From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Welcome!
Hello Meowy! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! — Khoikhoi 01:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
Getting Started
|
|
|
|
Getting your info out there
|
|
|
|
Getting more Wikipedia rules
|
|
|
|
|
Getting Help
|
|
|
|
Getting along
|
|
|
|
Getting technical
|
|
|
|
|
[edit] Uncivil
This edit summary "(→Request for Comment - inverted commas added to help Badbilltucker grasp the nuances of English.) " is uncivil and a personal attack. Consider this your last warning due to your other behaviour on Talk:Turkish Van. If you continue such behaviour, you will be blocked to prevent it. pschemp | talk 21:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Point of disagreement
For what little it's worth, it should be noted that Pschemp, as an admin, can do that without consulting anyone. I would not myself in this instance, but I am not her. I am writing for a separate purpose, to perhaps try to make it clearer to you why several other people do not share your apparent love of the pure-white type. There is clear evidence that pure-white cats, through some genetic arrangement, are more likely than other cats to be genetically deaf. If you review the three stated detriments of the breed, their loudness, fondness for breaking things, and jealousy of their "territory", all three of these can be fairly easily seen to be possibly related to a hearing impairment, either of the animal itself or of those animals with whom it has to most regularly communicate. Should the animal have any coloring whatsoever, then they are remarkably less likely to be hearing-impaired. Considering that the three cited detriments are what made some one source describe these animals as bad house pets, I can say that I personally think that being pure-white may well be in and of itself a survival disadvantage, particularly for an animal which, to some extent, exists today primarily as a human house pet. To people who seek the survival and prospering of the individual animal as being of paramount importance, rather than the survival of a particular genetic trait, your insistence upon attempting to preserve the monochrome white cat, even at the individual animal's increased likelihood of not succeeding in the domestic animal area, sounds uncomfortably similar to Adolf Hitler's eugenics programs. I want you to realize I am not comparing you personally to Hitler, simply pointing out how someone else could see a similarity between the two positions. By advocating the forced continuation of this genetically-disadvantaged type of animal, many cat lovers could see you as putting some outside consideration (in this case, national pride in a national symbol) over and above the health of the individual animal, which many animal lovers, including myself and possibly Pschemp, find deeply unpleasant. Particulary when the probability of genetic disadvantage can be greatly decreased by a small, purely cosmetic change, in this case, adding some coloring to the animal. It should be noted that the Turkish Van does not suffer from noticably high incidences of deafness. In fact, I could argue that the Turkish employee who gave the two British women the cats was perhaps trying to preserve the beloved Turkish cat by finding two of the more adoptable animals, which would rule out the pure-white deaf ones, and having the women take them out and make them as popular overseas as they are in Turkey. Your repeated insistence that only the genetically-disadvantaged, increased-probability deaf pure white animal is somehow the only "pure" van cat can thus be seen by these individuals as being, in effect, an attempt to justify creating animals whose lives could be made easier and possibly more fulfilling without the intervention of the "breed police". I can well understand how you place a different priority on things than either Pschemp, who, as a cat breeder, clearly loves animals, and I, who at one point during a local flood was housing 12 animals (11 cats, 1 dog) in a four-room apartment, do. In fact, I could possibly even go so far as to say that the pure-white type may be losing an evolutionary battle to the genetically-less-disadvantaged other kind. Also, I am myself sufficiently knowledgable about felines in particular to know that coloring in and of itself is in no cases cause to consider that animals are in any way of a different breed, and, on that basis, discount your claim of the "pure-white" breed as being inconsistent with external evidence. As you will note, I spend a few hours trying to improve an article about the pure-white animal to give it a chance to be seen by a greater number of people on the main page. You, because of your insistence in inserting your historical quotes and interpretations, clearly disqualified the article for consideration, even if I had not myself removed it. In fact, Pschemp had already added a statement on the nomination page to the effect that your insertion of POV material effectively disqualified it. In conclusion, I would strongly suggest you do the following: (1) review the materials for newcomers which are referenced in the template at the top of this page, (2) perhaps create a userpage for yourself, indicating your particular areas of interest and expertise (red-link names are often viewed suspiciously, as single-purpose accounts like vandals and slanderers are the ones most likely to not create a userpage), and (3) perhaps either join a group or project, maybe like some in the Project Directory, which will allow you to have an increased number of contacts and an increased number of more-experienced editors to be able to call upon when you have to. Alternately, there is a new program in which experienced editors will "adopt" a new user to help show them the ropes, as it were. I myself objected to the implicit derrogation of the newcomer by the word "adopt", but was overruled. Then, the editor who decides to help you out will be one you can turn to when you have questions or other concerns. I noted that you claim to have a good deal of knowledge about the Anatolia region. I am certain that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Turkey would welcome your joining their group, and giving them any input you might be able to. Also, as an active member of both WikiProject Cats and WikiProject Dogs, I saw in one of the sources how the Turkish government has also placed the kaldang dog on the list of protected species. We do not yet have any content on this animal, and I am certain that the Dogs and Dog breeds projects would welcome anything you might be able to give us which could provide some information on this breed we currently have no content on. Also, I strongly suggest you review all the material cited above referring to our objections to POV and conclusions in content. In any event, I hope you realize that I think it likely that none of those who disagree with you are inherently trying to make money or trying to lead to the death of a national symbol, but are more trying to fight for what they perceive as being the principles of wikipedia and the best possible circumstances for all the animals we are discussing. Badbilltucker 17:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
