User talk:HudsonBreeze

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello HudsonBreeze,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 05:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!) _.28Result:_.29}}[reply]

Blocked for edit warring

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Larry V (talk | email) 05:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Stop edit warring and please start discussing in a civil manner.--Blackknight12 (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ware rape in Sri Lanka

In order to be fair, and avoid further interruption, I'm noticing all editors involved in this article that the "Sri Lanka" section was deleted. No-one should add any content until we meat concensus on thearticle's talkpage here. Anyone can also ask question and offer reliable sources on there. Wish to see you around after your brake. Thanks and happy editing... ~ AdvertAdam^talk 10:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your entries at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

Thank you for your submissions to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Please note that in order for your request to be taken seriously you must use the template form to help us understand the problem. In addition you appear to be canvasing in an attempt to have your viewpoint "win". Please understand that Wikipedia works on a consensus of involved editors to resolve issues. The reasons for the removal of rape claims have been explained to you multiple times. Furthermore removal of unsourced assertions is not vandalism. Removal of sourced claims however is. Please review Bold Revert Discuss to understand why your actions were inappropriate. Hasteur (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Your posts on Dispute Resolution Noticeboard were of no help and did not specify what problems you were attempting to draw attention to. Whiteguru (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to HudsonBreeze regarding "war rape": you've got some good explanations above :). Just to clarify, the section was removed when it had 13 unreliable sources, while I've added it back myself with only two reliable sources. An editor shared a list of sources on the talkpage. Happy editing... ~ AdvertAdam^talk 12:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing tendancies

This is only a friendly reminder that your choice in editing topics and viewpoint may suggest to some editors that you are a single purpose account. Specifically that you are advocating for the claims of rape during the Sri Lanka Civil war by the military. Please consider the advice at the above linked page. Hasteur (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But I have contributed for the Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War.HudsonBreeze (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the behavior that's going on between you and Cossde on War crime, and re-adding a see-also link by proving the article is true or false is definitely unacceptable. I know both summaries are irrelevant, yours and his, but opening a discussion in the talkpage is the first step to take (not just an invitation). We don't go by right and wrong here on Wikipedia, it's not censored. We only go by WikiPolicies, and you violated these policies by edit-warring (weather you're right or wrong). Please read WP:BRD.
You have two options, either you apologies to the editor involved and work things out politely, or I'll report you both for edit-warring and get immediately blocked together. I'll be watching both articles, so I'm waiting for a fast response. Btw, the wikilove link on-top has nice beers ;) ~ AdvertAdam^talk 07:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The case was close, so I suggest that you study WP:BRD to avoid further mistakes. Happy editing... ~ AdvertAdam^talk 01:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

This is your last warning for personal attack. You know where it is. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 16:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka

Regarding the continues dispute on the Civil War section in the Sri Lanka article, I'm suggesting that everyone pull-out from editing and make any suggested constructive edits on this mediation sandbox. On the 18th, we can start discussing the content on the same page's discussion, to be able to seek consensus before we add anything to the main article. It's a high-traffic article, and I don't want to be a reason for misleading readers. So please keep it in your watchlist. Happy editing... Note: This is a generalized message ~ AdvertAdam^talk 17:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit Sri Lanka page.Please share your view about Cossde and Astronomyinertia removing Civil war section and incorporating the civil war stuff in post-independence srilanka to hide the civil war and push their POV(Arun1paladin (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

First the some editors who are Sinhalese opposed a Civil war section in Sri Lanka page and got it removed.Then from the remaining they started removing the references about atrocities done to Tamils in final phase of the genocidal war.Now they are editing it further to white wash the things.Isn't there nothing we can do to bring a neutral article!!??? (Arun1paladin (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

How India kept pressure off Sri Lanka and helped to win the civil war

We have to add this too in the article Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak (Sri Lanka) http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article1544202.ece?css=print (Arun1paladin (talk) 10:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Grease Devils

I think it's high time to create an article about Sri Lankan state sponsored greased devils/army men in grease used in new kind of genocide of Tamils ,targeting Tamil women in particular(Arun1paladin (talk) 04:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Sri Lanka Armed Forces DRN thread

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 "Sri Lanka Armed Forces". Thank you. --Distributor108 (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is just to let you know that the DRN thread has been closed due to lack of discussion on the talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Please post your views about the removal or maintain the status quo of war crimes allegation here on the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces#Do_not_add_war_crimes_allegation Distributor108 (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Sri Lanka. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 the 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 without further notice.--Blackknight12 (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chandre Dharmawardene

I have decided to use the conflict resolution process to resolve the matter as we have exhaousted the discussion. But the discussion did lead to at laest one pont of consensus aboutthe professors personal website. We will resolve it with time. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict resolution is the better process to resolve this issue.HudsonBreeze (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civil war section

I have taken the issue to the DRN. Astronomyinertia (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Sri Lanka. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 the 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 without further notice.--Blackknight12 (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid misusing my name, like you did here. I know you didn't mean to, but I never supported that version. It was only a clean-up after an edit-war, in order for all of us to focus on one thing at-a-time on the talkpage.
It's always better to explain controversial edits on the talkpage. Being too bold just don't work, per WP:BRD. Cheers... ~ AdvertAdam^on-mobile 06:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC notification

Within the continues efforts of trying to stabilize the Sri Lankan articles, I saw that it's important to take a step forward and request for comments from the open-wide community. I've opened the RfC here and you're welcome to join. Just remember, this is only about the structure and has nothing to do with the content. Cheers... This is a generalized message. ~ AdvertAdam^on-mobile 06:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 05:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Sri Lanka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sinhalese (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) 19:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jaffna kingdom

You might want to participate in this discussion at Talk:Jaffna kingdom#Migration of Sinhalese. Thanks.--Blackknight12 (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Sri Lanka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sinhalese (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) 10:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Sri Lanka. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Your last comment on Talk:Sri Lanka seems to be evoking racial hatred. Assume good faith and always keep one's race out of the discussion. WP:NPA specifically prohibits racial, religious, political, ethnic or other epithets directed against other contributors. Special note on the issue you were referring to, not only Sinhalese editors, but also other editors have opposed the addition of a separate section on civil war. You may not agree with them, but address their concerns, without restoring to the usual argument "Sinhalese editors want civil war section kept out of the article". Astronomyinertia (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the fact, then it is immaterial whether it has racial tone. I don't think so any Tamil Editors supporting the "Civil War" section should not be included. You can "Canvass" even non Sinhalese editors to voice for you how in the real world geopolitics play a major role at the expense of human rights.HudsonBreeze (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say replying in a racial tone is okay as long as the comment was made by a Sinhalese editor? I'm afraid there are no exceptions for the policy WP:NPA, as far as I know. And for the second time asking, what are your proof to allege that anyone has canvassed those non-Sinhalese editors to vote against the incluion of Civil War section? Astronomyinertia (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so just calling an Editor as Sinhalese is a personal attack. For the other question I have answered in the particular talk page. They should have come out their comment on a different thread facilitating for discussion rather than voting with brief comment if they are genuine enough. HudsonBreeze (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have gone farther than that and made blind allegations on Sri Lankan state and Sinhala race. Keep your personal opinions with you, and deal with Wikipedia editors in good faith. Wikipedia is not a battleground! Once again you, have failed to produce any proof to show that anyone has canvassed to vote against the incluion of a Civil War section. The reason that those editors have not come forward to elaborate their decision is not a proof for that. If you want them to come forward, first you should explain why you don't agree with each of them, regarding each of their opinions. Without doing that, you just accuse them for being canvassed, and ask to elaborate further. That is a wrong editing practice. Astronomyinertia (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lankan State is not the Sinhala race property...that is the way you all behaved since the independence. Those are canvassed votes ...I have explained enough on the Sri Lanka talk page. Don't post anymore here. I will delete hereafter.HudsonBreeze (talk) 06:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I thread notification

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. --Shirt58 (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the discussion is no more there, I will comment on the talk pages when I have time.HudsonBreeze (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 20:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your baseless attacks in the ANI thread. Furthermore, your statement that you intend to begin edit warring as soon as the page protection is removed, despite the fact that there is currently no consensus for that change, is unacceptable. I recommend withdrawing that statement. If you continue with a battleground mentality, or if you edit war, I will block you. You say that we can't WP:AGF in the face of certain real world events. This is wrong, period. We always AGF unless a person's on Wikipedia edits indicate that they are not following policy. As a matter of fact, I am beginning to lose my assumption of your good faith: you seem to be saying that no matter what the consensus is, you will keep changing the article to your preferred version. That's disruptive editing, and we have to block people who are being disruptive. You say that ArbCom has to get involved; however, Arbcom does not rule on matters of content, only behavior. Since you seem to be the primary person behaving badly right now, I don't think that an ArbCom case is in your best interest. In any event, Arbcom only gets involved once other avenues of dispute resolution have been exhausted. You don't even want the RfC to run its proper course, so an Arbcom filing is premature at this time.

In short, follow the dispute resolution process. Do not attempt to circumvent it because you don't like the current result. Do not edit war, and don't accuse people of improper editing without evidence. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I withdraw the statement. But we had lengthy discussion at DRN and that was not taken anywhere and came to RfC. Again going to DRN will ultimately bring to RfC once again and then to ANI again and this circle will go on. That is why I suggested ArbCom enforcement since very rarely Content Disputes are resolved there. I want to take a break for the time being from this issue since I am messed up with personal issues in real life.HudsonBreeze (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a break to deal with real life is always smart--Real Life should always be more important than Wikipedia. The RfC will continue to run; if there is a clear consensus one way or the other, that should settle the matter (whether you're here or not). If there's no clear consensus, I can help advise the next best step (probably Mediation, but I'll have to look more into the history). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka photograph

I have moved thread to the article's Talk page. Iechyd da! Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 07:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Santos Gorrostieta

Nice work on that article. Very good to see work being done on her.

Just a small note... it appears there is some amount of plagiarism of the Daily Mail article by Sam Webb, and copyright violation. Example

Wiki text:

Gorrostieta was born in 1976 and graduated in medicine from a university in the city of Morelia. She was elected mayor of Tiquicheo in 2008 and served until 2011. During that time she defected from the Institutional Revolutionary party to the left-wing Democratic Revolution party.[1]

Daily Mail:

Gorrostieta was born in 1976 and graduated in medicine from a university in the city of Morelia. She was elected mayor of Tiquicheo in 2008 and served until 2011. During that time she defected from the Institutional Revolutionary party to the left-wing Democratic Revolution party.

I will try to clean it up myself if nobody else does. Thank you.

Decora (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please you do it.HudsonBreeze (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have awarded you Tireless Contributor Barnstar.HudsonBreeze (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Hudson Breeze. ComputerJA (seen below) is the real Tireless Contributor to the Mexican drug war articles. Decora (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Thank you for creating Maria Santos Gorrostieta! I'll be updating it in the next few days, so feel free to drop by with a pair of eyes. Happy editing! ComputerJA (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I nominated the article for DYK. Thanks again! ComputerJA (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have awarded you Tireless Contributor Barnstar.HudsonBreeze (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rizana Letter Tamil.JPG

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ✍ Mtking ✉ 07:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Execution of Rizana Nafeek. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. Please remove that section and allow for a full discussion ✍ Mtking ✉ 08:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such edit war, you appear finding wrong in something without proper explanation and trying to push your own POV.HudsonBreeze (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are, you reinserted that text, please follow WP:BRD one other editor is not a consesus. ✍ Mtking ✉ 08:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave the image and the content there till another editor contest it.HudsonBreeze (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No that's not how this works, try reading WP:BRD again, I removed it, pointed you to the talk page, wait till there has been a breadth of input and a clear consensus has been arrived at. ✍ Mtking ✉ 08:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]