User talk:Snowolfd4: Difference between revisions

Welcome!

Hello, Snowolfd4, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Mushroom (Talk) 14:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Thanks Mushroom. I Got It. --snowolfd4 08:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and welcome , I added the following comment to Black July page.

Hi Snowolfd4, I added the citation needed tag for the 2 weeks. Leave it for a few days to see if someone comes up with a reputable source. If not feel free to put the actual UTHR figure. About the rapes , if it is unverified after few days can delete that.

Also visit the page on "state terrorism"[[1]]. Section on Sri Lanka has been hijacked by LTTE

Ruchiraw 16:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I just checked the State Terrorism page. Someone's moved the section about Sri Lanka to a separate page with absolutely no sources given. Something should be done about it. Not sure I can get around to it right now though. --snowolfd4 21:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged "State terrorism in Sri Lanka" for deletion. Please visit this page and leave your opinion Ruchiraw 23:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also have a look at LTTE when you have timeRuchiraw 04:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested the "State terrorism in Sri Lanka" page be deleted cos it gives practically no sources. I think that should be the main reason we give for deletion because the WP:AFD page says "The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion."

Also saw what you did to the intro of the LTTE page. I think you did a great job balancing the info and the critisisms. Well Done, is I'd say so myself :-) --snowolfd4 09:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I felt it had to have NPOV. Please visit Terrorist_attacks_carried_out_by_LTTE which has been tagged for deletion and make some comments. Ruchiraw 23:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snowolfd4,
I am working on an article Armed Conflict and Proselytizing. I was wondering if you have read about this subject and can add some information to the article?--Whitesurf 22:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making the article better than it was when you began to tag it, not only tag but also try to contribute to the articles constructively. Looks like a us versus them fight is going on or lossely translated as Tamils versus Sinhalese or worse by proxy LTTE versus Sinhal racists. Instead of that I propose everyone works together to improve the content about Sri Lanka including its seedier side in WikipediaRaveenS 20:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote to keep or move to wictionary the follwing list List_of_Sri_Lankan_Tamil_words_of_foreign_origin It is part of Sri Lanka content and next will be Sinhala lists to be deleted if this goes through. Thanks

Thanks for bringing that to my attention Kongan, but you really didn't have to make any veiled threats about it ;-)

Did not mean it that way, once you start removing content, it will keep going in that direction, we had just began adding content on Sri Lankan Tamil and Sinhala and these deltionist buggers (i really dislike people who belive in deletion in wikipedia) want to delete it. May be it should be renamed, moved over or something, everything is got its value. Even the State terrorism in Sri Lanka, I feel, it should be renamed and prunned down just like notable attacks by the LTTE because each entry can made better as you would have found out in Wikipedia. Thanks

Ya OK. And I didn't mean to criticize you or anything. What I meant was I would have voted to keep regardless of any other factors. And thanks again for bringing it to my attention. --snowolfD4 09:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you comment on the last discussion in the LTTE talk page Ruchiraw 23:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was to Keep and thanks for your voteRaveenS

I notice you keep reverting content on the page Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka despite the fact the content is referenced by sites such as the BBC. If you have issues with the content, why don't you discuss it on the article's talk page, rather than just blank it out, because it doesn't suit your point of view. Right now, your behaviour would constitute as being vandalism. Starsimon 20:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are behaving like a vandal, and you might want to check facts yourself. That Tamilnet reference was added by another user, long ago, and not by myself - and well if you want to deny that incident of the murder of those 5 youths taking place, go ahead, however that doesn't explain you blanking the Pesalai incident or the subsequent incidents you seem, rather unsurprisingly, intent on blanking. Starsimon 20:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the Toronto star article and the BBC article referenced fully. They are both relevant to the statements on the article they are linked to. Starsimon 20:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try to make sense when you write a message... when was there a reference to a great white van on the article page, and that too where it was presented as a fact??? This is geting boring. The statement you keep blanking wasn't added by me, and wasn't referenced by me. That doesn't make what it said necessarily false, but usually, if one had a problem with it, one would try and find other sources to back up the claim, or make note of it on the Talk page of the article, and try and reach a decision, rather than just blank it out. Starsimon 20:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm as cool as a cucumber. I'm interested to know exactly what my "barbaric" comments were?? lol looks like you're taking things a bit too seriously. As for the white van comment... Well, I was referring to it actually not being mentioned on the Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka page, not on the star page. But I see you're clearly upset it was portrayed as fact on the Toronto star page - perhaps that's something you can take up with them. And the problem with your edits was that you blanked out entire sections, not just the comment on the 5 Tamil youths' murders. The least you could have done is rephrase the Pesalai incident, and add references. Like I said before, try discussing statements that have been referenced that you don't like on the talk page, rather than just blanking them out. That includes the temple story. Anyway, this issue seems resolved. Starsimon 21:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing like an ego bruised. Whatever indeed. Like I said before - practice before you preach. And learn to spell in your edit summaries next time - it's spelt RELIABLE. :) Starsimon 21:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Starsimon 22:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Trincomanb 20:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A notable incident was the burning of its public library by the Sri Lankan Army in 1981.[2]

You removed it saying that it is a false statement from Jaffna why ?RaveenS

Sorry I wasn't able to edit Wikipedia for about 2 weeks. I'll just say going to a college 5000 miles from home for the first time is a pretty tiring experience.

But well, I'm Back. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 20:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This wikipedia can be an addiction (from my experience), if you are newly in college concentrate on it :-)))RaveenS

Should I say thanks for the advice? Or is it just a devious ploy to try and keep me from editing pages, eh Raveen ;-) ? --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 20:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take it anyway you want but just like Usenet’s, this effort too is USELESS exercise (my opinion). I am slowly weaning myself away from this effort. RaveenS

Yeah, I kinda agree with you. But I'm NOT GIVING UP yet. :)

Please check out [3].bunix 22:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have mistaken your edits in Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam as 3RR, sorry for any inconvenience caused. --WinHunter ^(talk) 22:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

මචං වීකිපීඩියා ආටිකල් ගැන කියන්න ගොඩක් දේවල් තිබෙනවා. ඒවා මෙතන කියන්න බෑ උන් හැමතැනම. මගේ පිටුවේ සිංහළ යුනිකෝඩ් පණිවුඩයක් තියන්න. ඊට පසු මම කියන්නම්. Lahiru_k 14:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this is legitimate warning Lahirus personal attack I should had Lahiru banned for his malicious edit as well as malicious personal attack. Please tempt me. Thanks 64.201.162.1

This is Lahirus vanadalism versus what was there before

Well done, keep up your good work :-) Lahiru_k 14:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain this edit[4] and your edit summary. I did not blank anything. I added citation tags and began cleaning up the article. Please remain civil. DRK 05:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind... I'm not sure what happened. However, the request for civility stands. DRK 06:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well well well. Looks like I'm not the only one requesting you to keep civilised and refrain from behaving like a vandal. I thought you had "better things to do." Do not blank content from wikipedia - particularly categories and the like - or YOU will be blocked from wikipedia. And by the looks of things, many people are looking to do the same. And as for your sockpuppet and equally vandalistic co vandal Lahiru...Starsimon 10:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC) -Removed Vandalism from user page-RaveenS[reply]

I don't thats fair, but let me try to help. I've looked at the first source and found some specific criticism that I put into the article. If Elalan still insists on just that version, then we'll see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cite reasons to remove the Vandalism tag. All that has been asked for is a free and fair review, which only means more content getting added to support the neutral stance and not removal of existing content. Maintain your cool and wait for Admin intervention to sort out things. I hope you understand that it seriously is being vandalised by both parties. User:Sudharsansn [Wikipedia:Neutral point of view] Refer to this for more info

I am not a fanatic, but I am only trying to write a neutral version of things here and there. Do go through the VP page and review it. Oya definitely review karanna ona, aapasu mata oyagey review comments kiyanna. Sudharsansn 21:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oyata comments-ta bohoma isthuti. Mata Singhala tikkak-tikkak puluvan. However I read and write Sinhala very fast, all I need is spoken practise. Do read through the VP page when you find time. Isthuthi.Sudharsansn 00:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What vandalism are you talking about?? Reverts should not be made without discussing in the talk page. I removed a completely unverifiable paragraph and I did what was apt as per WP. Furthermore if you would remember that parah was already trimmed by admin Ricky for reasons mentioned explicitly. So if you are going to go on reverting, I am sure you are breaching it!! Refer Talk page Sudharsansn 17:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

check ur mail. after that remove this and my unicode msg. lahiru

It seems that you have bypassed the Talk page on the 'Special Task Force' article and gone straight to deleting infomation. I will not beat around the bushes, the infomation you have deleted is to inherently bias the article towards the pro-STF stance. This is inherently against the Wikipedia Article policy of None Point of View.

I invite you to co-operate in discussing different ways to make this article comprehensive and NPOV along with me, but first I have a queries about your recent changes.

1 - The deletion of infomation based on 'unsources infomation'. A series of sources were used, direct quotes were derived from these sites, I will admit that several of the sources I have used are long, but if you wish to dismiss them I suggest you read them thoroughly first or at least search for specific words, as you will see that these sources support comments on the page.

2 - I understand your distaste at the use of 'Tamilnet' as a source, I agree with this stance however I felt the infomation in the article was so basic and known to all that any source would of been enough. However this was an error of judgement, I have replaced the source with one more unbiased, and I thankyou for this input, however it would of been more constructive to simply type on the talk page, 'a unbiased source is nesscisary'.

3 - The discrediting of sourced infomation. I do not understand how infomation almost taken directly from the U.S State Department site, Amnesty International Site and the BBC among others can be deemed to be biased. Yet, you persist in saying that infomation supported by these sources are 'unsupported' and hence deletable. I again invite you to use the Talk Page to discuss this matter further.

I find that these actions are part of a process of changing related articles to favor of your point of view, something I find inherently wrong. This has been conducted by several users including yourself and if you persist in trying to take advantage of this article whilst I try to produce a neutral balance article, I will move towards having it protected. --Sharz 13:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ha ha ha, ok pal go ahead and prove it!!!!!!!!!!!! ;-) ;-) (Just kidding ;-) Anyway, I have no doubt about that fact of yours, but yes I do have my doubts about the truth vandals)
Machang, I also got this user box from someone else and changed it to Sri Lankan troops. Sure let's make it a template. But I don't really know how to do it. Do u have any idea? Lahiru_k 06:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks bro, for the template. Thats really good work :-) Lahiru_k 04:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. This regarding Tamilnet on October 17. Your pal 64.201.162.1 18:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can do it. Can you please provide a link to the case? Nwwaew(My talk page) 21:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I just pulled a dumb one! Anyway, I just accepted the case. Nwwaew(My talk page) 21:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so too. I'm working on a template to contact people with regarding mediation cases, so as soon as the template is ready, I'll contact everyone. Nwwaew(My talk page) 21:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heres that template I talked about earlier, used for the first time:

Nwwaew(My talk page) 22:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I am going to take out at least a fair part of your contribution for this article quite a lot of it is unsuitable for WP (quotes from a named child is news not reference). Also the news source you cite is inadequate; a local paper isn't good enough for contenious international stuff. I am not unsympathetic to your desire to put more details about their activity but when making these kind of thngs you had better accurately cite say HRW, or a UN body or a very credible NGO. --BozMo talk 06:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SFC is a poor secondary selection of info it is not a primary source. The journalist has selected stuff to suit him. Most US newspapers are notoriously unreliable on international news. Anyway it cites UNICEF; find the UNICEF articles and I'd be happy. The other stuff find me a policy statement saying we don't put a picture of mickey mouse on every article. We are what we are my friend. --BozMo talk 06:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken out some of the ridiculous language "besieged" (I work for an NGO working in East Sri Lanka and that's crap: we have had to withdraw from places because of the LTTE but we are not being besieged) "furiously". I have also searched the UNICEF news database but not found the articles. A credible secondary source like say a scientific paper would cite accurately not just say "UNICEF". That alone is enough to take out the source as not credible enough. I have also removed the tsunami stuff because I cannot find it substantiated. I have left in most of what you put in otherwise because you did in fact improve the article, and the bulk of it I can easily check. --BozMo talk 06:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally I think the whole article is now more balanced, thanks for the contribution. All of these cases are atrocious and it has appropriate content on LTTE versus e.g. the Lord's Resistance Army who do similar things. Putting the tsunami stuff back in with a "citation needed" flag even if it were true would undermine the factual style. Perhaps you should try the asian tsunami article which has far more readers... --BozMo talk 06:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO you have RRRed an article and also basically wrecked it. I don't have the time or inclination to do more than flag NPOV is (and change a few tenses) but if you are trying to draw attention to a particular cause this isn't a clever way to go about it. It will have to wait until another editor has time to repair it --BozMo talk 07:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I partially withdrawn this. Rereading it, it is getting marginally ok now: the intemperature language has gone and the sources are much better. I will sleep on the NPOV tag. There are hundreds of "individual cases" stories available for every child soldier location including video interviews and stuff so I don't think this one (which doesn't have a link to much more info) should be included, it unbalances the articles compared to other locations. --BozMo talk 08:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RRRing is reverting some content you have added three times and gets an automatic edit ban. I am afraid if you do remove the NPOV tag I will report it: it is explained on the talk page. However, I may remove it myself. The comment on wishing to highlight a particular issue is not a personal attack. You clearly (from your contribution log) have a strong personal interest in this subject (which is absolutely fine, I do in other issues). I am just suggesting you may wish to be move effective in highlighting it. --BozMo talk 08:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The citation that you are speaking about is at the end of the next section, and thus was hard to find in the context of the potentially contentious information that you added. Please see WP:CITE and WP:CIVIL before threating people that you will "report them to an admin." Leuko 08:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-read the citations and still cannot find a reliable source for the quote from "an international correspondent". I don't for a second believe you made it up so where did you get it from? --BozMo talk 08:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the threat to me, too. You may have noticed that two other people have put in the reverts/changes you attribute to me (one is just above). Also that after the first revert I have attempted to edit and improve your text and leave successively more as it got substantiated. You are pretty new to WP and I delighted you have arrived to help improve the content. We all have grumpy moments, lets move on and try to make it better. I have changed the NPOV to cleanup (which I think is now broadly fair (since my main issue is now proportionality. Please provide a reference for the remaining quote. --BozMo talk 08:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my mistake. I found the remaining quote and accept Meo as "an international correspondent" (you might like to correct the "in international correspondent. Sorry, I missed it, it was my fault but I was looking for a quote not the article text. IMHO this bit shouldn't be in but it can wait til the next article tidy (which won't be done by me).--BozMo talk 08:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Stifle (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will come back because it your challenges that made articles about Sri Lanka reach a certain high level. Your efforts in Black July is what made it also your challenges in Tamilnet is what made it to what it is today. Although with Tamilnet edits your went beyond the balance you had in Black July, at the end the article is all the better for it. Ignore the ban, learn from it, archive it and come back to Wikipedia. Thanks RaveenS

can't something be done about this?

Concerning your latest changes, it seems that the only two news sources that are reporting this development is the Sri Lankan Military site, which is obviously biased, and 'lankatruth' which is dubious but uncertain. However, news sources that have printed that the incident was commited completly by the Special Task Forces of Sri Lanka consist of the BBCCite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page)., arabnews.com^[1], The Europian Union Commision on Human Rights ^[2](Which has been brought up at the UN), wsws.com ^[3], Amensty International, USA Today^[4], The Green Left^[5] and PeaceMagazine ^[6].

Those are a mere fraction of the news outlets, INGOs and Government agencies that accuse the Sri Lankan Government, and particularly the Special Task Foce that was occupying the area, of the murders.

Also, Amnesty International has cited the Sri Lankan Government as utilising 'Abnormal and Inconsistant interogation techniques' whilst the U.S State Department is cited as saying the Sri Lankan Government has 'coerced infomation through the use of non-orthodox techniques, including but not exclusive to torture'.

What do you say to the overwhelming evidence that supports the initial claim that the STF commited this attrocity, and also that two major organisations have cited the Sri Lankan Government as using torture and other means to acsertain favorable facts?

It seems that the video can be disputed on the grounds on which it was obtained.

Your article was featured today. Great job RaveenS 20:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lesson -All what it shows that if we write timely articles on events in Sri Lanka, if they are grave enough under the circumstances, it will get highlighted. Vaharai bombing, Kethesh murder, Trincomalee suicide attack, and Chencholai orphanage attack all these should have made the main page but they did'nt but if theu had it would have increased the awareness about Sri Lankan issues along with Iraq, Sudan and Israel and it can only make our life easy about editing controversial subjects because there will be more oversight. I hope the LTTE and GoSL will not give us the opportunity in the future but I have my doubts RaveenS 13:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 23:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for the inconvenience

I had placed a {hangon} on the top of that page but it disapparedMgarnes2 01:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look Snowolfd4 im relitivley new to Wikipedia, and havent created too many articles. I am not advertising as it states on the Articles For Deletion Page. There was an issue with this previously in which i contacted an Administrator who corrected the issue. I'm sorry if i'm causing trouble, i just feel like all my contributions here are being discarded Mgarnes2 02:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will contact an adminstrator once you tell me which one i should contact, however if i am correct didnt you put the AF'd back up on the page after i accidently deleted it? Nonetheless please tell me exactly who to alert Mgarnes2 02:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snowolfd4,

There's three ways of deleting on Wikipedia: speedy (which this article is not; it's not nonsense); WP:PROD (which is how it's currently tagged; the rules are that anyone can remove the tag, and if not removed, the article may be deleted after five days); and WP:AFD. Not taking a position on the notability of the company, it would seem that you could leave it as it currently is. If anyone (including the creator) removes the "PROD" tag, then you can put the AFD tag on it.

To my eye, it's obviously a good-faith article, but I haven't investigated whether it's a notable company or not. The directions are fairly clear on the AFD page if you want to make a deletion nomination there. I think what might have confused you is that when you PROD an article, you don't have to list it anywhere, so there won't be a corresponding AFD page. Hope this helps, Antandrus (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! no problem; all our processes and procedures are involved and confusing for newcomers. I have a hard enough time keeping them all straight and I've been here almost three years.  :) Antandrus (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So that means that the article will be allowed to stay?Mgarnes2 03:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You very much for your support with this issue :) Mgarnes2 04:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i will try extremely hard to be a valuable member of this community, as you are, however I too still have a lot of learing. Mgarnes2 04:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is regarding the recent edit you made to the article "The History of Western Civilization". That was my IP address that commited what you described as vandalism, I didn't realize I wasn't logged in at the time. I wanted to let you know that the comments I deleted were, in my opinion, very biased and had virtually nothing to do with the section they were in. I feel very strongly they should be deleted but I want to aviod constant deletions and reversions, so if you wouldn't mind I was wondering if you could look at the comments and if you still feel they belong in the article, let me know. They're in the seciton called "An Age of Revolution", from the fourth paragraph on. I'm relativley inexperienced with Wikipedia so if I'm going about this in the wrong way I apologize for that. --Wiki988 02:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I completely understand why you judged the deletion I made to be vandalism. I deleted the information again, and from now on I will make sure to log in before deleting to aviod this problem in the future. --Wiki988 04:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Snowolf! I'm Docsubster, the guy who wrote the Vijaya article you tagged as being non-NPOV. Apologies for deleting your tag, but at the time I first saw it put up I didn't see your explanation for introducing the tag. Could you please elaborate on why specifically you think that particular sentence makes the article 'dubious'? My understanding is that the only source for Vijaya's coming to Sri Lanka is the Mahavamsa and as with many ancient chronicles the factual accuracy of its contents is disputable. The significance of Vijaya's coming to Sri Lanka is on a par for the Sinhalese as creation myths like Amaterasu in Japan. If you wish to look into the reliability of the Mahavamsa and Culavamsa as sources please look at Geiger's edition of the Mahavamsa and the histories of Sri Lanka by de Silva, Parker and Codrington. I'd appreciate if you could respond to me ASAP as the tag I think reduces the credibility of the article. Thanks for taking an interest thought, and perhaps you could have a look at articles like Polonnaruwa and Anuradhapura (if you have the time & inclination), as I think they could do with editing.DocSubster 19:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snowolf, just read your message. You raise a valid point, and I will make a couple of tweaks. However I don't think its hugely inaccurage to refer to Vijaya as a 'creation myth' as, historically speaking, we have very little evidence of his actual existence. As I mentioned above you should check out Geiger's Mahavamsa for an evaluation of the reliability of the source. Unlike kings like Gajabahu or Parakramabahu I, we have no evidence specific to Vijaya that is not from the Mahavamsa, and given the nature of the Mahavamsa's account, must accept that Vijaya is to a large extent legendary. That being said not everything in it is myth and thus I've tried to use phrases like 'semi-legendary'. I'm going to make a couple of edits and remove the tag; do check it out at your convenience.DocSubster 08:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your query that you placed on my talk page. My response can be found here. Feel free to post any further comments on my talk page, and I'll respond to you as soon as possible. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Snowolfd4 for bringing my case into the light of the admins.. By the way this is user Mystìc, I've been blocked unfairly because of one users behaviour.. Thanks again.. 222.165.157.129 12:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]