Thanks for your nice comments. I am doing all the articles with the wiki guide lines. Its my self intrest am doing with other Sri Lankan editors, they are from both Sinhala and Tamil. Any how thanks for your Comments. See you around here. --BlueLankan 00:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your valuable comments.. Like to work with you in wiki. cheers! If i did any wrong in the articles, feel free to point out it. --BlueLankan 00:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. There's nothing wrong or right about most things we write, anyway pointing out 'wrongs' to Sri Lankans, when it comes to our history, can be very tricky, since we all tend to act up. We all perceive things differently, but we must avoid obvious deliberate distortions (with no reference what so ever to any of what u have written), which I have seen many here at Wikipedia, particularly from the Tamil side. This is something real historians particularly from the university of Colombo with authority on the subject will have to check and re-write. Some contributors refer to sources which clearly states completely different things. It seems though that they think people won't check the sources, many don't, but some do. Regards, --SriSuren (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay friend! I am hoping you too can contribute lot to Sri Lanka and Sri Lankan Tamils, not particularly on History but on other areas which you have enough knowledge and likings. Hoping to see you around here. --BlueLankan 23:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello! SriSuren, I thought you may be interested in joining WikiProject Sri Lanka. We work on creating, expanding and making general changes to Sri Lanka related articles. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Members Page! Thank You. Blackknight12 (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Blacknight12, I appreciate it. Regards, SriSuren (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problems SriSuren, from what I have experienced of your edits you seem to be a editor with a neutral point of view and a person who is knowledgeable with Sri Lankan History. I hope you will contribute to WikiProject Sri Lanka in the same way, have fun editing and we need more like you.--Blackknight12 (talk) 06:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree whatever you said, I am not going to agree 100% but relatively i can agree most of your views. Hoping to work with you soon dude. cheers! Take it easy dude. --Arunantamil (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Arunantamil, I always take it easy :). I have read some of the articles on Sri Lanka, and I must say that some Sri Lankan historians and anthropologists should come and take a look. Regards, SriSuren (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi....Can u pls provide the Sinhala script equivalent for the article Grantha script? Tamil, Malayalam translations are already given....

thanks...

AruN_KumaRTalK 02:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These content's need not be in the top zone of Tamil Eelam & moreover the info's can be added & already available in the info on LTTE later in this artilce & hence goes not necessary . & well....LTTE was just a part on the mass ealam aspirant's & hence it's enough to place em in the body ...... if placed in the top gives the reader's a wrong message tht the ealam aspirant's are perished with the LTTE dead .....nopes......even the tamilnadu has ealam aspirant's ...shall i go ahead with adding the infos in the top header ??......if yes then why is the body article for ??...kindly discuss before changing the tone of the article ....--Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 02:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do as you wish. But, try to remember that we should try to give as much, good and relevant information as possible, what ever political stand we have. That article is full of wrong facts and some dead links. But Eelam is not something people are bothered with right now, so it is not very important what is written there. By the way, my condolences for your dead leader. Kind regards, SriSuren (talk) 02:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, SriSuren. You have new messages at Blackknight12's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Dear SriSuren, Please see the post I made here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blackknight12#Images_in_the_Sinhalese_people_article

Kind regards, Wikinpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinpg (talk • contribs) 16:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To Wikipgn,

You are too hung up on genetical studies. They don't really prove anything much, and also you have falsified and misquoted a couple of studies, since they do not support what your distorted view. Moreover, all Sri Lankans and Indians from North to South tip of India, have very close ancestry. Sinhalese do seem to have a close affinity to North Indians, in several of the studies done. You can't deny that fact, since the Sinhalese might prove to sit with the key to solve some of the unsolved questions regarding the peopling of the globe and the region in particular.

You are demostrating your ignorance about the signinficance of genetical studies by making those pie diagrams of yours. I don't think it is possible to make pie diagrams out of such varying results, and also using results which have 10-20% error margins. Why don't you make pie diagrams of all the studies? Then, we can call these pages Pie Diagram pages. LOL! As said, genetical studies are not absolute. The articles on Sinhalese and Tamils are spoilt by your diagrams. I don't have much time to start edit wars, so I'll leave it to people who have better knowledge on the subject, and also time, to delete your idiotic and misleading diagrams. SriSuren (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear SriSuren, sorry for the late reply. I was busy with exams. I have made the image you requested (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Genetic_admixture_of_Sinhalese_by_Papiha.PNG) and put into into the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Sinhalese. It was always my intention to make a pie chart for this study, I was just too busy. Obviously there is standard error in the results of the pie charts. But I feel the images ehance the article by giving an easy to read, colouful way of presenting the information from the two studies.

I don't believe I have falsified or misquoted sutdies. If I have, please point out my mistakes so I can discuss them with you. With regards, to your post on my talk page. I've never claimed the origin theories are the cause of the conflict and I do think science can unravel the origins of the ethnic groups in Sri Lanka. If you read the article, I don't deny the Sinhalese have origins in West Bengal and North West India. I look forward to working with you. Kind regards,

Wikinpg (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Wikinpg, I don't have the knowledge nor the time to edit the sections on population studies and genetics. But from my limited knowledge on the subject I can tell you that origin and admixture is not the same. Admixture will only give an indication of origins and the present state. Further, you have misquoted that study, really bad, and you have taken one sentence from Papiha 'proved 75%...' and pasted it in the middle. Papiha is refering to the 70%, maybe he says 75% counting the error too. Papiha seems to clearly disagree with Kshatriya and he means his study on VNTRs and the same 13 polymorphic loci is better, and I think that is why he has mentions Kshatriya's study in that manner, in a couple of places. Anyway, is it necessary to keep on quoting that, instead of what Papiha really has to say? Papiha is not Saha, you have done a typing error. That is wrong in your newest diagram. Also, Bengal is also North Inida, and the Sinhalese prefer Bengal to Gujarat, because of their historical Buddhist connections. I have read some of the studies done on SL populations, and it is wrong to say that older studies show Tamil origins, while new ones show North Indian origin. The oldest studies show clearly that Tamils in Sri Lanka are exactly the same as the Tamils in Tamil Nadu, and that they differ from Sinhalese (Roberts 1972 or 73 for instance). Anyway, the genetic section is a complete mess. You can't just choose a study you like and make pie diagrams. If you are going to make pie diagrams you will have to make them for all the studies done, and for God sakes, use some pleasent colours :). If that section gets bigger, I think we will have to start a new article, where all genetic studies done could be listed, for example in a table, showing the different results. Please do your studies and exams properly, without wasting your time on at Wikipedia. By what you are writing here, on genetics, I don't think you are studying anything related, but if you are, ask your professors for some advice. For example, show them the study by Kshatriya, which you like so much and ask them how this study was done, and why two tables are used in the study and whether it can be considered a realiable study, when the author starts picking and choosing the data, which he is going to do the final calculations on. Furthrt, once a hypothesis is set, the study can't change its direction. Kshatriya sets out to test the Vijayan myth, and ends up choosing Tamil Nadu Tamils as a parent population and forgets completely about West Indian coast!! However small their contribution is, that should show in the results. What he has done is has chosen frequencies himself in table 10 of the study, instead of using the ones listed in the first table!!! Since you are the expert, why did he do that? After all the twisting with the data, he ends up with the result that Sri Lankan Tamils are closer to Bengalis than Tamil Nadu Tamils!!!!! Also, the glottochronology studies have nothing to do with genetics and they don't show that the Sinhalese and Romani people or their languges are most closely related as you have written. What that study says is that Sinhalese language and the Romani language have split from the other group at the same time, some 3000 years ago. Anyway as said, this section is a mess and needs to be rewritten properly, so that the readers understand what is written. All the irrelevant details and pie diagrams must be deleted or pie diagrams should be made for all studies. You might like an article in sangam.org, written mostly by Sachi Sri Kantha,also published in a newspaper, on some scientific basis for the claims that SL-Tamils and Tamil Nadu Tamils are the exact same people and that they differ considerably from the Sinhalese. Sachi Sri Kantha is one of the biggest Tamil fundamentalists and wants to establish a second homeland for the Tamils in Sri Lanka, and he seems to have found good scientific proof, that Tamils are the same in SL and Tamil Nadu. You can try to write that in the Sri Lankan Tamil article. Because that 'SL-tamils are closest to Sinhalese, sharing 55% of a common genetic pool' is utter nonsense. Because even Kshatriya doesn't say it. Sinhalese specific genetic contribution to SL-Tamil population is very small, given that 70% of Sinhalese genes are common with Tamil Nadu Tamils. Kshatriya says clearly Sinhalese having a high contribution from Tamil Nadu Tamils.... Therefore that sentence will be corrected. SriSuren (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Sri Lankan Barnstar of National Merit
		Hi. You may not have many edits, but they are valuable ones. I've already told you this but I feel like I need to tell you again, that we need more editors like you who actually know what they are talking about and are here purely for the betterment of something. I hope this encourages you to edit more frequently. :) Blackknight12 (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
		this WikiAward was given to SriSuren by Blackknight12 (talk) on 09:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Blackknight. I'll try to do my best. But they keep changing the edits and adding clearly false statements. It is a hopeless situation. SriSuren (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I was wondering if you could look at these two articles if you have the time? Kudiramalai and Korran

Thanks, take care. :)--Blackknight12 (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LOL. How stupid can they get? There is not a shred of evidence for any ancient Tamil country/countries or kingdoms in SL. The only Tamil kingdom was the semi-independant Jaffna kingdom/subkingdom which was established in the 13th century by Pandyan invaders. Moreover the editor mixes up Tamilakam and Sri Lanka. He uses the two i.e Srilanka and Tamilakam, first as one unit and then separate units and then alternatively when it suits him. A clear example of some editors attempting to distort history to serve their political agendas. His attempt to make a new version of history thorougly failed - he failed to convince anyone of an independant ancient Tamil kingdom when the editor himself is not sure of what he is talking about. Example: he is not sure whether the Cheras ruled this mythical Tamil kingdom in SL. If the Cheras did so, then his whole point about an independant Tamil kingdom in Sri Lanka is lost. LOL.

What he has succeeded in doing is, giving everybody a good idea about how some people distort history. Give me a couple of weeks, I'll see what I can do. SriSuren (talk) 00:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please 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 a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.--MThekkumthala (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, who are u? Are u an administrator? I was not aware of the 3 edits on a page rule. I've given a reference to my edit, and reinstated it, as the reason given was that there was no reference. You are saying my reference is not reliable, because it is a Sinhalese source. The whole article is written on almost Tamil sources, should I revert all of them and say that they are not reliable because they are Tamil? Moreover my source refers to the Tamil lexicon, so is it unreliable? LOL. There's nothing to discuss in this issue, since there is no dispute - can you deny that Sri Lanka was called Cinkalam in the Sangam literature? LOL. LOL. The other two edits have been posted for discussion in the Tamil People Talk page. I'll be calling the administrators on this issue, and many more issues in the articles relating to the Tamils in Sri Lanka. Most of them are based on fringe theories, like Tamils being indigenous to Sri Lanka and other nonsense. --SriSuren (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

you can't equate eelam and cinkalam like this, the latter was probably a one timer in Eelam history.--MThekkumthala (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I

What do you mean by one timer? --SriSuren (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

a very seldom used name by lankans --MThekkumthala (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not a seldom name used by Lankans. It is a Tamil name, used in Sangam literature. Cinkalam is listed as one of the 18 countries surrounding Tamilakam in Sangam literature. Also I just checked the rule you stated - I understood it as 3 edits, but it is not 3 edits, it is 3 reverts. I didn't revert anything when I added Cinkalam. It was my own edit. Anymore reasons than the source is a Sinhalese source which you find unrealiable and the claim that it is a seldom name used by Lankans? Because if you do not have any other objections, I'll be reinstating it, my dear friend. --SriSuren (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

don't editwar.. can you cite 3 reliabe references, which equate the Eelam country and the Cinkalam countrv?--MThekkumthala (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not editwaring. It is you who either because you do not know history or willing trying to prevent it being added to the article. I have given one reference, which you say is not reliable. According to Wikipedia rules:

a. I do not have to give 3 reliable references

b. The reference I have given is more than good enough - it is from the Journal of Social Scientist Association in Sri Lanka which comes out quaterly, where Sinhalese, Tamil and Muslim and foreign scholars write their articles. You might find good references to promote your views too. http://www.google.lk/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Social+Scientists+Association+of+Sri+Lanka%22 --SriSuren (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

seems like you couldn't come up with only 3 of such sources and still want to editwar? --MThekkumthala (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do I really have to give 3 references according to Wikipedia rules? Or are they your rules? If they are Wikipedia rules I'll give 3 references, if they are your rules then I won't. :) Is there any Wikipedia rule against old/experienced users bullying new/inexperienced users? :) :)--SriSuren (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are other policies you might go reading througg, especially "undue weight". Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

--MThekkumthala (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LOL. Well, now that's a good one. I'll remember it. But I just do not understand how mentioning the name Cinkalam together with Eelam, lays "undue weight" on Cinkalam and not mentioning Cinkalam reflects a fair and balanced NEUTRAL point of view. 02:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)SriSuren (talk)

glad you truely trying to follow wp norms. keep it up. --MThekkumthala (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So what's the conclusion about Cinkalam? Do I have your permission to add it now? --SriSuren (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no, please read the rules entirely. especially the part of jimmy wales.--MThekkumthala (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please be kind enough to give the exact link to these rules you are refering to? I'll really appreciate that. Alternatively you could copy and paste the section you want me to read.--SriSuren (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i prefer to let you find the part yourself. it won't harm you to go through it when you edit on this website --MThekkumthala (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LOL. So you do not want to give the reference to the rules you are talking about? How do I know what rules you are refering to? Just give the link or Copy and Paste it/them on this page. (Search for Jimmy Wales gives these results: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=jimmy+wales&fulltext=Search+Help&fulltext=Search- 3000+)--SriSuren (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view --MThekkumthala (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have read most of it before and i do not still understand how, mentioning Cinkalam as another name used for Sri Lanka in Sangam literature, together with Eelam is breaking the rule of "Neural point of view" or "laying undue weight" on Cinkalam, while NOT mentioning Cinkalam and only mentioning Eelam is fair and balanced and is absolutely NPOF.

Let me also summarize the dispute the discussion upto now - you reverted my edit, where I had added the word Cinkalam, giving your reason as "unreliable source since it is a Sinhala source". Then I stated that the source refers to the Tamil lexicon. You answered by saying that it is a "one timer" a seldom word used by Lankans. When I said it is a Tamil word, and that I'll be reinstating my edit,if you didn'thave any further objections, you accused me of edit waring and said I can reinstate it, if I give you 3 reliable references. Then when I questioned whether it was a Wikipedia rule, you avoided answering that and started talking about undue weight and wanted me to read the rules. After requesting you for the rules you gave me the link to the rules you are refering to. The rules you have given me do not state anything about 3 references and the section on NPOF supports me, and dissaproves the way you reverted my edit. So I'll be reinstating my edit, or you could kindly revert your own edit, since I have proven beyond any doubt that you have no grounds to revert my edit. Since I am not sure about this is going to count for 3 reverts, I am going to wait for 24 hours. Hope you will revert it back on your own. --SriSuren (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

you may read this tooWikipedia:Fringe theories. You need more, reliable and independent sources to support your claim. you have already been sufficiently warned. i won't help you anymore. --MThekkumthala (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mentioning that Sri Lanka was also called Cinkalam in Sangam literature is a fringe theory? LOL. Then you are about 2000 years late to dispute that "theory". The true indigenous people of Cinkalam, the Cinkalar are still alive and kicking. They are not a theory, like the "Tamil ilam". My source is reliable and independant enough. I'll be reinstating my edit, and you had better call the Administrators to check the reliability of my source. The fringe theory is that some Tamils had an independant country here called Tamil Ilam and that these Tamils are indigenous to Sri Lanka, while another part who is in India and the Indentured labourers in the plantations are not indigenous to Sri Lanka. Added to all the contradictions and false claims in the Wikipedia article edited by the Tamil editors is that Tamils are one ethnic group. Nobody can explain how only some Tamils are indigenous to Sri Lanka, while others are not. I'll be correcting all the politically motivated edits, which are not at all based on reality. --SriSuren (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We are not interested in your private theories. only good sources count and thousands of them support the content there.--MThekkumthala (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What theory are to refering to? --SriSuren (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

your theory that Tamils were not native to lanka and all the other theories you talked about are fringe theories.. there is no way you can come through with these stupid ideas. Too many smart people have written against your dreams. --MThekkumthala (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Smart people? Like who? Tamils are indigenous to Tamil nadu (Tamilakam) and not Sri Lanka - - and that is not a theory, that is a fact. Tamils came to Sri Lanka from Tamil nadu, didn't they? So, what is there for these smart people to write about? Writing books to explain this migration of Tamils from Tamil Nadu to Ilam (= Cinkalam) is not going to make the Tamils indigenous to Sri Lanka, it just proves where the Tamils originated and migrated from, and that is where the Tamils are indigenous to, not Sri Lanka. The same people can't be indigenous to several different places. --SriSuren (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jungle peoples in South India speak Dravidian languages. eg Irula--MThekkumthala (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So? What does it have to do with the Sri Lankan Tamils and the Veddas? Veddas are not related to the Sri Lankan Tamils, and I want to see the references to scholarly studies which say Veddas are related to the Iruals/ Dravidian speaking tribes. Moreover the Veddas have never spoken anything dravidian, but some other non-IA and non-Dravidian language. And please don't bring the discussion here. I have posted the question in the Tamil people's talk page. Answer it there, so that everybody in that page too can participate. --SriSuren (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have some very nationalistic views towards Sri Lankan Tamils. The Veddhas are related to South Indians genetically and culturally. As well as the Coast Veddhas speak the Tamil language. Wikipedia is not the place for SInhala Nationalism. I'm not the type to sit here and watch you write your propaganda on wikipedia. The Pandyan Dynasty had already controlled North, and Eastern part of Ceylon by the time Vijaya had arrived. Moreover, if you really want to get technical, it is a widely known fact that the Sinhalese people and the Sinhalese language itself is not native to the island. If you don't history, please don't waste your time here. (Tamilan101 (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC))Reply[reply]

So why don't you give the references as to which south Indian tribes the Veddas are related to, in the releveant place in article without bringing the discussion here? If you want to discuss this issue, discuss it in the discussion I have started in Tamil people's talk page. Veddas who have adopted Tamil speak Tamil, and the Veddas who have adopted Sinhalese, speak Sinhala, that doesn't make the Veddas Tamil or Sinhala, they are just Tamilized or Sinhalized Veddas. All Veddas irrespective of whether they are Tamilized or Sinhalized, maintain their Vedda identity. Tamilization of the Veddas is very recent, which is shown in the fact the Veddas still use the Vedda language which is highly influenced by the Sinhalese language. And please do not come with personal attacks, about nationalistic views etc. Also, I am not interested in whether you have the time or not to write in Wikipedia. If you do not have the time, then do not write anything. What is accepted here is that one has the references before one writes something in Wikipedia, not the other way around, that is trying to construct a bogus theory and can't find references, and therefore attacking other editors. I am going to take this matter with the Administrators at the top level here, if you and also MThekkumthala continue to write in your Original Research and revert perfectly justified and referenced edits. --SriSuren (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep writing propaganda and nationalistic view on wikipedia. I have a big surprise for you.(Tamilan101 (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Please keep to the topic and stop personal attacks, threats and harrassments. I am not interested in discussing you or me. I'll complain to the adminstrators about your behaviour, if you keep harrassing me. Also, maintain the threading in a discussion as required. --SriSuren (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Vikrama Rajasinha of Kandy,and also Tamil People articles. you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 122.164.227.147 (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi SriSuren, I thought I'd get in touch with you regarding Tamilian101's constant reversion of this page (tantamount to vandalism). I have listed my reasons in support of changing the article name, leaving out the name of the king in numerous languages (Sinhala, Tamil and Telegu). I was hoping you'd be able to get in touch with an administrator to resolve the edit conflict.

There seems to be an unconstructive edit war over the name of this article. I think it's time the matter was resolved by an administrator. The article was previously entitled, "Sri Vikrama Rajasinha of Kandy". "Sri Vikrama Rajasinha" was the most common name by which the last king was known as per both Sri Lankan and European records, a perusal of books on the Kanydan period will confirm this. Yes, "Sri" is an honorific prefix, but it is also the most common name by which he was known. The prefix "Mother" appears in the wikipedia entry on "Mother Teresa", this is in accordance with MOS:HONORIFIC: "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included". Secondly, Tamilian101 has been attempting to add "Prince Kannusamy" to the king's name. Pre-coronation titles should appear in the article, but certainly not in the title of the article. Addressing a king by the lower title, "prince", is incorrect and disrespectful. The article on Queen Elizabeth does have "Princess Elizabeth" appended the the article's title for this reason. Regardless of your politics, historical revisionism is unhelpful. Prince Kannusamy Nayaka, a member of the Madurai royal family, chose the name "Sri Vikrama Rajasinha" upon his coronation (aged 18), and that is the most common name by which he was known throughout his life.

Furthermore, adding the name of the king in three separate languages on the English Language version of wikipedia clutters up the page with information that it largely uninformative for the vast majority of readers. It should be noted that Sri Lanka's inhabitants at the time also included Burghers and Moors (who spoke Dutch and Arabic among other languages), listing his names in all these languages is unnecessary clutter. This is why Queen Elizabeth's name does not appear in Welsh, Gaelic or any other language on the wikipedia entry, because it is uninformative on an English language encyclopedia and adds unnecessary clutter.

This is an important article on one of the most interesting periods of Sri Lankan history, so please let's work together to make it more informative an accessible without quibbling over unconstructive modifications.

Thanks124.168.64.51 (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These two issues are not connected. Clue - that's why you don't see Tamilan101 active in the move discussion. :) He is just interested in talking of "Tamil originated". He has removed important information to add Tamil, Tamil, Tamil, in the article. There's no mention of Sinhala at all. The article name change (also called Move) has been done by Labattblueboy on rather misunderstod interpretations of the naming policies. He has done this on many articles on the same day. I have checked only the ones he has done on the same day as he did the change on Sri Vikrama Rajasinha, and he has thousands of edits so I can't check all of them. He has made well known Hindu Swamis into unrecognizable lay names, by taking out Swami from the names. If I get a chance later on, I'll get the Swamis' name corrected too. As for Tamilan101 you have to see what you are dealing with. He is claiming that even Anuradhapura is a Tamil kingdom. Let's get the article title changed back to the real name, and then get on with the content. The only way to handle these claims from people like Tamilan101 is to be patient and present infomation from sound and reliable sources. The sources he has used like Daya Somasundaram, and other Tamils who are political involved in these same issues, are not reliable at all. So let's get the article title changed back and then start on the content disputes. --SriSuren (talk) 06:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi SriSuren, that very much for your reply. I pasted that same message on Tamilian101's talk page in the hope that he would see reason, but it is clear that he is trying to engage in politically motivated historical revisionism. I was really hoping he'd either get bored and more on or see reason, but it is clear that none of this is likely to occur. I originally uploaded the image of Sri Vikrama Rajasinha and added some content when it was first created. It's unfortunate that no one else seems to be challenging Tamilian101's blatant vandalism. I'll also wait until the article's name is changed before addressing the content, because it's very clear that the majority of people active in editing the article seem to be inexplicably partial to Tamilian101's brand of historical revisionism (all my edits have been reverted without any of my reasons being addressed on the talk page).

Thanks 124.148.180.226 (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Tamilan101 has broken the 3 revert rule several times(it must be his 9th or 10th revert of the same edits) and has been edit warring for sometime. He seems to think that if he waits 24 hours he can do the same revert 3 times in the following 24 hours. :) I have written explicitly in the talk page and shown his disruptive behaviour. Some days back he was insisting that this King had an alias and putting that in the title of the infobox and was reverting my edits, over and over again, even after I explained that the king didn't have an alias. When the title issue is settled, I will take up the issue of Tamilan101 too. Just look at the messages he has left in my talk page. He can't threaten people and behave the way he is doing. He has taken important information off Sri Vikrama R article and others too, to insert his Tamilized version. I am making a list of his edits and will show how he disrupts Wikipedia.

The problem of the scripts - According to Wikipedia naming guidelines WP:NCIN, Tamil script in this king's name need not be included at all since it is a Sinhala name. So Sri Vikrama Rajasinha's name need'nt be even written in Tamil at all, and Tamilan101 is insiting that it should be written in Tamil first!!! This kind of preposterous demands are the root cause to much of the trouble we have. The Tamilized form of the name is Sri Vikirama Rasasingkan or Rajasinghan/m, as he himself has written in Tamil script. I am not at all against having the Tamil script, and I think Tamil ought to be there, if Sinhala is going to be there, but that is because Sri Lankan Tamils also are part of our country, not because of what Tamilan101 is trying to claim. He is trying to claim that the Kandyan kingdom was a Tamil kingdom... Tamilan101's behaviour and his edits are totally unacceptable. There are some guidelines in Wikipedia as to what can go in where, in such articles. Tamilan101 cannot write what he has written in that article - the whole introduction of the article is dedicated to Tamil which was supposedly one of the spoken languages of the King. :) "Tamil speaking Hindu Telugu originated"..... what a demening way to talk of a king. He seems to be under the impression that not only the Kandyan kingdom, but Anuradhapura too, was Tamil. It's just hilarious. I really do not think any of these non-english scripts should be included, since as you say it creates a lot of clutter.

It would be great if you could hang around for a while, and contribute to the Sri WR article and other articles too. If possible register an account, because that article in particular is going to be re-protected, once the protection expires in a couple of days, and also you can keep track of your edits and other stuff. I think the best way to go about editing that article is to revert it back to a neutral version and make a draft and get everybody to agree and then transfer the information into the article. We will need administrator intervention there too.

Back to the move - Please help with the move discussion too. (remember to put new text under old text, and mark your comments as comments, or just leave it blank, since you have already voted). I think you are slightly wrong in saying that Sri is an honourific, because we use Sri for many things. Just look at my username. I just added Sri in front of my name. It is not an honourific. Also whatever Sri is in this King's name, it is not a Royal title, as Labattblueboy is try to claim, refering to epigraphical studies and other stuff. I don't think English and other European languages have equivalent terms, so they have trouble understanding what Sri signifies. I am just trying to figure out which administrator to contact in regards to the move. One administrator said he can't help and refered to the Royalty and Nobility naming convention page, but that page is almost dead, and there is only one administrator there. Let's see whether he can see into our problem. I want to write a summary in the move request page before contacting any admistrators, because no administrator seems to want to get involved since it looks complicated. --SriSuren (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I'll definitely help with the move discussion. I actually agree with you about Sri's usage being more expansive than an honorific. But as you noted, since there isn't a common Western equivalent I felt it easier to concede it was an honorific, which I acknowledge is quite a reductive definition. I managed to find my account details, which should make things easier. Hopefully we can get an administrator to bear in on this soon. Vivecius (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We finally got the attention of an administrator. :).... I see that you have written your vote and view, as Vivecius in the summary, so I will take out the information I had written yesterday in the summary refering to you as (IP user 124.YY..), since it can be counted as another vote. Also since you infact don't mean that Sri is always used as an honourific, in the way Labattblueboy claims Sri to be, it is best to take it off, to avoid confusion. I have left a message in your userpage too, and please check your mail. --SriSuren (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vivecius, The move has been decided in favour of moving. So please disregard the above comment, and I have not done the changes mentioned above, since it was unnecessary afterall.--SriSuren (talk) 11:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You seem to have focused solely on ref#96 because it purportedly backs up your POV but there are many sources which have described the Sri Lankan IDP camps as internment camps. Here are some:

• Channel 4 News 05.05.09 This programme obtained the first independently filmed pictures from the internment camps set up by the Sri Lankan government to house Tamils who have fled the country's civil war.
• Guardian 26.05.09 Sri Lankans divided by war: Tamils trapped in internment camps tell of desperate hunt for loved ones.
• MSNC 18.07.09 Sri Lanka keeps refugees in camp that aid built: Aid workers, diplomats fear Manik Farm actually used for internment.
• HRW 28.07.09 Prolonged internment of such persons would not only amount to arbitrary detention but it also aggravates the humanitarian situation needlessly.
• Economist 15.10.09 Sri Lanka's interned Tamils: Winners and losers.
• SMH 30.10.09 What practical measures has the Australian Government taken to address the suffering of Tamil civilians in the internment camps in Sri Lanka since the war ended in May?
• CNN 25.11.09 Nearly 150,000 refugees from Sri Lanka's civil war remain detained in Sri Lankan government internment camps, according to the United Nations' chief humanitarian affairs official, John Holmes.

BTW, have you read Telegraph 23.05.09? Where does it prove that the camps weren't internment camps?--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following line may or may not be true : "Alongside the national anthems of India and Bangladesh, Sri Lanka's national anthem "Namo Namo Mata" was also penned by Rabindranath Tagore in Bengali and set to its tune by Tagore at the request of his favourite Sri Lankan student at Santiniketan, Ananda Samarakoon, in 1938"

As I found another resource (again a newspaper) where it says that Samarakoon is the author but speculates if Tagore is the music composer for the same. So one needs to be careful.

Please fine the newspaper resource here : [[1]] Palvib (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC) PalvibReply[reply]

Ofcourse, Tagore didn't compose Sri Lanka Matha. Both the music and the lyrics to Sri Lanka Matha was composed by Ananda Samarakoon. I doubt Tagore had anything to do with Sri Lanka Matha, except that that Ananda Samarakoon was his student. I only reformulated the sentence which was previously in the article, because it just stopped short of claiming that Sri Lanka Matha was originally sung in Bengali, with a name which was supposedly was "Nama Nama Sri Lanka Matha" :), but chose to keep the sentence as whole, since Tagore was not my main conern in that article. I'll edit it with more references. I found the online version to your aticle too, so I can use that too. Thanks. --SriSuren (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Sri Lanka Demographics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Distributor108 (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Sri_Lanka, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Distributor108 (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

if you interested in working together to help develop the SL article, send me your contact, like an email. do you have gmail? Distributor108 (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is wrong with my edit? If you think CIA fact book can serve as a source for such an important thing as the official language situation in Sri Lanka, you are thoroughly mistaken. Tamil is one of the two official and national languages of Sri Lanka, and it will remain so as long as Sri Lanka exists, or rather I should say as long as the island exists. You must really be joking if you think that you can decide this based on such a thin source, as a fact book. So before u mess with Sri Lanka related articles, I suggest you check some basic information about the country.

I have no intention of developing the articles in the direction you are trying to take them. You are insulting a whole people by even thinking that u can degrade the Tamil language based on your CIA fact book. Even before Tamil was given official status it was almost an official language in Sri Lanka. I'll be writing in this fact soon in the article. --SriSuren (talk) 16:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you think that CIA world fact book isn't a reliable source, that's your problem. The source is good, if you have a problem with its content I cannot help you. Please open a dispute to this regard. Distributor108 (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sri_Lanka. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.Distributor108 (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use some common sense. Tamil is an official and national language of Sri Lanka. You can't change constitutionally recognised facts by giving reference to the CIA fact book. I am not going to waste my time opening disputes on this matter, as I see you have already taken this up in that committee thing. I'll just wait and see what they see. Do not revert my edit without citing the constitution. Because that is the only acceptable source on this matter. If you can't recognise vandalism from a perfectly legitimate edit, you should not be at Wikipedia. --SriSuren (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Sri_Lanka, you may be blocked from editing. ,You cannot remove content which is properly sourced from an independent reliable source which is in compliance with WP reliable source policy. Thank youDistributor108 (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent editing history at Sri Lanka shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Monty₈₄₅ 17:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very, very funny. Distributor108 is spreading falsehoods about only Sinhala being the official language of Sri Lanka, and calls my perfectly legitimate and documented edit where I added that Tamil is also an official language as vandalism, and then he goes and complains about me. Something is terribly wrong at Wikipedia. You should block him without a warning. He has been creating majour disruptions in the Sri Lanka article by trying to insert falsehoods into the article. Just check his edits. --SriSuren (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Though I don't agree with Distributor108, you also should be blocked immediately for your POV pushing on Wikipedia.Hillcountries (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POV = Point of View. What is said in the constitution is not my POV. And if you refering to me disagreeing with you claiming that Devanampiyatissa was not a Sinhalese king, and that the Sinhalese people didn't exist then etc, then it is not my Point of View that Devanampiyatissa was a Sinhalese king, and that the Mahavamsa is a Sinhalese people's chronicle and that all the other kings you claim were't Sinhalese are infact Sinhalese. It is what the reliable sources say. So keep your fringe theories written my anonymous authours out of Wikipedia. --SriSuren (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a sockpuppet investigation involving you here.Distributor108 (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You really need to go to the nearest supermarket and get some common sense. --SriSuren (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Sri Lanka". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 22 April 2012.

OK. I have already said I agree. This is such a clear matter, unless Distributor08 manages to change the constitution of Sri Lanka, the Tamil language stays as an official and national language. --SriSuren (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The request for formal mediation concerning Sri Lanka, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Hi, I have moved the discussion that was on User talk:Hillcountries to Talk:Prince Vijaya#User:Hillcountries's claim that king Vijaya was not Sinhalese so it can reach a wider audience. Please continue commenting there. Btw I got your massage and thanks for that, and everything else too. Sorry I could not reply earlier but I have been extremely busy. Thanks--Blackknight12 (talk) 07:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's alright. We can't put aside our lives and jobs because of Wikipedia. The solution you chose was the best regarding the discussion about the Sinhalese kings, since it affects several other articles and cannot be discussed in each of the talk pages. I became aware of the problem, because I checked your edits since I hadn't seen you for sometime, and saw all these reverting back and forth. I am really amazed as to how anybody can seriously claim that these kings were not Sinhalese, this type of theories are such a waste of energy and we can't get anything done - everytime somebody gets an idea about how they want to rewrite history they want to write it in Wikipedia too. I want to edit the Nayaks and Sri Vikrama articles, and solve the problem there once and for all, but there's always other articles taking up time. You have forgotten Devanampiyatissa in the list, I'll add him. It must have taken a lot of time to link all that. --SriSuren (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		For being a significant Wikipedian in WikiProject Sri Lanka,Appreciate your Contributions Keep up the Good Work සිංහලයා (talk) 11:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. --SriSuren (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please give citation for stating Sinhala as Aryan language. If there is another citation in the article (though I don't find any) you can refer the same citation using the "name" attribute. Add the ref tag as shown below.

<ref name="xxx"/>

Aravind V R (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What exactly is your problem? Sinhala is not classified as anything else than an Indo-Aryan language. Have u read the article and the references at the bottom? I can't see the purpose of specifically adding a reference to support that Sinhala is an Indo-Aryan language, exactly where u demand it to be, when the whole article is about the Indo Aryan language, Sinhala. It is subject specific common knowledge that Sinhala is an Indo-Aryan language, so please keep original research and personal opinions out of Wikipedia and do not demand references for obvious facts well supported in the article body itself. References of the type you are demanding is needed only if a statement is controversial or likely to be challenged. For your information, Sinhala is not classified as anything else than an Indo-Aryan language, and your demands for references and challenging this cannot be taken seriously at all. Quite frankly I think it is ridiculous. If u feel that u want to challenge well established facts like this classification, which is unanimously agreed upon by all reputable linguists and academics, please do it outside Wikipedia. I am not going to add any additional references. Regards, --SriSuren (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I would like to hear your opinion on this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Sri Lanka: pre-Colonial era (500 BC – 1505 AD). :)--Blackknight12 (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have just taken a quick look at the article. It looks like it has (and has had) some good information and it might be worth keeping it, after thorough facelift, though. I agree that it has copied sections and also I think the title is a bit too general/wide. I'll get back to u in the discussion page. SriSuren (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have reported at ANI where your name is also involved.Hillcountries (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wish you a Very Happy 2013 filled with joy and happiness.
May the blessings of the Noble Triple Gem be with you !!! MediaJet (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Sorry for the delay. I hadn't logged into Wikipedia for some time.... Hope everything is fine with you and yours in the now 2 month old year :). Regards, Suren. SriSuren (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G'day, I'm a bit concerned about potentially WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour in your recent edits on List of concentration and internment camps and Genocides in history. Wholesale deletion of reliably sourced material from articles will not help and will rather hinder any attempts to ensure WP:NPOV on such difficult articles. It will also get you blocked pretty smartly. Please discuss the matter on the relevant talk pages. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Good day to u too. I think its taking a bit too hard in, to call my edit battleground behaviour. :) These camps were refugee camps for the IDPs. Numerous claims and allegations were made by various groups, that these were internment camps and even concerntration camps, and the highly charged and controversial terminology used in these socalled reliable sources, contradict with the content they write. In all these sources without exception the critism of these camps is based on what they meant was the slow process of resettlement of the IDPs. Can you answer the question, as to whether internment camps and concerntration camps have resettlement plans and ongoing active resettlement of the interned?

These IDP camps do not fullfill the criteria for inclusion in this list because it clearly states that "Certain types of camps are excluded from this list, particularly refugee camps set up to house refugees who have fled across the border from another country in fear of persecution, or have been set up by an international non-governmental organization", and these camps were set up by the UN to house the displaced people, all of whom have been resettled.

See also:

1. UN press briefing, on 23rd April 2009, i.e right after the Sri Lankan army broke the sand bund on the beach where the LTTE was holding the civilians hostage, and thousands of civilians (103,000) escaped the war zone. The speculative question about these camps being internment camps were put forward already then, but rejected by the UN.

2. UN press briefing, on 24th April 2009 - UNHCR representative explains what is happening in regards to the IDPs and the IDP camps.

3. A full interveiw with the UNHCR representative - in this interview he explains how the camps are run and the troubles and difficulties they are facing.

4. John Holm's press briefing on 23rd november 2009 - Compare this press statement from John Holmes with the socalled reliable source, namely CNN's article.

I have given u a short answer here, I will give a slightly longer explanation in the artilce talk page. We can continue the discussion there, if needed. Anyways i think lists should have clear and unambigous criteria and entries into any list should strictly adhere to the criteria for inclusion, because lists are particularly used to avoid WP:NPOV, as is clearly the case here, where sources given fail to verify the status of these camps being internment camps or concerntration camps, on the contrary, they call them internment camps, and go on to describe activities of resettlement! Regards, Suren. SriSuren (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		Have an Enjoyable New Year !!!
		Wishing you a very Happy & Blessed Sinhala & Tamil New Year, May this New Year bring you much Happiness & Prosperity. May you Live a Long Life Full of Gladness and Health. MediaJet talk 10:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply] Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy Sinhala & Tamil New Year)) to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Thank you. I am a bit late again :) hadn't logged in for sometime. Hope u had a nice New Year. SriSuren (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Tamilakam". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 06:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This Dispute Resolution closed before I could answer. --SriSuren (talk) 07:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[2] Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Thanks for informing me. I have browsed through the ANI, and I will leave a comment as soon as time allows me. As you know this is a very complicated issue, as a lot of unlrelated stuff not backed by any scholarly sources are being thrown about by that editor in question and I do not know where to start, as a complete comment would take a good 100 pages to write and document. I see that u have written ".....the Naga's were not Tamils, but Tamil-speaking people". If this is a typo you can correct it.

(PS. A Tamil is a Tamil speaking person, i.e his/her native laguage/mother tongue/national language is Tamil. Tamils adopt other languages when they live in other countries, but still they remain Tamil. For example Tamils who migrated to England, U.S.A, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, citing the civil war in Sri Lanka as reason to emigrate, have adopted English and most of the younger generation Tamils in these countries do not speak Tamil).

As for the Nagas in the dispute here (i.e the ones mentioned in Manimekalai) they were a non-Tamil-speaking people as per source mentioning them. Since the only primary reference to Mannipallavam is Manimekalai, and it is also one of the few primary references to Naganadu ^A where it is clearly said that the Nagas didn't speak Tamil, which is confirmed by the secondary source, i.e the reference I have given from Dr. Karthigesu Indrapala, a Sri Lankan Tamil historian and scholar, there should be no argument about this. ^[1]

Quoting from Dr. Indrapala's book:

1. "..... a rare reference to the language of the Nagas is found in a story included in the Buddhist Tamil epic Manimekalai. In this story, a Tamil maritime trader is shipwrecked in the land of the Nagas (presumably Nagadipa), but manages to get assistance 'because he had thoroughly learnt their language'(XVI: 11.60-61). Such a statement implies knowledge among Tamil-speakers that the Nagas spoke a different language". Page 350

2. That the Nagas spoke a language different from Tamil is seen from a rare reference to their language in the Manimekalai. Page 372

Search results for "Manipallavam" in Google books - 104 results

Search results for "Naganadu" in Google books - 46 results

Search results for "Naga nadu" in Google books - 19 results

Search results for Manipallavam + "Naganadu" in Google books - 5 results

Search results for Manipallavam + "Naga nadu" in Google books - 1 result

I will very soon write a comment in the article page explaining in detail about how this identification (or rather the failed identification) of Tamils with the Nagas (inhabitants) of Naganadu and Manipallavam is done, pointing out the the lose ends and false constructions such as the placing Tamils in these two places, and then the editors trying to add Naganadu as a Nadu of Tamilakam, when to begin with the source clearly says that the inhabitants didn't speak Tamil and the Nadus of Tamilakam are given in other Tamil literature, and from there how these false claims are extended to the dimensions of having world renouned glorious Tamil emporiums in Sri Lanka and how it is then extended to be a Tamil civilization, which is supposed to have existed in parts of Sri Lanka. Upto this day, not a single reliable source has been provided for these claims. All attempts to get the editor(s) claiming this stuff to give references have been met with verbal "attacks" to the integrity of the editors and even Tholkappium is discarded as an unreliable piece of work in addition to the unconstructive discussions and statements, asserting the same core matters which are disputed. As I see it, this is a deliberate attempt to stop clear information getting into the article. This editor in question (copperchloride) even has the nerve to say that he is not disputing but asserting!! I will write the comment in the ANI as soon as possible. SriSuren (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notes

A. ^ As far as I know, besides Manimekalai, Silappadikaram is the only primary source which mentions Naganadu. (Manimekalai is a sequal to Silappadikaram, it starts where Silappadikaram stops, so from one generation to the other, the Nagas in those places could have not been replaced with Tamils).

References

Hi. as for ".....the Naga's were not Tamils, but Tamil-speaking people", it was not a typo, I'm simply not an Asian, but a European. My knowledge of India, which is limited, is derived from books. But I'm good at finding and understanding sources! Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I gathered that you were not from our part of the world from your first edit in the article, that's why I explained to you who a Tamil person is. (Ethnic identities are difficult to understand for outsiders and in the case of India, its complicated with such things as tribes, castes etc, not to mention all the different myths, legends and claims made, but language remains one of the main ethnic markers. India as you know is divided into linguistic states).

As for the Nagas in the edit dispute ( that is the ones mentioned in Manimekalai), one of the definite things we know about them is that they were not Tamil speaking, as per the same scholar in the reference you have quoted in the article on "Naga people of Sri Lanka" and "Tamilakam", namely Indrapala (in John Holt's Sri Lanka reader). He is the same author who wrote the Phd thesis you mentioned in the talk page. Gathering from what you wrote in the "Naga people of SL" and your latest comment in Tamilakam talkpage, I think a clearer way to formulate what you wrote in ANI page would be "Nagas were not Tamils, but had adopted the Tamil language." Again, to stress the core problem I have with the Naga issue in the Tamilakam article is that some editors attempting to claim that Manipallavam and Naganadu are clearly identified as Nagadipa and Jaffna penninsular and then trying to present these places as a Tamil kingdom / part of Tamilakam etc using Manimekalai, when it clearly follows from what is written in Manimekalai that at the time Manimekalai was written, the Nagas in Naganadu and Manipallavam were not Tamil speaking. SriSuren (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure if you guys have realized but the thread at ANI has been archived for some reason by a bot, not sure why but someone should ask an admin to reinstate it.--Blackknight12 (talk) 07:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know where to ask. Is there a noticeboard for it or is it just to ask an administrator in their talk page to reinstate it? I'll get back to the ANI as soon possible, as you can see below in my talkpage, there is another issue which has turned up.... This one is not so complicated, I'll settle it first. SriSuren (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I asked in both the Teahouse and Help desk and finally got an anwser - it seems that its best to open a new one, which I will do, becasue this is not something which is going to stop without intervention from the administrators. He is taking too much of all our time, when he has no scholarly backing for any of what he is saying, and he has actually halted the article and the discussion going any further, by these absurd claims. Its not only in this article, its everywhere he goes. Take a look at this, he is mixing up scripts, changing what he said in the previous comment and coming up with all sorts of directly wrong claims and statements, as if they have any scholarly backing.

Anyway the limit is reached. He is disrupting editing constantly, and trying to divert the discussion and evade detection by using the talkpage. The issue about Tolkappium being '"a piece of disputed literature"' is just another made up issue, since its not only Tolkappium which states these boundaries, its the whole corpus of Tamil literature, and the geography and landscape from those times are given in Sanskrit literature and literature of other countries too, and there's absolutely no dispute about the boundaries of the Tamil country amoung scholars, as the references show. That list of references contains almost all the authoratative scholars in the field, which CuCl2 dismisses as "voluminous references to Tolkappium". SriSuren (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Vatteluttu alphabet. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Could the person who posted this please sign it? SriSuren (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was User_talk:Copperchloride.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. SriSuren (talk) 05:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Anti-Christian violence in India, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Remove that image again will see you at either ANI or AE Darkness Shines (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What exactly is the point of that image? That image does not add any value to the article at all. Its just so macabre and gross and it disturbs the user not to mention minors, and there's no mention of Hindus raping Christian nuns in the references given. I don't have the time to follow this up on the image now. I'll get back to this later. But if you jump to my userpage and start ordering me around and bullying me again, with warning signs, it's you who will be reported at ANI for bullying and harrasement. SriSuren (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really do not care at all what you find disturbing, and I hope that children see that image, and from it learn the damage such abuse can cause, feel free to try ANI, I get dragged there about once a week. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, it looks like you have a problem with attitute. Although you don't care what I find disturbing, as a freely available encylopedia, some caution must be shown when adding images, and the usefullness and whether it really adds any encyclopedic value to the articles must be considered. As for the whole article looks more or less like a hate campaign against Hindus. Nothing is said about aggressive Christian missionary activities to convert Hindus especially in rural villages, where the missionaries go and offer money to poor people. I'll get back to this when I have more time. There is always two sides, and articles should be balanced. Regards. SriSuren (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just for the record, it was my fault. I searched for "rape" instead of "raping", which was in the given reference. But this warning and User:Darkness Shines's attitude is totally unwarrented. Everybody can do mistakes. There should be a more civil and polite way to inform about edit, than the way this editor has chosen. I'll get back to the image later, as informed in User:Darkness Shines's user page. SriSuren (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Maldives, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Your last edit involved removal of sourced sensitive information, if you still continue in pushing your point of views without clarifying or resolving it with other editors, next step is reporting at WP:ANI.

--CuCl₂ ^{(talk . contr . mail)} 06:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your newly added reference is this one. Which is a list of names for Maldives, does not support what you wrote in your edit summary, nor the etymology.

You added the same fake reference as supporting your claim. The whole book does not have a single occurance of Tamil or Malayalam.

Tamil - = search results in the 0

Malayalam - search results in the book 0

If you revert edits without reason, or add fake references and abuse warning templates it will be you who will be taken to ANI. SriSuren (talk) 07:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I only asked you to show (in proof) how did you remove Tamil and Malyalam from the content, with a link in place. You have very well done that, but reverting a different source I added is a violation of the other source I added clearly cuts the ice with regard to the argument. You have removed the source to suit your POV and that deserved a Warning Template. I have reverted your edit, feel free to take it(content had existed for a long time since,yours was the disruptive version) to the article's talk page, and maybe later to the WP:DRB if there is no third opinion. Any more disruptive editing and baseless allegations apart from your personal attacks, I'd like to inform that I have the necessary pre-requisites to take you to the WP:ANI.

--CuCl₂ ^{(talk . contr . mail)} 09:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is my Point of View in removing that source? As you yourself say, I have now proven that it was a FAKE reference and you had already reverted my edit twice. You cannot ask other editors to prove that the reference is fake, you must check the reference BEFORE you add it.

Your new source was nothing but a list of names, it does not support any claims of the etymology of Maldives, nor does it support your translations of the words. Its a list of present day names for Maldives. That's all it is. Anybody looking at it can clearly see that. This is the list.

So, do not try to divert the discussion, since you reverted my edit twice, and an IP from Tamil nadu too suddenly showed up and had reverted my edit too. Also, when citing, u have to add relevant references and that list does not support what was said in the preceeding sentence, as explained in your user page. That list is a list of present day names for Maldives, but it does not support what you are claiming in any way, and it was just inserted in another place, without any information about it. I kept that list in my last edit, and added information on what the list is about, and moved it further down as it does not have anything to do with the etymology of Maldives. This is clearly explained in your talk page and in my edit summary.

My edit - difference.

My edit summary - "As pr. evidence given about the fake reference in my talkpage. Added relevant info on the geonames link and moved it down. It doesn't have anything to do with etymology, but is a list of present day names"

So, trying to complicate and divert and disrupt even this discussion, when its not about that list, won't be in your favour, it is just proof of your overall disruptive behaviour.

Now you have again reverted my edit, and added "In Malayalam, "Garland of Islands" can be translated as Maladweepu (മാലദ്വീപ്). In Tamil, "Garland of Islands" can be translated as MalaiTheevu (மாலைத்தீவு)", but the source given is the same, and as proven above, it does not support such a claim.

Your edit - Difference

Your edit summary - "It gives the translated version nevertheless".

What is this "it"? Neither the list nor the book translates anything from Tamil or Malayalam. If this is an honest mistake/misunderstanding you can correct it now. If it is not so, however sorry to drag another editor there, I will take this to ANI, because u simply do not understand, that you cannot do what you are doing. SriSuren (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The reference was not 'ADDED BY ME', it was already there with the content before you removed. That some Tamil Nadu IP reverted your edit saying the comment was referenced, and thats why I asked for proof and elaborate on how the earlier source did not support the content as you claimed and yes, now that you have presented the evidence, I did accept my shortcoming and added a different source altogether.

• The text in the article says, Some theorise that the name Maldives derives from the Sanskrit mālādvīpa (मालाद्वीप), meaning "garland of islands". In Malayalam, "Garland of Islands" can be translated as Maladweepu (മാലദ്വീപ്). In Tamil, "Garland of Islands" can be translated as MalaiTheevu (மாலைத்தீவு).Clearly, you removed this bit of info stating lack of mention in the original source that was in place. Translation of Garland of Islands work out to 'Malaithivu' and 'Malaitweephu' in Tamil and Malayalam(try for yourself). And clearly the source I have given, is a testimony to that. Nowhere it is stating anything whether it was present day names/used for centuries together. Translation of Maldives works out to be Malaithivu in Tamil just as 'Maladweepa' in Sanskrit, and I don't see what is wrong to remove ONLY the Tamil and Malayalam references. I should be the one asking you whether your second revert was deliberate or a misunderstanding.

• Note:I have added this issue to the article's talk page where I will try to get a possible third opinion if you persist on reverting the source; In the meantime Please do not flood my talk page any further;--CuCl₂ ^{(talk . contr . mail)} 12:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why can't you simply give a reference? What you are trying is to get your own original research into the article, by using the talkpage, as you have been doing especially in the article Tamilakam for sometime now. WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:STICKTOSOURCE.

Just take a look at what you have written in the Maldives talkpage? Its an article talkpage, not ANI or another noticeboard to complain about editors. If I have done a mistake, and someone points it out to me, as I have done for you, I'll immediately see that I was wrong, and correct it. I was looking forward to references and suggestions as to how to improve that section, but you had written a complain about me in the article talkpage....

Well, anyway that post of yours is nothing but a total admission that you didn't have references for the content you added and that your actual intention is to give the impression that the word Maladvipa is derived from Tamil or Malayalam or that Tamil/Malayalam has something to do with the derivation. WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:STICKTOSOURCE

What you need is a reference which says that Maladvipa is derived from Tamil and/or Malayalam (one would do since Tamil and Malayalam are closely related), and if you do not have that reference you must not add that sentence in the section about the derivation of the word Maladvipa, since the source you keep adding does not have a single occurance of Tamil or Malayalam in it, which you have already admitted, and if you do not have a reliable source, please do not disrupt Wikipedia, with any more commotions, and please delete the unreferenced content immediately as you yourself have admitted that it is not in the source.

PS. You cannot order other editors not to post in your userpage, when there is an ongoing discussion. And please drop the exaggerations, since I or nobody else have flooded your userpage. I have left a detailed explanation in the article talkpage and a short note in your talkpage, in case of the need for future reference. SriSuren (talk) 07:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I no longer plan on responding; anywhere outside the discussion in the relevant talk page;Thanks.--CuCl₂ ^{(talk . contr . mail)} 07:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like somebody is having trouble facing reality and is deleting records from his userpage LOL. :)

SriSuren (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems that the whole section is original research and unsourced material.

1. The Shell Money of the Slave Trade [[3]]
2. Apte, Vaman Shivram (1985). Sanskrit-English Dictionary. Motilal Banarsidass, New Delhi, 1985.[[4]] (1985 is a reprint) p808, second column. I found Laksha ("one hundred thousand, also in the sense") but I went up to Lakshman but couldnt find a Lakshadeepa. Pls double check.
3. Apperently they have taken it from a deleted wiki article [[5]]
4. [[6]] is just plain stupid. [[7]]

I know that the disruptive edits are escalating and we are fighting a loosing battle but don't get into trouble over this. Editors like User:Copperchloride don't know that you defended when some people claimed Nagas were Sinhalese. A person genuinely interested in history with out political motives is a rare asset. That's why you are important to WP Sri Lanka. We can always get help from a mediator/ expert like User:Joshua Jonathan.

Thanks and take care. Nishadhi (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talkback- User:Nishadhi I'am responding to this since you tagged me to this, And what I have to say is You may instead please think over explaining our respective edits rather than advocating your country fellow's 'goodwill' when anybody can see what is going on. I did not create those sources nor write up that section in the first place, and yet you cheek in calling me 'disruptive'. Your fellow-Sri Lankan would have indeed been genuine in his edits had he removed every bit of info that was manipulated in the context(even then he would have done the wrong thing trifling with content very important to the article). But what he did was ONLY remove the Tamil and Malayalam terminologies(he particularly searched out 'Tamil' in the e-book; and you call me POLITICALLY MOTIVATED) leaving behind Sanksrit and Sinhala, which is obviously an unappealing and disgusting behavior to put up with. That, I only intervened later on and have clearly explained everything on the article's talk page. If you are so impressed with the 'neutrality' of your fellow-citizen you might very well be there yet defending him would you not? Your mate's edits are factually inaccurate, intensely one-sided and very much deliberate into vandalizing the realms of Tamil articles. Suren's edits were always of that kind, I don't find he has contributed anything meaningful ,but is only here to distort historic and political articles to his whims(or yours, in plural), and since he usually doesn't find many checking on him, he is so annoyed with me. Your attitude doesn't surprise me either.--CuCl₂ ^{(talk . contr .}

^mail) 07:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

To Nishadhi,

Thanks. And Thanks for the links too. I have adhered to all the guidelines, so I will not get into any trouble. Its simply not worth it anyways, and as you see from the present status of discussion in the Maldives talk page, this is yet another of his dishonest edits, where he wants to force his point of view on others and get his original research inserted into articles, with fake references, and even resorting to downright lying. I do not know what he will come up with next.... Looks like he is back in the Tamilakam article, and has inserted the same original research again!! This guy simply doesn't get it!!

I saw your posts in the Naga's article and also in the Tamilakam article. Your last post is excellent, and it was a really good thing you did with the attempt to get a timeline for the events previously too. I will contribute there very soon, because when I was reading the different sources, I had the same need. I have made some notes, let us get some other interested editors too, and try to establish some availabe data, places and dates. I just wish I had more time and didn't have to use the little time I have to resolve absurd disputes with unschooled people like CuCl2, who have no idea about what they are talking even. For obvious reasons editors like him who have their own agendas and fake theories will definitely not contribute anything to establish a timeline for the events ;). An established timeline would be a nightmare for them.

SriSuren (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:NPA - "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Calling others "unschooled" or "illegal immigrants" says more about you than it does about the people you are trying to insult.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmm.... ? Which content are you refering to? The content Copperchloride barged in and posted in a post not even meant for him, in my talkpage or the disruption and commotion he is creating across several articles and giving unwarrented warnings? His disruptive behaviour and lack of knowledge becomes the content when he constantly disrupts editing as he is doing in the Maldives article and also in the Tamilakam article and Vatteluttu article. He lacks basic knowledge on the subject matter he is editing and doesn't even possess the knowledge of the definitions and concepts he is trying to use (eg. he doesn't know what literal translation means), besides being dishonest and resorting to downright lying (I can prove with differences in edits and/or screenshots of everything I have written). How can one have an academic discussion with such a person and how can one come to any consensus, when the person is refusing to take the point? He is unschooled, and he needs to learn the basics about the subjects he is trying to edit and read the references he is adding when he reverts (eg. Vatteluttu article).

Who did I call "illegal immigrants"?!!!!? Post the edit differences here as soon as possible. SriSuren (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a disappointing response. It doesn't matter if another editor is totally wrong, you don't engage in personal attacks and name calling. It wasn't "illegal immigrants", it was "asylum seeker". My bad.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To Obi2canibe, the use of "asylum seekers" there seems to be fine, as SriSuren is referring to genuine asylum seekers, from decades back, who are now part of the diaspora, although still LTTE sympathizers. I dont think it was supposed to be in bad faith.

SriSuren, I know what you are going through, but personal attacks are not the answer, don't stoop down to his level. Copperchloride says on his page that his is still a school kid, so I suggest treat him like one and don't expect more from him, school kids are stubborn and immature, so maybe some intellectual discussions can open up his mind...that is if he is willing to cooperate...--Blackknight12 (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blackknight, will he be treated like a school kid? I don't think so and I do not think he is a school kid because he is way too much into adult stuff (eg haiti sex abuse) and the contempt he is showing towards Sri Lanka is too thorough going, to be coming from a school kid. My characterization of him as unschooled is totally justified, and I can prove it with more than one example, and as such its not a personal attack, but a fact. To the characterization of unschooled I would like to add dishonest, down right lying, adding fake references, impolite, provacative, lacks sophistication and is ill mannered, impolite and uses expressions not suitable for Wikipedia (eg. ffs, sorry but I had to write). He is not here for the good of Wikipedia and to share and learn, and produce some good articles, but to advance a particular ideology and related ideologies, of which we all know too well about. And dear Blackknight, do not worry, even if I try my best, I can never sink to his level or Obi2Canbe's level, both of who seem to have majour problems reading and understanding what they see written in plain text. I will not use any words to characterize the latter, as its evident what it is. SriSuren (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Obi2Canbe, LOL. this is just too pathetic and comical when talking of being unschooled.... You come here and accuse me of insulting others by calling them "Illegal immigrants", but it turns out that, I have not CALLED anybody anything, but refered to asylum seekers. If you think "asylum seekers" is an insult and also to begin with you had read "asylum seekers" as "Illegal immigrants", then its you who have a problem. None of the characteristics I have used to describe CuCl2 is without reason or proof, therefore they are not personal attacks. On the other hand your fabricated accusation against me is altogether in another dimension, since you are accusing me of insulting a group of people and also its not related to any edit disputes, but a direct allegation. Fortunately for me, unlike propaganda sites (Tamilnet etc), here at Wikipedia you get exposed, because you have to provide differences. So my advice to you is to stop fabricating allegations and spreading rumours and hoaxes, and stick to the truth and reality, because reality will one day turn and bite you back, like it did here. Now don't come back and make excuses or accuse me of namecalling, because I used the word "pathetic" or any other word here. You accusing me of insulting "others", that is a group people in this way, is quite unacceptable, and says all what I need to know about you. I standby every single word I have written, and if you think my characterization of Copperchloride is namecalling, be my guest and take me to ANI. SriSuren (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The terms illegal immigrants/asylum seekers are routinely used by Sinhalese nationalist to insult the Tamil diaspora. They are also used by fascist groups in the UK/West to describe all ethnic minorities including those born in the West. To me they are no different, hence my confusion, which I corrected when you pointed it out. Why did you use the term "asylum seekers"? Is it of any relevance if they are "asylum seekers"? Aren't "asylum seekers" entitled to basic human rights such as the freedom of expression? Your use of this term and your reaction tells a lot. As does your belief that you are always right and that WP:NPA doesn't apply to you because you have "proof".--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seriously??!! This is simply outrageous. I will not tolerate associations or comparisions to ethno nationalists of any sort or facists groups. As per your own admission you have confused these terms, and as such it is your thought process that is defective, and the confusion is in YOUR own head, so please don't try to place it elsewhere. It is irrelevant to me, as to who use these terms and how they use it, so don't try to make it so.

To explain a bit more to prevent another misunderstanding: - Your reply summarizes, how YOU think, YOUR OWN convictions and values and how YOU perceive the world and who YOU are, and has absolutely nothing to with me or what I wrote. Also, you didn't correct yourself when you were exposed, you simply changed the term I had supposedly used to CALL others to INSULT them, namely from "illegal immigrants " to "asylum seekers", while the accusation of insulting a group of people still remained. Now you have gone a step further and have started elaborating on your initial false accusation by introducing totally new and unrelated and irrelevant elements into the discussion, and insinuating that I have said something about asylum seekers not being entilted to basic human rights and freedom of speech (please post differences, where I have said these things), and in addition you have introduced outrageous comparisions to facist groups in Europe!! Basically, what you have done is, you have taken a simple reference to Tamil asylum seekers out of context and blown it to dimensions of unrecognizable magnitude, making associations to facists and rejection of basic human rights etc etc!!! This is totally unacceptable and I will not tolerate it.

It is your own false and confused conviction that I have used the term "asylum seekers" as an insult. To begin with my statement refers to an era when, what you refer to as the Tamil diaspora was in the making, and the making of this diaspora, which some scholars call Tamil Asylum Diaspora, happened mainly through asylum migration, and the relevance of the people I was refering to being asylum seekers, is a significant factor, because the trauma stories they told to justify their asylum claims (real or made-up), was a majour factor used in the efforts of the separatists to seek legitimacy for carving out a mono-ethnic state called "Tamileelam" for the 10% of the population, in the island. The Tamil separatist ideology depend heavily on victimhood and the demonization of the other. In my view, strictly speaking its incorrect to use the term "Tamil diaspora" you have used for the Tamils from Sri Lanka living outside today, since the Tamils in Sri Lanka itself is a diaspora, though an old diaspora, they are still a dispersal of Tamils from Tamil Nadu/Tamilakam. If you bothered to read my whole comment you would have found that out. Also, there are many other immigrant Tamil communities around the world (Singapore, Malaysia etc).

Nobody is always right, and I have never said that I am always right. This is another of your confused assumptions, and attempts to attribute qualities to my person, without even an iota of evidence. I suggest you follow the Wikipedia guideline you keep copying and pasting here, yourself, without attacking me and discuss the edits and not the contributor. Its quite striking that you support my view on the edit about the derivation of Maldives, but accuse me of thinking I am always right, here in my talkpage. In addition to that, you have completely ignored the last essay Copperchloride has written there, which is almost entirely about me ......

It is evident that you have a problem with taking things out of context and exaggerating, so i am not going to waste my time on this any more. If you have something more to say, and the need to make any more wild accusations and associations please take it to ANI together with the differences of my edits where I have mentioned what u are insinuating about asylum seekers do not have basic human rights and where I have said or indicated that I am always right. If you ever again try to fabricate false accusations against me, I will report it at ANI. Now, if you don't mind, I need to get some long overdue editing done.

Concluding this discussion about asylum seekers here in my talkpage, I'll add this quote:

"Nationals of Tamileelam have no desire to return to Eelam, nor wish to live there, but it helps them to keep living where they live. It is real, lived not as a place, but as an image" - Dr. Pradeep Jeganathan

SriSuren (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you please explain to Obi2canibe's questions, "Aren't "asylum seekers" entitled to basic human rights such as the freedom of expression?

Please note most of the Americans today emigrated after the European Potato Failure or Great Famine (Ireland) as Refugees. This has happened all over the world for numerous reasons.

Please note when you refer, "....was a majour factor used in the efforts of the separatists to seek legitimacy for carving out a mono-ethnic state called "Tamileelam" for the 10% of the population, in the island.", why you should consider the island should not have two different administrative powers when the Tamils are in Majority in the North and the East of the island? I mean the Majority of the 10% population are concentrated in the island's North-Eastern territory. The so-called island which you refer also is part of the Indian Sub-Continental land mass. Why can't you think about annexing Sri Lanka as an administrative unit of India when the Majority of Sri Lankans(both Sinhalese and Tamils) belongs to the Indians genetically.

If that is your view, "....strictly speaking its incorrect to use the term "Tamil diaspora" you have used for the Tamils from Sri Lanka living outside today, since the Tamils in Sri Lanka itself is a diaspora, though an old diaspora, they are still a dispersal of Tamils from Tamil Nadu/Tamilakam." Sinhalese from Sri Lanka are also a diaspora but an old diaspora who emigrated from South India and Bengal. The entire modern humans are a diaspora though an old diaspora from Africa with the Human migration.Shivaass (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]