Rsekanayake
|
Welcome to my talk page! I will reply on your talk page unless you prefer otherwise as usually noted on your talk page. If you are an editor without an account, I will reply here.
|
Talk With ME edit
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure! edit
- Hi Rsekanayake! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 12:17, Tuesday, January 12, 2016 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Nomination of Ravana Flag for deletion edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ravana Flag 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravana Flag 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. AntanO 16:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure! edit
- Hi Rsekanayake! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 16:09, Thursday, February 11, 2016 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
September 2016 edit
Hello, I'm JimRenge. An edit that you recently made to Cognition seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! JimRenge (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Invitation from Wikipedia Asian Month 2016 edit
What? The article section has seven sources. The paragraph that you added the dubious - discuss template has two references. Did you start a discussion on talk:Tamil Eelam? That, is what is known as a WP:DRIVEBY (please read). Such actions may be considered wp:disruptive Jim1138 (talk) 10:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
"request edit" edit
Hello. I "declined" your request edit on the sandbox page. Why? Because the "request edit" template is used on article talk pages when editors have a conflict of interest. When the template is used, the particular page is put onto an index or listing of pages. Your sandbox "request edit" was one of 135 old requests. When I "declined" the request, I cleared it from the index. Thanks for understanding and for your contributions to Wikipedia. – S. Rich (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
January 2023 edit
Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been disallowed by an edit filter as they did not appear constructive. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your 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. If you believe the edit filter disallowance was a false positive, please report it here. Feel free to ask for assistance at the Teahouse whenever you like. Multiple talk pages Doug Weller talk 12:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying. Could you please clarify your point and try to express it in simpler terms? Thank you. RsEkanayake 14:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Oops. Mouse slip. Doug Weller talk 15:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- If you think of it fails Wikipedia:Neutral point of view you need to be specific. Just adding text that might be in an article isn’t appropriate. You’ve used talk pages this way a number of t. Doug Weller talk 15:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller I apologize if there was any confusion regarding the version of my Wikipedia you are referring to. Could you please specify which version it is? Are you referring to as a personal views on a subject??? My intention in highlighting them rather to provide helpful information for my fellow wiki editors to maintain the neutrality of the articles. However, if you would like me to edit the page directly, please do let me know the specific objection and I would be more than happy to do so with the help of more reliable sources. I assure you that the facts I have presented are well-supported by reliable sources.
- If you have any concerns about my contributions, I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to discuss them with you and clarify any misunderstandings. I am very willing to discuss the subject matter with you. Thank you. RsEkanayake 17:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- We need to avoid giving our personal views on a subject. Sometimes editors do that while discussing specific sources, how or whether they should be used, or other policies and guidelines relevant to the article. What is necessary is that we don't just give our opinions or add just text without an explanation of how that relates to sources, policies, guidelines, etc. Doug Weller talk 17:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- I understand that different individuals may have varying levels of knowledge on certain subjects. However, it is not appropriate to file my contributions as personal opinions or disruptive actions. I believe it is my responsibility to point out inaccuracies or biases in history articles as a researcher of history. The credibility of Wikipedia's articles should be established and maintained through accurate and unbiased information.
- When there are contradictions or biases in articles, I see it as my duty to bring attention to these matters, however, I understand the importance of avoiding edit wars and therefore, I do not intend to edit the pages directly. it is waste of time . If there are any concerns about my contributions, I would be more than willing to engage in a constructive dialogue to address them. It is important for all of us to work together to keep Wikipedia a reliable and credible source of information.(But i don't see ) I assure you that my contributions are not personal opinions but well-supported by reliable sources RsEkanayake 18:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Sources you need to add to your posts. Doug Weller talk 21:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Could you please clarify which specific point you believe to be solely my opinion that may not be reliable and causes controversy within the broader subject of history? I understand that history is a complex and interconnected field, and I would like to better understand your perspective. Additionally, I would like to point out that certain facts, such as the sun rising in the east, do not necessarily require sources to be considered true.If you can't discuss it here I'll come over to your page and we'll talk about it at length since you're more interested in it.? RsEkanayake 02:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Acroterion In reference to your remarks on this talk page, I have directed you here as it has been noted by some individuals that it may not be feasible to engage in an extensive discourse on the talk page.(but i see the most). As a similar sentiment was conveyed by the gentleman with whom I previously communicated, I respectfully request that you consider the points previously outlined above and kindly specify any specific issues you may have. While my response encompasses various aspects of the subject of history, it may challenging for me to pinpoint the specific sub-sections or sections that may be of interest to you. I respectfully request that you kindly indicate the specific area of concern, so that I may address it with greater precision. RsEkanayake 06:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Talk:Amb Temples where Acroteriion replied to you and where you should reply. Doug Weller talk 07:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- I've already explained: you're using a talkpage to offer personal commentary that isn't focused on article improvement. Your comments above contain a lot of words, but convey no meaning. I advise you to consider doing more listening and less lecturing. Acroterion (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- It is entirely incorrect to remove my remark from the talk page.' I strongly disagree'. Talk page should not be guarded. Instead The main page is the one you should guard. As I previously stated, what is the special reason for all of you to be upset over such a trivial matter? not yet answered. That reason inspires me now to learn more about whole topic. Thank you for it.
- Also i would like to submit an anther two question in addition to the one above. Can you confirm that a similar remark does not presently appear on any other Wikipedia talk page? can you? Have you ever taken efforts to remove all such remarks that seen by you, in your opinion, are similarly infringing on mine? ? If the Wikipedia talk page won't allow me, I'll refer the subject to the world's historians with my logics and facts. I don't have time to waste here. This conduct of yours has a different impact on me. anyhow Now it is very interesting to me. :-) RsEkanayake 05:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Acroterion I saw you are a wiki administrator. I'm hoping to get a responsible response to the questions I posed above. RsEkanayake 05:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- It is hard to tell what you are asking. However, I repeat: Wikipedia is not a free webhost for your personal opinions, and using talkpages as forums for that purpose is disruptive. Editors are asked to remove that when it happens when they see it and to caution the editors who do it. Please do not abuse the editing privilege for your personal versions of logic and facts. Acroterion (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- please Admin ! Repeatedly hearing the same thing I've heard a thousand times is irritating. This approach towards newcomers is widely discussed in Wikipedia. You are unwilling to discuss any of my logics I perceive an ominous tone underneath these remarks where i do not agree .
- so
- you are sure that similar remark NOT appear on other Wikipedia talk pages.
- you have taken EVERY efforts to remove all such remarks that seen by you.
- As policy says ,Both the main page and the talk page be guarded with parallel significance.
- Why do you guys get so worked up over something so insignificant that I haven't seen on other Wikipedia pages? This is the most essential question now I have at this time.
- Questions are left unanswered. I understand that avoiding questions and arguments is not appropriate for an administrator. If you too have the same opinion as everyone else as an administrator, Can you instruct me, as a newcomer, on how to submit this issue to a higher authority? Tank you. RsEkanayake 11:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- If you have a complaint about my conduct, you are welcome to being it up at WP:ANI. Keep in mind that your own conduct will be examined.
- I can't really tell what you are asking for. I get the impression that you feel that you should be allowed to write whatever you want to without following the same expectations that everybody else on Wikipedia must follow conncerning sourcing and referencing. I am repeating myself because you keep asking the same questions, expecting somehow that the answer must change because you've asked it again.
- You are not entitled to make demands of other editors in the fashion on display above, or at least you are not entitled to responses ito your specification. You do not make the rules, the community does. If you are unable to accept that, a discussion at ANI may not go well for you.
- And I have a question for you: this edit [1] appeared earlier today, from a new editor promoting their personal blog. I reverted it, because Wikipedia doesn't accept blogs as sources, still less promotion of someone's blog, and it was still on my watchlist from last time. Are you aware of that edit? Acroterion (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- in your last paragraph You attempt to imply that an edit on the page that led to the argument is pertinent to this discussion, but what you are pointing out is irrelevant. I presented a valid argument on the talk page, not on the page itself. editors to improve articles related to their areas of expertise, ensuring that the articles are neutral and unbiased. As a newcomer, I believe it is not appropriate group behavior to remove it without discussion. i feel it is to prevent others from making edits. Immediate deletion makes it difficult for other editors in the subject to contribute constructively to the discussion.
- The presence of such conduct on Wikipedia discourages experts in subject matter from visiting it. I would like to introduce myself as a historian who investigates history with adequate history knowledge and subject knowledge. As a newcomer to Wikipedia with limited knowledge of its policies and jargon terminology, I believe it is preferable to involve a mediator to resolve our disagreements.
- My opinion is that it is inappropriate for you to lead in an intimidating manner as an administrator. This behavior prevents newcomers trying editing or even from visiting Wikipedia. As far as I am aware, this is not Wikipedia policy. We will therefor refer the matter to a mediator. As time permits, I will review the wiki policy , I do not like that you are all working together in an organized way on this minor issue specially on talk page. Let's solve the so-called policy issue by referring to an intermediary who is uninterested in this article due to the suspicion that i still not clear about this small publication. thank you. have a nice day.
- RsEkanayake 13:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- It is hard to tell what you are asking. However, I repeat: Wikipedia is not a free webhost for your personal opinions, and using talkpages as forums for that purpose is disruptive. Editors are asked to remove that when it happens when they see it and to caution the editors who do it. Please do not abuse the editing privilege for your personal versions of logic and facts. Acroterion (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Acroterion In reference to your remarks on this talk page, I have directed you here as it has been noted by some individuals that it may not be feasible to engage in an extensive discourse on the talk page.(but i see the most). As a similar sentiment was conveyed by the gentleman with whom I previously communicated, I respectfully request that you consider the points previously outlined above and kindly specify any specific issues you may have. While my response encompasses various aspects of the subject of history, it may challenging for me to pinpoint the specific sub-sections or sections that may be of interest to you. I respectfully request that you kindly indicate the specific area of concern, so that I may address it with greater precision. RsEkanayake 06:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Could you please clarify which specific point you believe to be solely my opinion that may not be reliable and causes controversy within the broader subject of history? I understand that history is a complex and interconnected field, and I would like to better understand your perspective. Additionally, I would like to point out that certain facts, such as the sun rising in the east, do not necessarily require sources to be considered true.If you can't discuss it here I'll come over to your page and we'll talk about it at length since you're more interested in it.? RsEkanayake 02:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Sources you need to add to your posts. Doug Weller talk 21:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- We need to avoid giving our personal views on a subject. Sometimes editors do that while discussing specific sources, how or whether they should be used, or other policies and guidelines relevant to the article. What is necessary is that we don't just give our opinions or add just text without an explanation of how that relates to sources, policies, guidelines, etc. Doug Weller talk 17:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)