User talk:Sudar123

Welcome!

Hello, Sudar123, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Please read this before editing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Widespread chronic edit warring. Thank you. Swarm ^X 05:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Buddhism in Jaffna

Please edit the above mentioned article as you wish but if you dont follow the neutral point of view and use facts from reliable sources as opposed to just Tamil nationalistic centric sources, then the article will never be acceptable to all. If you can balance the opinion of all and write good article, then we will be all winners. DishanMudalige (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom enforcement on User:Cossde

Hi, Why is it that you find it ideal to call apron users Intoronto1125, Sodabottle, Obi2canibe, Kanatonian to support you for a ArbCom against me. Is it that you require the wight of numbers of numbers to help you in your quest ? Cossde (talk) 10:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You have engaged in POV pushing in the articles which they have edited too. It would be ideal for a joint effort to put an end to your mess on Wikipedia.Sudar123 (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree arbcom enforcement is needed here. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 15:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

British Ceylon or Ceylon

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "British Ceylon or Ceylon". Thank you.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Tamil people reverts

Looks like you like to hide the facts that there may have been war crimes and that mass return of refugees may subject them to torture. Why are you trying to hide it? these are cited or citable facts with neutral langauge. 124.43.77.238 (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Better log onto your account and post these sensitive content, then I will respond to you on my talk page or the article's talk page.Sudar123 (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

So you can report to your white van friends :D 124.43.64.36 (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

it is vandalism, next time I will report at ANI.Sudar123 (talk) 08:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

February 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Aanandapuram. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Nowhere in the Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War article, it is stated that war crimes were committed during the Battle of Aanandapuram. Not even the name Aanandapuram is mentioned there. You must address the concerns regarding your edit, before getting into an edit war. Astronomyinertia (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't create POV articles, before you post warning messages in future.Sudar123 (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What "POV articles" are you talking about? By the way, you still haven't produced sources to allege war crimes have happened during the Battle of Aanandapuram. Astronomyinertia (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Your addition to Lies Agreed Upon has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. The newly added sections are verbatim copies of these articles [1] [2] [3] and is a blatant violation of Wikipedia copyrights policy. Read WP:COPYVIO. Astronomyinertia (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Astronomyinertia (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Then you do the copy edit on a POV pushing article. We need a balanced Critisism. Otherwise Wikipedia Project will come a joke.Sudar123 (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Astronomyinertia (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright

Please go through copyright policy.I can see that you do not understand it.Please understand you are not supposed leave copyright works on the page even for a minute.Please go through Copyright regarding any doubt regarding copyright.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information.Sudar123 (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please note that you can blocked in the future.As you have been clearly warned.Please take this as a Level 4 warning.Sorry if this sounds rude.Wikipedia is very strict on copyright. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You have to paraphrase in your words, not copy sentence verbatim. It is difficult but doable, as a newbie and potentially second language user of English, it will take time but trust me, take the time and do it slowly.

Secondly, No need to act or edit in a hurry, once these articles are created propaganda or not, they usually stay AS IS is forever nobody cares. For example I created Prawn farm massacre, while ago, lots of people got upset and eventually got themselves blocked. What has it done to adding to our knowledge base ? I would say not much. But an article like Tamil Brahmi, it in my mind adds value to the collective knowledge of the world.

Sri Lankan war crimes are an international joke, everyone knows about it and even have real evidence to charge in the international court and people will rarely do anything about it because of geopolitical interests. When LTTE was around they did a lot of war crimes as well and international diplomats treated them as if they were statesman. It was a joke as well. Time to move on and in Wikipedia add value where one can to the world. Just my opinion Kanatonian (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Something to ponder

Kanatonian (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Chola Invasion and your edits in the article king Vijayabahu I

The Chola invasion and occupation is a well known event and a very central point in the Sri Lankan history. If you do not know that please read up. If you just scroll down to the bottom of the article there are many references there too. And if you are really interested in references and not some other agenda, there are over 2000 results for the search occupation "sri lanka" ceylon in Google books. Take your pick.

Just until a couple of days ago another editor with the same kind of views as yours, have been reverting the article asking for references to the word island, and continued reverting even when references were given. We can't be giving references for each and every word in the article, nor can we stuff the article with references after each word. Just read the whole article and the references already in the article or click on the link given above. An occupation by invaders cannot be passed off as legitimate rule.

If you revert my edit I will make a complaint on you for disruptive editing and edit waring. I am writing this in your userpage because it is required that the user is notified, prior to filing/posting the complaint. --SriSuren (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

For whom "The Chola invasion and occupation is a well known event"? Please don't come out with the lame excuse that others who oppose have always some agenda. Please provide some reliable sources. UN Peace Keeping Forces or the IPKF are not Occupied Forces and same could have been on the part of Chola's rule as well.Sudar123 (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It was not an excuse, but an expression of suspicion that your edits reflect deliberate distortions of facts. Then when u suggest that the Cholas were on a peace keeping mission and want to distort facts in that direction, I was not wrong in my assumption afterall. The Chola invasion and occupation is one of the most central topics and a landmark in Sri Lankan history, because amoung other things, it caused the downfall of the ancient civilisation in Anuradhapura. It is therefore well known and should be well known to anybody trying to edit an encyclopedia article on the topic. When u ask to prove that they were invaders and start reverting referenced edits, and tagging articles with huge "disputed" templates you really show that u have no idea about the subject, but want to edit the article for some other reason than writing correct information on history. The whole article on Chola occupation of Sri Lanka (993–1077) is written by a Tamil editor from India, as it is obviously important to them too. If u had any idea about the subject, then you would have immediately recognized the fact that the article is not written by a Sri Lankan and the one source is Prof. Nilakanta Sastri who is an authority on the subject. If this Chola invasion is not well known to you, then you should not be editing that page, but first read about it, then edit it. Not the other way around. You are disrupting the whole Viyajabahu article by your demands for citations for obvious words, like "invasion" and "occupation" and have gone and placed those huge tags in the article on Chola Occupation too. Even when over 200 references for the exact term "Chola occupation" was given, you go and revert the edit by stating "one source is contradicting in the referred page itself by the terms, "Conquest" and "Invader"", without even specifying which source you are talking about. Where exactly is this contradiction? There is no contradiction at all - take a dictionary and look the words up.

I informed you that I'll be reporting you, if u reverted my REFERENCED edit, and gave u in addition the link to Google Books, but u reverted my edit. Thereby in addition to breaking the 3 revert rule, you removed referenced edits and now u are trying to extend this socalled dispute, by bringing in new factors, like peacekeeping forces. It is so absurd that it is not even worth a comment. Whether you like it or not the Cholas were invaders, and they destroyed the Anuradhapura civilisation , and occupied the Sinhalese kingdom for over 70 years, causing utter misery. It was king Vijayabahu who freed the island from the Chola occupation and restored Sinhalese independence. Read what even a person so hostile to the Sinhalese people, like Manoharan has to say about these invasions. You have placed large templates in the Chola occupation article, without even specifying what you are disputing in the Talk page of the article. More references have been added and the "Neutrality Disputed" & "One source" templates you have placed in the article have been removed. You can't place these large templates for small content disputes. Therefore place citations needed tags near what you are disputing and specify your dispute(s) in the Talk page of the article. --SriSuren (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

References and further Reading for Sudar123

(You can take out the reflist tag when the discussion is over if u do not the references around)

You have been very active reverting the article, but you have not answered the questions here or in the talk page of the article. You have 48 hours to state your views (peacekeeping forces/legitimate rulers vs invaders and legitimate rule vs occupation) in the discussion in the talk page of king Vijayabahu's article about this issue. You have been provided with ample sources and references to the exact occurance of "Chola occupation". As u very well can understand we can't stuff 200 references in the article for this single word, when the information is freely available. You must also note that it is not necessary at all for me to provide you with any additional sources when there are references already in the article. If you have problems with the reliability of the sources given in the article then you should name them and state why they are unreliable, then I can either add more references in the article or I can take it up at the realiable source noticeboard. State your views and opposition if any, within 48 hours, failing that I will reinstate my edit. If you keep on reverting and demanding sources evenafter that, and thereby disrupting the article further I will definitely make a complaint on you. You have already broken the 3 revert rule and have caused enough disruption. The only thing keeping me from filing a complaint is that I do not want to use my time on that and getting u blocked won't serve any purpose. --SriSuren (talk) 05:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You should understand that, you can't put articles on hold indefinitely by inventing disputes. You've been very active reverting, that should mean that you have valid reasons to do so, and therefore it should not be a big problem or time consuming thing to state those reason. 48 hours were given to state your views, it was not meant as an ulitmatum. That 48 hours was given almost after 2 days had passed since you reverted for the 4th time, ignoring the discussion and references given and you reverting without giving a single valid reason. If you have the time to revert edits, you should also have the time to discuss why you disagree and support your edit with references. Editing does not only mean writing what you like to hear, but also presenting facts and references, especially when you create a dispute out of clear facts. If you do not do not have the time to edit, then do not revert edits, but wait until you get the time to engage in the discussion or just say that you are busy right now, and will be back on so and so day with your views and references. You have not done any of that or given any sources as to your claims that this was not an invasion or that the rule was a legitimate rule and not an occupation!!! But you keep on reverting. I have no choice but to complain about this matter to the administrators. Let them see whether I have done something wrong and let them put and end to your endless reverting without any valid reason, so that I can get some useful editing done, without having to deal with this kind of "editing" you are doing. --SriSuren (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Ref. your 6th revert in the article:

Please state your views and explain what you mean by "That is not giving the real scenario" in the talkpage of the article within 48 hours, with references that back up your claims, whatever they are. If 48 hours is not enough, then state so. If you fail to engage in finding a solution, this will mean that you have no valid arguments or references to support your claims and I will get my edit reinstated. --SriSuren (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Still awaiting your reasons for reverting my edit (i.e your views on the topic), in the talk page of the article. Please do not wait out the protection time of the article, and come back and start reverting again. --SriSuren (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Himesh84

I would not recommend engaging in further discussion with Himesh84. He is clearly trying to wear other editors out with his filibustering. You have done the right thing in reporting this to ANI.

Also, don't engage in edit wars either, it doesn't matter if a version of the article with Himesh84's OR on it is there for a day or two. Wait and see what happens at ANI. Thanks.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 17:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I will refrain from edit wars and wait for the results at ANI, which suggested by User:Richwales as well here and then try what User:IRWolfie- suggested here.Sudar123 (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United Nations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Petrie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC

I just wanted to make sure you know that the procedure is WP:RFC/U, which is the set of steps to request comment on a user. WP:RFC is for comments about article content. Feel free to read up on the procedure, and, of course, notify me if/when you file. Note that I'll be busy on and off for the next ten days or so, so if I don't respond immediately, please don't think I'm ignoring you. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Qwxy

I tend to be rather thorough, and when I say I have glanced at the Sri Lanka talk page, that actually means I have read the entire dispute, including your claim that Qwy is involved, and that several admins and non-admins asked to comment concur that he is uninvolved. I will review your diffs and give you my honest opinion about this matter when I can. It does not help Intoronto to export that dispute to his talk page, unless the case is extremely convincing. I am trying to provide Intoronto with help that gives him a chance at least of being unblocked, confusing the issue will discourage diligent admins from considering the unblock, since they then need to look at so much more material. Rich Farmbrough, 05:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC).

Several admins and non-admins were asked by me to comment and concur that he is uninvolved; which was before I provided my diffs on Qwyrxian's involvement on Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka related articles. I too agree with them but that was not my final say on him that he is uninvolved.Sudar123 (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that the "involved" issue really has to wait for now for AN/I or RfC. I would have looked at the diffs, for what it is worth, but as much as anything because I want these two issues separated. By continuing to fight this fight on his talk page you are undermining Intoronto's already slim chance of being unblocked.

As to the question of consensus vs RS, this is far from as simple as you make it out to be. Yes RS that the world is round trumps consensus that it is flat (or indeed vice versa - up to a point) - but consensus decides what sources are reliable. Consensus also decides on WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. It would be possible to construct a very PoV article on either side of any significant dispute, using only RS.

Rich Farmbrough, 15:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

Thanks for your advice. I have made my final comment in Intoronto's talk page and I will discuss further on the RfC.Sudar123 (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Saudi Arabia. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Noticeboard notifications

You failed to notify me about the thread you opened at ANI. You are required by the rules to do so - the fact it got kicked out within a few hours is irrelevant. The consensus on the Talk:Saudi Arabia clearly supports what I've been trying to tell you, but if you try to take it to any other noticeboard, as you appear to say you will do, you will have the same notification obligation. DeCausa (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

You were given a final warning last year about copyright violations. I have just looked at your recent contributions, and find that despite the warnings virtually every single addition you have made to articles during the last months has been a direct copy-and-paste or a very close paraphrase of copyrighted text. Since this is obviously a persistent issue with you and not just a one-off mistake, I have blocked you indefinitely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Please unblock this account at you earliest possible, otherwise I will take this issue for the consideration of other Admins and to the ArbCom via ArbCom mailing list that you have blocked my account under Conflict of Interest for my response to you on the deletion discussion of Rizana.Sudar123 (talk) 10:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide the diffs supporting your claim that a final warning last year about copyright violations? Then it will be easy for other administrators and the ArbCom to have a look on your claims.Sudar123 (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's the warning: [4]. And no, just because you made some off-topic comments in a discussion in which I had participated does not mean I am in a "conflict" with you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a year ago.Sudar123 (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was a year ago. And despite the warning, you continued your disruptive actions during all this time. The block was long overdue; the real problem is that you managed to sneak your edits through for so long, and now the damage to many articles will be hard to correct. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Here are the diffs of your copyright-violating edits: [5] (from September), [6][7] (November), [8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. This is almost the totality of all non-trivial mainspace edits you have made during this period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I went through those diffs; they are not serious copyright violations; but the process of expanding Wikipedia. Sudar123 (talk) 11:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I predict you will fail to get unblocked as long as you refuse to accept that there was something wrong with your edits. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I was contacted by Sudar123 by email. At random I took a look at this diff and it does appear to be copyright violation - the wording is very similar to the source. Sudar if you are unblocked you do need to be a lot more careful about copyright - as it is something we have to take extremely seriously.

With regards to User:Future Perfect at Sunrise making the block - well if we are to avoid being an ossified bureaucracy Future Perfect at Sunrise is a reasonable person to make the block as the block itself seems OK, even though he is arguably WP:INVOLVED, but also by the same token Sudar is perfectly justified in getting a little upset about it - and no-one should get too excited about that either. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sudar123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have added content on those pages on the believe that they qualify under Fair Use. I acted in the good faith of expanding the encyclopedia.

Decline reason:

As long as you're going to be as tendentious and combative as you are in the above discussion, Wikipedia is well-served by this block regardless of whether you're right or not. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Sudar123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I ask to be unblocked, as I had reason to believe that the contents in questions were in FairUse and there was no intent by me to violate Wikipedia's copyright policies. I promise not to do so again and do wish to continue my participation and ongoing deletion discussion of Rizana's Image, where I also promise to keep my own comments brief, neutral, and policy based. After Eraserhead1 pointed out, I think I am wrong and understand I have violated copyright issues; I will be careful in the future to not add content which violates Copyright policy... and IF I have any doubts, I will neutrally seek advice and input from other, more experienced editors, and will heed such advice.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I ask to be unblocked, as I had reason to believe that the contents in questions were in FairUse and there was no intent by me to violate Wikipedia's copyright policies. I promise not to do so again and do wish to continue my participation and ongoing deletion discussion of Rizana's Image, where I also promise to keep my own comments brief, neutral, and policy based. After [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] pointed out, I think I am wrong and understand I have violated copyright issues; I will be careful in the future to not add content which violates Copyright policy... and IF I have any doubts, I will neutrally seek advice and input from other, more experienced editors, and will heed such advice. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I ask to be unblocked, as I had reason to believe that the contents in questions were in FairUse and there was no intent by me to violate Wikipedia's copyright policies. I promise not to do so again and do wish to continue my participation and ongoing deletion discussion of Rizana's Image, where I also promise to keep my own comments brief, neutral, and policy based. After [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] pointed out, I think I am wrong and understand I have violated copyright issues; I will be careful in the future to not add content which violates Copyright policy... and IF I have any doubts, I will neutrally seek advice and input from other, more experienced editors, and will heed such advice. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I ask to be unblocked, as I had reason to believe that the contents in questions were in FairUse and there was no intent by me to violate Wikipedia's copyright policies. I promise not to do so again and do wish to continue my participation and ongoing deletion discussion of Rizana's Image, where I also promise to keep my own comments brief, neutral, and policy based. After [[User:Eraserhead1|Eraserhead1]] pointed out, I think I am wrong and understand I have violated copyright issues; I will be careful in the future to not add content which violates Copyright policy... and IF I have any doubts, I will neutrally seek advice and input from other, more experienced editors, and will heed such advice. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I mean if you really think you are wrong and understand how you are wrong then you could state that in your unblock request,

Sudar123 sent me e-mail, asking me to help him get unblocked. I feel I need to turn down this request — in part because I have been significantly WP:INVOLVED with him in the past in connection with the Sri Lankan conflict topic, and also because I am unwilling to reverse the actions of two administrators (Future Perfect at Sunrise and Daniel Case) without an overwhelmingly clear reason. In my opinion, if Sudar123 is unable to get his block rescinded via his second unblock request, his best (and probably only) recourse would be to make his case to ArbCom's Ban Appeals Subcommittee. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Richwales for your advice.Sudar123 (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)