User talk:DilMendis82

Welcome![edit]

Hello, DilMendis82, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Stefan Anthonisz, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 14:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Stefan Anthonisz[edit]

The article Stefan Anthonisz has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. KGirlTrucker81^{talk what I'm been doing} 14:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calling User:Bbb23[edit]

User:Bbb23, you have made a mistake. User talk:Nazcheema and I are not the same person but we are work colleagues sharing the same office and so our IP address is the same, as we both use the internet including Wikipedia while we are working. That is because of the nature of our jobs, in IT and involving technical support and process monitoring. In this sort of job, there are long periods when there is little to be done so we are allowed free use of the net within reason (obviously, no offensive sites and so on).

If you block us for sharing an IP you must do the same site-wide and that includes people in families living together who share an IP. It is a ridiculous situation because with such a large number of editors and with people in the real world sharing interests, you are bound to have numerous cases where facilities are shared. Block everyone who shares an IP address and where does your famous "anyone can edit" ethos go then?

There is nothing on my talk page or on Naz's talk page to advise us that we were being charged. There is nothing on my talk page to advise me of the "sentence". We have been given no opportunity (though Naz is no longer interested, anyway) to explain our situation or to "defend ourselves". Okay, we can "appeal" but how do I know you will even read this when I cannot edit any other page? It is a travesty of justice and it smacks of kangaroo court. In the real world it would be a breach of human rights.

Naz tells me there is something called a "duck test" that should have been applied to me as the alleged "puppet". It is to the effect that I look like a duck and sound like a duck so I must be a duck. Okay, it sounds daft but actually it is not. Please compare my talk page inputs to those of Naz and I think you will see a profound difference in style because Naz messages quickly in the same way as he speaks while I take more time and generally edit what I write before transmitting. Take any two examples, though I only have a handful, and compare them. If you are suggesting that our messages look, read, sound alike then, well.

According to our accuser, "Going with the edits of DilMendis82, they seem to be already aware of editing formats in the English wikipedia even before joining". That is absolute crap. Look at my edits and you will see that I have struggled to understand how to handle markup. When one of my stubs was challenged by KGirlTrucker81, I had to request his help about the proper way of referencing. See this discussion on his page. Also, I left him a good luck message in Sinhala. Naz is Bengali as you can see from his close interest in Bangladeshi cricket, compared with mine in Sri Lankan cricket. Could a Bengali leave a message in Sinhala? Could I leave one in Bengali? Certainly not.

The best example of my learning progress is in article Dunil Abeydeera, the first new one I wrote. Look at its history from my first draft which did not even have any links in it. I had to find out how to add all of the markup tags one by one and it is still only a stub now, as are my other articles. I had to use a an existing similar article just to get started and, because that one had only an external links section, that is how I became confused about referencing.

When I joined the site, I had never written markup before. I am from a business background. Naz is systems/technical and knows several languages including XML. All I could do was copy a URL and paste it in. My first few edits did that because I spotted a recurring "dead link" when I was reading about a related topic. I could have done that as an IP but I don't want to compromise the work IP address so I became a member. I don't use a computer at home unless it is to book a holiday or something like that.

The next part of the accusation is "Both seem to have a similar pattern of editing and are mostly interested in cricket related articles". What similar pattern? Examples of similarity? Cricket is globally a major sport and on here you have a large active project. The valid point about cricket, as I've already said, is that Naz is 90% about Bangladesh and I am equally as much about Sri Lanka. Not exactly a similar pattern there, is there?

Then the accuser says "Lately, DilMendis82 have been seen manipulating the AfDs started by Nazcheema, for example: here and here without having any prior editing history in those articles, which might be the reason behind the account creation". Lately? I've only been on the site a few days. How have I been "manipulating the AfDs". I was going through the cricket-related discussions and these were in the list. I looked at them and commented upon them as I saw fit. Again, my unfamiliarity with the site's "editing formats". How does he account for Sro23 needing to do this in several deletion discussions, all because I had inadvertently failed, through lack of knowledge, to complete my votes in the standard way?

I am told the site has an "assume good faith" standard. All I did at the AfDs was work through a list of cricket-related discussions. Does the accuser or anyone else in the AfD have "prior editing history in those articles"? How might commenting on an AfD be "the reason behind the account creation"? Where is the good faith assumption there? Does he check up on and complain about everyone who disagrees with him at AfD?

If Naz had created a replacement account, surely he would have continued to write about Bangladeshi cricket, or at least English cricket as we both work in England, but Sri Lankan cricket? Not only that, I am focused on a particular club in Sri Lanka.

Now lets look at the checkuser thing. We were not told that this was being used and, given that we are using the site at work, I beleive it is a breach of our company's confidentiality to be using this software and in effect checking on the company. What was the reason for using it when neither Naz or I were consulted first about the accusations and there is no mention at all of using this "duck test", let alone of me "passing " it. What possible basis was there for using it?

The whole thing is a travesty of justice. It is a kangaroo court based on a spiteful accusation with no proper process or procedure and absolutely out of order. Even when you found the same IP address, you should have consulted us first for an explanation before passing sentence. You have some explaining to do. DilMendis82 (talk) 09:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something else I forgot. The stuff I have read about "puppetry" says it is wrong if used "abusively". Please show me any edit in which I have been abusive, difficult, obtuse, whatever. The edits I have done have been in good faith and everyt ime I have engaged with another editor I have been polite, friendly and, usually, grateful for their help. How can I be said to have behaved abusively? All right, I know Naz called someone a "stupid, pedantic idiot" when he was having a bad day and he shouldn't have used the words "stupid" or "idiot", but he was right about "pedantic" and he could have added "wrong" too. That was one blip and it was dealt with at the time,though he had already left then. Also, if our accuser is right about "manipulating" things done by Naz, why didn't I go to that article and support Naz? Any views on that one. It seems to me that this person didn't like me opposing him at the AfD so decided out of spite to add up two and two and make five.

I should add about the "three days after Naz left" that I had been thinking of using Wikipedia for a while. I was going to abandon the idea when Naz quit but he persuaded me to try it out, saying that I shouldn't boycott it on his account. Huh! DilMendis82 (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sanka Abeyruwan[edit]

Hello, DilMendis82. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Sanka Abeyruwan, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Sanka Abeyruwan to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Prof TPMS (talk) 09:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mohamed Aslam for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mohamed Aslam 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/Mohamed Aslam 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. SenatorFreedom (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]