User talk:Muthuwella

Welcome!

Hello, Muthuwella, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! JohnCD (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anushka Wirasinha

This debate is closed; please do not alter the archived record. If you disagree with the result, you should first approach user Shimeru (talk · contribs), the administrator who closed the debate; if you cannot agree with Shimeru, you can take it to WP:Deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to this edit, please read Wikipedia's policies Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. You should comment on content and not on the contributors. JohnCD (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Muthuwella. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JohnCD (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re [1]. The quoted text "Hello, [...] article" is from someone who emailed the foundation: ticket:2010060110003938, not from me (unfortunately my edits on the Articles_for_deletion page were for a short time changed [2] [3] so that it looked like someone else's words were mine). I agreed with a nomination for deletion, my reason being only "Not encyclopedically notable, non reliable sources". -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-06-28t22:00z
Re [4].
I didn't do anything about my 18 words being changed because I didn't know about it and it's rare for someone to change someone else's AfD and talk page comments like User:Chamithra and you did. It was undone after about 7 hours.
What was there for 23 days was what I quoted from the email, the quotes (") and indentation indicate that it's someone else's writing. AfD pages aren't crawled by Google. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-06-29t12:39z
Re [5]
vBulletin is just the software used by raw2an.com for their forum.
The repost at raw2an.com incorrectly attributes the email to me by removing my sentence before the quote.
I tried to find a way contact the admin who reposted it at raw2an.com, but the contact form at http://www.rss.raw2an.com/sendmessage.php goes to http://www.royal4host.net/ when you click in the fields or tab to the radio buttons. From the homepage http://www.raw2an.com/, clicking the feedback tab (2nd tab from the left at the top) takes you to a page that doesn't exist: http://www.raw2an.com/feedback.html
I think the best would be to just let it go - see the Streisand effect. Sometimes you have to accept that others will incorrectly attribute things to you that you didn't write, and that sometimes people will write opinions you don't agree with. The more we write about it on user_talk pages, the higher Google will rank it, and the more attention it will get. User_talk pages are shown by Google and used in its rankings, but AfD pages are not (and the comments on the AfD page have been blanked); so I suggest you remove the raw2an.com link you put on my user_talk page so that it doesn't increase the Google ranking for the raw2an.com repost, and then blank the Wirasinha threads here on your user_talk page and ask others to blank those threads on their user_talk pages. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-06-30t09:36z
[indented] "Sometimes you have to accept that others will incorrectly attribute things to you that you didn't write,"
Untruths are libel, it discredits the author and harms her reputation and it should not be accepted.
"sometimes people will write opinions you don't agree with"
An untruth has nothing to do whether you agree with it or not. An opinion is libel when it is blatantly untrue, falsely accuses and harms the reputation of the author.
Please let me know how I can find information on a submitted ticket and whom to contact in this regard. I would require an email or phone number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuwella (talk • contribs) 2010-06-30t17:34:17z
[moved] Thank you for all your help on this. This is obviously done with malice and tracks covered to prevent detection.
I will try contacting the wikifoundation on this. Was the ticket sent to wikipedia Foundation or wikimedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuwella (talk • contribs) 2010-06-30t19:21:03z
To get details of the person who sent the email, you'll need a "valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement," per the foundation's privacy policy. I doubt you'll be able to do that since the emailed comment looks like the kind of information needed for justification in article deletion nomination requests.
The Wikipedia project is run by the Wikimedia foundation. The email was sent to the foundation's volunteer response team.
If you have further questions, please reply on my user talk page, otherwise I won't be alerted to your replies on this page; and please sign your edits with ~~~~. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-07-02t12:18z

justification for deletion should be after evaluation of TRUE comments and factual comments. The email claims untruthful statements and amounts to libel. It is damaging author credibility when author did not state untrue qualifications. Surely you are not saying that anyone can use an untruth to get a credible article deleted. There are other user comments that counteract this malicious statement. I really doubt that anyone would go by an untruth to nominate a deletion. It is ok is deletion was for lack of info or lack of notability as the earlier article didn't have much but deleting an article based on untruth is not acceptable. Also vanity can't be used as a deletion criteria if you want to discredit the article and assume it was vanity. Also the fact that they removed your quotes and posted on a site and the site links to another fake site sort of explains the mindframe of the person emailing the statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuwella (talk • contribs) 2010-07-02t13:48:40z

We'll have to agree to disagree. Your comments seem worse to me than those that were emailed, but neither are bad enough for subpoenas or accusations of libel. The email didn't criticize Wirasinha, but were criticisms of the edits in the Wikipedia article about her.
Per wp:v: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".
There is also no verifiable evidence that the person who sent the email, is the admin on the external site - it looks instead like the external site lists many deletion nomination page quotes, since before the Wirasinha nomination, and after. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-07-02t15:42z

It is a verifiable truth. Look at the email carefully. Doesn't it refer to the website www.anushkawirasinhafoundation.org and refer to "CSS HARVARD" on that site stating that the author misrepresented her qualification there? Do you agree on this much? Then look at the author qualification on that page "CSS HARVARD". Now go to google and search "CSS HARVARD". You get the cert of special studies at the extension school of Harvard. So, the author by stating "CSS HARVARD" has stated the verifiable truth. Extension school is a school within Harvard and the CSS is post grad studies. But the author has not even said post grad studies. She has merely said CSS Harvard. I went on to look at others who have done CSS and some have the year following the CSS ie- CSS'91 Harvard. So it is a verifiable truth. email clearly says that by the statements the author made she misrepresented her qualification to be a degree. But stating CSS Harvard is not stating "degree" or "post grad".

Also wikipedia refers to post grad studies as being a degree or cert. "The email didn't criticize Wirasinha, but were criticisms of the edits in the Wikipedia article about her" Not. Email implies the author misrepresented her qualifications by the statements the author made to imply the author had obtained a post graduate degree from Harvard. This is implying the author lied. How can the author misrepresent her qualifications as a post graduate degree when she has said she got a CSS HARVARD on her website? The email has no verifiable truth to it. Where does the author say she got a "degree"????

As far as libel goes...I didn't ask you if it was. It falls into the context of it and I wanted the information as any untruth that discredits the author and harms the author falls into the context of libel.

Anyway moving on from this I have created a new page for the author. Only thing I agree on is that the links that were in the earlier author page were dreadful. They were a collection of the worst with poor research. I have spent a lot of time on gathering info for a new page. I wish I saw the links before I saw the page deleted, I would have intervened and provided content.

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Muthuwella. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JohnCD (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I understand you're trying to contact me? You can reply here, if it's easier. My on-wiki time will be sporadic for a few days, but I should see it and respond within a day or so. Shimeru 19:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shimeru, hope you get this message as I am just learning to navigate wikipedia. I saw the comments that I thought you had written about the article ANUSHKA WIRASINHA. By the time I saw the article it was deleted and more than the deletion what was written to warrant its deletion was very concerning and sad. I was told that you did not start the deletion or write the comments but whoever started it or wrote untrue things to warrant deletion did it through either ignorance or malice. There are more than enough documents that I have researched on this author. Her career is very credible. The University of London verified her credentials and her foundation page has her credentials as "CSS Harvard" which is correct as the CSS is beyond graduate studies and is in fact post graduate. There is no misinformation that the author seems to have done. I also found that she was an assisting lecturer in Micro Computers. She is also a member of the Harvard Faculty Club. I checked her books that I am familiar with as I am from Sri Lanka and 24 Universities have listed these. However none of these facts had been entered into the original writeup and hence those that didn't look into her books and career did not get the facts right. I also looked into IMTA and it is a very reputable organization where Katie Holmes was also discovered. I checked with John Robert Powers agency where she had been a student and only 4 or 5 students are sent to IMTA even though there maybe an entry fee like any other competition. I researched further and found that her books were endorsed by the Sri Lanka government and many authentic outsider evaluations have been done for her work. She is a Sri Lankan author we are proud of and we don't want her page deleted. Her publications are certainly not trivial as her 3 bestseller books were published by Prentice Hall of India and this is credible. Finance India also has a mention. There are so many other things this young author has done. Please don't tarnish her name with inaccurate details. I am working with a friend to research further and if you can be so kind as to put her page back up we will work on adding all the verifiable details. Once we add everything and if you then feel it has no value, we won't be disappointed if it is deleted. My friend can even find documentation verified by a legal source on her credentials. So I hope you will undelete this author and give us a chance to make a great page for her. If you attend to this asap we would appreciate as it is sad to see wrong information about her trickling into google searches. Thank you.

How do I get the squiggles on the page?

On my keyboard the "tilde" character ~ is at the right, on the same key as #, but you may find it along the top row above one of the numerals. Another way to sign a comment is to click the "signature" button, which looks like this: , above the edit box. JohnCD (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Muthuwella. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JohnCD (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some looking into the matter, and you appear to be mistaken about at least one thing. The Harvard CSS is a certificate program equivalent to one year of study beyond the bachelor's degree. This is a level lower than a master's degree, and nowhere near a doctorate or postdoctoral studies. It is, in particular, not a "graduate degree." That aside, the greater problem with the deleted article was the lack of reliable independent sources for its claims. If you can provide such sources, it would be possible to recreate the article. The sort of thing to look for would be newspaper or magazine articles (but not press releases), radio or television interviews, or independent reviews of her books in education trade journals. It is not necessary for these sources to be in English, although that would be preferred, since this is the English-language Wikipedia and English sources would be more easily checked by readers. It might be beneficial to create an article in your user space, while you're working on gathering sources; it could then be moved into the main article space later.
I've also had a look at the AfD. What was said that you consider libel? Shimeru 19:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message copied here from my talk page

(to give you convenient access to it, and so that Shimeru can see it)

What you need to do now is:

  • Answer Shimeru on your talk page (above here), where he replied to you yesterday
  • Read Wikipedia:Your first article
  • Improve the draft article at User:Muthuwella/Anushka Wirasinha as much as you can. I have improved the layout, and I will post some advice here on your talk page later today, but I do not have time to help you write it.
  • You can ask at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback for comments and advice on the draft article. If you do that, explain that a first version was deleted at AfD and you need to establish notability.
  • When you think it is ready, ask Shimeru if you have overcome the difficulties which caused deletion at the AfD. He may say:
    • Yes, you can post the article, or
    • Yes, but it must again go through an AfD deletion debate, to see if the community accepts it, or
    • No, if you want it you must go to WP:Deletion review

You should understand that on Wikipedia nobody owns an article - see WP:OWN - other people can and will edit it, and you, or Ms Wirasinha, cannot insist on the version you want. Read WP:LUC to see why people who have an article about them may not be happy with the result. Whatever happens, remember to keep calm, be civil, do not attack other users if they disagree with you. JohnCD (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your advice and feedback...I will follow your guidelines and watch for your advice. However, I perfectly understand that other people can edit any article on wikipedia and noone can insist on the version they want. I don't want to insist on the version i want for the author. But I will insist where I see slander and where extremely poor research has been done purposely to discredit the author. For example implying the author was lying about qualifications is the MOST serious slander of reputation and completely a wrong and malicious edit. You would see this fact just looking at the facts logically and the data available online for the author. The Author has never NEVER lied and editing in this way is not civil and a blatant attack on the authors credibility and constitutes undue slander. Disagreement is very different to slander. Where an author is accused of lying is not a disagreement. It is malice and slander. Please understand that notable authors have people who like to attack and discredit them. Wikipedia must guard against that so notable people are not slandered maliciously on the basis of editing. I am in the process of trying to get through to one of the agents of the author. I want to get more info that has been there also offline for this author. I also went to many other wikipedia pages where the pages for those people hardly have any credible links...So I feel this author was just a target of slander. Facts point to it as accusations make no sense.

Advice on sources and draft article

This advice is only my opinion, and other people might say different. I suggest you ask for more comments by posting at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback.

You are trying too hard, and you have too many references. There is no need to give a great list of twelve links to every library which has a copy of her book, particularly when they are PDF files which have to be downloaded. Say that the book is held in N libraries, and give one or two examples.

Much the most useful references are ones where somebody independent comments on her or on something she has done, like book reviews.

Then come ones which confirm that she has done something; usefulness depends on whether what they document is significant - merely being a member of some club or having a degree is not very significant for notability. You need to organise references like the Library of Congress one so that her name appears when you click on it - I found her by spending some time searching in the site, but you should not expect readers to do that.

References which are no use at all are ones which do not mention her, for instance John Robert Powers and IMTA. All those links show is that the organizations exist, they do not show anything about her. In fact I would advise leaving out those sections - many people try to "Pursue a modeling career", but did anything notable come of it? ...and the same for the "best smile" competition. Those items make her sound like the girls we keep getting who think they can become an "internet celebrity" because they have entered a talent show. Notability is not acquired by adding lots of different small items.

Overall I have my doubts whether she meets the notability requirement, but if she does at all it is because of her textbooks and the fact that they have been adopted in schools, plus the digital art/animation business. I should concentrate on those, present her as an author/educator, not as an author/model/beauty contestant.

Sorry, that is all I have time for. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the time you have taken to do this. If she doesn't meet the notability criteria then many others on wikipedia that are there do not. I put IMTA because getting a "best smile" award is quite a talent. I saw in other wikipedia profiles simple links have been put like charities the profiled people have helped and organizations they are a part of. This author has so much she has done and I think it would be unfair if she is left out of wikipedia and not be treated as notable. There are so many reviews offline for her...in magazines, papers etc ...how do I include these? It can be scanned and included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuwella (talk • contribs) 23:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Here are some other profiles of Sri Lankan authors...please note that they don't have as much information as I am trying to provide for this article. There are reference to newspapers but no links to them, some have organizations they belong to...if I list it for this one there are over 100. So I do get a little insulted when the notability of this author is questioned. Most of these say cited in such and such a magazine and when you click on the link it goes to the magazine not their citation. If this is the case we will simply list all the endless magazines and publications this authour has been reviewed in. Also the initial deletion initiated was also extremely questionable and should not have been acted on. I saw other member reviews that state that the notability factor is present in her previous profile.
F Vijita Fernando J Kumari Jayawardena R Anne Ranasinghe W Nira Wickramasinghe Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sri_Lankan_women_writers" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuwella (talk • contribs) 23:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
There are over 3 million articles in Wikipedia. Many of them are not as good as they should be. For that reason, when a question like notability is being considered, arguments like "But it's more notable then that other article" or "If you delete this you will have to delete all those others" are not accepted - see What about article x?. The discussion is only about this article and whether it meets the standard. Cries of "it's not fair" do not help.

I thought wikipedia had the same standards of notability for inclusion for all. I didn't know that one article can be included with just a description with no independent sources and another be deleted even if it had much more. Since you said that it's hard to find the info for author in copyright office when just the copyright site is entered, I wanted to bring this to your attention that other entries have just a link to the copyright office not to publications. How would you feel if you did an exam and one student was judged by a different set of rules to the other? This is not on my part to make things difficult, I just didn't see it as fair. I'll try to provide whatever I can to adhere to the standards I have to meet for this article.

Keep the prettiest smile competition if you like - my advice was only my personal opinion, because when I look at an article that contains what seems to me irrelevant trivia I start to think "If this person was really notable s/he wouldn't need all this stuff." It won't help to "list all the endless magazines" once you have two or three substantial reviews of a book.

Point noted. I included it as she is pretty. In my view some authors don't have such varied accomplishments so I thought it would be an interesting add but I get your point when I read it in the context you have written.

A final piece of advice - don't take all this so personally, don't "get a little insulted" if people have a different opinion from yours, don't call other people's opinions "extremely questionable" and "slander".

I am taking it personally. I like the author. I am also Sri Lankan. She is a credible author and the edit shocked me. I must still stress the fact that the edit was extremely questionable because it accuses the author of being a liar for boosting self persona. If someone wants to pint to another persons credibility, facts must be there. Since the author did not state wrong facts this is not merely an opinion.

Three different single-purpose accounts were set up within one day to defend this article; we assume good faith that you are not the subject or employed by her, but since your primary interest here seems to be to promote Ms Wirasinha it would do no harm for you to read Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest, particularly the section "Don't push." You should also assume good faith about other editors. Just improve the draft article, ask for advice on it and consider that advice, and see how it goes.

Please kindly note that my primary purpose here is enlightening a wrong not to promote the author. I don't need to promote her. She had a page that was already here. I checked on it on google for new info and found it deleted and looked into the reasons. The reason was not acceptable. You can delete for reason of lack of info till more info is entered or delete for useless links. These I accept but a deletion saying she misrepresented her qualification is a serious hit on anyone's credibility and you can't expect any one who respects her as an author to sit and let it's just a "opinion" go without clearing her name. I am here to make sure that her credibility is not questioned wrongfully. How many facts am I to give you saying she only put her qualifications as CSS Harvard and that is not a lie. I am not pushing I am trying to clarify an attempt to discredit the author and my concern is being pushed aside as a mere opinion which it is not. It is an "untruth" and that is a fact.

I also looked into the Asian American page as that was mentioned. See what it says: "She entered Harvard University completing her post graduate studies in 1996 in Special Studies in Administration and Management" Note that it is accurate info.

See wikipedia itself on the Post graduate:

"[edit] Non-degree qualifications Postgraduate education can involve studying for qualifications such as postgraduate certificates and postgraduate diplomas — normally held to be lower than degrees. They are sometimes used as steps on the route to a degree, or as part of training for a specific career, or as a qualification in an area of study too narrow to warrant a full degree course."

Please understand that I am not at all promoting her. I am not pushing or trying to be difficult but I don't want to cover my eyes and not see facts. If the facts are seen and her credibility restored that's what I want.

You can reply, if you want to, below here - no need to reply on my talk page as well, I will watch this. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point noted. Again please don't take things the wrong way. I appreciate all your help on this. I just want her credibility restored and an "untruth" recognised. I am working on the article but I wanted to reply on this so I am not misunderstood in my goodfaith attempts to clarify the situation. Thanks.

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Style magazine article.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Style magazine article.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Business Today Article- Anushka Wirasinha.pdf

Thanks for uploading File:Business Today Article- Anushka Wirasinha.pdf. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Anushka Launches 10 Books.pdf

Thanks for uploading File:Anushka Launches 10 Books.pdf. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Prolific Author.pdf

Thanks for uploading File:Prolific Author.pdf. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Women Achievers Sri Lanka Part 2.pdf

Thanks for uploading File:Women Achievers Sri Lanka Part 2.pdf. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File Copyright problem
File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Anushka Launches 10 Books.pdf. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 23:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Leo 23:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Women Achievers Sri Lanka Part 1.pdf

Thanks for uploading File:Women Achievers Sri Lanka Part 1.pdf. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File Copyright problem
File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Style magazine article.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 23:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Leo 23:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File Copyright problem
File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Prolific Author.pdf. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 23:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Leo 23:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Bookp2.pdf. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Business Today Article- Anushka Wirasinha.pdf

Thank you for uploading File:Business Today Article- Anushka Wirasinha.pdf. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Magazine1p1.pdf

Thanks for uploading File:Magazine1p1.pdf. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Magazine1p2.pdf

Thanks for uploading File:Magazine1p2.pdf. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Women Achievers Sri Lanka Part 2.pdf. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Bookp2.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bookp2.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 02:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If u need images of this author I can send some. Leme know —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamithra (talk • contribs) 23:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Muthuwella. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Anushka Wirasinha

If we just re-post this, there is a danger that it may be nominated for speedy deletion as a repost of deleted material. If we go to WP:Deletion review, it is likely that we shall be told to re-list it at AfD. So I have decided that the best thing to do is post it again, and re-list it at AfD at once, for the community's decision. That way, if it is accepted, there should be no further argument. I am notifying everyone who was concerned with the earlier article and the AfD.

Your opinion is welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anushka Wirasinha (2nd nomination). These debates normally run for seven days, after which an uninvolved admin will decide what to do. The decision will be based on the arguments put forward, not on the number of !votes. (They are called !votes, with a ! in front as a negation, meaning "not-vote").

Let me repeat the advice I gave you before. Keep calm, assume good faith, do not take any opinion which differs from yours as a personal attack on you or on Ms Wirasinha, do not assume that anyone who disagrees with you about her notability is motivated by malice. We are all trying to make a good encyclopedia, though we may disagree about how best to do it.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Anushka Wirasinha, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TAMIL TO ENGLISH TRANSLATION FOR ANUSHKA WIRASINHA ARTICLE

Muthuewella how can I get some articles I have on the author Anushka Wirasinha that are written in Tamil translated to English? Will wiki project Sri Lanka do a translation? Do you have an email? I don't want to upload them to wikipedia as I am not sure of photo policy either.Chamithra (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Muthuwella. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Muthuwella. You have new messages at HaeB's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Muthuwella. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Muthuwella. Thank you. LibStar (talk) 06:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for abuse of multiple accounts. 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 ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]