User talk:SebastianHelm/Sri Lanka

See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-20 Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam

Just so you know what style of editing of users involved in this, I suggest you read up on related articles that have had similar conflicts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:65.115.137.2 Special Task Force State Terrorism in Sri Lanka --Sharz 12:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sharz, thanks for your message and for the links. As you can see from User:SebastianHelm/LTTE, I am aware of State Terrorism in Sri Lanka, and I'm taking the point seriously. I don't see how User_talk:65.115.137.2 helps us, however; I think it is important to focus on issues, not on people.

Would you like to represent the Tigers in the mediation? So far, none of the Tiger faction has endorsed me, and I'm concerned that I may not have gained the necessary trust yet. You mention the style of editing; do you have anything in particular in mind which I could change? Please feel free to email me, and please be frank; I always appreciate when someone critizises me confidentially, and I promise I will take it to heart. — Sebastian 18:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be quiet happy to endorse you as the mediator for this discussion, however I would rather represent a neutral tone in the discussion rather than the Tamil Tigers. I know it sounds sappy but swinging from each extreme has never acheived anything. Also check my Userpage, their should be a link to the the Neutral Coverage of Sri Lanka Group..., most people in the group would be happy to represent the Tamil Tigers, also they are key editors in the concerned article and are somewhat Pro-LTTE. --Sharz 08:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC) P.S, the I.P Talk page just reflects on the nature of the arguement, alot of editors are heavily factionalised and actively recruit editors to aid their cause in edit wars.[reply]

Yeah, agreed. I guess we should discuss this first before removing it. My mistake. I thought it was obvious the links didn't belong but guess I was wrong. I seem to be wrong a lot of times these days :( These finals are messing with my head. Anyway apologies for that.

Also I think maybe this should be part of a larger revamp of the article. For example the "Recent events" section contains a lot of info that should be in the Sri Lankan civil war and not here. I think we need a discussion on that too. Any ideas? --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 22:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - not a problem at all. I know how exams can affect a person, and I understand that you'd rather focus on the exam. I have a high regard for people who admit when they're wrong and do their best to make it right again, like you did. But you may not even have been that wrong; it is possible that some links should go, and we can discuss this later. <soapbox>It is completely human to be wrong sometimes. In fact, the more active one is the more often they will be rwogn. I want to actively contribute to an atmosphere in which people are not measured by how often they were wrong, but by what they contributed to the community.</soapbox>

As for revamp: I agree that the article could benefit from a revamp. However, I want to do first things first. It appears to me that the intro question and the external links are lower hanging fruits. Once we have some common understanding as a group of editors, we can proceed to solve the harder issues together. — Sebastian 23:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead and take over for me.

As for experience... I think I've learned I'm better at taking out vandalism than mediation. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'll start officially in half an hour. — Sebastian 21:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian I'm really sorry I didn't reply to your compromise offer. I had somehow managed to unwatch the mediation page and didn't realize you had made changes to it. Thanks for bringing it to my notice. I wouldn't say the new intro is perfect. When we add "see list" and link it to another part of the document, I don't think it will be up to normal Wikipedia standards, but considering the arguments we've had, I guess its probably the best possible resolution we can achieve. I think you did a great job with closing the mediation successfully, to the agreement of everyone involved. So well done, and thanks for bringing a resolution to this case.--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 06:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and great to know you have your power back :) --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 06:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your nice message! So I'll close the case. I agree, the wording "see list" isn't perfect, and can even be seen as unencyclopedic. It certainly isn't written in stone, but I think we all agree that there are more important things to tackle now. Just go ahead and pick the next battle ;-) — Sebastian 06:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please look into the recent rash of reverts and counter reverts. I have edited the controversy section to categorily say that the allegation came from pro LTTE sites not from neutral sources. Kanatonian 14:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep it on my watchlist. Most of your changes seem to make sense to me, but I don't see why you deleted "He held the post of Deputy Secretary General". I'll reinsert it with a citation; please discuss on the talk page if there is a reason to remove it. — Sebastian 19:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Some of the edits are rewording though. Anyhow thank for remininding me Dutugemunu 16:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point about the categories. Some of the articles would belong in the subcategories. However I think some would also need to be in the higher category because they belong to more than one subcategory. SO I will make those changes. About the links, I will change those too to make it explicit Dutugemunu 16:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is a provision for duplicating categories in the Wikipedia guidelines. The article about Amirthalingam should be left in the main LTTE category because he was very important to the LTTE. However it should also come under "Terrorist acts" because he is one of the most prominent people assasinated by the LTTE.

Secondary categorization rule .When an article is put into a subcategory based on an attribute that is not the first thing most people would think of to categorise it, it should be left in the parent category as well.Dutugemunu 17:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to copy your replies here. But you don't have to; I have your talk page (and any other page on which I contribute) on my watchlist for as long as I wait for a reply. — Sebastian 17:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, as a person who had mediated SL related articles before I would like you to look at this article to make it WP:NPOV. Mylanthanai massacre especially versionthat was hacked this thus making it a weak article.

Also there seem to be an attempt to remove valuable references from Nagerkovil central school bombing by a potential misreading of WP:RS. The reference is [1] it is secondary source of documents before the internet became popular. Please look into it if you have time. Thanks Kanatonian 06:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your nice message! I will look at these two. Also, I noticed that you corrected a typo in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-26 Decline of Buddhism in India. If you're interested, I'd like to invite you to participate there. — Sebastian 17:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC), changed 07:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I had discussed this with a bureacurat, Taxman a couple of months ago and he asserted that he was ok with it and wouldn't normally ask me to change it. That said, I have done my level best to keep my opinions to myself while on WP - I strongly deny Szhaider's accusations and I doubt his integrity - it is common to accuse the person who is inconveniencing you with anything you can throw at him. I have given him ample warnings and opportunities to resolve disputes via discussion - it is only when he violated WP:3RR on Iqbal that I went ahead and blocked him for all the issues cited on the ANI report - otherwise I was planning to let others handle it. Rama's arrow 01:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - You mean purdah right? Blocking for Iqbal would be completely an abuse of admin powers, and this is the user that despises szhaider the most talking.Bakaman 02:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I am no expert on criteria for blocking, so don't take my word for it when I gave my opinion that it seemed justified to me. It probably was a mistake to state this as a fact. However, I have seen admins acquitted at ANI who blocked users indefinitely for "trolling", which seems to me a much lesser offense. — Sebastian 02:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: How about moving this conversation to a more appropriate place, maybe User talk:Szhaider?

Just to clarify, I totally endorse the block, just am worried of the repercussions.Bakaman 02:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To assuage your concern on my username, I suggest you visit Wikipedia:Editor review/Rama's Arrow 2 where in repsonse to a question from Kylu about my first RfA, I have reiterated that my username is not based on any POV of any nature, least of all to offend or attack something. Rama's arrow 01:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I'm not concerned about it myself, but I will keep my promise if he gets back to me about it. The reason I gave it to him was to show him a way out of the agression in which he boxed himself. I think it is important for people not to feel helpless - that only breeds aggression. — Sebastian 01:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your judgment is reasonable, but I can't help commenting that if you acquaint yourself with Szhaider's editing history, he has started-off aggressive and never actually provoked. As for the username issue, I will happily do my best to assuage any concerns, but it is hardly resonable to me to consider Szhaider's accusation as legitimate - that after having edited for more than a year with due respect for Wikipedia's policies, that some obvious POV-pusher who does not hesitate to insult Hinduism and Hindus should feel "offended" at my username. Whatever personal views I have, I don't let them intrude on my editing and adminship duties. Rama's arrow 01:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that his aggression was inappropriate - that's why I posted this before I noticed the block. But please understand why I'm taking him seriously. I'm a mediator in cases like Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, and I'm still mediating behind the scenes. You can imagine that there are a lot of people who are very angry, especially now that they just experienced two bus bombings. The fact that someone is angry doesn't mean that he's all wrong. I need to drive home that point. — Sebastian 01:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just forfairness, please do get non "Hindu fascists" and "Indian imperialists" to review it (Note the sarcasm there User:Bakasuprman#Names). ANI maybe?Bakaman 01:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the opening statenment about Attack on civilians. It has no citation on it and therefore should not belong at that part. Please enforece a citation or remove the comment "The LTTE has attacked non-military targets including commuter trains and buses, farming villages, temples and mosques resulting in large numbers of civilian deaths". The buses and farm village have been proven to be true however, the mosque and temple has not been proven at all. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.102.154.23 (talk • contribs) 01:00, February 8, 2007

I'm not sure why you left it on my page, and why in the "Re:my username" section. The best place for such messages is the article talk page, but you may also consider posting it on WT:SLR. Hope this helps, — Sebastian 07:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sebastian,

I think the warning you have given to me is quite unfair..I still stand by by edits ,which correctly question the comments of a person who is regarded as a staunch LTTE supporter..This is not my own personal belief..If you think so, then I would kindly ask you to show me any statement made by this "bishop" criticizing the "LTTE"..The whole article, before my intervention was written purely based on article at "tamil net",which is a pro LTTE site and definitely can't be consider as a WP:RS..And if you read it carefully, the author has given a high importance to the comment of the "bishop" ,as he was the only "called it an act against humanity" ??? "Crimes against humanity" is a serious allegation ,as we all know..The whole article sounds like the Government did something intentional and it is an crime..With only the "bishop's" comment was given as an example !! And that's why I changed it to this..I strongly object having one sided comments of a known LTTE sympathiser. And I have the right to let Wikipedian community that this Bishop has not criticized The "LTTE", even a single occasion.Sinhalese people were kicked out from North and being massacred and this person has not made a single comment son this.. .Its like Nazis talking about "humanity", while involving in "crimes against humanity"..What I did was balancing the article,nothing else.I think my other edits also did some thing similar..You have to remember that the Author of these articles are not only creating them,he also calling them "state terrorism", and include them to it as soon as he created them..These are serious allegations..And as from the present evidences isn't it obvious that the Authors comments were biased and this is indeed a LTTE naval base!! So why would this be a part of state terrorism ?? And also, isn't this obvious that the bishop's comments was made to deceive people ?? AS he had done before.. Sebastian,I immensely appreciate your work here..But I think its not correct to call my edits "defamatory"..I should have wrote something in the talk page,other than that My comments regarding the "Bishop is correct" and the "New evidences" just prove what I said.Keep up your good work. thanks.--Iwazaki 14:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that You brought this issue.. Well first have a look at the very first version of this article.. first..As you can clearly see there is an grave contradiction with the article and the source..The source is about the "Acquittal" and the article is about the "massacre", not a single word of acquittal is there..So the Author had decided the Army did the "massacre" and happily used that term several times. lets take a look at my first edit in this my first edit..Where have I mislead ?? I have correctly changed the phrases.What the source said about the "Army personnel's" Acquittal and That's what exactly I did here..Removing the word Army from it,as they were "Acquitted" by an independent jury..We live in the 21 st century where people supposed to respect the law and order..If a court gives a decision , and "acquit" someone , why would we still defame him ?? These are WP:POV ,and wikipedia shouldn't be used for attacking a judicial systems of a democratic country..If we do so, then,there will be no "consensus"..if the Author wants to challenge the decision he can do it over the court..this is certainly not a task of wikipedia !! Also, the source does not give a single "human rights organisations" ..NOT a single name given !! Then how do we know whether this is true ?? I should have removed it totally, but I still changed it to "some"..if the Author claims something,don't you think evidence should be produced ?? Its certainly not presented here !! Also, I seriously doubt this "Sri Lankan Monitor",for me its looks like an another NGO led organization..This what they say in the front page "The British Refugee Council established the Sri Lanka Project in December 1987, on the request of international NGOs."..And they also say The work of the Project is supervised by an Advisory Committee, comprising international NGOs, including the Refugee Counc..Highly suspicious!! So far I a have only seen the Tamil side of the stories, yet to see a single article regarding the "Sinhalese civilian massacres by LTTE"..I am doing a bit of research about this site and If I can clearly see this as a bias site, then I will let you know.

And lets take the second case edit..Once again, this is about the bishop..I think I have addressed　issue already..I stand by with my statements as they were correct and made the article neutral. Dear Sebastian, I have presented my case and I don't think I did any thing misleading.Edit summaries mat have mislead some, but they were definitely done to make the article a better neutral one.And there was no spam nor personal attacks..I would like if you reconsider about the warning that you have given to me..Thank you for spending your valuable time in helping others and making the articles look better.--Iwazaki 15:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC) ohh also have a look at this too ..Written by a Catholic/Christian SL citizen.[2]..[reply]

Hello Iwazaki! Thank you for your messages. I am quite busy today, but I will read them carefully later. I just started reading a really good book, "Nonviolent Communication" by Marshall B. Rosenberg, and while I'm only in chapter 2, I already realized several mistakes I made here. I would like to continue reading it and then read your mails with that in mind. Have a good day, — Sebastian 20:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ..Enjoy the book..Hopefully you can use the knowledge you might gain from the book to make Wikipedia a better place. Look forward to your reply.--Iwazaki 21:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, my reply is not going to contain much of what I read in the book yet, because I haven't finished it. I had wanted to wait with my reply until I finished the book and then take all the time it takes to apply a new, unpracticed technique to give you a nonviolent response. However, this isn't gonna happe now. Unfortunately, your recent actions have made it urgent for me to read and reply to your messages.

I don't see that you are addressing the first two policy violation warnings, and you're not addressing my table which backs up the third:

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly

Not only did you not refrain from doing so, you even did it again - and this time even 4 times!

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory

This warning is unfortunately quite unclear; what it means is you violated WP:BIO WP:BLP. And yes, I agree with you that there was no spam. I'm sorry about that misunderstanding. This was a template, and the wording was not from me.

misleading edit summaries "Where have I mislead ??"

I don't see how anyone could not understand my table, but I will make it even clearer by directly putting the different versions next to each other - see table below. Regarding your second edit: Are you denying that you deleted {{fact}} without providing reference in your edit? Your summary does not mention this. In the contrary, it sounds as if you had added a {{fact}} template.

Here's the table for your first edit:

If you describe an edit as "corrected phrases according to citations", but in fact you are changing wording that was correct to a paraphrased and weakened version, then that is misleading.

All other points you raise, such as the discussion of the POV of one source, or what the bishop is or is not, have nothing to do with the three warnings. Moreover, I find it disengenuous if you target other people's sources while you yourself don't even provide sources for very harsh accusations of living people. — Sebastian 02:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC), corrected WP:BIO to WP:BLP 21:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iwazaki, your last edit damaged existing messages in two places, and I'm therefore reverting it. I noticed it also included another long POV pushing rant.

I am sorry, you are completely missing the point. This is not about POV. It is about basic Wikipedia policies, as explained on your talk page and above. I don't see how this can still not be clear to you, but I will give you one last chance to demostrate good will. Please therefore refrain for the next two weeks from any

• reversions of opposing POV;
• insertions of information about living people that can affect the subject's life;
• misleading edit summaries.

If I still see you doing any of the above then I will have to report you. I am sorry that it has come to that; my nonviolent communication skills are not advanced enough to see another way for handling this.

If you have any concrete and specific questions about these three policies that you can not find or inquire about on the policy pages, then I'm still open to answering them here. But please spare me your POV pushing rants. I will either ignore or delete such edits, even if they do not damage other messages on this page. — Sebastian 21:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Title was: "reply to your post")

Dear Sebastian , First of all apologies for damaging your messages in two places.It was obviously not intentional..It wasn't done with any hidden intentions to cover up my self or defame your self..It was just a silly typing mistake made by me.. And About my remarks..I was addressing to the points AND I wasn't certainly missing them.I have explained the basis behind my edits and you have seen it as POV..I have explained how did the article look like before,and you haven't even touch that topic..I asked you to look at the talk pages,but I don't even see your comments there !!.Since we seemed to have a problem with coherent communication ,allow me to clarify this,further, to you.

And for the requests you made at your last post; My replies are in bold.

• You said ;

Please therefore refrain for the next two weeks from any

1reversions of opposing POV

I am not really getting this one..SO anyone can create article with their own POV and I should keep an blind eye for it ?? By Looking at the way STF article is going on, where you find a lot of POV tirades,borne purely due the "hate" that user has with anything "Sri Lankan", I can hardly understand your above suggestion. Its like asking me not to help a girl when someone trying to rape her !!

• you said ;

2insertions of information about living people that is not from verifiable sources;

Accepted..Actually first I thought there is no need to give citations to prove the "obvious" ,which even Bishop him self doesn't deny..But since its quite clear to me that even if it is "OBVIOUS" one should still prove it, and I would more than happy to give proofs from verified sources !

• You said;

3misleading edit summaries.

I didn't mean to mislead..That wasn't what I intended..I should have been more comprehensive with it and I fully admit that..I assure you ,this will not happen from me again.. Finally ,I always work with good will..And My edits had helped to make articles look more neutral and stop LTTE propaganda.. --Iwazaki 03:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• When I first joined wiki, I wanted to make articles about "japan" and others..BUT after seeing the systematic rape of our country in wikipedia, I changed my mind..first, As a Sri Lankan its my duty to keep the good name of my country.Rest comes next..Also, I don't think its even appropriate to do edits related to my "Major" ,as it might give a clue or two about my self,thus enabling the "terrorists" to hunt me..Well, this may sound bit amazing for you.But revealing my self would be the last thing I do.--Iwazaki 03:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your good reply. This is what I was hoping for; it opens the stage for a productive, mutually respectful discussion.

I agree with you that damaging the messages was obviously not intentional. It was a bit nitpicking on my part. To be honest, the main reason why I said it was because it gave me a good excuse to revert your edit. Now that I see that we can connect, I don't think I will revert your comments in the future again.

I am very happy and grateful that we agree on point 2 and for your promise to avoid the situation of point 3. This allows us to talk about #1, POV reversions.

I can hardly imagine what pain you seem to be feeling about the situation in your home country. It is only human to think of the word "rape", when you grow up in an environment like that. I understand your desire to protect your POV. Do you feel threatened by the opposing POV?

Believe me, I'm really empathizing with you. It hurts me deeply, too, to watch how such a beautiful country just can't escape the spiral of violence. When I see people in terror, I see terrorists winning. I even thought of joining the Nonviolent Peaceforce. I don't know if I would be able to help if I were in Sri Lanka.

It hurts me when I see this conflict perpetuated in Wikipedia. But I know I can make a difference here. I wholeheartedly agree with Lahiru's message, in which he quotes MLK: "We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope". I am actually quite confident that we can break this circle of violence at least here on Wikipedia!

To reach this goal, I need your help. You could help me a lot if you tried out a different mindset for two weeks. I'm not saying it is any more "right" than yours. But because it is different, it is a chance for a change.

Please try to imagine how people on the other side feel; People like Kanatonian and Sharz. Imagine them as people with a heart, too, and not as terrorists. I bet any amount of money that they never raped a woman. So, please just imagine that they feel the same pain that you feel. There are of course differences between both situations, but I ask you to not latch on to those for the moment. (That would be as distracting as when I held your inadvertent damage against you.) Such differences don't matter in the bigger picture.

So, imagine, when you revert a change, how they may inwardly cry out "rape!", too. Unfortunately, because people's hearts are so sore, they cry out "rape!", even when it's just an innocent mistake. (Look at the conversation I just had with Kerr avon. I'm not saying this to blame him, but only to show that it's a normal human reaction - it's a group attribution error.) This is how both sides get caught in a painful revert war.

The only way out that I can see is when people relax a bit, when everybody gives the other some space and time and respect. This is my goal here. I want to to help good willing people relax, so I talk to people who I perceive as good willing, and I am ready to have people blocked that are not. (So far, I only had one editor blocked, who happened to be from the other side. So I really was tempted to have you blocked, too, when you violated the 3RR rule with your four reversion around 2007-01-08T16:00:24. However, I believed in you, and I'm very happy that I did. I now can attest that you are changing; so if anyone should block you for that edit war, you can request unblock and refer to this conversation.)

Here's a list of what you can do when you see some edit that you feel you need to revert:

1. Relax. Take a deep breath. It's not a rape! It won't harm anyone if you wait an hour. Maybe someone else reverts it in the mean time. Or maybe the other editor clarifies his edit, making it less offensive. Please allow everyone room to breathe.
2. If an unsourced statement has been inserted, add {{fact}} or a related template. *
3. If the statement is sourced from tamilnation or another source that has not been established as RS, you can add {{biased source}}, which I just created for this purpose. **
4. Conversely, if someone adds {{biased source}} to a reference you provided, please don't remove it, but discuss it on the talk page.
5. If something has been deleted, please try to understand why it has been deleted.
   1. If the summary says something like "unsourced", you can add it back with a {{fact}} tag.***
   2. If the summary says something like "defense.lk is not a reliable source", you can add it back with a {{biased source}} tag. **
   3. If there is no edit summary, you can revert it with the summary "rv unexplained deletion"
6. If the edit includes unsourced defamation of living people, you can revert it (Please write "rv per WP:BLP" in the summary.)
7. Tell me about it. If something happened that's not in this list, or if you feel something was really outrageous, write to me here or by e-mail. I've intervened in such cases in the past (I think this was also why I had the one person blocked).

I think this should already help a lot. If you want to go one step further, you may also want to consider becoming a WP:1RR fighter like me (see the userbox on my user page.)

Anyway, I wish you successful editing! — Sebastian 08:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Would you mind stepping in on the article Special Task Force? I am taking a more pro-active role in the improvement of United Nations related articles as well as planning to create a WikiProject dedicated to Human Rights and Aids Groups which means I don't want to get bogged down fighting over trivial things, however I do not like the idea of referanced material that I have put into Wikipedia being slowly eroded away. Thankyou --Sharz 01:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll take a look into it. — Sebastian 01:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you might already have seen, your edits were promptly reverted by another user (so as to avoid 3RR), I probably will open an Arb on this, not because that paragraph is particularly significant, but because it is important to put such behavior as deleting referanced/cited infomation and using various users in cabal to surplant Wikipedia policy. Please inform me on my talk page if you would like to be included in such an arb case, I completely understand if you do not, as it is a long often infuriatingly long process. --Sharz 06:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this conflict worked out well - the article got its lost section back. — Sebastian 21:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No actually, I added new sections, the bus section is still in absentia but I'm just going to go through the steps of conflict resolution once again and left the article for a couple of days, I do believe that I've been marked out to be stalked by certain users on Wikipedia and the fact is that if I'm not editing the article, all interest in "improving" it basically disappears until I make my next edit, which is followed by a flurry of counter-edits. Currently I'm working on wikis for Aid and Humaniatarian groups, care to join me? --Sharz 03:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki sounds really interesting; can you tell me more, please? — Sebastian 00:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh thanks brother . I never did think that you were disillusioned because of the edit wars on Sri Lankan conflict related topics. I have been here nearly 4 n half months and I always had to face such experiences. Kanatonian has been here for 11 months and both of us and every other user have been facing such problems and none of them gave up editing. Why? That's because we all have an infinite hope that we regret to lose. But some people like Elalan, after they have been confirmed as sock puppets of another user, became a blatant vandal and I was accused as a sock puppeteer for some thing I didn't do and I was blocked for one week. Have you ever been accused for some thing you didn't do and punished? At least on your school days? I have been once and with this incidence the count was raised up to two. Ater that I was really disappointed and I thought to give up editing but I didn't give up my infinite hope. So there's no point in doing something like giving up editing for a simple matter. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 07:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just finnished completing the above mentioned article. Can you kindly go over it to check for NPOV errors and any other issues when you have time. Thanks 14:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the article but left the NPOV tag, when you have time can you read and see whether the NPOV tag shoulkd be removed ? Thanks Kanatonian 21:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know User:Shunpiker seem to have taken an interest in this obscure event in an even obscure country and has cleaned it up as best he can. It is truely NPOV now with Verifiable sources with a to do list. One less headache for you. Thanks for your interest in things Sri Lankan how ever mressy and heart wrenching the details may be Kanatonian

Kerr avon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Thanks for your help in clearing up our small misunderstanding!Kerr avon 08:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thak you for your kind post to my homepage. You are a nice editor and very polite and I have respect for that. I am very sickened right now as many new-anonymous users are vandalizing many articles on wikipedia and this is creating problems. Why don't you take a look at these edits and let me know if you concur with my assessments:

Edit:[3] My revert:[4] Reason: hvk is partisan source, and faithfreedom.org is unreliable

Edit:[5] My revert:[6] Reason:Ridiculous vandalism. Vandal even claims that Rediff.com A premier News Source in India is not WP:RS.[7].

Edit:[8] My revert:[9] Reason:[{Dalit Voice]] is a hate site preaching holocaust denial

My experience is that these anon/new users will keep at it and keep reverting well past 3RR. I am very unhappy about this. Rumpelstiltskin223 23:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My original mail (now archived) was:

== Trying to answer your question ==

Hello Rumpel! I'm sorry that you're going through such a hard time. I haven't looked at the reversions themselves, but understand that it must be hard to see people do things that oppose our innermost feelings. From my experience with mediation I know that your questions are not just rhetoric questions, they are a serious desire to find a way out of such quandaries. Moreover, I know that you have been trying, while we have failed to give you a answer to your important question so far. Maybe you can find the cheat sheet helpful which I wrote for another editor who was in a similar situation. Let me know what you think of it! — Sebastian 20:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you'd like to recruit support for your POV, but please understand that (1) people try that all the time with mediators and (2) I am somewhat annoyed that you're asking me a favor before you even reply to my request - which was simply to look at my list, which clearly helps both you and me. — Sebastian 19:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that you lost all your files and emails, it has happened to me and I know the feeling, I read your subpage about mediation, interesting stuff. I really appreciate your concerns and edits in the Sri Lanka conflict related articles. Possibly you are a bit angry with me for turning you down with the NCSLC project membership offer. I hope you understand my stand. In the meantime my sincere wish is that we could be good friends. If you need any help in mediation please feel free to contact me. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 11:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I haven't given up all hope yet. It's just a bit embarrassing, because I know better. What happened was that my backup program (Acronis) suddenly stopped working, and I didn't get around to attempt fixing it.

I was a bit angry, but not about turning me down. It was about putting down honest efforts for neutral coverage of the Sri Lanka crisis. It's a common paradox that people who need respect from each other have a tendency to put each other down. I'm very happy that you are addressing this, and that you're even doing that with nonviolent communication! I can't say I fully understand your stand, because I think differently, but I respect it and can empathize with you. So, don't worry - I have many friends who think differently from me!

Thank you for your offer to help. How about if you kept the project page (of whatever the WikiProject will be called) on your watchlist and chimed in with your ideas when we need ideas? One idea we need right now is a good name. — Sebastian 18:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I'll do that. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 08:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, hate to bother you about this again but alot of content (basically all) I added to the Special Task Force page was deleted twice and I'd like to get a second opinion about the validity of my edits before pursueing other paths of resolving the conflict. --Sharz 09:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea: I just created a list at User:SebastianHelm/NCSLC or new project#Classification of sources, and I will use that later tonight to create a "first approximation" version as a compromise until agreement is reached. You both make valuable points which I will address, but you both also throw unnecessary dirt at each other.

Speaking of my project: Did you notice that I replied to you? I had a very pertinent question. Please reply to it there. — Sebastian 22:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, it's quiet hard to keep track of all these pages, maybe some of them should be consolidated or listed on the project page? — Sharz — continues after insertion below

I already consolidated the talk, which was spread over several tallk and project pages, into two. It's quite simple now:

• Talk about User:SebastianHelm/NCSLC or new project goes into User talk:SebastianHelm/NCSLC or new project;
• Talk about all other Sri Lanka related issues goes here.

I realize I didn't communicate that clearly enough, though. When I get around to it I'll add a note on top of this page. There's already one on top of the project talk page. For the same reason, I'll move the discussion about Elalan here. Likewise, I will move most of this talk to Talk:Special Task Force and reply there. — Sebastian 02:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, I don't this it's a question of sources but rather a question of whether every human rights abuse the STF has commited should be on Wikipedia. If so, then I will revert Snowdwolf's edits and if he deletes them again I'll go after him under the new WP: Censorship and if his arguement holds true, It would provide precendent to delete articles such as "Terrorist attacks committed by the LTTE" etc.--Sharz 00:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot emotions there. It's simply a terrible situation. If we can bring some neutrality to the articles, it would lend them all credibility. In truth, I've done my best, but I simply don't understand all the issues involved. Any news articles/illumination would be much appreciated. I also would love to invite you to help me revive WikiProject:Human rights. Thanks for thinking of me, Sebastian. I consider it an honor. NinaOdell | Talk 12:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sebastian,

Thanks.Rajsingam 14:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sebastian, still waiting for your relpy. Hope your PC is OK now :) --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 18:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry - which reply, where? Yes, my computer is OK, thanks for your good wishes! — Sebastian 19:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sebastian Helm. I think you discussed this with User:Vadakkan. We have now made a suggested update of the LTTE areas of control map which I have posted on Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam#LTTE & GOSL controlled area image. We have changed the colour to make the East more yellow and the legend to say that the East is "mostly" controlled by the Government. I have also explained there why I think it will be difficult to produce a more exact map. Please let me know if you think this is an improvement. -- Ponnampalam 21:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I like it! You seem like a good editor, seeing that you always provide very descriptive edit summaries. Are you aware of the project that I'm starting? (Tentative name is User talk:SebastianHelm/NCSLC or new project, but I proposed to name it Sri Lanka Reconciliation.) Your advice there will be very much appreciated! — Sebastian 02:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation. I am not able to spend too much time online nowadays due to some health problems, but I will try to contribute when I can. It is an important project. -- Ponnampalam 00:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be mentioned that there is alot of bashing of the User:Elalan, who was recently banned for being a puppeteer or sockpuppet. However I would like to point out the fact that others in this very page were accused and banned temporarily for sockpuppetry and to my knowledge, were not cleared. Though Elalan pushed a heavy Pro-LTTE view on Wikipedia and he was also abrasive towards opposing Wikipedia editors, you do not have the right to become his judge and jury in absentia. I would apreciate it if you showed some respect to an individual, who however mis-guided, is not here to defend himself and point out that it is not nessicary to relentlessy attack the name of a person who essentially no longer exists, which is tantamount to kicking and spitting on a corpse. I'm sorry I had to post this on your constructive talkpage... --Sharz 01:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elalan maybe blocked but his sockpuppet User:Trincomanb is still free to edit the wikipedia and thus come to his defense any time, but has failed to do so.Kerr avon 01:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel bad about posting it - please, don't ever hesitate to ask me (either here or by email) when you have any problem with anything I did.

I have no idea what you mean, though. I don't think I've ever been "abrasive" towards any user. So what are you referring to? (This is also a general principle of mine: Provide a reference!) — Sebastian 02:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was reffering to Elalan, not you = ) --Sharz 10:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC), To elaborate further, throughout many of the project pages and other discussions you have started, User: Elalan has been a key focus of discussion, even though he plays no part in day to day editing now. For example, look above and you will see a comment about Elalan by I think Lahru_k, not unlike similar ones posted around these discussions. --Sharz 22:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see! You're right, Elalan has been a key focus of discussion, and I really don't understand why some editors were so hung up on an account that plays no part anymore. Much as I was sad about that, I don't think anybody was "abrasive". Also, while I sympathize with your respect towards dead people, I think we should distinguish between a real human person and an account. The person who created Account:Elalan is hopefully still alive, and he or she wasn't Elalan anyway. — Sebastian 20:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was just a metaphor, I didn't imply that we should show the same respect to the dead as to Elalan, but simply the fact that editing under that account had ended so for all intensive purposes, we need not concern ourselves because it would be like attacking a dead person, someone who has no opinions etc etc... hope that cleared some stuff up for you, once again sorry for the wasting of your time at the STF article. --Sharz 08:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Original title: "how you doing ?")

Dear sebestian, It has been a while since i did any sort of editing here,in wikipedia..I was extremely busy with my school work,esp with my research and had absolutely no time to invlove in other stuff..It seems that,you are more active in SL related articles ,as ever ,and the new project started by you looks good too..hope to be invloved in editing again in couple of weeks,assuming my research goes well.. till then keep up your good work --Iwazaki 02:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Iwazaki! That's so nice to hear from you! I already was afraid that I had scared you away with my cheat sheet, which now has become an official part of the project: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation#Cool_editing. If you get back to editing, I would really love to hear your feedback if it's helpful. Cheers, — Sebastian 22:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guten tag, Herr Sebastian!
Wie geht's dir ? You are right, somehow, I missed your reply..Anyway thanks for pointing out to me..No U didnt scare me ,I was finishing my school semester and in fact was extremely busy ..U seem busy as ever..Keep up the good work !!--Iwazaki 04:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

岩崎さん!

独逸語をと話しますか？"Guten tag"と"Wie geht's dir"シンハラ語でなんと言いますか？Ich wünsche dir viel Erfolg im Studium!

さようなら！— Sebastian 07:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guten Abenｄ ,Herr Sebestian ,
オレはドイツ語を全然喋れないよ。。単語ならちょっと知っているけど。シンハラ語では　、Guten tag は　suba udasanak という。。元気ですかは　シンハラ語で　kohomada ? と言います。danke gut は　hodai(good,not bad)です。 one more thing, better to say じゃまた　or またね　instead of さようなら if you want to say "good bye"。Or you can simply say バイバイ、which is a direct translations of the English word "bye". さようなら is kind of a double meaning word,which can also gives the impression that You are not going to meet/see that person again.For an example, when you break up with your GF, you may say さようなら to her..hope this will help ..--Iwazaki 14:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kohomada Iwazaki?

Uh oh! I've been asking for it! Now I realize my Japanese isn't good enough. I've never seen "喋", and I don't know how to pronounce it, although I figure from the context that it probably means "to speak". The next sentence is even worse: I don't know what "けど" means, and I only can guess that the sentence means something like "If only I knew a few words!" Right?

Thanks for the tip about さようなら. That's of course not what I meant. “バイバイ”中国語で書かれる“俳俳”，同じに発音きれる。ですから：

俳俳! — Sebastian 06:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that I have allready allready talked to someone about this but since I see you are interisted in the neutral coverage of sri lanka I need to ask some help from you.

Original post to sharez :

the page "Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE" under the 2007 bus explosion insident the writer has written as if that that was the truth and has given a refrence to the reuters (which is fine). However, on that article it just says that the Srilankan forces has said that they suspect this to be an attack by the tigers. This is NOT the NPOV that wiki should share. I want to ask you to take a look at it and tell me what to do. I believe this should be taken off but I don't want to go in a edit war against the two major contributers to the articles. We should take immediate action about this problem. I will take a more indept look at the article now to see if there is any other accutations like this. Thanks and sorry for disturbing you. I just want to keep this whole part of wiki clean...

More dirt!

Under the 2006 heading:

March 01, 2006: Suspected but not proven so cannot belong in the article because refrence doesn not assume.

April 23, 2006 : This is based on a article which is on wikipedia but is missing sitations. Infact there is no citation on that article and it is again a violation of wiki. Nothing shows that this is true... furthermore doesn not involve Tamil Tigers.

May 27, 2006: No mention in the refrence about Tamil Tigers hence not NPVO to assume it was them

May 29, 2006: Refrence is not a NPOV article it seems. Not wiki stranders but could let it slide by.

September 18, 2006 Are you kidding me ? refrence from defence.lk…. What a joke!

I am slowly working my way around all the sri lanka related sections. Please do not mistake me of trying to sabotage these artiles or of supporting any one group. I am just trying to clean wiki from rubbish. Watchdogb 21:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Sure, I'd like to help. What help do you need, concretely? The problem with the term "rubbish" is that people's opinion on what is rubbish differ widely. In the past, this has led to long and exhausting edit wars. This is why Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation was founded: It allows both sides to bring their point across without being deleted by the other party because it's just rubbish.

Since I'm just the mediator, I'd prefer if you could ask any questions on the project talk page, as long as you're comfortable posting them there. Alternatively, you can also write me e-mail; I promise (per my principles) that you will not regret it! — Sebastian 22:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allright thanks a lot. I will post these problems there and see if we can fix these problems. Thanks Watchdogb 23:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hellow sabastian I did exactly what you have told me but user Snowolfd4 has been reverting my edits. Please take a look. I am not going to fight a edit wars but I am not very pleased with this attatude. Please help and thanks Watchdogb 03:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which article are you talking about? I just looked at Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and that one at least is not exactly as I recommended. You didn't write the edit summary. Is that the one you meant? — Sebastian 03:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right. I didn't do the summery sorry. I should have done it. Sorry again. Also was wondering if my edit was proper ? Watchdogb 03:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem about the summary. Not everyone is such a stickler to that recommendation as I am. I'll look into it. In the meantime, I moved your question from the archive to WT:SLR#satp.org and asked a question there, too. — Sebastian 03:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I looked at your changes and Snowolf's reversions, and I noticed the following:

1. You did not just do the changes we talked about. You also replaced "the only suspects" with "suspected" and added "There is no sure evidence that point explicitly to the LTTE. It is also possible that the karuna fraction could have done this attack to blame the LTTE." That is what Snowolf referred to when he wrote "rv OR" in his summary. He referred correctly to the Wikipedia policy WP:OR.
2. Snowolf did not revert all of your changes. In particular, he left {{fact}}.
3. Snowolf changed "According to the anti-rebel site a massacre ..." to "A massacre...". This is understandable, since www.defence.lk is not the anti-rebel site. That was just a simple misunderstanding. What I meant was "According to the www.defence.lk site a massacre ...". However, that hasn't really been discussed in our project yet; in this case it was just my assumption that we could call it that way. Before you change it to what I meant, please let's discuss this on the project page - right under the satp.org section. — Sebastian 04:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what happend after I left the message. I thought I had reference to my edit but I can't seem to find it. If I find it I will run it through this page before making any rational edits. Sry -Watchdogb 05:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allright dude way to go. I see that you are really on top of your stuff and that you know exactly what you are doing. Anyway things seems way better now especially after you have restarted the reliable source topic. I think my work here is done. Grats on this project. I'll be around if you need anything but I think you got it all under control :D. See ya around ! Watchdogb 23:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See you, then! Drop me a note when you're back! — Sebastian 06:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sebastian, I saw you called Asian Tribune a "anti rebel newspaper" in the Anton Balasingham article. The link you provided as a reason simply gives a table you created and (I'm thinking) you suggested it be called as such. I have to disagree with your edits cos you haven't mentioned who calls Asian Tribune anti rebel. (if you have my apologies cos I couldn't find it) If its simply your opinion, I'm afraid it would be WP:OR to label it as such. Tamilnet for example is called "pro-LTTE" by every major news organization so there should be no problems calling it pro-LTTE in Wiki articles. But I don't think we can call Asian Tribune "anti rebel". What do you say?--snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 03:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your polite question! It is true that I created the original table, but it wasn't me who suggested the naming. I did not make the decision for naming any of the sources. These were by community consensus on Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation (the project to which I had invited you in its early stages). The discussion is now archived at WT:SLR/archive#Asian Tribune. Although I had hoped that that decision would represent a community consensus, it is of course is not written in stone. You are certainly invited to bring it up again on WT:SLR#Guideline: Classification of sources. Also, I noticed that the article Asian Tribune does not contain any references for their partiality, maybe you can bring it up on that page, too. So what do you think Asian Tribune should be called? Do you have any references? (Not that they are absolutely necessary, but it would be a strong argument.)

PS: I would prefer if we could move this discussion either to WT:SLR or to /Sri Lanka - what do you think? — Sebastian 03:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reality Asian Tribune is not a WP:RS to begin with. That it is being allowed in Wikipedia is contrary to wikipedia rules. Kanatonian 22:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian, I need your input on the article's table. This table is (at the bottom) disputed by Iwasaki. Please take a look at all of the articles on the tabe and please make a decision if it has credible material and if that table is TRULY false as said by Iwazaki. Thanks Watchdogb 23:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you have replaced Category:Terrorists with Category:Assassins[10] . As I know "Under U.S. law, an attack against a military target does not meet the legal definition of terrorism". I think Rajiv Gandhi never met this definition. If the target was General Pervez Musharraf, he will definitely meet this definition coz he is currently the President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Chief of Army Staff of the Pakistan Army. So I think your will revert it back. Thanks. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 15:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My buddy just rv back it :-) / :-| [11] --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 15:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. As I said, I haven't seen verification that she fits all all criteria of Category:Terrorists, but let's discuss that there (or maybe on WT:SLR). — Sebastian 20:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey sebastian I have just noticed that the Sea Tiger article is under the SLR scope. There is a section of human rights violation which has a part about attacking a 300 civilian ship. It links to a article which clearly says "a military source says" that they were transporting civilians when they encountred the enemy. It again does not say that LTTE's intention was to attack the civilian ship and according to the article they did not either. Can you please back me on taking that statenment off. I could have taken this up on WP:SLR but I think this is a too small an discussion for it to be there. Thanks Watchdogb 03:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it a small matter if 25 people have been killed. However, I agree that we have many big or even bigger issues now, with e.g. the whole section on human rights allegations removed from the SL Army article.[12], and we can't put out all fires at once. You have several options:

1. add {{biased source}}, and write in the talk page that you'll delete it after a week if nobody comes up with a reliable source - I certainly would back that up.
2. Question the reliability on WP:SLR#Guideline: Classification of sources. This will only take a couple of days. I can't promise how I would vote on that yet.
3. Remove it - this is legal, but I wouldn't fight for it. I really don't like the current wholesale deletions by some people here, and I'd hate to see that escalate. — Sebastian 04:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestons. I also agree with you on the 'wholesale deletions' but I guess we can't all have the cake and eat it too. However, I did not question the source as it seems to be written at a NPOV stand. I was just saying that the source did not say that the Sea Tigers tried to attack the civilian ship. It would not fit the HR violation if the Sea tigers only attacked the navy ships. Also the military was the one who said that they were providing cover for the civilian ship as stated correctly in the article. Just because the military says it was covering a civilian ship it does not make it the truth. Watchdogb 14:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see! That makes sense! In that case, the best solution wouldn't be taking it off, but adding the other side. WP:NPOV says: "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly." It takes a bit of research to find it, but I think since 25 people died it should be big enough to be covered in reliable sources. — Sebastian 16:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surly that would be the best solution. Thanks Watchdogb 20:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the discussion on the this article under "wording". I have suggested the proper faults with the last sentence on it and people seem to try to add unneeded sentence to the article. Please have a look.

Yeah I had to remove temporary that link to resolve this editwar. [13][14][15][16][17][18][19] Since there no much more activities in the WT:SLR, we can do the archiving jobs our selfs. Isn't it? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 04:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I can do that, and I will. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 10:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure. Do you mean formally as in Med Cabal or unofficially on the talk page? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'll just wait for you to get started on it then. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please check out my new topic in the talk page for the Sri Lanka Revolutionary group. Maybe I can help out given this position. Hopefully this won't cause any security problems for my family. Seriphyn 01:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, per your suggestion we have put an article that you were trying to mediate into AFD. Thanks Kanatonian 18:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I left you alone in making your case. I feel it might have helped if I had clarified why the AFD was necessary; but I am happy that you managed quite well without me, and it seems the outcome is a good compromise. — Sebastian 05:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Sebastian, langfristig, kein gesehen. Hoffen, daß du in gutem Heidezustand bist. Und ich hoffe, daß du lesen und verstehen kannst, was ich hier mit Google übersetzer schrieb. Für deine Antwort erwarten, --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 16:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)^[reply]

Ja, ich kann das gut verstehen! Schade nur, dass es kein Sinhala auf Google gibt, sonst hätte ich Dir hier angemessen antworten können! — Sebastian 05:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sebastian, since you seem quite reasonable, I was wondering if you could review the LTTE page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LTTE

[...]

Please please, could you kindly delete that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by W0rldl3ad3r@hotmail.com (talk • contribs)

I noticed that you also posted the same message on Talk:Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam#Message_by_User:W0rldl3ad3r.40hotmail.com, which I think is a better place for this discussion, so I feel I'm off the hook for now. — Sebastian 05:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sebastian, please see: Discussion move and Specific proposal Your participation and acceptance would be appreciated. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me. It's good to see that Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation is still at least good for something! I only took a cursory glance at the pages, but you apparently reached a compromise among a big group of editors - that's quite an achievement! Would you like me to get more involved? I'm reaching the end of my non-wiki busy time, but I already have other things in the pipeline. So I'm happy if I'm not needed; but if you need me, let me know, I'll also be happy to help. — Sebastian 04:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sebastian. I just became a user today and I really need some help. First of all, the primary reason I became a user is to join the WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. So how do I become a member? And I want to make a User page about my self. Could you please help? How do I make a table of contents, and all those templates you have about the languages you can speak and stuff about yourself. Thanks a lot. --Ytred 03:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry, I overlooked your question. I see that you already received a reply at User talk:Ytred#Interesting, and I will reply there, too. — Sebastian 01:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your help. So what exactly do you want me to do to prove myself? Just edit SLR related articles?--Ytred 02:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good question! This is of course not just for me to decide, so I will post it on WT:SLR#What are we looking for in new members?. — Sebastian 02:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much --Ytred 20:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion about the SLR talk page, as it currently is, clicking the "add new section" button at the top creates a section under the "Just resolved" heading. So I had to move what I added to the correct section. That seems a a little odd. Could you maybe add a little script to add new sections under the 2.0 heading? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 04:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your good suggestion! Unfortunately, I don't know how to make such a script - but I'll just remove the distinction altogether. It has caused some confusion, and it may not be so necessary anymore. — Sebastian 08:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could just switch the order of the sections, listing "Open issues" after "Just resolved". Of course, the current format (no distinction) is fine given the relatively low number of issues. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about adding a "Notices" or "News and notices" section to WT:SLR? It could be used to inform project members of information that is neither an "issue" nor an "incident"; for instance, it could be a place to post links to active discussions on talk pages of SL-related articles. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. Maybe that would fit best under the "general" sectionchapter?

This reminds me of the template we had, which listed all the important issues, so as not to miss them in all the fray. People put the template in their user space to keep track of what was going on. It's still visible on top of the project page, but the format wasn't so easy to maintain, so nobody other than me was doing it. — Sebastian 02:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. The reason I bring it up is that the issues raised at WT:SLR are mostly ones that require dispute resolution or discussion about a potentially contentious issue. However, there may be times when one might simply wish to call attention to a discussion on a particular talk page or to a development that affects Sri Lanka-related articles. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it could be a chapter by itself, too. I guess I would prefer if it to be between General and Incidents, but I trust your judgment on where to put it. Personally, I wouldn't use alphabetic sorting as a criterium for sorting chapters. But if you coincidentally see a good reason to put "Notices" or "News and notices" at the bottom of the page, please feel free to do so. — Sebastian 05:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have a preference as to its location; between "General" and "Incidents" is probably the best place. The reason I switched around the "Issues" and "Incidents" sections, which is why I think you brought up alphabetic sorting, was so that editors who use the "+"/"add new section" function will add sections under the "Issues" heading, which seems to see more activity. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense! Thank you for that!

I have another, related question: How about if we split archive 4 into different archives for each chapter? — Sebastian 05:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the standpoint of navigation, I think it could be useful. How would it work out in the long-term, considering that the "Issues" section constitutes the majority of the archives? Would additional archive pages for "Issues" be created more frequently than archive pages for the other chapters, or would discussions held during the period of the SLR dispute resolution constitute a grouping distinct from other archives? I ask mostly because I don't have a completely clear picture about what you have in mind. Still, given how well you've been managing the project page, talk page, and subpages, I have no doubt that any system you decide to use will be more than OK. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its nice to hear from you again too. About the Sri Lanka attacks page may I point out a few facts. first the discussion about this page is very hard to find. In fact if you hadnt kindly sent me the link, I can honestly say I wouldnt have found it in a million years.

I cannot fathom why the discussion is not held on the talk page of the article as this would be visible to all contributors. As Snofold pointed out he couldnt even contribute to the discussion as he was not aware of its existence. Similarly myself and a majority of the contributors to this page were not aware of the discussion and of the vote on the title, which only took place over 4 days in a location not visible to contributors of this page. I feel that the people who contributed to this page were basically shut out from the vote. furthermore if you look carefully at the voters,you can see that most of them have argued against some aspect of this page and are not unbiased. Dutugemunu (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your nice reply!

Why the discussion is not held on the talk page of the article: It's a general problem with page moves that the discussion is hard to find, once the page is moved. I didn't even see a single link to the original pre-moved page! That's actually a reason to keep such discussions on WT:SLR, where they remain independent of such moves. But I admit, it isn't so easy to find it there, either, once the discussion has been archived. (It's now here). What do you think, would it make sense to keep a list there of all important discussions - would that make it easier for you? I could do that over the weekend. Anyway, I really recommend adding WT:SLR to your watchlist - that guarantees that you won't miss out on any SL conflict related decisions. Currently there is one issue, "Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka" that you may want to weigh in before it gets moved. — SebastianHelm — continues after insertion below

I think it would be cool to copy the discussion or provide the link on the talk page of the target page, when two articles are being merged. Then anyone inspecting the talk page of the merged article would have some background as to the changes.Dutugemunu (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a link is a very good idea! I will add this to WP:SLR#Guidelines. Please remind me again if I haven't done that a week from now. — Sebastian 19:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ideal method would be to have the discussion on the talk page and link from SLR to the talk page in the same way as you do with your work on the Buddhism project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buddhism#Please_vote_on_how_to_name_the_Buddha_.28general.29_article) you can see how neat the Buddhism page is with a few overview links to the talk pages. There are literally hundreds of issues with Sri Lanka related articles and the best way to categorize woudl be to leave the disccussions on the talk page, even if you raise the issue in SLR.:). Dutugemunu (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree: The best would be if a conversation remained where it started. But I'm not the one who moved the conversation there, and it's every member's decision where he or she feels the best place is. I will not start an edit war with our members over where a discussion should take place. Currently, some of our members interpret Sri Lanka Dispute Resolution Agreement, point 5 to mean that such discussions should take place on WT:SLR, and frankly, I see no reason to question this. For now, I consider this question settled. I already promised you we will write a note on such pages, and I can not see any reason from your argument why that should not be enough. Now, if you want to influence the way we're doing things, you're invited to join the WikiProject. I would even support you on this question. We'll decide this in consensus there. — Sebastian 02:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People who contributed to this page were basically shut out from the vote: "shut out" is a strong term, but I see that it may have contributed to you missing the discussion. I'm sorry about that, and I will support reopening the discussion if you have any argument that was overlooked in the decision. This may not be the best moment, though. For one, I am busy with other things and will not be able to put in as much time as I would like to. (I would e.g. love to make an overview table of arguments, as I did e.g. here and here. It's quite some work, but I think it's worth it because it makes the decision process transparent and allows people who come late to the discussion to be able to come up to speed quickly.) But not just me, our pro-GoSL members also currently seem very busy, so you can't get much support from them, either. I would therefore rather wait until that situation changes. — SebastianHelm — continues after insertion below

The problem is that Sri lanka reconcialiation page covers dozens of articles and issues across many topics. People who are knowledgeable in one area or one article will not bother to wade through the mass of discussions on SLR page to see if they are interested in issues being discusses. I still think that when changes such as title change is being considered, they should be discussed on the talk page and maybe linked to/fromthe SLR page for the benefit of participants of the SLR group groupDutugemunu (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this may be an inconvenience, but it shouldn't be a problem. The title of the section was "List of terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE (merge)". With just one quick glance at the table of contents of WT:SLR you could have easily seen for yourself that this was a topic that might interest you. — Sebastian 19:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont really visit the SLR page that much because I am not interested in all the topics being discusses. Dutugemunu (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, Dutugemunu, make up your mind: The very reason why we're talking here is because you overlooked a topic that you were interested in. Naturally, there always will be Sri Lanka conflict related discussions on WT:SLR. If you choose to not look at this pertinent page, you only have yourself to blame. — Sebastian 02:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them have argued against some aspect of this page and are not unbiased. You seem to be addressing several points: (1) Many editors in the SL conflict are biased. I agree with that. (2) Biased editors should not have a say. I do not agree with that. I think everybody may have good arguments, and I'm committed to finding out the grain of truth everyone has to say. (3) The proportion of votes may be distorted: That would be a valid concern, if it had been a vote. But we did not look at the vote count, we looked at reasons. And in my honest impression, all reasons against the move had been refuted. (See WT:SLR#Clarification of what 1RR means to us for what I mean by "reason" and "refute".) — SebastianHelm — continues after insertion below

My point is that only the voters who are biased to the pro-LTTE side participated in this vote. Even one of the other editors has complained he was not aware of the vote because its in an obscure section. At least it shoudl have been linked from/to the talk pages of the articles under discussion Dutugemunu (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the link - see above. Snowolfd4's complaint, however, wasn't a statement of facts but an obvious bluff that I easily called right away. Please read my reply there. — Sebastian 19:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The vote [...] only took place over 4 days: There was no vote. What took 4 days was the decision to move, after months of discussion had come to a close. I could have made that decision right away, but I wanted to make sure that really everything was said and done. That was clearly the case, since nobody brough up any new arguments - not even until today. Clearly, I couldn't wait forever. Proponents of the move already had shown great patience during the months of discussion, and it would be unfair to keep a refuted version any longer. In this context, I also want to point out that this decision is not written in stone. We can always reconsider it, if new reasons are presented. — SebastianHelm — continues after insertion below

maybe the merge was discussed over some time, but it looks to me like the decision on the title of the merged page was pretty ad-hoc. If you ask me "list of attacks by the LTTE" is too general. Are we going to include attacks on student demonstrators which were non-lethal, attacks on Tamil political parties (non-lethal) etc: Dutugemunu (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see two points in your reply:

1. Decision on title was ad-hoc. The title "List of attacks attributed to the LTTE" was proposed on November 25, three weeks before the merge was performed. There was ample time to discuss the title. The fact that such a discussion did not take place can therefore not be construed as an argument against the title.
2. Title is too general. That is a point that merits discussion. You are invited to bring it up on WT:SLR. If we had the sort of overview table I mentioned above, then it should be added there. Since I don't have that overview, I can't say how strong your new point is in the overall picture. It seems there were some arguments for the merge that were not refuted, but finding that in the discussion would require more time than I have right now. You could help me if you started such a table with the arguments from both sides. (Examples are here and here.) — Sebastian 19:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Sebastian 22:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fell the long, involved structure of the discussions on SLR is messy and looses visibility (as i mentioned above)and does not follow the standards of many Wiki projects where the actual discussion is on the talk page and not on the Project talk page. let me know your thoughts Dutugemunu (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion does take place on the talk page. If you have any concrete ideas, I'd like to hear them, but an unspecific "messy" is not helpful. — Sebastian 02:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May be needed here. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this. When you have time. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need to move Jaffna Kingdom to Jaffna kingdom over redirect. This is per talk request about GA status. ThanksKanatonian (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that, I didn't know. Good to have those rules! --TheFEARgod (Ч) 09:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on User talk:Greatestrowerever. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. --Greatestrowerever (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on User talk:Greatestrowerever#Please do not remove a message that says "Please do not remove this message" because I want to keep conversations together. --— Sebastian 06:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I would put this message here, as you were an admin contributing to the WikiProject Sri Lanka talk page and you might be able to give an opinion and/or take action if needed.

personal attack

Is shows your total stupidity and arrogance. directed towards myself a personal attack? and is it something that deserves a block against Bermudatriange ? Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really be bothered to go through the whole ANI procedure again, when I make a report there it always turns into a tit for tat argument, I was hoping that you could take a look and simply dismiss my complaint against Bermudatriangle, or take action. I feel kinda bad about starting huge debates on ANI when it is something that could be dealt with in moments by an admin.

thanks Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for the paths that are open to you. If you want my personal advice though, just get over it. We're here to create an encyclopedia, and that sort of thing isn't really that interesting for other people. Especially not when it comes from an account that has just been created on the spot to do a handful of edits in a very limited area. It happens all the time. If I may give you an even more personal advice: I believe, life is too short to make our own actions or even happiness dependent on the opinion of people who we don't care for. --— Sebastian 06:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that sounds about right. If a user's actions were getting in the way of my edits, then report/dispute/etc might be a good idea, as it is, it isn't going to change my ability to edit articles, so I should/can forget it. Thanks for the advice, it's nice to get a reply that is a little more personal that mere wikipedia guidelines. Sennen goroshi (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to make an English stub of this German article. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sebastian, I see that may be you have put in an Edit restriction on the article Sri Lanka place names. The article, originally "place names in the North and East" was destroyed and the current article was gradually put in [I was not able to look after it and guide it as I was having health problems]. So, starting from the present version, we need to attempt to imporve it. The present edit restriction freezes the article at what I consider to be the poor version. Also, various tags and falgs seem to be applied onto only the last section, where as the earlier sections also need modification. May be the Tags and warnings about bias needs to be put in to cover all sections for the present. Please indicate how to resolve this. Thank you.Bodhi dhana (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the restriction is so that you and others can discuss the differencces section by section and come to conclusion which you seem to be willing to do now. The restriction is doing its works, let's discuss. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bodhi dhana, for your polite request. I now took a closer look at the reverts, and I realize that there are indeed a considerable number of bad changes. It must be frustrating to see that cemented. I will reply more specifically on the article's talk page. I'm sorry to read about your health problems, and I wish you good health and a long life! Sebastian (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems Netmonger and Iwazaki are still at it, read this novel: [[20]]. Just ban them and be done with it. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WT:SLR#Why we can do without trickery.

BTW - I don't see why you're posting this here. As an ArbCom clerk, I presume you know that banning can not be done by an individual admin. Or do you mean blocking? But you are an admin yourself, so if you feel someone needs to be blocked, why don't you do so yourself? — Sebastian (talk) 03:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is at User talk:Sarvagnya#Why your name was there.

well if this is all about saying THAT thing, i think i can safely ignore your remarks. To my knowledge there are a lot of bitching, scok puppeting and etc going on in wikipedia. And to block some one because he/she say such a thing, one must have to go beyond the line of stupidity. having said that, i want to let you know that I am back and hope to contribute, little by little from now on, coz i see a lot of tag team editing(destroying) of many articles related to sri lanka. What i found mostly amazing is they have tagged every site which says some thing against the ltte(who doesnt you might think) as anti-LTTE sites!!!! well funny things happen in wikipedia and hopefully we can correct them one by one--Iwazaki ^{会話。討論} 15:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the award Sebastian, for all the work you've put in to solving the countless disputes, and for being the only neutral admin throughout. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 01:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following message was originally posted on the user page, in the sectionUser talk:SebastianHelm/Sri Lanka#WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation:

You seem to be making most of this up! I would encourage you to not do this!123.255.23.11 (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please be more specific? Do you have any example for something you think I am making up? And what do you mean by "making up"? My dictionary has a number of different meanings, beginning with "1. To get something ready, especially by putting a number of items together." That's certainly what I did on the user page. Do you see any problem with that? — Sebastian 18:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for following your heart. Carptrash (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]