User:Mboverload/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User talk:Cool Cat/Archive/Note

Contents

[edit] Armenian Genocide

Unfortunately I don't have the time or skills to effectively mediate this disagreement. I posted on the talk page in an attempt to steer the discussion in a productive direction. There was far too much discussion about users and not enough about the article itself. I see that Fadix has listed some points that he disagrees with. I'd recommend responding to these points with evidence of why you believe they are valid or invalid points. The first step is to identify precisely what the disagreement is about. Until that is done, I doubt that consensus can be reached. Just keep your cool ;) and take a break if you start to get frustrated. Carbonite | Talk 00:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk

It is okay for other users to make comments to each other on my talk page. Please don't tick them off for doing so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:21, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, I am just trying to keep my talk, my talk page. I dont want their discussion to develope here interfering with my communication with other people. I do not have such a discussion as the Armenian Genocide article is taking too much of my time. :(

[edit] Your templates

Your templates are nothing but an attempt to subvert the consensus. You wanted to redirect Abdullah Ocalan to Kurdistan Workers Party, and got NO support. Trying to accomplish the same thing through your templates is not acceptable. -- Curps 11:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not a sensible way to organize the two articles. There are many similar cases to this throughout Wikipedia (related but distinct topics), and templates are not used to duplicate large portions of text between two articles. -- Curps 12:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that they're a little unorthodox. Coolcat, if you want to do things this way you have to obtain a consensus. You can't just ride roughshod over other editors and then complain when they express a dislike for your unorthodox use of template transclusion.

I think it's the point about consensus that you're neglecting most of all. Consensus means reaching an agreement as a group. You're full of innovative bold idea, and this is good, but you can't just keep throwing a sulk every time your ideas are rejected. If you learn to listen to what people say, they will listen to you and they will, I promise you, be willing to cooperate with the best of your ideas. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stressed

I know your pretty stressed. But I still can't see how misspelling your name is insultive. Try to calm down and talk things over with Tony Sidaway. I think he's trying to get this whole thing sorted. Mgm|(talk) 12:26, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • They may well be, but look at the title of this page: User talk:Coolcat. Officially speaking it's your username and it sounds the same. Is there any hidden meaning to this I'm not getting? Mgm|(talk) 12:59, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)


Coolcat, I know this is stressful but at bottom it's a content issue. We have a basic principle here that may help you: Assume good faith. If they have an issue with your attitude or your edits, make an effort to listen to what they're saying. Stop being defensive and insisting they're wrong and are behaving unreasonably, and accept that there is something about your behavior that has upset them. Then as a sign of your own good faith, stop doing whatever it is, and concentrate on gaining their trust. Believe me, a week or so spent listening to them will be a lot better for your wikistress than a week of battling to get edits done while they're just sitting around waiting to revert them.

What I'm saying is: be less quick to return attacks in kind. If you really, really want to dumbfound and impress people with your skills, start to listen to and respond to their criticisms. Believe me this will build up an incredible store of goodwill and make them more likely, in turn, to listen to you. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not about to block editors over a series of content disputes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MacGyver

I will somewhere in the future, but I'm currently working on Ancient Egypt articles. To be more specific, I'm trying to get Mummy complete enough to be a FAC. Sorry. Mgm|(talk) 12:44, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2003 Invasion of Iraq

Hi, since you are active in the article, I believe we can work together for a second time to merge lost of articles cluttering wikipedia. Us working together is very productive in my opinion. Since I know the wiki way I dont think we will have the "newbie friction". --Cool Cat My Talk 11:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I'm getting through to you.
Firstly, it was pretty rude to just archive all talk, even ongoing conversations. As another user has pointed out, it makes it look as if you want to suppress or hide something. It doesn't matter what your real intentions are (and I personally am sure there was no underhand intent), it's what people will think of your behavior that matters. Please be more considerate.
Secondly, I'm not convinced that there is any need to merge all of these articles. The current version of 2003 invasion of Iraq already has a lot of detail and is comparatively large. Merging other article in could not be done reasonably without some pretty severe editing, and also a loss of focus from the circumstances of the invasion and the events surrounding it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Nagorno Karabakh

The following resource describes this subject in full details:

Coolcat is not interested to mediate the Karabagh article, he want again to introduce his national biases in an Armeno-Turk related article. Fadix 21:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • This conflicts with the wiki "Assume good failt"

[edit] talking: Listen

In order to talk effectively, first you need to listen. Listen to what people are saying, show them that you are listening. Everybody knows what your opinion is now, but you need to show that you are listening to criticism. You've not done anything bad, but you've still managed to annoy a lot of people. People are upset at you. You have to take that into account, and show that you're willing to change the way you work so as not to annoy them. When you've got used to listening to people, then you'll have a better idea of what to say and how to say it effectively. I mean this. Listen. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:45, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I replied to you, User:Coolcat, on User talk:Davenbelle 05:30, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Read Davenbelle's answer. I second that. Stereotek 08:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

Hello,
I deleted those templates. Using subpages in the article or template namespaces is discouraged and there's no general concencus to use templates to transclude overlapping text. Please try to get such a consensus on for example the village pump. In the mean time, I've moved the pages to your user space:

  • User:Coolcat/External links
  • User:Coolcat/Abdullah Öcalan

They don't have to be in the template namespace to be transcluded, so you can still do that from here. Be advised, you should give other users permission to edit those pages, so they don't think you are keeping the pages for yourself or trying to own them. Good luck! Mgm|(talk) 07:39, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

There is no consensus on trancluding subpages in a user's namespace into articles or talk pages either; this is unprecedented and unacceptable. Please discuss this before attempting it; discuss it not just with me, but with mav. — Davenbelle 09:05, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
See my talk page — Davenbelle 07:51, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mummy

I'm currently looking for info about purpoted (sp?) medicinal and magical powers of mummies in China and other countries. I'm purposely saving Egyptian burial rituals for a separate article as I think they warrant their own article, so please don't include them in Mummy. I'd be happy if you started Egyptian burial rituals, though. Mgm|(talk) 07:58, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain why you renamed the page Egyptian burial rituals and protocol? To me it seems like an overly long name. Mgm|(talk) 11:50, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Small note: It doesn't matter if you link to [[lung]]s or [[lung|lungs]] as it has the same effect. So there's no need to go change such links, unless linking in the first way causes spelling errors. Mgm|(talk) 13:10, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Carr

- As someone said to me a while back, he's like that to everybody. Dunno what his problem is, but he's a bit of a drama queen. Seems to take things personally and isn't keen on providing sources. Just stick to stuff you can prove and ask him for checkable sources and you should be right. Pete 05:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't you think that as an elite historian, he just might have enough of ignorants and their anti-elitist mentality on participating in subjects they know little about? Just a hypotheses. Fadix 00:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry what happened in 1997 is not history. The S-300 crisis bothered a lot of people. Not Just the Turks. You dont buy AA missles from russia if you are a NATO member, you dont try to smuggle it either.

Everything I suggested is vaild. Some are just format siggestions, I have a rewording request and one clarification request on what happen to a trety.

[edit] Armenian Genocide

Thank you for your kind welcome on Armenian Genocide. I don't think I will stay long, though. I appreciate your being extremely constructive and patient on those debates. I honestly admire your maturity to avoid all aggression and provocation of Fadix and others. I noticed that Fadix was overly assertive and aggressive, so I decided to interrupt aggressively to show theyself and the moderators that Fadix is not behaving appropriately. I am not sure how much it helped and honestly it is not doing good for my own health to face that kind of shamelessness and aggression. So I don't think I will continue discussion, unless Fadix can achieve provocating me again. I hope my conclusions will be useful for you to clean the from Fadix's professional propaganda. It is a good thing being constructive and not being trapped into provocation, I also believe that you can do better for everybody if you go slowly.

Cezveci 08:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Coolcat, for the interest of the entire Wikipedian community, why have you lied about you? Fadix 00:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, In reality I am a CIA agent. If I tell you I have to kill you. Seriously speaking, I did not "lie" abou myself, I value my anonymity. Apparently you don't with the level of personal information you've provided. Its the preferences we have in life. --Cool Cat My Talk 00:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No Coolcat, you did lie. Why did you wanted people to believe you were not a Turk, when you are one? I just am trying to understand here. Fadix 00:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
According to place of birth, hospital records, passport, etc. I am not a Turk. According to my family tree I still not am a Turk. Even if I were that would change absolutely nothing. Your "investigation" of my identitiy is greatly NOT appriciated and do not call me Mr. Coolcat. Quit it, damn it even DAV can learn something so simple faster. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Coolcat, this has nothing to do with identity search, this has to do with trust of users... when discussing among us, I hope to trust the other user. You have claimed to not be a Turk, yet has claimed that the genocide is accusations against your encestors, you have used the term "Armanians" to refer to the Armenians in various occasions, a common mistake Turks make. You got involved in every entries involving directly or indirectly Turkey, and always editing in one direction. You have called the Armenian genocide theses as an "Armenian propaganda" while no one besides the Turks call it such. You have made claims only published in Turkish newspapers. And those are just few among many other things. Statistically speaking, again I repeat, there is more chances that I win the lottery than you not being a Turk, and I have shown you why first. How do you now expect that I believe that you are ready to change your positions in articles when you are mistaken, when you lie about something that you know others know. Fadix 14:08, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not a Turk. Do not edit archives please. --Cool Cat My Talk 03:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute rsolution

I am afraid I'm going to decline your offer at this point. I already have a skilled Mediator, Danny, and to my knowledge, neither my advocate, Wally nor myself, nor Danny, nor Sam Spade have been issued with a request for a change. I am hopeful that Danny could attend to mediating the dispute soon. Also, you do not seem to be a member of the Mediation Committee, which is indicative a standard as per mediation skills – since I have never met you before and have no way to gauge on your abilities on that front (without expending time that, I, at the moment, do not have). Finally, who is Kevehs? I am not inclined to have him/her participate in the mediation since I have never heard of that individual until your brief announcement on my talk page. Best, El_C 05:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Ill break Up the dispute for you guys.

[edit] Not comeete material but,

No I am not in the mediation comitee, I am being bold. I believe I have the skills. Best way to prove is impliment I have seen two disputes with the same user, your counterpart. I assumed you guys were related. You are welcome to try me though, Danny may be over booked. ;) --Cool Cat My Talk 06:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not find your answer addressed my abovecited concerns to my satisfaction. As I said, Danny has formally accepted mediating this case, he is the current mediator. Best, El_C 06:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've broken the template separately. Now you are two different things. Liks will stay available on my user:talk page.

I would prefer if you removed it as I don't wish for you to be the mediator in our dispute. Thanks. Hope you understand. Best, El_C 06:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mediation request denied...
Is that really necessary? El_C 06:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Coolcat, I'm Wally, El C's advocate in the Sam Spade dispute. Sorry it has taken me a bit to speak to you.

I really appreciate your offer to mediate for us on this dispute — it shows the stuff that good Wikipedians are made of. At the moment we have to pass, as we've set up with the (notoriously-slow) MedCom a mediator to help us through it, who is unfortunately having personal problems at the moment that make him unable to take care of the issue. Until then we're trying just to let the thing simmer until we can get started again. As the mediator is one we've all already agreed upon, it's just easier to let that lie than to make a switch. However, should that for any reason change, chances are you'll be my first message.

Yours, Wally 23:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your mesage

I'm sorry not to have replied to (and thanked you for) your message and compliments; I've overstretched myself, and become badly behind keeping up with all my commitments (as well as occasionally casting an eye on the adminship process, which seems to take months when you're involved, and to fly by when you're not). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Thanks for your interest, any special reason why you've decided to focus on cases involving myself? Unlike El_C I have no objection, and progress is good progress and all of that, so thanks. I like your idea for a ranking system BTW, but why should admins deserve special status? I've been here over a year and am ranked #42 in overall edits, w over 20,000 to all namespaces. I am also an AMA advocate with 3 successful arbitrations

  1. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute
  2. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/172
  3. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IZAK

along w countless instances of helping new users (have a look @ my Archives sometime). Anyways, the idea interests me even if it does seem unbalanced in favor of admins. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] templates (your message of April 2)

Sorry for not replying sooner, I took a wikibreak. No, I didn't delete your templates; I reverted the pages that used them as per my previous messages, but did not delete the templates themselves. Looking at the delete log, I see they have been moved to User:Coolcat/Abdullah Öcalan and User:Coolcat/External links by User:MacGyverMagic. -- Curps 23:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anon User on Star Trek

We have an anon user who is changing info on the Starfleet rank article. I have asked for a source and so far all the user has done is change back to his/her previous edits. Could be a problem. We should both watch it. -Husnock 01:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute Resolution

The link you have provided on my discussion page does not post to a page that has anything to do with me. After doing some research I have found that you seemed to think this was somehow a three way dispute, but I do not know EL C and my dispute with Sam has nothing to do with him. While I very much appreciate your offer, the request for mediation is a request that, according to the policy of the mediation page, is made of those on the mediation committee. Given that you are not on that committee, and that you are currently involved in what appears to be a very hostile arbitration with another user, I would have to assume this is more of an informal attempt to mediate this dispute. I appreciate the effort, but my hopes for a positive outcome in this case are slim as is, and I believe that a formal process has a better chance of success given the proven records of the mediators in question. I also appreciate your attempt to be bold and help others work through their disputes, and I wish you luck in that endeavor. Kev 01:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Egyptian burial rituals and protocol

Maybe you forgot, but you still haven't told me why you renamed the article. Could you please do so? Mgm|(talk) 08:53, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Could you provide sources for the info you added? I'll probably add something too. Mgm|(talk) 09:44, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flag templates

Discussion moved from Wikipedia:Village_pump_(news)#Flag_templates to Template talk:Flag. Flag of the United States USA (SEWilco 19:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Merging

Merging isn't just putting the text in the article. It needs to be placed and rephrased so it fits the text already there. Also, it could simply be no one came by to merge it yet. I'll see if I can do something. (BTW, this would be one of those jobs that's perfect for the new Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce.) Mgm|(talk) 08:57, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

    • I guess it was easier than I thought. Well done. Mgm|(talk) 09:03, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ranking

I'm not too thrilled with Barnstars, either, but at least they are entirely positive. I would have no objection to creating certain levels of privilege where needed for process-oriented purposes (i.e. a level above admins that can do certain tasks now relegated to developers, or defining a level of newbie that cannot yet move articles), but I am entirely sincere in saying that if Wikipedia starts ranking its editors for the sake of ranking, I will resign on principle.

What do you do with someone like Everyking, who is a generally great editor but drives everyone batty with his Ashlee Simpson obsession? Or with Nanahuatzin, who contributes generally useful material written in non-native English that always needs major editing? Or any of several, who will remain nameless, who are knowledgable, but POV warriors. Etc. I don't us to have to think about how to rank these sorts of things, or decide how they compare. And I don't want anyone judging me on these matters, except insofar as there is a need to judge whether I am capable of discharging a particular responsibility. I feel strongly enough about this that I will not want to be part of this organization if it starts creating a hierarchy that so inherently judges people. - Jmabel | Talk 20:37, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

The rating system looks a bit funny in Firefox, although that could just be because you put it in tables --Munchkinguy 00:55, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Head template

I don't want to have the news included; I don't do anything in that field much, but I'd be happy to use some of the borders you made. :) Mgm|(talk) 07:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion and boxes

I can delete that page for you. I haven't read that red box yet, so I can't really comment on it. Mgm|(talk) 07:38, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cool page

I like your changes. In case your not aware, were accepting new positions @ Spade & Archer. Just thought you might like to know.

Cheers,

Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 23:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have replied. Cheers, Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 12:12, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hostility

You haven't been removed as far as I'm aware. Moreover, there isn't any good reason to remove you. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Faces and places

Looks great - I may have to steal your idea ;) - Guettarda 02:16, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jefferson Smith, leader of the Boy Rangers

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington — In case you didn't get this. — Davenbelle 05:28, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FOTD

I probably should've made it an Fact of the Week. It's too much of a pain to update manually, maybe another bot is in order, but I certainly think it's useful, it can draw attention to all those articles that aren't allowed in DYK. Feel free to update it :) Mgm|(talk) 08:01, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stars

Thanks, and sorry not to have got back to you sooner; things have been amazingly hectic recently, on and off Wikipedia. I thought it more modest to put the small versions on my page; they look rather sweet, though. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:22, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kurdistan

We agreed to a lot of things which we no longer, may I ask why? Why was "Kurdish separatists" removed? It isnt exactly controversial as you suggested.

Hello. Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean here. What do we no longer agree about? I don't remember removing a reference to Kurdish separatists. Which edit do you have in mind? Iota 16:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You wrote:

lets work on the articles related to Kurds and Turkey together as I have been declared "a chronic POV pusher whose edits must be reverted", I need your confirmation in matters.

That seems like a good suggestion. I'll take a look at some of those articles when I get the chance but they're not my primary interest on Wikipedia so it may take a while. Iota 18:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My talkpage

Do not edit other people's comments on my talkpage. If you want something removed because you think it is a personal attack ask me and if it's a reasonable request I'll do it for you. You are not entitled to edit another person's talkpage in this way. Iota 02:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've never addressed you as "Mr Coolcat" nor would I. You'll notice that I've struck through the word Mr, like this Mr, in the heading created by Davenbelle. This is the best way to deal with personal attacks in my opinion because it shows that they are not acceptable while keeping a record of what was originally written. I can understand why you are annoyed at the name calling. It's a bit childish. But please go about things in the right way. It's not acceptable to interfere with other people's talkpages and you'll annoy people if you do it. You also wrote:

The articles related to Kurds are under attack by two users as you can see from history, I do not know what they are trying to prove, but I will not allow the neutrality of these articles compromised

Have you actually looked at the few small edits I've made to the article today? I don't think any of them could be characterised as an "attack" on the article. And please don't make accusations against people just because you disagree with their edits.

I'm not interested in getting into bickering or creating a bad atmosphere because I think we've communicated constructively in the past. But interfering with my talkpage and comments like "I do not know what they are trying to prove" are not constructive. Iota 02:33, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh right. Stupid of me to misunderstand. Iota 02:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

I don't know about User:Davenbelle, but I've generally found that User:Stereotek is reasonable if one stay calm and engages with the issues fairly. I'll have another look at the edits, but I'm afraid this is all part of the Wikipedia experience. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that the debate has coooled — but doesn't that mean that arbitration isn't needed now? Has the page been put on RfC? I'm copy-editing it now, which should help to give me a clearer idea of what's going on. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You're getting over-heated again; talk of hurting other editors, even if meant metaphorically, is not advisable. I note that there's already a request for arbitration, incidentally. Do you really want another?
On the subject of the links at Kurdistan Workers Party, I don't really understand why you're insisting on including them. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:27, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hostility

You said "Stereotek and Davenbelle, are still reverting my edits". Well I looked at what you're doing on Kurdistan Workers Party and I'm not surprised. If I were editing that page I'd do the same myself, because you're removing external links for bogus reasons, saying for instance "I cannot allow PKK's main web page on this article, that is like putting Al-Qaeda's main web page, which likely is no longer there after CIA is done with it". We are supposed to describe all significant points of view, and an external link to the PKK website is an excellent reference for our description of their point of view. I don't think you yet fully understand NPOV. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony; User:Coolcat, you really should listen to Tony. — Davenbelle 22:28, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • You should really stop telling me to listen to people. I am capable of reading even when I am not told to do so, thanks. --Cool Cat My Talk 02:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] George Bush

As you can see this needs to stop, I recommend locking that page. How many edits are vandal, anti vandal? [1]

On the face of it, it seems that the vandalism on that page is relatively infrequent and is being reverted efficiently. What else do you think needs to be done? How would protecting the page help? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well its a disambig page, does not change, ever. why not lock it? :P --Cool Cat My Talk 10:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
To assume that it would never change in future would not be very wiki-ish. The name is not particularly uncommon and other encyclopedic George Bush's may appear at any time. Someone could make a movie called "George Bush", or write a biography with that title, or even a novel, and a new disambiguation line would beed to be added to lead to the article about that new item. Also someone could decide to move the page to George Bush (disambiguation) and create a new George Bush article in its place that is a link to one or other of the Georges, or even move George W. Bush or George H. W. Bush to George Bush--a primary topic disambiguation. This is unlikely in this case because there are two famous US Presidents with the name George Bush, but it is the kind of thing that is often done, and one day the two-term son may so totally eclipse his one-term father that it may be the right thing to do. So that editors can be bold in this way and many other ways, we like to keep the Wiki as open as possible at all times. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:04, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you insist. --Cool Cat My Talk 11:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I do. We try to leave as much as possible up to the editors so they can decide content issues by consensus. Empowering the editors is the secret ingredient of the Wiki. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Kurdistan/Pictures

Sorry about that. I re-deleted this template after reading that it had been previously deleted. However, it does not look like this went through the proper Wikipedia:Templates for deletion process. I have notified the original tagger, who will most likely list it there; you will be able to debate its eligibility on that page when it is listed. Cheers. DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:22, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

In the future, if you have any questions about a deletion you can use Special:Log/delete, where you can search by a page's name to see when it was deleted and which admin executed the deletion. You can find that under the "Special pages" menu. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:00, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Deletion log
17:06, Apr 11, 2005 DropDeadGorgias deleted "Template:Kurdistan/Pictures" (delete previously deleted article)
13:00, Apr 11, 2005 Mel Etitis deleted "Template:Kurdistan/Pictures" (non-template use of template; orphan)
  • I'd have to agree with them. Putting pictures in a template subpage isn't a proper use for templates. Firstly, subpages are discouraged within the article and template namespaces. Secondly it's a orphan image gallery. It wouldn't be of any use template wise as it drops all the pictures below each other in an article when used without regard for the text or layout.

In short, I'm not really sure why you put them in that location. Can you clarify? Mgm|(talk) 19:21, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

see: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Kurdistan/Pictures. — Sgt. Davenbelle 23:24, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR block

You have been blocked for 24 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list. Carbonite | Talk 23:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Ranking

To let you know, someone has placed the project page under a VFD. The VfD vote page is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Rankings. Zscout370 01:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was me; you really should let this idea go. —  Sgt. Davenbelle 18:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Re your recent message soliciting support: sorry, I still think it's a terrible idea, although I'm sure you meant well and obviously put a lot of thought and effort into it. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I'm responding to the request you made at my talk page on your rankings proposal, but firstly I'd like to say that I think you are (or should be) a valued contributor. The idea that "everybody hates you", is, I think and I hope, quite wrong. Sometimes in such situations a "pile-up" mentality develops that can be, well, painful for the one on the bottom. I applaud you for having the ingenuity to make your proposal in what is clearly a good-faith attempt to improve Wikipedia. Good faith, so long as you have it, is the most important thing, and I think you've exhibited it so far and responded quite properly to what criticism you have received. Just at all times remember that an attack on your proposal is in no way an attack on you.
In regards to your clarifications, I thought I'd lay out my thoughts.
You've said that the proposal is not a hierarchy - with respect, that's exactly what it is. Any progression along a scale of predetermined "promotion points" creates a hierarchy.
Secondly, as far as the voluntary nature of the thing, I think that several users have already covered the problem on the talk page there. Essentially, the problem is, if you do make it optional, it means either a small, rather silly-looking, clique who takes the whole thing seriously versus a mass of bemused outsiders, or on the other hand, a majority cabal that vigorously embraces the rankings and looks down on people who don't participate. In any case, it's rather a stark division. If the scheme is voluntary, it just loses the elements of predictability and uniformity that I would assume were its motivations in the first place.
You seem to think the subjective nature of barnstars is an undesirable thing. While I can understand why that view might come about, my position as elaborated on the project talk page is that it is essential that the assignment of barnstars remain a personal, subjective thing. Otherwise, it interferes with the two vitally important aspects of the project: openness to outsiders (in that a barnstar isn't a pre-requisite for status: plenty of good users don't have or don't like them, yet they're still respected), and the collegiate nature of the community, where people stand on their own record as contributors rather than the number of barnstars or plaudits they receive.
The big, central problem with basing it on contributions is that it gives a weight to contributions that they really shouldn't have. Frankly, it's stupid to be obsessing about people's contributions relative to each other; it doesn't even mean anything anyway, since a billion minor edits are not necessarily more valuable than one, comprehensive, well-worked rewrite.
My point is that it really doesn't matter what form the project takes, since its objective (uniform, predictable rankings based on things such as edit counts) is basically harmful rather than helpful. So long as that's the general sort of idea behind it, any kind of permutation is likely to be found unacceptable by the Wikipedia community.
--But those are just my thoughts.

Cheers, Slac speak up! 12:18, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Coolcat. At risk of succumbing to the "pile-on" mentality he mentioned, I'm going to have to agree with just about everything that Slac said. I believe you made a good-faith proposal, and I agree that it is worthwhile to recognize significant contributors to the Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I also believe that any set of formal criteria and rankings are vulnerable to abuse or plain old bad feelings.
I suspect that most Wikipedians would appreciate a personal note on their talk page (or a barnstar, where appropriate) when they've done good work. I don't think that it would be helpful for people to be thinking, "If I can crank out an extra hundred edits, I'll be able to add another pip to my rank insignia."

My two cents. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 12:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, I can see the exploits, we have discussed methods to cover those. I am open for suggestions. Before project dies, I want to make it as "good" as posible :)
Hi Cool Cat. Sorry, I still don't agree. Ranking of any sort (except for Jimbo) is hopelessly against the ideals of Wikipedia. There are forums that encourage ranking, and I've followed my own ranking on these forums. The very presence of the ranking system, voluntary or not, shows that Wikipedia supports this. I can see some people who use the ranking system using five or six edits to do something that would take the average contributor one or two edits. There are, of course, other problems with this ranking system, but I don't want to sound like a broken record. This is not an attack on you by any means, because I really see you as a good faith editor and a valuable contributor. But I am dead set against this idea, and it appears my opinion is not in the minority. --Deathphoenix 13:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I value views, even views that oppose me, in fact more. I have issues with people who in my opinion vandalise the project, you are by no means anyhting like that. :) --Cool Cat My Talk 14:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Coolcat. :) I can see this is a very contentious issue, so I would rather stay out of it. As I state on my user page, I consider all edits that I personally make to Wikipedia to be in the public domain, so you may place the Tote the Ranks thing anywhere you would like. Best regards, func(talk) 16:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copy from my talk page:

  • This is not suggesting a hierarcal system.
  • It will be used only by users who want to use it.
  • Only ranking will be assigend to users who want to use it.
  • The idea ment to make it like barn stars, but based on regular contribution.
  • It is currently a prototype, likely that it is nothing like the final version.

I urge you to reconsider your vote based on this clarification. Thanks --Cool Cat My Talk 08:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One by one:

  • This is not suggesting a hierarcal system.
    It had me fooled. You know, with the name "rankings", and the levels, and the pseudo-military insignia, and all the trappings of hierarchy with nothing to suggest otherwise.
  • It will be used only by users who want to use it.
  • Only ranking will be assigend to users who want to use it.
    And how many users want to use it? Two? Three? If they want to award each other meaningless ranks that nobody else cares about, they don't need a WikiProject.
  • The idea ment to make it like barn stars, but based on regular contribution.
    Barnstars are an entirely informal method of congratulating Wikipedians who do good work. They're slightly silly, but they're positive, and they're harmless, and they don't suggest a hierarchy in any way. This system is also silly, but if used would be harmful (there's quite enough rank-pulling already, mostly by sysops), and it does suggest a hierarchy, your protests notwithstanding.
  • It is currently a prototype, likely that it is nothing like the final version.
    Which means nothing if the whole idea is misguided, as I believe it is.

My opinion stands. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Cool Cat. I've looked over the points you make on my talk page. I apologize, but I can't change my vote. I do see your point. You want a better way to recognize the great heroes of wikipedia, and I can surely appreciate that. Call me alarmist, though, but I just worry about the potential abuses of the system, that it'll make wikipedia into a pissing contest. Sorry. --InShaneee 18:48, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Like the others, I have nothing against you, and harbor no personal resentments against you regarding the Rankings project. However, I object to the project because it certainly does suggest hierarchy, which I feel goes against the Wikipedia communal spirit. --Andy M. 19:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Same here. Rankings are inherently and inescapably hierarchical. Insignia or other indicators of rank are likely to be intimidating to newbies. Thanks for your efforts to improve Wikipedia, but this is not the way. FreplySpang (talk) 00:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) I've looked over your message, but decided not to change my vote. Essentially, it seems like it would at least introduce a risk of hierarchy (not that it would necessarily lead to one), and I think the benefits would be very small, indeed largely intangible. Please don't take it personally, but I just don't feel this is in WP's best interest. Yours, Meelar (talk) 18:31, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Don't let rude people get you down. They don't mean it personally, it's just that sometimes it's very easy to forget that there's a real person with real feelings on the other side of the computer. As far as I'm concerned, you've been showing a great deal of dignity by your stoic perseverance in the face of their words. – ClockworkSoul 03:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Coolcat. It seems that there is a substantial consensus now that your first Rankings proposal isn't something the Wikipedia community is comfortable with. Perhaps you might be better off to start fresh—propose something new that doesn't have the baggage of the first proposal associated with it. You might also consider presenting new ideas through Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals; it strikes me as a sensible forum for that type of discussion. Don't get disheartened. Happy editing, --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:12, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(Response to comments on my talk page) The impression I get from the comments is that most editors seem reasonably content—if not necessarily copletely satisfied—with the very informal system of barnstars and related awards. Most editors have a finite amount of time to contribute to Wikipedia, so asking them to contribute a substantial amount of time to radically revise a project that they feel isn't helpful isn't likely to work. If you would like to develop a new system of awards, then you're probably going to have to sketch out most of the lines yourself...there doesn't seem to be a perceived need among much of the community.
If you can come up with something that appeals to a substantial fraction of editors, then you'll no doubt have lots of people clamoring to edit and revise—but coming up with the basic framework is something you'll probably have to do on your own or with a kernel of dedicated volunteers. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)



[edit] duplicate content in WP:TFD

Hi - I'm trying to help chase down how various articles end up with wholesale duplication (see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#duplicate_content_in_articles) and there was an instance of this a few minutes ago from a diff attributed to you. Do you happen to remember exactly what happened? Did you encounter an edit conflict window? If so, do you remember exactly what you did? Thanks. -- Rick Block 14:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] I be damned

You are actually thinking Fadix does not use personal attacks against me? I try to stay civil, I can only handle a level of insults. I cannot mediate this crap, Fadix will stop his insistance on HIS/Someone elses pov regarding Armenian Genocde and deal with me in a civil tone. Cool Cat My Talk 15:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am the one declared pulic enemy no 1, its perfectly fine to have material that makes Kurds or Armenians look good, their propaganda and POV are fine, no one has to show sources for their beefed up statistics, or information they add unless they are Coolcat, which I do, still is POV. Dont, tell me to chill. I am perfectly calm. I think its unjust what I am living through. --Cool Cat My Talk 15:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They intercept my communications to other users, they comment on their talk page about my "bad conduct" they go great lenghts to find my "POV". I feel like a POW rather than POV-pusher. I should not be the person seeking mediation, they are. I backed donw from a lot of facts of mine. I constantly back down they constantly engage. Them agreeing with me on anything is un heard of. I have to revert something a dozen times for them to accept it. They are wasiting my time. --Cool Cat My Talk 15:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't just *think* Fadix uses personal attacks against you, I *know* he does. I agree that you're being treated unfairly. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:35, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Define personal attacks please. Fadix 17:12, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about? "It's perfectly fine to have material that makes Kurds or Armenians look good, their propaganda and POV are fine,"
What kind of mentality is this? It is a damn encyclopedia, it has nothing to do with "looking good" and this is purely offensive, in the same line as your message as trying to picture a population as not entirely innocent etc. Do everything possible to get people angry at you, and then, tell how unjustfuly you are treated.
We interrupts your communication with other users? Look dude, you go cry to every users to try to get them against members, you've been doing this from the beginning, starting with BM and the way you've turned him against me, when he had no clue of what was happening. You don't expect me to sit there and cross my fingers wishing that those users that have no clue will just won't turn against a member that they didn't even knew the existence of before(me).
Maybe it is time for you to take vacation from the articles involving Turkey, there are many nationalist Turks that already POV push, like those that try to claim Trow habitants were Turks, or members like Tabib. You are not the only one, there are many that will gladly take your place. Fadix 17:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Precis

I'd like to call your attention to this. — Davenbelle 23:20, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

This is not about interfering with arbitration; it is a request, originating with an ArbCom member, for a short summary of the complaints; Tony has prepared one, that includes your view. You initiated this case, and, if I may be so bold, should at least respond. — Davenbelle 23:47, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Cat, David Gerard asked if all parties, including you, could agree on a brief description of what the allegations being made are--not whether they're true, but whether they're being alleged. This will help them to make sense of all the babble and decide whether there is a case that needs their involvement. I'm openly pushing for them to recommend earlier stages in dispute resolution and I'm fairly sure that will be the outcome of this application. The others think it's gone too far but they probably don't have my experience with arbcom cases. As you're all communicating and aren't being deliberately abusive (though you're all being uncivil to one another) it seems likely to me that a good honest go at mediation will help you all to see eye to eye. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They declare my edits as POV and never bother to read talk, do not expect me to be nice to them. They are being silly rude and I have been patient with them long enough. Ill work on arbitration. --Cool Cat My Talk 00:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note that my communication with fadix is different. --Cool Cat My Talk 00:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wetman

What are your experiences with Wetman? He seems to be a troll, and is causing some problems for me. I want to know if others are sharing this experience. RK 01:11, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

See, for example, Talk:Book of Ezekiel

[edit] Vandalism

Yes I checked it first; it does not meet the definition of vandalism. Please move the dispute to a more appropriate page. Jayjg (talk) 03:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] real people

what? These are real people? I just thought they were some kind of Turing automata. unigned User Talk:151.207.240.3 11:59, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] red green color blind

These 3 look almost exactly like these 3 with the differences being

  1. I notice right off that the first group has 4 curves where the second group has right angles
  2. I look closer and notice the second group's ball has a barely noticeable something under it.
  3. I look at the source and see that one is supposed to be red and the other is supposed to be gold. I can't tell which is which without checking the source.

I'm red green color blind and your method of identifying (officers from nonofficers ?} doesn't work for me. Just thought you'd like to know. At night green traffic lights are white to me, while in the sunlight the red traffic light looks broken (I see diminished red, among other things) 4.250.27.129 18:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colours

I can work on improving that. Can you see gold pips with black background like: --Cool Cat My Talk 01:08, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Red is the command uniform in the serries. Engineering is Gold background. Science is greenish. Etc.. I can pu them with those backgrounds. Whould that help?

[edit] Big blue box at top of this page

Perhaps it might be nicer to write that in positives, rather than negatives. Hmmm, in fact, check out Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset (shameless plug ;-), Perhaps you might want to use that instead! :-) Kim Bruning 21:53, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nato ranks

Haven't been working on it. Kind of stuck with that regard, as I don't really know where to go. I have also been working on the airport template. Burgundavia 05:50, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

I noticed that your 'Masterpeice 3' Diagnosis Murder, has been removed as a copyvio. In the future, please, do not submit copyrighted work without permission. Stereotek 19:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] ...

I have been constantly harassed, pursuied, annoyed by Stereotek, Davenbelle, and Fadix. Since no one will end this I hereby leave wikipedia. This is not a friednly community for me currently. Depending on the desicion of arbitration comitee I may return. --Cool Cat My Talk 00:06, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Coolcat, I'm sorry to see that you're leaving. Drop me a line if you decide to visit or come back. silsor 01:39, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

If you feel you're being harassed, you could always ditch this account, start a new one, and stay far away from your old articles. silsor 16:12, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
I think Ill stick with very limited contribution. --Cool Cat My Talk 09:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GAP Project

I just noticed that a large part of the article that you call 'Masterpeice 2', GAP Project, is a copy-paste/possible copyvio from [2]. I just removed the offending content. Stereotek 08:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure use proper median to report it. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:18, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The content it obviously copy/pasted from the webpage that I provided. If you want it to remain here on Wikipedia, you must provide evidence that we can legally publish it under the GNU Free Documentation License. Stereotek 08:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I provided the website where you copy/pasted it from. Did you ever notice this?: "By submitting your work you promise you wrote it yourself, or copied it from public domain resources — this does not include most web pages." Anyway, in what way has I "threatened" you? Stereotek 08:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

fyi, I listed it as a possible copyvio. — Davenbelle 09:01, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Yes work together, find ways to remove all my content. I own rights for those. --Cool Cat My Talk 09:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

fyi, I listed Image:AtaturkDam.jpg, too. — Davenbelle 22:31, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks

Personal Attacks are Unnaceptable.WP:No personal attacks --Cool Cat My Talk 11:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course, and I am a supporter of WP:NPA. I was just trying to point out that there are two different schools of thought to responding to attacks, namely Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks (which advocates removal) and Wikipedia:Talk page#Standards and conventions of writing and layout (which advocates that "as a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission"). Given the sensitivities of the article in question, and given that there is currently a request for arbitration, I merely thought that it might be safer to avoid editing other people's comments, at least in order for ArbCom to get the full picture should they accept the case. --bainer 13:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:DiagMurder.jpg

fyi, I've also listed Image:DiagMurder.jpg as a possible copyvio. — Davenbelle 23:00, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Good job --Cool Cat My Talk 05:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] now this is a personal attack

"Stop being silly, do you have some sort of sick wet dream to stare at a dead naked woman? Or do you enjoy staring at dead chineese? Not everyone likes to see the pictures, but people can read." diff — Davenbelle 06:47, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not quite

I dont see that as a personal attack, you are welcome to fill a complaint though. Please stop reverting a topic which you are not a part of the discussion. There are things we agreed in the disucssion(s) and agreements long before I arrived at the article. Ignoring concensius is not good practice and waistes my and your time. --Cool Cat My Talk 06:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well I see it as an entirely obvious one; and I note that you archived your talk page within minutes of my first posting it here. — Davenbelle 07:03, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

I archive it whenever I wish, I dont have to archive either. --Cool Cat My Talk 07:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course you're free to archive six minutes after a post such as mine; you're free to do it a second time after I reply. And I'm free to re-post this here while you sit-out your three revert rule violation block -- one of which was accompanied by the above edit summary. — Davenbelle 09:40, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] fyi, Davenbelle

http://www.princeton.edu/~nanking/html/nanking_gallery.html

[edit] Japanese war crimes

OK. no one has altered the page for a week, so I think there is a consensus of words now. Can w eget rid of the disputed sticker now ?

Lincolnshire Poacher 07:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diagnosis: Murder

I've deleted copivio versions of this article. Please don't add copyvio material without getting permission first. (I didn't see any permission granted in the talk page emails, correct me if I'm wrong).

Also, don't remove copyvio notices from pages that include copyright violations. Thanks --Duk 16:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, with regards to the statement You can add it if you like in the talk page; who is this from, when was it received, and to which website does it refer?
Add this information to the talk page, so the person clearing copyvios (me at the moment) can understand what is going on, and I'll restore the paragraph in question. thanks --Duk 01:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
PS. it looks like your waiting for a permission on a second website but haven't gotten it yet, is this right?--Duk 01:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
PPS. you noted...How do you expect me to prove it?. I'm not asking you for proof, and I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I just need better notes on the talk page to understand which website you got permission from. --Duk 01:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikiproject Graphical content problem

Hmm, seems like some images disturb some parties. I think we can sove this by something like this project. --Cool Cat My Talk 04:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You suggest that, for instance, the picture displayed at Clitoris should be censored in some way. It's been discussed at length before, and the consensus is that such pictures should be shown inline and no warning messages should be displayed. Basically, we expect our readers to act like grownups and not look at pictures they don't like. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you click on the "disclaimers" link on any page on Wikipedia, you'll see this warning:
  • General disclaimer - Use Wikipedia at your own risk - Wikipedia does not give medical advice - Wikipedia does not give legal opinions - Wikipedia contains spoilers and content you may find objectionable
The last part is linked to the content disclaimer which says, amongst other things:
  • Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy.
  • Wikipedia may contain triggers for people with post-traumatic stress disorder.
Every single Wikipedia article contains the disclaimer link
What I and quite a few other editors do not want to see is the intrusion of such warnings into the text of the encyclopedia, to the detriment of article quality. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well you say this is about caring about people, but the examples you give are absurd: people who faint at the sight of blood and whatnot. We can't go around censoring an encyclopedia just because some people are of what used to be described as a "nervous disposition." The important thing is that the articles should be well written and well illustrated. People who don't like looking at pictures don't have to download them, let alone look at them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You write Any web site you go where pictures of dead people are present you see warnings. Well you can certainly argue that this should be the case. What you cannot say is that this is the case:

Time magazine picture of dead man in Sierra Leone]

Don't use falsehoods and invalid generalizations to argue your case. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:12, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They don't have much influence and their judgement was shown to be suspect during the arbcom application. I think this idea for censoring images shows you doing really good work--defending an innovative idea and by doing so forcing people to think about why they reject it. That I disagree with it is not a problem--I disagree with many other editors on a lot of points but this does not mean I don't respect them.
You've had a rather hard time, and attracted an unwanted entourage of anti-fans, but you have potential to be a really great editor. Please don't go. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi CoolCat. I would urge you to not take these things personally. You've made many constructive and helpful edits to Wikipedia, and I see by the barnstar on your User page that they've been gratefully acknowledged by the community.

People on Wikipedia propose policies all the time. Sometimes they're rejected by the community; occasionally that rejection is a bit...terse. In this case, the issue of restricting access to images on Wikipedia has come up many times before, so some of the more senior editors are perhaps a bit tired of addressing the same questions over and over. (For example, the question of graphic violence came up on Templates for Deletion a couple of weeks ago.)

Don't be discouraged because a few of your ideas haven't been enthusiastically accepted. Listen to what other people are saying; learn from their suggestions. If you want to create new policy, the best place to start may be the Village Pump; you can sound out the community before creating a full-blown Wikiproject. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 14:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flags

So you been to the Vatican but not to Italy, strange? --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have lived in Italy for 2 years. I see it as a "culture exposed" rather than a mere visit.
Ahh i missed it in the line above. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nagorno Karabakh (by Alberto Laija)

I read the article on Nagorno Karabakh, and personally found it very objective, neutral and accurate.

I understand that this is a very controversial topic (maybe only the Israel-Palestinian conflict can be more controversial)

I think the article should remain as it is, and only updated when relevant events occur.

Given present the facts on that region, and as it was accurately stated (Intransigence on both parts)it's to be forecasted that Status Quo will prevail for a considerable time.

[edit] Deletewhy

If it's a redirect then redirect it insted of just copying it over. Also you might want to use Template:db if you are frustrated by a lot of typing. Cheers! BrokenSegue 01:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peggy Kerry

Hi there. I noticed you listed Peggy Kerry as a candidate for speedy deletion, but that's really reserved for nonsense articles. The article was already on VfD, and that's where it belongs. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 05:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy templates and VfD

Hi there! It's not so cool to slap speedy templates on articles already on VfD. Just let the VfD discussion run its due course, there ain't no hurry. Lupo 07:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] changing Sikth member articles to redirects

I noticed you changed these pages to redirects. Please do not do so at this time. The Vfd notice clearly says to not blank the page or remove the notice while the Vfd is in progress, and you did both of these things. Also the consensus of the Vfd is right now to speedy delete without any redirect, so if you were going to be bold you would ideally have carried through the speedy nominations. I have now done this myself. Please be aware of the dangers of your actions, you could well be seen as subverting or even defying the Vfd process. Thank you for your time. Master Thief Garrett 23:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Solana

Thank you for your help at Javier Solana. The disputants have been referred to advocacy for resolution, and we no longer require an outside mediator. Thanks! KC9CQJ 04:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] British Ranks

Hey, you should check out your page edit on the enlisted british ranks, there's a problem with the formatting =p Melsith 05:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)