User talk:Netmonger/Archive 1

Welcome!!!

Welcome, Netmonger/Archive 1!

Hello, Netmonger, and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪, one of the thousands of editors here at Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

  The five pillars of Wikipedia

  How to edit a page

  Help pages

  Tutorial

  How to write a great article

  Manual of Style

  Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 02:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I am no newbie to wikipedia.. Lahiru... Netmonger 04:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You are embarrassing me. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 14:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sri Lanka related template

You have done an excellent job with a template, can you help me with the State terrorism in Sri Lanka template please. It is too big and not foldable i.e it only shows the headings and only when someone wants to see further deatils does it shows those contents. You can also e-mail me to discuss this, that is if you have the time. Thanks RaveenS 15:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems a good idea could you elaborate on what exactly you need.. The template already seems problematic.. It overlaps text in some of the articles ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 11:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont know whether you have noticed or not the the template is up for deletion But over all you seem to be a nuetral guy who can put these events in a neutral tone. What I was looking for was a template that is foldable just like the Human Rights by country templates that collects related incidents. I would much prefer it to collect attrocities done by both the parties ie LTTE and the government of SL. These events can be massacres, rapes and murders, assasinations, forced dissaperancs sub categorized as to who did such as LTTE, SL, government or paramiliataries. I have not seen any like it but Sri Lanka and events there are not like in any other country either so to out it all together for a researcher I am looking for that elusive template. The one that I created is only 50% of the story what we need is 100% of the story but that can be divided as to who did what as soon as we reach the next level. You can also e-mail me to discuss this further. Thanks RaveenS 22:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry RaveenS many have failed (including me) to see your good intention and voted for the deletion of the template, the main reason I would say is that some of the articles in the template lack good sources (many are from Pro LTTE websites) and it even contains a link to a none existent article. As per above why don't you compile a list of such atrocities by both the parties, I will take the responsibility of putting it in a nice folding template. We'll work on it in a Sandbox and complete it without POV , adhering to NPOV and with good citation; and then publish it with a suitable name. what do you suggest ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 13:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Infact this morning I was thinking about this whole mess on my way to work. At work I am supposed to come up with a plan to cut cost by $ 10 million this year instead I was thing about this stupid template:-), anyway the template you have will do, all what we need to couple of more articles. Like list of massacres attributed to LTTE, List of massacres attributed to SL govt. forces. Improve the list of assassination by LTTE and the government articles. A separate article on forced disappearances another one on rape and murders during the civil war. Now that will do exactly what I want to do but through your template. I have my work cut out. I will put the word out to the my Sinhalese friends that they do have to create some articles now instead fighting all my creations. RaveenS 13:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a more productive and harmonious way to achieve your objectives. I will give you my fullest support if you need any help. We need more proper (credible) sources other than Pro LTTE web sites. Such as the reference I have given at Krishanti Kumaraswamy article. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 15:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

::::::I've change my vote to Delete the my template to make our effort more fruitful. ThanksRaveenS 22:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Congrats RaveenS you made the right decision, It is indeed the most fruitful move, because you cannot be wasting your time defending a template all the time.ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 05:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well you changed your mind again

, I wouldn't blame you for anything. But I am sad to see that the conflict between you and some of the Sri Lankan wikipedians prolong (how long can we go like this?). I wish things worked out in a better way. Trust me I will give you my fullest support to make all the conflict related articles visible but only in a way that adheres to NPOV rule. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 09:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I trust you, yes, that's about I can say :-) but I was asked to reconsider considering the personal attack and vendetta carried out by some senior Wikipedians (NOT Sri Lankan wikipedians) against WP:NPA and even against WP:Civil. By rights I should have slapped that Wikipedian with a civil warning and taken him to ANI. I still may if he does it one more time. He even alluded to other Wikipedian including me as thugs on the Village pump. Hence I was requested to reconsider and let the Wiki process take its course. But please if I am to trust you, please don’t post my comments to you in other places. Hope you understand. Also the so called dubious comment you picked up from my talk page and posted somewhere else can be considered against WP:Stalk so please refrain from doing such things in the future. If I were you I will retract them from where you have publicized them. Also my so called edit wars with other Sri Lankan editors, in reality I have edit wars only with Wikipedians who are yet to fathom the WP:NPOV properly. They are few. I have had very good edits with Snowwulf (we did Black July and Tamilnet together) and Karr Avon (We did Eric Solheim together. I usually have had no edits ward with Lahiru and only Iwazaki few times but I can always manage it by bringing in neutral editors. So I don’t consider it conflict between me and other Wikipedians, it is simply part of Wikipedia process. You can create the best article in your mind, but it will never stay like that. Someone will always challenge it. That is Wikipedia.ThanksRaveenS

Hey RaveenS, sorry to see that you are hurt over me posting your comments somewhere else. Dear Friend kindly understand that there is no secrecy in whatever we do in wikipedia and not being too sensitive helps a lot. Even if I didn't post them there, they are plainly visible to everyone. I just wanted the closing admin to see that even you "the creator of template" in question have mixed feelings about the neutrality of the template and its real purpose. I choose to ignore your advice on stalking and assume you are not accusing me of stalking (having good faith on my part).. As you notice I am part of the Harmonious Editors Club, and I love the idea of Harmonious Editing, there is no need to fight over anything and point fingers at each other, we putting an article or template in wikipedia is not going to change the way LTTE or GOSL kill people.. They will just continue the way they are..The most saddening part is that even the most educated group of people cannot collaborate in a harmonious, constructive way. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 10:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I was not accusing you, just pointing out that although comments are public they are relevant to the pages in question only, if they are to used somewhere else to make a point how would you get them unless you followed it there because after all you have said that you will ONLY respond it in your talk page. Let bygones be bygones. You are right what ever we write here has no effect on Sri Lanka and I am clear of it. I am not in Wikipedia to stop the fighting or to accuse one side, simply to contribute in a global documentation project and to learn from others. Harmonious edits are good way to go forward but you see, we are individuals and not all of us are made the same way, especially when you are documenting contentious issues such as terrorism and human rights. What I have faith is in the Wikiprocess, it always results in good articles at the end harmonious or not. Look at Mylanthanai massacre. To reach its current status from a mere stub, it took a lot of effort but considering that I may have left it as a stub if not for Lahiru’s and Iwazaki’s challenges how can we complain about the end result harmonious or not ? Look at the clever way Snowwulf brought forward the contentions without being disruptive and his reasoning seem to calm others down. Creative process need not be harmonious as long as we have faith in the Wikiprocess. Of course a harmonious process a good for ones health

RaveenS 14:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your very good edit in Muhammad article. Please edit Islamic articles more often because they need lots of improvements. --- ALM 17:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your compliment, you are most welcome. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 17:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

State Terror in Sri Lanka

Hey, Nice link that you added to State Terrorism in Sri Lanka and also it was pretty interesting to watch. Keep up the good work --Sharz 10:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you forget to explain your edit?

A recent edit of yours in the article Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam refers to the talk page, but you did not write a corresponding contribution on the talk page. Did you forget to explain your edit?

This is about the following edit: 2007-01-08 08:34:16 with summary: "removed image see talk page". — Sebastian 09:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope I took a coffee break in the middle of typing an explanation, sorry ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 09:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem! I noticed your explanation and replied to it. Don't drink too much coffee!

— Sebastian 10:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

==Moving forward == You seem to know more about Krishanti case than any body else. Can you kindly create an article called Rapes and murders during the Sri Lankan civil war as a seperate article. We can link it to your template. I am gong to create an article called Civilian massacres attributed to the Sri Lankan government forces. I have asked our fellow Wikipedian to create Civilians massacres attributed to the LTTE, I have also asked them to write about Terrorism by LTTE to counter balance the State terrorism in Sri Lanka. Eventually we can create an article called Terrorism in Sri Lanka and link these two articles as sub articles. We can do the same for Civilian massacres in Sri Lanka and link the two massacre series articles as sub articles. Anyway this way, your template will become truely balanced with all aspects of the Civil war.

Other articles waiting to be written are Murder of Journalists in Sri Lanka, Forced Disappearances in Sri Lanka. List of assassinated politicians etc. etc. We have countless number of sources for all this ThanksRaveenS 18:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

After much thinking I decline to edit any of these articles, my knowledge on the requested topics is very limited. If you create the article I can help you with citing them ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 15:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I am in it for the long haul, unless a white van takes me away

. I will create most of them but I am going to create them top down instead of bootom up, i.e I will create an article called Civilian massacres in Sri Lanka then divide it up later. But even for that I need to firm up all the massacre series articles, what is disputed and what is not and all. Thanks for your help. RaveenS 04:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you sir

Thank you sir, for improving my user page. --- ALM 10:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

You are most welcome ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 08:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral coverage of the Sri Lanka crisis

I love the idea of a WikiProject for neutral coverage of the Sri Lanka crisis. There already exists such a project, Wikipedia:WikiProject NCSLC, and I'm considering joining it. This would be an ideal forum to discuss issues of general interest, such as User:SebastianHelm/Sri Lanka#Recommended guideline for editing Sri Lanka conflict related articles. So far, I have hesitated because I wasn't sure if it would be perceived as being neutral, since the member list seemed to have some bias. However, if you could join, too, then I think we can really improve things there together. Please reply on User talk:SebastianHelm/Sri Lanka#Wikipedia:WikiProject NCSLC. Thanks! — Sebastian 18:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Great idea, I try all the time to be neutral when editing these articles. Sadly I am skeptical about the neutrality of some of the members, I know this is not in the light of Assuming Good Faith as I am required by wikipedia policies, I believe being part of any project is not worth if you truly don't believe in the purpose of it. NCSLC is there or not we are required to be neutral in wikipedia aren't we?

My stand is that without being part of the project I could be neutral. For the moment I like to be an observer of the project and consider joining the project if I truly think the members are true to their task, I hope you'll understand, in the mean time if you need any help in improving any of the Sri Lankan Conflict related articles please get in touch with me, I am more than willing to work with you. One more point India's role in the crisis is not covered at all, there is very little information about its role in the crisis, I personally believe India is solely responsible for aggravating the problem to the current level, there is a lot of evidence and information about this, we need more people working on this as well ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 04:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a pity, but I respect that it's ultimately your decision, of course. But please don't fool yourself. You know just as well as I do that achieving neutrality even on the smallest issues is a gargantuan task in Sri Lanka conflict related issues. Do you really want to keep wasting your energy in ineffective edit wars about minor issues? If you do, please don't read on.

OK, good. Thanks for reading on. I'm glad that we agree that it can't continue that way. Something needs to be done. I am willing, but I can't do it alone. I need reasonalbe people like you to achieve our goal of making editing here less painful. This only works if we find some common ground. I need your cooperation, your feedback and criticism.

So, what can I do to address your concerns? Which other members do you have problems with? Don't hesitate to run it by me. That's my role as a mediator. Trust me, I have ideas how to solve such problems, but you will understand that I won't write them here. — Sebastian 06:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting reply, you are indeed a very creative communicator, to reply to your question I have not wasted a single minute on edit wars, I believe if your edits are good and do not push POV, neutral and most importantly cited with a good source especially on controversial subjects, people will rarely dispute you. You know very well how I was able to achieve some neutrality just by creating a simple template. We need to find innovative ways to tackle these issues. I don't want to point and say this particular member in the NCSLC project is bias, thats certainly not my way, being not part of a group that some editors have a doubt leaves no room for controversy. As you notice from my userpage I am a member of the Harmonious editor's club so don't want to be part of anything controversial. I am sure we can achieve our objectives without me being part of the project. Furthermore if you think carefully siding oneself as member of NCSLC itself in an indirect way implies non-members are not neutral, it is a classic example of failing to assume good faith. I feel honored that you consider me being part of NCSLC is important, thanks, but no thanks

ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 06:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your template really seems to have had a good influence! That's the kind of creativity I would have loved to see applied to this good cause. However, as I said above, I respect your decision.

While I am giving up trying to convince you, there are three points that I cannot let pass unchallenged:

1. The Harmonious editor's club has, as far as I know, no admission test, and when you joined a week ago[1] it was apparently not by invitation. That proves much less than the fact that I invited you.
2. The first rule of Harmonious editor's club is "Always aim to end edit wars by helping editors reach a compromise." You did not always do that[2].
3. Calling a project that in best faith tries to connect opposing camps "failing to assume good faith" is an utter misinterpretation of the concept and intent of AGF. (Are you saying all non-members of the Harmonious editor's club are disharmonious? Come on!)

Again, I do respect your decision to avoid areas of potential controversy. Likewise, I ask you to please respect my or anybody else's decision to seek out these areas in an honest attempt to help. — Sebastian 08:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

this has nothing to do being Harmonious.. Being harmonious doesn't mean compromising on the three rules I mentioned (NO POV,NPOV,CITE). Anyway being harmonious is a choice (a good choice), but being neutral is not a choice its a must, to have a project to make people neutral is just ridiculous, by default all wikipedians are obliged to be neutral not harmonious, not being part of the HEC club doesn't make anyone disharmonious. Similarly not being part of NCSLC doesn't make me not neutral. I dont have to be part of the project to be neutral, by default I am required to be neutral. Harmonious editors club only pledges that the editor will not edit war with any user and stick to some rules like 1R, and people mostly stick to it (true to its task).. I dont see that with NCSLC.. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 09:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm very sad that our conversation is going down that path, and I'm trying to understand why. I see that my point #1 may have led in that direction and I regret having written it. In no way was it meant to disparage people who join HEC in an honest effort to make Wikipedia more harmonious.

I sincerely believe that it's essential to have respect for each other's honest efforts to live harmoniously. This is why I need you to respect people who join a project for neutral coverage of the Sri Lanka crisis in an honest effort to make Wikipedia more harmonious. — Sebastian 21:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The relation between Islam and science

In that article we keep to WP standards. Not only do we not allow the proselytizer Zakir Naik, but we also do not allow people who respond to him on his level, like Ali Sina and William Campbell (also a doctor), as none of these people are qualified to discuss science or even have an authoritative discussion of religion. These people do not publish with academic presses, their works are not peer-reviewed, and they have no academic qualifications. Zakir Naik has not received any formal training in Islamic Studies. In this he is unlike many of the Muslim academics and intellectuals we cite in articles every day. The article as it is uses what reliable sources are available. You are welcome to contribute to that article using sources that measure up to Wikipedia standards. Arrow740 10:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Two quick questions to you? On what basis do u call Dr Zakir Naik a proselytizer? How do you measure his knowledge of Islam? ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 11:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

His main activity is spreading dawah, isn't it? His knowledge of Islam doesn't actually matter as far as Wikipedia goes. It's his qualifications. For example, if you read one of Robert Spencer's books, it's obvious that he knows an enormous amount about Islam. However, we do not use him as a source in the articles about Islam, except to mention him as a prominent critic. This is because he does not have a degree in Islamic Studies. It is the same with Zakir Naik; he knows a lot about Islam, but he has no qualifications, and is not a scholar, certainly not an academic. Scholars and academics are the people we use as sources in wikipedia. Arrow740 11:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Your reply is quite acceptable, but some parts of it raises more questions though, how is it obvious to you that Robert Spencer knows an enormous amount about Islam, if he has no qualification in Islam all he may have gathered is some nonsense in a way that he interpreted Islam? Dr Naik is certainly considered by many an Islamic scholar as Muslim scholars agree with his publications (Is it only academic press accepted in wikipedia? I dont know this) I believe general consensus is acceptable in wikipedia do you agree?. You'd sure agree with me if he wasn't correct with what he says sure he'd be a target of some radicals suicide bomb

. Dr Zakir Naiks main area is comparative religion I agree his underlying intention may be dawah as you say.. would u kindly answer my questions ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 18:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Spencer's books consist largely of quotations from the Quran, the hadith, medieval Muslim jurists, and modern Muslim scholars. I encourage you to read one of his books and decide about his knowledge yourself. Regarding Zakir Naik, I'm sure many Muslims agree with lots of his conclusions, but he is not an academic source. He has received no formal training in Islam either of the Western variety or at an Islamic university. Arrow740 16:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Colombo

Thanks

Thanks for your comments at Colombo article peer review. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 06:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem! It was an interesting read - good luck with the review process. Oaxaca dan 06:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 06:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, glad to be of help too. AZ _t 00:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 12:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

fixRefs.js

It's installed in a method similar to the navigation popups. On User:Netmonger/monobook.js, add (in a new line): {{subst:js|User:Gimmetrow/fixRefs.js}} . A link should appear in your toolbox at the left side with which you can fix the footnote errors. If you would like, I can install it for you; for technical problems contact User:Gimmetrow. APR _t 23:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you Arsath?

Hi, Based on the edit patterns on Islam and Colombo pages, it looks like you are User:Arsath. Are you Arsath ?Rajsingam 07:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And who is that? ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 05:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

After going through Arsath's edits

BTW Mr Rajasingham, with all due respect to your individuality and all the peace accolades you have won. I see you as one of the most disruptive editors at wikipedia in recent times, do you know it is against the policies of wikipedia to stalk a fellow editor, this is the last warning I am giving you, if you continue your disruptive behavior like this I will report you to ANI which may result in a possible ban and I kindly request you not to post such unfriendly messages on my talk page, I honestly do not understand why you have to develop such a grudge with me, please dont take things too personal in wikipedia. If two editors share the same interest that doesn't make them the same person, I dont deny the possibility of same person, it necessarily dont have to be, for instance RaveenS and my self both are interested, in Sri Lanka Conflict related pages, that doesn't make us the one and the same people does it? I again kindly extend you my hands of friendship and harmonious editing, please stop your disruptive behavior it doesn't do any good to anyone. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 05:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User Arsath is User Mystic who in turn is user Lahiru_K!!!

Just noticed user:Arsath claims to be Mystic, Mystic was confirmed as a sockpuppet of Lahiru_K, this was based on a checkuser request made by Elalan and seconded by RaveenS and many other editors (who are well connected to you), now are you suggesting that I am Lahiru_K too... This again is I think one of your boisterous allegations. The more I investigate this I only find how disruptive and baseless your allegations are..please stop this as its only tarnishing your reputation, you could be a very successful editor if you just dont take things personally, please consider it. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 06:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Are you Arsath?

Hi,

I really don't have any problems with you. I simply asked a question. Looks like with this edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Netmonger&diff=prev&oldid=104019395 diff] you have demonstrated that you may be Arsath. You are good editor, as long as you are not Lahiru_K (I am willing to accept that although check user says that you are) I will not pursue this further.I was not sure whether you were Lahiru_K or not so instead of complaining about it I asked you in your user page. I saw no problems with that. I know now that I can pursue this further because of the evidence but I am not going to. Also I was informed that you had opened a RFC against me but did not inform me. Good luck with that. Happy editing!!Rajsingam 02:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if this diff proves I am someone that you claim I am, I wouldn't be so stupid to edit without loging in right? If you want to pursue anything further please be my guest. If thats a threat you are making I am not scared, I've got nothing to loose. You will be informed of your Rfc once it is approved.. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 06:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Harmonious editing

You are member of this club and have demonstrated an ability to be neutral. Please calm down and I see an effort here by the other editor to resolve the problem. Please assume good faith that the other editor wants to resolve his problems with you and don’t make it pro long more than it need to be. You have better things to do in Wikipedia. Just my opinionRaveenS 14:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments RaveenS, I sure do have better things to do than answering petty questions like "Are u so an so?" consider this as my way of coaching an editor to be harmonious in wikipedia, as you always say let the policies of wikipedia take its course, I mean no harm to Rajsinham I just want him to learn the wiki-way. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ^Talk 17:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that this issue is closed have you thought about joing SLR ? We need a neutral and mature perspective like yours there. RaveenS 13:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)