User talk:ChamithN/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Thanks for the note

I agree with you there, figured I'd take a stab at a different aesthetic form of citation.
~A
23:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Amintly: You're welcome, I appreciate you for understanding my point,.By looking at your edits I can say that you are here to help Wikipedia. That's why I marked your edits good faiths. Cheers and happy editing--Chamith (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Reverts on Circumference

Thank you for fixing my mistake my apologies.--Ttylxox_ttylxox

@Ttylxox ttylxox: Hey,it's OK, no need to apologies. After all we all do make mistakes. I know how it feels like to be a new editor because I've experienced those difficulties too .Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any problems. I'd be glad to help. Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 05:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Sample

Hello sir,I have recently made a sample of an article in My Sandox Page.Will it be ok if I make this article and this type of article?Please,reply soon.Jojolpa (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


Hello, Jojolpa firstly,don't call me sir . I don't think I deserve such a honorific name,Anyway-about your sandbox,as far as I can see what you want to create is a disambiguation page.I don't think there is anything wrong with your edits.I think your page meets WP:DISAMBIG standards. Problem is there are only 2 links ,It's OK, you can add more links later as you find them ,Wait there is one more thing.You should write a small description next to those words, a little one is more than enough.Like this,
Examples are taken from this page
Hope this helps!, Happy editing --Chamith (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Btooom!

Hi! I was just curious as to what wasn't constructive about my edit to one of the characters from "Btooom!" The character was missing a bit of information which I found odd because the character, Yoshiaki Imagawa, was the first player/person that the main character met on the island, according to both the manga and the anime. I merely added information about their first encounter, some details and how he died. I don't see how this wasn't constructive or why it needed to be completely removed. If there was an issue with grammar or an error in the information, an edit would have sufficed. BlackRequiem (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello BlackRequiem,I know you did those edits in good faith. However it may have not been your intention but you also removed a maintenance tag which is a vital part of Wikipedia,And also the data you added was unsourced-which means you didn't provided any trustworthy sources to prove your information.If you can add those details again with a source (don't remove maintenance tag though) you're welcome to do so. Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Rìoghail is spelled wrong on the Gaelic College page.

Rìoghail is spelled incorrectly. It requires an accent, but technically you can't say the name includes an accent because the sources all have the misspelled name in Gaelic. Even the release from the BOG expressing explicitly that "Rioghail" would be in the name. Do with it what you will!

Here's a Gaelic dictionary source for you:

http://faclair.com/ViewEntry.aspx?ID=B613231D08494930CEEFD6D590226EB5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaidhlig1 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gaidhlig1:; Done-Fixed

Paonia edits

Hello ChamithN,

I am writing you to discuss a recent change I made to the Paonia, Co Wikipedia page in the Festivities section. I added a section about the Paonia Film Festival that you removed. I was curious why? Was the language to Flowery. I linked to the film festival page and the theatre where the festival is held. I think this is an important part of Paonia and should be added.

Muddywater32 (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Muddywater32: Hello,Muddywater I reverted your edits because,
  • You added something like "beautiful downtown" - Wikipedia isn't a place where you can express you own,feelings,opinions
  • You removed some content from the page without providing a good explanation explanation--Chamith (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible Dead Link on New York City Article

Hi, Chamith. The link that I provided was from American Factfinder on the United States Census Bureau web site. It is current information and should not be a dead link. Please let me know how I can fix this problem if it is still occurring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calendar2014 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I just re-entered the data with the same link. I checked it again. It was not dead. It is interesting that someone provided a link to the very same source in the same article in the same paragraph and you did not delete that one. Care to explain yourself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calendar2014 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Calendar2014: Hey Calendar2014 In the source you have provided numbers says something else.When I calculated the total I got 1,125,756 Spanish American+other two ancestors ,but you wrote on Wikipedia article saying that it's 30,838.I use tools to verify the relation between the source and input,as I couldn't find the data you entered to New York article on that reference I removed it.You have to understand that problems is not in the source,and I also know that you are trying improve Wikipedia that's why I marked your edits as good faith. Please don't take my edits as personal attacks.Trust me they are not.Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
P.S- About the dead link thing- It was a dead link when I checked it on that day,I swear :P, I even tried using proxies , But suddenly after a day or two it worked again ( I guess the site was down for a period of time), So I came back to remove {{deadlink}} tag but there was nothing I could do because when I checked I saw that another editor has reverted your edits.--Chamith (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Chamith, thank you for explaining your reasoning in a polite and courteous manner. It is much appreciated. I think that the 1,125,756 number is coming from the U.S. total, not New York City, which is the link that I provided. There seems to be an issue with the link re-directing back to the U.S. totals rather than the specific page on the United States Census Bureau web site. I have noticed that it has done that for other links that I have provided to the United States Census Bureau on Wikipedia and I am not sure why it does that. In any case, I see that it is properly cited now and it will just have to be up to the individual to find the specific information for whatever location after clicking on the link. I don't think that there is any other solution, but much thanks to you if you were the one who properly cited it. I wasn't sure if a link was all that was necessary, as I have seen it done that way on Wikipedia before. But it looks much better now. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calendar2014 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Edits to History of Protestantism

Ok I understand why would you do that becuse you think that i critisize your work no it just a part of history when a group of liders that really beleived in having the truth told and I understand why would you think its not constructive becuse the fact is that all religions are not working for the same sheperd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefimorm (talk • contribs) 02:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nefimorm: Hey,Nefimomr,I don't know what you are talking about,I don't own anything, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which made up lots on people's contribution.I'm just doing maintenance tasks,copy-editing and protecting it's policies from vandals.I removed your edit because you adde a image next to a category which makes no sense, I have no intention to attack you using my edits, Please read info in the box at the top of the page--Chamith (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Brigitte Gabriel article

I editted this article to bring it back into neutrality. My edit was not a tremendous addition, but the tone and focus of what was there previously was so obviously biased that it bordered on the absurd. Furthermore, the inaccuracies and the omissions colored the rendition of what was said to a point that demanded revision. Having examined the Heritage Foundation exchange several times over several different days, I was quite familiar with it's contents as well as the tone and focus of it. The original write-up was skewed to make Gabriel look extreme, when in fact, she was quite balanced.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ((Toddserveto talk • contribs))

@Toddserveto: Hey,yeah I know you did those edits hoping to improve that article.But the way you did it was wrong,you added lots of content without reference,not even one.As you can see that biographical article relies on references to primary sources.This can be challenging to some users,Because there are no secondary sources to prove it's credibility.I'm gonna revert your edit again as it was uncited,but you are welcome to add those information with relevant sources.if you have any more problems feel free to post them here, I'd be glad to help. Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 05:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
P.S;I noted that you also removed some references without providing a good explanation. Please don't remove content without providing an edit summary--Chamith (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I was in the process of adding a reference when you re-reverted my correction. What is going on here...are you policing this particular article? It's curious to me that you're preventing me from correcting blatantly skewed use of loaded language--you didn't insist on references for that. Furthermore, I'm NOT doing this wrong, and no, I'm not adding too much information. I'm only modifying one paragraph---why are you "going to the mat" over this? I couldn't even get my edit referenced before you re-reverted it, and I'm wondering what your interest is in this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddserveto (talk • contribs) 03:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Toddserveto:,Please stay calm, I'm not attacking you or whatsoever. And I'm not policing only this page,I've been doing that a lot, Look at other messages on my talk page, Even you only added only like three sentences, look at what it says "She then pointed out that there are over 1.2 billion Muslims, of which between 15-25% are "radicalized" according to all major world intelligence sources. She noted that this means the number of radicalized Muslims is as large as the population of the U.S., and when on to elaborate why that should be a concern."

WHAT? There was nothing unreliable about my YouTube reference in the least! It was a VIDEO RECORDING of the SPEECH ITSELF---not some editorial or some sham, edited opinion piece. Precisely what was unreliable about it, and what are you judging this lack of reliability by? It was a CNN report! This is starting to look like agendized vandalism on your part. You are determined to keep the bias in this article intact while keeping an actually link to the speech itself out, and that is NOT acceptable.

You are reverting back to and leaving intact a biased comment such as "In the original context of the inquirer trying to find a smart way of disarming ideologists," yet trying to prevent me from putting in unbiased, neutral language to set the record straight and allowing people to actually have access to the speech itself. You had my edit "re-reverted" and my link to the speech removed so fast I didn't even have time to inspect my edit and my source! Mrs. Gabriel was giving an unplanned answer at an event--when she gave the statistic about 15-25% being radicalized, she referred to world intelligence sources, and it turns out that she was right---the Pew Research Council reports that the number is as high as 26%. But she's not writing a Wikipedia artcile, and it's acceptable to make what she said available if we're going to try to talk sensibly about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddserveto (talk • contribs) 03:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Toddserveto: Please calm down, I'm reverting your edits according Wikipedia policies, That doesn't involve any personal grudge against you or anything, In fact Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which anyone can edit, But that doesn't mean everything should be on Wikipedia, It's not a Telephone directory or a Journal, Adding sayings by people (that person's credibility also matters) without a good source (your youtube link isn't a good source,we only accept youtube links from official channels) is strongly discouraged. I'm not going to make any further comments about this . Instead I suggest you to post this problem of yours on Wikipedia Teahouse where you can get advice from other skilled editors. Cheers!!--Chamith (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore you edits are written like stories, Which is also not acceptable.I can help with copy-editing if you work according to Wikipedia policies--Chamith (talk) 04:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

About the change at Data Loss Prevention Software article

Hello!

I received a message that you reverted a change I made to the Data Loss Prevention Software article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_loss_prevention_software). Firstly I would like to make clear that I am not an experienced editor of wikipedia articles and I do not have an account on wikipedia. However, I disagree with your comment that my change was not constuctive.

In Particular, the paper cited in the article was published at SECRYPT 2013 conference and not at DBSec 2014 conference. (All the other information, such as Authors, Title, and link to the document are correct) You may also look at the following DBLP link http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/secrypt/secrypt2013.html There you can find that the paper mentioned in the article is published at SECRYPT 2013 and not at DBSec.

I would like to ask you if it possible to correct it. It should be: Costante, E., Vavilis, S., Etalle, S., Petkovic, M., & Zannone, N. Database Anomalous Activities: Detection and Quantification . SECRYPT 2013

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.155.68.65 (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@131.155.68.65:, I checked your link and I think it's trustworthy,I thought it was not constructive as I didn't know about the link you provide, Thank you for pointing out my mistake, I'll revert my changes to your version
 Done:Reverted--Chamith (talk) 11:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChamithN/Archive_2&oldid=630461489"