User talk:Sudar123

The Chola invasion and occupation is a well known event and a very central point in the Sri Lankan history. If you do not know that please read up. If you just scroll down to the bottom of the article there are many references there too. And if you are really interested in references and not some other agenda, there are over 2000 results for the search occupation "sri lanka" ceylon in Google books. Take your pick.

Just until a couple of days ago another editor with the same kind of views as yours, have been reverting the article asking for references to the word island, and continued reverting even when references were given. We can't be giving references for each and every word in the article, nor can we stuff the article with references after each word. Just read the whole article and the references already in the article or click on the link given above. An occupation by invaders cannot be passed off as legitimate rule.

If you revert my edit I will make a complaint on you for disruptive editing and edit waring. I am writing this in your userpage because it is required that the user is notified, prior to filing/posting the complaint. --SriSuren (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

For whom "The Chola invasion and occupation is a well known event"? Please don't come out with the lame excuse that others who oppose have always some agenda. Please provide some reliable sources. UN Peace Keeping Forces or the IPKF are not Occupied Forces and same could have been on the part of Chola's rule as well.Sudar123 (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It was not an excuse, but an expression of suspicion that your edits reflect deliberate distortions of facts. Then when u suggest that the Cholas were on a peace keeping mission and want to distort facts in that direction, I was not wrong in my assumption afterall. The Chola invasion and occupation is one of the most central topics and a landmark in Sri Lankan history, because amoung other things, it caused the downfall of the ancient civilisation in Anuradhapura. It is therefore well known and should be well known to anybody trying to edit an encyclopedia article on the topic. When u ask to prove that they were invaders and start reverting referenced edits, and tagging articles with huge "disputed" templates you really show that u have no idea about the subject, but want to edit the article for some other reason than writing correct information on history. The whole article on Chola occupation of Sri Lanka (993–1077) is written by a Tamil editor from India, as it is obviously important to them too. If u had any idea about the subject, then you would have immediately recognized the fact that the article is not written by a Sri Lankan and the one source is Prof. Nilakanta Sastri who is an authority on the subject. If this Chola invasion is not well known to you, then you should not be editing that page, but first read about it, then edit it. Not the other way around. You are disrupting the whole Viyajabahu article by your demands for citations for obvious words, like "invasion" and "occupation" and have gone and placed those huge tags in the article on Chola Occupation too. Even when over 200 references ^[1] for the exact term "Chola occupation" was given, you go and revert the edit by stating "one source is contradicting in the referred page itself by the terms, "Conquest" and "Invader"", without even specifying which source you are talking about. Where exactly is this contradiction? There is no contradiction at all - take a dictionary and look the words up.

I informed you that I'll be reporting you, if u reverted my REFERENCED edit, and gave u in addition the link to Google Books, but u reverted my edit. Thereby in addition to breaking the 3 revert rule, you removed referenced edits and now u are trying to extend this socalled dispute, by bringing in new factors, like peacekeeping forces. It is so absurd that it is not even worth a comment. Whether you like it or not the Cholas were invaders^[2], and they destroyed the Anuradhapura civilisation ^[3], and occupied the Sinhalese kingdom for over 70 years, causing utter misery. It was king Vijayabahu who freed the island from the Chola occupation and restored Sinhalese independence. ^[4] Read what even a person so hostile to the Sinhalese people, like Manoharan has to say about these invasions. You have placed large templates in the Chola occupation article, without even specifying what you are disputing in the Talk page of the article. More references have been added and the "Neutrality Disputed" & "One source" templates you have placed in the article have been removed. You can't place these large templates for small content disputes. Therefore place citations needed tags near what you are disputing and specify your dispute(s) in the Talk page of the article. --SriSuren (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --obi2canibe^{talk contr} 13:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I would not recommend engaging in further discussion with Himesh84. He is clearly trying to wear other editors out with his filibustering. You have done the right thing in reporting this to ANI.

Also, don't engage in edit wars either, it doesn't matter if a version of the article with Himesh84's OR on it is there for a day or two. Wait and see what happens at ANI. Thanks.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 17:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I will refrain from edit wars and wait for the results at ANI, which suggested by User:Richwales as well here and then try what User:IRWolfie- suggested here.Sudar123 (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United Nations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Petrie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to make sure you know that the procedure is WP:RFC/U, which is the set of steps to request comment on a user. WP:RFC is for comments about article content. Feel free to read up on the procedure, and, of course, notify me if/when you file. Note that I'll be busy on and off for the next ten days or so, so if I don't respond immediately, please don't think I'm ignoring you. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I tend to be rather thorough, and when I say I have glanced at the Sri Lanka talk page, that actually means I have read the entire dispute, including your claim that Qwy is involved, and that several admins and non-admins asked to comment concur that he is uninvolved. I will review your diffs and give you my honest opinion about this matter when I can. It does not help Intoronto to export that dispute to his talk page, unless the case is extremely convincing. I am trying to provide Intoronto with help that gives him a chance at least of being unblocked, confusing the issue will discourage diligent admins from considering the unblock, since they then need to look at so much more material. Rich Farmbrough, 05:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC).

Several admins and non-admins were asked by me to comment and concur that he is uninvolved; which was before I provided my diffs on Qwyrxian's involvement on Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka related articles. I too agree with them but that was not my final say on him that he is uninvolved.Sudar123 (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that the "involved" issue really has to wait for now for AN/I or RfC. I would have looked at the diffs, for what it is worth, but as much as anything because I want these two issues separated. By continuing to fight this fight on his talk page you are undermining Intoronto's already slim chance of being unblocked.

As to the question of consensus vs RS, this is far from as simple as you make it out to be. Yes RS that the world is round trumps consensus that it is flat (or indeed vice versa - up to a point) - but consensus decides what sources are reliable. Consensus also decides on WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. It would be possible to construct a very PoV article on either side of any significant dispute, using only RS.

Rich Farmbrough, 15:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

Thanks for your advice. I have made my final comment in Intoronto's talk page and I will discuss further on the RfC.Sudar123 (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Saudi Arabia. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You failed to notify me about the thread you opened at ANI. You are required by the rules to do so - the fact it got kicked out within a few hours is irrelevant. The consensus on the Talk:Saudi Arabia clearly supports what I've been trying to tell you, but if you try to take it to any other noticeboard, as you appear to say you will do, you will have the same notification obligation. DeCausa (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You were given a final warning last year about copyright violations. I have just looked at your recent contributions, and find that despite the warnings virtually every single addition you have made to articles during the last months has been a direct copy-and-paste or a very close paraphrase of copyrighted text. Since this is obviously a persistent issue with you and not just a one-off mistake, I have blocked you indefinitely. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Please unblock this account at you earliest possible, otherwise I will take this issue for the consideration of other Admins and to the ArbCom via ArbCom mailing list that you have blocked my account under Conflict of Interest for my response to you on the deletion discussion of Rizana.Sudar123 (talk) 10:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide the diffs supporting your claim that a final warning last year about copyright violations? Then it will be easy for other administrators and the ArbCom to have a look on your claims.Sudar123 (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's the warning: . And no, just because you made some off-topic comments in a discussion in which I had participated does not mean I am in a "conflict" with you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a year ago.Sudar123 (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was a year ago. And despite the warning, you continued your disruptive actions during all this time. The block was long overdue; the real problem is that you managed to sneak your edits through for so long, and now the damage to many articles will be hard to correct. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Here are the diffs of your copyright-violating edits: (from September), (November), . This is almost the totality of all non-trivial mainspace edits you have made during this period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I went through those diffs; they are not serious copyright violations; but the process of expanding Wikipedia. Sudar123 (talk) 11:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I predict you will fail to get unblocked as long as you refuse to accept that there was something wrong with your edits. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I was contacted by Sudar123 by email. At random I took a look at this diff and it does appear to be copyright violation - the wording is very similar to the source. Sudar if you are unblocked you do need to be a lot more careful about copyright - as it is something we have to take extremely seriously.

With regards to User:Future Perfect at Sunrise making the block - well if we are to avoid being an ossified bureaucracy Future Perfect at Sunrise is a reasonable person to make the block as the block itself seems OK, even though he is arguably WP:INVOLVED, but also by the same token Sudar is perfectly justified in getting a little upset about it - and no-one should get too excited about that either. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:19, 24 January 2013 (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).

Sudar123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I have added content on those pages on the believe that they qualify under Fair Use. I acted in the good faith of expanding the encyclopedia.

Decline reason:

As long as you're going to be as tendentious and combative as you are in the above discussion, Wikipedia is well-served by this block regardless of whether you're right or not. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2013 (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.

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).

Sudar123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I ask to be unblocked, as I had reason to believe that the contents in questions were in FairUse and there was no intent by me to violate Wikipedia's copyright policies. I promise not to do so again and do wish to continue my participation and ongoing deletion discussion of Rizana's Image, where I also promise to keep my own comments brief, neutral, and policy based. After Eraserhead1 pointed out, I think I am wrong and understand I have violated copyright issues; I will be careful in the future to not add content which violates Copyright policy... and IF I have any doubts, I will neutrally seek advice and input from other, more experienced editors, and will heed such advice. I had wrong understanding on "Fair Use" and "Indirect Quotation" until I read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. I am now clear of the Wikipedia requirement of content creation and expansion. I will be more careful in content creation and will write in my own words to the maximum.

Decline reason:

This request for unblocking has been declined due to your history of copyright violations and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

• Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
• Read our guide to improving articles
• Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
  • If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas.
• Click the Edit tab at the top of that article and scroll down past the message informing you of your block.
• Copy the source of that article and paste it to the bottom of your talk page under a new top-level heading (like this: = [[Article title]] =) and save the page before you improve it.
• Propose some significant and well researched improvements to your article by editing your personal copy of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies, especially copyright.
• When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
  • If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{helpme|your question here}}" to your talk page. Thank you. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:17, 30 January 2013 (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.

Sudar123 sent me e-mail, asking me to help him get unblocked. I feel I need to turn down this request decline to get involved — in part because I have been significantly WP:INVOLVED with him in the past in connection with the Sri Lankan conflict topic, and also because I am unwilling to reverse the actions of two administrators (Future Perfect at Sunrise and Daniel Case) without an overwhelmingly clear reason. In my opinion, if Sudar123 is unable to get his block rescinded via his second unblock request, his best (and probably only) recourse would be to make his case to ArbCom's Ban Appeals Subcommittee. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC) 22:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Richwales for your advice.Sudar123 (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Please expand upon the comment in your latest unblock request: what led you to believe that the items in question were fair use?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I had wrong understanding on "Fair Use" and "Indirect Quotation" until I read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. I am now clear of the Wikipedia requirement of content creation and expansion. I will be more careful in content creation and will write in my own words to the maximum.Sudar123 (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Sudar also emailed me. Sudar, you cannot be oppressed by a single admin, because your unblock appeal will always be considered by a different one; but equally you will not get unblocked by emailing all the admins you can find, and maintaining that you have done nothing wrong. Copyright is a very serious issue for Wikipedia. To be unblocked, you will need to convince an administrator that you have read Wikipedia:Copy-paste, Wikipedia:Quotations, Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, Wikipedia:Fair use, and understand why your edits were a problem, and explain what you will do differently if you are unblocked. JohnCD (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

An answer to my question would be a positive move. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for providing above details. I had wrong understanding on "Fair Use" and "Indirect Quotation" until I read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. I am now clear of the Wikipedia requirement of content creation and expansion. I will be more careful in content creation and will write in my own words to the maximum.Sudar123 (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Tick tock, why hasn't he been unblocked yet? A clearer understanding of the rules looks to have been shown as requested by the second declined unblock, and lets not forget that the first declined unblock was for a pretty silly reason given the blocking admin was WP:INVOLVED.

Do I really have to ask Arbcom to look at this to resolve it? That seems very bureaucratic... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I've asked the blocking and declined unblocking admins to look at this again. Hopefully they will respond within the next few days - otherwise Arbcom it is :/ -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding? He has been asked to show a sample of his work. There's no need to go to ArbComm, he simply has to follow the instructions above and PROVE to the community that he is going to actually be able to edit within the guidelines and policies that he says he now understands. The proof is in the pudding so they say. Stop trying to to do end-runs, and simply follow the bloody instructions as provided (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Given that it wasn't clear to me, an editor with vast experience and 25,000 edits, then it wasn't clear enough before for this editor that that was what you wanted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I've created a sandbox page at: User talk:Sudar123/Sandbox - presuming you can edit that page copy the next wiki page you want to change in there and make the changes you want to make to show you have understood the rules. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

FFS, he can ONLY edit this page while blocked. Period. He has to follow the directions. C'mon, don't do his work for him. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations for making it as difficult and bureaucratic as possible for this editor to follow your directions. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

How is it bureaucratic? Do you not understand the blocking policy? Do you not understand the technical aspects of a block? If no to either, then stop commenting on them - it's YOU who are making it more difficult for the editor. It's not like I have the magical power to change how blocks work. The decline template I used above has been used by admins and editors quite successfully thousands of times. I've seen no comment from the editor, but a whack of whinging from you - let them do what they have been asked to do: it's not rocket science, and you're most certainly NOT helping them (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If you produce a page long instruction set to follow to become unblocked and then make it so they have to edit inside a section on this page (which is very cumbersome) then the process is clearly bureaucratic. And you realise that the overly long and overly complex instruction set is precisely the reason the user here has given up with the unblock process. You could just give this user a chance to hang themselves - and its not as if Wikipedia hasn't given users lots of chances before (in fact >30 in some cases as I recall).

Finally claiming I am responsible for causing this user to remain blocked is absurd - all I asked for was adequate communication from the admin team and given some feedback about the blocking process. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Eraserhead1, this is not someone who was blocked for misusing arcane WP templates, or for not providing sources for information, or even for edit warring. This is a copyright violation. That's not something we can play around with. Sudar123 defended, for quite a while, including before the block, the notion that his edits were acceptable under fair use, despite being told numerous times they weren't. Now, all that's been asked is that the user demonstrate what it means to actually edit an article using one's own words. Copyright is not something we can fool around with. Whenever we spot a copyright vio, our responsibility is to remove it or fix it immediately. This is not a matter where we can give the user WP:ROPE. Repairing copyright problems is so painful and time consuming that we are justified in asking for evidence that the alleged newfound understanding is genuine. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Eraserhead1, thanks for your effort. I will expand content for the article Genetic studies on Sri Lankan Tamils in the coming days here on my talk page. Hope, there after you can take this issue for the ArbCom since as you have mentioned the first declined unblock was for a pretty silly reason given the blocking admin was WP:INVOLVED.Sudar123 (talk) 11:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Eraserhead's threats to take it to WP:BASC are mere brinksmanship, and would be a pretty dumb idea overall for you. He's certainly not acting like an ally right now. Choose to listen to good advice, for your own sake (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Even Richwales advised me, "In my opinion, if Sudar123 is unable to get his block rescinded via his second unblock request, his best (and probably only) recourse would be to make his case to ArbCom's Ban Appeals Subcommittee". I couldn't understand who is right at the moment. It is more confusing the whole Wikipedia process with WP:INVOLVED.Sudar123 (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Please understand that when I said your "best (and probably only) recourse" at this point would be to make a case to ArbCom's BASC, I was not suggesting that the BASC will unblock you; I was simply saying that no one else is likely to do so. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you could appeal to BASC. However, as your history above shows you still did not consider your actions to be violations, and continued to deny problems, they are not likely to unblock without seeing some form of proof. So, either way, you need to prove yourself. "Run of the mill admins" are often more forgiving when provided with a compelling case :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that Bwilkins is pretty much on the mark here. BASC doesn't usually just overrule admins who've blocked and declined unblocks without a good reason. And part of that reason will certainly have to include a clear explanation of what was wrong and what will change in the future. So long as you, Suday123, assert that the previous edits weren't a problem, or that they were mostly okay but with a slight misunderstanding of Fair Use, unblocking simply isn't possible by anyone. While Wikipedia isn't responsible for copyright violations done by its users, it does have a responsibility to remove copyright violations when found and try to stop them from happening again. So BASC is just unlikely to help, even though you are allowed to pursue it. But if you, instead, follow the process Bwilkins has outlined here, then there is every possibility that either he or I or another admin might be willing to give you one more shot. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I have already agreed that I will expand content for the article Genetic studies on Sri Lankan Tamils in the coming days here on my talk page. In addition to that only I asked for a ArbCom involvement. If ArbCom is not necessary then it is fine.Sudar123 (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

That sounds great. I'll try to pay attention and advise, if you want my advice. You could also ask a for a wholly uninvolved editor to take a look; I'm sure we could find one somewhere. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.Sudar123 (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)