Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 6

< January 5	January 7 >

January 6

[edit]

Template:Magicnums

[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete —Mets501 (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of these numbers are notable; all have been recently redirected to Magic number (programming)#Magic debug values. Navigation template not needed if there is only one page to which one can navigate. Gracenotes^T § 22:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, navigation templates which have one article are useless, and a bunch of pages redirecting to one article is the same. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Amarkov. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Bite

[edit]

The result of the debate was CSD G7. I get the idea, folks - though a warning of this TfD would have been nice. crz crztalk 01:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary hampering on new page patrollers. This template harms Wikipedia as it only helps increase the pages for speedy deletion backlog. Cowman109^Talk 20:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need to make CSD more m:Instruction creep than it is now. If it's crap, it goes. That's what speedy deletion is about. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete If you are going to rebuke an established user DO NOT USE BOILERPLATE. It is patronising and inflammatory. Either take the time to write a message, or don't bother!--Doc^g 21:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obnoxous and judgemental template, if people want users who come here just to create vanispamcruft to be welcomed warmly they can do it I guess, but I'm not going to. I'll stick to maintaining the quality of the project, which sometimes means deleting new articles. If someone wants to discuss this with me, a boilerplate template is about the absolute worst way to start the conversation. --W.marsh 21:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, we shouldn't ABF and just stick a warning template on someone's talk page. If anything, a note should be personalized, asking someone to wait a bit, otherwise we're violating WP:BITE on the NP patrollers, defeating the purpose of the template altogether. --Rory096 21:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of the fact that boilerplate is really really annoying for established users to get, this is based on the questionable, at best, assertion that tagging an article for speedy deletion right after it is created is necessarily a case of WP:BITE, or even that doing such a thing is bad. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:State terrorism in Sri Lanka

[edit]

The result of the debate was deletion, and to be replaced with Template:Sri Lankan Conflict. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing administrator: There is possible vote staking using multiple sockpuppets by User:Harlowraman and User:Rajsingam. So please reconsider about the votes that produce by User:Kandyboy and User:DoDoBirds. According to the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser I have to a wait until vote closes before to the listing to the checkuser. Evidence will be produced on request of administrators. --User:Lahiru_k

No independent organization has ever called these incidents "State Terrorism". There simply are no citations given in these articles as such. While I'm not disputing whether or not the incidents took place, categorizing them as "State terrorism" is the POV of individual Wikipedia editors and that makes this template a clear violation of a number of Wikipedia policies including WP:NPOV, WP:V and especially WP:OR which states

Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material that has not been published by a reliable source... Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position. (unpublished meaning not published by a RS).

As per these policies, Wikipedia editors cannot arbitrarily decide to call these incidents "State terrorism" and create such a template, and therefore it should be deleted.--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 19:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep There is no rule of law in Sri Lanka like other countries like UK ,Turkey,USA,India, etc atleast in there own countries.All killing are extra judical.In Sri Lanka over 65000 people have ben killed unlike other countries neither soliders or government backed thugs ,paramilitary,JVP ,LTTE none of them have been tried in a court of law and sentenced in less 0.0001% cases.This is what I consider state terrorism.Now Look Col Karuna was the independent head of the East and carried operations against Sri Lanka and was responsible for killing the East.Now Sri Lankan government should either offer an amnesty to Karunaif it wants to use him or arrest him and try him in a court of law.

Karuna was the head of the LTTE in the East and if Sri Lankan's government accusations of massacres in the East are taken as 100% true .Karuna was the person who carried it out and he acted independently in several times.Kallarawa massacre

Gonagala massacretook place when Karuna was the head of these attacks if they carried in the East surely he had knowledge of them.Both the Sri Lankan Government before Karuna left the LTTE and the Tamils after he left the LTTE consider him a Terrorist by there own definitions surely if anyone is he is .The only person both agree.But allowing him to move with arms carry out kidnapping,killing from government areas including MPs is shocking surely he should if one lived in a lawful state atleast be called for a enquiry by the Police.Harlowraman 13:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, but all those happened during the time that he was align with the LTTE. I'm not trying to justify him, but as per my knowledge, in military or any other organisations the commands flow from Top to Bottom. Karuna was the terrorist commander in charge of the eastern province, and he received his orders from his Head Quarters somewhere in the Nothern Province which was headed by the one responsible for all these crimes, Velupillai Prabhakaran. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 05:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename (People Lets Compromise ) No respected agaency has deemed the actions of the Sri Lankan government to be of terrorism. There is a blurry line as to who decides it, but it is plain fact that no Wikipedia editor has that power. With power comes responsibility. Be Bold, but use that with responsibility. Do not create absurd topics arbitrarily. But unlike our politicians let us resolve this through dialog Dasiths 20:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - I am willing to compromise, how to we get ahead any suggestions for a rename or a restruture of this template ? RaveenS 01:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This template was nominated few months agao and a massive sock puppetry was uncovered because of it. Closing admin should see all the arguments. This is a case of WP:POINT. More to come. Thanks RaveenS
- - No independent organization such as Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch, or national government has ever accused Sri Lanka of "State terrorism"." is patently false .Independent Organizations and experts have regularly called Sri Lankan government actions "state terrorism," here are some links, including Asian Human Rights Comission, (three of them from a BBC documentary with experts who label Sri Lankan government actions as state terrorism) [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6]. In effect wikipedia articles can be written in an WP:NPOV about State terrorism using WP:RS. This is a template that links related actions by state actors in Sri Lanka much like a list but more.Whether linked articles should stay or go is caled editing, no need to delete it. Thanks RaveenS

Delete terrorism is a loaded POV term. --Doc^g 21:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry this is about the template not about Terrorism. If your argument is about terrorism as a term then it should be addressed at the correct XFD. Thanks RaveenS 23:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, just to balance the random accusation of WP:POINT. And, of course, the fact that "State terrorism" is an extremely biased term, which should never ever be used in describing specific events. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Terrorism along with State terrorism are nuetral terms just like Genocide and Holocaust. Again we are here citing from credible sources per WP:RS if a WP:RS or sources say an event is State terrorism then what policy in Wikipedia prevents an editor from writing about it ? Thanks RaveenS 22:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's incoherent. A reliable source can still be POV. I'm guessing that the goverment of Sri Lanka would have a different POV. We can record that 'according to x, this is terrorism' but we can't declare that it is. That;s never neutral. Can I create 'State terrorism in India/Pakistan/USA'? I bet I can find reliable sources that would call some of their official acts 'terrorist'--Doc^g 23:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again This is about a template not about State terrorism further WP:NPOV alone cannot be used to make deletions in XFD.RaveenS 07:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh Raveen you made that mistake again. Theres a problem regrading WP:RS in your template. You should read the Iwazaki's argument. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 05:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per RaveenS. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would either of you care to explain why this is WP:POINT? Or how the fact that there was massive sockpuppetry is relevant at all? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Because the above nominator has an edit history that shows he is against most the of the articles linked by the template. More with evidence later RaveenS 23:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - When? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 05:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this template is irreversably POV, as it looks at the whole Tamil-Sinhalese conflict from only one side. Also see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism. Khoi khoi 23:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again POV alone us not a strong reason to delete content from wikipedia. May be you can improve the templateRaveenS 07:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per RaveenS --Sechzehn (talk · contribs) 00:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Argh. Let's assume the nominator is indeed doing this WP:POINTedly. Even then, you have 3 people saying to delete it who are NOT making a WP:POINT, so you really can't just keep it per WP:POINT. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sri Lankan government's poor human rights record needs to be highlighted.59.144.31.185 15:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The whole template is WP:HOAX and WP:POV..Wikipedia has been used for cheap LTTE propaganda and the incidents mentioned in the template fully confirmed this.Lets takethis as an example..A Tamil girl was raped by some Army soldiers and the Government filed a court case and sentenced them to death..But the editor still calls this "state terrorism" !! Isn't it obvious the editors hidden desire to defame the Government of Sri Lanka no matter what good they do ?? --Iwazaki 06:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep Sri Lankan government has done nothing since 1983 to improve its record it has worsened in recent times220.226.140.53 16:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: This template contains potentially libellous and unsubstantiated allegations against a sovereign government which violates wikipedia's NPOV. This template is currently being abused as a banner advertisement which can be pasted on pages regarding sri lanka so that the government can be defamed by pro-eelam and LTTE supporters around the world. For example take the following links in the template,

Taraki_Sivaram - His murder is still unsolved, and there is no proof to substantiate that he was killed by the government. The LTTE itself is accused to have been behind the murder[7].

Chandra_Fernando - Again it is stated in the article "He was killed by unknown gunmen in June of 1988 in his own church". If he was killed by unknown gunmen, how on earth can this be a link for state terrorism in sri lanka? There is so much controversy regarding his death which can be verified by reading the controversy section.

N._Raviraj - the LTTE is accused of the murder, and there is no evidence to suggest a government hand in his killing. Again there is much controversy regarding the perpatrator of the killing.

All the above allegations of state terrorism are examples of original research, are completely unsubstantiated and should be deleted.

As such I wish to state as per the above examples, that this template contains completely unsubstantiated and libellous allegations against a sovereign government, and that the template is being used as a banner advertisement which can be pasted over as many pages to try to defame the government of Sri lanka. Letting this template survive would create many conflicts as to what exactly to put in it, and who decides what exactly constitutes state terrorism etc, and it should be speedily deleted as it violates WP:NPOV, WP:NOR amongst others.Kerr avon 06:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep Sinhala army has a poor record and its crimes are encouraged by the Sri Lankan state.This is state sponsored Terrorism Erodeguy 15:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Possible Single purpose account — Erodeguy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.Kerr avon 17:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The template is an excellent model for other pages dealing with similar issues to emulate.Inclusion or exclusion of material should be taken on a case-by-case basis.After a cursory, random examination of several of the pages, i would say that most of the material is strongly backed up by neutral, reliable sources like Amnesty International and other human rights groups.Some material, however, should be removed;for instance, the Krishanti Kumaraswamy case is clearly not classifiable as "State Terrorism", and has no place in the template.Most of the instances, however, are clear instances of state terrorism.Those people here protesting the page's existence are clearly pushing a particular point of view based on political disputes rather than Academic rejection, and their opinions should therefore be marginalized as inappropriate for Wiki consideration.Stone put to sky 06:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- REPLY Dear stone, Its not only Krishanti Kumaraswamy, all the rapes mentioned in the template can easily be categorised as WP:HOAX.Look atthis..Not a single citation is given but editor still have it in this template..Clear indication of his WP:POV,isn't it ? When a soldier committed a rape, how can we categorize it as a "State Terrorism" ?? There was an incident here in Japan ,where an US marine rapped a girl from Okinawa. Can some one call this a "State Terrorism of The USA" ?? If a Chinese soldier commit such a crime ,can you categorize it as "State Terrorism"?? The desire of the editor is quite obvious..When ever a rape happen in SL he's going to have it in Wikipedia under the "State Terrorism".Can you make any sense out of this ?

Also, None of the Organizations you mentioned above ,say State Terrorism exist in Sri Lanka.Not a single nation, including the USA and the UN ,say "State Terrorism" exist in Sri Lanka..So academically I think this whole thing is WP:HOAX and borne due to the extreme dislike the editor had towards the Sri Lankan and Its people.

There are human right violations, esp when you have a brutal Terrorist Organization like LTTE , Some of the counter actions by the Government may have caused civilian deaths..During the war, Air force may missed targets and kill innocent people accidentally ,Is this "Terrorism"?? And if the LTTE is using Human Shields , and civilian die due to this, how can we blame the State ?

I would appreciate if you can take a look at what user Kerr avon wrote above.He had pointed out many incident,which may have had LTTE hand in it, but still ended up in this template which shows the true desire/nature of the creator of this.

Also, please remember ,most the cited sources are far from being neutral..There are sites such as "Tamil Nation" ,"Tamil NET","Sangam " ,"Tamil Canadian"etc..These are extremely PRO LTTE sites !!

The whole template can be easily rejected for its failure to keep the Academic Standard of Wikipedia..Thanks--Iwazaki 15:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I have argued many times before with the keepers of this flame: colleagues RaveenS, Travb and Stone, this is not the way to present contested material. It renders events in an inherently POV fashion by its title and linking of material. Leading to a constant battle. There is a perfectly acceptable and peaceful way to present such material so that it adheres to WP:ATT, WP:V and WP:NOR. Far more controversial material than this has remained rightly untouched and undeleted before, because it was created within policy. This isn't within policy. At best, the inference of guilt is tacit, at worst it is shoved down our throats without any counterpoint or attribution. --Zleitzen 08:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Again as requested countless number of time assume good faith WP:AGF and no personal attacks WP:NPA keep discussion to the template not to editors. ThanksRaveenS
    - Good grief. How on earth is the above a personal attack RaveenS? --Zleitzen 23:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Because Wikipedia editing is not about editors, it is about the artcles. Make your case againsts the template not about editors. There are other avenues for it not an XFD. Thanks RaveenS 17:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep After a random examination of several of the pages, I also have the same opinion that most of the material are strongly backed up by neutral, reliable sources like Amnesty International and other human rights groups. DoDoBirds 09:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Possible Single purpose account or sock puppet - user:DoDoBirds, contribs[8], has made few contributions to wikipedia and his account appears to be used primarily for voting in AFD's and TFD's.Kerr avon 11:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Per nomination, Iwazaki, Kerr avon. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 15:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rename~~ Changed to weak keep per rename - "Alleged State Terrorism" or something. The LAnkans call the LTTE's actions terrorism/militancy and the LTTE calls the lankans actions "state terrorism". Things like Black July definitely belong though.Baka man 16:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - So if renamed you will vote to keep ? RaveenS 18:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It was sensibly renamed "allegations" after the last tfd fiasco. This was changed by someone. That someone was you, RaveenS.
    1. Almost none of these acts have been labelled state terrorism by any notable source. Certainly not by Amnesty who never use the term in their reports, despite what an editor writes above.
    2. Even if some group did describe them as "State terrorism", that is not a universally agreed view. Thus the template, which cannot carry different views, is inherently POV. Favouring one view against another. Therefore it must be deleted despite your best efforts to propagandize these issues.--Zleitzen 23:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - - You are persoanlly attacking contributers and remember this is wikipedia we have rules and those rules are WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Please dont be selective in you approach to application of wikipedia rules. Thanks RaveenS 00:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Zleitzen I am not "propagandizing" in any way or form. In fact I am making this as NPOV as I possibly can.Baka man 01:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Bakasuprman, I was writing about RaveenS. Who eventually changed the title to "Allegations" after a long protratcted dispute to remove the template. But apparently RaveenS went back on this recently and changed it again. Hence yet another protracted dispute. By the way, none of what I have written here contravenes NPA - I've merely stated the facts.--Zleitzen 02:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment You are wrong in your haste to attack fellow wikipedians. I did not change it to Allegations initially, it was changed by different user. see [9]. I changed it to Attributed later on. Not only have you violated WP:NPA repetedly against me but also Wp:Civilby terming my edits as despite your best efforts to propagandize. I demand an apology. Thanks RaveenS
Very Strong Keep Strong Independent sources back up everything that is said in this article, as well, "Terrorism" is not an abstract concept that only despots can use to accuse their political opponants of to win sympathy and the right to abuse human rights, it is a very clear cut, and sources do substantiate it in Sri Lanka --Sharz 01:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong KeepI am also the same opinion of Sharz. "Terrorism" is not an abstract concept that could be only utilised to accuse the enemies in war to win sympathy and the right to abuse human rights. Rajsingam 02:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Being of the opinion that a bias is neutral does not make it neutral in fact. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Or Rename~~ The name of the template is undeniably POV, which breaks many wikipedia rules. The articles in the template are already very visible to most of the readers without the template. The template needs big clean up it contains name(s) of individual(s) where there is not even an article exist.As some of the editors have suggested, to call some of these acts as State Terrorism is Original Research (eg:- the Forced Disappearances section--how would you know if it is forced, unless you were watching?

). There are many many questions like this to be asked. If the wording is corrected and not biased then I suggest we rename this, in my opinion it should be renamed as '"Alleged Atrocities of Sri Lankan Army or Government"' ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 07:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I missed to read Kerr avon's comments. I change my opinion as per him. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 07:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closing Admin This template has been nominated for deletion several times. And has been the focal point of edit wars and many other issues in Sri Lanka related articles. To ease the tension between edit warring parties I created Template:Sri Lankan Conflict to cover the topics in a way that would be satisfying everyone and adhere to WP:NPOV, the creator of this template User:RaveenS agrees that the template I have created is sufficeint here if you notice he even agrees that this (i.e. State Terrorism) template is dubious. After some discussion with me RaveenS agreed to let go the template; you can see the entire conversation here. I understand that it is difficult for RaveenS to part with a template that he created with a good intention. But this template has been highly disruptive and has wasted a lot of time. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 09:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please Netmonger, let the Wikiprocess take it course, true to my job description I am always thing about Continuous Improvement. Improving this template or merging it others. My conversation in your talk page was regarding that.RaveenS

Strong Keep Sri Lanka uses death squads in the war against JVPand Tamils Kandyboy 16:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Single purpose account — Kandyboy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Kerr avon 00:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disallow for articles, or delete, if that is not an option. We're just not ready yet. Currently, even much less contentious Sri Lanka conflict related issues habitually create fierce revert wars, so I think it would only reduce our chances of getting anything done here. This question can be revisisted once we achieve more agreement on easier issues. — Sebastian 21:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You mean remove contentious articlesfrom the template ? RaveenS 17:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThis deletion has already been proposed on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 15; result was: no consensus. — Sebastian 04:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC), corrected 00:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Despite the wide raging political views expressed here, I'd just like to point out that no one has as yet been able to refute what I said in the first sentence of this nomination, which was

No independent organization has ever called these incidents "State Terrorism".

It doesn't matter if individual Wikipedia editors think these incidents are "state terrorism" or not. Its just beyond the point. The fact is Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a political forum to express our opinions. Everything we include on Wikipedia has to be cited from reliable sources, or it will end up resembling a gossip column.

I appeal to everyone who voted "keep" here for reasons nothing to do with the nomination, please provide citations for each of the events listed in this template to show which notable independent organization called them "state terrorism", and if so I'll withdraw this nomination. If no citations can be provided, please accept that it is your POV and your OR to call them "state terrorism", read the reasons for my TFD nomination again and kindly reconsider your votes. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 05:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above user requested to everyone who voted "keep" here for reasons to show notable independent sources for "state terrorism", I like to provide the following sources:

Comment I don't pretend to know a lot about Sri Lankan politics, and am only here because I objected to POV material on another State terrorism page, but those citations are all from Tamil sources and are by no means independent neutral assessments.For instance, the quote "It's state terror in Sri Lanka" is merely reported in the Hindu and is quoting a speaker at a Tamil rally. It is an allegation from a partisan group and should be attributed as such, not presented as fact.--Zleitzen 07:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The Hindu is not a partisan source. Though the other one is from a Tamil newspaper's translation, the "Asian Human Rights Commission" might have given enough thought for reliability and other checks and balances for verification of the truth before it published.Rajsingam 07:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Seems Rajsingam didn't understand snowolf's comment. He told No independent organization has ever called these incidents "State Terrorism".
Sri Lankan State Terror: Through the Eyes of a Dissident - Oh not the someones opinion Raj. See this, Cameron Walker: Sri Lankan State Terror Monday, 30 October 2006, 12:08 pm, Opinion: Guest Opinion.
"It's state-sponsored terror in Sri Lanka" - The Hindu Special Correspondent reporting from Tamil Nadu about a really that conduct by one of the South Indian extreme pro LTTE party, Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam against Sri Lankan Government. So still you think that this is independent?
Stop State Terrorism in Sri Lanka - This is an online petition that holding only one vote.

Even it has 100,000 votes Raj it cannot categorized as INDEPENDENT.

SRI LANKA: Featured Articles: State Terrorism - This article was retrieved by the "SiberNews" that highly regarded as one of the pro LTTE online news media. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 07:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply It's not the organisation that matters a lot, but the bottom line of the truth and it can be from anywhere reasonably.Rajsingam 07:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Read this first Raj. Hope you would be notice the forth key policy, Avoid bias. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 08:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thanks. I read, but it's very difficult from the available criteria to define an information source whether it is biased or not.Rajsingam 08:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I restate that this template is being used as a banner add to defame the sri lankan government. Take Taraki_Sivaram for example, there is no evidence whatsoever that the sri lankan government was behind the killing (see the controversy section), with even the former LTTE commander Colonel Karuna stating that the LTTE was behind it, yet when we go to the article we have the template in question stating blodly "Allegations of State terrorism in Sri Lanka", which gives the impression that the sri lankan government killed Sivaram which is blatantly false. This shows that the template is maliciously being used to defame a sovereign government using original research and as such should be speedilt deleted to avoid further controversy.Kerr avon 22:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Japanese Blitzkrieg in Korea

[edit]

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 01:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not being used and the title is complete nonsense. --Wikimachine 06:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 04:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Moveto2

[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. —Mets501 (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Template. Created by a user to put at the top of Death Cap to announce the intention to move the article.Already have Template:Move that should be put on the talk page. Don't need another template to clutter the article itself, especially when the change has little impact on the article itself. --Bobblehead 03:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 04:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]