User talk:Snowolfd4

Archives

Conversation #1-30 Conversation #31-60 Conversation #61-90 Conversation #91-120 Conversation #121-150 Conversation #151-180 Conversation #181-208

I just wanted to point out a few things about your last edit on the Sri Lankan civil war:

- first of you, typed <br in the infobox so you have broken the article in that place. Will you please correct that because I am not a registered user and can not edit a protected article

- second, you typed the number of Tigers killed after 2006, it should say after 2007 not 2006, will you please correct that as well, thank you

- third, why did you remove the sourced (referenced) number of overall 80,000 dead from the infobox? An overall number of killed in the war should be put in the infobox even if that other user reasond there is no need because it is already mentioned according to him. So will you please, reinsert that, thank you

- and fourth, you are asking about the 2,685 number, six sources have been given, which you have removed now (which I think you shouldn't have done), when you sum up the numbers of dead in those sources you get 2,685, now please don't yell at me about that Original Research violation, this number based on these numbers was agreed upon among myself user Watchdogb and several other editors more than six months ago, but if you still won't reinsert the 2,695 number that I ask you to please at least reinsert the reference (you deleted) which says that more than 2,500 have been killed since the start of last year (I don't know how you missed it since you said you read all of the references, the reference is [1]) and if you are still open for compromise over the references put 2,600 instead of 2,500 with the addition of this one more reference Srilanka Assessment 2007 which states the individual numbers of dead for the years of 2002 through 2005 (which is exactly 100), hope you make these edits.

In case it will pass several days for you to get this message I will post a message on the discussion page of the article to make a request to make these edits, hope you won't revert them before discussing. Thanks, cheers, and Happy New Year since it's coming up. Bye. 89.216.235.147 (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that tamilnet is being used as a reference for the number of SLA casualties here. Is this accepted as a reliable source? I was under the impression that information like this are not sourced from websites directly related to the parties invloved since they are bound to be biased, aren't they? Chamal ^talk 01:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi snowolf,
I started the whole thread because I myself would not know how to qualify LD in the schema of classes of sources. If you just say "use pro-government" or "anti-government" or any other qualification, that would probably be OK. I found the website quite informative (while it was there), and less clearly biased than some other Lankan publications, but that is of course my personal impression. I suppose that wikipedians with a more thorough knowledge of the Sri Lankan society can detect the biases more easily, which is what I was asking for. I am just trying to understand parts of the Sri Lankan political landscape. So, LD is close to SLFP-M, which is kind of against Rajapaksa, probably also against LTTE, and also against UNP? I must say that I find the frequent reorganizations of Sri Lankan parties very confusing... To cut it short, could you just reply what you believe the political goals of LD are/were? Thank you. Jasy jatere (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the long reply. I agree with everything you say, and find the closing statement a very viable solution. Jasy jatere (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your application, which has been unanimously accepted. We at WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation are very happy to add you to our member list, and we are looking forward to seeing you in our project area more often. Thanks and Welcome once again! Watchdogb (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out Anniversary - let's celebrate! Your suggestions are very welcome. — Sebastian 22:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good work with the commander list. One thing to point out is, 'in control of majority area' is a better term rather than 'driven out'. For example see [this] and [this]. -Iross1000 (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I am sure you know about the definitions of

Snowolf, please refrain from personal attacks, such as "your silly games" when refering to my quoting WP policy. This is unconstructive. Jasy jatere (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

my alleged ignorance of policy does not give you the right to be incivil. Not too sure what you want to show with that link BTW. I have nothing against your edits in particular, minor or not. If you just check the box for edits which are indeed minor, there is no problem.

please read

OK, sorry for that one Jasy jatere (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On In the news candidates page .

I read your edit summary; no worries, you did it all right. BTW, did you get my e-mail? — Sebastian 16:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im afraid what you think can be considered as POV. If we dont back these trivial facts with refs how can we remove controversial claims by other that are trying to put them on this page. I am reverting them. Time was given since the cites were requested and removal. If you think these are accurate I see no problem in you readding them, if you could add them with refs. And another issue I see in this article is that most of the sources are partisan sources, we should find more independent ones. Please dont forget we should make a article that is encyclopedic and would be taken seriously. Cheers Cossde (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion taking place on the LTTE talk page which could profit from a pro-SL point of view. I suspect you are busy in RL, but leaving the talk page to one pro-LTTE person and two "neutrals" (as far as neutrality exists, that is) does not seem a good course of affairs either. So, please drop by if you find the time Jasy jatere (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reversed your deletion but added few bits which I believe make that section more balanced. If you are not happy with this amendment, then I will not reverse it until consensus is reached through discussion. Please make a reply to the comment I made in the talk page. Vapour (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please join

Good day, I just want to ask you for your assistance regarding an issue i discussed about on the BIA talk page. Please refer to my posting regarding the [edit] links. Cheers. Pilotofthefuture1 (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered,

Two users keep deleting entire passages in the Genetic Studies section claiming that my sources are not verifiable. My sources are the most detailed of the entire genetic studies section and they are studies conducted by the University of Stanford. Need your help to stop the vandalism and edit war. Edwards Scholar (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you post this file for deletion? 150px it was used on the virgin tour page. A file showing the singer during the tour is already used but some user keeps reverting it and ading his file. Alecsdaniel (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Hello machan how have you been? Hey could you check out this users edits, he has been adding and removing information which seems to be with a racial intent on the articles related to the northern regions of Sri Lanka such as Northern Province, Sri Lanka ‎, Mannar District and others. I have told him to stop vandalising the page but he continues, and has used unreliable sources like this [2], he also seems to be a member of WikiProject Sri Lanka. I have also told him to explain his edits on the talk page before he edits the article, and it is turning into a edit war. Could you please tell this person to stop his vandalism and follow the proper wikipedia protocaol. Thanks Blackknight12 (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk) 01:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Talk humbly

Can u explain what unsourced material i added to Srilanka, also please behave urself and talk politely here..... its not Sri Lanka to threaten the others... okay...--BlueLankan 20:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueLankan (talk • contribs)

Sri Lanka

Hello, Have you seen the this edit and others by User:Hemanshu. Seems to be this guy has a history of disruptive edits. I found those statements are sourced by this site. Believing you wrote the original text, I suggest detagging and restoring to previous state. Agree?--Chanaka L (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:C.W.W. Kannangara.jpg)

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

).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "

ZooFari 21:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello

Hey, how have you been? Its been a long time since you have edited regularly, just wondering why that would be? Anyway WikiProject Sri Lanka could use a valued member like you again, things have been getting slow lately, hope you'l come back to edit. Take care--Blackknight12 (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka Reconciliation WikiProject

Please see an important notice at

WT:SLR#Should we close down this project? — Sebastian 08:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Sri Lankan presidential election, 2010

[3] Yes, I know he has more than 50%, but without the official result we can't really say he has won. There is an indication that he's winning, and that's what the media is reporting. That's not the same as the official result saying he has won. What's your hurry? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 08:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Etisalat (Sri Lanka)

Hi, Will you be making the page a stub? As soon as I find reliable & good third party sources I will improve it. So far only Tigo stuff is there. Thanks. csesl (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. csesl (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sri Lankan national referendum, 1982

On DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Shivashree · talk 11:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sri Lankan national referendum, 1982

On DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Port of Hambantota

On DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wave

Just a friendly wavehowl from a fellow polar wolf ;-) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 10:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lankan parliamentary election, 2010

On 21 April 2010, Sri Lankan parliamentary election, 2010, which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page .

--Good work. Well done. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TamiNet citations

Please stop removing TamilNet citations. According to

WP:RS

".

There have been a number of attempts (which you have taken part in) to classify TN as an unreliable source (

WP:RS

.

You may not like TN nor want it mentioned in a prominent article. That does not give you a right to remove TN citations unilaterally without any discussion or courtesy for other editors.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 21:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a qualified source, so when citing controversal facts, one has to say according to Tamilnet. Kanatonian (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citations were for non-controversial facts therefore adding "Pro-rebel Tamilnet reported" would be ridiculous. We should use some common sense, not blindly apply what has been agreed in

WP:SLR across all articles. Besides, with end of the civil war the term "pro-rebel" is redundant. Removing the TamilNet citations would in some cases leave the Daily News and MahindaRajapaska.com as the only source. These two can hardly be called unbiased. The Daily News, as you say here, is "often biased, but they don't make up fake news". The same could be said about TamilNet. Some TamilNet articles are biased but most, such as in this case, are reliable. That's why the world's leading media organisations use them as a source. Anyone with some nous should be able to differentiate between what's reliable and what's not. We should judge each TamilNet article individually, not condemn every TamilNet article as biased, unreliable or pro-rebel.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Clearly we're not going to agree on this. I go back to my first point: TamilNet is

WP:RS. Neutral editors have repeatedly concluded this. I don't believe that TamilNet is on any official Wikipedia "blacklist". I don't believe that such a list even exists.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 14:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

PTGTE

Thanks for correcting, me . I am new to wiki myself. But its clearly not neutral to call a democratic organization as 'remnants of LTTE' . Its op sided GOSL analysis, substantiated with what ? Indian media. The article is about PTGTE and not LTTE. Please remember that. Anyhow the first para does mention that The PTGTE has been called a "ploy to perpetuate terrorism" by the government of Sri Lanka.

None of my edits removed that . Lets leave it at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthtriumph (talk • contribs) 07:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New article

International Indian Film Academy Awards (IIFA) 2010 : Colombo - Sri Lanka

--Lanka07 (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not

autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages

.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious

Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here

.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sinhala Wikipedia

Are you active in Sinhala Wikipedia ? There was a poll for a new admin in Sinhala wikipedia. Haven't noticed any response from you in that poll. You are listed as an inactive admin there? Your user page also seems to be vandalized.

Thanks. Shehanw (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for W. I. M. Seneviratne

DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply