Talk:Canyon Dam (Sri Lanka)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Canyon Dam (Sri Lanka). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140118144345/http://www.ceb.lk/sub/knowledge/hydropower.html to http://www.ceb.lk/sub/knowledge/hydropower.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140116192952/http://www.ceb.lk/sub/other/networkg.html to http://www.ceb.lk/sub/other/networkg.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Removal of content

User:Obi2canibe, following the question on your talkpage that has been left unanswered for the past five days, I have reverted this nonconstructive edit made by you. Please explain your reasoning for the mentioned diff, here on this talkpage. Thank you, Rehman 09:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rehman: My edit was neither unexplained (an edit summary was provided) or non-constructive (please educate yourself on what constitutes as non-constructive). As explained in the edit summary and in our subsequent discussion, it was to make this article comply with two policies: WP:NOTGALLERY and WP:ALSO.--Obi2canibe (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Obi2canibe;

• NOTGALLERY is mostly to prevent editors from cluttering the articles with many images of the same subject. The version you removed, neither had multiple images (only two, outside the infobox), nor was it depicting the same subject. Are you going to do the same to Hoover Dam, so that the article will have only one picture of the topic at hand?
• ALSO is to avoid repetitive linking of the same pages multiple times within the same article. The version you removed, did not have those links anywhere in the article body, but only had one other link to it in small font, at the very bottom of a navbox which is mostly collapsed by default on most devices. While ALSO does state to not duplicate links, it also mentioned that it's ultimately a matter of common sense. Again, are you going to do the same to Hoover Dam?

After educating yourself on the nature of the changes you had made, please explain:

1. How is having those additional images, which are not even depicting the same subject, creating more harm than good?
2. Likewise, is the "see also" section also looking so disruptive to you? Could you please elaborate on how having it causes more harm?

Appreciate a timely response, if you are able to, so that this too doesn't happen to get archived. Rehman 03:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rehman: I'm glad you've brought up Hoover Dam. This as WP:FA and a very long article. It has many images but because it has lots of encyclopedic narrative the images don't dominate the article, they complement it. The articles you've created a virtually stubs, with just two or three sentences of narrative. Having more than one image just overpowers these article. The only reason you want to include these images is because you took them.

WP:ALSO clearly states "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes". Hoover Dam may contain a See also section because there is a lot of content between the end of the narrative sections and the navigation templates (very long References, Bibliography and External links sections). Your articles do not. Again, the only reason you want to include these two articles in the See also section is that you've worked on them. I repeat, Wikipedia isn't here to promote yourself.

If File:UG-LK Photowalk - 2018-03-24 - Laxapana Dam (6).jpg isn't about the subject of this article, Canyon Dam, why was it inluded in this article (other than the fact you took it)?--Obi2canibe (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Obi2canibe, thank you for clearly stating that you have a problem with images I upload, and articles I write. It makes assessing your intentions clearer. I am asking you for the third time. Looking at your edit in this article:

1. How is having those additional images, which are not even depicting the same subject, creating more harm than good?
2. Likewise, is the "see also" section also looking so disruptive to you? Could you please elaborate on how having it causes more harm?

Stop dodging questions and wasting my time. With regards to the image, since you don't seem to be familiar with the context of the article; the picture is of the power station powered by the dam (located far apart), thus not the same subject - but rather a very important aspect of the bigger picture. You may want to consider reading the image captions before commenting about it. Rehman 15:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rehman: I have answered your questions but as you don't like the responses so you're accusing me of dodging them.

It is not a question of doing more harm than good. It is a question of following Wikipedia policies and not circumventing them to promote oneself. Your edits are a clear violation of WP:NOTGALLERY and WP:ALSO. As an administrator it is your duty to enforce these policies but instead you are seeking exemptions, as they don't do harm, simply to promote yourself. Rules are rules. You can't chose to ignore them just because nobody gets hurt.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Obi2canibe. Please define exactly where have you responded to the two specific questions listed above? All I can see is noise about my questions (as opposed to answers to the questions), your "advise" on admin duties, and "rules are rules". How is it even a "clear violation" as you so wisely put? I am explaining to you again:

• Your NOTGALLERY claim doesn't hold. Since you didn't bother to read the captions before removing the content, I've took the effort to explain and educate you many times that they are not of the same subject, and rather how they depict very important aspect of the overall picture. Please read my previous comment, in case you decided to ignore that too.
• Your ALSO claim doesn't hold. The see also section does help improve as a matter of common sense. You once again dodged answering how you think having it causes more harm than good.

And to top it all up, you have quite carelessly and bluntly stated that you do have a problem with linking articles I create and pictures I upload. Are you telling me that others who link articles they write and pictures they upload, are promoting themselves? Does all this look like some sort of competition to you? Rehman 08:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Obi2canibe, stop ignoring, and answer my question. We don't want this slipping under the carpet too. Rehman 16:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rehman: I'm not ignoring you, I've just had better things to do. Don't take it personally - I've asked many editors follow policies and not use Wikipedia to promote themselves. They, like you, don't react too well to this and engage in all sorts of shenanigans e.g. using a sock-puppet to make spurious accusation as ANI.

I have responded to your comments regarding WP:NOTGALLERY and WP:ALSO. I believe they are relevant but you don't agree with that view. We are just repeating ourselves. Is it time to take this to WP:DRN?--Obi2canibe (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)--Obi2canibe (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Obi2canibe: WP:DRN would make things much easier. If you still don't like linking photos taken by me or articles I wrote, please do proceed. I am now reverting your edits based on third-party opinion, despite your original motives already being clear. Rehman 00:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)