Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/incidents 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Template:Sri Lankan Conflict (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Resolved.

Edit warring, I have got it fully protected for 2 weeks, now we can talk abaout it. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The current version was really the WP:WRONG version! It transcluded a page in a user space, User:Wiki Raja/Sri Lanka Conflict template (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), rendering the protection worthless. While I admire the ingenuity of this idea, it is obviously gaming the system. I reverted the page and issued a warning on the user's talk page. I will also add that warning to our list WP:SLR#Warnings and blocks. — Sebastian 07:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
No amount of admin action is going to resolve this issue of flags. Only way out is, discussion, discussion and discussion and if it fails then mediation and if it fails then arbcom. I hope the aprties are ready for a long haul on this issue. It is because both the positions using no flags and or using both the flags are wiki legit. Taprobanus (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming of Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE

Resolved.

Renaming from Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE to Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam has been proposed here. — Sebastian 02:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Taprobanus (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I propose to rename the article to Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to Tamil Tigers. The LTTE is widely known as Tamil Tigers now. Supermod (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Couple of questionable edits in conflict related articles

Resolved.
Removal of cited material

here,here and here

Adding non cited personal opinion

here in Black July article

Before it becomes a problem, I would want some admins to rule on it and inform the newbie or the oldie:))Taprobanus (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, this user has been around for a year. Were eir previous edits all OK? I wrote a warning on eir talk page, though. — Sebastian 07:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Artile Human Rights in Sri Lanka does not display a warning as saying it's protected under this project. So i dont think i'm violating anything (1RR) related to this project on that particular article. --Navod Ediriweera (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC).
Oh, yes, you're right. Sorry about that. — Sebastian 08:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The above user has removed material backed by RS here and twists what RS claims here. Watchdogb (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Please let's not beat a dead horse. The user has been warned, and has stopped doing it. The changes you cite have already been reverted. It's time now to focus on content. This is already happening in the discussion at Talk:Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka#SL Army in Tamil homeland and other sections. We can therefore close this incident as resolved. — Sebastian 16:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question about an edit

Resolved.

Please see this [1] where contrary to WP:LEAD, summary information has been removed but the edit summary says misleadingly that information has been added. SLR has already warned this editor previously. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I would consider blocking, but I have never blocked anyone, and I don't want to do that in a rush - I need to go to work now. And it's a bit of a special case, anyway, because we don't have an entry for this editor in our list of warnings. Last week, I was just starting to add the editor to the list when ey made me aware that I made a mistake in my warning. Therefore, it is appropriate to just give em another warning for now. Could you do this, please, this time? And please enter the editor in the warnings list. — Sebastian 17:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Y DoneTaprobanus (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to deal with newbies

Resolved.

Newbies ususlly get involved in conflict related articles. Please see User_talk:Pumaaa123. I would like to bring to attention the interactions of editors keeping in mind WP:BITE. Are we being helpful or hounding the guy out of Wikipedia ? Also do four edits qualify as WP:VANDALISM to be able to use anti-vandal bot? Also his edits [2], [3] edits have been summarily removed. Agian, is this the way to deal with conflict realted articles, can we just remove the citation if it fails WP:RS or move it to talk page as per convention ? thanks Taprobanus (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Good question! This is indeed a dilemma: While we don't want to bite newbies, we need to care about the integrity of our articles, too. If we make it too easy for newbies, we will encourage people to push their POV by disguising as newbies. I'm not sure if that's the case for the editor you mention, but I would like us to keep that dilemma in mind.
Regarding the specific case you mention: There was not just the revert of four edits, but also one of three edits before that. Those three edits were clearly not vandalism. After that first revert, the user committed real vandalism, such as removing the blue box. This may have been a knee-jerk reaction to inappropriately being called a vandal the first time. We don't want such escalations here; maybe we should officially warn both participants of that escalation. Pumaaa123 has already been warned appropriately. Normally, I would say both warnings should be entered in our list, but since Pumaaa123 was not listed, we can make an exception and give both a rain check for now. — Sebastian 17:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
If you look at edit patterns, you may see that there seems to be no clarity as to when to use anti-vandal bot as couple of more instances of potential misuse can be noted. What ever is happened is past, but what is more important is that such biting of newbies does not take place in the future along with potential misues of anti-vandal bot. Hopefully we can reiterate it it in SLR. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, WP:BITE does not apply here. What fueled the escalation was the abuse of the anti-vandal tool on Lahiru's part, and the subsequent actual vandalism on Pumaaa123's part (as if they wanted to prove that Lahiru was right!). WP:BITE is only a guideline, not a policy. Of course it does not and can not forbid using the anti-vandal tool just because an editor is new - that would rule out most vandals! A much better rule to go by is the rule for the tool itself, which says it can only be used for vandalism - and we have a clear definition for that. Nobody ever claimed that Lahiru has a pattern of biting newcomers, but, as you just said, he may have a pattern of abusing the tool. If that’s the case, we need to do address that. Therefore, can you please explain which instances you meant? — Sebastian 05:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
When I first saw Puma's edits, I went through his talkpage plus his contribs and noticed that he was warned by me 14 November 2007 for removing the word "militant" from the Tamil Eelam page[4][5] (this type of edits are typical and I have seen more than 500 similar edits from IPs and from fresh accounts replacing "rebels/militants" with "freedom fighters" as well as with "terrorists"...).
Along with his 3 edits on Black July page I have reverted two more edits from this user on Pandara Vannian[6] and on List of rulers of Sri Lanka[7] which can clearly be taken as typical vandalism by anons and freshmen as I said above. When taking his 1st 3 edits on "Black July" INDIVIDUALLY [8][9][10] it can be clearly identified that it is pushing of bias and hatred towards the Sinhalese people and Sri Lankan Government which is a clear violation of WP:BIAS, WP:NPOV, WP:CITE and of course WP:VANDALISM. So I revert his all edits ("Pandara Vannian" and "Black July" within a minute and "List of rulers of Sri Lanka" two mins later) and also gave ONE Level-2 warning.
On the three reverts I have properly explained the policies which are getting violated by User:Pumaaa123 in my edit summaries and gave a Level-1 notice to him to get an idea about our policy on external links. Also I recommend Taprobanus to have WP:TW on his monobook just to get an understanding about this troublesome tool without making any further fusses.
I am an anti vandal since December, 2006 and i have a fairly good knowledge about identifying and reverting vandalism as well as about the procedure of issuing warnings to the users (levels and templates). Also this WP:TW is just another java script (it's not a bot) on reverting edits and there are many tools which are more powerful than this one. For example VandalProof which I use sometimes. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 15:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
For the record: I had replied to Lahiru by e-mail, basically saying that these are just excuses. The facts are clear and simple: Lahiru used an anti-vandalism tool for actions that were not the reversal of vandalism. I had hoped Lahiru would simply acknowledge that he made a mistake, which would have allowed us to move on. Sadly, instead of responding, Lahiru chose to come here for this. I only can take this as a sign that Lahiru is not willing to use the tools he has responsibly. It is therefore my sad duty to officially warn Lahiru. — Sebastian 16:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of terrorist and military attacks attributed to the LTTE

Resolved.

This article was merged to Attacks attributed to LTTE and now someone decided to move it. Can an admin please move it back to the version that was achieved after discussion. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? There are no logs for that redlink. [11] — Sebastian 05:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry I meant List of attacks attributed to the LTTE. This is now leading to List of terrorist and military attacks attributed to the LTTE because someone moved it. However, months of discussion lead to the merge to List of attacks attributed to the LTTE. Watchdogb (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. That was clearly against the agreement, since the moving editor did not bring it up here. However, I'd like to better understand the situation. I don't see "months of discussion". Moreover, it seems the discussion last year ended with an agreement to keep two articles. Am I misunderstanding that? Usually, I would say the moving editor deserves a warning, but since I'm confused myself, I'm assuming good faith by assuming that the moving editor was confused, too. — Sebastian 20:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
By months I was counting instances of all argument about the move/merge of the article. Though the discussion last year ended with a different result than the one achieved [12], it still counts as discussion nevertheless. Furthermore, please do not misunderstand situations. The fact of the matter is that we did discuss about this article a month ago. There it was decided to merge the article and even a users move of the page was reverted and commented by an admin. I could not provide a link for this as all these moves has seemingly lost the talk page of the article Terrorist attacks attributed to LTTE. On a side note, I do not think a warning is necessary but a friendly note on the user's talk page could save us time in the future. Watchdogb (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Same user has moved the page again. Can an admin take care of this mess ? I was opposed to a warning to this user but now it seems that it is time for a stern warning. Watchdogb (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I decided to make the move myself. However, I request a warning for any such action by the user on the basis of revert consensus version to non-consensus version. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course! I'm sorry, I overlooked your reply here. I agree completely, if I hadn't overlooked your reply I would have done exactly as you said. It's not so easy in Wikipedia to see why a page was moved, so there is a chance that Dutugemunu just didn't see the move summary and this discussion. I will write a warning on User talk:Dutugemunu now. Next time, please feel free to write a warning in such cases. — Sebastian 19:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I think your message is more appropriate than a warning. Warning might get emotions going whereas a friendly note will only make people understand. Watchdogb (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your understanding! I know others who would have said "this is already the second occurrence, now it's time for some action!". I'm not making this up, there was one person who left the project because I was too lenient for them in a similar case. I now feel sorry that I did not give you that same courtesy of a friendly note, when you had a bad day. Moreover, I am moved by how you took care not to make this a personal issue, but just reported the content related facts, for instance by avoiding the name of the moving editor altogether. You really incorporate what we wrote into our name: Reconciliation. Thank you for that! — Sebastian 07:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
A barnstar ? :))))Taprobanus (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
He has really improved since that bad day, but it's maybe too soon for a full flower. I therefore just created the Sri Lanka Hope Award as a sign of appreciation like our flower, but also as a sign of hope. Every member can present it without having to get approval from the whole project. If he is consistent with this good spirit, then we should present him the full grown flower. For now, I will be happy to present the first tea bud to Watchdogb. — Sebastian 21:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Excellent Taprobanus (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Lanka Tamils (Indian origin)

Resolved.

In the above mentioned article I reverted this [version] because

Malabar Tamils

the entire section such as on Malabar Tamils (Synonym for Sri Lankan Tamils) have been added without any RS sources and its is WP:OR to begin with as the Sri Lankan Tamils article does not even mention anything like that. The editor writes that Malabr Tamils were brought to Sri Lanka as indentured workers, which is untrue and it is commonly held view of extreamists in Sri Lanka given the civil war. It is not the view of mainstream acadmemics such K. M De Silva and K. Indrapala amongst others who have written well researched academic books on this very subject.

Sri Labkan citizenship act

I have reverted such OR as well as what I think is off topic material per WP:TOPIC, because the article is about Indian Tamils in Sri lanka not about the justification of removing their voting rights. That should be dealt under a seperate article on Ceylon citizenship act

Non RS website source removal

I have also removed a non RS source per SLR consensus (see here}.It claerly fails WP:RS.Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New article

Resolved.

A question about this article, TamilNet.tv, It is somebody's personal pet project and a blog. It fails WP:NOR and sure will not have any WP:RS sources. I suggest it to be speedily deleted per Wikipedia:CSD#A7. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Follow up problem

Once the Tamilnet.tv article was speedily deleted, the author has gone on to vandalize Tamilnet article by replacing the legitimate URL address with the url address of the blog site. See here. Need to edit protect the article and warn the user. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This contains two requests:
  1. Warning the user. Any user can warn other users. The only difference here at SLR is that we keep track of such warnings in the table on the project page. Any member can do that. The case you're bringing up obviously deserves a warning, so just go ahead!
  2. Including the article in SLDRA. This is an important change for anybody who wants to edit the article, especially now that we extended SLDRA to 12 months. Therefore, we need to alert editors on the article's talk page, as I did here. Then I would wait at least a week to see if there are any objections. We will check if there are any objections, and if edit warring resumes during that time, and then add the blue box accordingly. Sounds good? — Sebastian 22:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. If this action continues, I would kindly ask an admin to provide another warning. Watchdogb (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Sebastian, can you please provide a soft edit protection on Tamilnet. By soft I mean that IP's cannot edit this article. Taking a look [here] the article has been vandalized too many times from IP address. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, you seem to be asking for semiprotection, rather than for what I call "soft protection" - our WP:SLR/bluebox. Unfortunately, it really seems like we need semiprotection. I will protect the page for two weeks, after which time we can change it to the blue box. Sebastian (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem continues.

Please see here. You have to hard protect the article and deal with the editor. We need Admin help to resolve it. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User has been blocked. Sebastian (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1RR violation

Resolved. Black Falcon (Talk) 18:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A user has violated 1RR on the following article Alfred Duraiappah, 2007 Sri Lankan bus bombs, C.V. Gunaratne . Can an admin please take care of this . Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Reminders posted at User talk:Nitraven (diff) and User talk:Watchdogb (diff). Black Falcon (Talk) 19:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Row erupts over Tamil rebel film

Resolved.

news may be A GOOD SOURCE to write about LTTE sympathy/support in tamilnadu India

A Sinhala-language movie about Sri Lanka's Tamil Tiger rebels has provoked a row between Indian Tamil activists and the film's director . [13],[14] .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Jayalalitha definitely must be angry ! Watchdogb (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
If you're looking for a scholarly, historical view on Tamilnadu's support for the Ceylon Tamils, Palanithurai & Mohanasundaram's Dynamics of Tamil Nadu Poltics in Sri Lankan Ethnicity is a good source. Are there any particular articles where you have in mind? -- Arvind (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the IPKF article needs some clean up along with article such as LTTE (which is going to go through some more major editorial strengthening soon). Watchdogb (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, in that case one really needs to refer to Maj. Gen. Harkirat Singh's recently published book, Intervention in Sri Lanka which challenges some of the conventional wisdom on what India did. I ordered a copy some time ago, but it'll take a few weeks longer before it gets here. -- Arvind (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Awesome ! When I first read about this book I wanted my hands on it. As time passed by I forgot about this book. Thank you very much for reminding me about this. Watchdogb (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
As part of this project we should start a list of RS sources for Sri Lankan conflict Taprobanus (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heavy edit warring and sock puppetry

Resolved.

Could the participants of this project please watchlist and help improve the following articles which have been the subject of heavy edit warring and sock puppetry:

Thank you. Jehochman Talk 11:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

  • good work Jehochman i was searching the history for the caste system's nonexistence in historic times , these articles proves that the so called caste discrimination or diversion wasn't found during those times and came with those divide and rule policy , will try to improve it --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately these are Indian related articles with very little Sri Lanka conflict realted issues Taprobanus (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi protection needed

Resolved.

The article Tamilnet is currently under heavy anon attack. Need to protect it. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Over the past two weeks, the article has been vandalised eight times by four IP accounts. That level of vandalism is generally not enough to justify semi-protection unless there are BLP issues involved. In lieu of semi-protection, I will add the article to my watchlist (another set of eyes never hurts) and will also request that tamilnet.tv be blacklisted revertlisted. Semi-protection can always be reconsidered if this recent spate of IP vandalism does not pass on its own. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The request can be found at User talk:XLinkBot/RevertList#tamilnet.tv. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks as always Taprobanus (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Content dispute over Sri Lankan conflict articles

Resolved.

There has been a couple of content dispute going on in Sri Lankan Conflict areas. The first article is Battle of the Forward Defence Lines where a couple of users are not discussing the problem but rather revert any changes made at the article. For example, I have added some content to the article after a revert here but even this cited information has been removed by another revert here. For a more detail of the problem please refer to the discussion page of that article. Another article with content dispute is Sri Lankan Civil War. This article is currently locked but it needs some comments from WP:SLR members. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

On Sri Lankan Civil War, both Watchdogb and the other side (User:Top Gun and User:TheFEARgod) violated the Sri Lanka Dispute Resolution Agreement in spirit and letter. I therefore had to notify resp. warn these three users. Should we also put Battle of the Forward Defence Lines under SLDRA? --— Sebastian 08:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please do so. This article should be included as it is another one of those articles that are controversial. Furthermore, the request by me to add this to the article has not been opposed. So it would be better if this article is also included in SLDR. Watchdogb (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
There has been no objections for the request on the article talk page. Furthermore, the initial SLDR was to cover all conflict related article. This article is directly conflict related and I believe that it should be protected by SLDR. I wanted to do it myself but decided against it for personal reasons. Watchdogb (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. --— Sebastian 06:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive edits by user Bermudatriangle

Resolved.
Can be closed unless accusations are backed up with relevant links.

Your comments are welcome here. Bermudatriangle (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't try to canvas for support please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Canvassing

Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Sennen goroshi is very possible User:Iwazaki, See this Edit Summary[15] and this diff[16], in both places "...care to explain" and "...care to answer" is there. After a few (...) care to phrase is there in both cases. They both claim they live in Japan. User:Iwazaki is vanished after rejection from Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation.

I think Rajkumar Kanagasingam whose bio was deleted a year ago [17][18] is a Tamil and User:Iwazaki is a Buddist Sinhalese. What is taking place is Sri Lanka Conflict on Diana's page.

I think the motive to separate the institute's details from the Diana's page is at one point to delete it from wikipedia.

When lookig at 2007 murder of Red Cross workers in Sri Lanka, 2006 Trincomalee massacre of NGO workers and 2006 Murder of TRO workers in Sri Lanka, I think it is better Princess Diana Institute of Peace is deleted from wikipedia at its earliest possible.Dhirrosses (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Dont accuse me of being a sockpuppet, 135 million people live in Japan, just because I live there and use the phrase "care to" does not make me a sockpuppet. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This accusation is completely irrelevant. It is already irrelevant for Wikipedia as a whole, because Iwazaki hasn't been editing for a while. And for us, it wouldn't even matter if both had been editing at the same time - see #Why we can do without trickery above. Do I have to put that in a red frame so people read it?
That said, this section is not very helpful for us. Please read Citing and reporting of incidents, in particular: "Provide clear links that show what you mean." (which I just added) and "When criticising particular edits, comment on the content and not identity of the contributor.".
Until any of the people accusing each other the necessary links, there's no need to do anything about this section. --— Sebastian 07:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This should be closed but intersting stuff :)))Taprobanus (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
End note. the account of Dhirrosses has be indef blocked for being a sockpuppet. That account was made shortly after Bermudatriange was blocked for 24hrs due to the 3RR report that I made, the only edits that Dhirrosses made were to attack me and accuse me of being a sockpuppet (irony++) you can draw your own conclusions as to who made the Dhirrosses account, and why they did so. And yes, this is all interesting stuff, nothing like a quick inter-drama to make your day a little more interesting. Sennen goroshi (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Next time I won't bring anything here. It is very interesting relating me indirectly with the account Dhirrosses. Dhirrosses is bit too aggresive to attack Sennen goroshi. I too agree with Sebastian, "...And for us, it wouldn't even matter if both had been editing at the same time." Bermudatriangle (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
You write "Next time I won't bring anything here". If you write this to express disappointment, then maybe you came here with unrealistic expectations. Please join me in taking a look at your initial post. You gave the readers of this page no information whatsoever why anyone should be interested. Even on second glance, it seemed to be only some name calling between editors who (as far as I'm aware) are completely unknown here, without mentioning any connection to the content that interests us. Can you see why nobody here was interested? So it's not surprising that the first replies only came from involved editors. Do you expect them not to show up here? Do you expect us to forbid them to speak up here? We could have used our house rule, which allows members to delete off-topic conversations and personal accusations, but why should we? While Sennen goroshi's reply did not exhibit a reconciliatory spirit, it was at least certainly on topic. It mentioned concrete, verifyiable events, albeit still without links, despite my request. So it was at least a borderline case, and I don't think it was a mistake to let it stand. I hope I convinced you that the result your post achieved was quite a natural outcome. — Sebastian 05:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Since the ANI board is becoming rather busy, I thought I would put this here for an opinion, and I always think it is important to get the opinions of your peers.
personal attack
Am I right in thinking that Bermudatriangle saying shows your total stupidity and arrogance. directed towards myself is a blatant personal attack, in violation of civility rules and worthy of a block? Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Smells like a sock? ah I don't know...
Anyways fyi I g4'ed his article (Sri_Lanka)_Princess_Diana_Institute_of_Peace --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 16:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
That article (Sri_Lanka)_Princess_Diana_Institute_of_Peace was created by Sennen goroshi, not by me.Bermudatriangle (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SLDR extended to Sri Lankan place name etymology

Resolved.

I have extended the SLDR to Sri Lankan place name etymology as this topic is also politically charged. I did not follow the standard procedures (asking for objection on article talk page) because I feel that the original SLDR agreement's scope is extended to this article. In general Place name etymology is usually not controversial, however, in the Sri Lankan case even this is a politically charged topic (Almost as politically charged as the Civil War). If someone has any objections to this addition please discuss at WT:SLR#SLDR extended to Sri Lankan place name etymology or Talk:Sri Lankan place name etymology. Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree Taprobanus (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. As a project, we need to be reliable and trustworthy. Thefore, it is important that we handle such procedures consistently. I don't see a strong enough case for making an exception in this case. I will therefore revert the addition and add a note in the talk page. Sebastian (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Update: While everyone agreed that that article belongs under the SL Dispute Resolution Agreement, the revert war went on, against the intent and purpose of that Agreement. I therefore had to intervene and protect the page. Because of the unclear status of the article with regard to the Agreement, I based my actions only on WP:PROTECT. (I'm not happy about that, see WT:PROTECT#Protecting the current version rewards revert warriors).
Unfortunately, we have not reached a resolution yet on #Clarification of what 1RR means to us. If we had agreed on any of the proposed rules, then this revert war would have been quickly defused: This reversion would have counted as an 1RR violation since "We will look at reverts, not at who did them, so check what others did before you!". The proposed rules - especially S3 - would have encourage both parties to only revert what is obviously wrong, thereby gradually reaching a better version, instead of just continuing the same brainless back-and-forth between two never changing versions. I would like us to cool off for a while (maybe a week or so), and eventually I'd like to rekindle the discussion on #Clarification of what 1RR means to us and reach a conclusion there. — Sebastian 18:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism

Resolved.

This article is currently up for WP:DYK, and a user has expressed the view that it may be POV. I am not really familiar enough with this topic to have a firm opinion, so I'm asking for input for those more familiar with this conflict. Is this article suitable for DYK? If not, why not, and can the issues be fixed reasonably quickly? Please comment. Gatoclass (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to confirm if there are any POV issues in this statement . If NOT, are there any Reliable and verifiable Sources ?? -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 12:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tinu, It is from the following book
  • Gunasingham, M. (1999). Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism: A study of its origins. Sydney: MV Publications. ISBN 0-646-38106-7.  from page # 108. The statement is cited in the main body of the article not in the lead.It is PhD thesis from an Australian University by the author which was later published. It is just a matter of fact not a POV statement. It is ironic how a Nationalism's start. The reaction to Protestant missionary activity was the spark but it took its own trajectory over 200 years later. ThanksTaprobanus (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
For general convenience: The exact link to the DYK discussion is here: Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on May 4.
That article hasn't seen any revert wars - but it is too early to tell if "the article doesn't contain any contentious statements" (as Gatoclass expressed the concern) since it only has been created a week ago and presumably has not been exposed to scrutiny from all sides yet. It might be safer to refer to the article Arumuka Navalar, which has been around for much longer, has been quite stable and, best of all, actually covers the statement of the hook ("(alt hook)... that Sri Lankan Tamil Nationalism originated from Hindu revivalists as defensive measures against Protestant missionaries?") in more depth. -- Sebastian (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Templating a regular based on supposed BLP violations

Resolved.

User:Snowolfd4 has templated me warning that I will be blocked for creating an article called Senan Padai that had some BLP violations. Now that it has been deleted, I dont even know whether I created it or even if I did create it, it had BLP violations. I need to know first did I created It ? and if I did, what was the BLP violations and was it warranted him issuing a template threatening to block me. Taprobanus (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I re-added your message on User talk:Snowolfd4.Teasereds (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
This user account is a clear violation of the 6th point of Final resolution and would like to see necessary actions asap as it says. Thanks. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 17:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I have come and gone previously here.Teasereds (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Going back to the substantive issue here, I did a search on Senan Padai and this is what I found out. They are [19] (Quote - the murder of the TNA MP Joseph Pararajasingham was claimed by the Senan Padai , which. many see as a cover for the Karuna Group), the other source from Morning Leader newspaper that is an RS source [20] (Quote - Senan padai issued notices in support of the TMVP). Other Qualified source are from Asian Tribune [21] Which has details about their hand bills that came in support of TMVP that is also known as the Karuna group. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The page in question is Sennan Padai and you created it in November 2006 as a redirect to Karuna Group. Two months later, the page was retargeted to TamilEela Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal by a bot account responsible for fixing double-redirects. With regard to the question of the validity of the redirect, I think the most relevant guidance is located at Wikipedia:Redirect#Neutrality of redirects:

If a redirect is not an established term and is unlikely to be used by searchers, it is unlikely to be useful and may reasonably be nominated for deletion. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources), it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Non-neutral redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term.

The issue becomes, then, whether Sennan Padai is likely to be used by searchers and, if so, toward which article it should be targeted. My impression is that Sennan Padai is a plausible search term (Google results), and one possible target is List of Sri Lankan Tamil militant groups, where the group could be briefly mentioned. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Perfect solution, So now that I kave some citatiosn I will update that article with a blip about them and just a follw up question was it justified in templating me for WP:BLP violations when the question was about a redirect ? Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
What it should really be redirected is Paramilitary groups of Sri Lanka which is yet to be created. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) The template used by Snowolfd4 is a general notice for attack pages (see {{Db-attack-notice}}). Although often used to delete WP:BLP violations, the scope of speedy deletion criterion G10 is not limited to biographies of living persons, and it does apply to redirects. That said, I'm not sure to what degree being redirected to "Karuna Group" can be clearly classified as an attack intended to disparage the subject. All in all, I think the templating, even if done in the best of faith, was ill-advised; a short one-sentence notice tailored to this specific situation would, in my opinion, have been more informative, less confusing, and more friendly. However, I personally don't believe that the issue is worth pursuing to any substantial degree. Cheers, –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
A couple of things. One, as to why I classified the redirect as an "attack", Sennan Padai is a group which claimed responsibility for killing Members of Parliament. Redirecting the page to the TMVP article is in-effect saying they are both the same, which is not true and an attack on the TMVP.
Second, when you use the tabs above an article to CSD it, the CSD notice template is automatically added to the talk page of the user who created the article. In this case it was the standard G10 notice. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 20:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh and so it's clear, I will delete all forms of threats from my talk page. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 20:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'll acknowledge that my comment recommending a non-templated notice is an opinion only. WP:DTTR is just an essay, and many editors disagree with its advice. I know that the code for the warning notice is automatically generated by the CSD template, but I think a tailored notice could potentially have avoided some confusion in this case (of course, that's not to say that I endorse this comment). Anyway, the issue's moot now... (By the way, I'm happy to see that you decided to resume editing.) Cheers, –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)