| Revision as of 09:10, 2 December 2007 editSebastianHelm (talk | contribs)Administrators21,373 edits Thank you for your good suggestion!← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:29, 19 December 2007 edit undoSebastianHelm (talk | contribs)Administrators21,373 edits December 2007Next edit → | ||
| Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
| </div><!-- Template:smile --> | </div><!-- Template:smile --> | ||
| Thank you for your good suggestion! Unfortunately, I don't know how to make such a script - but I'll just remove the distinction altogether. It has caused some confusion, and it may not be so necessary anymore. — ] 09:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC) | Thank you for your good suggestion! Unfortunately, I don't know how to make such a script - but I'll just remove the distinction altogether. It has caused some confusion, and it may not be so necessary anymore. — ] 09:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| === December 2007 === | |||
| {{{icon|] }}}Please stop assuming ]{{{{{subst|}}}#if:List of terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE| such as ]}}. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as ] and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a ] from editing. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|}} <!-- Template:uw-own3 --> | |||
| Your attempts to force Misplaced Pages to keep two separate articles constitute disruption of the consensus building process. After over a month of discussion with over 7000 words on ], a majority of editors was clearly for the merge. (See ].) Moreover, the last remaining argument against the merge had been refuted for a week before we decided as a community to resolve the issue and do the merge. | |||
| This refers to the following actions: | |||
| * The following reversions: . | |||
| * Your attempt to game the system by starting a duplicate poll, when we already had one which whose outcome you didn’t like (on ]). | |||
| For ], — ] 05:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:29, 19 December 2007
Hello, and Welcome to my talk page!
Please post new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new section, which will automatically be placed at the bottom.
Please remember to
i. Always sign your name and time using ~~~~
ii. Use colons (:) to indent per Misplaced Pages policy
I will always respond to your messages on your talk page so you don't need to watch this page.
If you wish to contact me in private, click here to send me an email. If you do so, I will always reply to you via email and not on your talkpage, unless you request otherwise.
Thanks, and happy editing :) snowolfD4
My current time is 15:11 (GMT-4)
 Archives |
You deserve this
|
The Special Barnstar | |
| Thanks for improving the article Kattankudi mosque massacre, your contributions to the article is highly appreciated. NëŧΜǒńğer 05:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC) |
Problem
Buddy, we were able to find some sources from nice and well reputed news papers. But seems pro LTTEers do not like them much. Can we find some coverage from Alaikal, Eelam news, Eelanatham, Eelanaatham, Eelamurasu, Eelam pakkam, Intham, Mulakkam, Maalai malar, Maalai Sudar, Namathu naadu, Oru paper, Puthinam, Pathivu, Sudaroli, TamilCanadian, Thinakkural, TamilEelamNews, Thatstamil, TamilGuardian, Tamil Nesan, TamilNet, Tamil news dk, WorldSocialist, Uthayan, Ulaksanthai, Ulakath tamilar? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ 07:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User:Snowolfd4/Userboxes/Peace in Lanka
User:Snowolfd4/Userboxes/Peace in Lanka, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Snowolfd4/Userboxes/Peace in Lanka and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Please do not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Wiki Raja 18:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Bad faith
I see that beyond insulting my intelligence on the talk page for the Sri Lanka conflict template, you've also reverted my correction of improper formatting of a vote using the malicious accusation of vandalism. Administratively, polls must never have threaded discussion; adding that is a common enough error, but you really ought to learn from your mistakes rather than make bad faith accusations.
Please grow up and start assuming good faith by other editors, especially those of us with vastly more editing experience than you have. LotLE×talk 18:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:C.W.W. Kannangara.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:C.W.W. Kannangara.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 20:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Wiki Raja
Yeah, I just posted to his talk page, having spent some time looking at logs - he's obviously claimed on at least one occasion that a legitimate warning was offensive / vandalism" - I think I've pre-empted his games with respect to my comment though. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 15:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, it was probably inappropriate of you to use a level 2 warning when he refactored comments in the deletion discussion, as there is no evidence that I can see in his talk history of a recent level 1 warning prior to the warning that you posted. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 16:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
DYK
|
On 12 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article C.W.W. Kannangara, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
You recent removal of my posts
Hi,
May I kindly ask why you are removing my posts from these talk pages? Wiki Raja 22:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Block of User:Lahiru
I'll put this as simply as I can. You have blocked Lahiru k and Netmonger based on the fact that they edited with the same IP, 222.165.157.129, a Sri Lanka Telecom IP. In the same case it is stated that Lahiru edited with the 203.115.31.180, a Gateway IP. I guess I can assume good faith and put the block down to your your ignorance on what portable IPs are. Look at whois and you'll see the status of the IP listed as "ALLOCATED PORTABLE", meaning it's assigned randomly to SLT users. That is in no way proof that they are the same user, so I suggest you unblock both users now, or put forward further evidence as to why you think they are socks, before this goes any further. --snowolfD4 01:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- "ALLOCATED PORTABLE" means that one IP can be used by different users in different times to connect to the internet and not to edit Misplaced Pages. Lahiru is known for using socks so it is not surprising. Mystic used it and Mystic is Lahiru. Netmonger used it. Who else would use it? -- FayssalF - 01:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Your first sentence makes no sense to me at all. ALLOCATED PORTABLE means the IP is assigned to different customers of the ISP at different times. The two edits you from the IP to attempt to prove your point are from November 22, 2006 and July 17, 2007. That is unquestionably enough time for the ISP to have assigned the same IP to someone else. If one person gets the IP and edits Misplaced Pages in November and the other person gets it and edits Misplaced Pages in July the next year, does that make them sockpuppets?
- Who else will use it? Do you even understand what you are saying? How about the 100,000+ SLT internet subscribers? --snowolfD4 01:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Everything i said makes sense. There are only a few accounts editing your topics who can be among the 100,000+ SLT internet subscribers. One of them is 203.115.31.180. Try WHOIS for this IP if you want. -- FayssalF - 01:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oops! I didn't imagine they could be this dumb. Did I make any Sri Lankan Wikipedian into a Sock puppet today? My bad :D
--124.43.51.119 (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Sri Lanka issues
Please see: Discussion move and Specific proposal Your participation and acceptance would be appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi there; just a friendly reminder that we really need your input on the proposal being discussed here. Without it, we can't craft a solution which is acceptable to everyone, and without indicating your willingness to go along with a solution, the whole process could fail. Thanks in advance, --Haemo 19:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Let me try my best to be politically correct here. The pro-LTTE faction of the editors involved in the Sri Lanka and LTTE related articles have been moving the discussion around to various new locations. They usually start with a page/project with a couple of pro-LTTE, Tamil speaking editors and some more join in later on. Then the pro-Sri Lanka, Sinhala speaking editors start to crawl in. After a while, the former slips off and create another page/project. Maybe it's just me, but it looks rather funny to me. --124.43.51.119 (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Bang on :) Always keeps happening. Look at the List of terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE article for instance. AFD, requested move, talk page, now SLR page. I guess it'll just keep happening.
- Anyway, how would you like to help improve Misplaced Pages? Maybe join up, create an account and start editing? That would be great ;) --snowolfD4 03:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Let me try my best to be politically correct here. The pro-LTTE faction of the editors involved in the Sri Lanka and LTTE related articles have been moving the discussion around to various new locations. They usually start with a page/project with a couple of pro-LTTE, Tamil speaking editors and some more join in later on. Then the pro-Sri Lanka, Sinhala speaking editors start to crawl in. After a while, the former slips off and create another page/project. Maybe it's just me, but it looks rather funny to me. --124.43.51.119 (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protecting LTTE article
I agree with the LTTE article been semi-protected, given the constant IP vandalism going on. But could you clarify what you meant by "pending resolution of disputes" ? --snowolfD4 00:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- That means that a temporary full protection is on the way. You've already been [[User_talk:Snowolfd4#Sri_Lanka_is
sues|notified]] by admin Rlevse. -- FayssalF - 00:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- I saw Rlevse and will reply to it. I was just wondering if their was some dispute that required semi-protection that I didn't know about. --snowolfD4 01:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- That was a normal semi-protection. I'd have semi-protected it eventhough there were no dispute or resolution. ETA, Hamas, etc... all work the same way according to WP:NPOV#A simple formulation. I know it is not my job to discuss content disputes but it was just my 2¢ and my call for a NPOV respect. Anyway, the IP was clearly trying to disrupt or gain a position while we are trying to set up rules for harmonious editing. -- FayssalF - 11:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- I completely agree with semi-protecting it. I was just curious about the edit summery. --snowolfD4 14:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- The edit summary means that all Sri Lanka/LTTE articles will be protected. It was a message for everyone concerned. The semi-protection itself has little to do w/ the edit summary as it was plain vandalism. I hope this helps. -- FayssalF - 14:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- I completely agree with semi-protecting it. I was just curious about the edit summery. --snowolfD4 14:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- That was a normal semi-protection. I'd have semi-protected it eventhough there were no dispute or resolution. ETA, Hamas, etc... all work the same way according to WP:NPOV#A simple formulation. I know it is not my job to discuss content disputes but it was just my 2¢ and my call for a NPOV respect. Anyway, the IP was clearly trying to disrupt or gain a position while we are trying to set up rules for harmonious editing. -- FayssalF - 11:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- I saw Rlevse and will reply to it. I was just wondering if their was some dispute that required semi-protection that I didn't know about. --snowolfD4 01:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Friendly note
Use of automated tools to revert good-faith edits, as you did here, is frowned upon. If you disagree with an edit, please revert manually and try to come to a compromise on the article's talk page. Other administrators have indicated a willingness to block you from using anti-vandal tools should you do this again, so please avoid doing so. Ral315 » 03:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I highly recommend you read and heed this thread on the 2006 massacre-- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#2006_Mannar_massacre. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- When it comes to using tools like that, vandalism must be blatant (replacing a page with "Hi", adding "X is a jerk", etc.) Otherwise, manual rollback is preferred, because it allows you to explain why you think the edit is inappropriate. Ral315 » 04:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Re your comment on my talk page: That's a valid edit edit, neutral and sourced. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your good suggestion!
— Sebastian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thank you for your good suggestion! Unfortunately, I don't know how to make such a script - but I'll just remove the distinction altogether. It has caused some confusion, and it may not be so necessary anymore. — Sebastian 09:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
December 2007
Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as List of terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing.
Your attempts to force Misplaced Pages to keep two separate articles constitute disruption of the consensus building process. After over a month of discussion with over 7000 words on WT:SLR, a majority of editors was clearly for the merge. (See WT:SLR#Settle this.) Moreover, the last remaining argument against the merge had been refuted for a week before we decided as a community to resolve the issue and do the merge.
This refers to the following actions:
- The following reversions: .
- Your attempt to game the system by starting a duplicate poll, when we already had one which whose outcome you didn’t like (on Talk:List of terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE# Straw poll).
For Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, — Sebastian 05:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)