User talk:ChamithN/Archive 8

Agatha Christie
Hello. Can you explain why you deleted my addition to the Agatha Christie article (Portrayls of the same), in which a young Agatha (née Miller) was portayed in S2E06 of the Spanish TV series Gran Hotel? Have you even watched that particular episode? Have you checked the credits for that episode? Are you saying that Agatha was not portrayed in that episode of the series? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.23.144 (talk) 09:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, it's not because of that, I removed your content because the reference you added doesn't meet Wikipedia's verifiability standards. You should read External_links/Perennial_websites to get more information. You are welcome to add it again if you can provide a reliable resources . If you are confused why IMDb doesn't count as a reliable source it's because IMDb is mainly based on user generated data which are probably OR, Thank you-- Chamith  (talk)  12:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. However consider this: would a book,DVD or journal citation be acceptable sources even if one had to use a library or purchase the book or journal because it free copies were not available on the Web? If so, what is the difference between referencing such a book/journal and a referencing the information contained a DVD, say?  The DVD is readily available globally and the series can be obtained also via VOD services such as NOW TV and Apple TV and so is just as perfectly accessible for verification as a book sat in a library or on a bookstore's shelf. Just because the medium is different does not invalidate the information contained therein.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.23.144 (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course, you can cite a copyrighted book or journal as long as you don't copy-paste details on them. You have to write details using your own words. See Help:Referencing_for_beginners to get an idea about how to cite content that aren't available online. If you have any problems feel free to ask them here. I'd be glad to help you. Cheers--13:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Hi ChamithN, Thanks for the response on WP:TH. Just an FYI, when you use the template, it defaults to your user talk page. To link to the Tea House, or where ever your response is, the full link has to be typed in. Becky Sayles (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm really sorry, I use Twinkle and I think I made a mistake by not choosing Teahouse from the drop down list. . It has never happened to me before. Thanks for notifying me. I'll fix it-- Chamith  (talk)  21:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

ParisVids
Just wanted to let you know that I removed a warning you left on User talk:ParisVids since it appeared to be redundant. Shearonink (talk) 07:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As it was an automated message generated after reverting an edit, I have no idea when I posted that. Anyway thanks for notifying me-- Chamith  (talk)  07:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Overlapping with the ISBN syntax
Re this edit, what was the problem with the comment? I looked at the previous revision, both the code and the rendering, and didn't see a problem with either. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  08:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I used WPCleaner to analyze the page, And it detected ISBN syntax error as it considered hidden comment as a part of ISBN tag, I couldn't find a way to separate the ISBN syntax from the hidden comment so I removed it. Or other ISBN reader won't be able to detect the ISBN. Because it thinks hidden comment as a part of ISBN.-- Chamith  (talk)  09:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S: I can restore the hidden comment if you think it's the right thing to do. After all you are more experienced with Wikipedia than me.-- Chamith  (talk)  09:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a bug in WPCleaner. Since the comment doesn't seem specifically about the ISBN parameter, you could add it back just below the "cite book" line. That will separate it from the ISBN parameter, and should correct the problem without removing what might be a useful comment. &#8209;&#8209; Mandruss  &#9742;  10:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, will do. Thanks-- Chamith  (talk)  10:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Signboard for Ambewela farm.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Signboard for Ambewela farm.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Ron h jones (Talk) 18:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh
It was vandalism. Anubis doesn't appear in said season, he is a movie-only character. - 191.178.28.27 (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Then you can remove the content, but please explain your edits in edit summary so other editors can review it for errors. Thank you-- Chamith  (talk)  15:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2014

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

November 17
Frustrated and tired so I am going to.sleep thanks for reminder and thoughtfulness
 * You are welcome, If you have any problems feel free ask me on my talk page. And have a good night sleep.-- Chamith  (talk)  05:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent subsequent reverts to Philae and false accusations of vandalism based on one edit that was credibly sourced and quoted the project manager.
Your recent reverts to Philae were unproductive. Could you please explain how deleting the reawaking of the spacecraft improved the article. It was sourced and quoted the project manager. I understand you are somewhat new to Wikipedia for 5 months according to your user page history. It is often better to improve an edit if you disagree with something. False accusations of vandalism is seen as a form of cyberbullying because it uses the internet to attack another editors motive. One edit is no cause for the accusation or warning. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies regarding there use. If you have not noticed I have yet to tag you as it often seen as uncivil. See WP:Civil 208.54.40.201 (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's it, I'm not really in a good mood right now, I wanted to give you another chance but you ruined is by denying that you didn't vandalize the page, and I wasn't being uncivil but right now I am because I have to. So what you are saying is that this isn't vandalism?. "Reawakening-Zombie Probe"?? Really? and "Novemner"?. There is no other way to deal with you ignorant ideas. Don't put Wikipedia policies in front of me, I know them and have read them. I'm reporting you to the ANI, they will decide what to do-- Chamith   (talk)  10:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Calling other editors ignorant is uncivil. Continuing to call an edit you disagree with as vandalism is also uncivil as it is unfound. Please review your own advice about calming down. I will take your word that you know wiki policies and so I am asking you to remain civil. It took me several years to learn the ends and outs of wiki policies. Did you have a previous account before this one? If you did you should state so on your user page per wiki policy. 208.54.40.201 (talk) 10:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I told you that I'm being uncivil. Read my comment again. Stop directing comments towards me and answer the question. So what you are saying is that this isn't vandalism?. "Reawakening-Zombie Probe"?? Really? and "Novemner"?. And no if you think I'm User:Griffindd No I'm not . WP:CHECKUSER can look into it. And having more than one Wikipedia account is not forbidden, but using multiple account for vandalism is . Users can have multiple accounts if you follow WP:SOCK. But no I don't have any other accounts. Would you just answer the real question?. I'm curious. Why do you call November, Novemner?.-- Chamith  (talk)  10:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * November???? What are you referring to? If you did not like the title I used then change it, it is really easy to do and generally well received. Calling a well sourced edit vandalism is ludicrous and usually poorly received. Wikipedia is about editing and improving edits. It is not about tossing inflammatory accusations at other editors good intention edits and then using a false accusation as a justification to delete an edit. Wikipedia is a collaborative project which implies that editors collaborate on the project. Reckless deletions based upon false accusations no matter how much you repeat the false accusation is not collaboration. Apparently we have both been here for many years and have our own ideas about what constitutes vandalism. 208.54.40.201 (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Found your November complaint, that was an intermediate edit that inadvertently got undone when I restored my edit you hastily deleted. That would of been a pretty easy fix that did not require a revert but a minor correction. Why did you not just correct it??? Scratching my head. 208.54.40.201 (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I just checked and found out that it wasn't your mistake. But I didn't correct it because I thought it was you who vandalizing the page. So I assumed even if I corrected you might revert it back again. And you still don't understand how you are violating/vandalizing Wikipedia. You are vandalzing Wikipedia by doing a WP:COPYPASTE act. Half of your paragraph is copied from this website.-- Chamith  (talk)  11:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * But I'm not going to pursue this topic anymore. I'm really frustrated right now due to some personal issues and I apologize being so rude earlier. I'm starting to think that you are doing these edits in good faith . But I'm not sure yet. But that's not upto me to decide. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. No one can claim ownership for articles. I'm not going to revert your edits anymore. And like I said if you think you are doing the best to improve Wikipedia then I'd say Ignore all rules and do it -- Chamith   (talk)  11:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My source is clearly listed and I documented the one and only source I used. There is no cut and paste. I quoted part of a sentence in my paragraph which is fair use and I felt was necessary to convey the project managers scientific opinion which had more credibility than my own paraphrased opinion. It is often done in real world editing for the same reason. Unfortunately you and I cannot restore or amend the deletion because we would violate 3R. 208.54.40.201 (talk) 11:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, actually I can revert it according to WP:NOT3RR, because even if I did I'm reverting my own own actions. I would do that but I don't like that heading, it seems unrelated to me. I mean the word Zombie. I don't know it feels weird. What do you think? Is there any better topic or I can add your content without adding the topic. Topic isn't really necessary right?.-- Chamith  (talk)  11:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Why not change title to Possible Future Reawakening or something similar. By giving the section a title it will aid those looking for information about that, it may even become its own article in the future. My use of zombie was more dramatic and attention grabbing but I need to put away my journalistic approach when doing encyclopedic entries. The South Carolina article is newer than my post (about 40 minutes old now), it is an AP release that yahoo news had posted earlier. 208.54.40.201 (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly, you have to put away journalistic approach when doing encyclopedic entries. Anyway I prefer the term "Future Reawakening", without the "possible" part. So now I'm going to self-revert my edit and restore your content.-- Chamith  (talk)  12:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
For making me smile with your, sometimes, hilarious edit summeries!

w.carter -Talk  22:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC) 

Disambiguation link notification for December 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maroon 5, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Gleaner. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)