User talk:Ruchiraw

Welcome!

Hello, Ruchiraw, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Ulflarsen 09:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to State terrorism

Removed Vandal Tag - Huracane 14:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Vandal tag

Is not acceptable unless you mediate this. If you keep doing it, I have to report you to Admin Huracane 22:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You must be joking. This page is full of falsities. You are not correcting them and you are not letting me correct them. You are treating Wikipedia like a blog page. You hav added a blatant vandal tag for edits which I have JUSTIFIED and which you have not refuted. You are not even giving me the benfit of the doubt. Don't misuse this tag. I am agreeable for mediation. Ruchiraw 22:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim "There is no evidence of mass deportations except by the LTTE in Sri Lanka." is factually incorrect. There is firm evidence of ethnic cleansing by the SL government against the Tamil population.

This is what was written by UTHR(J), a source considered neutral or even anti-LTTE (http://www.uthr.org/bulletins/bul4.htm):

By the end of the year 1984 the forces had forcibly evicted Tamils from 5 GS Divisions in Mullaitivu District and Tennemaravady in Trincomalee District [see UTHR(Jaffna) Special Report No. 5; From Manal Aru to Weli Oya : The sprit of July 1983].The first evictions were achieved through harassment by newly settled convicts who were backed by the forces. The final order was broadcast to the villages by the armed forces using loudspeakers on Christmas Eve 1984. The people were given 24 hours to vacate. The first Sinhalese settlers brought in were prisoners settled in the Open Prison Camp established in the premises of Kent and Dollar farms. The first ever massacre of Sinhalese by Tamil militants took place here on 30th November 1984. Both communities became victims of massacres and counter massacres. Nearly 2700 Tamil families were displaced.

Trincomanb 12:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trincomanb , thank you for pointing this out, will update accordingly.

LTTE

Hello Ruchiraw. I just wanted to say I really appreciate the tenor you have taken in the discussions on the talk page in relation to the LTTE. I don't always agree with your changes, but I do like the fact that you discuss things in a calm way without getting upset or emotional. As you can imagine, this has been quite rare in discussions on that particular article!
Just one little suggestion: it's better when dealing with controversial articles to discuss changes on the Talk page first, before making. I know you're taking part in discussions already, but what I'm suggesting is that, instead of changing the article right away, you present your suggested alternate wording on the Talk page, see how others react, and copy the agreed wording onto the main article page when you achieve consensus. This prevents revert wars and, given the constructive attitude you're taking in discussions, I think you'll find that you'll reach a consensus pretty soon.
Have fun on Wikipedia, and I look forward to running into you on articles! -- Arvind 23:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State terrorism in Sri Lanka

It's pretty obvious you dispute the content here, but the right course of action is to prune content where citations can be found, or slap {{fact}} tags on this and then delete them in a few days if the other users can't come up with a citation. Given the article was begun today it's appropriate to give the editor a day or two to work out the kinks. Merely filling the article with your POV to attempt to balance it is not appropriate, and will be removed. WilyD 13:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so you've raised a few points, so I'll address them seperately

- Technically, you're entitled to delete any content which is uncited. Generally this is a poor way to run an encyclopaedia, and it's pretty poor form for a new article - better is to slap a {{fact}} or similar tag on it and nix it after a couple days. This doesn't always need be the case, i.e. if you come across something that's uncontraversially false, just nix it - if the Darryl Strawberry article said Strawberry his 213 homeruns in the 1932 season after being dosed with radiation and growing to 600 ft tall, that should just be cut.
- The reliability of sources is highly contextual. If we want to say The Tamil Tigers alledge X then a Tamil Tiger website reasonable source for this - I'm fairly confident the Tigers know what they alledge. Although if you wish to say X is a fact then a more disinterested source is preferable, and if User:Johnny Nobody puts down X is a fact and cites source Y which you feel is biased, you can easily make it neutral by flipping it around to say Y alledges X - this can get repetitive and the importance of writing readable prose is must be stressed, but in general this is sort of the appropriate response.
- How much times you should cut a user creating a new article to dig up sources is a judgement call, and just be reasonable. If you're really concerned, you can always be bold and break all the rules and try something creative. However the line between that and disruptive is a hard one to walk
- The definition of state terrorism is also a tricky one, but this probly isn't the place to work it out if it's just being spun off of State terrorism - better to work it out there and then apply a uniform solution to the spinning off.
- FWIW, I agree with you that some kind of violence is required for state terrorism, mere cultural repression is not enough. But your apparent requirement it be organised at the highest level of government seems to be inappropriate, but there is a requirement of spreadness - for example I can't imagine anyone would consider a Shawinigan Handshake to be state terrorism, whereas the death of Dudley George probably is.

Anyways, that's all my thoughts for the moment. I need some coffee. WilyD 14:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I acknowledge all of that, but there's still a huge field between a lone policeman taking things into his own hands and an official government policy widely acknowledged and on the scale of the Final Solution. In general, if someone is alledging that an incident is planned or deliberate on the part of the government, it's not our place to determine whether or not it's true. If the Tamil Tigers say The government of Sri Lanka is deliberately targeting civilians in some incident we wikipedians cannot offer a judgement as to whether that's true. WP:NPOV requires us to only say The Tamil Tigers alledge the government of Sri Lanka killed 47 civilians in a deliberate reprisal during the raid. The Sri Lankan government responded saying the allegations are a crock of shit. Several of the resources offered in the page include people making these kind of allegations, so the page is appropriate on it's own. Whether or not the allegations are true is not for us to decide, and frankly irrelevent. Since the facts are disputed, we can really only say the facts are disputed. The reader will have to drawn their own conclusion. WilyD 15:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For example, I think the second 2006 incident on the page is now pretty reasonable, at least with respect to NPOV WilyD 15:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure that's necessary - the term state terrorism is already wikilinked, so readers can always take a look at read it if they want. If you're concerned that some of the listed instances really are inappropriate (and I have identified some I took issue with) that's probly a seperate issue - I'm not sure what the Manual of Style says about it, but it seems like sayings <--Hey look, a Wikilink!!! is unnecessary WilyD 15:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD vote is to keep it. Thanks for all the counter argument that made this initial article[1] into what it is today. Thanks RaveenS

LTTE edit

Pretty good, hopefully you can follow the same pricipal in Black July and State terrorism in Sri Lanka rather than to be blind to the potential of a state to act irrationally as it has so far. Infact the State terrorism in Sri Lanka article could use some help in 1971 uprising and 1987 insurrection detailsHuracane 20:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit of other users comments

You have edited and taken a whole paragraph out another users comment, with some citations and then you claim where is the citation ?

This is a blatant example of vandalism.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

Trincomanb 13:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate which page and which paragraph.Ruchiraw 22:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure here it is, so that everyone can see for themselves:

This is exactly what I initially wrote. I reproducing for everyone to see and decide for themselves if the user in question had deleted my comments. The least this user could do is go back and verify for himself whether it occured rather than acting ignorant. To do this you click on the history tab and click/compare the revision listed below with revisions edited by the user in question.

Trincomanb 03:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 00:06, 27 July 2006 of LTTE Talk page;

from: POV in the current Intro.

Some selected examples of one sided info in the current intro. created by user Ruchiraw. More to follow...

"The LTTE has also eliminated many Tamil alternative leaderships, which may have contributed to its emergence as the main representative of the Sri Lankan Tamils [2][3]."

This is pure speculation. Is this article now predicting what ifs ? The fact of the matter is that LTTE is the main Tamil nationalist force right now. Yes it did take out TELO fearing it could pose a threat in the future, but LTTE did absorb EROS (Balakumaran faction) (Jeyaratnam Wilson, 2000). TELO and EPRLF (Suresh wing) has als joined the LTTE/TNA camp.

"Furthermore the LTTE has itself been known to engage in ethnic cleansing[4]."

LTTE had taken responsibility and apologized for the conduct of its Jaffna local commander in expelling the Muslim population in 1990 [2]. According to its policy it has allowed Muslim civillians to return to their homestead, although some still appear to languish in refugee camps. The above statement needs a rebuttal, whereby LTTE has apologized for past conduct and has officially encouraged the Muslim population it had expelled to live in their traditional homestead.

If these statements are going to be in the intro, then the rebuttal (in a compressed format) needs to be also mentioned. Failure to do some implies bias.

"Several of the LTTE's tactics, notably its treatment and killings of non-Tamil civilians and Tamil political opponents, use of suicide bombers, practice of ethnic cleansing [1], and recruitment of child soldiers have drawn sharp criticism internationally and led to it being proscribed as a terrorist organisation by many countries. "

"Furthermore the LTTE has itself been known to engage in ethnic cleansing[4]."

Ethnic cleansing is repeated twice both point against the LTTE. The LTTE has taken responsibility and apologized for the conduct of its Jaffna commander. According to its official policy it doesn't conduct ethnic cleansing. This info also needs to be stated in the intro to have any balance.

The use of the term child soldiers is a controversial one biased against non-state actors. Regardless, LTTE's current stated policy is not to recruit youth under 18. Once youth under 18 are found in its ranks, they are returned to their parents or UNICEF staff. This needs to be stated as rebuttal if there is going to be accusations of child recruitment.

In addition, there is blatant double standards that define the minimum allowable age of recruitement into state armed force to be 15 and 18 for non-state actors.

1. The United Nations Convention of Rights of Child (CRC) was adopted in 1989. In Article 38, it specifies 15 as the minimum age for recruitment into a State’s armed forces and calls on the States to, “take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities”.

2. The Optional Protocol to CRC about Children in Armed Conflict was declared in 2001. It did not compulsorily raise this age of 15 as the minimum recruitment age for a State’s armed forces. It, however, did declare the minimum age of recruitment into “armed groups” as 18. [3]

Trincomanb 23:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically user Ruchiraw had deleted the following paragraph from my initial comment and then asks whether I had a citation for LTTE's apology. Revision (04:08, 27 July 2006 Ruchiraw (Talk | contribs) (→POV in the current Intro.) by user Ruchiraw had taken out my paragraph (this is all from the LTTE discussion/talk page).

LTTE had taken responsibility and apologized for the conduct of its Jaffna local commander in expelling the Muslim population in 1990 [4]. According to its policy it has allowed Muslim civillians to return to their homestead, although some still appear to languish in refugee camps. The above statement needs a rebuttal, whereby LTTE has apologized for past conduct and has officially encouraged the Muslim population it had expelled to live in their traditional homestead.

Trincomanb 13:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Ruchiraw, of all the Sri Lankan's i've come across here, you seem to be trying to be balanced. Thanks for your input in the State terrorism in Sri Lanka article. I think it is more appropriate now than when it was as it was taken out of the State terrorism main article. I have also restructured the main article. take a lookRaveenS 15:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User trincomanB has put a blatant vandal tag on my user page without justification. How do I remove it or get an admin to remove Ruchiraw 07:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no justification, then you can remove it yourself, but you must place it in a talk page archive. If you remove it without archiving, you may be tagged for warning removal vandalism. Ryūlóng 08:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed justification for having a blatant vandal tag on your page. I have placed conclusive timestamps and activity that show you/your account was used to delete my comments on the LTTE talk page (see section with the tag). I would suggest at the very least you trace the talk page history and see what I mean, before claiming I am falsely accusing you of stuff. Editing/manipulating other user's comments is just plain unacceptable done intentionally or unintentionally. Trincomanb 13:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help

Please vote to keep or move to wictionary the follwing list List_of_Sri_Lankan_Tamil_words_of_foreign_origin It is part of Sri Lanka content and next will be Sinhala lists to be deleted. Thanks

Ruchiraw, reasonable people would want your LTTE realted article to be merged with Notable attacks by the LTTE which is well referenced and not POV. You cant see Wikipedia through LTTE VS. Sri Lankan patriots. Look at your voting in AFD for Loan words in Sri Lankan Tamil you wanted to keep it. Let's work together to make content about Sri Lanka reliable and to standard. Just my opinion RaveenS

Stop Imposing Your Changes on the LTTE page

Other users have continously been complaining that you have been imposing your changes on the page without consultation, let alone time for other to give opinion, make changes to what you have suggested. All potential changes need to be full shown on the talk page, discussed and then updated once there is large agreement by all the other active users. Failure to understand is not polite to say the least. Johnathan1156 02:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there is no NPOV here Ruchiraw 15:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users on LTTE page are not allowing editng to reach NPOV. They are engaging in revert war and wont agree to mediation, What do I do Ruchiraw 15:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruchiraw it is you who are making changes without any consensus being reached, in fact your latest changes to the LTTE article are now not even bordering on the NPOV but are patently false. Despite being asked several time by several users to discuss matters first you insist on making changes and then re-reverting those changes when they are reverted. You have already been given a justified warning above for this behaviour.--Realstarslayer 16:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent pages justifying my additions. Why dont you agree to mediate if you feel they are falseRuchiraw 16:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3R Rule broken

User Ruchiraw, you have broken the 3 Reversion rule. If you continue to do this we regretfully have no choice but report you to the administrators. All changes need to be discussed with all the active users of the forum and unreasonable, POV, false changes can't be forcefully applied. I would urge you to choose dialogue with other users in the forum over edit warring. Johnathan1156 01:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page in a nutshell: Do not revert any single page in whole or in part more than three times in 24 hours, except in the case of obvious, simple vandalism.
(Or else an Administrator may suspend your account.)

Some users are revering my edits , I am simply restoring them . This is a case of vandalism being undome. Ruchiraw 01:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No excuse, please take a breather and a break. I have a suggestion for you, as you would have seen I am on a spree of articles on massacres in Sri Lanka. Why dont you create articles on the notable massacres attributed to the LTTE such the Kathankuddy mosques massacre and Kathan Karunai massacre of political prisners. It will balance out the content on massacres and we can create a list of all massacres in Sri Lanka just like in Lebanon. ThanksRaveenS 13:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure where to find sources for these.

Just do a google search first, then if you get books and journal articles read them to create stubs. I have found that it is better in wikipedia to create than to edit. Once you create an article you can work to make them better with the edition of others. Start with a subject that matters to you. I like languages, history and as a minority Tamil the minority rights issue becons me so I can write about these subjects, as neutral as possible. Look at the list of pogroms and riots in Sri Lanka, I began it as List of anti-monority pogorams only to be where it is now and has spawned many sub articles, thanks to people who edited and commented about it. RaveenS 16:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LTTE Discussion

I notice you have replied to some of Realstarslayer\'s points. As I said in my introduction to the discussion, I honestly believe it will be more productive if we first let each side list what they think, and move on to arguing with others\' positions only after everyone\'s had a chance to do that. So would you mind deleting your comments on Realstarslayer\'s points for now, and making them when we move on to stage 2? This also applies to your reply to Sharz. Thanks. -- Arvind 01:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this, it\'s much appreciated. Let\'s hope we can reach a wording everyone can sign up to. -- Arvind 03:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats ok. I didnt notice the last para of your suggestion Ruchiraw 03:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stifle , I am glad you have protected the LTTE page. However the following sentence states that Janes defence weekly, Amnesty International , HRW, Canada, US , EU, India and the UN have accused the LTTE of certain wrongs because they need satisfaction from child-sex tourism

\'\'pro-government countries that need satisfaction from child-sex tourism\'\' have accused the group of crimes against humanity [4], ethnic cleansing[5], carrying out over half of all suicide bombing attacks in the world between 1980-2000[6], narco-terrorism[7], organised crime[8], extortion targeting Tamil expatriates[9], civilian massacres and bombings (resulting in cumulative death toll of thousands of civilians) and assassination of elected politicians.

As it is not cited and plainly a libel, you may want to consider removing it. Ruchiraw 13:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, each of those claims is cited, except perhaps the last one, which I have removed. Stifle (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the citations which show the US and Canada and EU want satisfaction from child sex tourism as in \'\'pro-government countries that need satisfaction from child-sex tourism\'\'Ruchiraw 23:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that seems to be missing too. Gone. Stifle (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Stifle , I have gone through each article in the citation for \'\'\'\"relies on child sex tourism to generate some of its foreign currency\".\'\'\' There is no article which mentions that child sex tourism is a foreign currency earner for Sri Lankan government. it is illegal in Sri Lanka according to the following para from the source cited in the article. This is just a libel dreamt up by some vandal.

CHILDREN - The Government pushed for greater international cooperation to bring those guilty of pedophilia to justice. The penalties for pedophilia range from 5 to 20 years imprisonment and an unspecified fine. During the year, 39 cases of pedophilia were brought to court and were pending at year\'s end. Child prostitution was a problem in certain coastal resort areas. The Government estimated that there were more than 2,000 child prostitutes in the country, but private groups claimed that the number was as high as 6,000. Citizens committed much of the child sexual abuse in the form of child prostitution; however, some child prostitutes were boys who catered to foreign tourists. Some of these children were forced into prostitution. The Department of Probation and Child Care Services provided protection to child victims of abuse and sexual exploitation and worked with local NGOs that provided shelter. The Tourist Bureau conducted awareness-raising programs for at-risk children in resort regions prone to sex tourism.

Whom is it libelling? Stifle (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone called Ellalan who has not previously edited the LTTE articleRuchiraw 23:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stifle , A user called Elalan who has not previously edited LTTE article is adding unsupported libels against various countries. Ruchiraw 23:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide a diff for these additions? Stifle (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is the diff for where unsupported statements added http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam&diff=67897747&oldid=67890785 Ruchiraw 23:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also the edit to

The Sri Lankan government (ranked 25th in the failed state index [2] and relies on child sex tourism to generate some of its foreign currency [3] ) have accused the group of crimes against humanity [4], ethnic cleansing[5], carrying out over half of all suicide bombing attacks in the world between 1980-2000[6], narco-terrorism[7], organised crime[8], extortion targeting Tamil expatriates[9], other attacks.

should read --- The Sri Lankan government, independent analysts and other countries ---- since the accusations are cited from Canada, UN, US, Amnesty, Janes defence weekly etc:-

Whom does the edit libel? Stifle (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Sri Lankans are libelled by the totally unsubstantiated suggestion that Sri Lanka \'\'\'\'\'relies on child sex tourism to generate some of its foreign currency\'\'\'\'\' . The citation discusses child sex tourism but does not refer to it as a foreign currency generator , any more than child pornography is a revenue generator for western countries Ruchiraw 23:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a lawyer or legal expert, but I believe that to be actionable, a libel must identify either by name or by likeness a specific person. Therefore I don\'t see a need to further edit the page.

Your best way to proceed is to place {{editprotected}} on the talk page of the article and include details of the edits you would like made. Another admin will investigate and may or may not make the requested edits. Stifle (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way edit to

The Sri Lankan government (ranked 25th in the failed state index [2] and relies on child sex tourism to generate some of its foreign currency [3] ) have accused the group of crimes against humanity [4], ethnic cleansing[5], carrying out over half of all suicide bombing attacks in the world between 1980-2000[6], narco-terrorism[7], organised crime[8], extortion targeting Tamil expatriates[9], other attacks.

is wrong because none of the citations are from the Sri Lankan government.

It should read as

The Sri Lankan government (ranked 25th in the failed state index [2] and relies on child sex tourism to generate some of its foreign currency [3] ) ,\'\'\'\'\'other countries and analysts\'\'\'\'\' have accused the group of crimes against humanity [4], ethnic cleansing[5], carrying out over half of all suicide bombing attacks in the world between 1980-2000[6], narco-terrorism[7], organised crime[8], extortion targeting Tamil expatriates[9], other attacks.Ruchiraw 01:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the template {{editprotected}} on the talk page of the article to request changes. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You Speak for Murderers

You punde sinhala modaya, you and your cooly boys in Jaffna will turn to grade A fertilizer when we are done with you...You think bombing children is justified...watch SINhala lanka burn...Burn baby burn...

Hi Ruchiraw, I was going to leave a message about something else, but in the context of the above vandalism, it can wait. I've left a message on the vandal's talk page and obviously, you can wipe the message (and this) if you want. Addhoc 14:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation case concerning LTTE

You have been listed as an involved party involving the page LTTE, and I have accepted the case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-05 LTTE. If you can please take a look at the case and let us hear your side, I would appreciate it. Thanks! Nwwaew(My talk page) 21:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of List of terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE

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) 00:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka

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) 01:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]