User talk:Eng.M.Bandara

collapsing discussions prior to May 2019 block and surrounding circumstances

Sri Lankan presidential election, 2015

You have reverted 3 times now. Any further reverts will result in a block per WP:3RR. If you add the banner back in, add it correctly. You are totally doing it wrong. Hint: It only take one line and less than 20 characters. If you don't know what you are doing, then ask questions. Bgwhite (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WTF. What did I say about reverting? As I said in my summary. NO MORE REVERTS. Add in the tag correctly. Bgwhite (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to get angry. If you have something to say it without the profanity --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 08:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said no profanity. This is your last and final warning. Any more reverts, you shall be blocked. You just cannot revert somebody else's contributions and demand they talk when you didn't talk in the first place. You continuing to do blank reverts for pieces you do not like HAS TO STOP!!! Last and final warning. You revert, you will get blocked. Bgwhite (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, Bg, but I believe that "what the f***" is profanity. May I also point out that you seem to be involved in the edit war yourself? (You have made a total of five reverts today.) It may be best to disengage from this, as using your block button in this situation could easily be seen as violating WP:INVOLVED. --Biblioworm 23:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biblioworm WTF is not profanity. If I said fuck, then that would be profanity. Same goes for snafu and fubar/foobar. Eng.M.Bandara was reverting and not talking. They reverted because I removed an improperly added tag. That is not a reason to revert. They again reverted a HUGE addition because some of their stuff was removed. This is again not a reason to revert. Eng.M.Bandara said the other person should should talk if they removed Eng.M.Bandara's edit, but Eng.M.Bandara has no such problems reverting and not talking. Once again, Eng.M.Bandara has reverted without talking. They are now blocked 48 hours. Until Eng.M.Bandara learns that reverting everybody's edit is not acceptable, they will continue to be blocked. I have no stake in the article and could care less. I do care about reliable references being used and using the revert button instead of talking.

Note, this is not there only problem. They created E04 expressway (Sri Lanka) with made up and contradictory information. No references were given. The article is up for AfD. I said keep, but removed most of the info from the article. I asked another editor that deals with Sri Lanka to take a look and they have been adding information back in with references. Bgwhite (talk) 08:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you see the talk page on the article, and other users talk page, I have made plenty of attempts to discuss well prior to my reverts. ----Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 08:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two sentences and an accusation to Obi2canibe's message is not attempts. You didn't talk before your reverted, only when Obi2canibe talked. People do not do Wikipedia full-time and live in other time zones. You cannot quickly revert a few hours after you make a two sentence reply. Bgwhite (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are firstly involved in the dispute regardless of your position on the matter, and secondly the fact that you do not care about the issues shows you have no understanding of the dispute, despite involving yourself in it. Allowing Obi2caibe to remove well sourced and referenced material, in article in which weight is already significantly in favor of one side is not at all acceptable. Also his "HUGE" contribution as you described further tilted balance of the article towards a particular view. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 08:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to start looking at your actions and not accusing others. Also his "HUGE" contribution as you described further tilted balance of the article towards a particular view.... that is the first time you have brought it up. "YOU reverted without talking. YOU only seem it is fair to remove other people's work without talking, but they can't yours. Obi2caibe didn't revert... YOU did. You had two choices, add back in your material or talk. Reverting was not an option. Wikipedia is a collaboration and you fail to understand that. You fail to understand you just cannot revert. Bgwhite (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eng.M.Bandara, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Eng.M.Bandara! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Dathus (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of E04 expressway (Sri Lanka) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article E04 expressway (Sri Lanka) 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/E04 expressway (Sri Lanka) 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. MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Eng.M.Bandara. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by LouiseS1979 (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Eng.M.Bandara. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Biblioworm 22:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Eng.M.Bandara. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Vanjagenije (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for Disruptive editing, as you did at Sri Lankan presidential election, 2015. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bgwhite (talk) 07:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Eng.M.Bandara (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Blocking Admin is involved in the dispute, and has reverted the article more than 4 times,see this[2] --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 7:39 am, Today (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

At this time I am declining your unblock request - were I to undo the block on procedural grounds (which I'm not at all convinced would be justified; Bgwhite has explained his reasoning to me and I find his points to be highly cogent) I would simply reapply it immediately on my own authority. However, I would be willing to unblock you on the condition that you agree to stop reverting the article, and to restrict your edits to the talkpage until a clear consensus emerges (you would be welcome to file an RFC, 3O request or other DR process to achieve this if you wished). If you are willing to abide by this condition, please file a new unblock request below, using the {{unblock}} template. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Eng.M.Bandara (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I consent to the terms

Accept reason:

Okay, I'm lifting the block per the conditions above, on the understanding that any further direct edits to the page Sri Lankan presidential election, 2015 without clear consensus on the talkpage will result in its reinstatement. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Distributor108 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mike V • Talk 02:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Eng.M.Bandara (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't see the socket puppet investigation about me. Also You should be aware that the username is a very common name in Sri lanka, and it is not unlikely for both editors to be editing sri lanka related articles. If I have been disruptive, this is not appropriate forum to bring that up, and also the allegation of disruption is in bad faith. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 05:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The similar editing area, similar username, similar behaviour and your early engagement in a not well known area WP:Peer review suggest very strongly that this account is a sock puppet. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Eng.M.Bandara (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I like to read that, I read a lot that's I know about WP Review. But after reading the WP block appealing process, such as this http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Give_%27em_enough_rope, I'd like to simply state, this the only account I will use and will not use any other account other than this. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 13:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Before we go any further, I want a clear statement about whether you have used multiple accounts or not. PhilKnight (talk) 06:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Is your last statement intended to concede or deny that you have used other accounts?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it's pretty much intended to reaffirm that I will abide by the rules without admission or prejudice. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 05:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|@PhilKnight, I have already said I have not, and that username is an actual name, not just a username. But according the appeal guidelines there doesn't appear to any point pleading my innocence when your not going believe me. So all I was simply saying was I reaffirm without prejudice to abide by the rules and unblock me and we wont have any problems. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 06:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)}}[reply]

Hello PhilKnight--Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 08:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't seem to be getting anywhere here, so I'm revoking talk page access. PhilKnight (talk) 08:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Eng.M.Bandara (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for sock-puppetry in Late last year, I made a request through UTRS also in late year and was advised to wait 6 months without sock puppetry and remake the request. I made the request last week through the UTRS system, and talk page privileges have been re-enabled to allow community consensus. I make a request to re-enter Wikipedia as per standard offer.--Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 03:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Following your request, I've unblocked your account. PhilKnight (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

20 June 2015

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Eng.M.Bandara (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Someone please review my block above

Accept reason:

Request accepted.

PhilKnight (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Karunasena Hettiarachchi

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Karunasena Hettiarachchi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Savonneux (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Karunasena Hettiarachchi

The article Karunasena Hettiarachchi has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no reliable 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. noq (talk) 07:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Karunasena Hettiarachchi.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Karunasena Hettiarachchi.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted content borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dan arndt (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Karunasena Hettiarachchi

The article Karunasena Hettiarachchi has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails to establish notability, in accordance with WP:ANYBIO. The only fact is that he is Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, which is insufficient to establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dan arndt (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Sri Lanka

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sri Lanka you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eng.M.Bandara -- Eng.M.Bandara (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Karunasena Hettiarachchi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Karunasena Hettiarachchi 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/Karunasena Hettiarachchi 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. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So much for a snowballs chance - next time be sure of yourself before you make comments like that. Dan arndt (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sri Lanka/GA1

Eng.M.Bandara, per the GA instructions, a nominator may not also review their own nomination. I have therefore nominated the review page you created for deletion; once it is gone, an eligible reviewer will be able to select the article for review. It may take a while for a new reviewer to be found; GAN currently has a large backlog. Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Sri Lanka

The article Sri Lanka you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Sri Lanka for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eng.M.Bandara -- Eng.M.Bandara (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SAITM Protest

The article you've created doesn't really convene much information about the topic. It needs to provide some history, as well as the reasons for the protests, who are the parties involved etc. Dan arndt (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Elisa Jordana (3rd nomination)

Do you think that User:FSOJM791 and User:Jhof84 are sockpuppets of User:LeafK1, as based on their history of edits it would appear to be too coincidental otherwise.Dan arndt (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan arndt 100% either sockpuppets or meatpuppets. I'm sure the closing admin would notice it. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 08:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that there is already an investigation underway at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LeafK1, which you might want to comment on. Dan arndt (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (2017 SAITM Protest) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating 2017 SAITM Protest, Eng.M.Bandara!

Wikipedia editor Abishe just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I have just reviewed your article and I thank you for creating this article by addressing issues relating to SAITM. But the thing is, the article you have created needs more than reliable information and the articleneeds to be expanded.

To reply, leave a comment on Abishe's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Abishe (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to University of North Carolina at Charlotte shooting, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the 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. Specifically, if you want assistance in how the community interprets Wikipedia policy, then I suggest reading the policies themselves. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 11:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: I think your speedy closure of my nomination was uncalled for. We already have a list for school shootings in the United States, I don't think an independent article for each and everyone is justified. Others have expressed a similar view elsewhere on Wikipedia, and you didn't give them an opportunity to be their arguments forward, the discussion should have been allowed to run its course. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 22:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There’s no point in letting a deletion debate “run its course” if it snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding. And if you look at List of school shootings in the United States you will see that by no means is there an article on each and every one. It is decided on a case-by-case basis according to the genersl notability guideline, which this article clearly passes. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Talk:STEM School Highlands Ranch, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies How does my Rfc constitute disruptive editing? I will take this to the ANI, you're harassing me. Take your warning back and reinstate my RfC immediately --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 00:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, no I'm warning you. Go ahead and take it to ANI. But don't harass me while doing so please! Drmies (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Eng.M.Bandara: If you do this [1] again, I will block you for disruption. You don't get to control the discussion you opened. By the way, "homeslice" isn't an insult, but I redacted it anyway, since it could be misconstrued. Acroterion (talk)

Mr. (I presume) Bandara: I would like to offer my sincere thanks for your dropping of the stick with regard to this matter. I think you do reach the right conclusions, though I think that, like me, your knee jerk responses can be sub-optimal. I understand the instinct to counter-punch online, but I would respectfully suggest that taking a few minutes before publishing a submission can do wonders. Obviously, this is just unsolicited advice, but I really do wish you the best. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Acroterion (talk) 02:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be moving toward another problem with your approach to other editors at Talk:STEM School Highlands Ranch shooting. Please stop treating every discussion at that talkpage as a battle, and please remember that WP:BLP is policy. Gender identity is one topic that must be handled carefully, especially when the subject isn't a public figure and whose personal circumstances are ambiguous and poorly researched. Acroterion (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Site ban request

[[2]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hell in a Bucket under what grounds? --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 04:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making highly provocational statements, after already making sexist comments very recently. I think you have exhausted the community's patience.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 04:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Eng.M.Bandara (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Blocking admin INVOLVED, discussion at ANI still underway, I am seeking review to allow ANI to countinue. I had apologised for the comments made to the user and removed it myself in less 3 minutes, it was already subject or previous ANI and dealt with. I have nothing to do with how the admin feels to be " provocational statements" I was expressing my opinion on what I felt as the arbitrary application of WP:BLP at the discussion. I never disruptively edited any articles, this is clear from my recent contribution at 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 04:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

El_C was not in a dispute with you, and therefore was not involved. "Uninvolved" does not require that the admin has literally never interacted with you. In any event, one other administrator has stated that he would have blocked you if El_C had not, and I would have done the same. So even if you hypothetically succeed in arguing involved, it makes no difference. Simply put, you are toxic, and no one should have to deal with you while trying to build an encyclopedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

That is plainly false. I am an uninvolved admin that just happened on that ANI report. El_C 04:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C Sorry, I thought you were involved at the previous ANI. However, I still think that the current ANI should be allowed to continue for further consensus. In regards to the indefinite block, I have made substantial contributions to Wikipedia, I personally do think this block is unjustified when I was expressing my opinion. I didn't vandalise or disruptively edit any articles. Let me put it another way, how would like me to 'adjust' my behaviour to contribute to Wikipedia positively. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 05:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 18th century is ====> thataway. Until you find the 21st century on your moral compass I'd suggest it logical to assume you won't be welcomed back. In most cases, indefinite does not mean infinite. This may be an exception. El_C or whatever admin rejects the unblock request, please revoke TPS. WP:UTRS can deal with this troglodyte. Seeing him (?, as no self respecting man could possibly think that way) spew excuses makes me want to puke. John from Idegon (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see room for adjustment at this time. El_C 05:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unjustified block for a long term contributor to Wikipedia. Also, an indefinite block is only justified for cases of persistent long term abuse. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 05:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please limit your usage of this talk page to unblock requests only. El_C 05:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my recollection, I have never interacted with the user before. El_C 05:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eng. M.Bandara, your access to editing this talk page has been revoked. El_C 05:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I commented just as the ANI was being closed, and I left what I'd written directly below. To reiterate what I said there, I support a block because the attitudes that you've expressed are regressive and incompatible with the norms of our community. We welcome a variety of different viewpoints on Wikipedia, but one thing we cannot and will not tolerate is casual sexism or misogyny. Wikipedia already has a less-than-hospitable editing environment for women; we don't need to allow the situation to become even more problematic. If what you say is really what you believe, then I strongly advise that you take the time to examine what the underlying causes of your prejudices towards women may be. Come back to us only after you've done so. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]