User talk:Himesh84

Welcome

Hello, Himesh84! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Aboutmovies (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Proposed deletion of Vanni forest

The article Vanni forest has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Totally unsourced, maybe original research and violation of NPOV

While all 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. obi2canibe^{talk contr} 16:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Rajarata, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. obi2canibe^{talk contr} 16:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

Hi. If you believe there are errors in Prehistory of Sri Lanka, then please either correct them (with reliable sources to support your corrections), or discuss the errors at Talk:Prehistory of Sri Lanka - do not just remove links to the article from other articles. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Naga people (Sri Lanka)

Considering the material you removed from Naga people (Sri Lanka), it appears to be sourced, so I think we'd need more than just your word for it that it is "unrelated/sceintically not proved" - please discuss it at the article's Talk page and gain a consensus for its removal. Also, the material you added was unsourced, so we would need a source for it - just saying "It is evident that..." is not sufficient. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to History of Sri Lanka appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you. Jsorens (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Kingdom of Rajarata

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Kingdom of Rajarata, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Rajarata. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Lanka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Naga and Deva

Naga people (Sri Lanka) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Magha

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome!

Himesh84, Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to a Sri Lanka related article, they have helped improve Wikipedia and make it more informative. I hope you enjoy using Wikipedia and decide to make additional contributions.

As a contributor to Sri Lankan articles, you may like to connect with other Sri Lankan Wikipedians through WikiProject Sri Lanka, a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Sri Lanka, and take a look at the various activities we are engaged in.

If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or write {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. If you have a question related to a Sri Lankan article, you can view a list of members of WikiProject Sri Lanka by clicking here and ask any of us a question. We will always be glad to help.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Getting help:

• Wikipedia Tutorial

• Manual of Style

Finding your way around:

• Table of Contents

• Department directory

Need help?

• Introduction - quick steps to help you get started.
• Questions - a guide on where to ask questions.

• Wikipedia's 5 pillars - our most important rules.
• Cheatsheet - quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

How you can help:

• Contributing - a guide on how you can help.
• Cite your sources - citing sources in very important.

• Community Portal - Wikipedia's hub of activity.
• Uploading images - Wikipedia needs free images.

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes(~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). Or use the button, on the tool bar.

• Please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary.
• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

---

Good luck, and have fun. -- Addbot (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka 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 high-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. Blackknight12 (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Some things to note

Hi Himesh, You must be really careful about quoting or refering to Mahavamsa, preferably you must not do it at all, since Mahavamsa is a primary source. Also please note that Mahavamsa is not a fact book or a complete history, so you must not ever say "Mahavamsa didn't say it, so it is not true", like you did in a couple of your recent edits, about the "native" claim of our Tamil brothers. :) There are enough and more reliable sources to use for that matter. The myth about the 4 tribes in the Naga article has to be presented as a myth. I have left a post there, they are my own thoughts and ideas about why I think the article needs to be revised/rewritten. I will try to contribute in that article and give some points and references when I get the time. Also I will write a comment on the article on the Ethnic Conflict which is listed to be deleted, there too you have to use other sources and not refer to the Mahavamsa. If you find it hard to understand why that is so, please read WP:PRIMARY and WP:SOURCE . The point is, you can't present what Mahavamsa says, with your interpretation of it; if you are to use Mahavamsa (which I hope u will restrict to the minimum) you have to present it exactly as it is, and not interpret it yourself. Eg. The Mahavamsa does not say that the Tamils are native to Sri Lanka, but it does not say that they are not native to Sri Lanka either. One has to read all of Mahavamsa, and interprete the stories in the Mahavamsa to find it out - that's where scholars come in. So you can't revert an edit and say that it is not true because the Mahavamsa did not say it. Hope u understand what I am trying to say..... Regards Suren. --SriSuren (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. There are several books published about Mahavamsa. I'll do my best to give much more reliable things even from Mahavamsa.

Mahavamsa (Mahavamsa, Chulavamsa, DeepaVamsa) are serious of books written in Sri Lanka which tackled historical events. Those are the reference to many articles even kingdom of Jaffna, Kalinga Magha,.. If no Mahavamsa, no one knows about Kalinga Magha and why Rajarata was abandon even they find a golden civilazation with water reservoirs , Stupas, huge buildings. Mahavamsa contain details about historical events from king Devanampiyatissa. It is also referenced about Tamil invasion to Sri Lanka and how Sinhalese regain. In historical events there is no references about Tamil areas. It was Rajarata,Malaya rata, Ruhunu rata. But it started to write about Tamil areas after 1215. That is Mahavamsa saying Tamils are not native to Sri Lanka. I hope you will updated readers with Tamil kingdoms and Tamil kings who ruled those areas to support your claims.

Also my personal idea is those tribes are not myth. They were real. In history we can find references to them from different time periods and different sources from even different countries.

• First it is mentioned in Ramayana. Raksha,Yaksha,Naga
• Then lord Buddha has come to visit Sri Lanka there are specific references about Yaksha and Naga.
• The establishing kingdom of Anuradhapura it is mentioned how Yaksha tribes and Sinha clan fought. King Pandukabhaya is belongs to Yaksha tribe. He has build Temples to two Yaksha leaders.In history king Pandukabhaya is not a myth. He was for certain a historical ruler. Also there were 10 Naga kings who ruled the Anuradhapura.

People divided into those tribes purely they worshiped certain entities. They are human beings who worshipped Raksha, Yaksha, Naga, Deva. It is clear that Buddhism came to Sri Lanka in 250BCE. In history it is mentioned that worshiping Raksha,Yaksha, Naga, Deva were the religions before SL converted to Buddhism. My idea is considering all facts/references from all over the continents they should be in the history not in myths. --Himesh84 (talk) 06:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka

I have reported you at ANI for the violation of pushing POV and introducing WP:OR on the above article.Sudar123 (talk) 13:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 13:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Back to WP:ANI — Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka

Hi. Please be aware that this issue has been brought once again to the incident noticeboard. Please read the new discussion here and comment as you feel may be appropriate. — Richwales 04:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't find the link.--Himesh84 (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion was moved to an archive page — go here. Note that this archive page contains two separate, identically named sections on the Sri Lanka report. — Richwales 14:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Advice: Don't get stressed out while editing; defuse stress when possible.. You need to keep calm bro or you might get blocked and who wants that? Statements like "This wikipedia article is a great insult to the Sri Lanka" don't mean a thing to others who don't share your emotions or viewpoint. Wikipedia has no deadline, it's not going anywhere. Calm down. Take a nice cup of tea and sit down to discuss, don't get hyper. Mrt3366^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Others mean who ? The person who take the responsibility of making UNSG's report (Ban ki Moon)later urge Sri Lanka to implement LLRC based on local courts,local system over international intervene suggested by UNSG after insulting local court system. So I am 100% sure that you are not taking about the UNSG's reports main author and UNHRC members who have the trust on Sri Lankan court system (that's why they voted to implement LLRC based on local system). So who don't have trust on Sri Lankan court system as stated in UNSG's report and your statement ? Please clarify. --Himesh84 (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

There is one advice from me. UNHRC is the most supreme institute in the whole world to deal in human right related things in the world.It is authorized institution under UN. UN consists of authorized members (who can represent people of countries )of almost every country in the world. If UNHRC urges to implement LLRC in which core solutions based on local court system, no other report can insult Sri Lankan court system related to human right matters. obi2canibe,SGGM, Richwales, JohnCD even Wikipedia not above UNHRC when it comes to human right promotion activity related things. Sorry, I can't accept that Wikipedia has more supremacy over UNHRC even you threaten me saying you gonna block me if I don't accept the supremacy of Wikipedia over UNHRC --Himesh84 (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point of the NPOV policy. Our goal here is not to determine the one clearly correct viewpoint on a subject and promote that viewpoint to the exclusion of all others. To quote the policy, we need to be "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." The "significance" of a view is determined by how it is represented in reliable sources. As far as possible, the "reliable sources" we are required to use are secondary sources (see WP:PSTS), such as scholarly journal articles, books, and reports in newspapers with broad coverage and high respectability.

This is almost always going to mean that an article on a political topic is going to mention two or more differing views on the subject — each view backed by its own sources, and with the conflicting issues carefully described in such a way that a reader who is not familiar with the subject can get a basic understanding of the various sides, determine where to find more information, and make up his/her own mind as to which (if any) of the opposing views appears to be correct.

We can not say that because one viewpoint on a subject is endorsed by some particularly prestigious person or institution (be it the UN Human Rights Commission, the United States Supreme Court, the Pope, the Dalai Lama, or whomever/whatever), we must present that viewpoint as the only legitimate viewpoint. If generally reputable sources discuss and/or endorse opposing views, the NPOV policy requires that we give fair coverage to these other views, without regard to whether some may think this is "insulting" to some other organization or person. Some examples of how NPOV is applied to complex topics might be found in articles about the American Civil War, the 2000 United States presidential election, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I'm sorry if you find the NPOV policy (or the way it needs to be applied to the Sri Lankan conflict) to be distasteful, but the policy (to quote again therefrom) "is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." If you disagree with the way the NPOV policy is being applied to a given article by other editors, you are allowed (and encouraged) to bring up the issue at the Neutral Point of View Noticeboard (WP:NPOVN) for discussion. But an open refusal to respect the NPOV policy as such — including an insistence on editing a given article or articles in a manner which openly defies the policy — is not going to get you anywhere and is only likely to result in your being blocked from editing entirely. — Richwales 20:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Himesh84's response above shows, he can't understand at all how Wikipedia works. I will report next time at ANI.Sudar123 (talk) 08:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Sudar, please be careful in the way you describe other editors or their work. Even though the edit summary which you used on your most recent revert literally described the edit (rather than the editor), it did so IMO in a way which could easily be seen as name-calling against the editor whose work you were undoing. — Richwales 17:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I really meant his edit, however I will be careful in the future.Sudar123 (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Richwales, Can you please tell what is the wrong with clarifying the more general word you used ('endorsed'). I have appended how they endorsed to the sentences. --Himesh84 (talk) 07:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

We can not say that because one viewpoint on a subject is endorsed by some particularly prestigious person or institution, we must present that viewpoint as the only legitimate viewpoint. That's correct. But whether it is right or wrong UNHRC can have their own view point. That's their right. We can't challenge that. UNHRC, Australia, US,UK, ... voted urge to implement LLRC. That's their right. We can't challenge that too. But not allowing to bring that they voted to urges to implement LLRC in here on top of the current version is something like rejecting right of UNHRC , Australia, US,UK, to change their views. Why it is not allowed to say these countries initially had these view points but later they voted to LLRC at UNHRC ? I don't think anyone have doubt about that or having 2 different opinions on that. UNHRC's vote results can be viewed at it's own website. It is not like we should accept UNHRC selection. But we should able to tell what is the UNHRC selection if we respect UNHRC can have a right to select something for them selves. --Himesh84 (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

My main complaint about your (Himesh84's) recent edit is that, when you added material saying that the UNHRC urged the Sri Lankan government to implement the recommendations of its LLRC, you also removed material that said the LLRC report had been criticized by opponents of the Sri Lankan government.

By the way, although you removed the "criticism" claim, you kept the source in place which substantiated this claim. Perhaps you didn't realize which of the two sources in this paragraph said what. I've rearranged the source citations in the last paragraph of the lead to make it clearer which source corresponded to the pro-government and anti-government views.

Additionally, after looking at what appears to be the source for the UNHRC's comment on the LLRC report (see here), I believe it may be inaccurate to say that the UNHRC "endorsed" the LLRC report or urged the implementation of its recommendations. The relevant quote from the UNHRC's statement says this: "I welcome the publication by the Government of Sri Lanka last December of its Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission. While the report falls short of the comprehensive accountability process recommended by the Secretary-General’s Panel of Experts, it does make important recommendations. I encourage the Government to engage with the Special Procedures and with my Office on follow up to the report. I also hope the Council will discuss these important reports."

I apologize for not having noticed the above point before now. In any case, to "welcome the publication" of the LLRC report falls far short of "endorsing" said report; encouraging the Sri Lankan government to follow up on the LLRC report by working with the UNHRC is not necessarily the same as urging implementation of the report's recommendations; and even if we were not trying to satisfy Wikipedia's NPOV policy, this statement (in my opinion) falls far short of a level of approval that would demand recognition as the final word and rule out any discussion of opposing views. Something like the following might be a better paragraph for the lead section:

A competing report was produced by Sri Lanka's Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC). In 2012, the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) issued a statement welcoming the publication of this report (while acknowledging problems therein) and urging the Sri Lankan government to follow up by working with the UNHRC. The LLRC report has been praised in Sri Lanka, but criticised by opponents of the island's government.

It may be that the actual, full report of the UNHRC says more than what the above introductory statement says — in which case it might be appropriate to reword the lead. But, in any case, I need to point out that we should be looking for a wider base of reliable secondary sources to report on and discuss the UNHRC's reaction, rather than rely too directly on the primary source documents themselves. — Richwales 17:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka".The discussion is about the topic Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. Thank you!--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)