User talk:Ruchiraw

Hello, Ruchiraw, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• 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! Ulflarsen 09:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Vandal Tag - Huracane 14:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is not acceptable unless you mediate this. If you keep doing it, I have to report you to Admin Huracane 22:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You must be joking. This page is full of falsities. You are not correcting them and you are not letting me correct them. You are treating Wikipedia like a blog page. You hav added a blatant vandal tag for edits which I have JUSTIFIED and which you have not refuted. You are not even giving me the benfit of the doubt. Don't misuse this tag. I am agreeable for mediation. Ruchiraw 22:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim "There is no evidence of mass deportations except by the LTTE in Sri Lanka." is factually incorrect. There is firm evidence of ethnic cleansing by the SL government against the Tamil population.

This is what was written by UTHR(J), a source considered neutral or even anti-LTTE (http://www.uthr.org/bulletins/bul4.htm):

By the end of the year 1984 the forces had forcibly evicted Tamils from 5 GS Divisions in Mullaitivu District and Tennemaravady in Trincomalee District [see UTHR(Jaffna) Special Report No. 5; From Manal Aru to Weli Oya : The sprit of July 1983].The first evictions were achieved through harassment by newly settled convicts who were backed by the forces. The final order was broadcast to the villages by the armed forces using loudspeakers on Christmas Eve 1984. The people were given 24 hours to vacate. The first Sinhalese settlers brought in were prisoners settled in the Open Prison Camp established in the premises of Kent and Dollar farms. The first ever massacre of Sinhalese by Tamil militants took place here on 30th November 1984. Both communities became victims of massacres and counter massacres. Nearly 2700 Tamil families were displaced.

Trincomanb 12:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trincomanb , thank you for pointing this out, will update accordingly.

Hello Ruchiraw. I just wanted to say I really appreciate the tenor you have taken in the discussions on the talk page in relation to the LTTE. I don't always agree with your changes, but I do like the fact that you discuss things in a calm way without getting upset or emotional. As you can imagine, this has been quite rare in discussions on that particular article!
Just one little suggestion: it's better when dealing with controversial articles to discuss changes on the Talk page first, before making. I know you're taking part in discussions already, but what I'm suggesting is that, instead of changing the article right away, you present your suggested alternate wording on the Talk page, see how others react, and copy the agreed wording onto the main article page when you achieve consensus. This prevents revert wars and, given the constructive attitude you're taking in discussions, I think you'll find that you'll reach a consensus pretty soon.
Have fun on Wikipedia, and I look forward to running into you on articles! -- Arvind 23:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious you dispute the content here, but the right course of action is to prune content where citations can be found, or slap {{fact}} tags on this and then delete them in a few days if the other users can't come up with a citation. Given the article was begun today it's appropriate to give the editor a day or two to work out the kinks. Merely filling the article with your POV to attempt to balance it is not appropriate, and will be removed. WilyD 13:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so you've raised a few points, so I'll address them seperately

• • Technically, you're entitled to delete any content which is uncited. Generally this is a poor way to run an encyclopaedia, and it's pretty poor form for a new article - better is to slap a {{fact}} or similar tag on it and nix it after a couple days. This doesn't always need be the case, i.e. if you come across something that's uncontraversially false, just nix it - if the Darryl Strawberry article said Strawberry his 213 homeruns in the 1932 season after being dosed with radiation and growing to 600 ft tall, that should just be cut.
  • The reliability of sources is highly contextual. If we want to say The Tamil Tigers alledge X then a Tamil Tiger website reasonable source for this - I'm fairly confident the Tigers know what they alledge. Although if you wish to say X is a fact then a more disinterested source is preferable, and if User:Johnny Nobody puts down X is a fact and cites source Y which you feel is biased, you can easily make it neutral by flipping it around to say Y alledges X - this can get repetitive and the importance of writing readable prose is must be stressed, but in general this is sort of the appropriate response.
  • How much times you should cut a user creating a new article to dig up sources is a judgement call, and just be reasonable. If you're really concerned, you can always be bold and break all the rules and try something creative. However the line between that and disruptive is a hard one to walk
  • The definition of state terrorism is also a tricky one, but this probly isn't the place to work it out if it's just being spun off of State terrorism - better to work it out there and then apply a uniform solution to the spinning off.
  • FWIW, I agree with you that some kind of violence is required for state terrorism, mere cultural repression is not enough. But your apparent requirement it be organised at the highest level of government seems to be inappropriate, but there is a requirement of spreadness - for example I can't imagine anyone would consider a Shawinigan Handshake to be state terrorism, whereas the death of Dudley George probably is.

Anyways, that's all my thoughts for the moment. I need some coffee. WilyD 14:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I acknowledge all of that, but there's still a huge field between a lone policeman taking things into his own hands and an official government policy widely acknowledged and on the scale of the Final Solution. In general, if someone is alledging that an incident is planned or deliberate on the part of the government, it's not our place to determine whether or not it's true. If the Tamil Tigers say The government of Sri Lanka is deliberately targeting civilians in some incident we wikipedians cannot offer a judgement as to whether that's true. WP:NPOV requires us to only say The Tamil Tigers alledge the government of Sri Lanka killed 47 civilians in a deliberate reprisal during the raid. The Sri Lankan government responded saying the allegations are a crock of shit. Several of the resources offered in the page include people making these kind of allegations, so the page is appropriate on it's own. Whether or not the allegations are true is not for us to decide, and frankly irrelevent. Since the facts are disputed, we can really only say the facts are disputed. The reader will have to drawn their own conclusion. WilyD 15:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For example, I think the second 2006 incident on the page is now pretty reasonable, at least with respect to NPOV WilyD 15:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure that's necessary - the term state terrorism is already wikilinked, so readers can always take a look at read it if they want. If you're concerned that some of the listed instances really are inappropriate (and I have identified some I took issue with) that's probly a seperate issue - I'm not sure what the Manual of Style says about it, but it seems like sayings <--Hey look, a Wikilink!!! is unnecessary WilyD 15:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty good, hopefully you can follow the same pricipal in Black July and State terrorism in Sri Lanka rather than to be blind to the potential of a state to act irrationally as it has so far. Infact the State terrorism in Sri Lanka article could use some help in 1971 uprising and 1987 insurrection detailsHuracane 20:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have edited and taken a whole paragraph out another users comment, with some citations and then you claim where is the citation ?

This is a blatant example of vandalism.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you.

Trincomanb 13:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate which page and which paragraph.Ruchiraw 22:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure here it is, so that everyone can see for themselves:

This is exactly what I initially wrote. I reproducing for everyone to see and decide for themselves if the user in question had deleted my comments. The least this user could do is go back and verify for himself whether it occured rather than acting ignorant. To do this you click on the history tab and click/compare the revision listed below with revisions edited by the user in question.

Trincomanb 03:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 00:06, 27 July 2006 of LTTE Talk page;

from: POV in the current Intro.

Some selected examples of one sided info in the current intro. created by user Ruchiraw. More to follow...

"The LTTE has also eliminated many Tamil alternative leaderships, which may have contributed to its emergence as the main representative of the Sri Lankan Tamils [2][3]."

This is pure speculation. Is this article now predicting what ifs ? The fact of the matter is that LTTE is the main Tamil nationalist force right now. Yes it did take out TELO fearing it could pose a threat in the future, but LTTE did absorb EROS (Balakumaran faction) (Jeyaratnam Wilson, 2000). TELO and EPRLF (Suresh wing) has als joined the LTTE/TNA camp.

"Furthermore the LTTE has itself been known to engage in ethnic cleansing[4]."

LTTE had taken responsibility and apologized for the conduct of its Jaffna local commander in expelling the Muslim population in 1990 [1]. According to its policy it has allowed Muslim civillians to return to their homestead, although some still appear to languish in refugee camps. The above statement needs a rebuttal, whereby LTTE has apologized for past conduct and has officially encouraged the Muslim population it had expelled to live in their traditional homestead.

If these statements are going to be in the intro, then the rebuttal (in a compressed format) needs to be also mentioned. Failure to do some implies bias.

"Several of the LTTE's tactics, notably its treatment and killings of non-Tamil civilians and Tamil political opponents, use of suicide bombers, practice of ethnic cleansing [1], and recruitment of child soldiers have drawn sharp criticism internationally and led to it being proscribed as a terrorist organisation by many countries. "

"Furthermore the LTTE has itself been known to engage in ethnic cleansing[4]."

Ethnic cleansing is repeated twice both point against the LTTE. The LTTE has taken responsibility and apologized for the conduct of its Jaffna commander. According to its official policy it doesn't conduct ethnic cleansing. This info also needs to be stated in the intro to have any balance.

The use of the term child soldiers is a controversial one biased against non-state actors. Regardless, LTTE's current stated policy is not to recruit youth under 18. Once youth under 18 are found in its ranks, they are returned to their parents or UNICEF staff. This needs to be stated as rebuttal if there is going to be accusations of child recruitment.

In addition, there is blatant double standards that define the minimum allowable age of recruitement into state armed force to be 15 and 18 for non-state actors.

1. The United Nations Convention of Rights of Child (CRC) was adopted in 1989. In Article 38, it specifies 15 as the minimum age for recruitment into a State’s armed forces and calls on the States to, “take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities”.

2. The Optional Protocol to CRC about Children in Armed Conflict was declared in 2001. It did not compulsorily raise this age of 15 as the minimum recruitment age for a State’s armed forces. It, however, did declare the minimum age of recruitment into “armed groups” as 18. [2]

Trincomanb 23:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically user Ruchiraw had deleted the following paragraph from my initial comment and then asks whether I had a citation for LTTE's apology. Revision (04:08, 27 July 2006 Ruchiraw (Talk | contribs) (→POV in the current Intro.) by user Ruchiraw had taken out my paragraph (this is all from the LTTE discussion/talk page).

LTTE had taken responsibility and apologized for the conduct of its Jaffna local commander in expelling the Muslim population in 1990 [3]. According to its policy it has allowed Muslim civillians to return to their homestead, although some still appear to languish in refugee camps. The above statement needs a rebuttal, whereby LTTE has apologized for past conduct and has officially encouraged the Muslim population it had expelled to live in their traditional homestead.

Trincomanb 13:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruchiraw, of all the Sri Lankan's i've come across here, you seem to be trying to be balanced. Thanks for your input in the State terrorism in Sri Lanka article. I think it is more appropriate now than when it was as it was taken out of the State terrorism main article. I have also restructured the main article. take a lookRaveenS 15:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you used the {{helpme}} tag. How may I help you? When you've asked your question, please put the tag back so we know to check back. Alternatively, you can join the Wikipedia Bootcamp IRC channel to get real-time help. (Use the web-based client to get instant access.)

User trincomanB has put a blatant vandal tag on my user page without justification. How do I remove it or get an admin to remove Ruchiraw 07:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no justification, then you can remove it yourself, but you must place it in a talk page archive. If you remove it without archiving, you may be tagged for warning removal vandalism. Ryūlóng 08:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed justification for having a blatant vandal tag on your page. I have placed conclusive timestamps and activity that show you/your account was used to delete my comments on the LTTE talk page (see section with the tag). I would suggest at the very least you trace the talk page history and see what I mean, before claiming I am falsely accusing you of stuff. Editing/manipulating other user's comments is just plain unacceptable done intentionally or unintentionally. Trincomanb 13:46, 28 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. Thanks