User talk:Netmonger/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Page move

Should be sorted now. Hope this helps!   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  07:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 10:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey Bawa

I ran into number of articles about him, are you interested in creating an article about him ? Taprobanus 12:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure but its very difficult to find info about him ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 18:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sir Lanka

I am aware of exactly how many articles the template is used on. Were you aware that my edit didn't change any of the dimensions :)? Thanks, ed g2s • talk 21:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit war on Template:Sri Lankan Conflict

Both of you guys should stop your edit war regarding the border of {{Sri Lankan Conflict}} or else I will list it under the Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 08:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

		The Half Barnstar
		I, Lahiru_k award you with the left half of The Half Barnstar for meeting the criteria of it by managing to survive from one of the lamest but considered to be a productive, edit wars regarding the border color of the {{Sri Lankan Conflict}} Good Luck!!! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 08:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Coz your edits exactly match the Half Barnstar criteria --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 09:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

ok cool.. keep it low buddy.. he he he ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 18:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Expulsion of Muslims from Jaffna

k, seriously, "all of the muslim women were raped by the LTTE... creating bastards"... seriously that is just ridiculous... Read the article by Jeyaraj, someone who is knwon to be a critic of the LTTE... one which was already cited in the article! I believe this was cleared up by another administrator, but you reverted back to the old article? thanks. 82.152.209.74 13:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Thusiyan 13:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't add those text. But please remember removing information by IP users without an edit summary would be reverted. And thats exactly what I did. Please explain your edits and make it a point to login before editing controversial topics. Because lot of people have their own POV when it come to these type of articles. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 07:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Nanomaterials navbox merge/deletion

Thanks for your attention to the nanotech navboxes. I'd just like to note that it would probably have been a good idea to leave a message on the talk page before making large changes to templates such as merging and completely changing the layout. When I originally made the templates I posted them for a week at Talk:Nanotechnology before actually creating and placing them. As it is, I was planning for there to be a main navbox for Nanotechnology and separate navboxes for each of the subcategories since Nanotech is such a broad field, and combining them all together makes for a very large and unwieldy navbox. Further, I'm aiming for a unity in the look and feel of the navboxes so changing just one kind of breaks the aesthetics.

I'm happy for your input but I do think there needs to be some discussion before changes are made. I've opposed the deletion for now, but feel free to leave a note on my talk page so we can ensure a coherent strategy for the navboxes. Antony-22 01:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry mate. I never intended to undermine your work, I just thought I can improve the Nanotech template, and bring all the articles related to Nanotech together in one navbox, since you seem to be an expert on the subject, I leave it to your judgment whether we should have different navboxes or one. If you need any help on improving any please let me know, feel free to revert my edits on these templates if you think I am wrong. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 08:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert on Islam and Children

I urge you to take a second & closer look at the cited source for the quote that you removed (and I reverted back) --ProtectWomen 08:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, could you kindly explain me from which verse in http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/tahrir/tahrir25.htm#a4 this link you sourced your information? Are you sure it is Arabic? it could be even Persian? Do you understand these languages? If not you cant justify having that link as a ref. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 16:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I urge you to take a third and much much closer look at the reference used on the thighing quote: the quote that you deleted and I reverted back to, saying that Wikipedia was not censored. --ProtectWomen 16:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be so blind to even notice what I edited, I never removed any quote, I just removed one of the three references, which is in some language written in Arabic (Arabic Text that is!!), which no one could understand. Have you heard of a language called Sinhala? thats my mother tongue, there is a nice proverb in our language, I'll just give you the translation here.. "Dumbness is the greatest blindness". ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 18:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

First order of business: Please re-read WP:CIVIL

Second order of business: If you had looked at the diff for your edit, you could have avoided your incivil comment about "dumbness" and "blindness" and you would have seen what your error was (see third order of business, below)

Third order of business: I never used the al-shia.com website as a source for material *I* included in the Islam and Children article. Please go back and check this diff here: [1] and realize that you deleted this entire quote here:

Khomeini specifically described an act known as thighing that allowed an adult male to simulate sex with a female child without penetration:

"Thighing is a means for an adult male to enjoy a young girl who is still in the age of weaning; meaning to place his penis between her thighs, and to kiss her."

If you meant to only delete this link "http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/tahrir/tahrir25.htm#a4" then you should have done just that and taken this up on Arrow740's webpage. --ProtectWomen 05:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been here long enough to read WP:CIVIL, Its you who cannot take a simple proverb, I urge you to read WP:AGF, WP:RS, WP:OWN, WP:NPOV.. http://www.homa.org/Details.asp?ContentID=2137352748 this no way is a reliable source, the site only contains Bullshit, by an Islamophobic gay women. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 05:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And also do not make misleading statements, it is you who reverted my edit at last here is the diff [2] ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 05:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

...Long enough to read WP:CIVIL but not long enough to follow it. I'm not an idiot, and if you are going to try to play your comment like it was completely innocent, then that's what you take me for. Please mind WP:CIVIL.

What misleading statement? I know exactly what I reverted. I reverted your edit because you deleted the thighing comment. If you had an issue with only the arabic webpage, then you should have ONLY deleted that website.

"gay women" ? So do you have a problem with women who are gay? Are you implying that you are a homophobic bigot? Instead of the pseudophobia that you claim (islamophobia) there is a real phobia that people experience. It's called homophobia. I'm going to cease this conversation with you because I have little patience for people who claim they are victims of bigotry when they themselves are the biggest bigots of all. --ProtectWomen 08:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that you chose to cease this conversation, I meant what I meant it's up to you to interpret in a way you want, I never said you are a gay women and I have a problem with you, your failure to assume good faith is not my problem. And if you think that I took you as an "IDIOT" thats not my problem again (actually I wonder what made you think like that?), your style of conversation speaks for itself (I leave it to the reader to judge it). And what you made is a misleading statement indeed, and the diff shows clearly what you reverted. I am not going to low myself as you have done and call you a bigot, and consider reading the policies I listed earlier. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 09:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Please dont duplicate Article Talk in User Talk

Please do not duplicate Article talk in User talk as you did here. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well article talk is directed at public in general, If I want the same comments to be addressed at an editor, I have the right to post it in the editors talk page, so please dont try to be the spider man trying climb the Reichstag. If you posted the above message to threaten me, please read WP:Civil. I urge you to stop stalking there is a clear policy that prohibits you from doing that. Moreover I dont have a problem with you or your team of people trying your level best to deface Islam related articles. My problem is when you violate wikipedia policies to systematically advance your theories. And also I advice you to talk to me only if I am in violation of any wikipedia policy or on something productive, I dont want to waste my time replying to threatening messages like above. I beg you to read Wikipedia:No angry mastodons ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 05:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No one is trying to "deface" Islam related articles. Read WP:CIVIL and also see WP:AGF and last but not the least WP:NOTPOLICY which says: Don’t use essays or proposals as if they were guidelines or policy. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOTPOLICY which is again an Essay ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 00:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Islam and children

Please don't try to make a point by causing disruption. There's consensus in the talk page that the quote stays, and any fault will be appropriately corrected by readers. Placing a "disputed" tag neither helps the article nor your position — further edit warring and editing against consensus such as this will result in a block. Michaelas¹⁰ 20:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

He isn't "self-proclaimed to be a spiritual leader and a scholar", but declared so many times in history books. Your personal disagreement with him doesn't help the matter. I believe the room for improvement in the quote's language is outlined quite clearly with "roughly translated from Arabic". Michaelas¹⁰ 20:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Krishanthy.jpg

Hi. I have speedily deleted the above mentioned image as it was a copyvio. Images taken from newspapers are not free and should not be uploaded under GFDL. - Aksi_great (talk) 09:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

sure ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 00:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Brother

Asalmu Alaikum, you moved a page recently, although it might reflect your opinion as a harmonious editor should'nt you try to find consensus before doing it ? By the way who are non resident Tamils, do we have grren crads in Sri Lanka now like in the US ? Thanks for your kind cooperation. Taprobanus 18:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not know ministry of defense is keeping an eye on this useless collection of information that is good only for historians (really) also your statement about Tamils living in Colombo will be affected by what silly bunch of us do in Wikipedia truly reflects how people are feeling besieged. I truly believe you, We can always change titles back and forth, no big deal. Why don’t you post it in the talk page as to your reasons and we will arrive at a proper title. Thanks

Ur reply needed in my user talk page please. Thanks Taprobanus 19:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Taprobanus 19:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The value of reviewing talk pages before you make big excisions

You probably know you should review talk pages before you make big excisions. No offence, but your recent big excision to Tablighi Jamaat demonstrates the importance of doing so. In that particular instance, I believe the record shows, you lapsed by not properly reviewing its talk page.

Cheers! Geo Swan 19:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

See also at explusion of muslim

Hey netmonger I had added back the "Explusion of Tamils from colombo" in the see also. Its because its not in the Srilankan conflict bar. I hope you understand Watchdogb 20:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sarathambal

Hi Tariqabjotu,

Did you protect this article? the protection template was removed by DumbBOT ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^{Peace Talks} 09:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As the edit history notes, the protection was set to expire 20:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC). -- tariqabjotu 16:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Kathankudy mosque massacre

Can you post some citations for it hereTaprobanus 22:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

SPUR and Tamilnation my friend, if you give me Tamilnet, I can use it:)) but not these ? Thanks Taprobanus 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

My friend, do u actually want me to believe that Tamilnet the LTTE website would publish an article on a bloody massacre of innocent people carried out by them? Probably they did publish it I just couldn't find it!!! If you have it please provide me also the link NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 06:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You did not get the joke did you :))) Taprobanus 12:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I really missed that one :0)) NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 16:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

my suggestion

I responded to your last on Talk:Tablighi Jamaat here.

In my reply I asked whether you had considered going to Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism, and cut and paste however many of the authoritative, verifiable references you think are needed, and remove the unreferenced tag. Geo Swan 13:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I replied here NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 10:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: BushProtest.jpg

Hi. Please see my reply here. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:BushProtest.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BushProtest.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Benjamina.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Benjamina.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Eravur town massacre

Do you have source on this massacre of muslism Taprobanus 22:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

nope not at the moment NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 01:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(1) Sincerity; (2) the importance of acknowledging error.

I think my record shows I make a great effort to engage in dialogue with those who can be civil, serious and specific.

I think my record shows I make a great effort to offer my help to those whose requests for help are sincere.

The last paragraph in your last comment on Talk:Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism by U.S intelligence contains a request that I explain each and every one of your breaches of policy. Frankly this did not strike me as a sincere request. I thought I had already explained each of the breaches I mentioned.

If I was wrong, and you are prepared to have a civil, serious discussion, I am still prepared to give you civil answers to specific questions about the policy breaches I already described.

The reason I am writing you today is that I am still concerned about your lack of acknowledgement of error on your part. If, as late as your last comment, you still hadn't recognized that you had made mistakes, how can the rest of us know that you won't continue to make these kinds of mistakes again?

1. Your first rename of Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism to Tablighi Jamaat and allegations of terrorism by U.S intelligence used the procedure for uncontroversial moves. We can all grant you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you thought no one would dispute your choice of names. But, given that I did dispute your choice of names, your second rename was a serious mistake. Note: not only was your choice of name controversial, not a single person agreed with it.
2. Your request for total page protection was, highly inflammatory, and, IMO, you offered zero meaningful justification for it.
3. You leveled several serious accusations against me, and, when I disputed them, and asked you to engage in a civil, serious, specific discussion about them, you were non-responsive. This was, IMO, highly irresponsible.

Acknowledging error is extremely important. You've pointed out, a couple of times, that I made an error. I wrote that I hadn't mentioned a poll. I thought I had checked sufficiently well, and that I had not mentioned a poll. However, I had merely checked everything under the current heading. My efforts to check were insufficient. For this particular lapse you have my apologies.

This is a limited apology.

Usually, when I give a limited apology, I don't spell out the limits.

I am doing so, in this particular case, because although you wrote: "I think you are talking of your self, at least I read my previous posts b4 I comment again.", you yourself failed to check your own comments before posting on several occasion.

• You implied a lot of outrage because I used the phrase "editors like you". But you failed to acknowledge that this implied outrage was completely misplaced when I reminded you that you yourself had used the phrase "editors like me".
• You sarcastically commented: "And how do you know I haven't read the article? I suppose you have some kind of magical orb that tells you who reads the complete article and who doesn't" You failed to acknowledge not checking your comments when I pointed out that you yourself had volunteered that "Hey, I seriously didn't read the talk page."

And I am doing so because I find your comment style highly confrontational, disrespectful and unpleasant. What I think you need to understand is how the quickness with which you level accusations and cast innuendoes, and fail to acknowledge your own errors makes your correspondents reluctant to be the only one acknowledging errors.

I found the way that you leveled accusations and cast innuendoes that you weren't prepared to explain highly offensive.

I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to be fair to your correspondents, and to be fair to the wikipedia project. Please be prepared to consider the possibility that you are capable of error. I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to openly acknowledge when you recognize you made a mistake.

I am going to repeat my most important point: "If, as late as your last comment, you still haven't recognized that you have made mistakes, how can the rest of us know that you won't continue to make these kinds of mistakes again?" Geo Swan 01:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I dont have so much time to waste on this, I think the article is named back to what it was by following the wikipedia process, so I respect that, editing wikipedia is not my career but I like the project as such I contribute to it when I have the time to spare. I still stand by what I said, And I said I didn't read the talk page not the article, I dont have to give you a lesson on the difference between the two. And it is true that you didn't read or remember your previous comment when you said

"I believe you had an obligation to start a poll, here on the talk page, to see if other contributors agreed with you." and confronted me in your very next edit saying

"I really, really wish you would confine your comments to me to things I actually wrote, and actions I have actually taken. Just as in our previous interaction this comment contains strawman allegations. Did I propose a poll here? No. Yet you sarcastically attack the idea of polling, as if I had proposed a poll? What is up with that?"

When you categorized me in a way that belittled my edits by saying "Readers like you shouldn't....", I think I had the right to respond to it.

• (1) Now who is not sincere?
• (2) who is not acknowledging error?
• (3) Who is continuing the same mistakes?

Lets not use my user space to discuss this anymore, I think its a total waste of time. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 11:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

When you write a comment, in which you refer to yourself using the phrase "readers like me", and someone replies to that comment, and use the phrase "readers like you", then the use of that phrase is not a personal attack. The the use of that phrase is merely a reflection of the phrase you yourself chose.

I am going to assume that you have lost interest in your request that I spell out where I think you violated procedure. Geo Swan 10:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please. Because the above BS doesn't seem anything closer to a lesson on policy NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 18:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Kattandakudi massacre1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Kattandakudi massacre1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I added this image to the Kattankudi mosque massacre. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 19:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Kattankudi.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Kattankudi.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I added this image to the Kattankudi mosque massacre. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 19:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Avatar

Dear friend, using alleged previous user names is not acceptable. I consider you a friend, We both know each others real names but let’s keep that to each other not in Wikipedia You should read WP:STALK, guidelines, it says very clearly we cannot do what you are saying you are doing :D. Others who are doing it to me, I know they are harassing me, hence I have been advised by an admin to collect information so that it can be taken eventually to an arbcom. So don’t do it. Thanks Taprobanus 19:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to have caused you distress, I honestly didn't know the rule. But you could've sincerely accepted that it is your name and advised me of the rule rather than denying the truth; I would've definitely corrected myself. By the way what exactly do u know about my real name.. :-) regards NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 06:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I accept your apology, my Wikipedia id is Taprobanus. That’s all I have to accept, nothing more nothing less. If I post you name, you will take me to Arbcom. Nice try, the other day Lahiru tries to get me not to use UTHR, today you try to get me violate a wikipedia guide line. Good friends you guys are :D Taprobanus 12:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:You deserve this

Hey thanks for the Barnstar. The fact that those WP:DICKs are trying to delete the article annoyed me. Also, there's a bit more content to add to the article, mainly about what happened after the massacre. Stuff like the Eravur Massacre the next week and the LTTE's treat to the people of Kattankudi in 1995.

About Eravur, according to the Times,

REBELS of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam are reported to have killed another 116 Muslims, including 60 women and children, in Sri Lanka's Eastern province on Saturday. About 80 people who were seriously injured were taken by air force helicopters to hospital. Security sources said the first sign of trouble came at about 6.30pm when armed youths surrounded a Muslim priest as he was about to summon the faithful for prayer at Eravur, 210 miles east of Colombo. They hacked him to death, then went on a rampage of killing.

I'll try to find some more sources for that. Do you think it needs a new article? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 15:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

if there is enough sources lets create a another article, but for the moment we will include it in the current article. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 05:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 12:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem

Buddy, we were able to find some sources from nice and well reputed news papers. But seems pro LTTEers do not like them much. Can we find some coverage from Alaikal, Eelam news, Eelanatham, Eelanaatham, Eelamurasu, Eelam pakkam, Intham, Mulakkam, Maalai malar, Maalai Sudar, Namathu naadu, Oru paper, Puthinam, Pathivu, Sudaroli, TamilCanadian, Thinakkural, TamilEelamNews, Thatstamil, TamilGuardian, Tamil Nesan, TamilNet, Tamil news dk, WorldSocialist, Uthayan, Ulaksanthai, Ulakath tamilar[3]? :D :D --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 07:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

They are kinda of frustrated.. :D NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 09:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Per AIV

• Wiki Raja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - . This user keeps on removing contents from his talk pages, including warning messages on his recent behavior related to Template:Sri Lankan Conflict. He doesn't seem to understand the policy that he does not own the user talk page.. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 08:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Users can remove messages on their talk pages per the talk page policy. Be careful of not reverting in order not to breach WP:3RR. M.^(er) 08:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 09:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you said on my talk page, but could a user move around contents of a article talk page? I suppose they cannot, the user Wiki Raja just did that and removed warning messages of other users on the matter. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 09:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Not others comments. If you have any concerns, see the talk page guidelines.  Mirandargh  09:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

For now, I think you need to keep off of Raja's page, since it is in the first process of solving disputes. Both parties can earn a block if both are disputing with one another. I have undid your warning, because it is best for you both to keep away from one another.  Mirandargh  10:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2412 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for harassing another user and sending harassing emails. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Mr.Z-man 23:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion related to your block is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block Review - Netmonger (talk · contribs). --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 00:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 08:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Is your email netmonger@gmail.com or netmongers@gmail.com?--Chaser - T 09:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither of them. My email address is my actual name, which I cannot reveal here. I mail only to users whom I know personally NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 09:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you sent email to any WP editors who are currently active?--Chaser - T 09:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I also sent you an email to verify. Since you have my email address, you should be able to simply reply. I will be discreet with your real life identity.--Chaser - T 09:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kattandakudi massacre1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kattandakudi massacre1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kattankudi.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kattankudi.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)