User talk:Cossde

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Uniforms of the Sri Lanka Army, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ADC and Scarlet.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Gunasena de Soyza

added a link pointing to BA

Regimental police

added a link pointing to Cane

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion

.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kandyan Convention, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uva.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Commander of the Army (Sri Lanka), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baton.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article L. S. B. Perera has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails

WP: ANYBIO

, requires significant coverage (not mentions in passing) in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Being the High Comissioner to Canada does not make him automatically notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henry De Mel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chevalier.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:13, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Chathu69. I noticed that you recently removed content from article on Sri Lanka Institute of Information Technology without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

Dear friend, A wave of vandals is trying to delete Sri Lankan Military related articles. I saw most of the pop-ups of military related articles had changed with bikini woman's image. User:Chathu69 is one of them who try to vandalize. As a notable contributor to Sri Lankan articles, please be gracious enough to help protect Sri Lankan articles from these vandals. Thank you. Have a nice day.
49lk (talk) 09:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Cossde (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your immediate response. 49lk (talk) 10:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is better to discuss these issues in the Talk:General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University because we can discuss content the article point by point, which will be beneficial to other editors as well. Chathu69 (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Drayton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CMG.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited E. A. Nugawela, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Defence Medal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

1915 Sinhalese-Muslim riots

added a link pointing to Pettah

Don Baron Jayatilaka

added a link pointing to Wesley College

Edwin Wijeyeratne

added a link pointing to Civil law

John William Ronald Illangakoon

added a link pointing to District Judge

Mohamed Macan Markar

added a link pointing to Hadji

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Modera House has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails

WP:NBUILDING

- appears to be reliant on a single source.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the

Thank you for creating Arthur Basnayake.

This article needs to cite sources. Clarity is needed when saying Ceylon and Sri Lanka in the same sentence. Kindly do the needful.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Whiteguru (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited C. A. Dharmapala, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Volunteer force.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

General Officer Commanding, Ceylon

added links pointing to CIE, CB, DSO, CMG, KCIE and KBE

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dayantha Porambe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dayantha Porambe until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Obi2canibe (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some reliable sources which show that the LTTE used military ranks:

• NBC News
• The Guardian
• National Defense University
• CBC
• Daily Mirror
• The Homeland Security Digital Library
• Centre on Conflict, Development and Peacebuilding

--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These doesn't define a Military rank structure, it only refers to the use of brigadier or Lt. Col. as a title. What is the rank hierarchy or which rank Prabhakaran had as head of the LTTE militancy. Cossde (talk) 07:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the sources. And also

WP:BOLD.--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I suggest you provide sources that indicate a Military rank structure as that we could add it. Cossde (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read the sources. You're no longer at the prestigious school, you don't need to be spoon fed.--Obi2canibe (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is very disappointing to see that you have fallen to personal attackers against me. This is a clear violation of

WP:AVOIDYOU and I kindly request you to desist. On the matter at hand, as I said clearly, please provide the rank structure used by the LTTE so that we can add it to the relevant article and thereafter link these articles of rebels to it for clarity. The basic concept of a Military rank is that it is a hierarchy and ranks only make sense in that structure (i.e. rank 1 is higher than rank 2 ), else its just a part of the name or nom de guerre (i.e. Captain America is the nom de guerre of Steve Rogers). It would be interesting to understand this structure one source you have include above, indicates that the LTTE was a flat structure which is the opposite of Military rank (i.e. abolishing of ranks in the People's Liberation Army Ground Force as a result of the Cultural Revolution and the Albanian People's Army) therefore the sources you yourself have given are contradictory and only indicates that these have been used as a form of their nom de guerre.Cossde (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The Daily Mirror source for example, gives clear evidence of a military ranking structure, with posthumous promotions being given, raising a cadres rank e.g:

'Arulventhan or Charles held Lt. Col. Rank when killed. He was promoted posthumously as “Colonel.”'Oz346 (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:OR. Cossde (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_64

You cannot make your own rules on a whim, just because you do not like something stated in a reliable source.Oz346 (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, @

military ranks, else its just a part of the name or nom de guerre. Cossde (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Secondly, the consensus you indicate has identified as a Pro LTTE reliable source and can be used pertaining to the LTTE. Content that was removed was pertaining to the Sri Lankan Army. Cossde (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you are making your own rule up again, there was no restriction given by the admins on what Tamilnet can be used to reference for related to news content on SL civil war (its main area of interest), as long as it's given attribution as 'pro-rebel Tamilnet'. This is what the neutral admins have said, are you going against their recommendations? Oz346 (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NPOV#bias, when used to tell the story from the side of the SLA or the GoSL. Cossde (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/172330675

No that is NOT what it means, it does not mean that Tamilnet can not be used to describe things related to SLA. It means that Tamilnet must be explicitly shown to be a source which has bias in the topic, and therefore needs attribution. The 'other side' in this case would be a pro-SLA source which may theoretically offer contrary rules. However, the recommendation did NOT say you can censor Tamilnet from the SLA related topics. Oz346 (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

typo. 'Contrary views' I meant Oz346 (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NPOV. Cossde (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

please show me the passage in the NPOV article which justifies your claim. Thanks. Oz346 (talk) 08:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oz346, your edits did not present any argument of sorts, you added Tamilnet's claims, without explicit attribution, that SLA was recruiting underage personal where as the local media you referred to categorically denied it. It appeared as editorial bias which is a clear violation of NPOV. This I believe falls under "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." i.e. Tamilnet claims SLA carrying out school level recruitment and Tamilnet claims found a NIC that states the dead soldier was 17 years old. Your edits were editorial biased, stating seriously contested assertions as facts. Your are welcome. Cossde (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a satisfactory reason to completely purge the reliable source and it's passages, attribution could have been added. I reverted your large scale, wholesale, unjustified deleting to the status quo. As consensus on Tamilnet states, it should not be deleted wholesale. If I had originally written those phrases, I would had added attribution. It's not a major problem, you can add the source back now with the attribution, and we can get consensus.Oz346 (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you don't seem to agree, however as I remember it was your additions to the page that I reverted based on my assumption that your edits were editorial biased and clear NPOV. A sort of a tit for tat edit, which I don't think is justifiable in Wikipedia. You seem to continue the edits propagated by பெரும்பாண்டியன்2 which makes me wonder if you are a scockpuppet. Cossde (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

well you are wrong, I did not write any new passages to that article, I merely reverted your wholesale purging of Tamilnet which is contrary to the consensus reached on Wikipedia re: tamilnet use as a reliable source. And as for your baseless accusation of me being a sock puppet for that user. I'm very happy for a sockpuppet investigation to be made comparing that user with me, because we are NOT the same person. You shouldn't revert things on 'assumptions', but on the merits of the sources and Wikipedia policies and consensus decisions. Just repeatedly saying NPOV, NPOV without justifying where exactly in the NPOV policy supports your argument to remove Tamilnet is not enough.Oz346 (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem keen on propagating பெரும்பாண்டியன்2's edits and my assumptions are based on Wikipedia policies. If you are unhappy with those, you more than welcome to take these to arbitration. Cossde (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SebastianHelm,: could you please look into this, user Cossde has wholesale deleted Tamilnet cited passages, and is refusing to allow it's use, when previous Wikipedia consensus explicitly said that it can be used with attribution. Thank you for your time. Oz346 (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding LTTE ranks, there are reliable sources showing that they did use a traditional military ranking system:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2009/4/28/the-history-of-the-tamil-tigers

"LTTE military ranks and grades are similar to those of the Sri Lankan army. These include two grades of enlisted ranks, non-commissioned officers and commissioned officers.

The units also follow a similar structural pattern with squads as the smallest and the regiment as the largest military unit." Oz346 (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Sri Lanka Army rank structure doesn't have two grades of enlisted ranks, it has seven other ranks which includes warrant officers and NCOs. That is why we need the exact ranks structure to include it in the LTTE article. Cossde (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Jumping in here. @

UmdP 16:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I have not engaged in any OR. Those sources were not originally added by me. I reverted changes that were justified on the spurious basis that Tamilnet is not a reliable source, when neutral admins on wiki have already deemed it as a reliable source that can be used with attribution.Oz346 (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can call Tamilnet unreliable as much as you want, that doesn't change Wikipedia's consensus decision that it's a reliable source. Tamilnet is the only media source which exposed Sri Lankan Army human rights abuses like this to the world in English:

https://www.tamilnet.com/art.html?catid=13&artid=18447

Pictures don't lie, no matter how many times people say 'unreliable'.Oz346 (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not reliable here, it is explicitly stated to be biased and the information is exclusively from it thus in that article it is unreliable. There are reliable sources for both against the LTTE and the government in that article already and adding information entirely reliant on TamilNet is

UmdP 17:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

As you created the article 1953 Coronation Honours (Ceylon), could you please review the article 1953 Coronation Honours (Pakistan) to check whether everything has been put at the right place per the source? Thank you. Peter Ormond 💬 21:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter, it seems fine. Great work. Cossde (talk) 06:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Janakapura, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Classified.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lohan Ratwatte, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rugby.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Mandaitivu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Volunteer force.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sri Lanka Armoured Corps, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages MVO and Criminal Justice Commission.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion

.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nalin Seneviratne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chatham.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Sri Lanka Armed Forces".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

A tag has been placed on

section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion

.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkltalk 19:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article

reliable source

that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dan arndt (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hector Kobbekaduwa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public Service Commission.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, How are you doing? I see your articles creations appear on User:AlexNewArtBot/SriLankaSearchResult. Nice job. If you could add WikiProject Sri Lanka project banner, it will help to track the articles more easily. Cheers--Chanaka L (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sri Lanka Navy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Floating dock.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cossade,

Before editing the name of Ehelepola Wijesundara, I suggest you research his name scribed on the 5th casket of Temple of Tooth relic. You can find this on the Dalada Maligawa page.Its safe to assume that Ehelepola Wijesundara knew his name better than you or anyone else.

Furthermore, please refrain from altering the reality of the history of Sri lankan heroes to support the discriminating altered history written by the British. You are in fact shaming your own people by engaging in such discriminating activities.As the old sri lankan saying “don’t spit while looking up”. 219.88.174.245 (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate threats. If you have Reliable source which backup your claims, you are free to change content as per Wikipedia guild lines. Cossde (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Hello. You are not permitted to re-add that poorly-written material back (diff). It is a

WP:ARBBLP. Thank you. El_C 11:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Your article might get deleted

Visit the talk page on Ehelepola Nilame and see what Adakiko is suggesting. That individual is suggesting that the article should be deleted, this is what they want, to completely erase our history. I edited Ehelepola’s name based on what was said on the dalada maligawa page’s post. What I wrote was the correct name but your persistent reverts has allowed these indiviuals to achieve ulterior motives. Maha kalu sinhalaya (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of the target of Maha kaly's message, Adakiko simply suggested that if reliable sources can't be found to support the content of the article, then maybe the topic isn't notable, and therefore should be deleted. As a participant in

WP:AFD myself, I've seen people suggest that same thing before, and that is what they mean by it. Quite a reasonable suggestion and a policy based one as well, see WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability. Adakiko has not nominated the article for deletion though, and I don't think that they have any intention of doing so. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 23:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

April 2022

Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse, or just ask me. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Proposed deletion of Westminster House

The article Westminster House has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No secondary sources, tagged for lack of notability and sources since 2018.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the

speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 15:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

W. M. P. B. Menikdiwela

The article

W. M. P. B. Menikdiwela has been proposed for deletion

because of the following concern:

Non-notable public servant - fails

WP:ANYBIO

- references are only mentions in passing.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the

speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dan arndt (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Disambiguation link notification for May 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited P. B. Jayasundera, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ali Sabry.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of S. J. Walpita

The article S. J. Walpita has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails

WP: ANYBIO

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the

speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dan arndt (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sri Lanka Volunteer Naval Force, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages QC and CMG.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generals

@Cossde:, I know that you are Sri Lankan, isn't it a custom that in Sri Lanka Major Generals are called generals and also lieutenant generals are called generals, will you explain it please.

Please, see Category:Pakistani generals and Category:Indian generals, please note that all persons mentioned in these categories are not full generals (four star generals/the rank just above lieutenant general). MN Namiki (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

One-star rank. Cossde (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

G.D. Bakshi who was a major general and he has been fallen in the category of Category:Indian generals. MN Namiki (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Nomination of J. R. Weinman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article J. R. Weinman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. R. Weinman until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Rathfelder (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Sri Lankan solicitors

A tag has been placed on

section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion

.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

National list member of Parliament (Sri Lanka), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ali Sabry

.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Graeme Thomson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Admiralty.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anuradhapura, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North Central Province.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Asoka de Silva.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Asoka de Silva.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in

section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The article M. R. Latiff has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails

WP:ANYBIO

, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sri Lanka Army Volunteer Force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Volunteer force.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Mullaitivu (1997), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black Tiger.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that you should look out for some edits in Civil War pages because we had a similar issue in the past. -UtoD 06:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wasantha Karannagoda, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sri Lankan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

1958 anti-Tamil pogrom

added a link pointing to Hatton

Sri Lanka Armed Forces

added a link pointing to Anton

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Oz346 (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)"[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sri Lanka Armed Forces. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You are removing sourced, valid content and edit warring. You need to stop. Oz346 (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Oz346 (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Sri Lanka Armed Forces. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have reverted your edit as the case request was malformed, as you will see if you look at the page in history. You had given an entire paragraph as the case request title, which broke the page's formatting. Also, much of the text was in large and/or bold formatting - this is not necessary. Please re-submit when you have fixed these problems. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Done. Cossde (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your request for arbitration, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured

In all cases, you should review

Noted, Thanks. 13:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC) Cossde (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! In response to your request for arbitration, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

For grievances about the conduct of a Wikipedia editor, you should approach the user (in a civil, professional way) on their user talk page. However, other mechanisms for resolving a dispute also exist, such as raising the issue at

In all cases, you should review

@MJL: Isn't this a repeat of what Dreamy Jazz did a little higher up?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 Cossde filed two requests at ARC this week, both of which were removed as premature. So "yes, it's a repeat message, but for a different instance" is the answer to your question I suppose. :) Perhaps Cossde will take heed of the content this time... firefly ( t · c ) 18:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, firefly.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find the note on armed forces unnecessary and the current war crimes para needs to be condensed and considering the notes were added on your agreement can you give your view in the talk page? -UtoD 14:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cossde (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't contest the block. However the block should be extended to User:Petextrodon who had also taken part in the edit war in the same page. Also in the mean time is there any way I could comment on Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam. Cossde (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you're not contesting the block, there is no reason to use the unblock request template. And in the department of "no reason", requesting that

we also block someone else is especially not a reason. Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Clancy Fernando, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Special Boat Squadron.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Darren Roos is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darren Roos (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lalith Jayasinghe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clasp.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Chithambaranathan Mahendran has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Ambassadors are not automatically notable - lacks any other indications of notability (see

WP:ANYBIO

).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the

@SebastianHelm, yes please. How do you think that can be done? Cossde (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Sorry that I made you wait for 18 hours; I'm not as busy on Wikipedia anymore, and there are additional problems this week that I have to attend to. But I should be able to make time tomorrow between 8 and 13h UTC. Either I will just write things here, or, if you could set aside some time for this, we could talk here or chat via another channel around then, which would make things easier. But please don't expect it to be „done“, in the sense of baking a cake. Rather in the sense of learning a language. Lahiru k, one of the founding members of SLR, could tell you all about it. Sadly, he, like many others of my old SLR friends, isn't around at WP anymore. We can give it a try, though, since I'm encouraged by what I've seen from you so far. ◅ Sebastian 20:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you mail. ◅ Sebastian 12:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reaching out. I am sorry, I couldn't respond earlier. I had trouble accessing email. Mind if you could resend the mail please. Cossde (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. If you again didn't receive it, can you please e-mail me so I can reply to you? ◅ Sebastian 02:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lionel Balagalle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page JVP.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Check if you have anything to add here - UtoD 20:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Gal Bangalawa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gal Bangalawa until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

JMWt (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charles Wijewardhana is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Wijewardhana until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Obi2canibe (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Deshabandu Tennakoon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Police Commission.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Air Ceylon Avro 748 4R-ACJ bombing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Ceylon Avro 748 4R-ACJ bombing until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

GalacticOrbits (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your English literacy is quite poor, you regularly make basic spelling errors and have trouble summarizing content in your own words. My friendly suggestion is that you first learn the language before editing English Wikipedia articles as per the requirement. Have you perhaps considered contributing to Sinhala Wikipedia where you may do so more effectively? ---- Petextrodon (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for you kind suggesions. Please feel free to correct my typos.Cossde (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Petextrodon (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Oz346 (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~~~~ Petextrodon (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Amendment has been filed with the

@Robert McClenon thank you this will be helpful. Cossde (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection

.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Oz346 (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the warning is given before reporting on WP:AN3. Not both at the same time. Cossde (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Oz346 (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Petextrodon (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case request resolved by motion

The Arbitration case request

contentious topic. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 14:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

The Arbitration Committee has decided to remove your latest case request Use of single and primary sources in Sri Lankan Civil War articles. This is because in the case request above, the topic area was declared as a

arbitration enforcement noticeboard. As you have copied the request to that noticeboard, it should be dealt with shortly by an uninvolved administrator. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following

topic ban

now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic banned from Sri Lanka, broadly construed

You have been sanctioned as a result of these two AE reports

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an

WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with the topic ban, you may be blocked

for an extended period to enforce the ban.

If you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer granted

Hi Cossde, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the

page curation tools and can start patrolling pages from the new pages feed. If you asked for this at requests for permissions

, please check back there to see if your access is time-limited or if there are other comments.

This is a good time to re-acquaint yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Before you get started, please take the time to:

• Add Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers to your watchlist to follow NPP-related discussions
• If you use Twinkle, configure it to log your CSDs and PRODs
• If you can read any languages other than English, add yourself to the list of reviewers with language proficiencies

You can find a list of other useful links and tools for patrollers at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Resources. If you are ever unsure what to do, ask your fellow patrollers or just leave the page for someone else to review – you're not alone! – Joe (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about athletes

Hi Cossde, Thanks for your review of new pages, this is a very generous use of your time. I've been trying to learn what makes a sports person's page notable or not notable, have read the guidelines, but wondered how this case fits in? I noticed that a page you notified for deletion for athlete ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imre_Katzenbach&action=history ) had the tag removed by an editor, JimmyCarterLover1 who's User page is now deleted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:JimmyCarterLover1&action=edit&redlink=1

I had a look at the User page of the person who created the webpage, (3 references, none say if the player played for a national team, or a regional team) and the User, Das_osmnezz appears to have been blocked about 11 times due to issues with soccer players.

In short, would you please mind having a look? I was under the impression that notability for FOOTY or at least athletes required a bit notability, but I'm not sure. I appreciate hearing the insight of someone with reviewer writes, as I am not a reviewer. Thanks very much for your time and all you do for Wikipedia!DrPlantGenomics (talk) 07:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Kattankudy has been nominated for merging

Category:People from Kattankudy has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Lost in Quebec (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System

to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators:

IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

RoySmith (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cossde (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

@RoySmith, I am requesting a review of the block. In the mean time requesting that personal details such as my additional account be removed from public information. Cossde (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock requests are to ask for a third party to review the block, you don't need to make an unblock request if you want to negotiate with the blocking admin/checkuser. The block seems valid, and is based on private technical information that I as a non-checkuser can't see. Even leaving the technical information aside, the behavior is enough to sustain this block. I don't see any grounds to remove the edits from public view. 331dot (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Nomination of Officer in charge (police) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Officer in charge (police) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Officer in charge (police) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

LR.127 (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ceylon Medical Corps officers has been nominated for merging

Category:Ceylon Medical Corps officers has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Royal College Choir for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Royal College Choir is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal College Choir until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Obi2canibe (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Royal College Union

The article Royal College Union has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails

WP:GNG

, lacks any reliable independent secondary sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the

speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dan arndt (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply

]

Proposed deletion of Chandra Monerawela

The article Chandra Monerawela has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails

WP:ANYBIO

, requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources - being appointed as a High Commissioner does not make the individual automatically notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the

speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dan arndt (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply

]