Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Sri Lanka-LTTE blocks - reviewed

message: Please kindly take my name of the agree list since my request of having Indrancroos deleted has been denied. Until then, I cannot participate in such activities. Thank you. Wiki Raja 05:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All related articles are subject to a 1RR restriction for 3 months. Violations will be dealt w/ firm actions such as NPA and others. So you being on or off the list is irrelevant. Please refer to this report for more info. Thanks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  05:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly urge you, Wiki Raja, to reconsider. Not participating will only make things worse for everyone and perpetuate the problems. I urge this of all not participating. — Rlevse • Talk •  09:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikiraja one has nothing to do with the other, further just because you agree or disagree doesnot mean any SL related articles will not follow the guidelines established. Everyone will be subject to it, you agreeing to it only shows goodwill to Wikipedia community. About your Indrancroos account I suggest you take it up with WP:OVERSIGHT as it had privacy concerns. Thanks Taprobanus 13:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent idea. — Rlevse • Talk •  13:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the advice. I shall reconsider staying the course. Regards.  Wiki Raja 00:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Withdraw

message: I could not participate because I wasn't well for sometime.  I would like to give my input here.  Please re-consider. Thanks. Supermod 18:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved a "running" version of the list to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation and added your acceptance to it.  If you've got any specific comments, feel free to comment there. I guess it will kind of provide a "gauge" of how support is for now.  --Haemo 18:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Like to Accept

message: From Bodhi_Dhana 
I just came in tonight (1.Nov.07) and it seems a long discussion had gone on. Since I tend to work independently, I hadn't known about all these issues. Anyway I have looked at the final conclusion. They seem to be a set of fairely straight-forward etiquette rules which I think I have observed in any case. So I have no problem with all this. I also learned a few things by quickly glancing thorugh all this. For example, I remember reading that Taprobanus had claimed to be a German, and I even replied him in German on one occassion. I think life would be really simple if people just be themselves and not present a masquarade. We all have biases and opinions, and I don't see any harm in that. There is no such thing as "objective truth". So we have to present the facts as we see it, with reputed sources to support our views, and I hope, these rules may help.Bodhi dhana 00:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, where did I claim to be a German ? do you have the diff's or are you confusing me with User:SebastianHelm who is a German and a good friend of mine and was very active in SL specific articles. This is enough for our Kawazaki guy, now he would want a checkuser done on me with the German dude .Taprobanus 00:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bodhi, we'll mark you as agreeing, thank you.  — Rlevse • Talk •  01:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Seeems OK

message: By Wikipedia convention, tagging of articles is reserved for templates related to article content only, while talk page templates cover a broader range of issues. These "editing resolutions" have nothing to do with article content, and do not belong as a template on the main article pages and tagging both the article and the talk page is is unnecessary, as User:WJBscribe also pointed out. --snowolfD4 (  talk /  @  ) 22:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't mince WJScribe's word to mean something else.  He didn't say that. Sinhala freedom 00:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your kindergarten English teacher's failures are not my problem, so I'm not going to bother. --snowolfD4 (  talk /  @  ) 10:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is totally inappropriate, and I urge you to strike this comment.  --Haemo 19:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a specialized "neutrality" tag for these articles, in most cases.  However, on articles where there's no concern, the talk page one can easily suffice.  --Haemo 22:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's not a "neutrality" tag. These little "proposals" have nothing to do with the accuracy of the articles. --snowolfD4 (  talk /  @  ) 10:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disruption of Sri Lanka related articles on both the talk page and the article itself was not acceptable to the wikipedia community. If Sri Lanka centric editors had acted in good faith and with restraint unlike bulls in a china shop, we wouldn’t have needed these measures. These drastic measures are needed on both the talk page and article space to keep the peace. Any change in that will lead back to the chaos we had before. We can remove these notices if  the troubles stop or the trouble makers are gone. Thanks Taprobanus 13:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In many cases, they do, and they have been largely agreed upon.  If you have a problem with that, why don't you clearly explain it?  --Haemo 19:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Snowolf, please say what problem you have with it. It is not like it is a disputed tags or any other tag. It is a tag for people to see that certain editors (Sri Lanka centric) are under restriction. Which is true. Personally it is our fault. We should have acted with Good faith. However, we failed and thus there people are here to help us so that we won't get a community ban. Please understand that this it to help us. They are wasting their time to save our accounts. I say let the tags stay Watchdogb 22:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging both article and talk page