Welcome!

Hello, Watchdogb, 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 ask your question there. Again, welcome! RaveenS 15:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

11 February 2007-29 July 2007

Following your recent participation in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of French apartheid, you may be interested to know that a related article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 15:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St. Neris church would be great article to create. I know some people are burning with anger, need to keep it going you see, cant let it burn out. ThanksTaprobanus 01:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the talk page for discussing the contents of the article, rather then edit warring on the article page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User talk:Black Falcon#Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka

I have made various modifications to the Allaipiddy massacre article. I see no reason for the ICG source to be excluded or considered unreliable. In any case, I think that my changes render the issue moot, since I have attributed the contentious statements directly to the ICG. I would appreciate if you could look over the changes and make any necessary reversions, adjustments, or additions. I haven't had a chance yet to look at the other article, but will get to it probably tomorrow. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thansk for protecting my user page while I was gone. I was really thinking about taking it easy, this Vanadalism and the direction given up others about where to concentrate next has given me new life to go on for another year:))). We do need an article on Allaipiddy chruch or St Neri's church bombing as Black Falcon imlies in my talk page. Thanks Taprobanus 18:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I really appreciate it. I'll take a look at the dispute on the "Allegations of state terrorism" article later today. Thanks again, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias bro, you keep the good work too but dont forget your studies:)))Taprobanus 19:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you from me too. Lexicon (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St.Phillip Neri church bombing, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 03:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I thought you may be interested in joining WikiProject Dravidian civilizations. We work on creating, expanding and making general changes to Dravidian related articles. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Participants Page! Thank You.

Wiki Raja 05:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a BIG thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talkpage. How about adding Human rights in Sri Lanka to the see also of army article? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 16:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having another go at a one-thing-at-a-time approach to editing the lead, beginning with whether or not the first paragraph should be exclusively geographic. Please look over how I've shown the views given so far, at the talkpage and ensure that yours is accurately shown by my treatment. Thanks. The goal, of course, is a definite result to build upon.
-- Lonewolf BC 19:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying research to find RS sources to write an article on the mannar calymore ? attack that left 13 civilians dead. Do you have any leaded ? Thanks Taprobanus 17:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I have no idea what you are sorry for, I do not take things in wikipedia seriously, I merely edit wiki for the fun of it. Hey but be warned there may be times I am serious. Though I do not know what u are apologizing for I accept your apology :-). Keep it cool buddy NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 18:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that mail was from a long time ago :) (Expulsion from colombo) happened Watchdogb 18:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

	Thanks Watchdogb
	I would like to thank you for your participation in my successful RfA, which passed with a tally of (44/10/5)[1]. Whether you supported, opposed or were neutral in my RfA, I appreciate your participation and I hope that we can continue to work together to build a stronger and better Wikipedia.
	Regards, nattang 04:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

No problem Nat. Watchdogb 04:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to say "Sand on your nose"? if you really want to u can say it in my talk page :-D NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 08:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you took part in the recent RfC on Talk:India, it would be great if you could weigh in here. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I was doing a search on something else, I found some interesting information that probably needs an article in Wikipedia here. As you are good in creating neutral articles on such controversal subject matters, I thought I will let you know:)))Taprobanus 23:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I sure owe you one. Wiki Raja 22:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you like the barnstar. Wiki Raja 03:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fut, can you please comment on the article on its talk page. I wanted to have the here instead of the current version of the page. My reasons for the addition of extra text is to make the article more of a wikipedia article (encyclopedic with the addition of the paragraph). I added the fact tags because the claims are missing an RS backing them up. I understand that the citation needed tags are over done (per Haemo) and thus I agreed with a single tag on the top of the paragraph. However, I am still looking for an opinion on the inclusion/exclusion of the paragraph. I have asked for a RFC but no one seem interested. Watchdogb 13:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't deal w/ content disputes and i'd just advise you not to edit war over an article which would provoke more problems. Please read my comment and those of Haemo and Perfect at the last thread at the ANI. Topic bans are on the air. Please avoid edit warring. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't look kindly at all upon your suggestion that administrators carefully considering all the evidence in one case means that you should invite a sock parade in a bunch of other cases that you think were wrongly decided [1]. None of the issues addressed here have been resolved yet, and assuming that we're intentionally trying to treat people unequally when two cases were handled by different sets of administrators is not fair. We're working very carefully to resolve this situation fairly. Please don't disrupt the project with such comments while we do that.--chaser - t 22:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really ? I am surprized that wikipedia admins would take passport as evidence and let sockmasters run around wikipedia. However, I might be wrong in calling for a sock parade. So I apologize for that but I am still opposed to the idea of passport and other private paper as evidence Watchdogb 22:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider it enough to completely resolve the situation. It's very tricky. Please give us time to work it out. In the meantime, I'd appreciate it if you remove your comments inviting blocks sockpuppets to evade process and return. Thank you for the apology.--chaser - t 22:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Sorry but sometimes even the coolest of dogs loose control :) Watchdogb 22:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Watchdogb. I think you [missed reading] my last comment. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OH, snap. Ok I will fix that now :) Sorry brother. BTW I am sorry FayssaIF for not WP:AGF wotj you. Watchdogb 23:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Discussion move and Specific proposal Your participation and acceptance would be appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Taprobanus 22:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to take a break from this mess, I hope you do the same Taprobanus —Preceding comment was added at 22:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks very much. I will go and write about more atrocities Watchdogb 23:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faysaif, thanks for your hard work on meditating SL editors. I have agreed to the terms that was proposed. I just edited Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka. However, the proposal says that we should stop editing these article for a period of time. Can I still edit for now (until everything is done) or should I revert myself on the article until further notice ? Watchdogb 16:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ok. Can you please follow the reasoning w/ me?

• Reverting yourself would be better than anything you could do. Showing good faith is the most essential thing. However, while waiting for the proposal to become a resolution, please do not ask anyone to act the same way. Just think about yourselves. If everybody would follow this, your Wikipedia issues would be settled in less than anyone would expect. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion. I will follow your suggestion as your only trying to help out. I will only think about my actions and not anyone else. I was also wondering if I can still create new articles on Massacres in Sri Lanka? Watchdogb 00:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think i replied to all your concerns Watchdogb including the last query. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your intervention. I am talking about this.

As you must have noticed, user Lahiru_k got banned for impersonating me and the fake id was 'snsudharsan'. My id is Sudharsansn and I have made over 1000 edits till now. Thanks for your intervention, please block the fake user:Sumoeagle179 who made those comments as it is merely a one-time 'revenge' for some of the posts in Orkut. Hearty thanks Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 04:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, nice to see your message. Where from in Canada, I'm in BC :-) Sudharsansn (talk · contribs) 09:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.thesouthasian.org/archives/2007/is_the_government_redefining_e.html

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 21:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Watchdogb. I notice you've tagged Kalmunai massacre and Sri Lankan Civil War as requiring Tamil text. This tag is usually applied when, for example, an article about a Tamil place, person, film, book or some such thing does not have his / her / its name in Tamil script (or where they're mentioned in an article in a context that requires their name to be provided in Tamil script). Looking at these articles, I'm not sure exactly what they lack the Tamil script for. Could you let me know exactly what you're looking for, so I can try to add it? -- Arvind 09:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :) I'd do it, but I have a few technical problems on my computer that prevent me from being able to use or contribute to the Tamil Wikipedia - and, in any event, I find it writing about the Sri Lankan situation a little too emotionally draining. I'd say the best place to ask would be the Village Pump on Tamil Wikipedia, which is at ta:Wikipedia:ஆலமரத்தடி - their coverage of the Sri Lankan conflict is not anywhere near as comprehensive as this wikipedia's, but you may find someone there interested enough to take it up. -- Arvind 23:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dearest Watchdogb,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your kind words of support are very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to The_undertow and Phoenix-wiki for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.

Lara❤Love 20:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Credits: This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks which was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

I just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/housekeeping to separate our internal housekeeping stuff from the current discussion about articles, which is of interest for more than just our members. Please add this page to your watchlist. I also wrote a new proposal on its talk page, WT:SLR/H#Proposed recipients for barnstars. Please let me know what you think of it! — Sebastian 11:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watchdogb, I had to block you for 72 hours due violating the agreed upon 1RR, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#1RR_violation. I know wiki can be frustrating, but you need to resist those urges. However, I do commend your otherwise efforts at the SLR. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice and thanks for your efforts in blocking violators. This is like having an all paid vacation :). Thanks again Watchdogb 23:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 18:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See email. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[2] qualifies as an acdemic source Taprobanus (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you.

This refers to this edit. Yesterday, I decided to not make a fuss about it because I thought you'd get the message when I reverted you, but then you did this, where you again changed sourced information without providing any reason, and again added a derogatory summary. The source says "soldier"; it's really low to defame a dead person (who you probably don't even know) as a "terrorist". This is getting out of hand. I'm sorry, but I have to officially warn you now. — Sebastian 21:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks for the heads up. Watchdogb (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to say, I do understand that the situation in SL is especially stressful right now, and it's only human if one can't remain calm in such a situation. Let's hope for peace! — Sebastian 04:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a signatory of this agreement, you may be interested that we're currently discussing the WT:SLR#Continuation of SLR agreement. This is just a courtesy notice. — Sebastian 05:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I thought you may be interested in joining WikiProject Tamil civilization. We work on creating, expanding and making general changes to Tamil related articles. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Participants Page! Thank You.

Wiki Raja (talk) 08:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Sri Lanka Hope Award
		I am happy to present you the Sri Lanka Hope Award for your reconciliatory spirit and your good suggestion. To keep a cool head in one of the world's hottest conflicts deserves our highest respect! — Sebastian 21:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much ! Watchdogb (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please take a look at the discussion at Talk:Counter-terrorism#Sri Lanka (and the current state of the article) and offer your comments? Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right away ! Watchdogb (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(copied to Watchdogb's page) It wound up being a very informative exchange. I'm reminded of Clemenceau's suggestion that war is too important to be left to the generals, although I'm not sure if Stockwell Day is an improvement. :-)

The Military History Project has started a series of non-encyclopedic essays to guide editors in the field, and this discussion brought home that some terms of art that are quite well understood in the professional military literature have been thoroughly confused by the evil twins of politicians and sound-bite journalists. I'm trying to generalize the idea of tactic, countertactic, and antitactic, which applies to more than terror. Terrorism is more emotional than many areas, although I still remember when nuclear annihilation was a very real concern, crouched under my school desk during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the idea of "anti-" versus "counter-" defense was a valid distinction. Not to be able to make that distinction, I'm afraid, spills into the important distinction between preventive war (usually bad) and preemptive war (sometimes warranted). Too much journalism mixes up prevention and preemption, which are quite different ideas.

I've written an article on Foreign Internal Defense, which really needs to split into material on theories of insurgency and tactics of defense against insurgent methods -- which may or may not include terrorism. Some of the models of why insurgency breaks out, with odd names like McCormick's Magic Diamond, Kilcullen's Three Pillars, etc., may be useful in discussing the political aspect of warfare, especially what triggers civil wars and the like. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"emphatically saying that is a term of art regarding tactics rather than a value judgment, I can't see how one could logically be a victim of terrorism if there was no terrorist incident or attack." a statement by a user clear states that this is not resolved there for until such time it is resolved the original article must remain. Once changers are agreed upon, they can be made. Nitraven (talk) 06:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of your recent edits to 2007 Sri Lankan bus bombs ([3][4]), I would like to remind you to please remain mindful of the 1RR restriction that applies to all articles within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. Although revert restrictions are generally waived across Wikipedia if reverting is uncontroversial, restores a consensus version, or improves an article (see e.g. Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Exceptions), they do apply in the case of good-faith content disputes. For details, please see Sebastian's clarification of what 1RR means to us. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you would find it useful, but having (among others) two sub-pages of Central Intelligence Agency, one CIA transnational anti-terrorism activities and one CIA transnational human rights actions has helped focus some discussion and not get POV arguments in the main page. Whether this would work in the Sri Lanka articles, I don't know, but this is simply a suggestion that helped with a problem that seems similar to the one you addressed today.

Sincerely, Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find your suggestion very interesting. Can you expand on what you said ? I am very hopeful that this would help out in Sri Lanka article. If not, I am always willing to learn new things. Watchdogb (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you may know, in last October or so, Central Intelligence Agency was a page over 300K long, which was breaking browsers and causing numerous edit conflicts. For purely practical reasons, it had to be smaller, but there was a great deal of information worth saving -- and a fair amoun of POV material, often poorly sourced, about all manner of evil things done by the CIA.

I'm the first person to say that evil things were done by US intelligence, including the CIA. There are a few points that probably don't relate to your project, and some that were. Many of the questionably legal things done by the CIA were either direct Presidential (or authorized deputy orders), such as the assassination attempts against Fidel Castro, and others, such as some of the covert political subsidies in Indonesia, only authorized after detailed review by a cabinet-level committee (and often signed by the President). Some, such as deals with Japanese and Nazi war criminals, were made by other intelligence agencies before the CIA existed.

In the case of your project, you might want to consider creating sub-pages for topics that are both controversial and, if fully explored, quite lengthy. In the CIA case, the sub-article on terrorism deals with US transnational attempts to prevent terror, but I see no reason why, for your project, one page could not address terrorism and terrorism prevention by both sides, with definitions of what is meant by terrorism and measures against it.

By moving without deleting at first, the statements that had had a {{fact}} tag on them for months became much more obvious. In some cases, editors did provide sources, but, after a reasonable wait, there was no anger at removing unsourced material. I suspect some of that material came from one-time edits by someone that inserted their favorite conspiracy theory, and never returned to participate in discussion.

This, obviously, can't be completely separated from human rights. The CIA human rights sub-page starts with official policy about torture and other violations, and then goes by region, country, and year about when questionable things happened. There is considerable wikilinking, as, for example, when the CIA trained one country not to use torture, but the government simply moved the prisoners they wanted to torture to another country.

I'm not familiar enough with Sri Lankan issues to say that the internal organization of these pages would work for you (national policy & international agreements, region, country and date), but some variant might work for you. For a given incident, it can greatly reduce edit wars if both sides can have their well-sourced position under the same general heading (e.g., place and time), rather than try to force consensus language when there is no consensus about what happened. When there is consensus, of course, show the time and place, and the consensus reachrf.

Incidentally, I've been suggesting editors from the Iran-Iraq War page look at your project, since you've done amazingly better in reaching consensus, or at least politely recording each side's position. Part of the problem in Iran-Iraq is there can well be 30 sides of an event. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. You just gave me a really good idea of what to do when edit war rages over simple words or incident reports. You also just gave me another idea which has been a problematic article for a long time! Thank you for taking the time to help. I am surly glad we met on the Counter terrorism article! If you do come up with any other idea where you think we might be able to benefit please let me know. Thanks again Watchdogb (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL...if you ever get some trusted body armor, try Iran-Iraq War. One of the reasons I have some hope for difficult topics is that CIA still has problems, but is enormously better. I was really touched when someone went away, angry and having made massive redirects with no consensus, coming back and giving me a Barnstar of Diplomacy --utterly unexpected and that I treasure very much.

Apropos of incident reports, if they are military or intelligence, be sure to have someone that knows their conventions check their full text. There was one, for example, about chemical weapons in Iraq, which became much easier to understand if you knew the significance of the six-letter addressee codes. Those starting with R are military/operational, while intelligence traffic starts with Y. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to help out. Good luck and happy editing :)--Urban Rose 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help...--Badgernet (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I will be reporting you for 3RR violation. Have a nice day. (Top Gun)

Watchdogb, you read my e-mail and my post Why we can do without trickery, in which I asked you and everyone else to stick to the conflict resolution SLR offers. And you know very well that Sri Lankan Civil War is part of the Sri Lanka Dispute Resolution Agreement (SLRDA). So there's no excuse for going ahead and escalating the conflict further with repeated reverts such as this and this - two exact same reverts within 24 hours, which is a clear violation of SLRDA by any standards. Black Falcon already reminded you of this just a few weeks ago. It is therefore my sad duty to now officially warn you and enter your name in the list on WP:SLR. You know, if this happens again, any administrator may block you. --— Sebastian 07:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to take a cooling off period. And I think you should too. Then we will get back to are discussion in a week or so.(Top Gun)

No, no inconveniance. I would also like to say I'm sorry if I offended you in any way. Cheers!(Top Gun)

Hey buddy, listen, I got one of the administrators to lift the protection on Sri Lankan Civil War article. I wanted to ask you now. Are you OK with it if I place a reference for the 1,800 dead soldiers figure after 2002. I have a proposal. Let that reference be there only temporarily until we find a better source from a book or from some respectfull media source. OK? I will not make the edit before you reply. I will wait for you. (Top Gun)

Yeah, sure I don't see why not. Watchdogb (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism needs its own page, but Indian Tamil nationalism and Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism are not two unconnected entities. There is a literature exploring the similarities and differences between the two, the extent to which the two influenced each other, and the extent to which they drew on a common past. To simply turn Tamil nationalism into a disambiguation page ignores all of this. Also note that the Tamil wikipedia itself has a substantive article at its equivalent page, ta:தமிழ்த் தேசியம். -- Arvind (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best book on the point I know of is Dynamics of Tamil nadu politics in Sri Lankan Ethnicity by G. Palanithurai and K. Mohanasundaram, published by Northern Book Centre in 1993. I have a copy of the book - leave the issue with me for a while, and I'll try and come up with a draft. -- Arvind (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this :)( Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Watchdogb (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beacuse you have nominated it for DYK, edit protections will come in the way, you can add it back anytime you want Taprobanus (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention is requested for the above -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 13:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Watchdogb. You have new messages at Tinucherian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The bot has found that the tag <ref name=popstats/> has no corresponding reference in the article. The bot searched through the history and mistakenly found a false positive. However the problem is that without a corresponding tag <ref name=popstats>www.example.com Census Population</ref> the fact (the Muslim population) is unsourced. Read WP:REF I have replaced the offending tag with a fact tag. This occurance should not happen again. --Lemmey talk 22:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sri Lankan Tamil Nationalism, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford 21:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All this hard working about that etymology article , I thibnk all what we need is a one called Tamil place names in Sri Lanka proprly cited with academic sources ??Taprobanus (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Madhu school bus bombing, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford 05:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is one important situation in which your posts make a talk page really hard to read: When you insert your comments in existing comments, as you did on Talk:Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism. It seems, in these cases you only write one signature at the very end. That makes it very hard for readers like me to understand the discussion. Please therefore, add the following for each inserted text:

• A template {{interrupted|name of editor you're interrupting}} at the end of the line after which you're inserting your text. (Please see the talk page for how I did it. This template was created by me a long time ago, and I always use it when I interrupt people. I'm aware that the name "interrupted" sounds a bit harsh, but I couldn't think of a better name.)
• Your signature at the end of each individual insertion. (For the time being, I inserted just {{unsigned|Watchdogb}}, but it would be nice if you could change that to your signature with the actual date of when you wrote it.

Thank you! -- Sebastian (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
_____________________________________________________________________________
Regrding Tamil Nationalism article. Hi Watchdog, you point out that my introduction to the "Tamil nationalism" article has new material which is not in the body of the article. Indeed, I will add the new material to the body of the article as well. Give me a bit of time. Thank you.Bodhi dhana (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as a policy , i do not take advices from sock puppets. So please refrain from talking to me. If you continue to do so i will definitely take necessary actions. finally, Good luck your amazing editing, i am sure elalan is really proud of you.--Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 03:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reread Jasy's response, it is very neutral. It says use but not to make etymological claims, which I think is reasonable. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Watchdog, you have added a lot of citation tags to the etymology article. While I agree that citations are indeed something to go for, I am not really sure whether we need citations for all the paragraphs you have tagged. From Wikipedia:Citing sources

Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is policy, says that attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Any material that is challenged, and for which no source is provided within a reasonable time may be removed by any editor.

I am led to infer that you are challenging the veracity of the information given in the geolinguistic section. Could you be a bit more precise about which points you are challenging? For instance, the paragraph

As already stated above, European place names are found mainly in the big towns which used to be colonial centers. On the countryside, there is close to no European toponymy and the indigenous languages are dominant

has been tagged by you. I think that passage is pretty much uncontroversial. Which portion of it do you think is likely to be challenged? There are some other trivial claims in the following section, which I do not think anybody would want to challenge, so I think they do not need a citation that urgently. Jasy jatere (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to ask for citation not because I want to challenge the material given but because it would definitely look better with citation. Watchdogb (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just afraid that someone would stop by and remove the content bcs it is not cited. Otherwise, I agree that more citations are of course better.Jasy jatere (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Watchdog, You have the habit of adding new sections to talk by editing the last one and adding == ==. Did you know this amazing "new section" button on top of the page, which will do precisely that in just one click? It has the further advantage that it reflects properly in the history what you did. Jasy jatere (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I know about the button but I choose not to use it. Nothing against what I do. Watchdogb (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Watchdog—I'd be happy to do my best on a copyedit. I can start tomorrow. Thanks for including me in the project; it looks like a very nice article. --AnnaFrance (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Just noticed that Wackymacs has been asked to copyedit also. I'll wait until he decides whether he has the time to help here. --AnnaFrance (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Watchdog. I don't share your enthusiasm for July :) but I understand date confusion. A problem affecting very busy people. Cheers! --AnnaFrance (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Watchdog—sure thing. I'll get started right away. --AnnaFrance (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Your doing a great job Watchdogb (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you too. As I told Taprobanus, I've really enjoyed helping out with such an interesting article and look forward to working with you again on other articles. --AnnaFrance (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I thought that this would happen. But I feel that the talk page banner is not very informative. There are two links to the archived discussion page, which is not particularly easy to follow. Maybe we can find another way to provide the necessary information in a clearer way?

As for the main article, I think it is very likely that someone will think it is POV, but I would prefer a clear statement which sections are POV and why, so that we can address these concerns, improve those sections and eventually get rid of the banners.Jasy jatere (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page seems quite quiet these days. Why don't you remove all material failing RS and then remove the tags? Jasy jatere (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Chinese apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen Watchdogb I don't want to start another edit war with you again, the source I put says 5,000 killed & 5,000 remain, at least another 3,000 wounded that is 13,000, I even left the 3,000 number with it's reference so I put an estimate of their strenght 3,000-13,000. The 3,000 number is in any case crazy but I left it. In any case the Tigers always say their number of dead at the end of each year so I think we should leave the number of 5,000 for now and when the Tigers say their casualty number at the end of the year then we should make the apropriate changes. (Top Gun)

Hi Watchdogb,

Thank you for your concern, and even more for including me on your new Tamil article. You are right, there is a lot going on in the copyediting business lately (I think most copyeditors are on vacation), but it will be a particular pleasure to find time for such an interesting article. I should be able to wrap up most of my current chores during the coming week, and then I can devote proper time to the new article. See you then. --AnnaFrance (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks buddy for catching me striking other peoples comments :)) and everything elese Taprobanus (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the link. I didnt catch that it was an opinion piece.Pectore^talk 18:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking over the review comments. <sigh> You can spend as much effort dealing with the reviewers as you do writing the article. Don't hesitate to drop me a note if I can help in any way. --AnnaFrance (talk — blunders) 15:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I am stuck at a FAC. The article has improved a lot. I'll comment soon. In the meantime, please keep on adding references and do not keep anything uncited. Cheers, Kensplanet (talk) 15:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all since I have given a Support. Thanks, Kensplanet (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. I think the debate is over now, and Nitraven will implement the changes. Will do as you say if for some reason the discussion gets going again Jasy jatere (talk) 07:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit [5] cause the sources are reliable, indian parliment archives from a speech made by him, asian tribune is a verbatim copy of a interview taken with him etc. Whenever terrorist allegations against LTTE are raised you seem to quote wiki guidlines "undue prominence to issues" ad nauseum in order to try to water down the allegations and suite your POV. Please understand that you are entitled to your view of the LTTE and I too am entitled to mine. We are interested in facts from reliable sources and not POV pushing. If you want we can seek mediation regarding the addition to subramanium swamy.Kerr avon (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you edited the Controversy section on the M.I.A. section added by User:Kerravon recently, however I've removed it, as it fails WP:UNDUE. The coverage of this has not been in several reliable sources to warrant a mention on her page, as WP:UNDUE clearly states there should be and I think it's a copy of what's currently on the Paper Planes song article, which is what it's related to. Thanks.DriveDelta (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your comment on the talk page. Thanks. DriveDelta (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a hard time understanding comments by Sandy, but took care of at least 2, but not sure how to deal with images issues, can you help please when you have time ? Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback regarding the above on my talk page. I have responded on the articles talk page and would value any suggestions.Kerr avon (talk) 18:07, 25 August 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) 00:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged your own redirect as an attack page and warned yourself for making a personal attack. I suspect you checked the wrong box in twinkle. If you're attempting to get a redirect deleted after a page move, you need G6. (housekeeping) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Watchdogb! I see you have made a lot of contributions to articles related to Sri Lanka. If you're interested in Sri Lanka related topics, please consider joining WikiProject Sri Lanka. The wikiproject is currently almost inactive, and we're trying to see if we can get it running again by getting together its members again. If you're interested in reviving it and being an active member of the Wikiproject, please add yourself under the list of currently active members on the project page. Hope to see you there. Cheers. Chamal ^Talk ± 11:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		Rajaraja Chola Award
		Hi Watchdogb. Just to say you've done a wonderful job with your edits to the article over the past few months - it flows much more smoothly now, and is a much better article for the work you've done. Arulmozhivarman smiles in delight.Taprobanus (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

could you check British Tamils Forum, I think it's completely neutral, but an editor who has shown a callous disregard for WP:Assume good faith with users in the past and other protocol, (and a likely Sinhala) has questioned the article, complaining it "presents Tamil grievances as fact." All information is verifiably cited as far as I can tell. I've asked User:Taprobanus too. Thanks. Wubbabubba (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the definition of terrorism is unclear, suicide attack is part of {{terrorism}}. I am reverting and will report you to AN3 if you continue to edit war with me without any reason. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave an exact quote from Asia Tribune that called it a terrorist attack on the talk page. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~

The United States denounces this vicious and reprehensible terrorist attack on civilians in the strongest possible terms ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a RS and it covers the category. You can add back the categories now. Watchdogb (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversions[6] made on October 29 2008 to 2008 Weliveriya bombing

[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

The duration of the block is 168 hours. Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have made 4 reverts while being on 1RR parole. Please edit cooperatively or the next time you will be blocked indfinetly Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2008 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

First, the 1RR parole has expired more than 3 days ago and in does not effect me anymore. Secondly, and more importantly, I only made 3 reverts and 1 edit which is clearly not violating 3RR. Last there is no need for this block since I have decided not to contest that article anymore since a reliable source has been given to back up the claim

Decline reason:

Alex reduced your block because the 1RR had (just barely) expired. I think that is sufficient. Although you did technically make only 3 reverts, this was clearly a revert war, exactly the kind of thing the 1RR and the 3RR in general aim to prevent. 3 reverts is not an entitlement, it's an absolute maximum. This block is justified as one for edit warring. Mangojuice^talk 13:42, 30 October 2008 (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.

Provide a link to the 1RR expiration. I've contacted the blocking admin. IMHO the blocks in this case should be the same length. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks should not be of the same length because of different block history of the users. Still, as I was not aware that your 1RR restriction is expired I am reducing the block to 72h Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTF buddy, no article is worth a block dude, we can always get them resolved atWP:SLR, always :))Taprobanus (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for closing the application and adding the new member. How about leaving them a message on the talk page, too? — Sebastian 17:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done and thank you for reminding me. First time is usually tough :) Watchdogb (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi watchdog,
the following statement looks like a threat to me

Also any addition of such material from GoSL to the BLP, will be met with much addition from this

It's not very severe, but it promises retaliation in the event of adding material. This is a bit beyond "cool editing", and certainly not a good strategy to build consensus. Just wanted to make you aware of that. Furthermore, Fein's reply to the GoSL page is very classy, and I would not object to including it in the article. It is a pity for the GoSL that they cannot express themselves in the way Fein does, but still they try (and fail). Having said all this, I think that the article about Fein has too much emphasis on the SL question. One gets the impression that he is notable just because of that, while he has done a million things before. Jasy jatere (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jasy, it might be a threat, but only for those who want to violate wikipedia's WP:NPOV. All I am saying is that any addition from a POV source will be met with addition from the person who is being attacked. This is not Threat, but a comment of totality, provided that the former takes place the later will also take place. Also I must say good job on resolving the issue on the article itself. This is exactly what we need in all the articles! Good job Watchdogb (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[7] [8]

Please check out Anniversary - let's celebrate! Your suggestions are very welcome. — Sebastian 22:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Watchdogb,

Sorry if I runined your page. If so feel free to move this request to a suitable place.

Could you please review this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Canadian_Tamil_anti-genocide_strike#cite_note-0

Hope you will do the needful. (I don't know how to do those myself.)

Thanx.

Amiladm (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are people who are trying to vandalise List of attacks attributed to the Sri Lankan military, please watch it. -Iross1000 (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2009 (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) 02:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see an important notice at WT:SLR#Should we close down this project? — Sebastian 08:21, 5 January 2010 (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) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]