User talk:Snowolfd4/Archive 7

Problem
Buddy, we were able to find some sources from nice and well reputed news papers. But seems pro LTTEers do not like them much. Can we find some coverage from Alaikal, Eelam news, Eelanatham, Eelanaatham, Eelamurasu, Eelam pakkam, Intham, Mulakkam, Maalai malar, Maalai Sudar, Namathu naadu, Oru paper, Puthinam, Pathivu, Sudaroli, TamilCanadian, Thinakkural, TamilEelamNews, Thatstamil, TamilGuardian, Tamil Nesan, TamilNet, Tamil news dk, WorldSocialist, Uthayan, Ulaksanthai, Ulakath tamilar? -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie |undefined 07:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Snowolfd4/Userboxes/Peace in Lanka
User:Snowolfd4/Userboxes/Peace in Lanka, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Snowolfd4/Userboxes/Peace in Lanka and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). Please do not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Wiki Raja 18:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith
I see that beyond insulting my intelligence on the talk page for the Sri Lanka conflict template, you've also reverted my correction of improper formatting of a vote using the malicious accusation of vandalism. Administratively, polls must never have threaded discussion; adding that is a common enough error, but you really ought to learn from your mistakes rather than make bad faith accusations.

Please grow up and start assuming good faith by other editors, especially those of us with vastly more editing experience than you have. LotLE × talk 18:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:C.W.W. Kannangara.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:C.W.W. Kannangara.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 20:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Raja
Yeah, I just posted to his talk page, having spent some time looking at logs - he's obviously claimed on at least one occasion that a legitimate warning was offensive / vandalism" - I think I've pre-empted his games with respect to my comment though. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 15:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, it was probably inappropriate of you to use a level 2 warning when he refactored comments in the deletion discussion, as there is no evidence that I can see in his talk history of a recent level 1 warning prior to the warning that you posted. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 16:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You recent removal of my posts
Hi,

May I kindly ask why you are removing my posts from these talk pages? Wiki Raja 22:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Lahiru
I'll put this as simply as I can. You have blocked Lahiru k and Netmonger based on the fact that they edited with the same IP, 222.165.157.129, a Sri Lanka Telecom IP. In the same case it is stated that Lahiru edited with the 203.115.31.180, a Gateway IP. I guess I can assume good faith and put the block down to your your ignorance on what portable IPs are. Look at whois and you'll see the status of the IP listed as "ALLOCATED PORTABLE", meaning it's assigned randomly to SLT users. That is in no way proof that they are the same user, so I suggest you unblock both users now, or put forward further evidence as to why you think they are socks, before this goes any further. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 01:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "ALLOCATED PORTABLE" means that one IP can be used by different users in different times to connect to the internet and not to edit Wikipedia. Lahiru is known for using socks so it is not surprising. Mystic used it and Mystic is Lahiru. Netmonger used it. Who else would use it? -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  01:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your first sentence makes no sense to me at all. ALLOCATED PORTABLE means the IP is assigned to different customers of the ISP at different times. The two edits you from the IP to attempt to prove your point are from November 22, 2006 and July 17, 2007. That is unquestionably enough time for the ISP to have assigned the same IP to someone else. If one person gets the IP and edits Wikipedia in November and the other person gets it and edits Wikipedia in July the next year, does that make them sockpuppets?
 * Who else will use it? Do you even understand what you are saying? How about the 100,000+ SLT internet subscribers? -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 01:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything i said makes sense. There are only a few accounts editing your topics who can be among the 100,000+ SLT internet subscribers. One of them is 203.115.31.180. Try WHOIS for this IP if you want. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  01:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops! I didn't imagine they could be this dumb. Did I make any Sri Lankan Wikipedian into a Sock puppet today? My bad :D

--124.43.51.119 (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sri Lanka issues
Please see: Discussion move and Specific proposal Your participation and acceptance would be appreciated. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi there; just a friendly reminder that we really need your input on the proposal being discussed here. Without it, we can't craft a solution which is acceptable to everyone, and without indicating your willingness to go along with a solution, the whole process could fail.  Thanks in advance, --Haemo 19:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me try my best to be politically correct here. The pro-LTTE faction of the editors involved in the Sri Lanka and LTTE related articles have been moving the discussion around to various new locations. They usually start with a page/project with a couple of pro-LTTE, Tamil speaking editors and some more join in later on. Then the pro-Sri Lanka, Sinhala speaking editors start to crawl in. After a while, the former slips off and create another page/project. Maybe it's just me, but it looks rather funny to me. --124.43.51.119 (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Bang on :) Always keeps happening. Look at the List of terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE article for instance. AFD, requested move, talk page, now SLR page. I guess it'll just keep happening.
 * Anyway, how would you like to help improve Wikipedia? Maybe join up, create an account and start editing? That would be great ;) -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 03:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protecting LTTE article
I agree with the LTTE article been semi-protected, given the constant IP vandalism going on. But could you clarify what you meant by "pending resolution of disputes" ? -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 00:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That means that a temporary full protection is on the way. You've already been [[User_talk:Snowolfd4#Sri_Lanka_is

sues|notified]] by admin Rlevse. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  00:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw Rlevse and will reply to it. I was just wondering if their was some dispute that required semi-protection that I didn't know about. -- snowolf D4   (  talk  /  @   ) 01:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That was a normal semi-protection. I'd have semi-protected it eventhough there were no dispute or resolution. ETA, Hamas, etc... all work the same way according to WP:NPOV#A simple formulation. I know it is not my job to discuss content disputes but it was just my 2¢ and my call for a NPOV respect. Anyway, the IP was clearly trying to disrupt or gain a position while we are trying to set up rules for harmonious editing. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  11:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with semi-protecting it. I was just curious about the edit summery. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 14:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The edit summary means that all Sri Lanka/LTTE articles will be protected. It was a message for everyone concerned. The semi-protection itself has little to do w/ the edit summary as it was plain vandalism. I hope this helps. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  14:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Friendly note
Use of automated tools to revert good-faith edits, as you did here, is frowned upon. If you disagree with an edit, please revert manually and try to come to a compromise on the article's talk page. Other administrators have indicated a willingness to block you from using anti-vandal tools should you do this again, so please avoid doing so. Ral315 » 03:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I highly recommend you read and heed this thread on the 2006 massacre-- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 03:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * When it comes to using tools like that, vandalism must be blatant (replacing a page with "Hi", adding "X is a jerk", etc.) Otherwise, manual rollback is preferred, because it allows you to explain why you think the edit is inappropriate.  Ral315 » 04:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Re your comment on my talk page: That's a valid edit edit, neutral and sourced. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 10:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your good suggestion!


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Thank you for your good suggestion! Unfortunately, I don't know how to make such a script - but I'll just remove the distinction altogether. It has caused some confusion, and it may not be so necessary anymore. &mdash; Sebastian 09:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007
Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing.

Your attempts to force Wikipedia to keep two separate articles constitute disruption of the consensus building process. After over a month of discussion with over 7000 words on WT:SLR, a majority of editors was clearly for the merge. (See WT:SLR.) Moreover, the last remaining argument against the merge had been refuted for a week before we decided as a community to resolve the issue and do the merge.

This refers to the following actions:
 * The following reversions:.
 * Your attempt to game the system by starting a duplicate poll, when we already had one which whose outcome you didn’t like (on Talk:List of terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE).

For WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation, &mdash; Sebastian 05:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Parâkramabâhu I FAC nom failure
I just wanted to let you know - I've failed the Parâkramabâhu I FAC nom. The reason I did was primarily related to the concerns about the historiographical accuracy of the first person sources used (and Arvind's quote thereof), and the lack of secondary sources. Raul654 (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Don
Okay okay.. I could find only one source for backup my claim so from now on I'm out of the editwar ;-) -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  |  tool box  09:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Your copyedit request
On 10 October 2007, you made a request to the League of Copyeditors for a copyedit on Parâkramabâhu I. Because of a heavy backlog and a shortage of copyeditors, we have been unable to act on your request in a timely manner, for which we apologize. Since your request, this article may have been subject to significant editing and may no longer be a good candidate for copyediting by the League. If you still wish the League to copyedit this article, please review this article against our new criteria and follow the instructions on the Requests page. This will include your request in our new system, where it should receive more prompt attention. Finetooth (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Eelam War I
Hallo, in March 2007 you added the text "...including reports that Indian ground forces were been for possible involvement in Sri Lanka ..." to this. No-one has since corrected it, and I don't know what you meant! Could you clarify it? I found it while looking for occurrences of "were been" to tidy up, inspired by WP:TYPO! Thanks. PamD (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "Unverified Material" tag.
The article has been improved with further references to the publication sources quoted previously. Feel sufficient references/citation has been provided to have the tag at the top regarding unverified material be removed.

Have no idea how to have it removed. As you were one of those who edited article many months ago assume you know a great deal more than I know about Wiki procedure Please assist - thanks!  Article Name : A.W.H. Abeyesundere —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nibiruet (talk • contribs) 17:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please vote here
There is a vote on the title of a Sri lanka related page, please vote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/archive_4#Settle_this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutugemunu (talk • contribs) 09:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Your Form Submissions
I am a big fan. Keep up the good work.

=)

Forgot to add a signature. My bad

Tommyandtheterrors (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:DN-Frontpage-10-16-07.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:DN-Frontpage-10-16-07.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits on FeTNA in Wiki
You had requested that I do not delete content from the FeTNA page in Wiki. What happens when information that is posted is blatently false?

Or worse yet, when users hide behind the word "alleged" and post all kinds of nonsense. They need to be deleted in order to maintain the integrity of Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahdhavan (talk • contribs) 07:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

machan
Does wikipedia allow admin to block someone for saying things like "extreme LTTE supporters", "would do anything to cover up LTTE" at talk pages? Honestly i havent seen/read this rule, nut i have seen worst stuff here and no one even care to warn them !!-- Iwazaki  会話. 討論 15:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, can someone be rejected from some thing which that someone didnt even know?-- Iwazaki  会話. 討論 15:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Dehiwala train bombing
Machan,

Please see this article Dehiwala train bombing, the incident happened in July 24, 1996 then after 12 years May 26, 2008 the same place was bombed. We need to create new article on this.--Defenderline (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Nomination of Category:Sri Lankan terrorists for Deletion
A user has nominated sri lankan terrorists for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Nitraven (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)