Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/archive 5

Poverty into the Introduction

Stale

 – DyceBot (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The following (In Sri Lanka about 15 % of the population live on less than US$ 1.25 per day however. <ref>[http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDI_2008_EN_Tables.pdf UNDP: Human development indices - Table 3: Human and income poverty (Population living below national poverty line (2000-2007))]</ref>) should be entered into the introduction. Sarcelles (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The restrictions have expired

Resolved

The civil war ended in May and the one year extension of the original restrictions expired on December 5th. Shouldn't the blue boxes be removed? Celestra (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the lack of any responses here already confirmed the blue boxes can be removed. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was the agreement. Thank you for bringing it up, Celestra, and thank you for your patience since the discussion in May, Snowolfd4. I am happy that things have calmed down, so that it is not necessary anymore. Thanks everybody for making that possible! We should celebrate this.

But I must admit, I am also somewhat nostalgic for the time when we had our fierce discussions here. How about if you and I pick a fight, for old time's sake, Snowolf? ;-)

In some cases, the talk page (such as Talk:Sri Lanka) contains the box, too, and it should be removed from there as well. Do we want to put our normal Project Banner {{Banner WPSLR}} there instead? I should have some time during the next week to do these changes with WP:AWB. (At least the removals; I haven't worked with AWB in a long time and am not sure if I can do the insertions, too.) — Sebastian 07:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I agree with it too. Thx Kanatonian (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the template can be removed. I was never part of Wikipedia when the template was actually needed (sigh of relief here :)), but it's obvious that it is not necessary anymore. I can help with the removal; I suggest we wait a few more days to see if there are any objections and start on Sunday/Monday. ≈ Chamal ^talk ☃ 15:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

We used to have a 48 hour time for determining consensus, but since we have less traffic now, I think one week from the announcement here would be appropriate - that would be 17:26, 26 December. I think this also includes archiving the section § Sri Lanka Dispute Resolution Agreement on our project page. — Sebastian 05:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I have started removing the bluebox, but had to stop after about ten because of connection problems :P There are some 125+ pages to go. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Chamal! I tried to continue what you started, but I can't log in to AWB - see WT:AWB#AWB thinks I'm not logged in. — Sebastian 17:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I got the AWB problem resolved and started running it now. — Sebastian 03:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Done - I removed all remaining instances. I made a mistake about the edit summary, though: I added the text "rom "other prison mass." section - that's what we have category for" when I removed that text from Bindunuwewa massacre, and didn't notice that it added the same text to all remaining edits. I wish we could run AWB on the edit summaries and replace them all at once! — Sebastian 04:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sri Lankan IDP camps

Resolved

Please take a look at this edit where London Times and the Guardian have ben termed biased and removed here.Kanatonian (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like that editor accepted the reversion, so nothing needs to be done now. As the SLDRA has expired, we can't insist on the 1RR rule anymore. But we can protect or semiprotect pages under assault. If an editor makes disruptive edits, they should be warned, and when necessary eventually blocked. We used to have WP:SLR#Warnings and blocks to keep track of that, but the situation seems calm enough now that we can just rely on this talk page. — Sebastian 05:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets hope people will simply abide by Wikipedia rules. Thanks for responding. Kanatonian (talk) 20:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Should we close down this project?

		The Sri Lanka Hope Award
		It appears that with the end of the civil war, the situation in Sri Lanka has calmed down. I am very glad about that, and I wish you all the best for a peaceful and prosperous future. To celebrate this, I'm herewith giving our Sri Lanka Hope Award to the people of Sri Lanka. (As everyone here knows, this is a bud that will become the blossom of one of the world's most loved drinks.) — Sebastian 07:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As editing of Sri Lanka conflict related articles seems to be no more problematic than that of other Wikipedia articles, our project has fulfilled its purpose. Does anyone still see a need for it, or should we just celebrate and close it down? — Sebastian 07:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This is all good news and a fine award for the people of Sri Lanka. Not to rain on the joyous moment, but my experience with the several ethnic conflicts is that things onwiki will flare up again; probably not as bad as they have been, but the wounds of such strifes heal slowly. So I would keep the SLRP up, though hopefully it would be needed less and less over time. That being said, I wish all the people of Sri Lanka the best. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Rlevse is right. Problems do arise from time to time, and although we haven't yet had a big issue after the war we may need SLR again in the future. We could still keep it going; it doesn't need a lot of effort on our part after all. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rlevse and Chamal, we should not close down this project yet. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I was writing a poetic quote, but to simplify it, I vote to keep it open, but think that we should reproach this subject in the future, based off of the activity that is observed. Thanks, Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 21:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I would have loved to see your poetic quote! I hope you mean "re-approach", not "reproach"!? That makes sense. One concern I have is that someone posts something here and gets no reply, as happened a couple times last autumn. But currently, this page is watched by 43 editors,[1] so we should be fine. — Sebastian 19:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this project should only be kept up if there is significant activity. During long periods of 2009, this was not the case. Given that the project has some "special powers" (claiming any page), leaving those powers lying around up for grabs does not seem to be a wise idea. I was going to propose closing the project at the end of 2009, but I was taken up in other issues.
To be clear, I think that this was a great project, which could serve as a model for many other areas of wikipedia. But if there are no regulars left in the project, we should accept that fact and do what one does when no one else is left in the room: close down the lights. lahiru, Sebastian, Kanatonian, watchdog, and me left, in more or less that order, and for various reasons.No one seems to replace them, so that's what it is. Jasy jatere (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

By "special powers (claiming any page)", are you referring to the WP:SLR#SLDRA? This has expired now. (See above - I just restored the post from the archive.) — Sebastian 17:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Another reason things were calm is the economic condition, now that the world economy is improving, we can expect more people to waste more of their valuable time in Wikipedia :))159.18.6.246 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC).

I say we keep SLR. Does it really matter if we get 10 posts a day or 10 posts a month? As long as it helps solve conflicts (like the IDP one right upstairs) might as keep it going. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 21:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to keep SLR for now. The war may be over, but the conflict won't be over for a long time. The pigheads on both sides aren't going to disappear. It would be good to still have a place to turn to whenever there are POV issues in articles relating to Sri Lanka. And as far as I know, this project is the only place in WP where you can find a group of competent, well-spirited people willing to deal with these issues, no matter how low the activity level. I haven't been able to contribute much during the last year or so, but I intend stay an active member of WP and SLR. Cheers, ayubovan and vanakkam, Krankman (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I agree with your characterization of the members. BTW, could someone describe the meaning of ayubovan and vanakkam, please? this page doesn't cover them, despite its title. — Sebastian 03:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sinhalese āyu-bō-van, literally "life-much-shall become", translates as "May you have a long life" (you may recognise the "ayu" also found in the term "ayurveda", "the knowledge about life"); as for Tamil vanakkam I can only tell you that my dictionary gives "prayer" as the literal translation. It may be noteworthy that both greetings are only used in rather formal contexts nowadays. By the way, the title of the page you linked to really is very misleading in view of its actual content ... Krankman (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Stuutiyi and nandri![2] — Sebastian 18:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I added two new entries to our project file watchlist (on the project page): "30 - 365 days". Please click on these links from time to time so that we don't overlook any changes to the project pages. Thanks! — Sebastian 04:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to announce here that I asked DyceBot to stop archiving this page until further notice. — Sebastian 19:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

---

After 5 years, it has become clear this project has become defunct. One particularly sad piece of evidence is that there is an application for membership that has remained unanswered since 2010. I don't want to mislead people, and in fact, I wonder if anyone even has this main page still on their watchlist. — Sebastian 10:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@SebastianHelm: It's on my watchlist. Yes, the project has become defunct and it should be closed down. Most of its members are no longer active on Wikipedia and although we still get a few disputes in relation to the Sri Lankan conflict, they tend to be flagged up on the main boards rather than here. I have found the contents of this project to be useful in disputes so it would be helpful if they could be archived rather than deleted.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 12:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for watching it! And you're not even a member!

I agree, I want it to remain visible, too. It's a project all participants can be proud of, and there's no reason to hide it. I will wait one week, since this is how long we always waited for major decisions regarding the project. Unless I hear any objections, I will mark it as "defunct" per WP:INACTIVEWP#Other options (item 2), because it has served its stated purpose. The applicable Template:Historical contains the wording "To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.", which I would like to change to something like "For discussion about issues related to the Sri Lanka Civil War, seek broader input via (inheriting project)". For the inheriting project, a natural choice seems Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka, although I have not been active there. Or do you have something else in mind when you write "the main boards"? — Sebastian 18:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Sebastian, I meant WP:PNB - I recently had to use WP:DRN for an issue that a few years ago might have come to WP:SLR. WP:LK does seem a natural successor but there's not much discussion on the project. Nevertheless I agree that readers should be directed there in the first instance. Readers can always go the village pump or WP:PNB if WP:LK can't help.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, of course, WP:PNB, a.k.a. WP:DRN is a better choice for a number of reasons. It just wasn't at the forefront of my mind because it was founded when my intensive involvement in dispute resolution had already ended. I had considered listing more than one, but I don't want to encourage editors to go forum shopping. — Sebastian 21:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Use of Tamilnet as a citation

A disagreement has popped up between me and Obi2canibe regarding the use of Tamilnet as a citation on Wikipedia. Since we couldn't come to an agreement, I took it over to the reliable sources noticeboard. Comments are welcome. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 14:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Indian intervention in the Sri Lankan Civil War

The Indian intervention in the Sri Lankan Civil War article was deleted as a copyright infringement. I've started again based on Sri Lankan Civil War#Indian involvement. PhilKnight (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Nicely done Kanatonian (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sri Lanka’s unifying cuisines

Just thought I'd share this with people here. It's good to see that the BBC hasn't forgotten SL, and now can dedicate its time to more palatable issues: http://www.theworld.org/2011/02/21/sri-lanka-unifying-cuisines/ — Sebastian 07:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Lies Agreed Upon and Sri Lanka's Killing Fields

There is an intense exchange going on at Talk:Lies Agreed Upon regarding whether Lies Agreed Upon should or shouldn't be tagged as {{one source}} and {{POV}}. The discussion also includes the idea (suggested by me as a possible compromise) that Lies Agreed Upon might be combined with Sri Lanka's Killing Fields into a single article about documentary/journalistic coverage of the Sri Lankan civil war. The current participants in the argument remain far apart and seem (to me) unlikely to give any ground, and the subject is probably in need of new input. I have no ties of any sort to Sri Lanka and do not currently have an opinion as to which, if either, set of combatants in the civil war were "the good guys". I spoke up in an attempt to mediate, but I think I'm probably in way over my head. — Richwales 04:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)