Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/archive

message: If you can start a new project, I'm happy to join with that. As Kerr avon said, not even my dog will step there. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 21:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the "dog" part, but I'm happy that you're willing to join. That said, the whole project makes no sense if it's not endorsed by people from the other side. That's why I asked NCSLC if people would like to join. If they honestly want to contribute e.g. to guidelines, then we can all be grateful. Please remeber to AGF. Even somone who opposes your POV can honestly share your goal for having workable guidelines. — Sebastian 21:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think those current NCSLC guys n girls can help on this matter. Elalan is a proven sockpuppet. Sechzehn, Sudharsansn and Cerebral Warrior are currently inactive. Nina Leembruggen, harlowraman and Trengarasu, I don't think that they will join with the new project. Though Kanatonian and Sharz are not current members of NCSLC, hopefully they will join with the new project. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 21:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for being the first who had the courage to name people individually. Elalan has been blocked indefinitely anyway, so he couldn't even join. It sounds you wouldn't have a problem if any of the others joined, which is good. I'll ask Kanatonian and Sharz. — Sebastian 21:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would be more than willing to join a project by you which will genuinely bring a neutral coverage to the sri lankan war.Kerr avon 13:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject (from Lahiru_k) 

message: ===Name===
How about if we named it "WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation"? I just got this idea when I created the Sri Lanka Reconciliation Barnstar.  — Sebastian 21:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it, I'll follow you  --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 20:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't entirely agree with the whole idea of "all project members agree" about Unreliable Sources, I think that this would lead to a massive backlog of discussion about the use of certain sources. It  should be clear cut, something like Primary Sources hosted on such sites can be used as well as cited to express that particular groups veiwpoint or stance, however, cannot be used to substantiate infomation. --Sharz 07:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point! I'll look into this tomorrow, when I'm less tired. In the meantime, pls feel free to edit the wording I proposed on the project page.  — Sebastian 09:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose

message: How about if we named it "WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation"? I just got this idea when I created the Sri Lanka Reconciliation Barnstar.  — Sebastian 21:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it, I'll follow you  --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 20:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't entirely agree with the whole idea of "all project members agree" about Unreliable Sources, I think that this would lead to a massive backlog of discussion about the use of certain sources. It  should be clear cut, something like Primary Sources hosted on such sites can be used as well as cited to express that particular groups veiwpoint or stance, however, cannot be used to substantiate infomation. --Sharz 07:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point! I'll look into this tomorrow, when I'm less tired. In the meantime, pls feel free to edit the wording I proposed on the project page.  — Sebastian 09:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: I would like to propose the following new goal:
* To resolve conflicts between editors, e.g. by mediation and by providing specific guidelines for conflict resolution.
This is the reason why I wrote Cool editing. In the future, I am thinking that we could mediate cases like Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-20 Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam together as a group. — Sebastian 04:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Goals

message: I just created this section from two statements I picked up on this talk page. Please feel free to add your own there, or discuss existing ones below. — Sebastian 18:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dreams, hopes, and visions

message: Hi Sebastian, I'd like to join the project. Please do add me to the member list if you are happy with that . Is there any space for me? I haven't stepped in empty handed, have a look at this. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 06:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome! I just added you. And thanks a lot for your artwork! Would you like to add it to the project page? — Sebastian 06:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Wait a sec before adding it. The artwork would be best as a subpage. It doesn't make sense to move a lot of pages. Maybe we should create the real project, first? Since nobody objected to the name, I think it can't hurt if I just go ahead and do it. — Sebastian 06:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{User|Lahiru_k}}

message: I’m applying for membership. Kanatonian 20:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{user|Kanatonian}}

message: I would like to apply for membership.Kerr avon 00:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{User|Kerr avon}}

message: I’m applying for membership. --Sharz 05:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In response to your question about Elalan, "Though Elalan pushed a heavy Pro-LTTE view on Wikipedia and he was also abrasive towards opposing Wikipedia editors", your comment did not make sense to me so I left it alone, hoping that you would re-read by fore statement. As for the STF article, I do confess that I acted badly in not resolving more on the talk page, but it became clearly aparent that I was discussing with you, whilst the other parties concerned were nowhere to be seen. Also see that the Spork is up for deletion it may be a policy held by few but I am a believer that unilateral action can only be headed off by immediate action, sometimes this is unilateral action in itself. --Sharz 00:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for your reply - I feel better now! I see this now as a (mere) difference in opinions; clarifying such differences is what this project is for. How about if you just committed to writing trustworthy edit summaries from now on? Would that be acceptable for you? — Sebastian 01:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've give it a try, but I admit sometimes my editing gets sloppy, spelling and edit summaries start dropping off etc. --Sharz 05:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Normally, I would have said this is not enough. But I'm softened today by Kanatonian's hope, so, as a further compromise, all I'm asking is that you confirm you meant "I will give it a try". (Because it's only human to forget this, Wikipedia has a nice feature, which I recommend because I'm using it myself:You can set your user preferences to "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" If you really want to keep it empty, you can just confirm the message or enter a blank space to avoid the message.) — Sebastian 19:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I've decided to go down another path and hence have chosen to retract my application for membership, the 2/4 support played a role in my decision, but not a major one. --Sharz 00:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a pity. I respect your decision, but I herewith state that if you should decide to change your mind, I will support you now. — Sebastian 08:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{user|Sharz}}

message: ::: (Original headline: "Thanks and membership")
Hi, and a big thank you to Kanatonian for the warm welcome. As someone interested in the situation in Sri Lanka, but with no political/cultural/religious ties to the country or indeed anyone in it, I would very much like to join your group.  As you can see I am also new to WP, and my editing skills aren't what they could have been, but I do feel that I can make a good effort substantively, and would like to contribute to the clearly well considered goals of this group. Thus, with a caveat that I will probably need quite a bit of support, I would like to apply for membership  Neuralolive 06:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{User|Neuralolive}} 

message: Hello. The invitation to this project came just at the right time. Only yesterday I thought about how to find people who might help with the Sri Lanka article, because I find the work really depressing. Not engaging in edit wars takes a lot of self-restraint. So does not quitting editing Wikipedia. Although I'm not too optimistic, I hope a group like this might help reduce the frustration. I'd like to cooperate with you. Cheers, Krankman 08:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{user|Krankman}}

message: I've been invited to participate in this group several times by e-mail (probably to my old username, Osgoodelawyer).  I have had some conflicts in the past with editors on Sri Lanka-related pages, and have tried to use logic and appeal to the rules, not emotion, to put my views forward.  Since I just found myself having to clean up some POV hidden as POV-removal, I feel I'm ready to join. Lexicon (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{User|Lexicon}}

message: I would like to be a member.
*support Kanatonian 23:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{User|Watchdogb}}

message: Hi, I would like to join the Project. I would like to contribute towards article related to civil conflict of Sri Lanka.   
added May 30   
    
* Support. I didn't see any evidence of bad faith. Not many SL related edits, but all have a correct edit summary. — Sebastian 05:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{User|Trengarasu}}

message: I would like to join the project ,You can see my contributions and decide.Harlowraman 22:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{User|Harlowraman}}

message: Politics rule added  to the member list, apparently without reading the instruction to add applications here. I just removed the entry so it can be handled appropriately. — Sebastian 04:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{user|Politics rule}}

message: This is my withdrawal from membership of the SLR, for the following reasons.
* - Lack of productivity
* - Increasing polarisation, inactivity and POV pushing
* - Bickering that will eventually lead to bans for NPA WP:STALK etc
* - There being a far greater hope in the successfullness of mediation and drawing towards Sri Lanka related articles the watchful eyes of admins to stop POV pushers and blatant vandalism, essentially, increasing the rule of Wikipedia over these bitterly disputed articles will do alot more than trying to reason with those who will not listen to reason. 
If you respect my decision, you will not email and/or leave messages on my talk page about my reason to withdraw, the Sri Lanka articles, are in an essence, completely time consuming, and ridicously hard to maintain, I would far rather spend time on articles that I am more interested in and where my edits won't be torn apart after I turn from them for a second. --Sharz 23:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{user|Sharz}} (Withdrawal)

message: Seven weeks passed since Thusiyan's application. Back then, two members opposed his membership because he had only two days of experience; this concern should be moot by now. I therefore would like to start the application again. — Sebastian 21:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{User|Thusiyan}}

message: He has been very active in trying to maintain the neutrality of Special Task Force article and has also intervened many times trying to coach Sri lanka specific editors in following wiki policies. Some of his contributions are Kanatonian 16:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why dont you do him the favor :) Kanatonian 13:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 15:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{User|Black Falcon }}

message: For his tireless work realted resolving conflict realted articles about Sri lanka. The examples are numerous Kanatonian 16:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support Watchdogb 16:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: Are these the right links? "Trying to resolve Chemmani  mass grave" doesn't show a resolution - it is a mere copyedit. "resolving Hoax tag" is an example for tough words, which may well have been justified, but it doesn't show that his words resolved the conflict. Likewise "Trying to resolve Chemmani  mass grave": He states his honest opinion, which sounds very reasonable and well founded to me, but stating a good opinion is not necessarily conflict resolution. Could you please check the first link and explain how the other two resolved a conflict? — Sebastian 08:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{User|Lexicon}}

message: === Wording for explicit attribution ===
Will the terminology "Pro" as in "Pro-LTTE", "Pro-government" be confirming with wikipedia's neutrality principles? Kerr avon 13:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly - that's the whole point of this section! As WP:NPOV specifies: "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly." We want to get together and find a fair terminology. If we could find some wording that applies to all QS, that would be nice because that would keep it easy, but we might just as well come up with different wordings for different sources. — Sebastian 03:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Guideline: Classification of sources 

message: Will the terminology "Pro" as in "Pro-LTTE", "Pro-government" be confirming with wikipedia's neutrality principles? Kerr avon 13:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly - that's the whole point of this section! As WP:NPOV specifies: "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly." We want to get together and find a fair terminology. If we could find some wording that applies to all QS, that would be nice because that would keep it easy, but we might just as well come up with different wordings for different sources. — Sebastian 03:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording for explicit attribution 

message: With sites like defence.lk it's easy to qualify it as the government site, so thus it has inherent bias in inherent interests, but with TamilNet and TamilNation, they are not officially an arm of the Tamil Tigers, so thus no inherent bias can be proven, however, reading their articles and looking at the providence of their sources makes them biased. All very complicated, we should probably just stick with Sebastian's original proposal. --Sharz 00:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tamilnet is biased towards the tigers, with several wrong reports, see Tamilnet#Controversy.Kerr avon 01:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Also please see  which shows tamilnets bias towards eelam.Kerr avon 01:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not questioning their biased, it's quiet obvious. --Sharz 10:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tamilnet is a biased source but is a WP:RS as it has an editorial board and editor and number of reporters and senior journalists who report to it in a pro bona basis. All reports are checked according to published reports. But still controversy exists such as it exists about BBC and CNN too. Everybody works for Tamilnet for free means for a cause. Tigers tolerate them because they need them but I was around the internet when some alleged Tiger operatives in the net was questioning the bias of Tamilnet as it was not enough. Just like Taraki who died for his beliefs but was never an LTTE member most Tamilnet contributors are Sri Lankan Tamils and others who have a point of view yet others do it out of the need to get information out about the plight of civilians caught in a civil war situation. I know for fact that the local Army commanders are always looking for who these reporters are and if caught they are warned and if the warning is not adhered (most stop reporting at that point) then the fate of Taraki and Mylvaganam awaits them.As a source it can and should be used in writing about Sri Lankan affairs but a tag as pro-rebel or pro-Tamil Tiger can be used to describe it. Just my opinion.Kanatonian 14:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TamilNet 

message: I added two different banners to the project and the talk page. Do all members agree with the wording for each? — Sebastian 23:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banners on project and talk page 

message: I just noticed that I only wrote "consensus" for voting on barnstars. I had wanted to use consensus also for other votes, namely on new members and new guidelines. Would that be OK? We could say that whenever there is no "Oppose" within 24 hours, it counts as accepted. — Sebastian 05:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we all are living in a democratic world, you and Kanatonian advocates for the democracy on each other userpages and even I'm living in a democratic country, we all have to give the priority for the democracy.  --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 16:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, I take that as support. — Sebastian 21:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting by consensus for everything? 

message: Also, I propose that, when we have new member applications, we offer them to hold off all issue votes on which they would like to vote until 24 hours after the membership votes are closed. 
(Reason: I want to create an incentive to not drag out membership votes for such tactical reasons. The opposite case would of course be that someone delays his or her application for tactical reasons, but I'm not worried about that: It would backfire because if people felt that were the case they simply could vote against him/her.) — Sebastian 21:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waiting for new members 

message: My goal is truly to work for reconciliation; it would be a bitter irony if two projects that state the goals of neutrality and reconciliation should not be able to find together. Much as I love this project (especially its name), I am open to all paths that lead to my goal, but only, of course, if all members agree (per Voting by consensus).
What Kanatonian wrote above made me aware that that there is a good point for keeping both projects: NCSLC is open to anyone, and SLR is for members who have a proven track record of constructive work. There is a need for both.
At least, I want to have very friendly relations with our sister project. Therefore, I left messages on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject NCSLC#Is anyone still listening, or should I create a new project? and User talk:Sudharsansn#Sister projects. So far, nobody has replied. Depending on the reply, I would like us to honestly consider our options. We have several of them, such as
# One of us could join WP:NCSLC as an ambassador.
# We could encourage our members to participate in NCSLC and honour work done for NCSLC (such as with barnstars or when new members apply).
# They could join us as a member. (They would have one vote in our decisions, in addition to any individual votes users already have, who are members of both projects.) 
# We could join them (as a group).
# We could merge under a combined name, such as "WikiProject Sri Lanka Neutrality and Reconciliation". 
If you have any other ideas, please let me know. — Sebastian 21:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the project in question exists is name only, most of it's predominant editors do not edit, nor does the project as a whole fucntion to any real capability. As Lahru_k has already started doing, SLR should replace it completely. --Sharz 05:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should ask them to merge it with this Kanatonian 17:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Having inactive members would severly reduce the ability to make consensus quickly and effiencently, I will reframe from project discussion until membership issues are resolved however. --Sharz 00:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relations with our sister project [[WP:NCSLC]] 

message: Here are some problems with the current articles and such:
As requested:
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...
Central Bank bombing: No citations given. This is written by a single POV and does not give any credible citations.  Does not belong in wiki unless refrenced to a credible source. Please fix
Gomarankadawala massacre: Found reference but it seems that the article does not have a NPOV.
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 [Things that do not meet wiki standards]. Watchdogb 21:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added several cites namely CNN and BBC so i have removed the unreferenced tag.Kerr avon 12:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Credible problems and NPOV probles

message: Thank you for your post. I now realize that you had specific questions to different articles rather than general questions. Sorry, that was my mistake; I should have directed you to the article talk pages. But anyway, let me quickly reply here. (When you do any of the changes that have been proposed here, please add the reason for the change and "per WT:SLR#Credible problems and NPOV probles" in the edit summary so people know why you're doing them. If you encounter any trouble, let us know.)
;Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE - 2007 bus explosion: I think the first sentence (" The LTTE are the only  ...") can be cut completely because it only repeats and, as you correctly point out, twists the attribution, which is given more correcly later. 
;Central Bank bombing: Indeed, there are no sources at all! You can tag this article with the template . 
::I have added several cites namely CNN and BBC so i have removed the unreferenced tag.Kerr avon 12:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sebastian's replies

message: *Assasinations of LTTE members attributed to Sri Lankan government
*Assassinations and murders attributed to the LTTE
I wanted to create a more neutral article from the above two it seem's to be ok with Netmonger and neutral editors others but now there is a problem. I will take it to mediation and I know I will win because I am creating an NPOV article from two POV articles but meanwhile I want to give this organization to try to resolve it for the time being. Thanks Kanatonian 18:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More discussion at Thsoe who are interested should discuss it al central location as pointed out. Thanks Kanatonian 17:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assasinations during the Sri Lankan civil war

message: Lahiru et al,
Thank you for the welcome in my talk page. I look forward to reading about what you guys do. This seems to be a reflective group. Good luck with the initiative.
I only hope that this group does not take upon itself the role to edit the input of everyone who makes changes in a Sri Lanka specific article. I have not made any edits in conflict related articles - with minor exceptions - but I tend to focus on history related issues.  
Best regards--Dipendra2007 05:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: I would like to include the fact that we're bipartisan somehow. Maybe we can shorten the article related wording to compensate for it. 
How about the following wording: "... a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Sri Lanka Civil War."? — Sebastian 08:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that would be nice. Please feel free to suggest. The project belongs to everyone. :-)--♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 08:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, not everyone. Just its members! ;-) I changed the wording as agreed. Later, when I wrote the banners on top of this page and the project page, I came up with a wording which I think is even better. What do you think? — Sebastian 00:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banner wording 

message: I want to say a big "thank you" to Lahiru for archiving this page. This wasn't easy since there already were several copies of some topics in the archive, and I admit I contributed to this mess. — Sebastian 19:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks to Lahiru