Talk:Nihal Arthanayake
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Another Nihal's page
[edit]http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Nihal%28DJ%29 Should it be merged together? Eleanor909 11:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
الحمد لله —Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.200.75.37 (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on DJ Nihal. 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/20110618231659/http://www.britishcouncil.org/new/About-us/How-we-are-run/Folder_How-we-are-run/Who-manages-us/nihal-arthanayake/ to http://www.britishcouncil.org/new/about-us/how-we-are-run/folder_how-we-are-run/who-manages-us/nihal-arthanayake/
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) 00:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Controversy?
[edit]is it really appropriate to refer to this as a controversy? It sounds like GB news took issue with something he said based on their political agenda- it wasn't widely regarded as controversial unless i am missing something. If no one responds, I will remove this section and incorporate it into another part of the page. Mr Blumenthal (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)