User talk:The Myotis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Undo Robotics

It is rude to undo real and actual and verifiable facts from articles (Bitlis) only because they contain incovenient truths incosistent with certain nationalistic mythology. If there is a prolem with facts, by all means point them out and correct. Childishly and robotically removing any incovenient and unpleasant facts about Armenians only proves that you are on shaky ground with respect to fact and realities. No amount of undo will create new facts to your liking.--Murat (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, Mr. Hudavendigar, if you expect anybody to believe that nationalistic pseudohistory you decided to call truth, you will all least have to find a reliable third-party source on the death toll and events. Conventional mainstream history regects the 'it was a rebellion' line as politically-motivated historical revisionism at worst and minority POV at best, both in terms of this massacre and the Aghat as a whole. All the neutral sites that I have found on the events list it as a massacre of Armenians, the ones supporting your view come straight out of Turkey. Please see WP:UNDUE to understand WP policy on giving a minority POV undue weight.

Also, welcome to wikipedia, as you are obviously new at this.The Myotis (talk) 04:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am new, but likes of you is not new unfortunately. I suggest you limit your commentary and do not spoil the quality of this platform further with personal commentary. Stick to facts and no one will have cause for argument. Sason rebellions (look at a dictionary for actual definition) are well documented and there is little argument about what they are. Bitlis was occupied by Russians and Armenians twice during WWI and many Muslim inhabitants killed by Armenian bandits. You think this little fact does not belong in this article, especially if other tragic events are mentioned and inflated at length? You really are kidding no one but yourself.--Murat (talk) 05:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I only ask two things of you, that you cite your sources and ensure that they are NPOV. So far you have done very little of the former and none of the latter. If these two qualifications are not met, your contributions will be deleted no matter how many times you add them. Stating that these extremely dubious fragments of pseudohistory are facts, when they obviously contradict major wikipedia articles and have no trustworthy sources behind them, and inserting them into articles while removing the well-cited information that contradicts them, is a pointless and foolish endeavor. I do not wish to start and edit-war with you, so if you continue to add uncited and obviously POV information, I will contact an administrator. I hope, however, that that is not necessary, and that you will submit to wikipedia policy (which you have so far completely ignored) and that we can discuss and establish consensus on these articles, rather than try repeatedly to drive your opinions into the article with a blunt hammer. The Myotis (talk) 07:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems you already have your wikiwar going on for a while, dedicationg your time and effort to erasing of factual info you find inconvenient. Let's get back to facts. There were Sason Rebellions, dating back to 1894 as you concede but never bothered to include in the original article while detailing alleged brutalities of everyone else. 1894 is way before the events of 1914-1915 by the way. That being the case, Sason Rebellions, a matter of factual history, even implied in the original one-sided article, remains here. It is referenced and documented properly. I do apologize for my lack of understanding of the wiki formats and other technical details, but facts are facts.--Murat (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see Sasun Resistance for more information on your 'rebellions'. As you can see, 'rebellion' is the minority POV while 'resisting a massacre' is the majority POV. I certainly believe that these events happened, but your biased slanting of them is a clear violation of wikipedia policy. Also, repeatedly stating something to be a fact does not make it a fact.

Facts are not just 'facts', any 'fact' may be fabricated, misinterpreted deliberately, given a biased interpretation, or modified to suit an agenda. This is why you need to cite your sources. And when citing information on a clearly controversial subject, you must ensure that it is NPOV and does not contradict other wikipedia articles. If anybody could add a information just because they say it is a fact, or can find any source for it, wikipedia would be a mess of self-contradictory and WP:fork garbage. The Myotis (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Facts are facts, they have dates and recorded, witnessed etc., not opinions. Sasun rebellion is a fact, not an opinion nor an interperatation. In fact, the details how these Ottoman citizens took up arms and fought their very own country's regular troops (whatever the reason)is very much detailed right here, in your references. These events took place long before 1915. Stating the obvious, that the Armenians rebelled against the Ottoman state is the NPOV, not other way around.--Murat (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

For the third time, stating something is a fact will not make if a fact, and person who does so repeatedly without a convincing source is just a buffoon who is unable to make an actual argument and who wants to make a completely unsupported argument sound valid. I could repeatedly say that the earth is flat like a saucer, but if my only source is some book written in Turkish, and if it contradicts everything else written in wikipedia, it is going to be dismissed as garbage. Also, you did read the two Sasun Resistance articles, and do you honestly believe they support your 'rebellions' allegation as fact? The Myotis (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary and your personal analysis of an article into Wikipedia articles, as you did to Ottoman Empire. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. MonsterOfTheLake 23:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you but...

Please do not edit facts to support your personal analysis of a subject into Wikipedia articles, as you did to Ottoman Empire. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. That the historians who define the event as genocide outnumber those who don’t is a know fact, and there can be no valid reason for subtracting it. Why you forbid any link to the ‘Armenian genocide’ wikipedia article is also baffling. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox.

Also, please check commentary for grammatical accuracy before adding it to an article. Thank you, Mr. Myotis

As an afterthought, I would like you to carefully read the following passage from that nice NPOV article you recommended me, and think about how it relates to the current subject.

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well."

Now, you must admit that your version of the article gives the impression that the divide between historians who claim civil war and those who claim genocide is evenly split, if not in favor of civil war. The insistence of preventing any link to the AG wikipedia article and the continued addition of the theory that the isolated Armenian rebellions were Russian backed certainly does. Do you really believe that the majority of historians and government institutions define the events of 1915 as civil war? I have numbers that say otherwise. The International Association of Genocide Scholars, 22 independent nations, and 39 of the 50 US states all officially recognize the events as genocide, not to mention the majority of historians (out of those who have formed an opinion). I only know of one country that officially refers to the events as civil war (if there are others, let me know). That the argument of genocide deserves more weight is hardly just a personal opinion as much as it is a World opinion. And, according to Wikipedia procedure, the majority view deserves the most attention.

Thank you for you time, Myotis The Myotis 23:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is a European?

Hope this helps...--Caligvla 04:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armenia in Europe

I am a member of the AMA (Association of Members' Advocates) currently acting on behalf of User:Caligvla, who has named you as one of the participants in the dispute over whether Armenia is in Europe or Asia. Caligvla has listed a number of reference sources classifying Armenia as an Asian country. He claims that the only sources quoted by your side of the dispute are 1.) an obsecure Canadian website that places Armenia in Europe, and a BBC article that mistakenly places Armenia in Europe. Can you please respond to this and give your side of the argument (preferably on my userpage)? Under the AMA principle of audi alteram partem, you have the right to be heard. (NB Copies of this message have been placed on the talkpage of all those who Caligvla has named as participants in the dispute.) Walton monarchist89 09:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Augustgrahl has agreed to the compromise I outlined on his talk page, which is that the sentence Armenia is situated at a cultural, historical, and religious intersection and located at the crossroads between Europe and Asia, in the southern Caucasus will be an acceptable replacement for Culturally, historically and politically Armenia is considered part of Europe, as long as we also continue to include the sentence about Armenia being a transcontinental nation. User:Eupator has declined to accept this compromise. I have now opened a straw poll on this issue on my talk page. Please add your comments supporting or opposing the proposed change. Walton monarchist89 09:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, the straw poll has provoked equally strong support and opposition for the proposed changes. It's useful, if only to show that there are strong feelings on both sides of this debate - but it sends us back to square one, in that the opposition from you, User:Eupator and User:Hectorian is strong enough that I don't have a mandate to make the changes. As such, having failed to find a compromise of my own, I'm now inviting everyone else to suggest one. We need to find a way of saying, in a way that no one finds offensive, that Armenia is both in Asia and in Europe and that the domestic political situation reflects links with both continents. Any ideas would be welcomed. Walton monarchist89 12:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC opening on Armenia

Given the complete deadlock on this issue, and the failure of the strawpoll, I think the time has come to take the dispute-resolution process to the next level by opening a request for comment. This will open the debate up to the whole Wikipedia community, and hopefully generate, if not consensus, then at least a majority view. I will invite all users involved in this issue to contribute to the RfC, which can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. I realise that you may now be a bit bored with having to explain your views again and again on different pages, but as an advocate I think this is the only way to finally end this dispute. Walton monarchist89 09:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armenia strawpoll

NB This poll has now closed, it being Friday 10th November and about 10.30am where I live. The numbers are as follows:

• Support 6 (although User:Hamparzoum's existence has been disputed by User:Tekleni.
• Neutral 1.
• Oppose 10.

As such, no mandate has appeared for making the requested changes to the article. As previously advertised, Caligvla and I are taking a break from this dispute for a week. After this, the case may be taken to the mediation cabal, although I hope to avoid this eventuality. Walton monarchist89 10:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey I am sorry, I didn't mean to delete anyone's post.. I was trying to get revert something, and I hadn't realized that somebody put in a post in the meanwhile... I wasn't trying to delete anything.. Baristarim 13:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. Apology accepted.The Myotis 17:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antiziganism

Hey, I just wanted to thank you for your work improving this article, and for connecting it better with other articles. Keep up the good work. - TheMightyQuill 09:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You’re welcome! I certainly will continue working on it. The Myotis 17:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please sign your name on AfD discussions

Thank you for your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerard Cafesjian. Please sign your name on AfD discussions and talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. --Eastmain 23:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ...

Please try to cut down on negativity.. In this page, you said "more donned white hats". Which was even a bigger stretch than the lame source provided which only said "some". Do not manipulate sources and see what is and not what you would like to see... That article is in horrible shape, the Sun Language Theory bit is nothing but half-truths etc. The stuff you included can be in a page "Ultra-nationalism in Turkey", Ogun Samast was never described in the media as a nationalist but an ultra-nationalist - read up on the notions please. In any case, adding it in this article is OR for the reason I just mentioned. Anyways, take care... Baristarim 04:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary or appropriate to create a separate article to describe only ultra-nationalistic tendencies, and I don’t think any other page on any other type of nationalism makes distinctions between standard and ultra nationalisms. If you think the page is one-sided or ‘negative’, go ahead and add more information. It is, after all, a start page and I only inserted topics I have had a good amount of experience with. I am not sure exactly what your beef with the ‘white hats’ phrase is, but I’m sure it is rewordable. Ideally, we can find someone NPOV to work on the article, organize and add some information. And if you want to improve the Topal Osman article, try and find some other sources. The Myotis 15:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I hear your point.. I am sorry if I might have sounded a bit harsh earlier. My only point with the white bonnets was the fact that it overlooked the sympathy that most of the Turks felt at his assassination - that's all. Cheers! Baristarim 01:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Threeafterthree's edits

Threeafterthree removed the ethnicity from the opening paragraph, because only a person's nationality (country of citizenship) should be mentioned in the opening, not ethnicity (which, if properly sourced, can be mentioned at some point below). See WP:MOSBIO. You can certainly re-add it to a later part of the article, like "early life", etc. (and hopefully source it, as well) Mad Jack 06:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the articles mentioned are not large enough to have sections (typically stubs), and so it makes little difference where it is mentioned. Also, in many of the cases the ethnicity of the person is directly related (as in Gerard Cafesjian and his charity work) to their significance as a person. Also, mentioning ethnicity once MOSBIO only contains one paragraph stating that it should not be emphasized, and including one word about them in the introduction would hardly seem to be that. In the cases above mentioned, both where ethnicity is related to significance and where the article is a stub, I think is should be included.The Myotis 17:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New articles

Hey Myotis, thanks for creating all those new diaspora articles! Could you please post Armenia related articles that you create in the future here Portal:Armenia/New article announcements so that we can keep track and improve them all together. Thanks man. - Fedayee 20:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll be sure to do that. Thank you.The Myotis 20:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Te aves baxtalo! (= Romani greeting)

Thanks for joining the Romani Wikiproject! I've added some more Romani Wikiproject templates to the talk pages for Jimmy Marks and Ralph Lilley Turner. The first is a Rrom (married Romani man) who made the documentary American Gypsy possible. The second is not Romani, but he made many important contributions to Romani Studies and is considered a good source (at least in some ways). Oh, and I've added the userbox to my userpage, too! Thanks again! --Kuaichik 04:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A welcoming greeting from me too. I saw you already began the necessary understructure of this WikiProject and I wanted to say that's great. Just I'd like to present also a cultural issue, namely that the colour black is considered as unlucky by some Romani groups. I don't mean the colour of the letters or minimal details, but the frame of the userbox for the members of this project. It is a design of more colours and reminds of a textile fabric. In Romani groups, like the Kalderash, for example, it is forbidden to wear anything black (there are also groups wearing it without problems, but it would be good to stick to the lowest common denominator). Again, it is great what you do and I hope we will have a frutiful collaboration. Thanks, Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 21:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I chose the colors simply because they seemed to flow together. The template is easily changed however, by simply going to the template page and replacing the color codes. What pigments do you believe would be more appropriate? The Myotis 21:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know, let's say a gray? Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 21:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing SPA tags

Please do not remove {{spa}} tags, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roma Virtual Network. It was already determined at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Novoselsky Valery that User:Valery novoselsky is a single-purpose account. —Psychonaut 19:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Established? Established by you, apparently. There is no need to put said tag on the end of someone’s post, and there is no official Wikipedia policy that condones or endorses its use. I recommend you read Wikipedia:Single-purpose account and tell me what, exactly, gives you the authority to add such a label to a person. In fact, simply labeling you adversary a 'single purpose account' is little more than an ad-hominem attack, since you perhaps find yourself incapable of making a logical argument in response.The Myotis 19:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That Valery novoselsky is a single-purpose account is established by his short and narrow history of edits. Three separate editors, one of whom is an administrator, concurred with that characterization.

The fact that I am a contributor to Wikipedia gives me the authority to use the {{spa}} tag. I choose to do so as a courtesy to other editors, and particularly to the editor closing the debate. You have the authority to remove it, but in doing so deny others notice of information they may wish to take into account.

And finally, User:Valery novoselsky is not my "adversary"; he is a fellow Wikipedian who is entitled to voice his opinion in the deletion discussion. —Psychonaut 19:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that anybody has any right to edit another’s posts, regardless of what is thought of them, or whether they have a narrow range of topics of interest. Any concerns about another editor should be put in a response.The Myotis 03:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afd for Margita Bangová

Would you be interested, by any chance, in voting here? --Kuaichik 04:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ustaše

When I redrafted the first paragraph of the Ustaše article yesterday your own recent edits were, for some reason, not visible to me. I was concerned simply to unravel what seemed to be a bit of a mess created by someone else. I see now that a simple reversion to your wording would have done the job. Kirker 12:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hate

why do you support Kurdish nationalists? didnt they drive u out of anatolia? stop the hate against Turks.---hakozen 01:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The Kurds did not drive me, nor as far as I know, anyone out of Anatolia. I am not sure what version of history you are using as a reference, but I doubt it would be accepted as NPOV. And I would hardly say that Turks are in any way an endagered or universally hated group. The Myotis 05:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey,

I'm a reporter working on a story about people who edit highly controversial Wikipedia pages. I was wondering if you'd be interested in talking to me about the Armenian Genocide page. You can email me here: matt.phillips@wsj.com

Thanks,

Matt

[edit] -----

Erzurum is a city, so what about turkish massacres...my point of view is those are not necessary, you should give a link only..not an advertasment--hakozen 21:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Erzurum had one of the largest populations of Armenians prior to the implementation of AG, and so the elimination of said population is indeed a very important part of Erzurum's history, and so deserves a significant amount of pagespace. The Myotis 21:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit-warring on various articles. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--Chaser - T 20:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock|Seems like an odd timing for a block, considering I have made only a single edit today, and have at no time during this conflict violated the 3RR or engaged in a flame war. And since all I did was revert unexplained deletions (typically considered vandalism) and unreferenced additions, I can only image how you would justify this block. I would request you further investigate the problem before doling out a penalty. However, if you strongly believe that random blocks of involved editors will solve the problem, then I will wait the required 24 hours.}}

Y

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): This situation was more complex than it initially appeared. Per this indication that the blanking was motivated by POV rather than concerns about the encyclopedia, I've unblocked you. BTW, it's helpful to explain such things in the edit-summary, which is a communication tool as much as it is a log of actions to the page. Request handled by: Chaser - T 00:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sumgait Pogroms

Hey Myotis, fighting fire with fire may not always be the best solution. ;) Don't be afraid to use the tools available to fight vandalism. [1] Happy editing. VartanM 23:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not figure the vandal would be that persistent, usually most are not, but I've always known that is an option. What I need to do now is get 'pogroms' back to 'pogrom', which I realize is not the common usage. The Myotis 00:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right usually there just flyby, I reported him the moment comments became personal. I'll fix the redirect in a little bit. VartanM 00:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Armenians in the Czech Republic

Please do not use the edit summary "rvv" for undoing edits which are clearly not vandalism, as you did with the following edit [2]. I added links to other immigrant groups in the Czech Republic, which are clearly related to the article. Also, per WP:SEEALSO, I removed the link to Armenian diaspora since it is already linked from the template and article body. For now, I reinserted it along with the links to Mongolians in the Czech Republic and Vietnamese people in the Czech Republic. cab 02:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should not mean put a second v on there, I simply though that the two other articles had no real relation to the article topic. It seemed fairly random to connect two Czech immigrant populations to the Armenian population. However, If you think that there is a good reason for these articles to be listed, I will be fine with its inclusion. The Myotis 03:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, like the article's lead says, "the Armenian community of the Czech republic is made up entirely of recent immigrants". So all three of the groups in question are immigrant populations. Of course these links would be out of place on the main Armenians article, but interlinking the articles of immigrant groups in the same country seems like a pretty common practise --- e.g. Template:Ethnic groups in the Philippines, Template:Asian Americans, etc. Cheers, cab 03:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CfD nomination of Category:Cultural Enthusiasm

Category:Cultural Enthusiasm, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – This discussion was opened on January 2, so don't delay if you wish to add your comments. Cgingold (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ---

I deleted the whole section you created here: [3] as original research. From the two poor references that you provided one was ancient and the other was unreliable and invalid. Coupled with a lot of original research and the fact that the article alone doesn't even concern Armenians I ask you not to re-create it. Thanks.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 05:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] your undo is nationalist

what is the proble about pictures?? documents have WP:Verifiability WP:No original research. your undo is nationalist --Qwl (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Qwl, thoroughly read those articles you just linked to. Though I realize you are not a fluent speaker of English, you should be able to tell that the photos you added comply to neither. Also note that wikipedia strongly discourages ad homnem accusations, which are both disruptive and usually argumentatively useless on the internet.The Myotis (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

talk with wikipedia rules. these documents are WP:Verifiability & WP:No original research same as Armenian Photos. if you remove all of them you can remove these pictures. you only say useless. show me your reason that reference wikipedia rules.--Qwl (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What a convincing argument!

And for my rebuttal: No, they are not . If you would bother to read the same articles you cite, you would see that.The Myotis (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ganging up on me..

so that I fail on the 3rr, eh douche bag? Amjikian (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, as direct insults are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Also, along with spamming the talk page with conspiracy theories and other off-topic nonsense, such comments will likely get you banned. The Myotis (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Murat/Hudavendigar edits

Hi, I read the comments posted by Murat/Hudavendigar and apparently reporting to an administrator appears to be in order. He has systematically removed any and all mention of the word "genocide" and supplanted it with rebellions and the regular yahoo nonsense. Please refer to these articles just in case you need some examples: [4], [5], [6]. Attempts to warn him in the above mentioned articles naturally failed and were waived as either inconsequential or justified under "defending from vandals." His stubborn attitude seems to necessitate a topic ban. Thanks a lot.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be the last and sometimes first resort when confronted with reality. Block it. There were no edits done by me that is not supported by facts and documents. I have made an effort not to edit wholesale and not to remove any references even when they are bogus and did not dwell on extremely prejudiced and personal point of views embellished in these articles usually. I have kept away from personal opinions and judgements. What is stubborn is not this contributer but facts. Even most basic references, related links and statements have been systematically edited out by what seems to be a dedicated partisan group which tolerates only their version of historical events. This forum belongs to all. I happen to know this region and its history well and will not tolerate this blatant revisionism and unlike many here I do have a contribuition to make not just use these pages for ethnic and religious vandettas.--Murat (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It is pointless to lie on Wikipedia, Hudavendigar. Anybody can look at your edit log and see what you have done. Yes, you have added completely uncited information, and you have used obviously biased and POV sources, and you have removed NPOV sources. And yes, wikipedia uses only one version of history, the 'Majority POV'. Minority POV, when significant enough to merit description at all, is limited to its own article. And the fact that you have consistently dodged discussion indicates you are not willing to conform to WP policy and are only ranting on your personal soapbox to ears who have hears the same baseless rhetoric regurgitated hundreds of times. The Myotis (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{orphan}} and CAT:ORPHAN

Hi, I noticed in this edit that you added both the {{orphan}} tag and Category:Orphaned articles to the same article. This is redundant, as the orphan tag automatically adds the article to the orphan category. Please don't add both. Thank you, and happy editing!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)