User talk:Tamilan101

Sri Vikrama Rajasinha article - Edit Conflict

There seems to be an unconstructive edit war over the name of this article. I think it's time the matter was resolved by an administrator. The article was previously entitled, "Sri Vikrama Rajasinha of Kandy". "Sri Vikrama Rajasinha" was the most common name by which the last king was known as per both Sri Lankan and European records, a perusal of books on the Kanydan period will confirm this. Yes, "Sri" is an honorific prefix, but it is also the most common name by which he was known. The prefix "Mother" appears in the wikipedia entry on "Mother Teresa", this is in accordance with MOS:HONORIFIC: "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included".

Secondly, Tamilian101 has been attempting to add "Prince Kannusamy" to the king's name. Pre-coronation titles should appear in the content of the article, but certainly not in the title of the article. Addressing a king by the lower title, "prince", is incorrect and disrespectful. It lowers the king's status to that of a "prince", if you respect him or even his position as the last king of Ceylon, then please stop continually degrading his name. The article on Queen Elizabeth does have "Princess Elizabeth" appended the the article's title for this reason. Regardless of your politics, historical revisionism is unhelpful. Prince Kannusamy Nayaka, a member of the Madurai royal family, chose the name "Sri Vikrama Rajasinha" upon his coronation (aged 18), and that is the most common name by which he was known throughout his life.

This is an important article on one of the most interesting periods of Sri Lankan history, so please let's work together to make it more informative an accessible without quibbling over unconstructive modifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.143.123 (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, adding the name of the king in three separate languages on the English Language version of wikipedia clutters up the page with information that it largely uninformative for the vast majority of readers. It should be noted that Sri Lanka's inhabitants at the time also included Burghers and Moors (who spoke Dutch and Arabic among other languages), listing his names in all these languages is unnecessary clutter. This is why Queen Elizabeth's name does not appear in Welsh, Gaelic or any other language on the wikipedia entry, because it is uninformative on an English language encyclopedia and adds unnecessary clutter.124.170.47.97 (talk) 05:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil was the original language of the king, and Sinhala may have been the language he used significantly during the reign of the kingdom. Lastly telugu is his origin, however you may erase these but please don't erase anything else that is needed for the article.(Tamilan101 (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

July 2009

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to VVT, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011

Please do not add any more pictures to shalwar kameez. There are enough already. Add them to the Commons gallery, but not to the article. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS You can't add pictures unless they are in the public domain or have the permission of the photographer. You had neither with the picture you tried to add to Shalwar kameez. That picture will be deleted from Wikipedia is you don't provide the information. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WANTED!

Hi. Please stop your fanatic reverts in the Wanted page. The writer is credited, so it is a remake of the Telugu film and remember to summarize your edits. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 06:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite your references to your claim.(Tamilan101 (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I have added a reference. But I have filed a case against you because of unexplained revert warring. You did not provide a source for your claim, one that was not needed for this kind of statement. I have given a reason, it is a remake of the Telugu film because the original writer is credited. That is how you do for every film!!! Anyway, the case can be found [1]. Participate if you want to justify your actions with a valid reason. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 14:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wanted (2009 film). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

At some point an admin had warned you as potentially disruptive editor diff, but since then you have occasionally comes to wikipedia and added potentially racially motivated edits such as introducing POV terms, removing cited material here and here.

By the way Sinhala-Brahmi used a lot of Tamil Brahmi signs and inscriptions and had a a lot of Tamil words per Prof A. Vellupillai see here. You by removing the connection between them is actually betraying a Mahavamsa mindset that prevents us from writing factually. So please refrain from unhelpful edits and contribute to the betterment of knowledge. Kanatonian (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You appear to not heed the advice of other editors and repeatedly add your own POV to articles. This is not allowed, please see the WP:Welcome page and understand our policies. If you continue to violate them, you will be blocked. —SpacemanSpiff 08:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Tamilan101! Thank you for your contributions. I am Abdul raja and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Abdul raja T 02:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Widespread chronic edit warring. Thank you. Swarm ^X 05:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Vijayanagara Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tamil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, 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. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited West Bengal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dravidian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Brown people with this edit. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bodhidarma7

He's continously adding his personal opinions to the articles. --MThekkumthala (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have been watching him very closely and his edits. He is trying to write the articles in POV propaganda. (Tamilan101 (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I have warned him because of 3rr. If he ignores it, we can block him at the 3rr noticebord. --MThekkumthala (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All 3 of you are edit warring. 3RR is just one definition of an edit war. All of you could end up being blocked from editing if you continue to edit by reverts and deletions without using the article talk pages. Please go through the steps of explaining yourselves, and avoid making yourselves look like edit warriors. It is clear you disagree with Bodhidarma7 on many things but you have to be able to work with people who do not agree with you. What do the sources say?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Five Dravidians

I don't know what your logic is behind your edits towards The Five Dravidians, and I don't know why you seem don't like the use of South India, but I will ask you one more time if you are to make any edits, constructive of not, please give a summary as to why you have done that otherwise it just seems as vandalism. The Five Dravidians article is well sourced and if you bothered to read its content or its references you would have noticed that the Five Dravidians are from the Pandyan Dynasty, a kingdom in the South of India (well referenced in its own article as well). Just in case you still can't find it or do not believe me here is a source. You yourself have arcknoledged that in your own edit here. And may I ask you to stop accusing other editors of 'spreading propaganda and POV' because I have been watching your edits and have noticed you are doing what you tell others not to. For example: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] and [10]. This is just a sample and they are all controversial edits, (I'm sure I dont need to explain why), non of them are referenced and all but one have an explanation as to why you did it. You have been warned and told not to do it before, yet you still continue. You have been warned many times on your own user page and I am afraid if you don't keep to Wiki guidlines I will have to report you. I hope you understand and happy editing.--Blackknight12 (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, you're a funny chap. Don't act as if you have not done your own POV edits. I can get proof beyond proof and report you as well. For some reason you are afraid of the truth in my edits, cited or not. The Jaffna Library edits have been referenced. The Kingdom of Kotte edit I have done is also referenced very clearly. In the article "The Five Dravidians", you have edit warred with another user claiming that they were invaders. Which is a very CLEAR POV edit from yourself. You edits are biased, as well have nationalistic propaganda side to it. Please stop, or I will have to report you. Thank You. (Tamilan101 (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Indo-Aryan migration shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring report

I have filed a report concering the edit-warring between you and User:Bodhidharma7, it can be found here. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biased admins

Hi there. Seems like Bodhidarma is free to revert edit war. We both know, that we need to work together more closely, since we belong to the Dravidians. They want to ban you, although you haven't engaged in an edit war since you got the warning. Enough said. I want you to help me building up a strong alliance of proud Dravidians to counter the clearly visible Anti-Dravidian tendencies and propaganda work in Wikipedia. If you see a Dravidian in need try to help but beware of Admins with "Indo-European lineage". Be always in line with official policies. Don't talk with the bloodsucking Aryans and South Brahmins, unless you see that guy is ok. We both know, that this is the fight of our life, the only problem of all real Dravidians. We are here to win this battle--MThekkumthala (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I totally agree, we will find more editors like us and create a team of Dravidian editors. I will get back to Bodhidharma7's edits very shortly I will not allow him to spread propaganda like this. Wikipedia is the first choice to any researcher to gain general knowledge about any subject and if there is propaganda within the articles, then they will believe it is true. As of now there is a another edit war amongst Sri Lankan articles and there is a user named "SriSuren" who is trying to erase the history of Tamils on the island of Sri Lanka. He is also editing propaganda on the "Tamil people" page you can find him. Please help me with these edits, I will do what I can to help you fight your battles.(Tamilan101 (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks bro. I'll check that Cinkala later. Seems to be ridiculously Sinhala centric. I think he will be soon bombed with hard facts. one thing, do not engage in an editwar. this will weaken our cause significantly.--MThekkumthala (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for marriage

I'm on to you. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All 3 of you, if you make sure your editing is according to Wikipedia norms and policies you should be able to work together to improve these articles. If you see problems with the neutrality of articles, then please make constructive proposals, and not proposals which simply involve changing from one POV to another. Rather than deleting reference to sourced materials, add balancing accounts and check whether you can make the wordings more neutral. Please also realize, all of you, that teaming-up in gangs is not a way to get around WP norms, it will just end up getting you banned, and then the articles will remain un-improved.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

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.

Historical definitions of races in India (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Races of Europe

Jaffna city (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Naga

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.

Notification

Hello. This message is to notify you that you have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts. The thread is Dravidians: Caucasoids or Australoids?. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Tamil people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Naga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can u plz tell me y r u deleting the referenced content about prevalence of vedic religion in the Tamil country before the christian era?will u doing so change the history? or u r just being biased? Nijgoykar (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits in the Sri Vikrama Rajasinha article

I have left you an explanation (with 11 points) which refers to my revert of your (Tamilan101's) last revert, which was a revert of the stable version Blackknight12 chose, asking us to resolve the issues, and your last answers. I have chosen a more neutral stable version than Blackknight12 , which does not have any Sinhala or Tamil scripts, as his had only Tamil script. You have reverted all my edits including significant information (see point 11 in my explaination in the talk page), and not only the ones regarding the scripts and the king's socalled "alias" in your revert. You have also reverted the user MediaJet's edit. You must realize that there are some rules we must all adhere to. I have reverted your edit with what I think is a stable neutral version, if you want to revert that you can revert it and write in your Tamil scripts as well, but do your citations as specified in WP guidelines, instead of the link collection you have posted. WP:REF WP:CITEHOW WP:BOOKLINKS --SriSuren (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka and Naga people (Sri Lanka)

Please don't WP:edit war, as you are on Sri Lanka and Naga people (Sri Lanka). Doing so may get you WP:blocked.

As others have said, it's up to you to provide the evidence. AFAICT, the ref does not say the Nagas "were" Tamil; also, the sentence you added is difficult to understand. Pleas read WP:BOLD and take it to the talk page to discuss the point with the editors you disagree with. — kwami (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incivility

Your edit summary on History of Sri Lanka was uncalled-for. I also have the impression that you are mainly here to promote particular nationalistic views, which is against our policy. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British Ceylon demographics

Please read the Demographics of Sri Lanka article. It provides, with references, the ethnicity of the island going back to 1881. You will see that Sri Lankan Tamil population only reached the million figure in the mid 20th century. So there couldn't be "millions of Tamils already living in the Maritime provinces" when the Indian Tamils were brought to the island in the mid 19th century. If we can't get such basic, verifiable facts correct on Wikipedia what hope is there for everything else?--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider a proposal

Dear Tamilan, please give your thoughts on the proposal here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Dravidian_peoples#Genetic_anthropology_section_needs_updating gd tms. Nirjhara (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jaffna kingdom

You might want to participate in this discussion at Talk:Jaffna kingdom#Migration of Sinhalese. Thanks.--Blackknight12 (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated reverts of my edits in the Kandy Nayaks article and failiure to give sources = Disruptive behaviour

As required by the process of complaining to the administrators I am informing you that if you revert my edit without giving a reliable source and specifying what these "number of marriage ties" were, I am going to complain to the administrators about your disruptive editing and reverting. On january 31st I gave 7 days to find a source and 25 days passed without any reliable source been given. Now you have started to revert my edit. Why is it so difficult to give a source and specify these marriage ties? Please see talk page in the article. As your behaviour is a clear violation of Wikipedia policies of WP:3RR and good faith editing, I will complain to the administrators - please note that if you revert my edit again, you'll be violating the 3RR, this is just counting the reverts u have done the last 24 hours. Please also note this is after you having had 25 days to give a source and specify these marriage ties. If you think it is not relevant to specify them in that paragraph, you could specify them in another paragraph or if you like, u could do so in the talk page first. You can't do any of it since you are fully aware that this statement is a fake synthesis/construction. This is a clear violation of good faith editing. --SriSuren (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Vikrama Rajasinha

I have protected the article Sri Vikrama Rajasinha so you can discuss your changes on the talk page instead of edit warring. This is a good opportunity for you to start a discussion and resolve your issues on the page. And please don't wait for the protection to run out so you can revert again, because I will protect it indefinitely.--Blackknight12 (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have an issue understanding the problem here. The version of the article prior to these recent changes was already chosen as the stable one. However the edits from Shu-Sai shong, MediaJet and SriSuren are unexplained on the talk page. Next you have protected this page and asked me discuss my "changes" on the talk page. I find this irrelevant because I am not the one doing these nonconstructive edits so I don't have to write anything on the talk page. I am only reverting the article back to it's original stage. You are creating disruption on this article without ANY discussion or reason.Tamilan101 (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Sri Vikrama Rajasinha. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing.

No you fail to understand that there is not only one stable version of an article, as there is information added and removed, the article is in a constant process of being developed. Hence the article is not going to be the same revision for the rest of its life. Keep that in mind. The other users you have stated did make constructive edits but all you did was revert them as seen here as one example. Even if you thought there was nothing wrong with your edits and there was with the others, why didn't you go to the talk page then, instead of edit warring? I gave you a warning already and you broke it, it seems to me you have a big problem with going to the talk page, I suggest you start following wiki policy, I'm sure that's not the first time I have told you, just don't let an Admin tell you next time.--Blackknight12 (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing.--Blackknight12 (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sri Vikrama Rajasinha of Kandy. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhalese New Year

You and Blacknight112 need to be discussing the issues on Sinhalese New Year that lead to the article being protected. Protection isn't just something you wait through--it's a time to discuss the problems and reach consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Hi. When you recently edited Madurai Nayak Dynasty, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tamil and Telugu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

I have reported at ANI regarding the Anuradhapura Kingdom.Hillcountries (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Jaffna, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Please do not remove entire sections of articles without leaving an explanatory edit summary, and first discussing the edit if it may be contentious. Mfield (Oi!) 04:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gyan books

Please avoid using books published by Gyan in citations. They're pretty much all of them unreliable sources and in the case of the Tyagi one that you recently added to Martial Races, you've selected one of the most notorious examples known to experienced contributors here. User:Sitush/Common#Gyan explains some of the issues. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]