User talk:Snchduer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my Talk page. Feel free to post your comments here.

Place new edits on the bottom and sign them. Unsigned edits will be deleted immediately.

1 Argyrosargyrou
2 Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict
3 entrenched positions
4 RfA on Argyrosargyrou
5 Cyprus dispute
6 Cyprus dispute new version
7 Re:VfD/Turkish Invasion of Cyprus
8 Signatures
9 A Question
10 Banner
11 Cyprus discussion forum - can we help?
12 Survey Invitation

[edit] Argyrosargyrou

You can start the process by filing a Request for Comments on him, then proceed from there. Rick K 22:02, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

He regularly violates NPOV and no personal attacks. Has he ever been blocked for making more than three reverts in 24 hours? Rick K 23:09, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

I do not think he violates anything. Snchduer is obviously biased himself. I see that you have some Turkish bias. What do you mean by the north of Cyprus being "overrun"? It was already overrun by the Turks in 1974. Wake up!!! Stop your blabbing about Argyrosargyrou. By the way, this is not a personal attack. But if I were to use your standards, you are personally attacking Argyrosargyrou. Unfortunately, hypocracy permeates through everything, even this medium. UNFanatic

I reworded this "overrun" on my user page, seeing that it was not a very lucky wording. Thanks for the hint. I did not mean to politicise there and apologise. - Snchduer 12:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Hm, I might have gone out of hand at one time or another against Argyro (though I tried to remain calm), but he certainly violates quite some standards on wikipedia. He personally attacked several users (evidence can be found on the archives of Talk:Cyprus_dispute), and wants the Cyprus_dispute page to reflect the view of the RoC government. This view can hardly be regarded as neutral or balanced - this of course also applies to the views propagated by the TRNC (I do not want to discuss about existence or non-existence of this entity here) and Turkey. It would thusly violate the NPOV policy of wikipedia. I hope that now that the page is protected we can come to an agreement - Snchduer 12:49, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

to answer your post on my talk page, I just posted to RfC. I have not done any editing on the Argyro-specific RfC sub-page. I was going to wait and let that one grow organically... I suspect it will do so over time. Feco 18:51, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict

I've rune out of reverts, but another one is badly needed. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Found it more productive to re-edit a bit. - Snchduer 16:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] entrenched positions

Argyrosargyrou and I actually have something in common: a strong need to defend what we both feel. This has caused a nasty spat on the Cyprus Dispute discussion. What you are trying to do is to place some 'oil on troubled waters', but on an issue like Cyprus, it can end up more like pouring petrol on a bonfire! But thanks for trying all the same. Expatkiwi 06:35 01 June 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfA on Argyrosargyrou

I've started a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration on User:Argyrosargyrou. Please take a look and add any evidence you feel is relevant to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Argyrosargyrou/Evidence. -- ChrisO 22:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cyprus dispute

The article Cyprus dispute was unprotected on June 11. Argyrosargyrou subsequently editted it on June 13. You may want to have a look at it, as I know an RfAr is currently ongoing against the above user. I don't know anything about the topic, so I can't verify if the user's edits are historically accurate or not. --Scimitar 19:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whoohoo! Nevermind. He's under 24-hour block, after he went on a bizarre campaign against me and anyone else who opposed his attempts to unilaterally impose his POV. If you need any help in future because he is making similar actions, please don't hesitate to drop a note off at my talk page. --Scimitar 22:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cyprus dispute new version

Hi, i dont actually find the Cyprus dispute version bad at all. I think it gives an excellent overview of the situation for both Turk and Greek without becoming too political. The only disagreements with that article are coming from Greek people; Argy, Ank and UNFanatic. They seem to want more specific examples of Turkish wrong doing, such as listing human right abuses, court cases, TV documentaries and so forth. I could easily counter these with specific examples of Greek wrongdoings but the article will again deteriorate into accusations. I believe the best way to go is to make minor changes to the current article, and keep it general and informative.

Thats just my opinion anyway. --E.A 18:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah i agree at least discussion can be held with Ank and UNFanatic, perhaps we should just ask them what amends they would actually like to Cyprus dispute before we consider creating a new article. --E.A 18:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am currently a busy student. I am trying to be on "vacation" for the next month(taking exams). I would be happy to help in small bits. If I only had more time though. My 2 cents worth: the Cyprus issue is complex as it is. It will be hard to condense that article without upsetting anyone. Perhaps is could be counted as a "13th" labor for Hercules to do. I am up to the challenge, but for the time being I am unable to commit any extended time for the next month. Keep me informed though. (UNFanatic 00:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC))

By the way, I actually like your organization headings for the proposed new article. A hail to German ingenuity.(UNFanatic 01:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC))

I tend to agree with the clean start approach. This has the advantage of "we agree" before anything happens. Instead of lets make this small change but the other side does not want to. The Cyprus problem has though a fundamental problem. Some people (on both sides) are not willing to face the truth. They are not, also, willing to put aside (not forget) the past. In this group I can place E.A., Expatwiki, ArgyrosArgyrou and others that have been editing in WP. From my personal experience, these individuals are a minority that are active in forums like the WP where the common people on the ground cannot or do not know how to participate. The result is that the ultra nationalist, separatist (E.A. et al) and domination (Argy) views are strong. I am really not willing to fight battles on WP (have done this on many forums before) that are simply without content and do not lead to anything. I prefer to discuss with people face to face where I can see the hope and agony and concern for the common future. BUT I am for creating articles that describe what has happened to the best of the knowledge we can discover. I am in for this but I will be the sole judge when the "train has derailed". Thanks for the invitation anyway. --Ank99 12:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:VfD/Turkish Invasion of Cyprus

Thanks for your question. VfD works by consensus, more than a simple majority in favour of deletion is needed to remove an article. In general nothing is deleted without at least two-thirds support, this level of support did not exist to erase Turkish Invasion of Cyprus. At the same time there was also no consensus that the page should be kept. Since the vote was also marred with lengthy debates and probable sockpuppets perhaps the best option, if you strongly feel the page should be deleted, is to relist it on VfD. - SimonP 13:45, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Signatures

Since you asked: I don't think you're supposed to use templates for signatures. I get my colour effect through regular HTML in the signatures box (found on the preference page). My signature Andrew Lenahan - Starblind is made up of: Andrew Lenahan - Starblind If you want a similar effect, feel free to modify this for your needs. Other HTML colour codes can be found on Google, or you can use a small program to help you with which codes to use to get a complex fade effect. I've used this in the past and been very happy with it.

Hope this helps, if you need more info, just ask! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:04, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Question

I do not know if it is wise or not but I am taking Expatiki's lead in his recent contributions and editing some bio's on politicians from Cyprus. By only source is from the Cyprus website, which is legitimate for biographical purposes. I do not want to get in trouble or anything for this. I can only do this once a week.(UNFanatic)

[edit] Banner

Just so you know, that banner at the top is all but illegible, and quite hard on the eyes (at least mine). You might want to change it to a lighter blue. -- Dpark 21:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

THanks and done. - Think Different 28 June 2005 13:41 (UTC)

[edit] Cyprus discussion forum - can we help?

I was interested to find this struggle to get a version of the cyprus dispute page agreed. We have a relatively new and small discussion forum (www.talkcyprus.org) and these discussions of alternate views of history are frequent on the forum. It's a difficult task you have set yourself here. Do you think it would help if I invited the users of this forum to come and contibute to the effort or just add to the confusion? If so I will gladly do so.

erolz

[edit] Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 18:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}