User talk:Snowolfd4/Archive 2

Military Use of Children
I am sorry but I am going to take out at least a fair part of your contribution for this article quite a lot of it is unsuitable for WP (quotes from a named child is news not reference). Also the news source you cite is inadequate; a local paper isn't good enough for contenious international stuff. I am not unsympathetic to your desire to put more details about their activity but when making these kind of thngs you had better accurately cite say HRW, or a UN body or a very credible NGO. --BozMo talk 06:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * SFC is a poor secondary selection of info it is not a primary source. The journalist has selected stuff to suit him. Most US newspapers are notoriously unreliable on international news. Anyway it cites UNICEF; find the UNICEF articles and I'd be happy. The other stuff find me a policy statement saying we don't put a picture of mickey mouse on every article. We are what we are my friend. --BozMo talk 06:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have taken out some of the ridiculous language "besieged" (I work for an NGO working in East Sri Lanka and that's crap: we have had to withdraw from places because of the LTTE but we are not being besieged) "furiously". I have also searched the UNICEF news database but not found the articles. A credible secondary source like say a scientific paper would cite accurately not just say "UNICEF". That alone is enough to take out the source as not credible enough. I have also removed the tsunami stuff because I cannot find it substantiated. I have left in most of what you put in otherwise because you did in fact improve the article, and the bulk of it I can easily check. --BozMo talk 06:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Incidentally I think the whole article is now more balanced, thanks for the contribution. All of these cases are atrocious and it has appropriate content on LTTE versus e.g. the Lord's Resistance Army who do similar things. Putting the tsunami stuff back in with a "citation needed" flag even if it were true would undermine the factual style. Perhaps you should try the asian tsunami article which has far more readers... --BozMo talk 06:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * IMHO you have RRRed an article and also basically wrecked it. I don't have the time or inclination to do more than flag NPOV is (and change a few tenses) but if you are trying to draw attention to a particular cause this isn't a clever way to go about it. It will have to wait until another editor has time to repair it --BozMo talk 07:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I partially withdrawn this. Rereading it, it is getting marginally ok now: the intemperature language has gone and the sources are much better. I will sleep on the NPOV tag. There are hundreds of "individual cases" stories available for every child soldier location including video interviews and stuff so I don't think this one (which doesn't have a link to much more info) should be included, it unbalances the articles compared to other locations. --BozMo talk 08:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * RRRing is reverting some content you have added three times and gets an automatic edit ban. I am afraid if you do remove the NPOV tag I will report it: it is explained on the talk page. However, I may remove it myself. The comment on wishing to highlight a particular issue is not a personal attack. You clearly (from your contribution log) have a strong personal interest in this subject (which is absolutely fine, I do in other issues). I am just suggesting you may wish to be move effective in highlighting it. --BozMo talk 08:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The citation that you are speaking about is at the end of the next section, and thus was hard to find in the context of the potentially contentious information that you added. Please see WP:CITE and WP:CIVIL before threating people that you will "report them to an admin." Leuko 08:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have re-read the citations and still cannot find a reliable source for the quote from "an international correspondent". I don't for a second believe you made it up so where did you get it from? --BozMo talk 08:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the threat to me, too. You may have noticed that two other people have put in the reverts/changes you attribute to me (one is just above). Also that after the first revert I have attempted to edit and improve your text and leave successively more as it got substantiated. You are pretty new to WP and I delighted you have arrived to help improve the content. We all have grumpy moments, lets move on and try to make it better. I have changed the NPOV to cleanup (which I think is now broadly fair (since my main issue is now proportionality. Please provide a reference for the remaining quote. --BozMo talk 08:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, my mistake. I found the remaining quote and accept Meo as "an international correspondent" (you might like to correct the "in international correspondent. Sorry, I missed it, it was my fault but I was looking for a quote not the article text. IMHO this bit shouldn't be in but it can wait til the next article tidy (which won't be done by me).--BozMo talk 08:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

MY hope
I hope you will come back because it your challenges that made articles about Sri Lanka reach a certain high level. Your efforts in Black July is what made it also your challenges in Tamilnet is what made it to what it is today. Although with Tamilnet edits your went beyond the balance you had in Black July, at the end the article is all the better for it. Ignore the ban, learn from it, archive it and come back to Wikipedia. Thanks RaveenS

Frank Lampard
can't something be done about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.52.31 (talk)

Special Task Force
Concerning your latest changes, it seems that the only two news sources that are reporting this development is the Sri Lankan Military site, which is obviously biased, and 'lankatruth' which is dubious but uncertain. However, news sources that have printed that the incident was commited completly by the Special Task Forces of Sri Lanka consist of the BBC, arabnews.com , The Europian Union Commision on Human Rights (Which has been brought up at the UN), wsws.com , Amensty International, USA Today , The Green Left and PeaceMagazine.

Those are a mere fraction of the news outlets, INGOs and Government agencies that accuse the Sri Lankan Government, and particularly the Special Task Foce that was occupying the area, of the murders.

Also, Amnesty International has cited the Sri Lankan Government as utilising 'Abnormal and Inconsistant interogation techniques' whilst the U.S State Department is cited as saying the Sri Lankan Government has 'coerced infomation through the use of non-orthodox techniques, including but not exclusive to torture'.

What do you say to the overwhelming evidence that supports the initial claim that the STF commited this attrocity, and also that two major organisations have cited the Sri Lankan Government as using torture and other means to acsertain favorable facts?

It seems that the video can be disputed on the grounds on which it was obtained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharz (talk • contribs)

N. Raviraj
Your article was featured today. Great job RaveenS 20:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Lesson -All what it shows that if we write timely articles on events in Sri Lanka, if they are grave enough under the circumstances, it will get highlighted. Vaharai bombing, Kethesh murder, Trincomalee suicide attack, and Chencholai orphanage attack all these should have made the main page but they did'nt but if theu had it would have increased the awareness about Sri Lankan issues along with Iraq, Sudan and Israel and it can only make our life easy about editing controversial subjects because there will be more oversight. I hope the LTTE and GoSL will not give us the opportunity in the future but I have my doubts RaveenS 13:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 23:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

sorry for the inconvenience

Sleep Tech Inc.
I had placed a {hangon} on the top of that page but it disapparedMgarnes2 01:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Look Snowolfd4 im relitivley new to Wikipedia, and havent created too many articles. I am not advertising as it states on the Articles For Deletion Page. There was an issue with this previously in which i contacted an Administrator who corrected the issue. I'm sorry if i'm causing trouble, i just feel like all my contributions here are being discarded Mgarnes2 02:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I will contact an adminstrator once you tell me which one i should contact, however if i am correct didnt you put the AF'd back up on the page after i accidently deleted it? Nonetheless please tell me exactly who to alert Mgarnes2 02:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

AFD vs PROD
Hi Snowolfd4,

There's three ways of deleting on Wikipedia: speedy (which this article is not; it's not nonsense); WP:PROD (which is how it's currently tagged; the rules are that anyone can remove the tag, and if not removed, the article may be deleted after five days); and WP:AFD. Not taking a position on the notability of the company, it would seem that you could leave it as it currently is. If anyone (including the creator) removes the "PROD" tag, then you can put the AFD tag on it.

To my eye, it's obviously a good-faith article, but I haven't investigated whether it's a notable company or not. The directions are fairly clear on the AFD page if you want to make a deletion nomination there. I think what might have confused you is that when you PROD an article, you don't have to list it anywhere, so there won't be a corresponding AFD page. Hope this helps, Antandrus (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! no problem; all our processes and procedures are involved and confusing for newcomers.  I have a hard enough time keeping them all straight and I've been here almost three years.  :) Antandrus  (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

So that means that the article will be allowed to stay?Mgarnes2 03:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank You very much for your support with this issue :) Mgarnes2 04:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes i will try extremely hard to be a valuable member of this community, as you are, however I too still have a lot of learing. Mgarnes2 04:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

History of Western Civilization Edit
Hi, this is regarding the recent edit you made to the article "The History of Western Civilization". That was my IP address that commited what you described as vandalism, I didn't realize I wasn't logged in at the time. I wanted to let you know that the comments I deleted were, in my opinion, very biased and had virtually nothing to do with the section they were in. I feel very strongly they should be deleted but I want to aviod constant deletions and reversions, so if you wouldn't mind I was wondering if you could look at the comments and if you still feel they belong in the article, let me know. They're in the seciton called "An Age of Revolution", from the fourth paragraph on. I'm relativley inexperienced with Wikipedia so if I'm going about this in the wrong way I apologize for that. --Wiki988 02:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I completely understand why you judged the deletion I made to be vandalism. I deleted the information again, and from now on I will make sure to log in before deleting to aviod this problem in the future. --Wiki988 04:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Vijaya Edit - explain please!
Hello Snowolf! I'm Docsubster, the guy who wrote the Vijaya article you tagged as being non-NPOV. Apologies for deleting your tag, but at the time I first saw it put up I didn't see your explanation for introducing the tag. Could you please elaborate on why specifically you think that particular sentence makes the article 'dubious'? My understanding is that the only source for Vijaya's coming to Sri Lanka is the Mahavamsa and as with many ancient chronicles the factual accuracy of its contents is disputable. The significance of Vijaya's coming to Sri Lanka is on a par for the Sinhalese as creation myths like Amaterasu in Japan. If you wish to look into the reliability of the Mahavamsa and Culavamsa as sources please look at Geiger's edition of the Mahavamsa and the histories of Sri Lanka by de Silva, Parker and Codrington. I'd appreciate if you could respond to me ASAP as the tag I think reduces the credibility of the article. Thanks for taking an interest thought, and perhaps you could have a look at articles like Polonnaruwa and Anuradhapura (if you have the time & inclination), as I think they could do with editing.DocSubster 19:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Snowolf, just read your message. You raise a valid point, and I will make a couple of tweaks. However I don't think its hugely inaccurage to refer to Vijaya as a 'creation myth' as, historically speaking, we have very little evidence of his actual existence. As I mentioned above you should check out Geiger's Mahavamsa for an evaluation of the reliability of the source. Unlike kings like Gajabahu or Parakramabahu I, we have no evidence specific to Vijaya that is not from the Mahavamsa, and given the nature of the Mahavamsa's account, must accept that Vijaya is to a large extent legendary. That being said not everything in it is myth and thus I've tried to use phrases like 'semi-legendary'. I'm going to make a couple of edits and remove the tag; do check it out at your convenience.DocSubster 08:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Sockpuppets and dynamic IPs
I responded to your query that you placed on my talk page. My response can be found here. Feel free to post any further comments on my talk page, and I'll respond to you as soon as possible. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 09:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks Snowolfd4 for your work on RC Patrol, you recently reverted vandalism to my user page. Appreciate your intervention. Thanks, Matthew 1130 11:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

Thanks Snowolfd4 for bringing my case into the light of the admins.. By the way this is user Mystìc, I've been blocked unfairly because of one users behaviour.. Thanks again.. 222.165.157.129 12:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul Weller
Paul Weller is not dead, and the input was vandalism. How I managed to move, rather than remove, the offending section is beyond me. Senile dementia perhaps ?! However, all is now well (or even, Weller). Apologises on both counts. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore 19:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have opened an ArbComm case regarding my block
Please respond here Arsath 04:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Template issue
Good arguments and you did not loose your cool. I could'nt sat that about myself. ThanksRaveenS 13:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist attacks carried out by the LTTE
I notice you've reverted a move of this page several times stating that it was arbitrary, even though the mover has at least on one occasion made it clear why it was moved, showing why it was not arbitrary. The title as it stood violated WP:Words to avoid ("terrorist"), as well as being POV in that it did not qualify the attacks as being attributed to the LTTE (without proof that they were, there is no way we can make a statement of fact like that). I have moved the article to Attacks attributed to the LTTE, which fully suits the topic, and which is similar to the already accepted name of another article, Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE. The article itself is up for deletion, as it is largely just a copy of the words of the GoSL. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am all for an article about Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE, but let us do it right with the correct title and proper citations with each section linking to another well done article, such as BIA attack etc. Creating articles in Wikipedai is hard work. ThanksRaveenS 18:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing Spur website and other personal websites is Vandalism ?

Your reply
Unless you do all of these, you will clearly be displaying duplicity in your acts, and your POV in favour of the LTTE.


 * Or, I could just be lazy. I cannot fight all the battles on Wikipedia, Snowolfd4.  Sometimes we pick out battles, sometimes our battles pick us.  In this case, the battle picked me.  Even if you consider me a hypocrite, that doesn't mean that I'm not right.  Anyway, personally, I have no affinity for or against the LTTE position.  I'm not Tamil.  I'm not Sinhala.  Heck, I'm not even Asian.  I'm a freakin' white Canadian with no connection to the issue whatsoever.  I do care about Wikipedia, though. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Gives it away? But, that's a statement of truth.  It actually has been accused of that, and there actually is a fair bit of evidence that it may actually be true (not that it's a common occurrence, simply that it has happened).  How is that showing my POV?  It's showing that there is something to question about the motives of GoSL (and there's lots more to question about its motives if you actually start to think).  You may think you can read my mind, but I assure you, you cannot.  As for how the issue picked me, I have a couple Sri Lanka-related articles on my watchlist, and this AfD showed itself to me because of that.  That's how it picked me.  As for why I'm not going around putting everything with "terrorist" up for deletion--that would be a little hasty at the present moment, seeing as I haven't even been to those articles yet.  And like I said, I don't have time to "fix" all of Wikipedia.  I work all over the place, y'know?  Anyway, you've made up your mind about my supposed POV, basically calling me a liar when I tell you I don't have a side, so I'm not sure I have anything more to say to you on this matter. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 19:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Except maybe this: Er, the last AfD was not "keep, article and title", as you claim. It was no consensus (with more !votes for delete, actually). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 19:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Machan
Machan mam email eka enable kerale. Habai email karala, mage talk page eka message ekak danna. Mang wadi email balanna ne Asela 09:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

How to prevent the Systematic Rape of Sri lanka using the wikipedia as a platform
My friend, first of all it was sad that the article "attacks carried out by the LTTE was deleted". As a lover of my country Sri Lanka and a beleiver that tamils and sinhalese can live together I feel sad to see a group of people with vested interests using the wikipedia to promote their views of eelam and to defile my country and government despite all the good things the government is doing for the tamils. Its time we too form a co ordinated effort to go though the articles and 1. Propose certain articles like "State_terrorism_in_Sri_Lanka" be deleted as it contains links to blatantly biased sites like tamiltigers.org tamilcanadian etc which are known LTTE sympathising sites, or renamed to "Alleged State_terrorism_in_Sri_Lanka". It appears that "State terrorism in sri lanka" has been proposed for deletion sometimes ago but no consensus was reached. 2. Edit articles related to sri lanka and removed links from Pro-ltte sites such as tamiltigers.org and reword for a more neutral opinion. Edit wars will ensure but we must strive for a meutral view rather than a pro eelam view which villifies the government and glorifies the LTTE. 3. Seek strict moderation/help from the admins with regard to this problem. Wikipedia is used as a prominent reference and we do not want it used as a platform which people can project their anti-government POV using references from pro-ltte sources to defile my country.

I would value your opinion on how to proceed regarding this matters.Kerr avon 16:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A agree with Kerr on this, if the hard work was done in creating an article titled Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE, it would have survived. I also think it is a mistake that Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE delete was a big mistake. But I have to blame it on the laziness of some SL editors in the way the article Terrorist attack by the LTTE was left as a pathetic stub that it was against WP:NOT. Why not look at Assassinations attributed to the LTTE as a model and recreate a properly titled and properly referenced article about the obvious terrorist attacks by the LTTE?. There is no short cuts in Wikipedia for creating articles that will survive XFDs. Please roll up your sleeves and do some proper creation. I have been asking for an article on Anuradapura massacre for the last 6 months, not one single soul has volunteered. When asked Iwazaki to write about Arantalawa massacre when he has good references, I get a may be. I just don’t get it RaveenS 13:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Terrorist Attacks carried out by the LTTE
Hi Snowolfd4. No, the final 'votes' (and, remember, AFD is not a vote) were 5 deletes, 3 merges (yet there's nothing bar 135 external links to merge, so I consider those to be weak deletes), and 5 keeps (with a further 4 disregarded, 2 from blatant sockpuppets and 2 from anon IPs with no edits other than to the deletion debate).

Of the remaining 5 keeps, some are dubious in nature due to the obvious political bias of the editors. Additionally, one of the 'keep' voters is a known sockpupetteer (User:Lahiru_k, and another probably made at least one of the anon votes and engaged in personal attacks during the AFD (User:Iwazaki). The place for a decision to be reviewed is Deletion review.  I see this has already gone there, so I suggest you carry the debate out there.  Proto ::  type  09:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Urgent
Machan, mekata ekmanata vote keranna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_November_28#.5B.5BTerrorist_attacks_carried_out_by_LTTE.5D.5D

LTTE karayo pages dekak delete karanna yanna. . Eka page ekak "5BTerrorist_attacks_carried_out_by_LTTE", anith eka "Notable attacks by the LTTE"

machan, oyage message eka dakka. Habai mata skype setup eka ne. LTTE page eka arbitration walta damuda, ethakota aragollangta weneskarenna baDutugemunu 09:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove your warning
You've put a warning on my usertalk page and I want to know why. You said it was concerning editing of an article constituting blanking, however I was changing it from a copyrighted version that you were reverting it to (something that is not allowed), and secondly, what I did was not blanking anyway, it constituted a legitimate change. Your Warning sticker is thus misrepresenting me, and I hope that you remove it, before I remove it myself. --Sharz 11:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Parakramabahu
Hi Snowolf. Thought you might be interested in checking out my new Parakramabahu the Great article. I've nominated it for Featured Article status as well so you may want to support/critique as you see fit. Keep in mind when you read it that all of the information presented was gathered from original sources and a few secondary sources; the story of the king may not match up to what is 'common knowledge' in SL (I was suprised at some of it too). Looking forward to your input.DocSubster 22:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn
I appreciate your support, but have decided to withdraw from consideration for a position as an arbitrator. The community has overwhelming found me to be too controversial to hold that position. Thanks again for your time.--MONGO 19:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

???
What are you talking about?!? SandBox?!!? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.183.185.180 (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Parakramabahu
Hey Snowolf. Thanks for the feedback, and good luck with your exams - I was once an undergrad too and I feel your pain...DocSubster 12:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Links on Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
You may be right about some of the links. Please let's discuss this on the talk page before we do any further bulk deletes and reverts. &mdash; Sebastian 21:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

please help close the LTTE mediation
My compromise proposal on Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-20 Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam is waiting for your approval. I really would like to get that done before we move on to other issues, such as the question of external links which you brought up. If there is anything that you object to, please either write it on the mediation page or let me know by e-mail. If I don't hear otherwise, I will close this in 24 hours, but I certainly would prefer to close it with both sides stating their agreement. Thank you! &mdash; Sebastian 20:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Kethesh Loganathan
Intsead of involving in a revert war as we had in Tamilnet, just creatively look at the edit now. It says very clearly the allegation came from pro LTTE sites but still it is an allegation that is out there just like N. Raviraj was killed by the LTTE according to Asiantribune. They should be under controversy and labeled as allegations.RaveenS 14:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sri Lanka
machan, mang LTTE articles tika edit karanna balannang Dutugemunu 11:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If you were watching ESPNews just now, you'd know my contribution was not unfounded.

Appian Way
Since you have contributed to this article, perhaps you may know of some history on Appius Claudius Caecus. Do you know of any blood line (or something close) to Philip II of Macedon or Alexander the Great? Since the Appian way is commonly said to be the queen of the long roads and most Roman roads were built in a straight line, could it have been nick-named or called the "Straight Street"? I notice in the pictures of the Appian Way and from the map it seems to be illustrated this way. I'll check back. --Doug 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)