Guyan46

Welcome

Hi, Guyan46. I'm new and don't know a lot about how Wikipedia does things or where to find things. I don't know anything about the subjects of the articles that people are disagreeing about, and haven't read what's on Wikipedia. I wonder if the reference I found to something called Wikinfo might be useful. It sounds as if that is a place where people want posts that tell about things from different points of view. It sounds as if Wikinews might be a place for new ideas, if there are any.Wordwriter123456789 (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Guyan46. This is NOT some automated message...it's from a real person. You can talk to me right now. Welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed you've just joined, and wanted to give you a few tips to get you started. If you have any questions, please talk to us. The tips below should help you to get started. Best of luck!  Chzz  ►  06:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

ようこそ You don't need to read anything - anybody can edit; just go to an article and edit it. Be Bold, but please don't put silly stuff in - it will be removed very quickly, and will annoy people. Ask for help. Talk to us live, or edit this page, put {{helpme}} and describe what help you need. Someone will reply very quickly - usually within a few minutes. Play in your user area. For example, create User:Guyan46/test. Edit existing articles, before you make your own. Look at some subjects that you know about, and see if you can make them a bit better. For example, Wikipedia:Cleanup#2009. When you're ready, read about Your first article. It should be about something well-known, and it will need references. Good luck with editing; please drop me a line some time on my own talk page. There's lots of information below. Once again, welcome to the fantastic world of Wikipedia! --  Chzz  ►  06:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Grade sources • Cite sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists • Best articles Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Pages needing attention • Peer review The missing manual

Warning: Edits to Jaffna kingdom and Sri Lankan Tamil people

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Obi2canibe (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop your childish edits on the above two articles. You are pushing your own point of view by citing sources that are controversial or cannot be verified. A consensus had been achieved on the articles using reliable, neutral sources. Your so called "alternative history" has no place on Wikipedia.

It is my believe that you have previously tried push the same point of view as User:Gayan76 but you failed so you are now trying as User :Guyan46. Obi2canibe (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Hello Guyan46, I have seen your recent edits on the Jaffna kingdom and Sri Lankan Tamil people articles and what have been going on with those articles. I study Sri Lankan History and believe that on these articles, which are very controversial especially the Jaffna Kingdom article, has an alternative history and I believe that you or anyone should have the right to state it. I respect Sri Lankan Tamils and this is not an "attack" against them for those who are reading this. As what historians do I am looking for the truth and I believe the other side of the story should be told especially when there is primary evidence on the topic dating back hudreads of years. I would like for you to continue your research on the Jaffna Kingdom using credible sources and primary evidence which I have seen you have done with proper referencing and research. I have also found you some sources which you may or may not have seen [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (the last four all have the same content and goes to show that this is not a biased topic. Blackknight12 (talk)

I hope that your teachers in Sri Lankan History will provide you with better sources than those given, which are highly partisan, and not scientific. It might be worthwhile to take a look at WP:SOURCES to get an idea of what counts as a reliable source. Normally, this requires an academic publisher, a criterion which is not met in the sources Blackknight gives. As for the standard historiographic book on Sri Lanka, by KM de Silva, (University of California Press), it clearly states on page 12 that the Tamils arrived very early on the island. I know you also cite Geiger and other reliable sources; I will have to look into that in more detail. My caution holds only for the websites given above. Cheers Jasy jatere (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

primary records

You have done extensive research on the primary records of Sri Lankan history. This is good practice if you are a historian, but bad practice if you are an encyclopedist. This is why I removed those passages. You can find more information about the relative merits of primary, secondary and tertiary sources here: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. Wikipedia is of course not censored, but wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought either. Jasy jatere (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wiki policies

From your message to me Guyan I can see you still don't quite understand Wikipedia policies. You state that you have connections to Sri Lankan archeologists and will talk to them. This is meaningless. Neither you nor they are notable or verifiable. You can't talk to someone and insert it into an article. Only notable, verifiable sources can be used in wikipedia. And articles must adhere to the mainstream consensus of published, notable, verifiable experts. Capeo (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Your message...

As others here have mentioned to you, having a lot of sources is pointless unless others have referenced them. Oral sources is not valid, as they have to be in writing (see WP:V). Also, content _must_ be neutral. To avoid conflicts, it's always good to start a debate on the talkpages, especially when dealing with long texts. Bjelleklang - talk 15:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a racist now? Oh boy.

Look, smart guy, I'm an American of European descent. I'm neither Tamil nor Sinhalese, nor do I have some vested interest on either side. I came to the article to learn a bit about Sri Lanka and I found an article that was rife with bad writing and horrible sources. Sorry, that's the facts. Your version of the history was synthesis and original research and does not agree with published archeology or mainstream historians I can find. I even looked into your Portuguese priest who supposedly supports your arguments and found, quite to the contrary, that his writing actually supports that Tamils were there in great numbers prior to the arrival of the Portuguese so I don't even understand your argument. All the archeological evidence I can find with quick searches points to Dravidian languages and Indian Tamil style urn burials going back to centuries BC. Your main source is a religious text. The Mahavamsa is not a historical chronicle, sorry. It was written in the fifth century and ignores all history prior to it's writers vested interests. All religious texts have uses in working out history but one must examine them in context not take them as fact.

And, in closing, keep your personal attacks to yourself. Your "freedom of expression" argument is stupid and has no place in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for expression. It's a place for reporting mainstream and verifiable information. Capeo (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Your other message

Hi again I agree that history as presented on Wikipedia must as accurate as possible, but when there are two or more sides that disagree, the answer is to use the talkpage, as I have mentioned earlier. If other editors disagree with your sources, start a debate there to find out why. Repeatedly reinserting text in order to present your version of the article is not the proper way to do things, and if done enough times in a short enough span it may get the article blocked for further edits unless concensus is reached on the talkpage.

Please use the talkpages of the relevant articles and start a constructive debate; suggest changes to the text and new sources if you feel you have better sources for the material than the ones already listed. On a sidenote, I would advise you not to call other editors for racists like you did here. If you want to improve on the article, calling people by names is not the way to go, and if you haven't already read it, I would recommend this text. If you want advice or help on anything, please don't hesitate to ask, and I'll see what I can do. Bjelleklang - talk 19:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you are frustrated, but if he calls you something, you call him something, where will it stop? As I've written before, use the talkpages to start constructive debates on what to include! Using them, you are likely to get more than a one-lined response from other editors on what to include in the article. As for "trying express the correct facts"; there are numerous version of what is true that exist. Wikipedia's goal isn't necessarily to publish what is true, only what have been reported through credible sources. An example: Area 52 is according to the US Goverment only a air force base used for the testing of new aircraft and systems. But according to other sources, it's where they keep aliens and UFO's. Who can really decide what is the "truth" there? The point isn't to replace other views in the article, but add to them. If you have sources that say one thing is the "truth", and others have sources that claims otherwise, we present both sides and let the reader know that there exist several views, and let him or her decide for them selves. But please use the talkpages for dicussing content, and don't try to reinsert the text without discussion. You have been warned by others, and if it happens again I'm afraid it may result in you being blocked. Bjelleklang - talk 10:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. First of all, I don't know why they have removed the information, but I suspect that it was because it held another view, and went against concensus for what information should be contained in the article. If you go to Talk:Sri Lankan Tamil people, you'll see that they have already started a debate about your text, and the best thing you can do is to go over there, and be a part of that debate. Bjelleklang - talk 17:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. I can't see that you've tried to participate in the debate at all, please read through Talk:Sri Lankan Tamil people#False .27alternative history.27 to blame for issues. They have been through many of you arguments, and what appears to be most of the text you've added, and presented their arguments for why it should not be included, and also for why some of the sources you've used shouldn't be used. Please read through that debate if you haven't done so already, and reply there rather to the individual editors. Bjelleklang - talk 15:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Don't call the kettle black.

Before editing further, please, sit back and read about verifiability, balance and especially WP:ATTACK.

Personal attacks on other editors are not tolerated on Wikipedia. I hope that you will read these documents, and understand. I also hope that I can help you to become a valued contributor; however, anything further along these lines will result in your account being blocked. Best regards,  Chzz  ►  01:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No interest in working on this article

This will be the last I respond to you. I have no interest in contributing to this article nor, especially, working with someone who has an obvious agenda and turns to accusations of racism at the drop of a hat. I've seen your style of working with people. The multiple warnings on your page attest to it. You can now stop posting on my talk page. Capeo (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Guyan46/test

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as User:Guyan46/test, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. BlueLankan 15:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)