Jump to content

Talk:Trincomalee

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To the LTTE-rump editors in here

[edit]

This is an article about trincomalee, not an article to see which ethnicity is more compassionate towards others or who is more cruel. Please refer to the following section from the article and see how ridiculous it sounds and give reasons as to the relevance of it to an article about trincomalee.

Sri Lankan Tamils consider this place to be sacred to them and are widely believed to be the indigenous people of the area. Trincomalee and its environs have many Tamil Hindu sites of historical importance. These sites are sacred to the Hindus and some Buddhists worship in these Hindu sites. Even though King Mahasena demolished the Sivan Temple and built a Mahayana Buddhist temple on the hilltop the Hindus of this area maintain a good peaceful relationships with the minority Sinhala Buddhists living in the area. This was possible because Hinduism being a peaceful religion was tolerant and does not advocate violence even when the Buddhist committed disruptive acts.

Please reword the above or it will be removed as it lacks sources and its blatantly offensive one toethnic group. --203.167.243.169 (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TrincoOnline

[edit]

http://chat.carleton.ca/~jshanthi/trincoonline/

[edit]

11 May 2006: This article on Trincomalee seems to a verbatim quote of another website: http://kataragama.org/sacred/koneswaram.htm

Capital of Tamil Eelam

[edit]

Trincomalee has declared as capital even before they loose the control over Jaffna. I corrected it.--Mayooresan 16:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More biased

[edit]

This article seems more biased... I think some one editing it in order to make a view like Trincomalee is a Sinhala area and Tamils have just jumped in after 13 th century. Anyhow I corrected and add some more information.--Mayooresan 06:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any disputes have to be solved here.. so I asked to provide enough ref to the information like thirukonamalai is a old sinhala word. --Mayooresan 07:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Balanced Record with Citations

[edit]

I introduced edits to reflect the complex history of Trincomalee district that is at once both Hindu and Buddhist. I refer to sources such as the Mahavamsa, the Culavamsa, the Agni Purana, the Tevaram, the Dakshina Kailasa Puranam, the Konesar Kalvettu in Pali, Sanskrit and Tamil respectively.

I notice that Snowolf removed my edits which I then reintroduced.

It merits mention that ethnic cleansing took place due to the action of all armed actors i.e. the LTTE and Government. To make mention of the former and not the latter is partial.

The history of the place needs to be based on rigorous source material, not mytho-nationalism as attempted in certain instances in the earlier version which I corrected with reference to due literary citations. --Dipendra2007 14:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dipendra,

I completely agree with your take since you provide due references. The one SnowolfD tried to insert is a Buddhist nationalist perspective that tried to mention that the Buddhist temple preceded the Hindu. And he deleted the literary references that you provided to the contrary. It looks like Rajapakse's politics is playing itself out in Wikipedia. This chap is selective in his deletions - to prove Sinhala primacy. --MrinaliniB 15:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but bar Mahavamsa and Chulavamsa, non of those texts will pass WP:RS. In the case of the Mahavamsa, if you are referencing anything, you should provide links to the relevant page on a version found online. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 16:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you Snowwolfd4! You are a blatant Sinhalese supremacist. It is now evident that the Sinhalese Tamil conflict has erupted in Wikipedia.

Who are you to mention that non of the texts will pass except for the Mahavamsa and Culavamsa. Are you the judge and historical authority here? The Agni Purana, the Tevaram, the Konesar Kalvettu are literary texts just as legitimate as the Mahavamsa and Culavamsa. In fact, the Agni Purana and Teveram are just as well known than the Mahavamsa in orientalist circles. You are obviously no historian but a racist.

I will not give in to your bias and prejudice. I will check this page every day and insist that the more nuanced version introduced by Dipendra is maintained. No wonder your country is messed up!!! No one respects other historical perspectives duly supported by evidence --MrinaliniB 14:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Mrinalini is right. Trincomalee has a diverse archeological legacy. There are different historical accounts. All should be reflected in the text with supporting evidence. Dipendra did that. The Thevaram is hugely important in the Hindu religious tradition and it is crucial source material here. Snowolf should not be dictatorial and a censor. --Dharman Dharmaratnam 14:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, you are deleting text that you don't agree with and adding your interpretation of history. Per WP:NPOV and WP:V that is just not allowed on Wikipedia. Feel free to make your own blog or websites about your theories, but don't try to degrade the accuracy of Wikipedia. I'm not even going to get into how reliable ancient Hindu poems are. What next? Are we going to include the story of Rama and his army of monkey's as a fact in the History of Sri Lanka article?
And this incivility is really not getting you anywhere.--snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 16:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowolf:

I reverted your changes. It is you who are deleting text that you do not agree with.

The Mahavamsa is seen by many as myth. I have instead retained reference to it as one authentic text, out of many. The Agni Purana and the Tevaram are likewise referenced for similar reason since they provide historical data. The version in Wikipedia which you insist upon itself has many inaccuracies.

For instance, the word "Kone" in Tamil is not "East". It means "king" or "lord". Likewise the reportedly Sinhalese etymological origins of the word Trincomalee is itself in doubt. But I retained reference to it out of respect to earlier authors who celebrate a different tradition. The fact remains that the earlier author did not provide convincing evidence or a citation to prove his/her theory which I suspect is flawed. But I did not arbitrarily delete it since many are of that view.

What you have done it to delete any reference to Hindu texts while only keeping Buddhist texts as source material. That is your PoV. I think the edits I made (which by the way are not complete out of due respect to earlier authors who were presumably Sinhalese judging by their tone) provide more information on the history of the place.

You can not arbitrarily censor. Neither are you the sole judge of what source materials are acceptable or not. There are many texts. Remember, I did not delete references to the Mahavamsa. I retained it. Likewise, respect the Hindu texts.

If the Ramayana has reference to the army of monkeys, the Mahavamsa has references to the flying Buddha! Anyway, that argument is irrelevant. What we are talking about the history of Trincomalee and you can not erase the Hindu part of it just as we can not erase the Buddhist part of it. Remember, I retained the reference to Thiriyai although the inscriptions there are in the Pallava script of the Tamil land. But let us celebrate its Buddhist character as you ought to acknowledge the Hindu origins of Swami Rock.

Likewise with the ethnic cleansing. Both sides have resorted to it. Many allege that the military did just that in August last year. So please respect that their is a plurality of evidence, not just the ones you choose to prefer. It is you who is degrading the accuracy of Wikepedia.

Best--Dipendra2007 16:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lahiru

I am surprised at the arbitrary nature of reversions resorted by both Snowolf4 and you. Just examine the version that you both insist upon. It is full of unsubstantiated material without solid references to back it up!

Let me repeat. Do provide an authentic neutral citation to confirm that the alleged Buddhist vihara predated the Hindu temple. Many think this is pure fiction. Please provide hard evidence for the alleged etymological links between the Sinhalese "Sirigonakanda" and "Tirikunamalaya". Likewise, do provide a recognized neutral source for the reported existence of the Sirigonakanda vihara on Swami rock. Do cite your source for the nomenclature as to the Pali name Gokanna. What is the source for the information that the Buddhist remains in Thiriyai was called Giri Kanda Chaitiya.

It is clear that both Snowolf and you are motivated by the simple political expediency to assert that the Buddhist presence in Trincomalee predated the Hindu and to emphasize the Sinhalese identity over the Tamil. This fits in with the political goal of repeated post-independence Sri Lankan administrations to Sinhalize the Trincomalee district relying on the Mahavamsa which some claim is ethno-nationalist myth.

You over turn my more nuanced narrative (which retains reference to the Mahavamsa btw) and revert to a version with huge assumptions, leaps of faith and points of view unsupported by hard evidence or citations what so ever. I have provided material to give a more balanced narrative. And I herewith revert the text to the version with citations until you can prove the material that I provide as incorrect

The corrections I introduced provide both sides of the story. This explains why I chose not to delete the earlier material despite the numerous unsubstantiated information and leaps of faith that would fail a simple history examination in any accredited university - except in Sri Lanka of course where history is so politicized.--Dipendra2007 04:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Well put, Dipendra. Lahiru should provide evidence from a recognized neutral authority (eg. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society) or a classical text - be it Sanskrit, Pali or Tamil. He should back his assertion with hard archeological or literary evidence as you put it. --Dharman Dharmaratnam 12:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you look at your edits before going after the work of others. Where are your citations?
Tiru-kona-malai, meaning "Sacred hill of the Lord".
Agni Purana refers to a Siva temple on Trikuta hill on the eastern coast of Lanka in the 3rd century.
The Hindu temple was also documented in several late medieval texts such as the Konesar Kalvettu and the Dakshina Kailasa Puranam.
To name a few things. And read WP:CITE, which provides information as to how citations should be provided on Wikipedia. You can't just say this book mentions that or whatever. You need to to provide reliable sources which ascertain you edits. original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 18:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 'Sinhalese nationalist' Snowolf4 - anyone who knows Tamil would tell you that 'Thiru' means sacred, 'malai' means mountain and 'kone' means king or lord. Kone does not mean 'east'!!! You obviously do not know what you are talking about since none of this is original research! It is widely known in the academic domain.

I have reverted your pro-Sinhalese changes. Start your own web site to propagate your unsubstantiated views on history. This is Wikipedia, not the Ceylon Daily News or Lakdiva! Sri Lanka is so polarized! --MrinaliniB 04:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Mrinalini,

Based on Snowolf4's comments (which he does not apply to his one-sided version), I have included reference to printed publications from which my edits can be ascertained. I had earlier cited the classical texts. The additional reference to printed material available in academic libraries would further strengthen my previous citation of the literary texts.

He tries to Sinhalize the Trincomalee district with reference to ethno-nationalist myth. This has more to do with contemporary Sri Lankan politics than rigorous history and academic evidence. Notice that he relies on recent Sri Lankan newspaper clippings :-)--Dipendra2007 06:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cholas and Trincomalee

[edit]

The Cholas captured a large part of Sri Lanka in 993 CE and ruled over it until 1070 CE. They referred to their territory in the island as Eela-mandalam. This territory was divided into several vala-nadus which were in turn subdivided into nadu's. These were the Chola territorial divisions. The Chola governor in Sri Lanka was called "Ilankaiyar-kiraivan". The capital was at Jana-natha-puram, present day Polonnaruwa.

What is today the Trincomalee district was divided into four vala-nadus i.e. Vikrama chola valanadu, Rajaraja valanadu, Rajendra chola valanadu and Vira-parakesari valanadu. A considerable tract of agricultural land in the district was dedicated for the upkeep of the Tirukoneswaram temple. On the other hand, the agricultural produce of five villages in Kottiyaram bay were dedicated to the upkeep of the Chola temple to Siva at Tanjore. This information duly cited merits inclusion in the text.[1]--Dharman Dharmaratnam 16:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ W.M.K. Wijetunga, Sri Lanka and the Cholas, Sarvodaya Vishwa Lekha, Colombo, 2003

WikiProject Dravidian civilizations

[edit]

Wiki Raja 20:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiriyayi Mahayana Buddhist ruins

[edit]

The idea that the Mahayana Buddhist ruins in Tiriyayi are distinctly Sinhala in architectural form is a distortion. There is more than enough evidence to indicate that they are of Pallava origin. South Indian mercantile communities who frequented this area patronised Mahayana Buddhism. Please read Professor Indrapala's book "The Evolution of an Ethnic Identity" for more details. Nagadeepa (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

[edit]

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, or in some cases it's clear there is a consensus, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. Better yet, edit the article yourself with the improvements in place. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

510 BC

[edit]

A statement was added to the article to the effect that the first reference to Gokanna is in 510 B.C. Are you sure that there's a source dating back to 510 BC which names the port as Gokanna? On a quick check of my books, I can't find any reference to any sources on the history of Sri Lanka that're that old. Are you perhaps thinking of later traditions (such as the one contained in the Mahavamsa which speak of the landing at Gokanna in around 510 BC? If the latter, it's incorrect to say the first reference to Gokanna is in 510 BC - the reference dates from the 5th or 6th century A.D., when the Mahavamsa was written. I've tagged the date as being dubious, but feel free to remove the tag once you've fixed this issue. -- Arvind (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ethnic makeup?

[edit]

Can anyone provide details on the population of the city? How many are sinhalese? tamil? other? mixed? Please research and add to the article. Also, is there no commercial port activity in Trincomalee at the moment? If not how far away is the port from opening to commercial trade? Also, Please add details of transport (including the railway line) to the article. 203.45.65.153 (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article about a city or an ethanic Issue ?

[edit]

User Obi2canibe has been reveting the article to a revision that talks about issue taht are extracted from Tamil Nationalism, LTTE, Tamil Eelam and Sri Lankan Civil War. Please make references to those articles than innundating this article with those. Please make the article readerfriendly and useful.

99.62.215.8 (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Equater[reply]

You've finally decided to discuss the issues. The main reason why I reverted your edits was because you had taken it upon yourself to remove so much content without any discussion, without even an edit summary. You should have discussed it here before you removed the content.
Your edit is very anti-Tamil. You have removed vast chunks relating to Tamil history under the "History" section. If you truly believed that the sections you have removed were "inundating" the article you would have at least left a summary of the content. Instead you have simply removed all of the content. Oddly you haven't removed a word from the Sinhala or European history of Troncomalee. Aren't those "inundating" the article?
You have also removed the reference to "main centers of Tamil speaking culture" in the first paragraph; the Tamil etymology of Trincomalee under the "Names and etymology" section; the reference to Tamil Nadu in the "Pre-History" section etc.
You have made a number of petty changes such as putting the Sinhala name before the Tamil name, placing the "Buddhist historical sites" section before the "Hindu historical sites".
The changes you made to the "Demographics" section are simply wrong. The bastardised population figures you give are for the Trincomalee district, not Trincomalee city. This article is about the city, so the demographics information should be about the city. The figures are bastardised because the Sinhala population figure you've given (95,652) is actually the Sri Lankan Tamil population. See page 16 of the citation. After this bastardisation the figures don't add-up. You just simply wanted to push the Sri Lankan Tamil population into third place on the table. Page 18 of the citation shows that the Sri Lankan Tamils make up 66% of the population of the city.
All of this suggests that you are simply interested in distorting the facts/figures in order to push your own POV: obliterating/diminishing the Tamil presence in Trincomalee. I'm going to revert your edit one final time. If you revert my revert I will take it up with the Admin.obi2canibetalk contr 14:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Today, this article was edited to remove contributions by a contributor currently indefinitely blocked for multiple copyright infringements. The text removed may infringe the copyright of external sources or of Wikipedia's contributors. Wikipedia's copyright policy sets out the conditions under which material may be reused from external sites or from other Wikipedia pages. Please verify before restoring any of this text that it is not copied from any other website. If it is copied from within Wikipedia, it may be restored if proper attribution is provided. Generally, it is judged sufficient to include a direct link within the edit summary to the original article, explaining the point of origin. For example, such an edit summary might read, "Text copied from [[source article]]." It is also helpful to place the template {{copied}} on the talk pages of both the source and the destination articles to indicate that extensive duplication has taken place. The basic usage of that template is {{copied|to=name of this article|from=name of article from which material was taken|diff=permanent url of edit when material was added}}. I am sorry to other contributors of this article for any inconvenience this clean-up may cause. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist historical sites

[edit]

I am sure there are Buddhist historical sites in Trincomalee, but the question here is specially about the Seruvila Mangala Raja Maha Viharaya. I found a UN site saying this landmark is in the location of the Village of Toppur, Koddiyar Pattu of Trincomalee District. See here. The only question now is how far does the city extend to as I am sure this article is about the urban city itself.--Blackknight12 (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing some sanity to this dispute Blackknight12. Seruvila Mangala Raja Maha Viharaya is about 24km / 15 miles from Trincomalee City Hall. This is approximately the same distance BIA is from Colombo Fort. This map shows that urban limits of the city is the peninsula and northern environs. This map shows that the route between Trincomalee and Seruvila goes through Muttur (sea route) or Kinniya (land route). Muttur and Kinniya are towns in their own right.--obi2canibetalk contr 13:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm after reading these details I wounder if Trincomalee can acutely be called a city ? Cossde (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw some maps that read the same thing so how ever big the Trincomalee town is the Seruvila Mangala Raja Maha Viharaya is on the other side of the bay. So I will remove that Seruvila Mangala Raja Maha Viharaya section.--Blackknight12 (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--obi2canibetalk contr 13:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

City or Town?

[edit]

I am currently pursuing a degree in Geography/Urban Studies and I am in the opinion/understanding that is Trincomalee is a city. There are sources to back up my claim as well: 1 etc. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 14:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First part of your statement is PoV therefore irrelevant, secondly the article stated by you states "The Cabinet of Ministers met under the chairmanship of President Mahinda Rajapaksa has decided to develop Trincomalee as a Port City". If it is already a city then why develop it ? This article in its self shows that Trincomalee is not a city but has the possibility to become. Cossde (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay its my opinion/understanding, but don't you understand that have expertise in that area? Do you have any sort of education in Urban studies to prove me wrong? A city of 100,000 is not a town. Secondly, developing it as a port city means creating a port, sort of like Hambantota but that doesn't mean its a town. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 17:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is the valid point raised by User:Intoronto: (1. A city of 100,000 is not a town. (2. Developing it as a port city means creating a port, sort of like Hambantota but that doesn't mean its a town.Vankalaian (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, your opinion/understanding is PoV and shall remain so! Second your qualification which I take in good faith may not make a difference as it is PoV and may result in original research. Thirdly, if your qualifications does you any justice you would understand that Trinco has been a port for more than thousands of years with the Royal Navy basing its Eastern Naval Fleet there which is a testament to its capacity as a port as appose to the town it is and should be developed! The population remains questionable since there is no refs to support your claim ! Cossde (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside my qualifications, you are saying what ifs not backing up your claim. I have provided a source that clearly states what the place as a city, while you take it and say this and that. You are wrong. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 18:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you opinion of clarity is this article then I wounder about your judgement. Back to the matter at hand, your article does not clearly state that Trinco is currently a city ! only states that there are plans to make it into a port city. However this article may give more clarity to the problem [1]. Cossde (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Refs, refs, refs. Is this your catchphrase Cossde? Have you not seen the Sri Lankan article or the List of Sri Lankan cities by population template? Trinco is the fifth largest city in Sri Lanka with a population of nearly 127,000. On the population criteria, if Trinco isn't a city, neither are Kandy, Galle, Anuradhapura and Polonnaruwa. You can fit ten Hambantotas in Trinco. For every link you find showing Trinco to be a town I can find half dozen that show it to be a city.
You are very good at making other editors jump through hoops and quoting Wikipedia policies to suit your own arguments. But you ignore the polices yourself, engaging in sock puppetry, edit warring and copyright violations. We all know this isn't about whether Trinco is a city or town. This is just another example of the petty disruptive editing you and your alter egos have been engaged in for the past few months.--obi2canibetalk contr 14:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that obi2canibe has much animosity towards me. Obi2canibe, pardon me for asking RS for questionable items on articles, I see noting inappropriate in that ! I am curious to find out whether Trinco is a city or town, mind you the population is not a defining fact here since the population is spread-ed out across a large area that is beyond the urban area of Trinco and includes a large number (in the thousands) of service personal stationed or in transit within the several large bases (which in obi2canibe's logic are cities on their own right) located in and around Trinco, simply there is no other city/town similar to this in Sri Lanka due to these variables. Finally any one who visited Trinco will naturally begin to question the nature of the city its claimed to be on Wikipedia ! BTW where are those half dozen RSs you promised ? Cossde (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Trincomalee

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Trincomalee's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Sabaratnam":

  • From Koneswaram temple: Sabaratnam, T (2004). "Pirapaharan:Tamil blood boils". Retrieved 25 November 2010.
  • From Tevaram: Sabaratnam 2001, p. 26

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Percy B. Molesworth

[edit]

Mention Percy B. Molesworth ? 94.30.84.71 (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Trincomalee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Trincomalee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trincomalee&oldid=1206493068"