User talk:SebastianHelm/Sri Lanka

LTTE- Sri Lanka Conflict

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

Endorsement

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)

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)

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.

Links on LTTE page

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)

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)

Change of mediator

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)

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

Closing the mediation

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)

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

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)

Kethesh Loganathan

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. RaveenS 14:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Edit summaries

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

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)

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)

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)

Some help needed in SL articles

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 RaveenS 06:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

Re:my username

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 - 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Messages from Iwazaki

misunderstanding

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)

Also..

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 (short)

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)

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 (long)

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:

source	Soldiers from Punanai Army camp massacred 35 Tamils ...
original version	Sri Lankan Army soldiers from Punanai Army camp massacred 35 minority Sri Lankan Tamils, ...
Iwazaki's versions	35 minority Sri Lankan Tamils ... were killed . - no mention of the soldiers!

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)

Last chance to demostrate good will

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)

Iwazaki's reply of 11 January

(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.

Contents of the warning	Why I think this is wrong
You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory.	Article from the beginning was a hugely POV with twisted info..Based solely on extremely PRO LTTE tamil net.SO the article it self can be regarded as defamatory..
Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page	All I said was "Bishop is a strong LTTE supporter" ,A known fact to every Sri Lankan.. anyone dispute this should come with at least one incident ,where "He has accused the LTTE"..IF he has not condemn the LTTE even a single time.I don' think he is credible enough to make statements regarding "Humanity"..
Please do not use misleading edit summaries to disguise inappropriate content such as spam, personal attacks	I wasn't coherent with my edit summaries.Accepted that..BUT I did not indulge in spamming or Personal Attacks..

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)

• 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)

Sebastian's reply of 11 January

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 Raveen 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.)

Cheat sheet

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).

*	In case you're looking at the template description: Please just disregard it. In my opinion, that description does not fit to our situation, because both sides habitually feel that anything the other side writes is very harmful, which makes that feeling a bad guide.
**	This is only a temporary solution; it might be better to avoid these cases until we have a permanent solution. It may help calm down the other side if you refer to this conversation.
***	Please make the other side aware that you're adding the tag as a compromise. People tend to overlook such details and then get unjustly upset.

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)

Special Task Force

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

Ooh thanks brother

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. RaveenS 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)

Padahuthurai bombing

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)

Nagerkovil school bombing

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 RaveenS 21:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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 RaveenS

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)

Wikipedia:WikiProject NCSLC

Have you ever considred joining this project, now that dust has settled down I am thinking about it myself. Thanks RaveenS 19:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yet another project to join! Actually, I did consider joining, but I wasn't sure if it would be perceived as being neutral, since the member list seemed to have some bias. However, I love the idea, and I'll ask some people from the GoSL-friendly side if they'd like to join, too. — Sebastian 18:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I would respectfully decline your offer for the reason you mentioned above. The member list is biased with one particular user User:Elalan found to be a sock puppet too. Thus i would prefer to temporarily observe the situation for the moment as a independant editor. Granted there should be a way in which people from differing camp's can work together for the benefit of a common goal namely a better coverage of the sri lankan crisis however for the moment i would respectfully decline your offer.Kerr avon 23:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I am not familiar with the situation that lead to User:Elalan's block. I asked very sympathetically there, but I got no reply. Could I persuade you to join if they agreed with removing User:Elalan from their member list? I could also ask very generally if all stale members can be removed.

Or do you think it would be necessary to recreate such a problem under a different name? Would you support me in such a project? In that case, of course, we would have to recruit some members from the other faction. Would you have any proposals? — Sebastian 02:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I replied in my talk page sir..ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 04:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be willing to help any project/idea to give a neutral coverage of sri lanka if it is a genuine effort. The problem with the above existing project is that the memebers edit's show them to be having a anti-government and pro-LTTE view, thus questioning the so called claimed "neutrality" of their project. They will call the government of Sri Lanka a terrorist organisation yet they will cry foul when the LTTE which has exploded bus bombs killing and injuring young children is called a terrorist organisation.

The main point is that there are a massive amount of Tamils living in Sri Lanka peacefully in colombo and its suburbs with singhalese. However a few tamils who have the pleasure of living abroad, not having to worry about LTTE tax collectors, not having to worry about whether a LTTE bomb will explode in the bus they are travelling, not having to worry if they would ever return home from a days work, who are dependant on the LTTE front end sites for distorted views of the conflict, are hell bent on using the wikipedia to defame my country and promote the LTTE. Most of the tamils i have met in Sri lanka are more easy going and less rabid than their counterpart's abroad.

If you start a project i would be willing to join it hoping to achieve some compromise.Kerr avon 23:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)