User talk:Himesh84
Welcome
[edit]
|
The article Vanni forest has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Totally unsourced, maybe original research and violation of NPOV
While all 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. obi2canibetalk contr 16:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
May 2012
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Rajarata, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. obi2canibetalk contr 16:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi. If you believe there are errors in Prehistory of Sri Lanka, then please either correct them (with reliable sources to support your corrections), or discuss the errors at Talk:Prehistory of Sri Lanka - do not just remove links to the article from other articles. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Considering the material you removed from Naga people (Sri Lanka), it appears to be sourced, so I think we'd need more than just your word for it that it is "unrelated/sceintically not proved" - please discuss it at the article's Talk page and gain a consensus for its removal. Also, the material you added was unsourced, so we would need a source for it - just saying "It is evident that..." is not sufficient. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
June 2012
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to History of Sri Lanka appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you. Jsorens (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Kingdom of Rajarata, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Rajarata. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 28
[edit]Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Naga people (Sri Lanka) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Magha
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Sri Lanka
[edit]Welcome!
[edit]
Himesh84, Welcome to Wikipedia! 
Thank you for your contributions to a 
Sri Lanka related article, they have helped improve Wikipedia and make it more informative. I hope you enjoy using Wikipedia and decide to make additional contributions.
As a contributor to Sri Lankan articles, you may like to connect with other Sri Lankan Wikipedians through WikiProject Sri Lanka, a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Sri Lanka, and take a look at the various activities we are engaged in.
If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or write {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. If you have a question related to a Sri Lankan article, you can view a list of members of WikiProject Sri Lanka by clicking here and ask any of us a question. We will always be glad to help.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Getting help:
Finding your way around:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
|
- Good luck, and have fun.
-- Addbot (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Good luck, and have fun.
Nomination of Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ethnic Conflict in 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/Ethnic Conflict in 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 template from the top of the article. Blackknight12 (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Some things to note
[edit]Hi Himesh, You must be really careful about quoting or refering to Mahavamsa, preferably you must not do it at all, since Mahavamsa is a primary source. Also please note that Mahavamsa is not a fact book or a complete history, so you must not ever say "Mahavamsa didn't say it, so it is not true", like you did in a couple of your recent edits, about the "native" claim of our Tamil brothers. :) There are enough and more reliable sources to use for that matter. The myth about the 4 tribes in the Naga article has to be presented as a myth. I have left a post there, they are my own thoughts and ideas about why I think the article needs to be revised/rewritten. I will try to contribute in that article and give some points and references when I get the time. Also I will write a comment on the article on the Ethnic Conflict which is listed to be deleted, there too you have to use other sources and not refer to the Mahavamsa. If you find it hard to understand why that is so, please read WP:PRIMARY and WP:SOURCE . The point is, you can't present what Mahavamsa says, with your interpretation of it; if you are to use Mahavamsa (which I hope u will restrict to the minimum) you have to present it exactly as it is, and not interpret it yourself. Eg. The Mahavamsa does not say that the Tamils are native to Sri Lanka, but it does not say that they are not native to Sri Lanka either. One has to read all of Mahavamsa, and interprete the stories in the Mahavamsa to find it out - that's where scholars come in. So you can't revert an edit and say that it is not true because the Mahavamsa did not say it. Hope u understand what I am trying to say..... Regards Suren. --SriSuren (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. There are several books published about Mahavamsa. I'll do my best to give much more reliable things even from Mahavamsa.
Mahavamsa (Mahavamsa, Chulavamsa, DeepaVamsa) are serious of books written in Sri Lanka which tackled historical events. Those are the reference to many articles even kingdom of Jaffna, Kalinga Magha,.. If no Mahavamsa, no one knows about Kalinga Magha and why Rajarata was abandon even they find a golden civilazation with water reservoirs , Stupas, huge buildings. Mahavamsa contain details about historical events from king Devanampiyatissa. It is also referenced about Tamil invasion to Sri Lanka and how Sinhalese regain. In historical events there is no references about Tamil areas. It was Rajarata,Malaya rata, Ruhunu rata. But it started to write about Tamil areas after 1215. That is Mahavamsa saying Tamils are not native to Sri Lanka. I hope you will updated readers with Tamil kingdoms and Tamil kings who ruled those areas to support your claims.
Also my personal idea is those tribes are not myth. They were real. In history we can find references to them from different time periods and different sources from even different countries.
- First it is mentioned in Ramayana. Raksha,Yaksha,Naga
- Then lord Buddha has come to visit Sri Lanka there are specific references about Yaksha and Naga.
- The establishing kingdom of Anuradhapura it is mentioned how Yaksha tribes and Sinha clan fought. King Pandukabhaya is belongs to Yaksha tribe. He has build Temples to two Yaksha leaders.In history king Pandukabhaya is not a myth. He was for certain a historical ruler. Also there were 10 Naga kings who ruled the Anuradhapura.
People divided into those tribes purely they worshiped certain entities. They are human beings who worshipped Raksha, Yaksha, Naga, Deva. It is clear that Buddhism came to Sri Lanka in 250BCE. In history it is mentioned that worshiping Raksha,Yaksha, Naga, Deva were the religions before SL converted to Buddhism. My idea is considering all facts/references from all over the continents they should be in the history not in myths. --Himesh84 (talk) 06:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I have reported you at ANI for the violation of pushing POV and introducing WP:OR on the above article.Sudar123 (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 13:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Back to WP:ANI — Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka
[edit]
Hi. Please be aware that this issue has been brought once again to the incident noticeboard. Please read the new discussion here and comment as you feel may be appropriate. — Richwales 04:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- I can't find the link.--Himesh84 (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- The discussion was moved to an archive page — go here. Note that this archive page contains two separate, identically named sections on the Sri Lanka report. — Richwales 14:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Advice: Don't get stressed out while editing; defuse stress when possible.. You need to keep calm bro or you might get blocked and who wants that? Statements like "This wikipedia article is a great insult to the Sri Lanka" don't mean a thing to others who don't share your emotions or viewpoint. Wikipedia has no deadline, it's not going anywhere. Calm down. Take a nice cup of tea and sit down to discuss, don't get hyper. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. Others mean who ? The person who take the responsibility of making UNSG's report (Ban ki Moon)later urge Sri Lanka to implement LLRC based on local courts,local system over international intervene suggested by UNSG after insulting local court system. So I am 100% sure that you are not taking about the UNSG's reports main author and UNHRC members who have the trust on Sri Lankan court system (that's why they voted to implement LLRC based on local system). So who don't have trust on Sri Lankan court system as stated in UNSG's report and your statement ? Please clarify. --Himesh84 (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- There is one advice from me. UNHRC is the most supreme institute in the whole world to deal in human right related things in the world.It is authorized institution under UN. UN consists of authorized members (who can represent people of countries )of almost every country in the world. If UNHRC urges to implement LLRC in which core solutions based on local court system, no other report can insult Sri Lankan court system related to human right matters. obi2canibe,SGGM, Richwales, JohnCD even Wikipedia not above UNHRC when it comes to human right promotion activity related things. Sorry, I can't accept that Wikipedia has more supremacy over UNHRC even you threaten me saying you gonna block me if I don't accept the supremacy of Wikipedia over UNHRC --Himesh84 (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Advice: Don't get stressed out while editing; defuse stress when possible.. You need to keep calm bro or you might get blocked and who wants that? Statements like "This wikipedia article is a great insult to the Sri Lanka" don't mean a thing to others who don't share your emotions or viewpoint. Wikipedia has no deadline, it's not going anywhere. Calm down. Take a nice cup of tea and sit down to discuss, don't get hyper. Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think you're missing the point of the NPOV policy. Our goal here is not to determine the one clearly correct viewpoint on a subject and promote that viewpoint to the exclusion of all others. To quote the policy, we need to be "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." The "significance" of a view is determined by how it is represented in reliable sources. As far as possible, the "reliable sources" we are required to use are secondary sources (see WP:PSTS), such as scholarly journal articles, books, and reports in newspapers with broad coverage and high respectability.
- This is almost always going to mean that an article on a political topic is going to mention two or more differing views on the subject — each view backed by its own sources, and with the conflicting issues carefully described in such a way that a reader who is not familiar with the subject can get a basic understanding of the various sides, determine where to find more information, and make up his/her own mind as to which (if any) of the opposing views appears to be correct.
- We can not say that because one viewpoint on a subject is endorsed by some particularly prestigious person or institution (be it the UN Human Rights Commission, the United States Supreme Court, the Pope, the Dalai Lama, or whomever/whatever), we must present that viewpoint as the only legitimate viewpoint. If generally reputable sources discuss and/or endorse opposing views, the NPOV policy requires that we give fair coverage to these other views, without regard to whether some may think this is "insulting" to some other organization or person. Some examples of how NPOV is applied to complex topics might be found in articles about the American Civil War, the 2000 United States presidential election, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
- I'm sorry if you find the NPOV policy (or the way it needs to be applied to the Sri Lankan conflict) to be distasteful, but the policy (to quote again therefrom) "is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." If you disagree with the way the NPOV policy is being applied to a given article by other editors, you are allowed (and encouraged) to bring up the issue at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard (WP:NPOVN) for discussion. But an open refusal to respect the NPOV policy as such — including an insistence on editing a given article or articles in a manner which openly defies the policy — is not going to get you anywhere and is only likely to result in your being blocked from editing entirely. — Richwales 20:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Himesh84's response above shows, he can't understand at all how Wikipedia works. I will report next time at ANI.Sudar123 (talk) 08:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sudar, please be careful in the way you describe other editors or their work. Even though the edit summary which you used on your most recent revert literally described the edit (rather than the editor), it did so IMO in a way which could easily be seen as name-calling against the editor whose work you were undoing. — Richwales 17:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I really meant his edit, however I will be careful in the future.Sudar123 (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- Richwales, Can you please tell what is the wrong with clarifying the more general word you used ('endorsed'). I have appended how they endorsed to the sentences. --Himesh84 (talk) 07:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- We can not say that because one viewpoint on a subject is endorsed by some particularly prestigious person or institution, we must present that viewpoint as the only legitimate viewpoint. That's correct. But whether it is right or wrong UNHRC can have their own view point. That's their right. We can't challenge that. UNHRC, Australia, US,UK, ... voted urge to implement LLRC. That's their right. We can't challenge that too. But not allowing to bring that they voted to urges to implement LLRC in here on top of the current version is something like rejecting right of UNHRC , Australia, US,UK, to change their views. Why it is not allowed to say these countries initially had these view points but later they voted to LLRC at UNHRC ? I don't think anyone have doubt about that or having 2 different opinions on that. UNHRC's vote results can be viewed at it's own website. It is not like we should accept UNHRC selection. But we should able to tell what is the UNHRC selection if we respect UNHRC can have a right to select something for them selves. --Himesh84 (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
My main complaint about your (Himesh84's) recent edit is that, when you added material saying that the UNHRC urged the Sri Lankan government to implement the recommendations of its LLRC, you also removed material that said the LLRC report had been criticized by opponents of the Sri Lankan government.
By the way, although you removed the "criticism" claim, you kept the source in place which substantiated this claim. Perhaps you didn't realize which of the two sources in this paragraph said what. I've rearranged the source citations in the last paragraph of the lead to make it clearer which source corresponded to the pro-government and anti-government views.
Additionally, after looking at what appears to be the source for the UNHRC's comment on the LLRC report (see here), I believe it may be inaccurate to say that the UNHRC "endorsed" the LLRC report or urged the implementation of its recommendations. The relevant quote from the UNHRC's statement says this: "I welcome the publication by the Government of Sri Lanka last December of its Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission. While the report falls short of the comprehensive accountability process recommended by the Secretary-General’s Panel of Experts, it does make important recommendations. I encourage the Government to engage with the Special Procedures and with my Office on follow up to the report. I also hope the Council will discuss these important reports."
I apologize for not having noticed the above point before now. In any case, to "welcome the publication" of the LLRC report falls far short of "endorsing" said report; encouraging the Sri Lankan government to follow up on the LLRC report by working with the UNHRC is not necessarily the same as urging implementation of the report's recommendations; and even if we were not trying to satisfy Wikipedia's NPOV policy, this statement (in my opinion) falls far short of a level of approval that would demand recognition as the final word and rule out any discussion of opposing views. Something like the following might be a better paragraph for the lead section:
A competing report was produced by Sri Lanka's Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC). In 2012, the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) issued a statement welcoming the publication of this report (while acknowledging problems therein) and urging the Sri Lankan government to follow up by working with the UNHRC. The LLRC report has been praised in Sri Lanka, but criticised by opponents of the island's government.
It may be that the actual, full report of the UNHRC says more than what the above introductory statement says — in which case it might be appropriate to reword the lead. But, in any case, I need to point out that we should be looking for a wider base of reliable secondary sources to report on and discuss the UNHRC's reaction, rather than rely too directly on the primary source documents themselves. — Richwales 17:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- opponents of the Sri Lankan government doesn't make any sense. That's why I removed it. If you says opponents of Richwales, then readers might get confused and they needs to search who are the opponents in Wikipedia or google. opponents can be change time to time also. May be better to clearly specify who are the parties you meant by "opponents". May be you referring the opposition parties of Sri Lankan government. I don't know what it says if I use terms like "opponents of Russian government ","opponents of USA government ",.. . USA is also a opponent of this government due to close relationship of Sri Lanka and China. But USA praised the report.
- Second paraghraph of the wsws article
- The resolution urges the Colombo government to implement the recommendations of its own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), to take steps “to ensure justice, equity, accountability and reconciliation.” It calls for an “action plan” and for the UN Human Rights Commissioner to work “in consultation with, and with the concurrence” of the Sri Lankan government in implementing the LLRC proposals.
- Your following statement is not a valid due to above paragraph.
- encouraging the Sri Lankan government to follow up on the LLRC report by working with the UNHRC is not necessarily the same as urging implementation of the report's recommendations.
- So it is there clearly. So if it is there why it is not allowed ?--Himesh84 (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is actually a good example of why we need, wherever possible, to find secondary sources to interpret primary material and place it in its proper context, rather than for us (Wikipedia editors) to work directly with the primary sources ourselves. The comment in the WSWS.org article, about how the UNHRC urged the Sri Lankan government to implement the recommendations in its LLRC report, is clearly (at least, clearly to me) not any sort of endorsement of either the Sri Lankan government or the UNHRC. As I peruse the rest of that article, it's clear that the writer is not only opposed to the Sri Lankan government, but is also opposed to the UN's actions, as well as the actions of the USA.
- Just to be sure there is no confusion, by the way, it also appears clear to me that the Sri Lanka News article is little more than a government press release, and that the editors of this news source are most likely either allied with the Sri Lankan government, or else they are on a very short leash and are not at liberty to criticize their government. So both these sources are, in my view, of questionable quality except as primary-source opinion pieces from two very different camps.
- More (and better) sources are needed here — again, secondary sources (such as high-quality newspaper, magazine, and journal articles which talk about the events), and sources covering all possible sides of the controversy. — Richwales 21:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ok. I will attach more reliable sources. But can you please correct the opponents of the Sri Lankan government sentence. This is where it says UNP ,the main opposition party supports LLRC [1]. This is the where it says TNA backs the resolution to implement LLRC [2]. Since you warned me and you bring this case again due to removing "opponents ... " by me, I can't do it. May be you are referring JHU and DNA(JVP). But JHU is not a opposition party. They are partners of the government. Minister Champika Ranawaka (JHU) is a minister of the government. As I found, from opponents of Ruling government only JVP criticized the LLRC. This is the composition of Sri Lankan parliment [[3]]. There are 81 seats for opposition parties. From that 74 (UNP,TNA) backs the LLRC. It is not correct to say opposition criticize the report only considering 7 when there are 74 opposition party members back it. --Himesh84 (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
- I really don't have any more authority to "correct" this article than you or any other editor. Feel free to rework the questionable material yourself — as long as you're confident you can do so in an even-handed manner — or else allow others to work on it. This same advice applies to Sudar, or anyone else reading this. If I find time to work on this article in more depth, I'll do so — but as an ordinary editor, not in any special "administrator" role (since that's not how admins are supposed to conduct themselves; please go read WP:ADMIN if you haven't already). In particular, if I don't make changes myself, please do not interpret my inaction as any sort of official Wikipedia approval of the existing text or of any changes you or others might make to it. If push comes to shove, BTW, and we need enforcement measures to be taken here, I won't be able to take such actions myself because I'm way too involved here, but there are plenty of other, uninvolved admins who can be asked to come over to help. — Richwales 05:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you. Since you have too far involved on the issue and Himesh is too pro Sri Lankan government and too pro Sinhalese in his/her edits and coming always his/her own POV and attacking other editors as Eelamists or Separatists and attacking the Wikipedia itself, I thought to take this issue back to the ANI and resolve the issue once for all.Sudar123 (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- I would actually suggest going to the "dispute resolution noticeboard" (WP:DRN) first. The "incidents" noticeboard (WP:ANI) is really intended for more urgent issues requiring immediate administrator intervention. At the moment, the problem here appears (to me, at least) to be a content dispute, involving editors who have extreme differences in viewpoint, but who are at least willing to "try to try" to talk. The talking has, to be sure, strayed more than once into name-calling and borderline personal attacks, but even though people have deeply entrenched opposing views (and might find it horribly offensive to even consider the other side's positions), I think it's still possible for some sort of balanced, neutral result to come out of it. I will say, though, that if there are any further instances of edit-warring, attacks on the character or motives of others with differing views, or an attitude of "my view is the only acceptable view, everything else is wretched propaganda", then this dispute most likely will end up back at WP:ANI. If that happens, and if the existing participants turn out to be so profoundly tied to their points of view that they cannot tolerate anything coming from the other side, it may ultimately be necessary to ask all such people (on both sides) to refrain from working on this and related articles at all, and instead allow other editors (people with no ties to the dispute and no commitment to either of the sides) to take over the task of sifting through the available sources and try to come up with something that fairly represents all the views in keeping with the NPOV policy. — Richwales 05:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
- Richwales, I have altered the lead para as per, "your suggestion cited with more reliable source".Sudar123 (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't come to WP:ANI on my will. But someone bought me there.
- But this article seems to be a white wash without not allowing later responses from UNHRC and who votes to LLRC at UNHRC. I doubt will it be useful for me to go into somewhere where I can challenge output of ANI. Thank for your contribution which involved more effort than normal. --Himesh84 (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sudar, if some one says he is proud to be an Tamil Eelamists on his/her wikipage how it be a insult? Elamists are Separatists who want to divide Sri Lanka and make new Tamil Country proposed as "Ealam". Elamist are extremist who want separatism. They never want any negotiation. That's why I says if something there is crystal clear some people will refused to accept "UNHRC has more favoritism towards LLRC" , based on his/her personal agendas. You should not forget the context that I used it.If he is proud about calling him Eelamists I don't think there is a insult or other problem. Better you check your previous insults before advising to others. Also you are calling me a extremist for adding one sentence. But there are 1000 of sentences to praise this report. You people (you,obi..,...) insult others those who want to add reaction from UNHRC are extremist and trying to maintain as white washed report. Think who are the extremist and what is the balance view. --Himesh84 (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Himesh, Elamists are not necessarily separatists, but a group of people who believe their group/social/ethnic identity within a multi-ethnic state, should be protected. But they become separatists when the majority group poses threat for their existence or survival by forceful annihilation or systematic assimilation within the majority group. Separatism is not a taboo within the UN Circle since you believe UNHRC. East Timor and Republic of Kosovo are included within the UN System as member countries in the recent past. UN or other majority of member countries never forced those countries to go for more detail negotiation and withdraw their demand for independence. If someone argues Eelam Tamils demad of creating Tamil Eelam is an offence within Sri Lanka; then the British Raj which united traditional Tamil areas for the administrative purposes into other areas of Sri Lanka, should have annexed Sri Lanka as another state of India when they left the region since India itself is a creation by the British Raj by uniting various princely and independent states. Sri Lanka has all its qualifications to be a state of India than an independent country since both Sinhalese and Tamils came from India. Buddhism and Hinduism also came from India. If India can legitimately claim the right for Andaman Islands which is some hundreds of miles from the Indian Sub Continent, there is no reason why India should not claim its stake over Sri Lanka which is only 20 - 30 miles away. If someone finds offence with the demand of Eelam Tamils for Separation; Sri Lanka has no reason to be an Independent State, but a state of India.Sudar123 (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sri Lanka wasn't been part of any other country except for British in 1815-1947 for known 5000 years. It was a independent country since Ramayana era. Origin of Sinhalese are still unknown. According to myths Sinhalese start from price Vijaya who came to Sri Lanka in 543BC. But same myth describes there were clans (mainly Yaksha) lived in Sri Lanka ( princes Kuveni) when prince Vijaya was coming. Later in 343BC thrown go to the local Yaksha price Pandukabhaya after a great battle with Indians. Pandukabhaya is not a myth but he is the founder of the great kingdom of Anuradhapura. Vijaya's clan mixed into community but Yaksha ruled the country as majority.
- British Raj didn't had any uniting or seperism processes. When they came to India , the great Mugal (Muslims who ruled Most parts of India since 1200 with Delhi Sultanate) ruled half of India and Maratha Empire ruled other half. So British accepted Muslims had some ownership. But in Sri Lanka it was totally different. Only Sinhalese kingdom was there when they came. Jaffna kingdom was created when Delhi Sultanate of India invaded Tamil capital Madurai in 1340 to kill last Pandyan king and Annex it. Jaffna kingdom only existed until 1582 (250) years until it became client state of Portuguese. But Sinhala kingdom was there since 347BC - 1815 ( at least 2500 years). British had fair concerns to divide India and not divide Sri Lanka. Europeans(1582-1946 : 264 years) ruled Jaffna longer than Tamils (1340-1582 : 242 years ). It was part of Sinhalese kingdom of Rajarata from 343BC to 1215 (1500 years). Tamils in the North still using the lakes ( Giant's tank in Mannar, Kantale tank ) build by Sinhalese. If you think Jaffna should be given to Tamils due to 250 years of Tamil rule why British shouldn't think it should be given to Sinhalese for 1500 years rule ? --Himesh84 (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sinhalese don't have 5000 years old history in Sri Lanka, but various tribes which has came into Sri Lanka through India since India was a crossing zone for ancient human population. Those tribes contributed to the formation of the Sinhalese tribes and the Tamil tribes as well. Your claim that, "Origin of Sinhalese are still unknown" shows you are still in the archaic mind set and live with myths. Genetic studies on Sinhalese shows who are Sinhalese genetically and their relationship with majority of current Indian population. Many ancient Sri Lankan kings who are claimed as Sinhalese are not necessarily Sinhalese, but from different tribal groups and later on their descendants assimilated within the Sinhalese tribe. Giant Tanks in Sri Lanka are built by these tribal kings probably borrowing the technology from South Indians who could boast for their Grand Anicut which is considered to be one of the oldest water-diversion or water-regulator structures in the world, which is still in use.
- Though I used the term "British Raj", what I really meant is "British Empire". The British Empire concurrently ruled Sri Lanka and India. If they could have united Delhi Sultanate with Maratha Empire, I could't understand why they can't unite the tiny Sri Lanka with the same Indian Sub Continental Administrative process. These are only anomalies and not that they considered more than 5000 years old history of Sri Lanka of various tribes which Sinhalese claims as their own. Maratha Empire can boast much more ancient heritage than Sri Lanka for an argument.
- I want to cut short this discussion on this thread on this topic and we can discuss elsewhere when time comes.Sudar123 (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Now Sri Lanka mainly contains 3 ethnic groups. Sinhalese , Tamils, Muslims. Sinhalese are people who abandon/expelled to south after the massive Tamil invasion in 1215 from Kingdom of Rajarata in North. They may contain different ethnic groups (natives (Yakka), Tamils, Bengalis) but as you said later on their descendants assimilated within the Sinhalese tribe. They have more than 5000 years old history in Sri Lanka and they are the people called as Sinhalese. What ever race they belonged their clear descendants are in the Sinhalese community so Tamils can claim those heritage considering what language those ancients spoken when they first came to Sri Lanka. Sinhalese means all of them before 1215. The people known as Tamils in today came in 1215 from South India and expelled all the People to south , destroyed the Kingdom which lasted from 343BC to 1215. They don't have history more than 800 years in Sri Lanka.
- You should have better understand about Sinhalese before commenting about them. I don't know who did Genetic studies on Sinhalese and what it says so I am not commenting about that. Refer the links in this article Prehistory_of_Sri_Lanka. Fa Hien Cave has yielded the earliest evidence (at c. 34,000 BP) of anatomically modern humans in South Asia. So better you find something older than Fa Hien man to say Sinhalese came from India or anywhere else in South Asia.
- They give separate area to Muslims considering the Muslims effects from 1200 to 1850. When British came Muslims had 650 years of powerful rule (They ruled most part of current India)in India. But when they came to Sri Lanka there wasn't a kingdom for Tamils. It was vanished since 1600. Legally it was belonged to Sinhalese since all the descendants of the Tamil king was killed by Portugese. The only remained daughters of Canci II were married by sons of Sinhalese king Senarath. --Himesh84 (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- With all possible respect to both of you, I don't think you're doing your respective causes any good by lobbing accusations at each other and perpetuating this centuries-long feud. One final time from me: The point of Wikipedia is not to determine which side in a dispute is in the right; our purpose is to lay out all the facts on all sides (using all available reliable sources), so that our readers will have as much material as possible at their disposal and can either make up their own minds or (if they prefer) simply gain a broad understanding of the situation without necessarily having to decide who is wrong and who (if anyone) is right. By objecting to certain proposed changes to this particular article, I am not by any means saying the rest of the article is OK. Indeed, the impression I've pretty much reached by this time is that the entire article is a mess and probably needs a complete rewrite by people who do not have any vested interest in, or bias towards or against, any parties to the Sri Lankan conflict. I wish there were more I could do here, but I think I've accomplished everything I can here, and since I simply can't fight all the battles (not even the battle for impartiality) everywhere, I'm probably best off withdrawing for now and wishing you and others the best. Please try to come up with something that tells the story here in a balanced and neutral fashion — realizing that the end result almost certainly isn't going to make either side completely happy. If you don't come together and come up with something of this kind, I fear both of you are just going to end up getting blocked for disruptive editing (not by me, please understand, because I'm way, way too involved here by now and gave up any right I might have had to act here as an "uninvolved administrator" a long time ago), and some reasonably balanced set of articles on this conflict will eventually get written, but by others, and without your participation. Good luck. — Richwales 17:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Richwales for your interest you have shown so far. I have decided not to get involved on this article anymore.Sudar123 (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Richwales , Thanks for your coordination and help. I wasn't allowed to do modification even I came with the facts (result of the UNHRC vote to urging implementation of LLRC proposals) in the article. So, as I said I gave up. But I don't think you needs to worry something going on a my home page if I am ok with that --Himesh84 (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
DRN
[edit]Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka".The discussion is about the topic Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. Thank you!--obi2canibetalk contr 15:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Kingdom of Rajarata for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kingdom of Rajarata 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/Kingdom of Rajarata 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 template from the top of the article. obi2canibetalk contr 13:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
November 2012
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions are appreciated, but, in this recent edit to Kingdom of Rajarata, you removed Articles for deletion notices from articles or removed other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates. This makes it difficult to establish consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Jprg1966 (talk) 06:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Removing AfD template
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Kingdom of Rajarata. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it. Snotbot t • c » 11:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Please come back
[edit]
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, please come back, wikipedia needs editors like you. Your contributions to wikipedia around Sri Lanka topics is much appreciated. Arunram (talk) 07:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
The article Issues In Darusman Report has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all 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. §FreeRangeFrog 07:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Issues In Darusman Report for deletion
[edit]A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Issues In Darusman Report 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/Issues In Darusman Report 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 template from the top of the article. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 15:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Issues In Darusman Report
[edit]
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.
A tag has been placed on Talk:Issues In Darusman Report requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 16:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Removing Speedy at Talk:Issues In Darusman Report
[edit] Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for taking the time to contribute.
I'm a bot designed by another Wikipedia editor, and I'm here to help you with our deletion process. I noticed that while working on an article recently, you removed a speedy deletion template that tagged it for deletion. Don't get discouraged! Deletion discussions happen on Wikipedia all the time.
If you don't want the article to get deleted, please click here.
The link will take you to the talk page, where you can explain why the article should be kept. If you have any questions about this or need help with editing, you can ask at the Help desk.
We really hope you'll stick around to help make Wikipedia better! Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Your contributed article, Issues In Darusman Report
[edit]
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, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Issues In Darusman Report. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Issues In Darusman Report
[edit]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.
A tag has been placed on Issues In Darusman Report requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit] Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 
or 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
The recent deletion nomination of Issues In Darusman Report resulted in the article's deletion as a content fork (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Issues In Darusman Report), not in a merge. When I suggested a merge, I meant "summarize the position of Sri Lankan government in a couple of sentences", not "dump the whole article into the main page. The article already covers the position of the Sri Lankan government in the Sri Lanka section. If you believe this section needs to be expanded, feel free to; however, it should not go beyond a brief summary, and should not state the Sri Lankan stance as a fact. (See the policy of neutrality.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- There was also another problem with the article: a part of it has been copied from the official statement of the Sri Lankan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which claims copyright to the text. I don't know what the law of Sri Lanka says on the copyright of such official documents (in the Czech Republic, they are exempt from copyright), but unless it is under a free license or in public domain, it cannot be copied to Wikipedia as such. (Naturally, you can use the document as a source, as long as you summarize its content using your own words. [Copying the text with slight rephrasings is NOT sufficient; it needs to be written from the scratch. See the copyright policy.] Even if the document is in public domain, Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to copy it in its entirety - consider uploading it to Wikisource instead.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, I strongly recommend you to discuss the changes you intend to make on the talk page; revert warring is frowned upon on Wikipedia, and may result in you being blocked from editing. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- The same goes for the article Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- It is not possible to merge it couple of sentences. Anyway I guess it is only your opinion and not the wikipedia policy says criticism should be done with couple of sentences and other part can be grow , long as users wish.
- If it is a fork it should merge to relevant place. Without relevancy anything can't be categorized as fork.
- If executive summary is written as well proven facts why Sri Lankan stance can't be used ?
- There want be anymore copy right issues. Totally written in my words.
- If you want to block, block after removing all the contribution by me. It is not ethical to block me while keeping my free effort with you--Himesh84 11:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Since your additions to the article were repeatedly rejected and removed (both by me and other users), I would like to reiterate what I asked you: please do not make major edits to the article without consensus on the talk page. In paricular, please don't create a "Criticism of the report" section. The position of the Sri Lankan government is already covered in the "Sri Lanka" section; adequately, in my opinion. (I am not ruling out the possibility of expanding the section - but please discuss your proposed changes on the talk page first. Note: "discuss" doesn't mean "state your opinion and then go ahead with the edit".) You also grossly misinterpret the decision of the deletion debate. It was concluded as a speedy deletion - NOT as a merge. Finally, you have no right to demand the removal of your contributions, even if you were to be blocked. By submitting them to Wikipedia, you have given Wikipedia and everybody else the right to use - or not to use - them under the terms of the Creative Commons license. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- It may create copyright problems. I don't know. I may have copied content directly from servers still haven't go public.
- "Criticism of the report" and stand of the Sri Lankan government are two things. You should refer LLRC report and find wikipedia policies are different from page to page. Why LLRC has "Criticism of report and why this report can't have ? Both are competitive reports. If you saying Critism of report should not included may I delete same section from LLRC and merge contents to the reaction?
- It was concluded as speedy deletion. And why ? It is concluded as a fork. It means Not because content are false there are something else to include.. Isn't that ? So you don't giving me where it exist ? You alone decided it is not a fork ? If it is a fork give me the location to insert --Himesh84 16:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- For the second time: please don't insert it anywhere. Deletion of the article as a fork is absolutely not a license for you to insert the material in the main article; otherwise, the discussion would have been concluded as a merge.
Why doesn't the article about the United Nations report have a "Criticism" section? Because the report has only been criticized by Sri Lanka, and Sri Lanka's response is already covered in the article. Adding a "Criticism" section that would cover the position of the Sri Lankan government (as you did) would have been redundant. Got it? (I am not ruling out the expansion of the Sri Lanka section. However, before making any major changes or additions you need to make your case on the talk page, and don't go ahead without consensus. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- For the second time: please don't insert it anywhere. Deletion of the article as a fork is absolutely not a license for you to insert the material in the main article; otherwise, the discussion would have been concluded as a merge.
- The article on the Sri Lankan commission has a section on criticism of the commission, and another one on responses to its report. Unlike the U.N. report, the commission has been widely criticized by Amnesty International and other human rights groups. (Apples and oranges.) Again, please don't remove or merge the section in question without consensus. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Qworty with this edit. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you, DVdm (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Did you read the revision in question? Qworty noted that the references do not support claims made in the article. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- I read. It was plain citation required citation without any reason. He should add a reason. I referenced to what obi2canibe has been raised. Not what's on mind of this user. You should ask how Qworty read the mind of obi2canibe. Qworty should not delete references asked by someone else.
What obi2canibe asked was give citations for start of kingdom (5th BCE), end of kingdom(13th century of BCE). references for capitals (tambapanni,upatissa nuwara,Anuradhapura,...). Those are provided but Qworty has removed references and make citations again without specifying the reason. --Himesh84 14:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- So you didn't read the revision, because it says: "reason=Neither of the two given refs state that this kingdom lasted for 18 centuries". (I don't know about the removal of the rest of the references. You should ask Qworty - and this time without vandalizing his talk page and accusing him of vandalism.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Have I said it lasted for 18 centuries ? I can't find such a sentence in my edit. I have referenced to what I have told. Not somethings derivative or projected or something in someones mind--Himesh84 15:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- From 5th century BCE to 13th cenury CE. That's 18 centuries. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Good you showed that. But when reference saying it is from 5th century BCE to 13th century how long references are describing? --Himesh84 15:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is exactly that the references don't support the claim. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- How long claim says and how long references saying ? --Himesh84 13:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is exactly that the references don't support the claim. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Good you showed that. But when reference saying it is from 5th century BCE to 13th century how long references are describing? --Himesh84 15:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- From 5th century BCE to 13th cenury CE. That's 18 centuries. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Have I said it lasted for 18 centuries ? I can't find such a sentence in my edit. I have referenced to what I have told. Not somethings derivative or projected or something in someones mind--Himesh84 15:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
You are currently engaged in a revert war on the article Kingdom of Rajarata (with User:Qworty and others); please stop. Instead, you need to take it to the article talk page, or ask the other user directly. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- I recently find that you don't act as an administrator. You biased to some users. Why don't you at least see the talk page or why don't you asked it from Qworty ? I checked Qworty's page and find that you haven't left any message for him. Actually I am in the talk page and he is not. But biasly you have message me and not the who don't in the talk page. Who give you administrator post ?--Himesh84 13:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka for deletion
[edit]A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ethnic conflict in 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/Ethnic conflict in 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 template from the top of the article. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 16:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- This has already discussed and result was "keep"--Himesh84 16:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- It is not an issue on me. Some issue in Wikipedia auto signed program. It doesn't know to tokenize and identify 4 tidels --Himesh84 03:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Warning
[edit]Please stop what you are doing, immediately. Should you continue disrupting articles, such as by removing content from them without consensus, I am going to seek you being banned from editing the articles Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka, and any content related to these two topics in other articles (existing or newly created). (Being banned means that should you make any edit in violation of the ban whatsoever, it may be summarily reverted, and you will be blocked from editing.)
For the record, I am an administrator of Wikipedia, not the administrator. Administrators are volunteer users who have gained the trust of the community and a power to delete articles, protect them from editing, block users, and undo these actions (in accordance with the policies of Wikipedia). (The Wikipedia website itself is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Without issuing barbarian type warning, please tell me what is the specific wikipedia policy (in accordance with the policies of Wikipedia) which you concluded to have two structures for LLRC and UNSG report. Please excuse me. I can't read your mind. They are identical , competitive reports. I repeatively questioned your dual role in there two articles and repetitively asking in accordance with which policies of Wikipedia your decided to go with different kind of structures for two articles. Please tell us at least in here. Himesh84 13:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Please block me. I feel I am wasting too much time to make Wikipedia rich --Himesh84 13:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution
[edit]I have made a request to help with this editing dispute at the dispute resolution noticeboard. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka, Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission". Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you!
Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case[edit]
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Himesh84 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 21:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Your recent edits[edit]
Signatures[edit]signed Himesh84 17:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC) unsigned Sign test Himesh84 (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Your recent edits[edit]
Why the "bot" doesn't think you're signing your talk page posts[edit]Hi. I think the reason "SineBot" is being overly helpful (by adding a signature to your "unsigned" posts) is that you appear to have customized your signature in such a way that it's no longer being recognized by the bot as being a signature. The problem, I believe, is that your current signature doesn't include a link to your user page or your talk page. A signature without a user link is technically a violation of the signature guidelines, by the way (see WP:SIGLINK) — you're unlikely to be called on the carpet for this alone, but I would strongly recommend you fix it ASAP. Either disable your custom signature and use Wikipedia's default, or else use something minimal like this: [[User talk:Himesh84|Himesh84]] Setting up a custom signature can be tricky; if you have any questions about how to do this right, let me know and I'll be more than happy to help in any way I can. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Your recent edits[edit]
ANI[edit]Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your behaviour. The thread is User:Himesh84. Thank you. —obi2canibetalk contr 18:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Tag removal ban[edit]Hi Himesh84. Per the arbcom decision on Indian subcontinent related articles, I'm banning you from removing any tags from any Sri Lanka related articles for now. Feel free to discuss them on the talk page (non-tendentiously) or seek other modes of dispute resolution. --regentspark (comment) 16:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Final warning[edit]Rather than improving, you've now crossed over into personal attacks and offensive racial hatred. In this diff, you call Tamil people stupid. In this diff, you call Hillcountries an idiot (using the asterisk doesn't change it being an attack). You can dispute points on article talk pages, but you cannot attack other editors or groups of people. Any more of this and you will be blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
I'm sorry Himesh84, but if you persist with your argument about the word id*t you're going to end up with a longer block (consider this a warning). You really need to take a deep breath and rethink the way you're going about editing here. --regentspark (comment) 13:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I am on a Wiki break. Appreciate if users avoid writing anything on my talk page until March
Barnstar For You[edit]
Talkback[edit]I've replied to all three questions/requests you left on my talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia isn't the place to fight for anyone's dignity. You need to drop the battleground attitude, or you're going to get either blocked or topic banned. In fact, now that I think about it, what you're arguing about falls under the general sanctions on caste-related articles in India, Sri Lanka, and other similar places. These sanctions mean that any uninvolved admin may unilaterally sanction an editor who is behaving inappropriately in these topics. This includes edit warring, tendentious editing, displaying a battleground attitude, and other behaviors that are not conducive to consensus building. You're right on the boundary of violating those restrictions. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC) ANI[edit]Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--obi2canibetalk contr 18:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC) May 2013[edit] {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Given that you appear to have been logging out to continue edit warring on Jaffna kingdom, I have increased the length of your block to one week. Remember that blocks apply to editors, not to accounts - if you're blocked, that means you are not permitted to edit for the length of that block, whether using an account or an IP. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 |
