User talk:Dilshanheimler

Welcome!

Hello, Dilshanheimler! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

January 2021

Your recent editing history at Sri Lankan Civil War 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. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pharaoh of the Wizards: i talked about this issue on the talk page. please check the discussion

--Dilshanheimler (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Oz346 (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Partial block from Sri Lankan Civil War

You have been blocked from editing the Sri Lankan Civil War article (not including the talk page) for a period of one week for violating the 3 revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. El_C 18:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

i reverted a statement made by a user that is not supported by the reference which made the article misleading. i took the issue to the talk page to solve it but the user kept writing his opinions on the article [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&oldid= ], Dilshanheimler (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@Dilshanheimler: I don't think you've fully understood why you were blocked. Wikipedia has a three revert rule: you cannot revert more than three times on the same article within a 24-hour period. You reverted four times, and were otherwise edit warring on the page. As there was clearly a dispute you should have continued to discuss on the talk page without reverting further. (I'm not admin, I'm just clarifying for you). — Czello 20:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to sharpen (Talk:Sri Lankan Civil War refocus)

Hey. I asked a question (basically), which I don't feel you really even touched on with your reply, so I'm quoting an excerpt of it below, hoping that you will attempt to answer it directly this time.

I still don't see what that really has to do with the FBI's position (from 2008 or whenever) as meriting inclusion for the WP:LEAD of this article. Since there is no mention of the US there, at all, the position of it, itself, as a country, sounds like is the thing that should be highlighted, instead. And that means, as decreed by the US Department of State, no?

Thanks in advance. Regards, El_C 15:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C I thought adding FBI's comment was important because FBI did most of the investigations and reporting about LTTE and LTTE's international operations. FBI is a well knows organization across the world.

LTTE created a brutal atmosphere which could be expressed by the FBI's statement. FBI made this statement in the beginning 2008, the Government of Sri Lanka faces most of its accusations on human right violations during its final offence in 2009 due to the recklessness of the final offence. And this is mentioned in the lead of the article "The Sri Lankan government forces have also been accused of human rights abuses, systematic impunity for serious human rights violations, lack of respect for habeas corpus in arbitrary detentions, and forced disappearances" so the FBI's statement gives more balanced context to what the situation was like during the final stage of the war.

Moreover the line which describes the proscriptions of LTTE "The tactics employed by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam against the actions of Government forces resulted in their listing as a terrorist organisation in 32 countries,...." This does not give any context to the nature of these "tactics". These tactics were the reason that made FBI issue such a statement which explains the nature of these tactics. FBI described LTTE as deadlier than Al-Qaeda (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/ltte-deadlier-than-al-qaeda-fbi/articleshow/2693945.cms?from=mdr) because LTTE had influenced the middle eastern extremist organizations (for an example their iconic suicide belt) again, i believe FBI's statement unfolds the nature of these tactics

This brutality of LTTE's is widely acknowledged and condemned by moderate Tamil activists. Thus, I don't believe mentioning how LTTE was described by FBI will unbalance the article rather it gives an accurate, realistic context about this historical event.

I'm sorry this is the best I could explain. I firmly believe that FBI's statement has an encyclopedic value as it could give a realistic context about the history and fill that void in the article. If my explanation does not meet the standards of wikipedia I'd understand that as well.

Thank you for dedicating your time on this matter. Dilshanheimler (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dilshanheimler, while I can appreciate your passion, here on Wikipedia, we try to aim at a more understated presentation of the facts, per WP:IMPARTIAL. Again, the status of the LTTE as a foreign terrorist organization is something which, by law, is/was decreed by the US Secretary of State, not the FBI (or any other entity). Doesn't matter that the FBI investigated them domestically, or that, say, the CIA investigated them in Sri Lanka, or whatever. The WP:LEAD is meant to be a summary of the body. If we only mention the US once in it, it really should be about the foreign policy position of the United States itself, as a sovereign nation, on this matter. Not a law enforcement arm of it, as prominent as it may be. Regards, El_C 22:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]