Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Snowolfd4/Userboxes/Peace in Lanka


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Core desat 00:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Snowolfd4/Userboxes/Peace in Lanka
This userbox is a negative apporach in regards to promoting peace to any conflict. The very wording of the template itself is hypocritical to its purpose of supporting peace which only promotes violence and furthers bitter disputes on Wikipedia. It also shows a negative attitude towards a political dispute which also can reflect on the user's attitude towards other users who may disagree. This template was also created by the same user who created a similar but more inflammatory userbox which was previously reported and deleted here. Furthermore, there is an ongoing project called WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation which was inspired by the Nonviolent Peaceforce. I thought of joining his project, but then decided not to due to one of the members donning this template on his page. This userbox is a defeat to the purpose this WikiProject which makes me believe that the project itself is a hoax. Regardless of which group has done what, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a soapbox for users to push their political propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment. Wiki Raja 18:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not inflammatory or negative towards any user in any way. Merely expressing political opinion in userboxes is in no way prohibited on Wikipedia. (eg. "This user is a Democrat/Republican" etc)
 * Also the nominator has no right to question my politically opinions. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum as to how peace should be achieved in Sri Lanka. The nomination pretty much reflects the motives for all this, as does this userbox created by the nominator.
 * And FYI, WP:SOAP is a policy regarding articles, not userspace. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 19:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That is why I removed the content from that template here in respect to other Wikipedian users who may have differing opinions from mine and who may deem it offensive. I have further requested to have this particular template deleted here Wiki Raja 19:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes you deleted it after I brought it up here. Clever. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 14:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Snowolfd4. I just don't see how this ubx [pushes]...political propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment. The ubx is merely showing what Snowolfd4's political opinion is and clearly not in violation of WP:SOAP as it does not push...political propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment. Also, it seems like WP:SOAP was meant for the articlespace/mainspace and not userspaces. nattan g 06:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Userboxes expressing a political viewpoint are allowed (per extensive precedent), as long as they're not inflammatory or aggressive. This userbox isn't aggressively worded (I would object if it said something like "This user supports peace through killing ethnic group X", but it doesn't), and I hardly think we need worry about offending a terrorist group. Userboxes should, as a rule, be deleted if they directly offend or attack other editors or groups of editors; it's highly unlikely that anyone from the LTTE is going to be editing Wikipedia and taking offence at this userbox. WaltonOne 18:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per ample precedent, we let users have userboxes on POV political matters even if you don't like the POV being asserted. Carlossuarez46 20:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - we have userboxes regarding American politics which are more potentially objectionable than this one. John Carter 16:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand that users are entitled to their opinions. However, with respect to the Sri Lanka Reconciliation project, it is counter productive which in turn will cause a lot of friction amongst users on Wikipedia. In Sri Lanka this stance of disarmament is politically motivated. For example, back in the 1990s former President Chandrika Kumaratunga held a campaign called "War for Peace". This in turn has cost thousands of lives and destruction mainly in the Northeast part of the island where it is primarily dominated by Tamils. While this statement may be directed towards a particular armed group it is also directed towards the Tamils living in the Northeast of Sri Lanka. This user may argue all he/she may want, but that is the truth. If there are userboxes of similar stature on Sudan or even Myanmar which is plastered all over the news it would not be tolerated. Wiki Raja 16:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -If some other people find this box objectionable and find it another source of antagonism (particular due to ongoing civil war), then the box should go since its create one more headache for the project, which we could do away with. There is indeed a case that can be made that box uses 'coded words' to push the inflammatory button but such things are always in the eye of the beholder.  Sinhala freedom 01:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This userbox violates Userboxes. It is just the same as having a template stating "This user supports peace in the Middle East through turning it into a parking lot" which would be considered incivil. Furthermore, this template definitely is divisive which means that it is creating disunity or dissension amongst users within Wikipedia. Wiki Raja 03:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Because this violates WP:SOAP as well as contrived to send a message that the only solution to the Sri lankan civil war is more, thus more civilians to die. Thanks Taprobanus 13:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse could please, for the sake of your argument,show us here, how this has violated WP:SOAP..all you have to do is go through it for 5 minutes. Iwazaki  会話. 討論 05:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Walton. This UB isn't violate Userboxes since it's not contain any inflammatory or aggressive content. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  |  tool box  15:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The third line under Content restrictions state about userboxes being devisive. This userbox is definitely divisive. Wiki Raja 15:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well.. how can you say that this UB is divisive? Even in here, Wikipedia this UB is displaying in 12 userpages. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  |  tool box  15:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That clearly shows that this userbox is dividing Wikipedians where one side is against the other. Wiki Raja 16:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dividing is not just applies to the Wikipedia. It event applies to the real world. Thats why we are in a war. You may think that the only solution is giving the Tamil Eelam. Some may think that LTTE should wipe out entirely to gain the peace, or some may be think Tamils should wipe out. But we're not. People who hold this UB think that LTTE should disarmament (neutralise) to have a   peace in Sri Lanka. So tell me now is this UB, incivil? inflammatory? As far I know there is no any specific policy for divisiveness in Wikipedia other than a essay. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪   walkie-talkie  |  tool box  16:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is true that there is division in the world. It is also true that there are wars in the world. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a mustering place for POV pushing and propaganda. This issue is not about who is right or who is wrong. It is about following Wikipedia rules and enabling a civil and friendly atmosphere on Wikipedia. As you say, "People who hold this UB think that LTTE should disarmament (neutralise) to have a  peace in Sri Lanka." Let us dissect this term disarmament. Disarmament would mean an all out bloody war, with of course, aerial bombardment of Tamil dominated areas in the Northeast, which would mean mass civilian casualties. Listing the number of users having this UB doesn't prove anything other than there there are a group of editors who are animostic to those who disagree with their POV. One can argue all he or she wants, but when it comes down to it, there are no Tamils in the Sri Lankan military or police force which clearly explains that this UB promotes violence on a targeted ethnic group.  End of discussion. Wiki Raja 01:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I too do not want to continue this and I too not going to reply further. Finally what I have to say is this UB isn't violating any policies or guidelines. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪   walkie-talkie  |  tool box  03:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong KeepThis UB doesn't seem to violate any of the Wikipedian guidelines.And I am kinda shocked that the nominator ,instead of giving valid arguments, has opted for cheap political ranting and thus putting him self in a deep trouble. As any one who reads the nominators above remarks would know that he is also willing to lie instead of giving proper arguments.So I would kindly ask him to come to SL and start counting the number of tamils in Police and Forces and in the Government Service, and then proceed to count the number of tamils murdered by LTTE(starting as early as 1974), before making him self look foolish in front of great wikipedians here. Iwazaki  会話. 討論 05:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Please take a look at Restriction on User box : Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising. This user box advocates a political position (IE disarm LTTE). It can be passed as as a opinion piece on a current politics of Sri Lanka and is clearly political. So It violates user box restrictions. Please take a look at rules of user boxes before making a decision. Closing admin please note that this is not a vote. So please take a look at this before making a decision. Thanks Watchdogb 21:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete agree, too many people use wikipedia for promotion of political agendas as is--Kathanar 14:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NPOV Conflict resolution is praiseworthy, however promoting the disarmament of just one party to a conflict fails the test of neutrality. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 16:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We aren't talking about a Wikipedia article here. This is userspace, and there is no Wikipedia policy that users themselves have to be neutral. Also, as pointed out by editors above, there is ample precedent, and it is universally accepted, that users are allowed to have userboxes on political issues. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 16:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Content restrictions on userboxes states "Simply: If content is not appropriate on a user page, it is not appropriate within userboxes." Looking on the linked page, at WP:UP, we have a "Jimbo" of using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea, and the userbox campaigns for the disarmament of the LTTE. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 16:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I, and other neutral editors have pointed above, there are tons of userboxes which advocate political positions (ie this user is a Democrat, this user supports the troops, In Memoriam: 9/11 Lest we forget… etc) and it's pretty much accepted by the community that its okay to have such userboxes as long as they are not inflammatory towards any user. If someone finds wanting peace in Sri Lanka inflammatory, that really isn't the fault of this userbox. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 16:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This is to simply promote peace in a country called Sri Lanka. What if any group can carry arms and take law into their hands? In ths US or UK?  Supermod 19:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Regardless of whether it promotes peace or not, this is a politically motivated template which benefits one side of the conflict. It has no other use other than to spark tension amongst Wikipedian users which is exactly what is going on right now. Also, to answer your question please take a look at the first Ten Amendments our Constitution of the United States otherwise known as the Bill of Rights. Even though the Second Amendment allows citizens to bear arms, we have not seen an insurgency in the U.S. since the American Civil War due to the Bill of Rights being honored. I will stop here and comment no further. Thank you. Wiki Raja 20:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Userboxes, political advocacy. Dreadstar  †  21:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you fail to read any of the comments above? Userboxes expressing political opinions are commonplace in wikipedia and accepted by the community. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 21:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I did read the above. I also read Userboxes, which clearly states "Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising." and Jimbo's comments on the subject as well.  This userbox is not just political opinion, it advocates a bit more than that in its text.  And while I may agree or disagree with its sentiments, it appears to be divisive and establishes more than just the "political opinion" of the user.  It's apparently the other end of the spectrum from this one. In viewing these two opposite poles, it's obvious that these userboxes are divisive in nature and should be deleted.  Dreadstar  †  21:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "It advocates a little more than in its text"? What do you mean by that? And do you think saying "This user is democrat / republican" isn't "divisive", in the sense you put it?-- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 14:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Dreadstar has summed it up well. The last part is what makes it divisive. GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 23:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me guess. We all know Wiki Raja, the nominator, canvasses people to come and vote at discussion like this, you have no related participation in MFD debates (apart from the related userbox), and have no recent participation on articles related to Sri Lanka. How did you find this debate? WP:CANVASSING?
 * And again, no one has yet explained how this could be more divisive that userboxes which political part you vote for, or which military you support etc. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 14:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I found the MfD via Special:Contributions/Wiki_Raja. I suspect that I saw his username on my watchlist and since it was a while since I have seen him, I decided to check things were going with him. I not sure whether that can be called WP:CANVASSing. Anyway, I consider it to be divisive 1. because it is against an organisation, not supporting one. Yes, supporting for example, the Nazi implies that you are anti-Semitic but I don't think such userboxes are allowed. 2. I won't mind if the userbox just said oppose the LTTE. The title "Peace in Lanka" suggests that the LTTE being solely responsible for civil war in Lanka is an underlying universal assumption, which makes it more POV and more provocative. I won't mind this userbox spitting into two, one supporting peace in Lanka and the other opposing LTTE. GizzaDiscuss  &#169; 01:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Dreadstar and DaGizza. Thanks Taprobanus 12:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * User attempted to vote twice. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 14:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * With all thse XFD's, my apologies :)) Taprobanus 17:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

*Delete Enough said. Wiki Raja 19:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep You can read all you want into userbox usage guidelines and put whatever spin you want on the word "divisive", but there is ample precedent on Wikipedia where users are allowed to express their opinion on userboxes. For example userboxes which support political parties, various movements etc. Half the delete arguments here are that the users don't agree with what the userbox says. I'm sorry but that really isn't my problem, and it certainly isn't a valid reason to delete this userbox. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 15:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - we can discuss a more restrictive policy on advocating a political position on Wikipedia, in particular if it can reasonably be construed as offensive. But it really doesn't matter if that opinion is transcluded as a userbox, or just hardcoded on the page. Look at User:Moosh88: "This user comes from Armenia" is transcluded, while "This user supports the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh" is not. Likewise, on User:Eshay, "This user supports the legalization of cannabis" is transcluded, while "This user supports George W. Bush and the Iraq War strategy" isn't. For the people viewing the page, the distinction doesn't matter, both appear as userboxes. If we want to ban statements like "disarm the LTTE" or "independent Nagorno-Karabakh", we can say so in some policy. Shooting down individual userboxes is pointless. To my mind, if we're going to ban "disarm the LTTE", we'll also have to ban "supports the Iraq War strategy", since both are statements taking sides in ongoing armed conflicts. --dab (𒁳) 16:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As the nominator your vote has already been counted. No need to vote twice . Iwazaki  会話. 討論 06:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom Pharaoh of the Wizards 09:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep I've replaced Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE with Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. That first link was tendentious, now it isn't anymore, it's just an opinion. --Victor falk 13:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Hmmm... I fail to understand what about "This user supports peace in Sri Lanka through the disarmament of the LTTE" is so divisive. It calls for peace, and is worded positively, so subjectively no complaints there. Moving to an objective view I again can find nothing to object about: This box is a valid expression of the user's views, is not soapboxing or incivil. I suppose "This user support world-peace through disarmament" would have be viewed with equal scorn. Which would be, kinda, silly. Finally, Dbachmann above makes very good arguments. Charon X /talk 17:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you have misunderstood such a message from a Sri Lankan civil war perspective. Those who advocate war and those who advocate peape are two camps in Sri lanka. Those who advocate total war are responsible for the 75,000 civilian deaths. This userbox advocates total war againt WP:SOAP and using Wikipedia as a Battleground. Anology woulde be, we in the west agree in Darfur, Sudan there is a Genocide going on. Those who support war in Sudan suppport the genocide and those in Sudan who support peace in Sudan wants to prevent a genocide. Now should such user boxes be allowed? Thanks Taprobanus 19:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you lost me at the point where you went from "supports peace" to "advocate total war". Even so, at a personal level, I'd respect this persons opinion (and double check his edits on relevant subjects for bias; I admit I checked the subjects of your recent contributions and you also don't seem to be bias-free here) Charon X /talk 20:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please CharonX, don’t concentrate on the users but on the material on hand. Your reply to me above potentially violates many wiki policies such as WP:STALK, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. See how quickly people in a mundane discussion can slip away and start attacking people instead of concentrating on the argument on hand. All what I am trying to say is about the user box not about the user, let’s not confuse one with the other. This particular user box violates WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE when viewed through the prism of Sri Lankan civil war. Thanks Taprobanus 21:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm confused too, a second ago you said "This userbox advocates total war againt WP:SOAP". While such a userbox will be a good idea, I assure you, I didn't create this userbox to take up such a meaning. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 22:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I simply said that I took a look at the subjects of your recent edits, and as they seemed to quite a few were on articles involving Sri Lanka I simply stated that I believe that you are not bias-free here. I feel deeply insulted by your accusations that I violated WP:STALK ("This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason") or WP:AGF (I merely assumed that you had a bias, often editing a subject has that effect. As the right or wrong on the subject is not of relevance here, I merely meant to remind you of this so you could view the userbox from a more neutral standpoint) or WP:NPA (Would you kindly point out my personal attack against you in my last comment?); I feel deeply insulted indeed. Charon X /talk 02:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are offended my apologies, I don’t know how long you have been in Wikipedia whether you are anewbie or has been around for a while. I am not going check up on you because that is not the intent of this XFD. But a piece of advice, if you want to convince others of your view point then always remember to comment on the content not on the users. Whether I edit Sri Lanka or Timbaktu related articles or whether I may have a bias or not is immaterial to this discussion. What is germaine is whether this userbox violates any wiki rules. So please keep the conversation above the belt. I have listed 2 rules that this user box violates. Do you have an argument as to why they don’t? I am waiting. Thanks Taprobanus 12:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not a new editor here - feel free to look at my contributions; all user's contributions are public for a reason. I have never involved - to my knowledge - in any editing around the Sri Lanka subject, nor was I honestly interested in it. It is easy to accuse any kind of userbox that states "supports X" of soapboxing, though looking closer at the policy at hand it is more difficult. Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment are the main points mentioned, and I can't see "supports X" fitting in either category, without coming to the conclusion that userboxes have to be limited to entirely neutral statements along the lines "this user has expressed interest in X" (and actually supports is part of the content examples on WP:UBX). Moving on, Opinion pieces does not fit as this one is not an article, Self-promotion or Advertisement are entirely out. So no violation of WP:SOAP. Continuing to WP:BATTLE, I fail to see how it would cause problems here, the box is highly civil, does not nuture hate or fear or any of the issues mentioned. It simply says "This user supports peace in Sri Lanka through disarmament of the LTTE". A valid expression of opinion. Of course, if you filter this through a bias things might change. Imagine how "This user enjoys eating meat" or "This user likes wearing furs" looks through the eyes of a hardline vegan (save-the-animals) PETA member... I just suggested you might want to see the issue from an unbiased point of view, and then re-evalute your conclusions. Charon X /talk 14:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - No peace is possible without mutual consent. This userbox is analogous to 'Peace in the Middle East by wiping out Israel' or 'Peace in the Middle East by wiping out Palestine', neither of them should be done. It is not peace, it is annihilation. Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 19:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Come again? This userbox reads "peace through disarmament" not "peace through killing everybody who opposes". I assumed the the disarmament would be through compromises or other diplomatic means. Interpreting "disarmament" as "wiping out" seems to be the perfect example of assuming bad faith. Finally, we don't discuss here if A or B is the better way to go in that particular conflict, we discuss if the expression in this userbox is acceptable under WP:UBM, WP:USER and associated policies. Which I believe, it is. Charon X /talk 20:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment In the case with Sri Lanka, disarmament was tried by one party over another resulting in mass killings during the late 1980s. In much of the 1990s, former President Chandrika Kumaratunga tried her strategy called War for Peace which resulted in hundreds of thousands of disappearances, extrajudicial killings, rapes, and arbitrary arrests of civilians. What you are talking about is a compromise where both warring parties are in agreement of disarmament. This may have been the case in Kosovo, but not in Sri Lanka where only one party is bent on disarming the other by force and thus leading to a violent conflict. There is no doubt that this userbox is divisive. As far as A, B, or C are concerned I am explaining how this userbox is being used to get a negative message across and thus creating a conflicting atmosphere amongst wikipedian users which is exactly what is happening on this page. Wiki Raja 20:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment First, I think you are mistaken. The userbox does not explicitly say that peace through disarmament is actually through peaceful measures. As it is not explicit and not clear, then we can assume anything we want. Assuming good faith does not mean interpret an ambiguous statement in one way or other. Wikipedians can assume what ever they want if something is ambiguous. Wikipedia does not have a rule to say what way someone should assume a statement-that would be forcing a view. So your comment to the above user can be indeed interpreted as a personal attack because you assumed that he is not assuming good faith. Really goes to show how someone should preach what they practice. CharonX, this debate is not about who supports what through what measures. This user box simple violates the guidelines for user box. Please see my vote and the accompanying comment. Last, please remember that just because other user boxes exist that support political views and breach guidelines we cannot base a keep vote on this merit alone. As one of the most fundamental rules of wikipedia is that this type of argument is not valid. Watchdogb 02:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fisrt of all instead of saying this is against wiki rules, could you please show us whicb rule/s are you talking about? Your statements actually make no sense,if you dont show us, either rules or any consensus made by the community to support your claims. Oh,aslo could you please scroll up and read what Dab has said here..Hope that would help clear things up. Iwazaki ''' 会話. 討論 04:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * CommentI apologize for accusing Sudharsansn of assuming bad faith, through making the leap from disarmament to genecoide is quite a big one to make. I did know nothing of Sri Lanka troubled past, so I took disarmament in the literal sense - and to be honest, I still do. Charon X /talk 03:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If you're interested, here is a quick brief I put together here which some would say is from the Tamil perspective of the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka primarily on human rights issues. Wiki Raja 03:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * commentAnd I could count 100+ lies in that small WP:HOAX stuff. And I don't think good wikipedians can be fooled with that kind of blatant lies. Or you can always make it a good by adding 10,000 tamils masscred directly or indirectly by the LTTE, starting from their infamous Jaffna mayor murder,which of course carried out by satan him self. If you need the murdered tamil list let me know, probably thats the only thing i can do for all the people died on the hands of satan.Amen! Iwazaki  会話. 討論 04:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The difference here is that I provide referenced sources from valid books, journals, and news articles - page numbers included which can be clearly seen here. Also, it's funny how all I hear is about this Jaffna mayor story and how many Tamils were killed by the Tamil fighters story gets used over and over again. It's getting old. Lastly, please stop with your racial threats against me. Wiki Raja 04:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * commentHavent you noticed, WP:HOAX part in my reply?? Well, I am not going waste Wiki space by giving 10,000 names, and I would let wiki policies to take care of these blatant propaganda of LTTE which has killed more tamils than anyone else in the past couple of years.And after all these murders of tamils, its amazing that there are tamils(though few in numbers),still want them to kill more tamils !!!! Well, Mr Amirthalingam,Theruchelvam, Dr rajini, glad you didn't live to see this coming. Iwazaki  会話. 討論 04:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, but I'm not buying this. I have nothing to hide here but to show forth. And even if it gets deleted, I am not going to cry over it. End of discussion. Wiki Raja 04:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.