User talk:Kerr avon

Welcome!

Hello, Kerr avon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Addhoc 16:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Smart does not own the rights to the freespace franchise. Lordkazan 15:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody actually knows.. it's in limbo Lordkazan 13:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No.. put the quote in context - thread title "Freespace License. What if..." - begining of first post "....Derek Smart, yeah, that would be me, got the license from my friends at Interplay" - it was a conditional, one that never ended up taking place Lordkazan 16:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Dsmart.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Dsmart.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jesse Viviano 21:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Lordkazan Lordkazan 21:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've just reverted your edit to Lordkazan's RfC. Please don't edit other user's comments, as it makes it appear in this example as though Addhoc was stating something he didn't. Instead, please feel free to add a comment stating that you believe Supreme cmdr is an SPA. Thanks, Jakew 11:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I am a new user and I was not aware of the above mentioned rule. It will not happen again.220.247.251.172 12:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry - we all make mistakes. By the way, you're not logged in. Jakew 12:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. Error corrected. Thanks!Kerr avon 13:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your note on the Derek Smart talk page, the proper place to report this would be WP:RFCU, but at this moment the situation does not look to be escalated enough at this point. There does seem to be a good deal of evidence that the account is a single purpose account (IE a meatpupper/sockpuppet), so a checkuser would be most likely unnecessary (and perhaps declined). Also, I'd like to note that I still believe this is a content dispute as there are perfectly valid concerns concerning the reliability of the given sources and their verifiability, so I wouldn't call this vandalism. There may be POV pushing, but that is a content dispute and not blatant vandalism, so making that distinguishment is important. I'm keeping an eye on the Warhawk user for now (I just blocked them for 24 hours), so I will block for longer if this continues. Thanks :) Cowman109^Talk 00:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your intervention. The sad thing is that this supreme_cmdr does not seem to tolerate anything negative of Smart which is wrong, the man has been a after dinner joke in the gaming industry for decades. Just search for derek smart on google and most of the top links are satires on him. So we must reach a consensus as to what negative points are to be included, or else allow a free for all and just let edit warring go on, eventually supreme_cmdr/Derek Smart will get tired of it and when he withdraws the edit wars will stop, just like the flame wars ended when Smart left the USENET in the late 1990's.

Once again thanks for your intervention regarding this matter.

Kerr avon 05:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to me carefully. It seems as if you're on some sort of vendetta against me or something. I don't have time for your bullshit. You have already been warned here by an admin and via email. Yet you continue. If you want war, its war I'll give you and we'll just turn your talk page into a battle ground. Instead of focusing on editing the Wiki, you're focused on engaging me in stupid discussions which have nothing to do with this Wiki and which violate WP:GF. A quick trip to Usenet has given me an indication as to who (the Sri Lanka thing was a dead giveaway) you are. In fact, you are one of the 'primary' proponents of the legacy flamewar against Smart and now you are here doing the same thing. Especially now that you foolishly think that I'm him. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme_Cmdr/Derek, I really have no vendetta against you. You claim not to be Smart, you have vehemently denied that you are Smart, so if there is evidence to suggest that you are Smart, I think it is relevant that others know of it.

What is this "Dead giveaway" you mention with regard to "The sri lanka thing". Please justify your accusations. I had nothing to do with the flame war, and I am indeed surprised that you were notorious enough to be known in my small country.

If you think I am one of the Primary proponents of the flame war, then please tell what my identity is and I will prove you wrong with my credentials, which will show that true to form you make unsubsantiated allegations.

Go ahead and open a RFC against me, you are perfectly within your rights to do so.

Kerr avon 14:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not attempt to uncover the real identies of wikipedia users. It is a violation of our policies and will lead to blocks. Thanks. JBKramer 16:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to make legal threats, you will be blocked. JBKramer 17:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making legal threats against the wikipedia. I was only mentioning what I would have done against allegations of racism by Supreme_cmdr which are every serious allegation in my part of the world or even in the western world.

Also please stop acting like a child and threatening me with blocking everytime, I am a highly educated doctor and I do not need childish threats of blocking to force me to do something. I am open to discussion or suggestion by anyone and will act according to establsihed guidlines here.

Kerr avon

LMAO!!! You're a what now? Oh, thats right. A "highly educated doctor". Gimme a break. Why should we care who or what you are (assuming your claims are true)? Fact is, ALL of your actions are against WiKi policy and eventually you are going to be blocked if you continue with this foolishness.

As to your being a doctor, you claimed a few days ago that you would post proof and whatnot. We don't care. But if you must, why not spend your time updating your Wiki page with your biography? That - to me - would be time better spent than your focusing your foolish vendetta against me.

Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 16:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, sorry for the late reply but I was busy at the hospital, and I returned home only now,hence the late reply.

Derek/Supreme_Cmdr, you have made unsubtantiated allegations that I was a majot contributor to the flame war etc. So you obviously know my identity. If that is the case, please do expose my name and then I will post documented evidence as to who I am and everyone can that you have lied and made wrong allegations against me. So go ahead and post my name as you must know it. The moment you post that I will post a copy of my national identity card, my driving license, and a scanned copy of my medical certificate, which will be enough I think. I have called your bluff of you accusing me to be a major contributor to the flame war, and now its upto you to name me and show the genuineness of your claims.

Kerr avon 10:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The policy in question from above would be WP:LEGAL. Also, delving into the personal information about people is also regularly removed by users with oversight privileges, so unless it is relevant to perhaps an arbitration case, it is inappropriate. Cowman109^Talk 18:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree to your judgement with respect. I must admit that I was trying hard to prove a link between Smart and Supreme_Cmdr as the SPA has been repeatedly vandalising the Smart page and vehemently denying that he his Smart. I am a law abiding citizen and will always comply with guidlines. So that brings this matter to a close.Kerr avon 23:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody asked you. And if you know what vandalism is, you wouldn't make such obviously unaccurate and foolish accusations. Get a grip.

Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 16:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it foolish to think that you (Supreme_Cmdr) is derek Smart when you both have the same arrogant,intolerant,self centered wildly accusing behaviour?Kerr avon 10:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again. Have you ever heard of WP:GF and WP:CIVIL?? Do you see me accusing you of being Lordkazan when in fact both of you have the same arrogant, intolerant, self-centered and wildly accusing behavior?Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 13:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC I filed was very clear that the community believed you had a problem with remaining civil. Your most recent comment, [1] (second section) was wholey innapropriate. Personal attacks are unnaceptable. Do not make them. JBKramer 11:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unable to locate this RFc. Got link? Thanks. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 11:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My friend first of all why dont you accuse supreme_cmdr too of making personal attacks, as he has done above too against me. He has laughed at my cliams to be a doctor, called me a fool, called me a racist, arent those personal attacks. I was unaware of a RFC being filed against me as I was busy in the hospital, our country is in the midst of a terrorist war, and there was a suicide attack against unarmed soldiers returning home which killed 90 of them and left countless wounded, hence most of the docs are busy.I will do my best to answer it now.Kerr avon 11:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to find such a RFC, you are perfectly within your rights to open a RFC against me. If so I would be obliged if you can post the link so I can answer it. Kerr avon 11:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, confused you and Lord Kazzan. NPA applies to you as well. JBKramer 12:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. As per your suggestion, I agree that I will avoid any personal attacks against the SPA suprem_cmdr despite whatever provocation he tries. However I reserve the right to defend my self (in a civil manner of course )against the claims he makes in the RFC that he is going to file below.Kerr avon 12:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to open an RFc against him right now. Supreme_Cmdr^(talk) 12:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are perfectly within your rights to open one, and I will do my best to respond to it. However I will be leaving tomorrow for hospital duty for three days and I will try my best to respond before that, however once I am gone I will most probably be able to reply only on friday evening as I am on duty continously.Kerr avon 14:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nope! Lordkazan 14:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yippee i found another patriot!!! Welcome to the club bro :-)  ♪♫ĽąĦĩŘǔ_Қ♫♪  ^(Ŧ) 17:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks my friend. I am for a balanced NPOV regarding LTTE and other articles. THe eelam lobby has been very active on wikipedia, with a lot of uncited unsourced and potentially libellous information in the said articles. Just look at the state of the Vellupillai Prabhakaran artcile, it looks like a PR man hired by him wrote it. When one goes through the Lalith Athulathmudali article edits [[2]], unsubstantiated and potentially libellous allegations were inserted and maintained. I am for a balanced view on the above subjects, with 100% cited information, not from hardline sites of either side, but from neutral verifiable sources. Strict policing by admins would also probably be needed as these are controversial articles.Kerr avon 00:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Sri Lankan civil war, you removed see here from the causes of the civil war sharp differences over University admissions. Now it is a past and historical fact. See article Policy_of_standardization, it is a stub. You can add it to it if you want. It is true there is no perceived sharp differences over admissions to universities now but it is a fact like the world is flat that the perceived differences in the 1970’s was one fact that lead to the formation of Tamil militant groups. By removing a such a well known fact amongst historians, journalists and any researchers about Sri Lanka you would have weakened a Wikipedia article because it no longer is credible. About your edits to Black July I have opened a discussion page on them on the talk page. Thanks RaveenS 15:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can site a reliable unbiased source (surely there must be many) showing that there was such discrimination then indeed, I would be more than willing to acknowledge your point.Kerr avon 07:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By 1977 the issue of university admissions had become a focal point of the conflict between the government and Tamil leaders. Tamil youth, embittered by what they considered discrimination against them, formed the radical wing of the Tamil United Liberation Front. Many advocated the use of violence to establish a separate Tamil state of Eelam. It was an object lesson of how inept policy measures and insensitivity to minority interests can exacerbate ethnic tensions.(A.Jayaratnam Wilson, The Break up of Sri Lanka, C.Hurst & Company, London, Orient Longman Limited, 1988)May be you could also jump in and add content about Sri Lanka. We have a lot of stubs and many talented individual editors just editing and reediting just a few handful politically charged articles when the overall content is minimal or non existant.RaveenS 21:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campaignbox State terrorism in Sri Lanka [3]  ♪♫ĽąĦĩŘǔ_Қ♫♪  ^(Ŧ) 02:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr, you and I've had differences of opinion on the TFD. As a newbie I can tell you AFD, TFD and CFD brings the worst in people in Wikipedia. Anyway all what I want to say is let us respect each other for who we are and I have a lot os respect for doctors. You simply cant be a racist after being a doctor so I dont consider you one. I started the Assassinations attributed to the LTTE page another Tamil Tyronen started the Notable attacks attributed to the LTTE page. I've created and edited number of pages of dead Tamils allegedly killed by the LTTE such as Relangi Selvarajah, Chelvi, Kethesh, Neelan..... etc. All what I am saying is dead SL Tamils [or globaly speaking dead civilians] drive me to write about them whether they were killed by the GoSL or the LTTE, I dont have a POV on that. Unfortunately I have a lot of pages to create because of this stupid war.I hope you and I can work together constructively in the future. Thanks RaveenS

Comment Thanks for pointing out the re direct, I copied and pasted from User Sudharsan hence the left over redirect. I fixed it now.

I also wanted to say it was a real pleasure to have debated with you. While we didn't agree on each others viewpoints', what we do have in agreement I hope is something net positive for the future of the island, something that is sustainable. It must at times be extremely difficult in these hospitals during the times of major activity. It takes a lot of courage to be in that position. Many of these issues are not simply black and white and perhaps require patience on the part of all of us. Cheers, Elalan 02:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[4]

don't laugh your balls off~

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article BlueZ, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:BlueZ. You may remove the {{dated prod}} template, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Elaragirl^Talk|Count 03:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Setup your e-mail account and e-mail me. Snowolfd4, Iwazaki and me well prepared to welcome you and share your knowledge among us.  ♪♫ĽąĦĩŘǔ_Қ♫♪  ^(Ŧ) 16:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey sorry I couldn't reply sooner but I've got finals these days and I'm a little busy. Don't know if you know already but the deletion of Terrorist_attacks_attributed_to_the_LTTE was overturned and the article is relisted for AFD. You might want to look at that. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 17:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just finnished it, take a look. It could have section such as the International reactions and the Prison revolt that happened because of his death. I might do it later on RaveenS 19:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

A request for arbitration has been filed on the article Derek Smart, which you have been involved with in some manner. If you would like to contribute to the request, or subsequent case if accepted, please visit WP:RFAR. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 23:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my friend, in the Anton Balasingham talk page you are violating WP:AGF, WP:Civil, and potentially WP:Bite by using the terms pro eelamist, fraud and threatening admin action. Remember we are all Wikipedians here so please be civil and kind to each other. You have also being kindly asked before about WP:AGF on the discussion page for Template deletion of State terrorism in Sri Lanka. This message on your talk page is my attempt to solve this problem that you seem to have with other Wikipedians amicably per wikipedia policies on problem resolutions. Thanks RaveenS 17:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rajsingam has been noted for violating a lot of wikipedia policies and he has been blocked for edit warring, he edits his own biograpghy which violates WP:AUTO, he uploaded images from asian tribune under a false license of a book cover just to push his pro eelamist agenda. We are debating regarding the LTTE which is the most murderous terrorist organisation in the world, which has recently resorted to bombing busses carrying innocent civilians in my country. It is sad to see tamils who have the luxury of living abroad like rajsingam supporting the LTTE openly, and using the wiki to push forth his agenda. I have merely stated the facts only regarding user:Rajsingam's policies which violates wiki guidlines. Kerr avon 01:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, we need to work together rather than work against in Wikipedia. No one sane would support terrorism or state terrorism. Any attack against civilians that is deliberate is reprehensible and needs to be documented so that at some point people can be held responsible for crimes against humanity. Whether it is leaders of non state actors such LTTE or the leaders of legitimate sovereign states like Sri Lanka, leaders have to responsible for their terrorist actions. The hanging of Saddam, how ever reprehensible it was gives me hope that eventually we can and should get them all. Sri Lanka has inherited the story of Elara and Duttgemunu in which the leaders fought each other to spare the lives of even soldiers are were actually willing combatants unlike today where the civilians are simply pawns to be killed in a killing match. Once Dutgemunu killed Elara he respected the fallen king and built a tomb that all people had to bow to. I don’t think the Monks put the story just because, they put as a lesson to leaders not to waste human lives like we do in Sri Lanka. RaveenS 17:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, you are stepping towards a big problem!!! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 17:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the TfD vote, you wrote "Please stop posting false information in the hope of influencing people." You seem to be very upset with me. Which false information do you think I posted? From your use of the continuous form, it appears you must have had this impression for quite a while. Would you have any diffs for me to show what contributed to your impression? I would be happy to clarify any misunderstandings. I'm especially puzzled why you wrote this in the TfD vote since I voted along with you there. — Sebastian 22:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. It's just that when you post saying a previous debate result was "keep", when it was really no consensus, at the very top of the debate, i thought it was a attempt at persuading the deciding admin to decide on a keep. You must understand that this debate is a heaty one with many sock puppets voting etc. I am against anti-government propoganda being used to lable our government as terrorist while the same eelamists who try to defame our government vehemently object to calling the LTTE a terrorist organisation despite the LTTE bombing two busses killing innocent civilians recently amongst many other heinious crimes.

I can see that you are a genuine editor, my apologies and let the matter end here.Kerr avon 23:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course! That was a sloppy confusion - to confuse "no consensus" with "keep"! The reason why I added it to the top was because I saw that the template itself had a link which pointed to the old discussion, and I wanted people to better find the new discussion. So I first inserted a link into the old discussion pointing to the new one and then for symmetry reasons a similar link pointing back. Would it be OK with you to delete this discussion from the template discussion? Also, are there any other edits of mine that upset you? Please don't hesitate to let me know by message or e-mail. — Sebastian 00:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to delete the discussion from the TFD. I am happy that we were able to come to a settlement! I made that comment after working for 13 hours straight, so i was a bit tired as well. Once again I apologise for any misperception.Kerr avon 00:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian 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!

We both made mistakes, but I must admit you have the better excuse than I do. — Sebastian 02:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, nice to see that we managed to delete that ridiculous template. Thanks for all your help :)
Could you by any chance set up a email account on Wikipedia so that we can contact each other that way? Cos there are way too many people following our edits around to have frank discussions on Wikipedia talk pages. Maybe using a gmail or yahoo account? Thanks. --snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 14:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

has a special significance in American history. I wonder if, as a Sri Lankan, you have heard of this place, or know why it has a rather infamous place in our history. Mael-Num 10:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No i am not aware of any infamy associated with it. I checked the wikipedia article but am not able to find out anything. Please clarify.Kerr avon 10:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come now, good "Doctor". You must have learned a bit of reading comprehension and deduction in University. Do you really need me to take you by the hand and walk you through?Mael-Num 19:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, fine then. Be that way. Salem is the home of one of the most well-known witch hunts in American history. People went absolutely nuts accusing innocent people of absurd things using even more absurd evidence. Of course, no one was really in league with the devil. According to accounts, it was more along the lines of people settling personal differences by accusing their neighbors of being in league with evil. You know...maybe so-and-so is better looking, or has a nicer house, or quilts faster or whatever...so get them out of the picture by putting them on trial for being a witch. An unfortunate bit of business, that. Anyway, I thought that perhaps you, being a non-American, could benefit from hearing of this cautionary tale. After all, if we aren't aware of history we are doomed to repeat it. Mael-Num 21:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh Now do you get it? You're calling out a witch hunt on me. It's a personal attack, and while I have no interest in seeking an administrative resolution at this time, I'd really like it if you'd stop. If you think I'm a sock-puppet, by all means, call me on it. Ask them to check if my IP is even in the same part of the country as Warhawk and Supreme Cmdr. It's not. Your accusations are baseless, and rude, and it's obvious that you don't want me around because you'd like carte blanche when it comes to edits. That's not the way it works. I'm not trying to get you (or Cmdr or Warhawk for that matter) barred from editing even if I don't always agree with you. It's important to get people who are interested in the article to offer their opinions on the article so that it can be a good piece. I don't understand how you don't see this. Mael-Num 00:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 18:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I just replied to you there. — Sebastian 20:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome as a member![edit]

After all members voted unanimously for you, it is my pleasure to welcome you as our member #4 and I just entered you in the member list. I'll be happy if you could contribute to all our decisions! — Sebastian 19:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Sheela jayasri.ogg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This box will update automatically. Enjoy! — Sebastian 04:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You categorized several people from the of the political wing of the LTTE into category:terrorists. According to the articles for Thileepan and S.P.Thamilselvan, neither of them fulfils any of the criteria specified in the category definition. I will therefore revert them. If you disagree, please either update the articles or bring it up in our project, and we can discuss it there. Adele Ann Wilby, however, seems appropriately categorized, if the reference is correct and reliable. — Sebastian 09:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about some recognition for her [[5]] Thanks RaveenS

Can you please support this [6] I am trying get people to discuss changes and arrive at compromise where ever possible (not always) I need people like Sharz, Snow and Iwazi in not out. Thanks [User:RaveenS]]

An arbitration case in which you were involved, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart, has closed. For a period of six months, no single-purpose account may revert any edit made to the Derek Smart article. This article is referred to the Wikipedia editing community for clean-up, evaluation of sources, and adherence to NPOV. Any user may fully apply the principles of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons to this article. Supreme Cmdr is banned from Wikipedia for one year. Supreme Cmdr and other surrogates of Derek Smart are also banned from editing Derek Smart, but may edit the talkpage. This is a summary of the remedy provisions of the decision, and editors should review the complete text of the decision before taking any action. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation#Chores if you see value in any of the project chores. Thank you! — Sebastian 01:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please give some reference saying "This is the first terrorist attack". Thanks Watchdogb 01:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding on the articles talk page [7]Kerr avon 12:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An SLR article TamilNet is getting peer reviewed your input as an SLR member would be welcome to make it eventually into a featured article. Thanks RaveenS 12:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see here Thanks Taprobanus 15:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Sheela1.ogg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 14:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the article because it did not assert the notability of the subject. To be precise, the article did not show how the company Gold quest met Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Simply being a malafide corporation is not enough to establish notability. If you can establish how the company meets our notability guidelines, you can be bold and write a new article. But I would suggest you write a new article in your userspace first. I'm willing to help you with that. If you feel that it's good enough for Wikipedia, you can request Deletion review permission to move the article to our article space. You can also request a Deletion review if you disagree with my deletion of the article. Aecis^Brievenbus 00:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kerr avon! I just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/housekeeping to separate our internal housekeeping stuff from the current discussion about articles, which is of interest for more than just our members. Please add this page to your watchlist. I also wrote a new proposal on its talk page, WT:SLR/H#Proposed recipients for barnstars. Please let me know what you think of it! — Sebastian 11:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Patriot,

If you could, just send me an E-mail.

Regards, --Lanka07 (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A user has nominated Category:Sri Lankan terrorists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Nitraven (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced contentious defamatory material to any Wikipedia page, as you did to Talk:M.I.A. (artist). Thank you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, doctor you seem to be involved in a revert war situation here. Please discuss your points of view in the talk page to achive consensus or we may have to take it up in SLR. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of your recent edits to Template:Sri Lankan Conflict ([8][[9]), I would like to remind you to please remain mindful of the 1RR restriction that applies to all articles within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. Although revert restrictions are generally waived across Wikipedia if reverting is uncontroversial, restores a consensus version, or improves an article (see e.g. Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Exceptions), they do apply in the case of good-faith content disputes. For details, please see Sebastian's clarification of what 1RR means to us. Thanks, Watchdogb (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK how about this, I'm giving you a compromise, we have this source that says 80,000 have been killed since the start of the war, let's put that number and say that's an overall number of killed, including fighters from both sides and civilians. I have already put the number 80,000 in the infobox with the reference and have stated like this 80,000 overall killed (including civilians)ref. What do you say? And please don't insert the 9,000 number again for dead Tigers. It's obviously government propaganda since at the begining of the year the government claimed that only 3,000 Tigers were left, according to them then they destroyed the LTTE three times over this year. We better stick to claims by both sides individualy for their own casualties, overall based on all reports by the government we have summed up they lost 22,000+ fighters since the start of the war, including the 1,500 IPKF soldiers. The Tigers stated last year they lost 19,900 fighters since the start of the year and 1,900 this year. Maybe they have or maybe not downplayed their numbers, but if they have in that case so did the government and these numbers are more realistic than those being given by the other side. So let's just leave it at that.89.216.236.45 (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted again even when I tried to make a compromise and you didn't give me a reply. What's your problem? A direct source has been given for the number of 80,000 killed overall. You are removing a referenced number. Also, stop including the 9,000 number. You said Wikipedia is about neutrality, well yes it is we agree on that, and that number is not neutral. The number is blatant propaganda by the SLA. It's so obvious to everyone. So why are you including it? We should then probably include propaganda statements by the LTTE as well who claim hundreds of dead SLA soldiers contrary to the Sri Lankan MoD's statements of only dozens. Maybe we should also include the number of 3,000 Georgian soldiers killed which is claimed by the Russians over at the 2008 South Ossetia War article? C'mon man work with me here. Don't just push your own point of view. And don't ignore me.89.216.236.45 (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLease note that you are biased in your edits. You are bent on reducing the LTTE's casualties by quoting their own casualty reportor reports biased to them, and increasing the armies casualties by quoting reports which give a high army death toll. WIkipedia is about neutrality not to push your own view. So therefore it is important to put the government claimed LTTE death toll, and what the LTTE claims as there own and let people decide. Also the figure of 80.000 is already mentioned in the introduction to the article, hence a new sectionis not needed.Kerr avon (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the least biased, every war article has a mention of the numbers of dead in it's infobox thus the place of the 80,000 number is in the infobox. Also I am increasing the number of army casualties based on reports given by the Sri Lankan army sources THEMSELVES, they are not just reports which give a high army death toll, they are reports by the army themselves. If you remove them it would seem as there were no army deaths after 2001. Those sources and numbers had been previously agreed upon by editors more than six months ago. Also I am trying to be highly neutral by giving the LTTE's claim of 1,900 dead instead of the JUST CRAZY PROPAGANDA CLAIM of 9,000 dead by the military. If you would belive the military then it would seem they killed all of the LTTE three times over since they stated at the beginning of the year that only 3,000 Tigers were left! If we put the SLA's claim of 9,000 Tigers dead then we should put the LTTE's claim of thousands of dead soldiers. Like this the infobox is more balanced whit each sides point of view on their own casualties. I couldn't figure out why you were constantly reducing the armies casualties and increasing the LTTE's casualties. Until I saw your main user page. You're from Sri Lanka. What are you? Pro-government, anti-LTTE? Don't you talk to me about being biased. Constantly removing the numbers of soldiers killed since 2001 and telling me I am biased. Go ahead report me to the authorities. I've been down that road before with other editors who tried to push their own point of view. And guess what? The Wikipedia authorities did do something. They baned the other guyes for not being neutral. I saw that you have already been warned by other users for waging edit wars with them on other Sri Lanka articles. Just so you know, I was ready for a lot of compromise with you. A lot. I would have left the 9,000 number, yes I would have, if you didn't constantly remove the numbers of military killed after 2001 and the overall number of dead. And again the 80,000 number's place is in the infobox.89.216.236.45 (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got to hand it to you Doc, nice work, you knew it would be a high-risk gamble if you took it to a Wikipedia arbiter, because after all the references were valid whatever you say. So you decided you call on a request for protection from edit warring. You knew they would protect it so I can not revert you any more. I cann't belive what you will do to push your own point of view on this war. People like you have no place on Wikipedia, and you can ignore me all you want, it won't change a thing. Bye.89.216.235.147 (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is very particular about WP:BLP. Firstly, articles on living persons should assume a neutral point of view. If at all, they do contain criticisms, the factual accuracy of such claims should be established by citing reliable, neutral sources. I had some issues about the tone of that particular sentence. Remember, when you add some criticism in the lead section, please see to it that your usage of words or terms adheres to NPOV. You should also cite reliable, neutral sources. Thanks-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 02:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple problems I see on said page, which is why I removed the LTTE section in Lead.

a) You use wikipedia as a source. Strict no-no

b) Also the Asian Tribune is a great source on the workings of the Sinhala or even the TMVP, but :its quite the biased source. I wouldnt say biased against Tamils per se, but certainly extremely :unfriendly to Tamil nationalism. I am challenging you to find better sources to make these :allegations more legitimate.Pectore^talk 04:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources. I moved the views to the "political views" section just in case IP's or SPA's try to delete his relatively extreme views.Pectore^talk 02:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kerr, wanted to drop you a note that I've contested the prods you placed on the articles on various Sri Lankan Members of Parliament. Longstanding consensus is that national officeholders are notable per WP:POLITICIAN, which says that "People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges" are generally notable. Cheers, Jfire (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you make of this article?

• List of attacks attributed to the Sri Lankan military

and this

• Template:Campaignbox Sri Lanka mass graves

Gira2be (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out Anniversary - let's celebrate! Your suggestions are very welcome. — Sebastian 22:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you already participated there, but I updated it and since I alerted others, I didn't want to exclude you. — Sebastian 22:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, thanks for suggesting. Now that the war is coming to an end we can go back to writing an encyclopedia for what ever it is worth. Taprobanus (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I enabled my e-mail, u can e-mail me any time you have break from your work. Taprobanus (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Kerr avon! This is regarding your edits here and here. I missed that part of the ref, and I agree now that the LTTE-supporting part can be included. IMHO, calling him a "noted LTTE supporter" could be interpreted as trying to justify the killing (assuming the LRRP did do it), which could, in turn be seen as a violation of WP:NPOV. Also, it does not say by whom he was noted (WP:WEASEL). So, I suggest a rewording like this:

Another notable accusation is the killing of Father M. X. Karunaratnam, the Chairman of the North East Secretariat on Human Rights (NESOHR), a pro-LTTE organization which had accused the Sri Lankan military of human rights violations.

There is no need to call both him and the organization as LTTE supporting, since the chairman would obviously be an LTTE supporter if the organization is pro-LTTE. Any objections? I'd appreciate your views on this. Chamal ^talk 14:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I'll make the change then. Cheers. Chamal ^talk 14:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the misunderstanding btw. I should have read the ref more carefully :) Chamal ^talk 14:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :-) Glad that we were able to resolve it peacefully :-)Kerr avon (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contacting me. Comparable articles including Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, IRA, and PKK do not use the descriptor terrorist. While I understand that this is a controversial and sensitive subject, we are obligated to maintain an unbiased viewpoint. The neutral presentation of facts alone has an unprecedented ability to convey the true character of any individual or organization. Additionally, unless this article intends to ironically secede from relevant NPOV policies such as WP:MORALIZE and WP:TERRORIST, there must be a unique rationale to justify the use of a potentially biased term.

Pursuant to the the Sri Lanka Dispute Resolution Agreement, I have performed a single revert on the aforementioned text, and would like to recommend seeking NPOV/N or RfC should any discrepancies remain. Feel free to contact me on my talk page with any further concerns or comments.   — C M B J   02:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your talk page I think it is clear who really has bias here. Good job at re-writing history to suit your propaganda needs, you win for now but only because you outnumber the truth temporarily. --Mista-X (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two users keep deleting entire passages in the Genetic Studies section claiming that my sources are not verifiable. My sources are the most detailed of the entire genetic studies section and they are studies conducted by the University of Stanford. Need your help to stop the vandalism and edit war. Edwards Scholar (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Kerr avon, I thought you may be interested in joining WikiProject Sri Lanka. We work on creating, expanding and making general changes to Sri Lanka related articles. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Members Page! Thank You. Blackknight12 (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see an important notice at WT:SLR#Should we close down this project? — Sebastian 08:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago you participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajkumar Kanagasingam. As the article has recently been recreated, and nominated again for deletion, you are invited to participate in the new discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajkumar Kanagasingam (2nd nomination). —Psychonaut (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]