User talk:Obi2canibe/archive3

I will usually reply on this page to messages posted here. Please add this page to your watchlist so that you know when I have replied. I make it a practice to add to my watchlist all talk pages that I post to &mdash; if I have posted on your talk page feel free to reply there.

Sri Lankan Tamil boat people
Looks like the Vietnamese boat people, it is becoming a sad phenomenon with a large number of realiable citations. Taprobanus (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks.-- obi2canibe talk contr 15:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * How about nominating it for featured article candidate Taprobanus (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Kingdoms of Sri Lanka
Can you please check this edit. They presented the Kingdom of Jaffna as Minor kingdom under Rajarata and they reverted your good edit without any citation, Can you please have a look and edit it properly. please. thank you. --Jai Kumara Yesappa (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I missed that one. I've asked Blackknight12 to explain his reasons for the removal.-- obi2canibe talk contr 16:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay Sir! Talk with him and change it properly thank you--Jai Kumara Yesappa (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Tamils of India
Can you please help to improve this Sri Lankan Tamils of India article, whenever you got free time. Thank You.--JAIKAYY 03:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jai Kumara Yesappa (talk • contribs)


 * Hye dude! its nice to meet you and great contributions you made in Wiki. Also, Can you please do some good contributions and edits on Sri Lankan Tamils in India. Appreciated dude.... --Jai Kumara Yesappa (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Have some sense
Hello. Look, if you spot duplicates don't waste time prodding me, redirect them!!! Thankyou for your understanding... Dr. Blofeld       White cat 16:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Tamil Eelam.
just saw ur good work at Tamil Eelam good luck. --  Doctor muthu's muthu    wanna talk ? 19:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks.-- obi2canibe talk contr 17:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Provinces of Sri Lanka
Hello, I thought you might want to know that I have nominated Provinces of Sri Lanka for featured article status since you added a significant amount of information to it.--Blackknight12 (talk) 07:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Munneswaram temple
I redid the articl, I still need to cite it more. But if you hav time, can you go over it for any errors, spelling, grammar etc. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 06:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input in the article, just like you I also grew up thinking there are five temples around Sri Lanka but academic RS sources dont include Tondeswaram as a Siva temple. It seems to be a modernism that has no historic tradition. Anyway, as I develop these article I want to depend on RS academic sources for the most important parts such as History. Following article is no RS source but gives the other perspective  I am looking for Dr. S Pathmanathan's Hindu Temples of Sri Lanka (2006 edition Kumaran) Do you have a copy ? Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, my knowledge is limited to what I can find on websites but they can be contradictory. I found one website which stated there were only three temples but most stated there were five.-- obi2canibe talk contr 16:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Coast Veddas
I am in the process of citing this article in my user space. Coast Veddas. You are more than welcome to look over it to see whether I had made any errors and edit as you wish, if you have time before I plcae it in the main space. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ceylonese State Council election, 1931
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Ceylonese State Council election, 1931, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.thepaleochorasite.com/wiki/index.php?title=Ceylonese_State_Council_election,_1931&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for dealing with User talk:70.40.144.71 for me. Take care --Blackknight12 (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: TamiNet citations
Okay, first up I'm not edit warring, so lets to to discuss and get a satisfactory resolution.

The WP:SLR guidelines state (in full, with emphasis added) "QS: These fulfill WP:RS, but only tell one side of the story (see also WP:NPOV#bias). They can therefore always be used with explicit attribution. Wording should be: The pro-Faction Source reports that ... (where Faction and Source are placeholders that will be replaced with the appropriate names)."

According to SLR, Tamilnet is a QS. So if we're going to use Tamilnet citations, they will have to be explicitly attributed. So for example the sentence,

3 September 2004: Ceylon Workers' Congress (eight MPs) joins UPFA, giving it a majority in parliament.

will become

3 September 2004: Pro-rebel Tamilnet reported that the Ceylon Workers' Congress (eight MPs) joins UPFA, giving it a majority in parliament.

Not ideal. Especially given that there are other sources for the same sentence(s), I don't see a point doing this. Comments? -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 23:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a reason why the note under Daily News, is "Attribution only necessary when information conflicts with other sources" and Tamilnet is simply attribution required. Tamilnet makes things up. Like a blog they may carry the truth at times, but there's no way to verify what's true or not based on Tamilnet alone. That's why we had discussions about this on SLR and came to the sources agreements. Is anyone disputing that 8 CWC MPs crossed over on whenever? No, and that article cited may not have any inaccuracies in it. But Tamilnet has published plenty of articles containing falsehoods before, and if we cite Tamilnet is some articles, that opens up the possibility of statements cited using inaccurate Taminet articles getting in as well. That why sources which have past histories of unreliability are "blacklisted" on Wikipedia, so we have consistency throughout. See Sources.


 * The use of Tamilnet by people like Reuters is/was strictly as a primary source on matters related to the LTTE. They were always cited as "pro-LTTE Tamilnet said ..." That's the only place to use Tamilnet on Wikipedia, and should always be preceded by the "pro-rebel" qualifier. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 19:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Since I don't see where neutral editors have concluded Tamilnet can be used as a reliable source without attribution on Wikipedia, and it looks like we aren't going to agree on this, I initialed a new discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. Feel free to comment. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 14:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)