Welcome!

Hello, Dutugemunu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Addhoc 11:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Trincomanb 16:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigating edit wars. Addhoc 11:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you. Addhoc 11:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, I modified a version of the introduction that had been there for 30 minutes. In the context of the article being in mediation, I would suggest that it would be more helpful if you suggested a workable compromise on the mediation page, instead of starting an edit war. Thanks, Addhoc 10:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

machang puluwanno email account ekak setup karala mata methanata email ekkak evanna Special:Emailuser/Snowolfd4. avashaya num free yahoo hari gmail wage account ekak hada ganna. poddak oyata katha karanna ona. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 06:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

machang i sent you an email. puluwan welawaka kiyawanna. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 04:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

machang, sent you another email. please read it when you can. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 03:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. For your information, and further to the DRV discussion, I've restored Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE. Proto::type 14:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Would you agree to the conflict resolution process?" - No, I would not, as there is no conflict.

The article that was voted 'delete' via AFD has been deleted.

The 'Notable...' article that was not has been undeleted following DRV discussion.

Any and all complaints and issues you have go through the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Hope that is clear, regards, Proto::type 14:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

— Sebastian 07:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dutugemunu! You're really a busy editor. But please do write edit summaries. There's a reason why Wikipedia has this guideline, and it's especially important in articles that often experience edit wars. I am serious. — Sebastian 16:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Some of the edits are rewording though. Anyhow thank for remininding me Dutugemunu 16:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding. Let's talk about the different kinds of edits in a separate section. — Sebastian 16:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently cleaning up your edits, as described below. Please stop editing the article without edit summaries. This is really disruptive. If you have any problem with my edits, please let me know on my talk page or the article talk page. Thank you. — Sebastian 00:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still there? I offered to stop with our edits so we can talk about them (e.g. in Talk:Anuradhapura massacre), but you haven't replied yet. Can I assume that you understand the guideline? I would like to continue with the cleanup work, please. — Sebastian 00:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for dedicating so much of your time and passion to Sri Lanka articles. I'm happy that you contributed many more sourced statements. There are a couple of other kinds of edits, though, for which I don't quite see your motivation:

Categories

Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories says: "In straightforward cases an article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, for example Golden Gate Bridge is in [[Category:Suspension bridges]], so it should not also be in [[Category:Bridges]]." Therefore, we don't need [[Category:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam]] in an article that already is in [[Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE]].

Links

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) says: "It is possible to link words that are not exactly the same as the linked article title — for example, [[English language|English]]. However, make sure that it is still clear what the link refers to without having to follow the link." Therefore, please do not revert my edits in which I adapted link names to article titles, at least not without explanation on the talk page.

Thank you for your time! — Sebastian 16:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point about the categories. Some of the articles would belong in the subcategories. However I think some would also need to be in the higher category because they belong to more than one subcategory. SO I will make those changes. About the links, I will change those too to make it explicit Dutugemunu 16:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. How about if you explained it on the talk page when you feel we need to deviate from Wikipedia guidelines? — Sebastian 16:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is a provision for duplicating categories in the Wikipedia guidelines. The article about Amirthalingam shoudl be left in the main LTTE category because he was very important to the LTTE. However it should also come under "Terrorist acts" because he is one of the most prominent people assasinated by the LTTE.

Secondary categorization rule .When an article is put into a subcategory based on an attribute that is not the first thing most people would think of to categorise it, it should be left in the parent category as well.Dutugemunu 16:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense! Let's discuss the details there. — Sebastian 17:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I removed the redundant categories as per the talk, and then I started going through other articles you changed to do the same. In some cases I'm also doing other edits; I will always mention these cases in the edit summary and will refer to the applicable policies. I realized that you may have gone to bed; please don't take this as an attempt to do changes behind your back. I would have preferred to let you do these changes yourself, but I didn't know if I could convince you yet and I didn't want to let it stand until you're back. I will make it easy for you to see what I've done when you get back to the articles, so don't worry, and have a good night! — Sebastian 21:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sebastian I am actually referring ot this policy Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories says: Reasons for duplication There are some good reasons why duplication is not a problem, but a benefit The basic principle is the duplication makes it easier, not harder, for users to find articles. Different users may think of different categories when they look up their targets, multiple listing or locations enable users to spot their target easily

Wikipedia's categorization scheme allows for multiple taxonomies.This is a good thing and a powerful feature. The categories act as indexes, facilitating users to browse through subjects. Dutugemunu 01:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore anyone looking through teh category civilian massacres in Sri Lanka will miss all teh massacres done by teh LTTE because its not in the right place. Ditto for the suicide bombings and war crimes. It is a case where we duplicate to make the it easier for the user to browse all related articles Dutugemunu 01:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sebastian, thanks for your message. For the Anuradhapura article it does have to come in the following categories because it actually does fall under these categories. So if a user wants to see all articles related to that categpry , he does need to see these ones as well , irrespective of whetehr tehy fit into another category or not. Duplication can be a good thing when it makes it easy for the user to access all related articles at once

war crimes in sri lanka - beause it is a war crime

terrorist incidents - it is a terrorsit incident

terrorist incidents in teh 80's- it is a terrorsit incident in teh 80's

civilian massacres in sri lanka - bcos its a civilian massacre and one of the largest proved massacres in Sri Lanka Dutugemunu 01:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the format of the above text is so messed up that I won't try to insert my answers in between, but will repeat what I hear you say.

• Quote from "Reasons for duplication": Yes, this can indeed be read as if it would endorse all duplications. The way I understand it, however, is that it is still meant as exceptions.
• "Therefore anyone looking through teh category civilian massacres in Sri Lanka will miss all teh massacres done by teh LTTE because its not in the right place." No. There is a reason why we have subcategories. If every suspension bridge is listed under category:bridges, then you will not find any of them. I understand that you want to promote certain articles, but this can not be at the expense of other articles. Back to our categories: How many users, do you honestly think, would open Category:Civilian massacres in Sri Lanka look only in the article space, not find a single one of the LTTE's massacres, and give up - without looking at Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE, which appears right on top of the page? Excuse me for saying something personal, but not everyone is as hasty as you are. — Sebastian 02:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont really want to promote articles but I want to make a meaningful use of the taxonomy which is available to us. — Dutugemunu — continues after insertion below

(I'm adding a headline to make our conversatin easier. Please feel free to remove when we're done. — Sebastian 03:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that "Terrorist incidents" includes all suicide bombings , assasinations and civilian massacres. Its better not to slot "terrorsit incidents" under "civilian massacres" beuase then we are misleading the user to think that extrajudicial executions ,assasinations , ethnic cleansing etc:- come under civilian massacres. I woudl suggest you remove "terrorsit incidents" as a subcategory of "civilian massacres" and simply add "civilian massacres" tag to the relevant pages to preserve the integrity of the taxonomy. Ditto for suicide bombing and war crimes categories. To use your example it would be like slotting engineering pages in the bridges category Dutugemunu 02:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'll look into that and will be back in a few minutes. — Sebastian 02:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I didn't add "civilian massacres" was because I wanted to keep the distinction between LTTE incidents and others. But maybe we should give this up? Another idea, on a higher level: This is actually a similar concern as the one I described in Category talk:War crimes in Sri Lanka. What do you think: Would it make sense to combine Category:War crimes in Sri Lanka and Category:Massacres in Sri Lanka? Excuse my ignorance, but I'm not even so sure what the difference is. What would be a good name for the combined category? — Sebastian 02:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess war crimes include stuff like Killing a surrendered combatant , Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer , Using civilian shields , Summary execution. Your suggestion makes sense. We could make civilian massacres a subcategory of war crimes in Sri Lanka or we coudl remove the civilian massacres entirely and just have these pages as war crimesDutugemunu 03:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both are relevant. But if we end up adding more than half of the articles to both categories we should rather combine them. What percentage of articles do you estimate would fit in both? — Sebastian 03:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, edit conflict! Actually, I like the idea of removing it completely. (But it isn't my idea!) Let's keep it simple! To be honest, you had a point above; each subcategory means that the reader has to click one more time, and open yet another page. But what about the distinction between LTTE and other crimes? Would it be OK to keep that only in the list? — Sebastian 03:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the question at Category talk:War crimes in Sri Lanka#"Terrorist attacks" shouldn't be under "civilian massacres" - such a decision should be made in a public place. For the time being, I it addresses your concern, and is very easy, if I just move the whole category under Category:War crimes in Sri Lanka. Let's discuss there if that's good enough. — Sebastian 04:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hari machang, ela, mokkakhari udawwak onanum kiyanna. Email karoth hodai. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 14:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed to stop editing until we talked about your edits, and I ask you again to respect this. I will read what you wrote above and reply to it. There is no rush for you to continuing with your edits in the meantime. — Sebastian 02:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just one thing I would like to know: Why are you in such a hurry? Relax! You're being way uncool! Why can't you just agree with me to let this rest for some time, maybe an hour or a day or two, until we talked this over? — Sebastian 02:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I thought you were not going to respond. I will freeze edits on the categories for the articles which you had changed. I am going ahead with a few new ones and alterations to existing ones (wont change the categories in teh existing ones ) Dutugemunu 02:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a strange medium in which we're communicating here. You talk to someone and you never know if he's still there. #-)

If you want to make sure that I see your response then just drop me a note on my talk page, with a link to where you want me to respond. (I prefer keeping discussions together - it doesn't look like it here, does it ;-)

I promise that I will stop editing as soon as I see a message from you on my talk page. — Sebastian 03:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I said something personal above, I should also say that I do appreciate that you are really willing to learn. You have taken much of the advice given here to heart; if you ask me, I think you could archive the civilty and edit summary reminders, unless you want to keep them as a souvenir of your old self. — Sebastian 02:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I guess I was not really familiar with Wiki in the early days. Dutugemunu 02:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious what your username means. — Sebastian 03:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its my first nameDutugemunu 07:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

machan, mama article ekak haduva.umbata puluvannnam thava visthara eakathu karanna. budhu saranai--Iwazaki 07:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just complimented you on adding edit summaries, and again you're not writing any. Why are you making things hard for all other editors? You're stealing my time - time that I would much rather spend on checking on edits by users that I don't know. For instance, I just found somebody who deleted stuff that you had written and I would have much rather checked that and reverted it if his claim was wrong. But I must say, its late here, and I simply can't afford spending any more time. From now on, I will simply rever any changes of yours that are not approppriately commented, and I will not question anyone who deletes something you have written. I'm only human, and my patience is not infinite. — Sebastian 09:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I see you're doing it now. The change I wanted to check was [1]. I'm going to bed, maybe you can check it in the mean time. — Sebastian 09:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have give me a list of the board of directors and a list of authors of the book. What you have NOT provided is a link to the ORIGINAL source material. A new release from say the Sri Lankan government in regards to 'soldiers being burnt alive'. I believe that the editors are misguided when they publish what cannot be verified. --Share Bear 15:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Check your mail. Thanks! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 17:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Aloka meditation center, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 09:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that the speedy deletion process doesn't work like that: it isn't personal. I don't go looking for articles to delete: other people tag articles for speedy deletion and reviewing admins like me check them (when there is a backlog) against the rules. I do whatever comes up in the 10 minutes or so a day when I am reviewing them. This process kind of avoids people attacking articles by topic they don't like etc. Most of the articles referred under the process are from people on "new articles patrol". There are quite a few longer standing articles which probably don't make the standard. You are welcome to speedy tag these articles but many admins would hesitate to speedy delete an article which a lot of editors have worked on. I can ge the last article version back for you if you like (but am tied up for the weekend so it may be Monday)/ The article you mention has been "prod" for non notability see [2] but the prod was taken off. In general it should have gone to AfD. --BozMo talk 07:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have put your article here: User:Dutugemunu/deleted_article I suggest before you try to restart this article on mainspace you include all possible claims to notability in it. It has now been speedy deleted twice by different Admins so I think you may find it goes quickly but I won't personally speedy delete it. --BozMo talk 18:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

someone is putting npov tag on all the articles that you created about LTTE massacres..Funny thing is that he does not dispute these events, even though he is tagging them npov...please have a look at them..budhu saranai --Iwazaki 03:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi please respond here --> Talk:Assassinations_and_murders_attributed_to_the_LTTE#Consensus_to_redirect ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 06:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of a proof you have to support your accusations that LTTE executed POWs? Rajeev27 04:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read references provided in LTTE article Dutugemunu 14:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Machan I think you are looking for this template. {{or}} --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 07:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loosk like, I have been pulled into this article, by how I dont know :-( I have started a rewrite section and asking for Rs sources to be posted there. So we can rewrite the project like the example that I showed there (it too was a minor kingdom, but the article si well done)if you have any sources, you are more than welcome to add RaveenS 00:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dutugemunu - long time no see! I'm writing to you because of your recent moves of List of attacks attributed to the LTTE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). You may not be aware of it, but that name was the result of a long discussion during the time when you were less active. Please also note the blue box on top of the page; moving a page is a major change, so we really need you to bring up such things on WT:SLR before acting singlehandedly. I remember that you respected Wikipedia cooperation last year, so I'm only writing this as a friendly notice. — Sebastian 19:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Watchdogb (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bodhinyana Monastery has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability of the article is not established, some of the references show the notability of people that are associated with the monastery, not the monastery itself. Notability is not inherited.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SudoGhost 11:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago you participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajkumar Kanagasingam. As the article has recently been recreated, and nominated again for deletion, you are invited to participate in the new discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajkumar Kanagasingam (2nd nomination). —Psychonaut (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]