User talk:Xe2oner

Only warning
If you want to discuss a name change on Panadura Royal College, do it on the article's talk page. And don't remove sourced information from the article without an adequate explanation. Do it again, and you'll be blocked, since this article is plagued by edit warring without discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Trust me, I'm sometimes wise. Which would you prefer:


 * 1) You get blocked for edit warring.
 * 2) You bring balance to the articles by discussing things at the talk page.

You see, because of all the battling going on, the last stable version carries a bit of weight, whether good or bad. That means Cossade can likely revert you, but not the other way around. The result may be a version that's not right. Who knows? The only way is to sort it out at the talk page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Look, as Anna says, the correct place is to discuss the issue on the article talk page. I have suspected for a long time that Cossde is also incorrect/biased about the naming. But because you refuse to actually discuss the issue, Cossde automatically wins. Wikipedia requires collaboration, discussion, and must be based on reliable sources. You can stop this stupid endless cycle of edit warring, having the articles end up semi-protected, getting blocked (I'm implying here that you are very likely an editor who has edited Wikipedia either as an IP or under different user names)...and, in the end, it's always Cossde's version that stays on the article. If you want to actually successfully change, for heaven's sake, please discuss the matter on the article's talk page and bring references to support your position. If you don't, I have no choice but to find an uninvolved admin to block you. Seriously, I'm begging here. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * For example, what you did at Royal College, Colombo was much better, because you provided reliable sources. And I've already told Cossde he can't keep it out because it makes it "ambiguous" like he claimed. But the next step really needs to be discussion on the article talk pages. Even if you are certain you are right, Wikipedia doesn't allow [{WP:EW|edit warring]]. If you really are right, there are processes we can use (called dispute resolution to get a consensus to show that. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)





(Xe2oner (talk) 04:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC))

ANI-notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is WP:ANI.
 * I really tried. I really think that you could help make WP better. But because you refuse to discuss the matter, and just insist upon edit warring, I have no choice but to report you and request you be blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of the articles
Please, please, please, do the following:


 * Be polite and seek to get to the bottom of the matters.
 * Use the talk pages and don't keep reverting each other.

Both of you on opposite sides, citing good sources, can really help get to the bottom of this, and improve the articles. But, we don't want to see either of you blocked. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. 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 below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 05:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Royal College, Colombo
I have reverted your spiel at Talk:Royal College, Colombo, Please read WP:TPG and concentrate on the matter in hand rather than trying to conflate disputes from elsewhere and issue borderline personal attacks. I had replied earlier to your previous spiel with my suggestion of how to deal with the issue and, honestly, I stand by it. Please try to keep the personalities out of it and to keep on topic. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, if you do not start talking about all these edits you are making to the controversial set of school articles then you are likely to find yourself blocked again. Please stop editing the articles and stick with the talk pages for now. Gain consensus for what you propose, and in making your proposals try not to personalise your arguments nor wander off on trivial byways. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Panadura Royal College
Please don't remove the referenced material from the Annual Big Match section. And please think before you add categories - Category:Big Matches is only for articles about big matches. Panadura Royal College isn't an article about a big matche, its about a school.-- obi2canibe talk contr 20:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)