User talk:HudsonBreeze

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello HudsonBreeze,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 05:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!) _.28Result:_.29}}[reply]

Blocked for edit warring

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Larry V (talk | email) 05:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Stop edit warring and please start discussing in a civil manner.--Blackknight12 (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ware rape in Sri Lanka

In order to be fair, and avoid further interruption, I'm noticing all editors involved in this article that the "Sri Lanka" section was deleted. No-one should add any content until we meat concensus on thearticle's talkpage here. Anyone can also ask question and offer reliable sources on there. Wish to see you around after your brake. Thanks and happy editing... ~ AdvertAdam^talk 10:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your entries at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

Thank you for your submissions to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Please note that in order for your request to be taken seriously you must use the template form to help us understand the problem. In addition you appear to be canvasing in an attempt to have your viewpoint "win". Please understand that Wikipedia works on a consensus of involved editors to resolve issues. The reasons for the removal of rape claims have been explained to you multiple times. Furthermore removal of unsourced assertions is not vandalism. Removal of sourced claims however is. Please review Bold Revert Discuss to understand why your actions were inappropriate. Hasteur (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Your posts on Dispute Resolution Noticeboard were of no help and did not specify what problems you were attempting to draw attention to. Whiteguru (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to HudsonBreeze regarding "war rape": you've got some good explanations above :). Just to clarify, the section was removed when it had 13 unreliable sources, while I've added it back myself with only two reliable sources. An editor shared a list of sources on the talkpage. Happy editing... ~ AdvertAdam^talk 12:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing tendancies

This is only a friendly reminder that your choice in editing topics and viewpoint may suggest to some editors that you are a single purpose account. Specifically that you are advocating for the claims of rape during the Sri Lanka Civil war by the military. Please consider the advice at the above linked page. Hasteur (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But I have contributed for the Alleged war crimes during the Sri Lankan Civil War.HudsonBreeze (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the behavior that's going on between you and Cossde on War crime, and re-adding a see-also link by proving the article is true or false is definitely unacceptable. I know both summaries are irrelevant, yours and his, but opening a discussion in the talkpage is the first step to take (not just an invitation). We don't go by right and wrong here on Wikipedia, it's not censored. We only go by WikiPolicies, and you violated these policies by edit-warring (weather you're right or wrong). Please read WP:BRD.
You have two options, either you apologies to the editor involved and work things out politely, or I'll report you both for edit-warring and get immediately blocked together. I'll be watching both articles, so I'm waiting for a fast response. Btw, the wikilove link on-top has nice beers ;) ~ AdvertAdam^talk 07:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The case was close, so I suggest that you study WP:BRD to avoid further mistakes. Happy editing... ~ AdvertAdam^talk 01:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

This is your last warning for personal attack. You know where it is. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 16:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka

Regarding the continues dispute on the Civil War section in the Sri Lanka article, I'm suggesting that everyone pull-out from editing and make any suggested constructive edits on this mediation sandbox. On the 18th, we can start discussing the content on the same page's discussion, to be able to seek consensus before we add anything to the main article. It's a high-traffic article, and I don't want to be a reason for misleading readers. So please keep it in your watchlist. Happy editing... Note: This is a generalized message ~ AdvertAdam^talk 17:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit Sri Lanka page.Please share your view about Cossde and Astronomyinertia removing Civil war section and incorporating the civil war stuff in post-independence srilanka to hide the civil war and push their POV(Arun1paladin (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

First the some editors who are Sinhalese opposed a Civil war section in Sri Lanka page and got it removed.Then from the remaining they started removing the references about atrocities done to Tamils in final phase of the genocidal war.Now they are editing it further to white wash the things.Isn't there nothing we can do to bring a neutral article!!??? (Arun1paladin (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

How India kept pressure off Sri Lanka and helped to win the civil war

We have to add this too in the article Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak (Sri Lanka) http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article1544202.ece?css=print (Arun1paladin (talk) 10:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Grease Devils

I think it's high time to create an article about Sri Lankan state sponsored greased devils/army men in grease used in new kind of genocide of Tamils ,targeting Tamil women in particular(Arun1paladin (talk) 04:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Sri Lanka Armed Forces DRN thread

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Sri Lanka Armed Forces". Thank you. --Distributor108 (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is just to let you know that the DRN thread has been closed due to lack of discussion on the talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Please post your views about the removal or maintain the status quo of war crimes allegation here on the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces#Do_not_add_war_crimes_allegation Distributor108 (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Sri Lanka. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 the 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 without further notice.--Blackknight12 (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chandre Dharmawardene

I have decided to use the conflict resolution process to resolve the matter as we have exhaousted the discussion. But the discussion did lead to at laest one pont of consensus aboutthe professors personal website. We will resolve it with time. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict resolution is the better process to resolve this issue.HudsonBreeze (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civil war section

I have taken the issue to the DRN. Astronomyinertia (talk) 17:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Sri Lanka. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 the 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 without further notice.--Blackknight12 (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid misusing my name, like you did here. I know you didn't mean to, but I never supported that version. It was only a clean-up after an edit-war, in order for all of us to focus on one thing at-a-time on the talkpage.
It's always better to explain controversial edits on the talkpage. Being too bold just don't work, per WP:BRD. Cheers... ~ AdvertAdam^on-mobile 06:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC notification

Within the continues efforts of trying to stabilize the Sri Lankan articles, I saw that it's important to take a step forward and request for comments from the open-wide community. I've opened the RfC here and you're welcome to join. Just remember, this is only about the structure and has nothing to do with the content. Cheers... This is a generalized message. ~ AdvertAdam^on-mobile 06:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Widespread chronic edit warring. Thank you. Swarm ^X 05:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Sri Lanka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sinhalese (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) 19:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jaffna kingdom

You might want to participate in this discussion at Talk:Jaffna kingdom#Migration of Sinhalese. Thanks.--Blackknight12 (talk) 03:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Sri Lanka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sinhalese (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) 10:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Sri Lanka. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Your last comment on Talk:Sri Lanka seems to be evoking racial hatred. Assume good faith and always keep one's race out of the discussion. WP:NPA specifically prohibits racial, religious, political, ethnic or other epithets directed against other contributors. Special note on the issue you were referring to, not only Sinhalese editors, but also other editors have opposed the addition of a separate section on civil war. You may not agree with them, but address their concerns, without restoring to the usual argument "Sinhalese editors want civil war section kept out of the article". Astronomyinertia (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the fact, then it is immaterial whether it has racial tone. I don't think so any Tamil Editors supporting the "Civil War" section should not be included. You can "Canvass" even non Sinhalese editors to voice for you how in the real world geopolitics play a major role at the expense of human rights.HudsonBreeze (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say replying in a racial tone is okay as long as the comment was made by a Sinhalese editor? I'm afraid there are no exceptions for the policy WP:NPA, as far as I know. And for the second time asking, what are your proof to allege that anyone has canvassed those non-Sinhalese editors to vote against the incluion of Civil War section? Astronomyinertia (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so just calling an Editor as Sinhalese is a personal attack. For the other question I have answered in the particular talk page. They should have come out their comment on a different thread facilitating for discussion rather than voting with brief comment if they are genuine enough. HudsonBreeze (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have gone farther than that and made blind allegations on Sri Lankan state and Sinhala race. Keep your personal opinions with you, and deal with Wikipedia editors in good faith. Wikipedia is not a battleground! Once again you, have failed to produce any proof to show that anyone has canvassed to vote against the incluion of a Civil War section. The reason that those editors have not come forward to elaborate their decision is not a proof for that. If you want them to come forward, first you should explain why you don't agree with each of them, regarding each of their opinions. Without doing that, you just accuse them for being canvassed, and ask to elaborate further. That is a wrong editing practice. Astronomyinertia (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lankan State is not the Sinhala race property...that is the way you all behaved since the independence. Those are canvassed votes ...I have explained enough on the Sri Lanka talk page. Don't post anymore here. I will delete hereafter.HudsonBreeze (talk) 06:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/I thread notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Shirt58 (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the discussion is no more there, I will comment on the talk pages when I have time.HudsonBreeze (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 20:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your baseless attacks in the ANI thread. Furthermore, your statement that you intend to begin edit warring as soon as the page protection is removed, despite the fact that there is currently no consensus for that change, is unacceptable. I recommend withdrawing that statement. If you continue with a battleground mentality, or if you edit war, I will block you. You say that we can't WP:AGF in the face of certain real world events. This is wrong, period. We always AGF unless a person's on Wikipedia edits indicate that they are not following policy. As a matter of fact, I am beginning to lose my assumption of your good faith: you seem to be saying that no matter what the consensus is, you will keep changing the article to your preferred version. That's disruptive editing, and we have to block people who are being disruptive. You say that ArbCom has to get involved; however, Arbcom does not rule on matters of content, only behavior. Since you seem to be the primary person behaving badly right now, I don't think that an ArbCom case is in your best interest. In any event, Arbcom only gets involved once other avenues of dispute resolution have been exhausted. You don't even want the RfC to run its proper course, so an Arbcom filing is premature at this time.

In short, follow the dispute resolution process. Do not attempt to circumvent it because you don't like the current result. Do not edit war, and don't accuse people of improper editing without evidence. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I withdraw the statement. But we had lengthy discussion at DRN and that was not taken anywhere and came to RfC. Again going to DRN will ultimately bring to RfC once again and then to ANI again and this circle will go on. That is why I suggested ArbCom enforcement since very rarely Content Disputes are resolved there. I want to take a break for the time being from this issue since I am messed up with personal issues in real life.HudsonBreeze (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a break to deal with real life is always smart--Real Life should always be more important than Wikipedia. The RfC will continue to run; if there is a clear consensus one way or the other, that should settle the matter (whether you're here or not). If there's no clear consensus, I can help advise the next best step (probably Mediation, but I'll have to look more into the history). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka photograph

I have moved thread to the article's Talk page. Iechyd da! Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 07:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Santos Gorrostieta

Nice work on that article. Very good to see work being done on her.

Just a small note... it appears there is some amount of plagiarism of the Daily Mail article by Sam Webb, and copyright violation. Example

Wiki text:

Gorrostieta was born in 1976 and graduated in medicine from a university in the city of Morelia. She was elected mayor of Tiquicheo in 2008 and served until 2011. During that time she defected from the Institutional Revolutionary party to the left-wing Democratic Revolution party.[1]

Daily Mail:

Gorrostieta was born in 1976 and graduated in medicine from a university in the city of Morelia. She was elected mayor of Tiquicheo in 2008 and served until 2011. During that time she defected from the Institutional Revolutionary party to the left-wing Democratic Revolution party.

I will try to clean it up myself if nobody else does. Thank you.

Decora (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please you do it.HudsonBreeze (talk) 05:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have awarded you Tireless Contributor Barnstar.HudsonBreeze (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Hudson Breeze. ComputerJA (seen below) is the real Tireless Contributor to the Mexican drug war articles. Decora (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Thank you for creating Maria Santos Gorrostieta! I'll be updating it in the next few days, so feel free to drop by with a pair of eyes. Happy editing! ComputerJA (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I nominated the article for DYK. Thanks again! ComputerJA (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have awarded you Tireless Contributor Barnstar.HudsonBreeze (talk) 09:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rizana Letter Tamil.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rizana Letter Tamil.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ✍ Mtking ✉ 07:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Execution of Rizana Nafeek. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. Please remove that section and allow for a full discussion ✍ Mtking ✉ 08:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such edit war, you appear finding wrong in something without proper explanation and trying to push your own POV.HudsonBreeze (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are, you reinserted that text, please follow WP:BRD one other editor is not a consesus. ✍ Mtking ✉ 08:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave the image and the content there till another editor contest it.HudsonBreeze (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No that's not how this works, try reading WP:BRD again, I removed it, pointed you to the talk page, wait till there has been a breadth of input and a clear consensus has been arrived at. ✍ Mtking ✉ 08:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given your block log for edit warring over Sri Lankan related articles you would know that. ✍ Mtking ✉ 08:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't discuss here. Other editor asked you clearly to add the image back.Please discuss on the article's talk page.HudsonBreeze (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Rizana Letter Tamil.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Rizana Letter Tamil.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rizana Letter Tamil.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rizana Letter Tamil.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ryan Vesey 17:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to repeat

Hey, HudsonBreeze, I just wanted to repeat a point here: a copyrighted work does not get released into the public domain just because it's intended for public distribution. Public domain is a totally separate thing from public distribution. Copyright stuff is tricky, so don't worry too much that you got it wrong (we won't hold it against you!). It's a totally understandable mistake. Just try to learn from it and move forward. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Writ Keeper, Though I agree with you, "Public domain is a totally separate thing from public distribution", this case is something different. Thanks for your effort.HudsonBreeze (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rizana Letter Tamil.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rizana Letter Tamil.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rizana Nafeeks' Image

Since 9 editors including 3 administrators(including Jimbo Wales) agreed that the image qualifies under fair use, I have added back the image to the page Execution of Rizana Nafeek. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise removed it. There is a revived discussion going on currently. Please let others know whether still you believe the Image has a Fair Use value?61.245.172.21 (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Sri Lanka. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Chamal ^T•C 09:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re your e-mail

I share your sentiments but it is not worth getting in an edit war and getting blocked. I have seen far too many editors getting blocked permanently because they don't know when to move on.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hawthorne Police Shooting on Dog Incident, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hawthorne (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) 10:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hawthorne, California dog shooting incident

The article Hawthorne, California dog shooting incident has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Seems to fail WP:EVENT; see WP:NOTNEWS.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hawthorne, California dog shooting incident for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hawthorne, California dog shooting incident is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawthorne, California dog shooting incident until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Hawthorne Police Shoot Leon Rosby's Rottweiler Dog Max.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hawthorne Police Shoot Leon Rosby's Rottweiler Dog Max.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Hawthorne Police Shoot Leon Rosby's Rottweiler Dog Max.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Hawthorne Police Shoot Leon Rosby's Rottweiler Dog Max.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the deletion template without successfully addressing the concern. You uploaded an image that is essentially the same image without addressing the concern. Thank you. — Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a different image. Your claim that I haven't successfully addressed the concern is your POV. If you revert next time, I will take this issue to ANI.HudsonBreeze (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I don't see how the image, which is nearly identical to its previous version, illustrates courage. I can't see arguing "courage" without arguing that the dog knew that it faced grave danger. — Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The previous image illustrates where the dog was nearly shot dead. But the current image illustrates when it takes an aggressive posture as his owner, Leon Rosby, is being arrested by the Hawthorne police. The dog sensed its master was facing grave danger; there is no reason why it should have come out of the car all the way there.HudsonBreeze (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted as well. In order for that image to be valid, you would need to argue that no other image of a Rottweiler could ever show a similar "attitude" or "emotion" (which I'm not even certain can be applied to dogs); if the image can be replaced by any other image, even of a different dog, then it does not meet NFCC. And since the situation shown there (a dog whose master is being in some way harassed or maybe even threatened by other individuals) is certain to possibly arise again in the future (even if it has not done so already), it is replaceable. If the Hawthorne dog article were to successfully remain in mainspace, it might be possible to argue NFCC for that article, but not for an article on the generic concept of Rottweilers. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I should point out that in the case of copyright and NFCC concerns, the burden is on the person who wants to add the image, not those removing it, to show that it meets our very strict rules. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Maybe you uploaded an image other than what you intended. Maybe there's some technical snafu. The images are nearly identical. Both the old and the new show the dog on the ground after being shot. I emphasize that the dog did not know that it faced grave danger. — Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC is a grey area for me to argue and win. Since I agree with some of the points Qwyrxian identified, I like to refrain further discussing on this issue.HudsonBreeze (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Hawthorne Police Shoot Leon Rosby's Rottweiler Dog Max.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hawthorne Police Shoot Leon Rosby's Rottweiler Dog Max.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely for using multiple accounts per the findings of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sudar123. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to learn you are blocked, but wishing you Holiday Cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt ^talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and aHappy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS

Thanks Michael. I returned to this after a long time.HudsonBreeze (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Black July 1983 Colombo.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Black July 1983 Colombo.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

see{{Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Colombo_Hilton_at_Night.JPG|authority}}, photography of buildings is protected under Sri lankan Copyright law unless there is an explicit statement permitting photos of such works.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 17:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Black July 1983 Colombo.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Black July 1983 Colombo.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. --Eng. M.Bandara-Talk 20:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Black July 1983 Colombo.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Black July 1983 Colombo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]