Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:13, 21 October 2006

Hi Iwazaki, please don't remove warnings from your talk page. The message I left you was both a welcome and a warning to respect our neutral point of view policy. You can do what you want with your user page, but it's a good idea to leave warnings on, so that subsequent editors know how to warn you, in case you make another mistake. Have fun editing Misplaced Pages! yandman 15:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

dear yandman, thanks for the warm welcome..as a new user, i ll take some time to adjust..So be a bigger person and forgive the silly mistakes i may make here.. --Iwazaki 03:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid bias

Iwazaki, it seems you are new to wikipedia and we all look forward/eager to see positive contribution from you. We are all here to make positive contribution in an encyclopedia format. Having looked at what you have written at the talk page for : Velupillai Prabhakaran, I have some concerns to raise. Please assume WP:AGF (Assume good faith from others). But also keep in mind there is WP:Civility and that has to be adhered to. In addition, all these article must be NPOV and not be rants supporting one party or another. In couple of instance the stuff you have written could be construed as personal attacks on fellow wiki editors. We would like to keep a positive atmosphere. Misplaced Pages talk pages are not to be used as blogs to write opinion on anything, its merely a place to discuss and cordinate work to be done on the article. In otherword this page is not a soapbox . I would also suggest you look at . Thanks and we look forward to positive contributions from you. Elalan 23:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Assuming Good faith should be applied universally to everyone. This is within wikipedia's rules. I am sorry to hear you feel this way. I am not so sure what you mean by 'stand'. Everyone has their own personal beliefs, support one team or another, but they are also duty bound to maintain or try to ensure a neutral perspective with regard to these wikipedia entries. The way to go is convince people of the merits of your reasoning. Strictly stick to reasoning and not the side stories,opinions. Elalan 00:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Please tell this to the people who actually tell stories.All my claims are backed up with strong evidence..And all are within the rules of wikipedia..Talking about sources, spread of internet has made everyone a writer, some write "kindergarten level" "baseless" stories over the net.SO there is no point giving them as evidence..I know most of the LTTE supporters are quite active over the net and renowned for their "version" of history, but as wikipedians we shouldnt have them unless they carry any weight.

and for what i said in the discussion column; i was merely answering questions.I dont want to disappoint anyone who ask things from me.Also please be noted that, most of the things in said are actually related to the articl/s..When i see dubious sources ,first i questioned its validity, and then i try to correct it

with the truth. thanks --Iwazaki 01:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Policy: No personal attacks

Dear Iwazaki, First, I would like to thank you for your appetite to contribute to Misplaced Pages. As you may aware as a fellow Wikipedian, Misplaced Pages insists on No Personal Attacks Policy, to maintain the smooth environment for all the fellow wikipedians to contribute peacefully and productively. If you would have objections in an article, and if you feel you would like to discuss, do it in a polite way, which will be good for you and the bothers. I would like to let you know that your wordings in the page Talk:Velupillai Prabhakaran#murder and scholars are removed has made think that it is best if I refer you to the Personal attack intervention noticeboard. Hoping to see many positive contributions from you to Misplaced Pages. Thank you. -∞Sechzehn16∞ 06:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sechzehn, thanks for pointing out certain things to me.I was sarcastic at times, and shouldnt have said somethings i said.But the name calling was started not by me, I use certain words to describe "dubious sources", not the editors or the article it self. Please read the article and refer to its sources , then you will realize the truth..Misplaced Pages is great, but sadly some articles are(seemed to) hijacked by people with certain hidden agendas,And as a person who values this site a lot,i cant let it happen.

thanks

--Iwazaki 08:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption. Please read our policy on personal attacks, WP:NPA. Try to comment on the article itself and avoiding talking about other editors. Calling people stupid certainly isn't going to help further your end of the discussion. You might also want to take a look at the dispute resolution page for ideas on how to resolve your editing differences. Shell 14:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

good..I didnt get any warning and here,my first warning says its my last !! I did not call anyone stupid.I was commenting on the article and its ambiguity.Please send the last warning to the person who started name calling.Once again i kindly ask you to re-read my talk ,and to see if i have done any wrong doings,other than being sarcastic in occasions,which i admit,is wrong.If you find any of my edits are against the wiki policy, please let me know..As i said before some articles here are erronuous, and i cant just look at them and ignore,, as i respect wikipedia a lot ,i want it to be clean of dubious/erronuous articles

after reviewing the talk, i found out that user --Sharz is the only one who used the term stupid,and it seemed to be directed at me..So,i get warning for what other people have done ??!!

--Iwazaki 15:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

For your information only, I have rewieved the report for which Shell gave you a final warning. You have made innumerous statements questioning the intelligence and honour of other users, each of which is considered a personal atack under Wikipedias no personal attacks policy. It is for this reason that you have recieved a final warning, having previously recieved informal warnings from other editors.

For your convenience, I have created a list of a number of such attacks from the report concerned, and listed each as linked to the diff from which they were copied...

1. "written by someone with a kindergarten level knowledge",
2. "it would be really nice if you work on your reading comprehension skills..All my points remain valid and u only have one kindergrten level article to back up what ever you claims",
3. "i mean afterall u needed advice from a probably another pro-srilankan to grasp the idea of copyright policies here in wikipedia..",
4. "i have an enormous respect to wiki and its editors..But like in every society ,there are a few here joking around..And for them i have no respect..Since i take my history very seriously, i dont want kids to come here and screw things up.kids should grasp more knowledge before coming here.",
5. "didnt i tell you to speak for your self ?? what you have written here is not only in low quality ,but lack truth too.some of your sources are highly ambiguous, and do not qualified to be in the article.And thats what this kid do here, pointing out your "hypothesis" to save the standards of wikipedia..You have shown here so many things, lack of "reading conprehension skills" , "kidergarten level logic" , "lack of knowledge in srilankan crisis" and most importantly "lack of(or NO) knowledge in our history"..So shouldnt you think ,better to get some history lessons in school ,before even coming here to edits ??",
6. "YOU dont need to take a day-nap to see that truth..",
7. "and unlike some i dont have any hidden agendas.I honor my state, SLA or anyother thing, with a reason..And condemned them too, with reason..Since you have done such a poor job in this article,and its not surprising considering your pre-school level knoweldge of hostory and amazing logic !!".

...Please be advised that this is not a complete list. Shell was working well within her role as Administrator in issuing you a final warning, and further attacked will lead to a temporary block. If any further clarification of what is or is not a personal attck is required, please read WP:NPA. As a rule of thumb though, please comment on the content and not the contributor, and please refrain from making any statement that would question the honesty, integrity, or intelligence of another editor (or any statement that would bee seen as an attempt to make another editor look inferior to yourself or anybody else.) Comment only on content. --Crimsone 09:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank your for commenting my remarks and unfortunately i've to tell that there is a great deal of mis-understanding in your analysis..So please let me clarify the situation to you,

1. I was challenging a certain sources given in the article here..i wasnt accusing the "editors of article,nor i called any editors kindergarten kids" ..After reding the source, i found out,how ignorant it is about our history,and i questuion for having it as a source here please read whole talk..I gave plenty of evidence to prove that source lack any scholerlay standard. So ,the people who use "dubious/ambiguous" articles (continuously) as sources get away from any warning,and people who actually helps to maintain the high standard of wiki do get warnings..i thing this is very unfair.

2.Second one was more of a sarcastic comment directed against another sarcastic comment..Please read the talk.BY saying "You might probably want to use something called as 'Google",user-Sudharshan,clearly directing sarcasm towards to me..And why me not him get tha warning ?? I was answering his sarcasm with my own sarcasm..I may be wrong in doing this, but please understand iam only a human.

3.All the insults directed at the wiki editors were started by Sudharsansn,you may see it in my following passage.

4.I have listed some things said by Sudharsansn here, please let me know whether these are within the policies of wikipedia..i would kindly like you to know, that most of my remarks came after these "insults made by Sudharsansn "

a: "Since you have already stated yourself to be a proud SL, and not a neutral and sensible one"

so since iam pro-srilankan iam not sensible isnt this a insult ??

b:"you sound like an extremely immature kid who is using a computer for the first time"

look at this..Isnt this the worst insult anyone get here?? Sudharsansn insulting me by using words such as "immature kid" and "using computer for the first time"..dont you think these are insultive words ??

c:"As for you Osama comparisons they only reaffirm your immaturity"

here again he had insulted me for something i said about osama bin laden..And what did i say to get this insult ?? i said, "prabhakaran is a worse killer than osama bin laden,We can start with this by mentioning that osama has never directly killed anyone(to this date).But prabakaran started his thug life by killing a prominant politician".. Does this qualify me to the level of immaturity ??

d:"Do not use this like your own personal noticeboard to talk for the SL army"

iam using "discussion boards to discuss certain important things"..And he has

accused me for talking for the SLA ??..Discussions only became longer only because of Sudharsansn refusal to accept them..he even used "red-herrings" to drag the talk into a different direction..I donot know i should say this, but the discussions became long mainly because of lack knowldege of Sudharsansn , about Srilanka and its issues.And still he get awy with any punishment.

e: Sudharsansn was keep saying me to,read wiki policies and it looked kind of insultive to me.After all,he had already called me "immature kid" and "not-sensible" one, i had the feeling that hes trying to make me "some one who doesnt know about wiki at all"..So i gave my return to him by saying he should take more care of him self than others..Tell me , if iam wrong here ?? How can someone stand continuous attacks and insults like this ?? i should have let you know before, but frankly i didnt know it was possible..

f:"you have also made a dubious claim that LTTE tagged with Premadasa to 'interfere with IPKF' - daydreaming"

look who has used the term "day-dreams" first..I made some comments ,which are universally known in Srilanka, and he replied with an insultive words like "daydreaming" So i have used the word "nap" as a reply to this.

g:"This arguement is non-constructive, basless in nature and entirely stupid"

This was by the user-sharz, which was directed at me..Wasnt this insultive ?? I have never used the word stupid in any instance here.

and there are plenty more, and if time permits i will let you know each and every one of them

Dear -Crimsone,people who have made complains of me, has given only one side of the story.And you have beed totally put in the darkness about the what exactly happened there.And please re-read relevant talk page again,and see the truth for your self.And also, please be reminded that,LTTE activities/supporters are highly active over then internet and they are pretty good at hiding the truth.

thank you --Iwazaki 10:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Iwazaki, but as per the policy, your language commented on the contributor, not the content, in a negative way. This is why your statements breached the WP:NPA policy, nomatter what the subject was. Regardless of the full nature of the dispute, it will not alter the fact that your comments have breached the policy. This is the purpose of issuing warnings. Perhaps another good rule of thumb is that when using the words "you", or "your", or when referring to another editors actions/comments directly or indirectly, think very carefully about the way in which the statement is worded, or better still, try to avoid doing so at all. It doesn't matter who said what first - if you have a complaint you may make your own report about it at the appropriate venue having followed the appropriate procedure of issuing a warning, but it still will not alter the fact that you made the comments you made. If you intend to avoid making comments which violate the policy in future, then the warning Shell gave you will have been understood by yourself and will no longer be of concern to you. The warning only becomes important should you wish to violate the WP:NPA policy again in the near future. In short, it is a valid warning, and will not be recinded or apologised for. --Crimsone 12:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems you are in big trouble.

Seems you are in big trouble brother. Send me an e mail, I think I can help you. Lahiru_k 16:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

State terrorism in Sri Lanka

Hello, Thanks for your contribution. You had asked for citations of facts that are blue linked to the main article. We dont have to repeat the citations as the blue linked article is already cited with nuetral references. The source about burning of the library is It is a nuetral source as members of the organisation have been imprisoned by both the LTTE and the Gof SL. ThanasRaveenS 18:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment.But i dont think that article qualify as a neutral source,as it only echoes certain things without a proper proof..And as i said in the other forum,WSW is not neutral at all,They are highly anti-buddhists and very much pro-eelamists..Sorry Raveens, even though i deeply condemned the destruction of the Jaffna Library,and believe some politicians may have involved in this, i do not agree with source which claims the death of 4 innocent tamils.I think those claims came much after the destruction and lack any real proof.--Iwazaki 18:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again WSW is run by Sinhalese with Tamil members. Tamil members of that group were imprisoned by the LTTE. If they are ant-Budhist and pro-Eelamist what is the source of that point of view? If you think that that the cited source can be contradicted by your opinion that no one was killed then find that credible source and write about that point of view. It is easy to write a Misplaced Pages article say, a point of view, cite it credibly then say the opposite point of view and cite and credibly and let the reader make the choice.ThnaksRaveenS

Also your intentions about starting pages on Anuradhapura massacre, Kent and dollar farm massacre and Kathankudy mosque massacre by the LTTE is needed as currently only massacres by the government forces are highlighted. We need a balance of all articles. It is much easier to create wthin the scope of WP policies and defend than to endlessly edit pages like LTTE, Prabhakaran and the like. As a newbie at somepoint you will decide whether you are a creationist or an perenial editor. I hope you take the creationist route because we need more content about Sri Lanka within WP policy. Just my opinion. RaveenS

Your idea is a good one must be done immediately.But This is an encyclopedia and i just dont want to write,even correct informations,without giving proper citations.For that i need to go-through some books and endless newspaper articles.And ant-LTTE community ,or even the srilankan governement has done nothing to create a good data-base with detailed info of LTTE terorism.so getting help from the internet might not be easy.Which means i have to find printed materials,and thats never easy(iam already into it now)

Also, dont ever think editing is easy..I could have written a few articles if i didnt spend many hours going through all printed and electronic materials,just to do some edits in the prabhakaran and state terrorism. --Iwazaki 18:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I know that's why I try to keep away from hot button articles unless I created them to begin with. I used to wonder why there is not a single article on Anuradhapura massacre, although I never looked for the sources myself as I have enough to write about dead Tamil(s), prominent or otherwise. Now I know why, sources are not readily available.

Another way to look at Misplaced Pages article writing is to write an article that will outlast you as a person. This is something you leave behind for the generations to come. Hence the time frame for edit is not today or tomorrow but a relaxed longer period where the arguments are well thought of and really neutral. This is something I am trying to achieve a Zen like state. Anyway good luck. RaveenS 19:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)