User talk:ChamithN/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

IS is a terrorist organization designated as such by the US Department of State

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm

"Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) are foreign organizations that are designated by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended. FTO designations play a critical role in our fight against terrorism and are an effective means of curtailing support for terrorist activities and pressuring groups to get out of the terrorism business."

Look down the list and you will find:

"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (formerly al-Qa'ida in Iraq)"

Kraainem (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah but Wikipedia doesn't not reflect only US ideas. It's an encylopedia. OnWP:TERRORIST it says,

Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.

The prefix pseudo‑ indicates that something is false or spurious, which may be debatable. The suffix ‑gate suggests the existence of a scandal. Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally (e.g. Watergate), with in-text attribution if in doubt. Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies. Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight.[3]

With regard to the term "pseudoscience": per the policy Neutral point of view, pseudoscientific views "should be clearly described as such". Per the content guideline, fringe theories, the term "pseudoscience" may be used to distinguish fringe theories from mainstream science, supported by reliable sources.

Here is the answer extracted from what you quoted to me: "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject"

Kraainem (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree it meets the criteria mentioned in the first paragraph, but continue on to the second paragraph. It says "Make sure, as well, that reliable sources establish the existence of a controversy and that the term is not used to grant a fringe viewpoint undue weight". Just like it's mentioned in Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant most countries consider ISIL as a rebel group instead of calling it a terrorist group. This is what cause the problem.--Chamith (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Kraainem You might be thinking that I am against calling ISIL a terrorist group. In person I totally agree with your viewpoint. But as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia we have to follow certain rules. People from all around the world read Wikipedia everyday. If eveyone wanted to express their opinion on Wikipedia, we won't be able to call this an encyclopedia anymore. Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine, I am open to factual proof: You state: " MOST countries consider ISIL as a rebel group". YOU personally obviously do not consider beheading people on film as terrorist behavior: I do and I can assure you most people in the world do. You say nothing about it as yourself or on behalf of WP. Basically what you (WP) are saying is that as yourself and as a Wikipedean you are propogating/supporting the view that WP considers the beheading of Christians on film as not terrorist behavior: according to you personally and according to WP that does not terrorize anyone. You are wrong. There are about 240 countries in the world: please indicate - with a reliable source - the 121 countries in the world that considers ISIL as a rebel group to prove your statement that MOST countries consider ISIL as a rebel group and not as a terrorist group.

You stated MOST countries: now prove it. If you cannot then I prevail. Kraainem (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Kraainem (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Does it matter? I maybe be wrong when I said "most" countries. Maybe I should have called "some" countries. "Most" or "Some" Wikipedia does not reflect ideas of a specific group/country/culture/individual.--01:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can see nothing will change your mind: not even when your or your family member´s or your son or daughter´s head is being cut off by a - in your view - kind, warm and friendly ISIS "rebel group" member. Well, enjoy your head being cut off - by an ISIS terrorist. I´m sure you will die quickly. I would never have believed that WP would protect ISIS, but, now I see you do. I disagree with that. And so do most countries and people in the world.Kraainem (talk) 09:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

WP´s friendly "rebel group":http://m.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31502863 Kraainem (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not against your view OK? In fact I'm not going to revert you edits again. Because I believe in WP:BRD. I have no intention of claiming ownership of Wikipedia. Anybody can contribute to this encyclopedia, which is what you are trying to do. I'm thankful for that. It's just I wanted to let you know why I reverted you edits (well you asked why). That doesn't mean I'm going to keep reverting your edits every time (if they purely disruptive then I will).--Chamith (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You are very naive. Social media would call you and WP stupid: ISIS is a terrorist organization and they are proud of being bloodthirsty throat-cutters who burn groups of people alive in the name of Islam - period. Accept the world as it is. Kraainem (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Kraainem I don't care what Social media or some random individual think about me. Like I said before I do agree that ISIS should be eliminated. I did not say that ISIS isn't a terrorist group. I only said we can't use certain words/opinion in Wikipedia. Such as peacock and weasel words. My opinions, beliefs are different from Wikipedia's guidelines. Please don't be too judgmental about a person you even barely know of. Best,--Chamith (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

• Editorial: Recent retirements typify problem of admin attrition

• In the media: Students' use and perception of Wikipedia

• Special report: Revision scoring as a service

• Gallery: Darwin Day

• Traffic report: February is for lovers

• Featured content: A load of bull-sized breakfast behind the restaurant, Koi feeding, a moray eel, Spaghetti Nebula and other fishy, fishy fish

• Arbitration report: We've built the nuclear reactor; now what colour should we paint the bikeshed?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 9, 2015)

Trailer Trash is a US derogatory term for poor people living in trailers or caravans. It appears that these trailer trash happen to live on a trailer park. Hello, ChamithN. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Trailer Trash Previous selections: Ice cream parlour • Stadium Get involved with the TAFI project! You can... Nominate an article Review nominations Have your say in future selections Posted by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of EuroCarGT (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC) •

Please apologize: you made a clear mistake.

You are making a big mistake on Bitcoin: You removed my reliable source. THis is what you removed - including the reliable source - reliable as per Ladislav Mecir a very accomplised editor: Although bitcoin is not legally banned in terms of Russian law, it is in fact banned by the authorities on a de facto basis. On the other hand it is also true that there may be many millions of USD (it is a big economy) worth of bitcoins present today in Russia on computers owned by Russians since they bought them from and paid for them in Russian Roubles on exchanges accessible to them outside Russia - and that this practice most probably would continue with an equivalent increase in the number and value of bitcoins inside Russia. Please revert your false allegations against me including that I am attacking other editors: I have a reliable source: you simply state: "Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article."

I had a source: it is in the Bitcoin article history for all to see. Please apologise and revert your false allegations immediatly. Kraainem (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Plse stop your personal attack immediately.

Plse stop your personal attack immediately. I spent a lot of time adding valuable content to the bitcoin article with a reliable reference. Ladislav Mecir, the top expert on bitcoin defended my reference. You jump in from the blue and state I have no reference. Go and check where you actually removed my reference. Then you state I have no reference. This normal WP editing you then call disruptive. You carry one stating I am attacking other editors. Just because you and I had an initial misunderstanding about ISIS? You are in full scale personal attack mode. Please stop it immediately. You did not appear so aggressive the first time we communicated. You must be very upset with me just because I did not immediately understand your position on ISIS. Really, you are making some big mistakes here. Please stop and revert what you stated on my talk page. Thank you. I forgive you. Kraainem (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You made a mistake. To err is human.Kraainem (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not upset at you personally. But I'm concerned about your edits. And by the way issuing a warning template to a edit-warrior is not a personal attack. You have so much to learn about Wikipedia. If you like I'd be happy to help. But for now you have violated 3RR.--Chamith (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, topic on Solid-state drive Page

Hello, ChamithN.

Sorry for the inconvenience!

First of all, I respect your decision for deleting my changed content. You are, after all, way more experienced in Wikipedia than I am. However, I still think the weight comparsion example for SSD and HDD is informative and provides some value to readers. Despite this, I'm still open-minded and will take any suggestions or advice. On the other hand, I think the content is worth noting. So, I will be adding the content link in the external links as extra resources. That is all!

Thanks again, ChamithN! AveragelyPro (talk) 12:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi AveragelyPro first of all thank you for taking time to contribute to Wikipedia. I noticed that USER:MER-C reverted your edits once again when you tried to introduce those links again. Anyhow I reverted you edit as you added the same link couple of times, first as a reference then as a external link. You didn't even provide an edit summary to justify your edits. What is the importance of that link? Is it a reliable source that can support encyclopedic content? And why mention the same link in external links section? You should definitely read Wikipedia policies on External links. And always provide an edit summary. Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvenience. I'm deeply sorry for my actions. I have read the guide articles and will refrain from similar actions in the future. - AveragelyPro (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It's OK AveragelyPro. You are new to Wikipedia. So making mistakes like this is obvious. Even I made some mistakes when I was new to Wikipedia. Feel free to ask me anything if you need help. I'd be glad to help. Cheers!!-Chamith (talk) 02:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Signature

I am actually considering making a template of some sort saying: "Yes, ChamithN has a very nice signature, please don't just copy it, try to make something original yourself." Well, let's just say that you have "user page" "talk page" and "contributions" to go with, most computers have about 300 fonts in common, and let's stick to 256 original web colors, then there is the regular, bold, italic, underlined and crossed over, plus the Caps, no Caps and combo, and you can get shade/background in 256 colors (not counting the reversed). So right there you easily have about 300x256x5x3x256= 294,912,000 ways to make your signature. And let's say that about half of these are not so good or impractical, that still leaves roughly 147,456,000 combinations! So, why oh why, must everyone copy yours? :) Best as always, w.carter-Talk 10:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC) (aka Guardian of ChamithN's sign)

But w.carter why just 256 colours? we have more than 16M colours, isn't it? (256*256*256) Confused! ~"aGastya" ✉ let’s talk about it :) 15:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Acagastya: There are just 256 original so called web colors that are supported by all platforms, old or new. Remember what I said about that things on the Wikipedia should be so simple that anyone with some kind of computer device can see it ok. You may have a new computer with a hi-rez screen for all colors, but most of those who use the Wikipedia for free knowledge are not so fortunate. They may have to rely on older donated computers. It's those readers that you really should have in mind when you edit here. So in the midst of all this joking around about ChamithN's signature, there are real problems that are kept in mind. A link I received today may highlight this a bit. See: this. w.carter-Talk 15:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations: You reverted my WP-editor supported reliably sourced reference and then got me banned for it.

Congratulations! You reverted my WP-editor supported reliably sourced reference and then got me banned for it.

Let´s see if WP will ban me again for highlighting this abuse!

You refuse to admit you made a mistake. It is as simple as that. And WP wants to ram it down my throat that I must simply accept that!! Well, I do not!!Kraainem (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to get me banned me again for stating the truth about you. #IamCharlyKraainem (talk) 18:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kraainem: Firstly you weren't banned for adding content to Bitcoin. And I didn't report you for adding content to Wikipedia. I reported you for violation three revert rule. Even after reporting admin didn't block you as you are new to Wikipedia. You were actually blocked for trolling which you continue to be doing. Read what Bishonen said on the edit war noticeboard. If you are really here to improve Wikipedia why not continue editing Articles rather than commenting on my talk page? Do you think by continuing to make the same mistake you were blocked for is going to fix anything? Please make some constructive edits to article spaces. And if you are making a significant change try to discuss it on the talk page before actually making that change. And be polite to other Wikipedians. Stop hanging on to that one reversion I made. It's not going to fix anything. Cheers!--Chamith (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Fine, if it is going to stop you from trolling I will admit that I made a mistake. I'm not that arrogant. I hope you are happy now.--Chamith (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Kraainem (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)