised to find out that you undid an edit I made to Eric Zemmour's article. The article was mentioning that he won a trial, whereas the initial decision was revoked and he ultimately lost the suit. The issue of a trial is a boolean situation - either you win or lose it. In this case the article was incorrectly mentioning that he won the trial which is incorrect. I recommend that you check the facts and reinstate my edit. Thanks, S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.61.92.98 (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I assume you are talking about this edit. You might be correct but Wikipedia doesn't accept controversial information without a reliable source. I'd be happy re-add your content if you cite your information with a source-- Chamith  (talk)  04:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

error message
Good morning, ChamithN-- You recently sent me a message about an erroneous edit on the Parthia page. Although I have some minor interest in the Parthian Empire and use Wikipedia frequently I have never contributed any edits to any Wikipedia site.

71.34.66.188 (talk) 16:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)Reader Only, Astoria, Oregon


 * Actually it's night over here . Doesn't matter, good morning to you. Anyway I sent you a talk page message regarding this edit. It was an automated message, meaning that when I reverted your edit, the script I was using automatically notified you.-- Chamith  (talk)  17:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe your IP address is a shared one which means someone else also using it without you knowing. If you want to get rid of, it the best solution is creating an account-- Chamith  (talk)  17:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

please redo my edit
I removed the middle name because it didn't seem right to have her full name posted. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.13.78 (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which doesn't work according to that way. It's a collection of knowledge, not a collection of opinion. We have to give readers the accurate information regardless of how horrible/wrong they seem-- Chamith  (talk)  17:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. &mdash;  MusikAnimal talk 16:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Template editor
Are you sure you're a template editor? It says so on your userpage. Don't worry, I make stupid mistakes too. We just don't want to give other users the wrong impression. Thanks,  ΤheQ Editor   Talk? 22:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I used to edit templates (such as Template:Infobox musical artist) for a while when I joined the Wiki. Back then I wasn't aware that it was a user group, I thought it was a title given to people who edit templates. But later I realized it wasn't, I didn't bother to change it back to "No" but now that you have bought it up I will change it to "No",-- Chamith   (talk)  04:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

János Lázár
Dear ChamithN,

As we are speaking a corrupt Hungarian politician please allow me to give a reason why I couldn't give source of the nickname(s) of János Lázár.

Most of the Hungarians, who are opposite government calls him like this. But the media can not really call him like that, otherwise they would be cited to court for infringing personal rights. We don't have the liberty of press in Hungary, we can not make critics. So I thought the people around the world should know his nickname, as the most corrupted cabinet member of the 1st and 2nd Orbán-government. Is that clear?

Regards,

Vasutaskollega — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasutaskollega (talk • contribs) 03:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, there is no problem with adding a nickname if it's prominent, I say you can go ahead and add it again but if someone else, who is experienced on the subject thinks it's wrong then he/she might remove. Cheers-- Chamith  (talk)  04:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)== November 2014 ==

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=634351038 your edit] to Pizza may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)== Warning against Cyber Bullying ==

Please do not use warnings as a means to promote your pov. DO NOT Falsely accuse editors of being vandals without evidence. Ip's constantly change and they seldom remain for more than a few months or even days in many cases. No editor has to register and prejudice towards IP editors will not be tolerated and may result in blocks/bans. This is a friendly advice warning.
 * Hi, IP user, woah seems like you are mad at me. You know, I think you should check out Cyberbullying to learn what cyber bullying is . And one more thing, I warned you instead of sending a notification because you was once blocked for vandalism, which means you have a pretty good experience about how Wikipedia works. Cheers and calm down. -- Chamith  (talk)  09:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Not mad but sick and tired of editors who falsely accuse other editors. If you do not understand IP's I would suggest you do your research before making accusations. You recklessly ASSumed that a warning on a IP, that was 2.5 years old was the same editor. I will point you have been warned in the past. I will advice that you calm down and here is my warning: Be careful as you are near a WP:3R violation which will lead to another block for you. 208.54.40.201 (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)