Talk:Batticaloa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Consensus This article is currently subject to editing restrictions, as laid out during a previous dispute resolution process. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out here. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it on this talk page first.
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Sri Lanka may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tamil civilization, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Tamil related topics. If you would like to participate, please feel free to visit the project page to join.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dravidian civilizations, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Dravidian related topics. If you would like to participate, please feel free to visit the project page to join.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Clean up suggestions

Way too much information for one page, we need to create seperate sup pages for

  • History of the Batticlao district
  • Demography of the Batticlao district

etc. Right now it is way too much Taprobanus 12:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bodhi Dhana's comments

The concerns of Taprob- have, I think, been largly addressed, and his comments were in the right direction.

I have been editing this page and trying to put in validated, acdemically accepted references to primary sources, history, etymology etc. Here I have followed the content in established journal literature. However, I note that SooriyaK has been reverting my edits and writing "Mattakallappu Manmiyam (மட்டக்களப்பு மான்மியம்) is the only resource having the valid resourses of the events recorded in the ancient Batticaloa". Unfortunately, IT IS NOT ENOUGH to just SAY that Mattakallappu Manmiyam is the only source..."etc. You need auhoritative references to support your claim. In fact, it is just his opinion, not supported by either writers like Casie-Chetti, Fr Gnanaprakasar, Sir Paul E Peries and T Devendra, Dr. Medhananda and other writers. All these scholars have an outstanding academic reputation while the material of "Mattakallappu Manmiyam" remains at the level of local folk legend. Such stuff have a place, but CANNOT be used to displace current academic opinion. Current academic opinion is what goes into an encyclopedia. If SooriaK thinks that "Mattakallappu Manmiyam" can be made the dominant point of view, he should begin by a learned article in, for example, a JSTOR peer-reviewd publication, get the concurrence or at least the notice of the scholars, and THEN come to the encyclopedia. SooryaK can also take the trouble to establish the basic validity of what I say by contacting some one like Prof. Sivathamby who has a good knowledge of the sociology and history of Batti. So I think continued removal of the etymology etc., that I have given in this article begins to appear like vandalism. Also, in the geography, SooryaK has attempted to define the city by naming temples. Usually, we state that the Temples are in the city, and NOT the wrong way round. So I have included his Temple Info in a separate subsection Bodhi dhana 01:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reported that this article is in the early stages of getting into an edit war, where SooryaK and his friends simply revert to old, unsubstantiated incomplete versions which contain no RS references. I have tried to include material from Soorykumar's [[1]] edits so that his views are also included. However, I do not get any feed back to discuss the issues. Instead, just reverting to a bad version is unproductive. I have also brough this to the attention of an administrator.Bodhi dhana 15:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverting valid ref'd NPOV entries is a violation of both wiki and the peace resolution's rules. Report to the SLR project talk page if it continues. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] situation after my report suggesting vandalism

I find that Sooryakumar has simply reveted my edit, with NO ANSWER OR DISCUSSION here. THis is even after my suggestion that the process has beome vandalism. So I am butting back the artcile which HAS references to RS etc. I am hlad that Hemeo has introduced the new protocol regarding SL articles on this. Bodhi dhana 05:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Dravidian civilizations

Image:Qxz-ad96.gif

Wiki Raja 20:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to reconciliation

Since this is a Sri Lanka article that is undergoing an edit war, I have boldly expanded the scope of our dispute resolution to include it. Please read the terms, etc. --Haemo 19:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

When you get down from you self made pedestal, you may realize you have no discretion to add this template to any article you want, so I'm been [[WP:BOLD|bold] and removing it. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 22:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Why? This is clearly yet another Sri Lanka related article with the same problem as all the other ones. I don't see your objection here, other than making a totally unwarranted personal attack on myself. --Haemo 22:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, disrupters should be blocked not conversed with. Thanks Taprobanus 13:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming good faith here, but if I don't get a meaningful response, I'm going to re-add the templates. --Haemo 19:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


Reverted the article back to the earlier version/correct of bodhi-dana. The present article was a total mess and totally neglected the real history of this city. Not a single inscription found in or out this city was written in tamil prior to 13 th century,　but there are hundreds of inscriptions written in Sinhalese can be found in the surrounding areas.Any changes to the article should be discussed here and I would hope people would bring solid evidence to back up what ever claims　they made. Thanking youIwazaki 会話。討論 05:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
My second edit is actually not a revert, I merely add restriction tag to the articleIwazaki 会話。討論 06:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use talk page

Everyone use the talk page rather than edit warring. Final warning to User:Sooryakumar. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)