User talk:Amritsvāraya/Archive 1

Archive 1

YaSiRu11, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi YaSiRu11! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Obi2canibe (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 1958 anti-Tamil pogrom, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: 1958 anti-Tamil pogrom was changed by YaSiRu11 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.956819 on 2021-01-24T17:37:39+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please don't use the term "vandalism" as you did here just because you disagree with the edits. That's a misuse of the term and can be considered a personal attack if you continue. Vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, WP:VANDAL has some information on that. In particular, good faith edits should NEVER be called vandalism. It's an editorial disagreement, and WP:BRD should be followed. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi YaSiRu11! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Ravensfire (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Sigiriya have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Sigiriya was changed by YaSiRu11 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.917678 on 2021-01-29T12:06:33+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jaffna District, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. There was a government source there. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is YaSiRu11 – POV-pushing and other problems. Thank you. Sdrqaz (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Hello, I'm Suneye1. I noticed that you recently removed content from Tamil loanwords in other languages without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. SUN EYE 1 13:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Copying with Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Dances of Sri Lanka. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ridma Weerawardena (August 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DMySon was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ridma Weerawardena and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Ridma Weerawardena, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DMySon (talk) 07:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Ridma Weerawardena

Draft:Ridma Weerawardena, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ridma Weerawardena and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Ridma Weerawardena during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Superatp (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks

You were warned in January about personal attacks. This is absolutely unacceptable. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ridma Weerawardena (August 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bearcat was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ridma Weerawardena and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Ridma Weerawardena, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, YouTube is not a reliable source for Wikipedia content, so YouTube videos do not help to establish notability at all. You don't make a person notable by showing video clips of a thing happening, you make a person notable by showing that journalists wrote news stories about the thing.

Secondly, the "substantial broadcast segment" is not passed by a performance or by a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person — it's passed by being the subject of a documentary, in which other people are speaking about him and his significance in the third person.

Thirdly, the touring test is not passed by verifying the existence of one concert, it requires documentation of several concerts comprising an actual tour.

Fourthly, even if you can demonstrate that he passes one or more criteria in NMUSIC, you don't do that by clapping back at me on my personal talk page after I've reviewed the draft — you do it by adding the relevant information to the draft to make it better. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Reply

1. YouTube videos can be used as sources (WP:VIDEOLINK). Those videos were not self-published. They are published by Sri Lanka's biggest TV networks (TV Derana & Sirasa TV), So I think It's perfectly fine to use them. And. I don't think anyone writes articles about a singer appearing on TV. Well, at least they don't do that in Sri Lanka. So, How else I'm supposed to prove that he appeared on TV.

2. Where is that stated?. If appearing in a well-known tv segment is not 'substantial' I don't know what is. And, who makes documentaries about living singers?. And how does this [1] doesn't count as not being what you just explained?.

3. Artists don't do usually do tours in Sri Lanka. That's the best something close to a tour.

4. All the relevant information is there, isn't it?. You are just refusing to accept them. And, I did not clap back at you in anyway

YaSiRu11 (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

(1) An essay does not trump our actual policies, which are that YouTube content is problematic and needs to be minimized and avoided as much as possible. YouTube content either comes from amateur YouTubers, in which case they aren't reliable sources at all, or it comes from media outlets, in which case the content can virtually always be cited somewhere else besides the YouTube copy anyway, meaning it's absolutely never necessary to cite YouTube unless the YouTube video itself is actually the subject of the article (and even then, there still has to be other sourcing besides just the YouTube video itself.)

(2) Our basic rules about notability require a person to be the subject of coverage and analysis by people other than themselves. You do not make a musician notable by referencing the article to clips of the person performing, or to interviews where the person is talking about themselves in the first person: you make a person notable by demonstrating that he or she has been the subject of third party coverage and analysis of their significance. For example, musicians try to get into Wikipedia all the time by lying in their own self-created PR about "hit" singles they never really had — so musicians don't get over our "notable for having had a hit single" criterion just by saying that they've had a hit single, they get over that criterion when the single's hit status can be independently verified in sources the musician didn't control or create themselves.
Notability is not a question of what an article says, it's a question of the quality and type and depth of the references that can or can't be shown to support that the things it says are actually true — and the referencing has to be independently verified, and cannot just come from what the musician says about himself in his own press releases or interviews where he's talking about himself.
And incidentally, documentaries about living musicians get made all the damn time — I literally just watched a full-length feature documentary film about a living musician barely a week ago, and I didn't even say we required full-length feature films. Documentaries can also be segments of music or news shows, for example — but they still have to feature some external analysis, and can't just be the musician talking about himself in the first person.

(3) If tours don't happen in Sri Lanka, then you don't get to reify a single concert into a "tour" for the purposes of passing NMUSIC's touring criterion — if tours aren't a thing there, then the touring criterion just isn't available to be used at all.

(4) No, there hasn't been any relevant or notability-building information added to the draft. If you want the draft to be accepted, then the place to add any information that you think helps to make it more acceptable is in the draft — my personal talk page is not the place for any additional information, the draft is the place for any additional information. Again, the path forward does not involve arguing with me: if you want those links to be taken into account as potentially changing the notability equation, then the place to show them is not my talk page, it's in the draft.

So your path forward is to work on expanding and adding more references to the draft, not to keep arguing with me about a draft you're not actually making any effort to improve. When you've improved the draft, you're welcome to resubmit it for another review, and another administrator (it doesn't have to be me) will look at it and review whether you've done enough or not — but you are not welcome to keep arguing with me, and if you keep arguing with me instead of making any effort to work on the draft some more I'll be reporting you for uncooperative behaviour. Work on the draft some more, and leave me alone. Bearcat (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Special:Diff/1038414136, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Particularly egregious personal attack at Special:Diff/1038414136. Do not do this again. This is your only warning. —valereee (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Maitreyi Ramakrishnan. Thank you. Nardog (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Page move

Could you explain why you moved a page to a clearly inappropriate name? If you want to move a page and you find you can't carry it out, either list it at the technical requests noticeboard or (if you know it will be controversial) use the requested moves process instead of cutting content out and pasting it. Thank you, Sdrqaz (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Tamil Eelam, you may be blocked from editing. - SUN EYE 1 12:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - SUN EYE 1 13:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Third opinion request

Hello Amritsvāraya, thankyou for your request for a Third Opinion at Talk:Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka. Given there is a consensus forming discussion in progress through the requested move process, and that more than two editors have contributed, I have declined your request. Please do not hesitate to let me know if there are any queries. Thanks, --Jack Frost (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

My account was used by someone else, who did the last edits. Is there a way to prove that my account was hacked?. Amritsvāraya (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Our approach in cases such as yours is not to unblock, as the account has been compromised and we do not know who is behind the computer. PhilKnight (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

---

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

Unblock request

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

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

---

Request reason:

My account was used by someone else, who did the last edits. I had no need to carry out the last 3 of these edits. I was making a positive contribution to WP. You can surely see that by looking at my contributions. Is there no way to unlock my account? I hope you can reconsider it. And, I had an easily guessable password. Which I have changed to a more secure one so that this will never happen again.

Decline reason:

Thanks for letting us know. As per WP:COMPROMISED, this account is no longer eligible for unblock consideration. This is the end of the line. Yamla (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

---

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Mihindu Maha Sēya

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Mihindu Maha Sēya, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 15:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)