User talk:Hillcountries

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Hillcountries, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Global Organization for People of Indian Origin for deletion

The article Global Organization for People of Indian Origin is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Organization for People of Indian Origin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. WuhWuzDat 15:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Organization for People of Indian Origin. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. WuhWuzDat 18:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean until you become a saint you should not pass on the God's word to others from Holy books(from any religion). What you have done is a Blatant attack to a community because your negligence to check using verifiable tools for Notability and the hidden motive of Only deletion of the article.Hillcountries (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WuhWazDat has "previous form" - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wuhwuzdat The nomination in this case gave no supporting arguments other than a bald and unsupported statement that the organisation was not notable. There was a complete failure on Wuhwuzdat's part to support the nomination and an overwhelming rejection of the his/her claim. Wuhwazdat has been substantially criticised in the past for an approach that deters users, in particular new users. The idea that WuhWazDat should be criticising others for deterring users is frankly risible. WuhWazDat's nomination has done nothing except waste other Wikipedia users' time and energy and cause discord. Opbeith (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has happened for his chaos.Hillcountries (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating me, I didn't know that this ban had been proposed, but it seems appropriate. Just a shame you had to put up with the aggravation and everyone else had their time wasted. Opbeith (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We wasted our time for nothing.Hillcountries (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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; 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 17:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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; 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Non-Free rationale for File:Lasantha spl.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Lasantha spl.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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; 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

TamilNet

I have taken TamilNet issue to WP:DRN.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 17:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(P.S. Although I support your views 100%, I would respectfully ask you not to get into edit wars. It won't achieve anything other than getting you banned.) --obi2canibe^{talk contr} 17:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How India kept pressure off Sri Lanka and helped to win the civil war

We have to add this too in the article Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak (Sri Lanka) http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article1544202.ece?css=print (Arun1paladin (talk) 10:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Please add.Hillcountries (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grease Devils

I think it's high time to create an article about Sri Lankan state sponsored greased devils/army men in grease used in new kind of genocide of Tamils ,targeting Tamil women in particular(Arun1paladin (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

September 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Pandukabhaya of Sri Lanka, you may be blocked from editing. Blackknight12 (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't threaten me by your Warnings here by how your colleagues are doing it in Sri lanka for everything towards "Sinhalization". Please discuss on the talk page. We want to put the record straight in the history of Sri Lanka.Hillcountries (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Sri Lanka. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 the changes; 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 without further notice. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misinterpret my words, as you did here. What I said is to just ignore the tags to AVOID editwarring, and I never said remove them. I didn't even give my opinion about that (long story). Thanks for understanding and happy editing... ~ AdvertAdam^talk 07:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Island nation

I have taken the Island nation dispute to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.--Blackknight12 (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine.Hillcountries (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Chakrayapalem

A tag has been placed on Chakrayapalem, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

no references to indicate existence

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 22:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka Civil war section being discussed at Dispute Resolution Board

User:Astronomyinertia has taken the issue to the [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Sri_Lanka DRN]](Arun1paladin (talk) 07:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

RfC notification

Within the continues efforts of trying to stabilize the Sri Lankan articles, I saw that it's important to take a step forward and request for comments from the open-wide community. I've opened the RfC here and you're welcome to join. Just remember, this is only about the structure and has nothing to do with the content. Cheers... This is a generalized message. ~ AdvertAdam^on-mobile 06:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing.--Blackknight12 (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Blackknight12 (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't come out with rubbish warnings. We are on Wikipedia to edit and correct contents appropriately. Wikipedia is not a place for POV pushing.Hillcountries (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From an admin

Okay, it's obvious that you and Blacknight12 disagree...but it's also obvious that there are other editors who also disagree with you. Wikipedia policy requires that when you have disagreements, you don't just keep reverting the article to your preferred version--instead, you go to the article talk page and discuss it. I can't tell (yet) whether your edits are problematic, but please be careful, as it is clear that Sri Lankan articles are obviously delicate and prone to strong disagreements. Note that I am not solely blaming you for these problems; I've also given some advice/warning to Blacknight on my talk page.

For example, please go to (at least one of ) the articles you tried to remove the category "Sinhalese people" from. You claim that these people can't be Sinhalese, stating the creation to be much later...but the article Sinhalese people clearly documents their existence back to the 6th century BC. Now, I don't know anything about this subject matter, but at least those edits do appear to be in contradiction to reliable sources.

If you continue to edit war rather than engage in discussion on article talk pages, I will have to block you. These topic is too contentious, filled with too much bad blood, to allow any editors to try to force their way. We must collaborate, and attempt to reach consensus. When you cannot do so with other editors on the article, we have a Dispute resolution process that can aid in achieving consensus. Please ask if you have questions about how to do this. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Sinhalese ethnic identity in existence since 5 - 8 th Century A. D. We can't tag the pre-ancestors being belong to one ethnic group since an ethnic group is formed into being by the admixture of various other ethnic groups over the centuries. Since the issue is resolved those tags should be removed. It is there for a long time is not the justification still the tag should be there. I am removing the tags and those who wants to add them should start discussion on the talk page or at DRN.Hillcountries (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that king Vijaya was not Sinhalese and your reverting edits without a valid reason

The whole artilce on Prince Vijaya is full of information about him, but you keep reverting and taking off the Sinhalese people's category from the article. What exactly are your reasons for doing so? You have refered to the talk page of the article in your edit summary, but u haven't made any entry there!!! I strongly advice you to stop your disruptive editing and provocative behaviour.

Here are 17,400 (= 11,200 + 6,220) references to Vijaya (Sinhalese OR Sinhala) king. I do not know which one to choose. Just pick one of your choice. You've been doing the same edit with several other Sinhalese king's articles. Please use the talk pages of the articles if you do not agree with what is in the articles, or edit the articles giving reference to reliable third party sources. These kings constituted the Great dynasty of the Sinhalese. You can't just take the Sinhalese people's category off these articles.

Please note that your fringe theories, made by the likes of Ponnambalams and other politicians and self published websites are not encyclopedic material. So keep them out of Wikipedia and do not take out Sinhalese people category. If you do so I will make a report on your disruptive editing and edit warring in these articles, with a full report on your provocative edit summaries and continous reverting without giving a valid reason. You know very well as any one else here, that your fringe theories don't hold any academic/scholarly standards at all. So please do not disrupt these articles with your fringe theories, they are nothing but malicious rumours.--SriSuren (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How Prince Vijaya can be a Sinhalese king when his infobox says his birth place is from Singhapur, West Bengal, India / Sihor/Sinhpur, Gujarat, India. Does that mean Sinhalese originated somewhere in India and not from Sri Lanka. Most of the kings which you claim are Nagas in origin, you can't just claim they are Sinhalese because Nagas are one of the founding tribes of Sinhalese. Nagas are the ancestors of the modern Sri Lankan Tamils as well. Hense we should leave these common ancestors to their original ethnic identity rather than to their decedents ethnic identifications. You should leave those tags away from those kings and queens until we reach consensus.Hillcountries (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that it is not a claim that Vijaya is Sinhalese, but a well documented and referenced statement. Therefore how I "claim" that, is in the references given. And pre-ancestors mean ancestors of ancestors, I do not even think you can use this term here at all. So please do not mix and distort concepts to the unrecognizable and further confuse matters. Also I really do not know where you are heading with your confused arguments. According to one of your dual and diffuse lines of arguments Vijaya is not a Bengali/Gujarati either, since Bengalis/Gujaratis too have other ancestors, amoung others Nagas, who are connected to these Naga clans too, and beyond that people who were most probably early humans from Africa. If we trace this further, we can trace it to the chimps and all the way back to a one cell amoeba. So the only sure ancestor of the Sinhalese would be amoebas. Can the Sinhalese then be called amoebas? According to one line of your arguments, they can't. Also using your mis-logic, humans can't be called humans, because the first person to be identified as humans did not have humans as ancestors!!

Vijaya coming from Gujarat/Bengal is a myth. But it is accepted by scholars that he was a historical figure and that he is the first king of the recorded Sinhalese dynasty. There must be at least a couple of thousand pages written analysing this myth and a good hundred thousand pages written about the Sinhalese kings, their traditions, their religions, their ancestry at various times, their contributions, the wars they fought etc etc etc by various scholars. As for Nagas - on what basis do you claim "These kings are Nagas and not Sinhalese"? Who were Nagas? You claim that, Devanampiyatissa, Dhatusena and monk Mahanama were not Sinhalese, but Nagas!!! On what basis are u doing this exactly? --SriSuren (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)--SriSuren (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem if we trace further from amoeba, we will end up somewhere in outer space since it is believed, a wider range of asteroids were capable of creating the kind of amino acids used by life on Earth, according to new NASA research.

But we will come to the point, it doesn't matter how many times it is written about the kings of ancient Sri Lanka that they all are Sinhalese kings, but it should be probed beyond doubt. Until Galileo Galilei contested it was believed the earth was flat. Even some of the kings in Sri Lanka are contested by number scholars that they are of different clans. Since my talk page can't be talk page of those article, I am leaving those topics for further discussion here.

You are asking "Who were Nagas?" and then at one point, you or some of your co-editors claim, "Naga are the one of the founding tribes of Sinhalese race". My point you leave those founding tribes as they are not merge into Sinhalese identity since that is confusing a lot of those historical figures. You asked in a template discussion "Elara the king" should be removed from the "Sri Lankan Tamil people" template though Elara is from the Chola clans which is the one of the founding ethnic ancestors of the Tamils all over the world including in Sri Lanka. So you have influenced by the mind set Tamils in Sri Lanka should not be traced back beyond 13th century. Though the fact is those Tamils of historical times are assimilated within Sinhalese and present day Tamils in Sri Lanka. Nagas too were one of founding tribes of Sinhalese and modern Tamils and the Tamils in Tamil Nadu itself. Nagas might be have originated elsewhere and might have dispersed all over India. If we are going mix history, genetics and racial & ethnic identity, we will be messed at one point.

When I have time, I will further discuss why those tags should be removed.Hillcountries (talk) 05:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have totally misunderstood what Wikipedia is and what you can write here. You can't use Wikipedia to probe or publish your original research. WP:NOT#OR. You can only write information which are verifiable by reliable third party sources. That's one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. When eidtors like u try to use Wikipedia for such purposes, you disrupt Wikipedia and the rest of the editors get this problem of having to use our time dealing with absurd claims and endless discussions. And when you keep on insisting that u can infact publish your original research and fringe theories in Wikipedia, these articles cannot get developed or improved. You have been removing the category Sinhalese people from these articles repeatedly, for a very long time, without giving references to a single scholarly source. This is disruptive editing. You have been at Wikipedia longer than me (since 2008), and u have not taken the time and effort to learn some of the very basic things here. So, please show some respect towards the other editors and at least learn some basic terminology in Wikipedia so that matters do not get further confused - for eg. what you are removing from these articles are called categories, not tags.

You have been given ample references as to why you can't remove Sinhalese people category from these articles, and all u have to say is that it doesn't matter how many times it is written that they are Sinhalese, you want to probe into the matter! The articles can't be put on hold until you probe this. As pr. your own admission u do not have reliable references, and therefore Sinhalese people's categories will be added to these articles. If you take these categories out, I will make a complaint on you. You are welcome to discuss in the talk page of Vijaya, preferably with reliable sources, but I want to know what exactly you are trying to say, since I actually have problems understanding what u are trying to say even. I think you are mixing ethnography, myths and actual history. Characteristics of an ethnic identity can change, but that doesn't mean that the people themsleves didn't exist. Eg. the Sinhalese who were Hindus becoming Sinhalese Buddhists. The kings you are saying were not Sinhalese are an integral part of Sinhalese people, their identity and their history. The whole of the Sinhalese kingship, political and religious organisation has roots on events that happened during Devanampiyatissa. I'll leave you a post in the king vijaya's talk page within 48 hours. I have to attend to a couple of other discussions first. --SriSuren (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. I wasn't joking before. You're edit warring against multiple editors on multiple articles. You don't just get to declare that you don't have to discuss things on talk and others do. After your block expires, please either just stop, or discuss the issues, or you'll face progressively longer blocks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with User:Qwyrxian, he or she seems more partial or inclined towards Sinhalese editors. He wants the edits or tags stay there according to Sinhalese editors want and then very diplomatically asking to engage in discussion which User:Qwyrxian knows consensus won't be reached in the immediate future. I am informing to admins via Arbitration Committee mailing list and other editors concerned.Hillcountries (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course welcome to contact Arbcom, and I'll happily discuss the matter further with them, you, or anyone else, and I'll take any reprimands or sanctions I deserve. However, I would like to correct one thing: I don't have the slightest idea which editors are Sinhalese (how could I, since I've never met any of them). Let me clarify the issue even more: until a few weeks ago, I don't think I'd even heard the word "Sinhalese". All I know is that I saw multiple editors reverting you across multiple articles, and you refusing to discuss the issue. You might even be right. But it's not my position to figure that out; that's up to editors interested in editing on those articles. What I do know is that the way to settle disputes is through conversation and consensus-building, not through edit warring to keep your own way. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is very strange you are from Japan and never heard of the word "Sinhalese" while you are an admin on Wikipedia. You may be right also when the native editors of Sri Lanka are confused of their kings ancestry either politically motivated or ignorant of historical issues or they don't want to think beyond what is already established more a herd instinct(when there are sources contesting those established believes).

You are telling I am refusing to discuss while SriSuren also in the same revert game and edit warring with number of other editors.Hillcountries (talk) 05:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to Hillcountries from SriSuren: According to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you must provide reliable third party sources for what you write or claim or state in Wikipedia. You have done none of that. Do not accuse other editors/administrators/committees when you are unable to provide any source for your claims. When u take one word from one place and another from another place and make claims, that is original research and synthesis. And when u refuse to even discuss, I think it becomes a disciplinary matter. Most administrators here have not even heard of the word Sinhalese, let alone about Sinhalese history or myths. They can only see whether we editors follow the Wikipedia policies. Consensus does not necessarily mean the majourity view of editors in an article. Without wasting all the involved parties time, you must first give reliable sources for your claims, and discuss and then take this to dispute resolution if necessary. These are my views about these policies etc. I am also new to this system, so I do not know how these function exactly, but anybody with common sense knows that they can't behave the way have done, not only at Wikipedia, anywhere else for that matter and then turn back and accuse an admistrator who has checked your edits and blocked you after giving a warning, of bias. Soon after he/she gave you the warning in your userpage, u reverted the edit without any discussion or sources. The block he/she has given you is in fact very mild. Others would have blocked you for longer. I do not know how appropriate my comment here is, but I had to comment, because what u are doing is totally unacceptable. Now if u excuse me I'll try to answer your posts in this page as soon as possible. But I have to get some other work done first. In the meantime gather your references. Statements like "these are not Sinhalese kings, but Naga kings" is not acceptable, because you are using the disputed itself as an argument. This discussion spans across several articles, and involves other editors amoung others User:Tamilan101, therefore I also have to figure out how best to get to the bottom of this. I think we will ultimately have to use the Sri Lanka project page and get some kind of committe to intervene. These myths and claims without any reliable references whatsoever are not encyclopedic material. When the myths themselves are misrepresented to the degree it is done, then we have serious problems.--SriSuren (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though I agree with you some of the points above. Don't justify the blocks of an admin. Actually I started editing Wikipedia in 2005 and come across number of admins who were sanctioned at ArbCom.Hillcountries (talk) 05:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the contents of this discussion to the talk page of Prince Vijaya as this discussion concerns the following articles:

Please reply there now as hopefully it will reach more editors.--Blackknight12 (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka talk page

The discussion on that section is done. It has been archived. If someone wants to discuss those issues again, the best step is to start a new discussion, linking to what has been said before. Discussions are archived automatically after a certain amount of time. Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Up country Tamils of Sri Lanka

What do you think about using Hill country Tamil or Up country tamil names for Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka. Actually if you know facts they really want to get rid of the name. Not because India is a discriminative name but prefixing other country's name to ethnic group is so discriminative. At least can you clarify why Hill country tamils name is bad to use. I feel whole purpose is to discriminate other group and make superiority over others. Since you are from India you may have close Hill country relatives than in Jaffna. Can you double check whether hill country tamils need Indian name. So whats obinicanibe trying to do. Do you have any idea ? --Himesh84 (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reply to page number request

If you are unable to find page numbers you can go to that from link specified in here. Just click the link. You are in page number 2. read page 3 also --Himesh84 (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely for using multiple accounts per the findings of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sudar123. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Muna Pudur

The article Muna Pudur has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unable to find any source except Wikipedia mirrors. No mention in Government records (searched with "Muna Pudur" and "Munapudur"

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. utcursch | talk 00:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lasantha with co journalist.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lasantha with co journalist.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]