User talk:Eng.M.Bandara

Sri Lankan presidential election, 2015
You have reverted 3 times now. Any further reverts will result in a block per WP:3RR. If you add the banner back in, add it correctly. You are totally doing it wrong. Hint: It only take one line and less than 20 characters. If you don't know what you are doing, then ask questions. Bgwhite (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WTF. What did I say about reverting?  As I said in my summary. NO MORE REVERTS.  Add in the tag correctly.  Bgwhite (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no need to get angry. If you have something to say it without the profanity -- Eng. M.Bandara -Talk  08:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I said no profanity. This is your last and final warning.  Any more reverts, you shall be blocked.  You just cannot revert somebody else's contributions and demand they talk when you didn't talk in the first place.  You continuing to do blank reverts for pieces you do not like HAS TO STOP!!!   Last and final warning.  You revert, you will get blocked.  Bgwhite (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, Bg, but I believe that "what the f***" is profanity. May I also point out that you seem to be involved in the edit war yourself? (You have made a total of five reverts today.) It may be best to disengage from this, as using your block button in this situation could easily be seen as violating WP:INVOLVED. -- Biblio worm  23:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * WTF is not profanity. If I said fuck, then that would be profanity.  Same goes for snafu and fubar/foobar.  Eng.M.Bandara was reverting and not talking.  They  reverted because I removed an improperly added tag.  That is not a reason to revert.  They again reverted a HUGE addition because some of their stuff was removed.  This is again not a reason to revert.  Eng.M.Bandara said the other person should should talk if they removed Eng.M.Bandara's edit, but Eng.M.Bandara has no such problems reverting and not talking.  Once again, Eng.M.Bandara has reverted without talking.  They are now blocked 48 hours.  Until  Eng.M.Bandara learns that reverting everybody's edit is not acceptable, they will continue to be blocked.  I have no stake in the article and could care less.  I do care about reliable references being used and using the revert button instead of talking.


 * Note, this is not there only problem. They created E04 expressway (Sri Lanka) with made up and contradictory information.  No references were given.   The article is up for AfD.  I said keep, but removed most of the info from the article.  I asked another editor that deals with Sri Lanka to take a look and they have been adding information back in with references.   Bgwhite (talk) 08:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If you see the talk page on the article, and other users talk page, I have made plenty of attempts to discuss well prior to my reverts. Eng. M.Bandara  -Talk  08:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Two sentences and an accusation to Obi2canibe's message is not attempts. You didn't talk before your reverted, only when Obi2canibe talked.  People do not do Wikipedia full-time and live in other time zones.  You cannot quickly revert a few hours after you make a two sentence reply.  Bgwhite (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are firstly involved in the dispute regardless of your position on the matter, and secondly the fact that you do not care about the issues shows you have no understanding of the dispute, despite involving yourself in it. Allowing Obi2caibe to remove well sourced and referenced material, in article in which weight is already significantly in favor of one side is not at all acceptable. Also his "HUGE" contribution as you described further tilted balance of the article towards a particular view. -- Eng. M.Bandara  -Talk  08:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to start looking at your actions and not accusing others. Also his "HUGE" contribution as you described further tilted balance of the article towards a particular view.... that is the first time you have brought it up.  "YOU reverted without talking.  YOU only seem it is fair to remove other people's work without talking, but they can't yours. Obi2caibe didn't revert... YOU did.  You had two choices, add back in your material or talk.  Reverting was not an option.  Wikipedia is a collaboration and you fail to understand that.  You fail to understand you just cannot revert.  Bgwhite (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of E04 expressway (Sri Lanka) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article E04 expressway (Sri Lanka) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/E04 expressway (Sri Lanka) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Eng.M.Bandara. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Vanjagenije (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for Disruptive editing, as you did at Sri Lankan presidential election, 2015. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bgwhite (talk) 07:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

 * Is your last statement intended to concede or deny that you have used other accounts?-- Anthony Bradbury "talk" 22:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No it's pretty much intended to reaffirm that I will abide by the rules without admission or prejudice. -- Eng. M.Bandara -Talk  05:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello PhilKnight-- Eng. M.Bandara -Talk  08:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't seem to be getting anywhere here, so I'm revoking talk page access. PhilKnight (talk) 08:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

20 June 2015
PhilKnight (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Karunasena Hettiarachchi


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Karunasena Hettiarachchi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Savonneux (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Karunasena Hettiarachchi


The article Karunasena Hettiarachchi has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no reliable references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. noq (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Karunasena Hettiarachchi.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Karunasena Hettiarachchi.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted content borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dan arndt (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Karunasena Hettiarachchi


The article Karunasena Hettiarachchi has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Fails to establish notability, in accordance with WP:ANYBIO. The only fact is that he is Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, which is insufficient to establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dan arndt (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sri Lanka
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sri Lanka you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eng.M.Bandara -- Eng.M.Bandara (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Karunasena Hettiarachchi for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Karunasena Hettiarachchi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Karunasena Hettiarachchi until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * So much for a snowballs chance - next time be sure of yourself before you make comments like that. Dan arndt (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Sri Lanka/GA1
Eng.M.Bandara, per the GA instructions, a nominator may not also review their own nomination. I have therefore nominated the review page you created for deletion; once it is gone, an eligible reviewer will be able to select the article for review. It may take a while for a new reviewer to be found; GAN currently has a large backlog. Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sri Lanka
The article Sri Lanka you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Sri Lanka for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eng.M.Bandara -- Eng.M.Bandara (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

SAITM Protest
The article you've created doesn't really convene much information about the topic. It needs to provide some history, as well as the reasons for the protests, who are the parties involved etc. Dan arndt (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Elisa Jordana (3rd nomination)
Do you think that User:FSOJM791 and User:Jhof84 are sockpuppets of User:LeafK1, as based on their history of edits it would appear to be too coincidental otherwise.Dan arndt (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @Dan arndt 100% either sockpuppets or meatpuppets. I'm sure the closing admin would notice it. -- Eng. M.Bandara -Talk  08:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I noticed that there is already an investigation underway at Sockpuppet investigations/LeafK1, which you might want to comment on. Dan arndt (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (2017 SAITM Protest) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating 2017 SAITM Protest, Eng.M.Bandara!

Wikipedia editor Abishe just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"I have just reviewed your article and I thank you for creating this article by addressing issues relating to SAITM. But the thing is, the article you have created needs more than reliable information and the articleneeds to be expanded."

To reply, leave a comment on Abishe's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Abishe (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

May 2019
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to University of North Carolina at Charlotte shooting, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Specifically, if you want assistance in how the community interprets Wikipedia policy, then I suggest reading the policies themselves. Thank you. —— SerialNumber  54129  11:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think your speedy closure of my nomination was uncalled for. We already have a list for school shootings in the United States, I don't think an independent article for each and everyone is justified. Others have expressed a similar view elsewhere on Wikipedia, and you didn't give them an opportunity to be their arguments forward, the discussion should have been allowed to run its course. -- Eng. M.Bandara -Talk  22:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There’s no point in letting a deletion debate “run its course” if it snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding. And if you look at List of school shootings in the United States you will see that by no means is there an article on each and every one. It is decided on a case-by-case basis according to the genersl notability guideline, which this article clearly passes. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Talk:STEM School Highlands Ranch, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * How does my Rfc constitute disruptive editing? I will take this to the ANI, you're harassing me. Take your warning back and reinstate my RfC immediately -- Eng. M.Bandara -Talk  00:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ahem, no I'm warning you. Go ahead and take it to ANI. But don't harass me while doing so please! Drmies (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * @Eng.M.Bandara: If you do this again, I will block you for disruption. You don't get to control the discussion you opened. By the way, "homeslice" isn't an insult, but I redacted it anyway, since it could be misconstrued.   Acroterion   (talk)  

Mr. (I presume) Bandara: I would like to offer my sincere thanks for your dropping of the stick with regard to this matter. I think you do reach the right conclusions, though I think that, like me, your knee jerk responses can be sub-optimal. I understand the instinct to counter-punch online, but I would respectfully suggest that taking a few minutes before publishing a submission can do wonders. Obviously, this is just unsolicited advice, but I really do wish you the best. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice
 Acroterion   (talk)   02:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You appear to be moving toward another problem with your approach to other editors at Talk:STEM School Highlands Ranch shooting. Please stop treating every discussion at that talkpage as a battle, and please remember that WP:BLP is policy. Gender identity is one topic that must be handled carefully, especially when the subject isn't a public figure and whose personal circumstances are ambiguous and poorly researched.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Site ban request
[] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * under what grounds? -- Eng. M.Bandara -Talk  04:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making highly provocational statements, after already making sexist comments very recently. I think you have exhausted the community's patience. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. El_C 04:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

That is plainly false. I am an uninvolved admin that just happened on that ANI report. El_C 04:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought you were involved at the previous ANI. However, I still think that the current ANI should be allowed to continue for further consensus. In regards to the indefinite block, I have made substantial contributions to Wikipedia, I personally do think this block is unjustified when I was expressing my opinion. I didn't vandalise or disruptively edit any articles. Let me put it another way, how would like me to 'adjust' my behaviour to contribute to Wikipedia positively. -- Eng. M.Bandara -Talk  05:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The 18th century is ====> thataway. Until you find the 21st century on your moral compass I'd suggest it logical to assume you won't be welcomed back. In most cases, indefinite does not mean infinite. This may be an exception. or whatever admin rejects the unblock request, please revoke TPS. WP:UTRS can deal with this troglodyte. Seeing him (?, as no self respecting man could possibly think that way) spew excuses makes me want to puke. John from Idegon (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't see room for adjustment at this time. El_C 05:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Unjustified block for a long term contributor to Wikipedia. Also, an indefinite block is only justified for cases of persistent long term abuse. -- Eng. M.Bandara -Talk  05:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please limit your usage of this talk page to unblock requests only. El_C 05:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

To the best of my recollection, I have never interacted with the user before. El_C 05:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC) - Eng. M.Bandara, your access to editing this talk page has been revoked. El_C 05:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 05:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I commented just as the ANI was being closed, and I left what I'd written directly below. To reiterate what I said there, I support a block because the attitudes that you've expressed are regressive and incompatible with the norms of our community. We welcome a variety of different viewpoints on Wikipedia, but one thing we cannot and will not tolerate is casual sexism or misogyny. Wikipedia already has a less-than-hospitable editing environment for women; we don't need to allow the situation to become even more problematic. If what you say is really what you believe, then I strongly advise that you take the time to examine what the underlying causes of your prejudices towards women may be. Come back to us only after you've done so. Kurtis (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * If it is not clear, unless you are willing to accept that rape is rape and quit with the victim-bashing, you are not welcome to edit Wikipedia. You are not welcome to any community with such a detrimental mindset. You are replaceable. But I do understand, the mindset might be a product of the environment we are used to. I have added a few links that you might read to inform yourself.
 * This article elucidates why people blame victims
 * This article explains why victims don't come forward soon, if ever
 * Hope you will dedicate yourself to learning better. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Link to relevant ANI thread
Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010 Dloh Cier ekim</b> 17:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)