Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/archive 3

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

I'm wondering if the #Articles and related issues list wouldn't make more sense on the project page. It is more of a list than a discussion. What do others think?

I also would like to say something about the "(Shame on us)" part. While "to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the ongoing ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka" is one of our goals, we need to acknowledge that the Sri Lanka conflict is a tough issue, and we shouldn't be to harsh with ourselves. Improving articles isn't always as glamourous as getting a star for a featured article. Much of it is tedious work in small steps, which is nonetheless important. And let's not forget our other goals:

  • To prevent large scale vandalism of LTTE and Sri Lankan government related articles and maintain the articles to convey a neutral perspective of the issue.
  • To actively seek the cooperation of goodwilling people with different POVs.
  • To resolve conflicts between editors, e.g. by mediation and by providing specific guidelines for conflict resolution.

— Sebastian 19:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hey guys,

I'm Mr. Pepperell (first name hidden for possible security issues? who knows), half-American and half-Tamil (also nephew of East Bay Ray). On my mother's side, my aunt married Shankar Rajee, and had three kids. One of them is my close cousin. Her brother is Nesan Thirunesan, who I believe is now the head of EROS.

Now, I'm kind of wondering that I could quite possibly help in this project...but I'm not sure how. I figured if I tell you my cousin is Nesan Thirunesan, head of EROS, you could tell me how I could help in getting this project one hundred percent. Really hope I can help. Seriphyn 00:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a way to talk with with them, you could help us a lot if you passed on the following statement from one of our Tamil members, which neatly brings our struggle here to the point:
LTTE is a willing partner in this (auto)genocide. By their futile violence and lack of vision and compromise they have simply made us vulnerable as the polar bears, i.e. facing extinction.
Tamil editors are often categorically identified with the LTTE, which utterly discredits anything they contribute here. Terrorism may have had some successes in the past of getting a message across, but in today's world, which is intent on fighting terrorism, and in which you get messages across on the internet, it is as obsolete as the dinosaurs. — Sebastian 18:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well said Sebastian. I am wonder who the heck is EROS Watchdogb 13:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[EROS] was a militant group now defunct Kanatonian 13:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issue on Kattankudy Massacre

[edit]

I find the images on the Kattankudy mosque massacre Kattankudi_mosque_massacre quite disturbing (everything except the bottom image). It appears to be a emotional point for one of the writers, presumably the one who started the article, user: Netmonger. This is after all an encyclopedia, I don't find the point in littering articles with dead bodies. There is similar problem with another, I forget which one it is which had a headless body. Is the use of the gory images encyclopedic ? The encyclopedia has a wide range of audience, so I thinks its inappropriate for younger readers. There is already somewhere that you can't add disclaimers. If the image needs a disclaimer in the article, then it should frankly go. I would like some external opinion on this. These images just make this thing unnecessarily emotional, so why have them ? Sinhala freedom 13:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki is not censored and the article, is afterall, about a massacre. That being said, I agree that in the interests of good taste and reducing sensationalism, that 1 photo, 2 at the most, would be appropriate. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I have moved the pics to the talk page and will await peoples opinion on which picture to include. Sinhala freedom 23:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka Army

[edit]

I have unprotected Sri Lanka Army and tagged it as part of these peace efforts. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding controversy section to Sri Lanka army, now almost every major international news sources corroborates on the scandal in Haiti involving Sri Lankan troops, adding other relevant sections to controversy section with international RS news sources. Sinhala freedom 00:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are the editing restrictions?

[edit]

First off, let me say that I'm really impressed that it was possible to get an agreement between so many different editors. Well done!

I have one problem, though: Many articles now have the ambox on top, and the first thing any reader reads is a bold link to "editing restrictions". But that page is not a list of the editing restrictions, nor does a search for "editing restrictions" lead to any such list. Instead, the page is a 20,000 words long, complicated discussion, which itself begins with a reference to another page that should be read first. I know a bit about the SL issue, but even I feel lost on that page. After spending some time on the page, I assume you meant the "Final resolution" section, but I'm not sure.

Could someone who is trusted by all signatories please change that page so that the "editing restrictions" are clearly visible to everyone? (Alternatively, the agreement could be on its own page, or under WP:SLR#Guidelines (which then would be renamed "Guidelines and agreements" or so), but in both cases, many existing links would need to be changed.) — Sebastian 06:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done with AWB. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

[edit]
Resolved

Kelbaster (talk · contribs) who is a obvious sock is attacking me and User:Netmonger and just now vandalised the S. P. Thamilselvan saying rm the dead link and the Sri Lankan Government's Press Arm as the WP:RS which is not. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 14:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please show a diff it's Netmonger, yes I agree it's a sock, but what ties to Netmonger? — Rlevse • Talk • 14:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From these.[1][2][3]--♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 14:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vandalise the S. P. Thamilselvan, At the time, when I removed one link was a dead one and the other one is a biased Sri Lankan Government's Official Media.Kelbaster 14:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Convince me you're not a sock. You're a brand new account and immediately jump into a case to support Netmonger. This is typical sock behavior. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cast my views only, not violated any of the sock rules, if so, block me.Kelbaster 15:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rlevse bro! lets be serious on this.
Once again, I declare, I cast my views only, not violated any of the sock rules, if so, block me.Kelbaster 15:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OH, the irony is killing me.Watchdogb 15:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, deal with this problem and see what can be done about this sock. However, note that there are socks around here who are running free. Keeping things in prospective is always the best option Watchdogb 15:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kelbaster is a definite sock or meat puppet of Netmonger someone and is indef blocked. Netmonger is blocked one week to think over if he really wants to be part of the peace effort. After that, if he commits any more violations, he will be indef blocked by me. This is his absolute last chance. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS, MY APOLOGIES to Netmonger, that's what I get for trying to do three things on wiki at once. I have unblocked Netmonger. Kelbaster is still indef blocked. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think lahiru means that this sock attacked Netmonger. It does not look like it is a sock of netmonger because it was actually attacking him. Watchdogb 16:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that out, OOPS. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats my fault too. The way I answered to the Rlevse's 1st question was made he confused :) --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 16:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I'm gone

[edit]

Well, it didn't take long. I volunteered by my time to try to help the Sri Lankans get along and while most of you have been kind and appreciative, some of you aren't, so I'm gone from this peace effort. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that. --Haemo 19:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My return

[edit]

Many people have asked me to return to help, so I am doing that. Please keep in mind us admins are only trying to help and stay as neutral as possible, we have no political agenda of any kind. We only want peace and high quality articles. Keep civil at all times. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Killed or Assassinated

[edit]
Resolved

He was assassinated and not killed. Please read the meaning of Assassination to see why it is assassination and not killed. Watchdogb 18:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The euphemism targeted killing (also called extrajudicial execution) is also sometimes used for sanctioned assassinations of opponents, especially where undertaken by governments.[1] 'Assassination' itself, along with terms such as 'terrorist' and 'freedom fighter', may in this context be considered a loaded term, as it implies an act where the proponents of such killings may consider them justified or even necessary.[1] This is precisely what the Government says. It was a warning and the SLG is celebrating this "pin pointed bombing". This is exactly assassination. Watchdogb 18:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well well.. then why this guy was killed without assassinating? Mind that this is just another year end stock clearing bombing run by the SLAF. So are you thinking that SLAF daily assassinating LTTE carders without simply killing? Oh man! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 18:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assassinations is usually in reference to death of important people or leaders, killing is for regular cadres. Btw, reading DBS Jeyaraj's article on Tamilselvan, it is apparent the barberprofession is a point of controversy, since he was a student when he joined the LTTE. Sinhala freedom 18:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well who cares about bloggers. I wonder that Sinhalese also reading such blogs. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 18:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He also write and runs the federalidea which is popular with Sinhalese. Both are not pro-LTTE. Can you might want to read his articles to find out. Sinhala freedom 19:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LAhiru, I am not here to teach you english. If you do not understand the meaning of Assassination please read the wikipedia entry . Killing cadres is not assassination but killing. However, killing a non combatant (this guy was a political head) is an assassination. Especially because the Sri Lankan government tried to justify the killing along with issue warning to other Leaders of the LTTE. This is a clear cut case. Watchdogb 19:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would maintain assassination is for VIP or VVIP, since Ranjan Wijeratne's death was termed assassination as well. Sinhala freedom 19:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non combatant? Well then his permanent limp caused by friendly fire, hmm.. Click this link to see the non combatant holding walkie talkie in battlefield and commanding his rebel bunch. At the time he's killed he was in charge of the Paranthan, Pooneryn and Pallavarayankaddu. I'm not the one who saying that, but by the lone blogger Jeyaraj.
I'm gonna remove the below part from the S. P. Thamilselvan;
while other sources dispute this, including longtime Sri Lanka watcher D.B.S. Jeyaraj, characterize such reports as "crude attempts to humiliate Thamiselvan"
because I too can say that....
while other sources dispute this, a longtime Sri Lanka watcher and who occasionally writes for blogs using the pseudonyms "Lahiru_k, etc," in cyber space, reports that Paramu Thamichelvan roots from Ambattan cast (Barber), a regional sub ethnic group in Jaffna and he was working in a saloon in Colombo prior to the 83 riots.<ref>A ref to a blog post</ref>
I think that will take me to the level(blogger) of Mr.Jeyaraj. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 06:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I don't need your support to learn English. Also mind that I'm not here to dig others brains and get their common sensce out for them to use it when they assume that others have confused the meaning of assasination and killing. Thamilchelvam may be considered as an important person by the LTTE, political or what so ever but please see that it is not so in the point of view of the SLAF. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 06:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jehan Perera a noted Peacemaker from Sri Lanka calls it an assassination so we should include that in the article too by using such words. So and so considers this murder as an assassination. That should resolve this conflict over words. Thanks Kanatonian 15:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a matter of quotes from the dollar beggars or the quotes of lone bloggers. This is a matter of the role he actually played. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 16:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the policy you will use to remove a quote from Jehan Perera or anybody who calls it an assasination other than that you dont like it ? Thanks Kanatonian 16:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'll keep out your question for a moment and ask you the same question I asked from doggy to which he failed to answer. Why does Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's page state that "he was killed bu the USAF"? Do you see any difference with these two guys? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 16:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t edit all pages in Wikipedia, let's try to resolve one article at a time. If a notable person or institution called it an assassination and it is reported in an Rs source then it should be part of the article. Given the maturity of non Sri Lanka related editors have shown in Wikipedia, I think such a reasonable request would not be a diificult proposition to accommodate in that article. Now that we re behind that what is your policy statement that supports removal of a quote from a WP:NOTABLE person/org calling the murder an assassination from WP:RS source so that the article reflects WP:NPOV. Thanks Kanatonian 16:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree with you. We should stay with one dispute at once and I'm on it. Do we have to believe everything that a notable person says? This is an encyclopedia and I think what we should do is stay with the truth and reality. Is there any policy or a guideline that force us to take all the crap from notable persons? NO, I think the way we should resolve the Thandikulam incident will be to make an effect for this issue too. Lets rephrase the disputed paragraph. I'll state my example below. I removed the Killed and Assassinated words without damaging the meaning of the paragraph.
Thamilselvan, along with 5 other tamil tigers died on November 2, 2007 as a result of an air strike launched by the Sri Lanka Air Force against a meeting place of Tamil Tiger leaders in Kilinochchi. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 05:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go with it unless somebody objects to it Kanatonian 15:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a compromise Watchdogb 19:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:Snowolfd4

[edit]

Snowolfd4 has committed at least two acts of vandalism against the Sri Lanka peace effort, a community based and supported dispute resolution effort, called sourced edits "rubbish", used profanity, and attacked the motives of User:Haemo, neutral admin trying to assist this effort. Therefore, I am blocking him for 72 hours. See [6] with summary "removing rubbish from intro - discuss on the damn talk page", [7], [8]. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would come to this; I don't think he actually seems to care about working on this, and he's been quite abusive to other editors and admins. --Haemo 20:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this has come to this, he is a great contributor when he wants to be, has created some good articles in the past. I sincerely hope, he comes back after this block putting aside his anger and deals with all issues about Sri Lanka related articles through SLR. I really do hope so.Kanatonian 20:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the block. It is the only logical consequence from the disruptive behavior as evidenced in the links you provided. A personal note: I am sad that it has come to this, too. It is now almost a year that I first met Snowolfd4, and in that time he has undergone a backwards development. Last December, he was open to reasonable arguments and apologized for mistakes[9]. I would be happy if Snowolfd4 could stop the present childish behavior and rediscover these mature strengths he once had. — Sebastian 21:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could anyone please show me, why snowolf has to be blocked for 72 hrs ?? All I see is he has reverted blatant POV pushing in the Srilanka article and have you guys even seen what is happening at the article? All I can see is it is going from a wiki article to a comic book!! probably he was harsh in his words(and who wouldn't after seeing those), and to block him merely because he said rubish is not acceptable!! Finally, it's up to him to join this or not, he has always made his comments at the talk pages and probably thats the way he likes to handle problem. Wikipedia is not a dictatorship , so people should have a choice. I choose not to join here, for time being , for my own reasons. Hence, tag snowlf as a disruptive user is not fair. I would kindly request admin, rlese to re-consider his decision. Thank you Iwazaki 会話。討論 15:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
declined, Snowolfd4 was intentionally disruptive and incivil. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of 1RR by Iwazaki

[edit]

Iwazaki has broken the 1RR Sri Lanka. He has reverted to his version 3 times here [10], here [11], and here [12] in span of less than 24 hours. He has also accused user Pharaoh of the Wizards "sock edits", which is blatant personal attack here [13]. Sinhala freedom 15:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, calling some one a sock is not a blatant attack. I have made my self clear, I believe some of the editors,who made tag team edits(like in the Sri Lanka article) ,are probably socks. These editors come one after one, and do not see what is discussed at the talk page !! first it was, tabrobanus, then comes sinhala freedom, at the end its is pharaoh!! So, could you please tell me,what is worse,edit after discussing at talk page or tag team edits with absolutely no discussions?? And Please be noticed that, I am not a member of this project,for time being, hence I do not know what is going on here and what kind of decisions you take here(such as 1RRR). And concerning 1RR rule, blatant POV pushing, should be excepted from this. And tag team editing should also be dealt ,seriously.This is what exactly happening at the Sri Lanka article.Hope admins take necessary action regarding this.Thanks Iwazaki 会話。討論 16:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was ongoing discussion here regarding what was added on Sri Lanka article, and that was the consensus, that was inclusive of all major views, based on input from neutral admins. So the effort was to uphold that conclusion and not "tag team editing" Sinhala freedom 17:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Removed off-topic message per our header. This is not the place for personal messages and avice, please use user talk pages.)

This is an interesting test case for our Final Resolution. Point 3 says: These articles will be protected (admin access only) subject to a 1RR for 3 months". Iwazaki did not sign this, so does it still hold for him? Sorry if I missed something that's hidden in the discussion. — Sebastian 21:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a correction to Point 3: : "These articles subject to a 1RR for 3 months". It was decided that protecting the articles will take away from the spirit of editing. So it was decided as above. Yes, everyone is subjected to the 1RR and all the other rules. This is so that the SL problem does not end up on ARBCOM which might result in many account blocks. Watchdogb 21:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See [14] — Rlevse • Talk • 23:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well said! I'm very happy that the process is working. — Sebastian 00:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I too agree with what was done on this caseKanatonian 03:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I stand behind the decision 100%. Watchdogb 03:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

[edit]

Does this pass our usernames policy? ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ I have no idea how to say or type it, which is a big inconvenience and detriment to cooperation. Shall we ask this user to request a new name? - Jehochman Talk 16:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not my username, thats my signature. My username is User:Lahiru_k. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 16:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign scripts do not violate username nor signature policy. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see that this was just a signature. In the past I have once or twice advised users that a legible signature facilitates cooperation. If I want to search through a long page of comments looking for what Lahiru_k has said, I don't have keys on my keyboard to type those fancy characters. When working in a heated area, every little thing helps. That's was my point. Sorry if I was unclear. - Jehochman Talk 09:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can just copy and paste the sig into the text box of the search dialog. At least that works for me, using IE6. — Sebastian 21:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Adminship

[edit]
Resolved

I'm currently running for admin. If anyone has any issues they wants to talk about, please say so at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SebastianHelm. So far, the votes are looking very good, so there is really no need to go there to support me. I'm not writing this to ask for your vote, but only to give people a heads-up. — Sebastian 03:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ a b Commentary: Targeted killing... - Cohen, Ariel, Washington Post, Thursday 25 March 2004
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/archive_3&oldid=1237665845"