Contents 1 January 2 February 2.1 Recent edits on Kurds and Kurdistan 2.2 Turkey, Kurdish and Armanian issue 2.3 Edits to StarCraft 2.4 StarCraft Players VfD Notice 2.5 Edits to StarCraft 2.6 Kurdistan 2.7 Removal of users' own comments from your user talk page 2.8 Vandalism? 2.9 Ataturk 2.10 Welcome 2.11 Anon vandalism 2.12 Dark Matter 3 March 3.1 Iquery on users 195.175.37.8 and 195.175.37.11 3.2 Armenian Genocide 3.3 Star Trek ranks 3.4 Kurdistan Workers Party 3.5 Command & Conquer 3.6 Timeline 3.7 Star Trek Graphics 3.8 138.16.16.231 (talk • contribs) 3.9 What I think regarding PKK modifications 3.10 Compromise: 3.11 Why I removed some of your links 3.12 Enterprise Pics 3.13 Enterprise Admiral Pips 3.14 Admin 3.15 Alternate Ranks 3.16 ST:TNG Enlisted Pips 3.17 Armenian Genocide 3.18 Fadix, etc 3.19 Thank you Coolcat 3.20 Mediation request filled 3.21 Images on VfD 3.22 Armenian Genocide 3.23 Response to your requests for appraisal 3.24 Personal attacks 3.25 Re: Your message 3.26 Fadix 3.27 Ataturk's irreligion 3.28 Check 3.29 Mediator 3.30 Dictionary 3.31 User:Nosrail 3.32 Archvie Discussion Page 3.33 ST: Motion Picture Ranks 3.34 Atatürk 3.35 Öcalan 3.36 Contacts, and the "food chain" 3.37 Genocide 3.38 Fadix and others 3.39 Abdullah Öcalan to merge with PKK 3.39.1 Movie Pins 3.39.2 Service Stars 3.40 Contacts, and the "food chain" 3.41 Armenian Genocide 3.42 Ranks and Insignia of NATO 3.43 mediat template 3.44 Thanks 3.45 Your disputes with other users 3.46 Barnstar 3.47 Fadix 3.48 Armenian Holocaust ar Holocaust (disambiguation) 3.49 Your problems on Armenian Genocide 3.50 Greco-Turkish relations 3.51 Ranks. 3.52 Armenian Genocide 3.53 Re: Clones...? 4 April 4.1 Armenian Genocide 4.2 Talk 4.3 Your templates 4.4 Stressed 4.5 MacGyver 4.6 2003 Invasion of Iraq 4.7 Nagorno Karabakh 4.8 talking: Listen 4.9 Templates 4.10 Mummy 4.11 Adam Carr 4.12 Armenian Genocide 4.13 Dispute rsolution 4.13.1 Not comeete material but, 4.14 Your mesage 4.15 Hello 4.16 templates (your message of April 2) 4.17 Anon User on Star Trek 4.18 Dispute Resolution 4.19 Egyptian burial rituals and protocol 4.20 Flag templates 4.21 Merging 4.22 Ranking 4.23 Head template 4.24 Deletion and boxes 4.25 Cool page 4.26 Hostility 4.27 Faces and places 4.28 Jefferson Smith, leader of the Boy Rangers 4.29 FOTD 4.30 Stars 4.31 Kurdistan 4.31.1 My talkpage 4.32 Your message 4.33 Hostility 4.34 George Bush 4.35 Template:Kurdistan/Pictures 4.36 3RR block 4.37 WikiProject Ranking 4.38 duplicate content in WP:TFD 4.39 I be damned 4.40 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Precis 4.41 Wetman 4.42 Vandalism 4.43 real people 4.44 red green color blind 4.44.1 Colours 4.45 Big blue box at top of this page 4.46 Nato ranks 4.47 FYI 4.48 ... 4.49 GAP Project 4.50 Personal Attacks 4.51 Image:DiagMurder.jpg 4.52 now this is a personal attack 4.52.1 Not quite 4.53 fyi, Davenbelle 4.54 Japanese war crimes 4.55 Diagnosis: Murder 4.56 Wikipedia:Wikiproject Graphical content problem 4.57 Flags 4.58 Nagorno Karabakh (by Alberto Laija) 4.59 Deletewhy 4.60 Peggy Kerry 4.61 Speedy templates and VfD 4.62 changing Sikth member articles to redirects 4.63 Solana 4.64 British Ranks 5 May 5.1 Editing My Post 5.2 PKK 5.3 Categories on user pages 5.4 Armenian Genocide 5.5 Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies 5.6 Picture of the day 5.7 Categories at RfA 5.8 Spelling 5.9 {{GenericCountryStub}} 5.10 Original Research 5.11 Exterminate! 5.12 Terra Prime 5.13 Support for FAC 5.14 Rank insignia 5.15 Starfleet Insignia 5.16 "To go when safe" 5.17 Star Trek 5.18 Image Changes 5.19 Death threat? 5.20 3RR violation 5.21 USS Voyager 5.22 Your ST Images 5.23 Battle for FAC 5.24 Military badges on Commons 6 June 6.1 Controversy? 6.2 Your Knowledge of History is Limited 6.2.1 That's Great 6.3 Saladin Eyyubi 6.4 Call to Action 6.5 Sorry to hear about this 6.6 WP:RFC 6.7 _____ 6.8 Vandalbot 6.9 Abortion 6.10 Special thanks 6.11 GAP Project 6.12 Vandal bot 6.13 You are leaving? 6.14 What's happening? 7 July 7.1 GAP project 7.2 Starfleet ranks and insignia FAC 7.3 Ashida Kim 7.4 Southeastern Anatolia Project 7.5 Diagnosis: Murder 7.6 Request for arbitration 7.7 GAP project 7.8 Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Starfleet ranks and insignia 7.9 The GAP Project 7.10 WP:ViP 7.10.1 There must be a POV about the ARMENIANS article 7.10.2 About Kemalism Article 7.11 Am I doing Vandalism? 7.12 User talk:Coolcat/GAP temp 7.13 Egypt 7.14 Kurdistan Workers Party 7.15 Signature 7.16 Mass upload 7.17 Namespace for your office 7.18 G20 7.19 Arbitration Committee case opening 7.20 RFA, The GAP project 7.21 Sig 7.22 Seperation of the history? 7.23 PKK butchered ?? 7.24 Tommiks 7.25 Commons images 7.26 Speedy delet template 7.27 WP:CP 7.28 Category:Extraterrestrial Wikipedians 7.29 E-mail 7.30 Sistine Chapel Choir/Temp 7.31 Public Domain Catholic Encyclopedia (Sistine Chapel Choir) 8 August 8.1 Jtkiefer's RFA 8.1.1 Jtkiefer's RFA 8.2 kmccoy's RFA 8.3 Couter Vandalism Unit 8.4 Article writing 8.5 Barnstar 8.6 Japanese war atrocities 8.7 Sorry for spam... I notice you added a test note... 8.8 Nomination 8.9 Scout ranks 8.10 Rename Coolcat -> Cool_Cat 8.10.1 Renaming 8.11 Re:Nomination 8.12 Tznkai 8.13 WP:SUCKS 8.14 Func's RfA :) 8.15 Your behavior 8.16 Star Wars 8.17 Mustafa Kemal Atatürk 8.18 Karl Meier 8.19 Ataturk 8.20 Thank you for the articles 8.21 Talk:Christianity 8.22 Wikipedia:WikiDefcon 8.23 Re: Code 8.24 What do you mean? 8.25 template:vandal1 8.26 Jtkiefer's RFA 9 September 9.1 Skuld 9.2 Code for !calc 9.3 Can you help me set this up? 9.4 What are YOU doing? 9.5 Hi, Coolcat! 9.6 lunch 9.7 #en.wikipedia.vandalism 9.8 The Turkish identity + Orhan Pamuk 9.9 Yggdrasil 9.10 Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal is here to help 9.11 Pending ArbCom Decision 9.12 3RR violation 9.13 MEDITATION 9.14 Marilyn Manson 9.15 User:Love Virus­ 9.16 Bot help 9.17 talk page spam 9.18 Just A Question 9.19 Bmicomp's RfA 9.20 User:Coolcat-> User:Cool Cat 9.21 JUST TALK 9.22 Wikipedia:Wikicrime 9.23 No version protection 9.24 Looking For Faylian Origin 9.25 SORRY 9.26 NOTICE TO COOL CAT 9.27 Can you invent a template? 9.28 Template:Hurricane Katrina death toll 9.29 14 bytes, not 15 9.30 A Question 9.31 Re: Defcon bot 9.32 Light bulb 9.33 The Big W!!! 9.34 Re: vandalism 9.35 Defcon bot 9.36 Pywikipedia framework 9.37 Wikistress 9.38 RickK anti-vandalism barnstar! 9.39 Davenbelle up to his old tricks 9.40 Barn Stars? 9.41 it.translation 9.42 NPA 9.43 en.wikipedia.vandalism 9.44 Counter Vandalism Unit 9.45 RfC 9.46 using colors to brighten wikipedia... 9.47 WM Barnstar Awared 9.48 Thanks on the Missing Barnstar 9.49 It's cool for cats 10 October 10.1 My RfA 10.2 Revised the site: 10.3 Counter Vandalism Unit 10.4 Skuld 10.5 Block self 10.6 Vandalism detection bot 10.7 CVU 10.8 Wikipedia:Miscellaneous deletion/Cool Cat/Wiki-politics 10.9 Toolbar 10.10 Tool Bar? 10.11 Creating Pages 10.12 Here kitty kitty kitty 10.13 Coolcat final decision reached 10.14 Stress 10.15 Re: Kakashi 10.16 In the regards of deleting new pages under 14 bytes... 10.17 Edit summaries 10.18 Thanks for deleting it 10.19 Alt text for images 10.20 Unsigned comment 10.21 CVU Polish translation 10.22 IRC computer access 10.23 List of terrorists 10.24 Religious Article (Teen Bible Study) 10.25 Computer3 bot 10.26 My Babel page 10.27 More personal attacks by User:Cool Cat 10.28 User:Coolcat/User History 10.29 Barnstar 10.30 Contacts w/fuchsia background again 10.31 Award from Dynamo_ace 10.32 CVU 10.33 RE: CVU templates 10.34 Wiki-DefCon adjustment 10.35 CVU removal 10.36 Logos 10.37 Leaving 10.38 Reconsider 10.39 CVU Images 10.40 Don't leave 10.41 maybe this will work 10.42 Quoting RickK 10.43 Hi. 10.44 Don't let the actions of others control your life 10.45 Arbcom 10.46 Impersonator 10.47 Ads 10.48 User:UBX/du-1 10.49 Barnstar of revision 10.50 Channel Access Removed 10.51 A new warning system plugin thing 10.52 Warning about imposter 10.53 What's with the link? 10.54 A script I made 10.55 daisy, daisy! 10.56 IRC Bot 10.57 Bot 10.58 Fair Use images 10.59 Computer on #wikipedia-fr-vandalism 10.60 Award from Dynamo_ace 10.61 Back to complaining about access 10.62 TfD nomination of Template:Fair use-firefox 11 November 11.1 IRC 11.2 Radiant's vote 11.3 Moved from User talk:Cool Cat/IRC Bot 11.4 165.111.2.149 11.5 IRC/CVU issue 11.6 Image:Klerck1.jpg 11.7 Image:Photograph.sept1895.arp.750pix.jpg 11.8 How to use Autosign 11.9 Recently created inapproproate user names 11.10 Thank you note 11.11 . 11.12 Re: Atlas award 11.13 CVU Award 11.14 FireFox RFA 11.15 Rajput article 11.16 office 11.17 . 11.18 RE 11.19 Silent Mongoose: 11.20 Trials and Tribulations 11.21 Thanks 11.22 IRC ProbeCom bot 11.23 bot plans... 11.24 User:Kawaii Neko 11.25 Transcluding user and user talk pages 11.26 Transclusion of user pages 11.27 Talk:Albert Einstein 11.28 Vandals 11.29 Signpost 11.30 Thanks Cool Cat 11.31 Wikibooks IRC bot 11.32 Edit analysis chart per your request 11.33 Constant vigilance! 11.34 User:Cool Cat/Wikipediholic 11.34.1 Thanks 11.35 Just to let you know 11.36 Thank you! 11.37 #wikipedia-it-vandalism 11.38 Oh My Goddess! 11.39 Need a second opion 11.40 my vandalism reverter and warner 11.41 Arigato 11.42 Bot 11.43 Re: The barnstar 11.44 persecute versus prosecute 11.45 Blocked for 24h 11.46 Silly Cool Cat...! 11.47 Warning to Karl Meier and Cool Cat 11.48 Sorry 11.49 Something else for you to fix (hehe) 11.50 Semi-pro (again!) 11.51 text-align: center for User:Cool Cat/CVU2-1 11.52 Assistance 12 December 12.1 Template- Belgian King?? 12.2 Slovenian Armed Forces's Military Ranks Insignias 12.3 Yet another award from Dynamo_ace! 12.4 Cool Cat mentorship, Kurdistan, etc 12.5 IRC vandalism script 12.6 Baj insignia 12.7 . 12.8 About Oh! My Goddess.... 12.9 Signature 12.10 Progress 12.11 That damn IRC 12.12 WTF...?! 12.13 Marller and Keiichi Morisato 12.14 :) 12.15 List of Oh My Goddess episodes 12.16 "Editcountism" 12.17 Archive, why did this move here? I mean the edit box? 12.18 Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/IP Severe 12.19 rfa 12.20 Your bot 12.21 Oh My Goddess! (OVA) 12.22 Are you accusing ME of vandalism? 12.23 Re: Commons: bajoran ranks 12.24 AFD 12.25 What's up? 12.26 bot 12.27 "I am not a heavenly creature, please assist" 12.28 Star of Life 12.29 RE:bot 12.30 Ranks of Slovenian Armed Forces 12.31 User:Cool Cat/Wikistress status 12.31.1 Sorry 12.32 Problems 12.33 Images 12.34 A few things thrown your way 12.35 Oh My Goddess! (OVA) 12.36 Template 12.37 Re: RickK Barnstar 12.38 odd edits 12.39 Winged logo 12.40 RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar 12.40.1 Belldandy? 12.41 Thanks for inviting me 12.42 Spelling 12.43 Barnstar 12.44 Uploading images to wikipedia 12.45 My barnstar 12.46 numbers list on WP:CVU 12.47 Contacts 12.48 Computer2 has stopped 12.49 -_-; 12.50 Wikipediholic 12.51 Iori Yagami 12.52 Thank you note 12.53 Thank you 12.54 Thesis MK- II 12.55 Signature 12.56 Megumi Morisato 12.57 Bot down 12.58 Fake impersonator account 12.59 Balloons! 12.60 bot 12.61 Archiving 12.62 Talk:John Seigenthaler Sr. 12.63 Ataturk? 12.63.1 Ataturk (more) 12.63.2 Proposed solution 12.64 Overhall 12.65 Nice logo 12.66 Introduction 12.67 Wait just a damn minute... 12.68 Userboxes 12.68.1 Thanks 12.69 Hi 12.70 Hey.... 12.71 SpongeBob SqurePants 12.72 selamlar 12.73 The test 12.74 Deaparture 12.75 RE: Hello! 12.76 Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Oh My Goddess episodes 12.77 User:Cool Cat 12.78 User Vcxlor 12.79 Merry Christmas 12.80 Skuld (disambiguation) 12.81 IRC bot 12.82 Yggdrasil (Oh My Goddess!) 12.82.1 stub 12.82.2 disambig 12.83 Userboxes 12.84 The Almighty (Oh My Goddess!) 12.85 selamlar 12.86 Merry Christmas!! 12.87 Merry Christmas! 12.88 Merry Christmas! 12.89 Hild 12.90 Vandals 12.91 User:64.27.5.168 12.92 irc bot 12.93 Why 12.94 This User is Ranked #420 on the List of Wikipedia Editors! 12.95 Balloons! 12.96 Copyright of Image:Original Goddess.jpg 12.97 Imposters 12.98 Award from Dynamo_ace 12.99 Crap 12.100 User:Battlefield 12.101 Wings 12.102 Activism vs. encyclopedism 12.103 List of computer viruses deletion vote notice 12.104 ORCA images 12.105 Wikipedia:Civility

[edit] January

No edits this month

February

[edit] Recent edits on Kurds and Kurdistan

I've left some messages for you on Talk:Kurds and Talk:Kurdistan concerning your recent edits on these articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I dont know what you are trying to prove, unless that is terrorist propoganda. Kurds are a peacefull group of people at least that was my experience with them. I lived in the reagon I know the facts and some claims are no near facts. I fixed that, may look like vandalism however terrorist propoganda is the vandalism if you think about it. -- Cat ^chi? (unsigned)

Examine my detailed comments on the edits. I'd like you to respond to them so we can improve the quality of the original article. The edits you made were not of good quality as they stood, mainly because your changes were not verifiable and some were clearly statements of personal opinion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Turkey, Kurdish and Armanian issue

So let me get this straight the british dictate what Turkey refers to a reagion? Its turkish territory and no that statement is absolutely false. I dont care what the british claim. There is no kurdistan. Now there is a region where there is a high density kurdish poulation. you can invent a country that does not exist although that would be quite futile. The armanian genocide is as stated an ottomoan issue and does not belong to "Turkey" I neither deny nor accept the acusation, its neither my bussines nor vocation. Wikipedia seeks neutrality. And if you are going to accuse my ancestors that makes it NOT neutral. If you really want to accuse them do it in some other wikipedia page. The entier Kurd issue is a very sensitive topic and there is a great room for either side of the argument to dramatisize it. I merely work with facts. I have a scientific aproach to the issue, which dictates neither sides propoganda should be allowed. -- Cat ^chi?

I don't think you're sticking to your point. You made an edit claiming that only terrorists called Kurdistan by that name. I corrected you; many people including foreign governments refer to the region as Kurdistan without necessarily recognising claims for its autonomy. I reverted the edit because it was obvious POV pushing, which you're not supposed to do on Wikipedia.

The article as it stands does not make accusations against your ancestors. Please don't make controversial tamperings with it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I will tamper with it until it is neutral. Those items I remove don't belong to that article. I removed 2 lines while adding 5 or 6. Items I removed belong to foreign affairs not demographics.

All I want to do is improve the quality by removing statements that dont belong where they are or remove/rewrite items that do not have a neutral value or are completely false.

[edit] Edits to StarCraft

Hello. Please be more careful in your edits to StarCraft. You re-added the storyline section, deeming it was vandalism, without even looking at User:ShardPhoenix's edit summary. If you had, you'd have realized he deleted the section for a reason, and explains it on the talk page. Also, why did you put the lead section under Introduction? This is not standard formatting, I'm sorry.... Phils 13:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I realised the story thing after my edit but it was late so I went to bed. Puting lead under contents is nicer. As lead is introduction ;). Mainly its easier to edit. -- Cat ^chi? 15:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please don't split StarCraft gameplay in two. Gameplay should be covered in the main article. Tactics, typical games, etc... in a separate one. No need for a single player gameplay article. Phils 16:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Let's stop editing this section and take it to Talk:StarCraft.... I'm posting my toughts there right now. Phils 16:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm using your user page to ask you to remove the "Introduction" header on the Starcraft page - it is established Wikipedia policy (see Lead section) to have a headerless lead section directly after the main title. No other article has a lead section in the format you suggest. I won't revert your edits myself anymore, but please remove the "Introduction" header Phils 17:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC).

Sure. Abolishing intorduction is a good idea, although some info was moved down to general info to increase article quality. -- Cat ^chi? 17:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] StarCraft Players VfD Notice

Please don't remove VfD notices from a page while the vote is still ongoing. Thanks. Carrp | Talk 17:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, the above message was in reference to this edit [1] at 17:37, 17 Feb 2005. Carrp | Talk 18:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Even though you started the article, anyone is able to edit it (as with any Wikipedia article). This includes nominating it for VfD. While the vote is ongoing, the notice should not be removed so that other users can have a chance to vote. Carrp | Talk 18:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks and happy editing! Carrp | Talk 18:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to StarCraft

I'm taking this to Wikipedia: Requests for Comment. However, understand that I do not disagree about the article being split: it must be split. I am just saying we should give an overview of gameplay and story in the main article plus the link to what you call subarticles. This is established policy in Wikipedia. The reason for my edits yesterday was that I believe the way you link the "subarticles" is not conform to what is normally done (check out articles like Canada or United States), I did not remove the links to subarticles. Again, we agree that the article should be split, just refrain from insulting me and read my edits and comments more carefully. I will not revert your edits, but please restore the last version of the article I had. Phils 11:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC).

Agreed, Already notified you in your talk page. I see your point and agree with it though we have to limit the information big time. Also everything we put there should be sub articles header. -- Cat ^chi? 18:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kurdistan

We obviously disagree about the content of Kurdistan, and some of my reversions may have been a little hasty, but you do not need to accuse me of having a 'problem' or of vandalism. Vandalism is a very serious allegation and it is not the same as making edits you disagree with, or even edits that are illconsidered, misjudged or POV (see: Wikipedia:Vandalism). So don't throw the word around so lightly.

I am interested in working to find a consensus on the article. But this isn't helped if people start throwing around insults.

On a separate topic, please sign your posts on talkpages. It makes it easier to know who they're from.

Iota 16:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah, now I think I see why you accused me of vandalism. I accidentally edited a comment you had made in the body of the article. That was a mistake not vandalism, but sorry about that.

Iota 16:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of users' own comments from your user talk page

You ask people not to remove any comments they put here. This probably isn't a sensible thing to ask. This page is provided for other editors to communicate with you and they are entitled to edit or even remove their own text during the course of that communication. For instance if someone makes a personal attack it is sensible that he remove it in accordance with the policy No personal attacks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I want to archive everything said for future referance. -- Cat ^chi? 20:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Everything said will be saved automatically in the page history. But it's considered polite to let people change their minds and apologise and delete inappropriate statements. Just think of it as common courtesy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

True. Although I am more concerned witn vandalism people deleting someone elses comments "for them". ;) -- Cat ^chi? 21:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

Coolcat, Please review Wikipedia:Vandalism. Several of your reverts for "vandalism" clearly fall outside of the description given there. Some editors may consider such a description of their edits to be a personal attack. It also tends to call into question the usefulness of your edit summaries in general. To better understand what is meant by vandalism, you might want to follow Special:RecentChanges for a bit, especially changes made by non-logged-in users. -Rholton 17:10, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

Or for that matter, just review the recent history of Wikipedia:Vandalism for some good examples... -Rholton 17:12, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

It fell under Sneaky vandalism. While the intentions were not evil, it was opinion based. Which is a POV

Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos

Please re-read the descriptions given on Wikipedia:vandalism, where it specifically states that POV edits are NOT vandalism. Then review the following changes that you labeled as vandalism:

• Starcraft 07:31, 2005 Feb 18

How can two large paragraphs be considered "sneaky vandalism"?

• Turkey 01:51, 2005 Feb 18

I don't see how the presence or absence of a header called "general" (as opposed to your original typo:"geneal") can possibly be considered sneaky vandalism, or any sort of vandalism.

Consider the following, again from Wikipedia:vandalism:

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad faith edits that do not make their bad faith nature explicit and inarguable, are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia.

Even some very distasteful behavior, such as bullying, harassing, and personal attacks, while deplorable, are NOT vandalism.

Using the word vandalism indiscriminately leads to confusion, and may itself be considered a form of bad-faith editing. Please make an effort to understand and conform to Wikipedia community norms.

:-Rholton 20:11, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

Agreed -- Cat ^chi? 20:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ataturk

Sorry, that's not how you move an article. You move articles using the "Move" function at the top of your screen. If you can't do that because the place you want to move it to has an article with a history, you ask an admin for help. What you do not do is do a cut and paste move. That's a big no no. john k 02:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, wikipedia doesn't always use full name. See Tony Blair, for instance. We use "most commonly used name." At any rate, you can lobby for the change at Wikipedia:Requested moves, where a discussion has already started. john k 14:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. -- Cat ^chi? 15:36, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Well you're new, and you're making mistakes but learning from them. You're learning to work with other editors rather than against them. I like to see that. Welcome. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anon vandalism

Gidday Coolcat, I've looked at User:85.98.38.241's edits, and they are indeed vandalism. Since they were made by an anon without a history of previous vandalism, and they all happened within ten minutes and many hours ago, I doubt that anything would be achieved by blocked the IP address. I've placed a warning on their talk page, but the chances are, they'll never see it because they got bored with vandalising Wikipedia and moved on.

When you warn someone for this sort of activity, please put your warning on their talk page, not their user page. Only a message posted to the talk page generates the "You have new messages" sign for them. Most vandals stop when they see this message.

Thanks for alerting me about this anon.-gadfium 22:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Matter

Coolcat, your edit summary on dark matter:

"I dont see a single mention of it in evidence, where it should be. you normaly give mods an hour to patchup their work. Learn to do productive edits merge duplicate information please. see talk"

strikes me as unusually impolite. You added a short third reference VIRGOHI21. I tried to merge all three, on the assumption that an editor who triplicates information was unlikely to do it. In your case that assumption was apparently unfounded (though there are still two different sections referencing it), but I do not see that assumption or my action as generally unreasonable. I'm sorry if that action or this comment offends you, but I find it annoying to be accused of being unproductive in attempting to merge multiply repeated information. Dragons flight 15:51, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

March

[edit] Iquery on users 195.175.37.8 and 195.175.37.11

There is a POV dispute as they keep adding their POV's on same articles. Since the IPs are so close I am not sure if these two people have same identitiy. Can you enlighten me? -- Cat ^chi? 17:27, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You may be thinking of the developer ability to determine whether two user names belong to the same IP address. There's no way I can tell if two IPs are the same anon user. If they were significantly different IP addresses, you could use the tools at the top of WP:VIP to determine if they were at the same location, but in this case it seems like a given. I've got a lab to go to, no time to check further.-gadfium 20:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian Genocide

Hi Cool Cat, If I might make a suggestion, if you are doing a major rework of this article that is going to take you some time, the best approach would be to work in a sub-page of the Talk page, for example Talk:Armenian Genocide/Proposed Refactor. This has three major advantages: (1) you can do it more at your leisure as you have time, without feeling that you are under the gun because the main article is in an "under construction" state; (2) you won't seem to have grabbed control of the article for an indefinite period where people are expected to just sit back and wait for you to be done with your changes and prevented from making their own changes; (3) you can solicit input and gain consensus for your rework without presenting it as a fait accompli to the other editors. Often people will resist something that they would have otherwise accepted just because they were not involved or consulted. When you take time to build consensus, you are more likely to have support for replacing the current article with your reworked version, when the rework is done. Being slightly bold, and assuming that you will want to adopt this approach, I have created Talk:Armenian Genocide/Proposed Refactor, containing your in-progress refactor, and reverted the main article to the state just before you started the refactor. Good luck with it, and if you would like me to help out with the work, please let me know. --BM 21:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek ranks

Thanks for your outstanding addition to ranks of the Starfleet. I modified the article slightly to reflect what is mentioned in production pubs/the show (references were cited) against what is mentioned in fan literature. Everything you put on there stayed in one way or another.-Husnock 6 Mar 05

[edit] Kurdistan Workers Party

I've indeed reverted this article a couple of times, because vandals deleted the article and replaced it with some inappropriate text about me. It's very well possible that some edits relevant to the article were lost in the process. If you can point me to the version you're talking about I may be able to revert it. But I prefer you wait to do it yourself when the protection is removed. Admins are accused of favoring one version over the other too much. If you don't know how to revert, I'll be happy to tell you. Mgm|^(talk) 22:11, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Also do you know the symbol I can use that is basicaly a filled o? Sorry I don't. as for the timeline you were working on. Yes, you're right, its deletion shouldn't have happened. I don't know enough about Kurdish and Turkish history to determine if there's any propaganda. All I saw was that it was turning into a vandal target. If you don't agree with it's content you can always raise an article RFC. Mgm|^(talk) 10:01, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected and put your timeline in the history section (the lead section should always be on top). The timeline may not look right because the width of the image is longer than the screen, so it needs scrolling. Try changing its size. Mgm|^(talk) 10:20, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Command & Conquer

Hey there, sorry to catch you off-guard. I just noticed a lot of extra details creeping in that needed reorganization and rephrasing. There are also quite a few pictures still clashing for space in the middle of the article that need to be addressed, so on, so forth. Speculation and assumption in some parts of the article were significant and needed more balance. On the whole, I think my edits improved the article, though there's still a lot of flow issues and I'd like to move the specific game details for the Tiberian series off to another article to treat the entire universe on an even footing.

Your comments are also welcome on Talk:Command & Conquer. Thanks a bunch! --Alexwcovington (talk) 10:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

The coding you're using is called EasyTimeline. Somewhere in the help files there's documentation, but I can't remember where. Besides, I've tried to make one myself, and it didn't work, so I doubt I'd be helpful. I think you'd better ask someone else. Maybe the Help desk? Mgm|^(talk) 10:55, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek Graphics

I wanted to let you know I have graphic JPGs of all Star Trek ranks which I will gradually be bringing into the Ranks and insignia of Starfleet article. Your text graphics are good for the interim, of course, but they may eventually be replaced. Thanks for all your hard work on the article. -Husnock 11 Mar 05

Im done for the day. Knock yourself out with the article. One concern: Your new TNG pips are great, but I noticed your Fleet Captain picture omits the gold bar which should be beneath the pips. This was established in Deep Space Nine. I have graphic pics for the all the Next generation pips, including Fleet Captain, but would have to replace your officer pics entirely to maintain consistency. Dont want to do that unless I have to. Thanks. -Husnock

[edit] 138.16.16.231 (talk • contribs)

PKK Article:

Dear CoolCat,

In the interest of avoiding a "revert war" with you, I have changed the PKK Article back to its unbiased form

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurdistan_Workers_Party&oldid=10261209

If you have any problems with this article, please follow your own guidelines and discuss them here before making any changes. Note that I am not making any of my own changes to the article, merely erasing changes you made to the previous state of the article, in which you wiped out entire sections of information and replaced them with an article of your own creation which contains many grammatical and spelling errors, as well as ignoring entirely the issue of Kurdish independence (whether you support it or not).

I hope to resolve this situation civilly, but in case that is not possible I have gotten in touch with a few individuals about possible mediation/arbitration of this issue. Once again, please do not make changes to the article (I won't do so either) without discussing them here first, otherwise you will be starting a "revert war" which is something you claim to oppose.

My respects,

User

• Not all old edits are good. You reverted it back to a propoganda edit, if you insist on putting your POV's into the article I'll gladly revert it back. If you refuse to follow wikipedia policy your IP will be blocked. I dont care who you got in touch with, propoganda is a big no no on wikipedia, I am only tolerating you because of the Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers policy.

I'm well-versed enough in the way Wikipedia works to know that you cannot block by IP address, so don't try any intimidation here. I was about to suggest adding the following paragraph to the article:

The best known and most radical of the Kurdish movements, the PKK, which does not represent the majority of Kurds, sought to establish an independent Marxist state in southeastern Turkey where the Kurdish population predominates. A resurgence of Kurdish attacks attributed to the PKK necessitated the deployment of Turkish army units and elite police forces with the initiation in 1984 by the PKK of armed struggle against the state with attacks on gendarmerie posts in the southeast. Fighting in the mountain terrain favored the insurgents, who could intimidate local Kurdish families and ambush regular troops. The violence has mounted since 1991, with PKK guerrillas from camps in Syria, Iran, and Iraq, as well as from inside Turkey itself, attacking Turkish military and police outposts and targeting civilian community leaders and teachers. In 1993, PKK gunmen sought military targets outside the southeastern region; they also conducted coordinated attacks in many West European cities, particularly in Germany where more than 1 million Kurds live, against Turkish diplomatic installations and Turkish businesses, often operated by Kurds. Such attacks on commercial firms can be seen as efforts at intimidation to gain contributions to PKK fundraising.

What do you think?

By the way, I want you to know that I am no PKK supporter. Please understand though that your article is not unbiased, nor is it well written. Is English your primary language?

• Ip's can be blocked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist
• That was ment to be a warning not a threat. I dont like a "revert" war. I do not need a mediator. I am knowlegable of the issue. I will see what you have done
• We have an agreement that PKK does not represent the majority of Kurds. PKK is a terrorist organisation. (My POV)They did more harm to Kurds than anybody else(end of my POV). I will look at your changes, I will not acknowlege my additions to be simply deleted as if they never existed, I was been factual. If anyone accuses Turkish Millitary for what PKK has done I will simply laugh. PKK is a terrorist organisation as far as all countries in EU,NATO are concerned and thats quite a number of countries... The number of countries are not limited to thoese...

[edit] What I think regarding PKK modifications

• You summerised my article.
• You added PKK links, propoganda material or not related to PKK directly, wikipedia is not a soap box.
• "Numerous events in history have left several million Kurds in the Middle East stateless, primarily in Turkey and northern Iraq where most of its members are based." this article is about PKK not kurds. I am sorry but I cannot accept that.
• "Turkish Kurdistan" Kurdistan is not how you refer to soulth eastern Turkey. If you call it Turkish Kurdistan you will only offend people. "Kurdistan" is a POV as some kurds accpet it some kurds dont.
• "In 2002 the government of Turkey accepted certain conditions for entry into the European Union including abolition of the death penalty which will spare the life of Abdullah Öcalan, plus changes to official government policy on basic human rights, which its Kurdish population will largely benefit." This article is PKK the bold part is in the wrong adress, maybe place it in timeline in "Kurds"
• "was one of several militant groups fighting for the creation of an independent Kurdish state in southern Turkey" So you mean they are not a terrorist organisation? Just like Al-quaida (or however you spell it) , november 17 and various other organisations, it is a terrorist organisation. Softening it is not right, not-factual.
• I am reverting my article back, you are welcome to soften it and make it more neutral. I am not reverting it because I oppose your edit althogh as you can clearly see above I object the majority of the lines. Instead of reverting please edit my edit, you are removing the picture and timeline and a lot of information by reverting.

I want to do this civilised, in order to do this I have several concerns. Do you agree with these?

• PKK is a terrorist organisation <- Unnegotiable
• PKK does not represent the majority of the Kurds
• PKK slaughtered lots and lots of civilians <- Unnegotiable
• Turkish military did not mass murder civilians as the original article suggested. <- Unnegotiable
• PKK used land mines
• PKK used suicide bombers
• PKK links = bad

I am not acusing anyone, the article is not propoganda, sometimes facts are painfull and this is one of those cases.

• If you want to discuss Kurds there exists an article: Talk:Kurds.
• I like your civilised approach, but I have a LOT of reservations regarding PKK. The types of activities of the organisation I mentioned in my edit is acknowleged by the organisation.

[edit] Compromise:

I think I can agree with all of your above statements. However, will you agree:

(1) That the Turkish Military also commit atrocities in its campaign against the PKK, and killed civilians.

• I cannot accept that, I dont have the basis of dennying it, the add you got there seems ok.

(2) That the southeastern region of Turkey is predominantly Kurdish, and therefore has a right to campaign peacefully for independence if the people there support that.

I think that the most painful thing about this situation is that both sides commit atrocities, and the Kurdish people were caught in the middle. I just want to make sure that you do not try to make the Turkish Government look like heroes and like the Kurds definitely don't have any cause for independence. Take a look at the new version of the article and tell me whether you think it is a suitable compromise.

You cannot discuss the PKK without discussing Kurds and Kurdish independence. That's like trying to talk about the Nazis without discussing Germans or the goals of Nazism.

That's what I'm really trying to say. You just want the article on the PKK to portray the PKK as evil and terrorist, without discussing what motivated the PKK in the first place. I think that if I agree to let you keep all the information regarding PKK atrocities, then you should allow me to add the information regarding the issue of Kurdish independence which motivated the PKK, as well as some reference to the atrocities committed by the Turkish Army.

• That is a POV, they can do anything they like via political means. I don't think it benefits them to be a seperate country. If they go that would be a stimulant to Turkish ecconomy as they are a very serrious drain as significant resources are diverted for their needs, like security being one of them second GAP project. There are no valuable natural resources in the region and people in the region have no idea what populution control is as people with 6+ childeren is wrong. Also there are no reliable on how many Kurds are there in the region. I cannot confirm their numbers nor deny them, neither can you
• Kurds classification as an Independant race is disputed big time by some non-Turkey related Anthropologs(I dont have a view regarding this but thats a very contraverisal discussion, It is not my place to make up an opinion). Its very difficult to distingush them apart from other races in the area. I am not a big fan of "racial" rights, they only cause hostility towards the special group, look at Iraq: 3 factions 3 diferent entities all 3 hate each other...
• Kurds up north have their Autonomous region, Shias have their own (created by the NATO no-fly zone) which saved Kurds, and Shias from extinction as both parties at a point sided against the central goverment at a point (by no means do I like Saddam, he irritates and annoys me at best).

---

• Please do not remove my comments again, I believe you did not intentionaly. The so called "atrocities committed by the Turkish Army" started long after the activity of PKK. I cannot let you bluntly acuse the Turkish Military of sich actions and personaly I serriously doubt we would be discussing Kurds if Turkish Millitary wanted to exterminate Kurds. Those are the claims by the organisation. I dont remember a UN resolution or any kind of diplomatic chatter regarding the matter. So the claims are officialy baseless... Maybe make it "the organisation accuses the Turkish military"

[edit] Why I removed some of your links

The links you include to bloody images with no English do not give anyone any context, because they are not in English. Therefore, they are not informative, they are only meant to shock. That is why I removed them.

As for the other links, I think that if you object to including links to the PKK campaign, then I could just as easily object to links to Turkish Government sites (i.e., the Turkish Foreign Ministry). I choose to avoid this conflict, however, for the sake of compromise.

• The Turkish goverment sites have diplomatic value, the link thats there first is US navy databse, This is a terrorist organisation, I will not tolerate any propoganda For it. External links regarding the organisation in my opinnion are extremely offensive BUT i can let the official links to the organisation stay as a comprimise. I still dont like it though :(
• For a person out there with no knowlege of the organisation those links are necesary for what they done. I will clarify the warnign that it points to pictures, Throughout wiipedia external links are not always in english. Also your emoved category and other language links. I am readding those :P
• You completely removed the "The result:" section. The organisation left a small crater in the region. What they achived is all that.

[edit] Enterprise Pics

"I dont see why you modified enterprise ranks :( My theme was better. I like using same jpg over and over again. That way we save on wiki resources, load time, :) -- Cat ^chi? 07:45, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)"

The Enterprise pics you used had a wide blue swath that was taking up way too much space in the table. Also there was no image tag or copyright associated with your pics. The new pics are single files with copyright tags and take up much less space. -Husnock 12Mar04

I'm off for the night. To answer your questions, Motion Picture rank stripes are of a different style/fabric than the original series and documentation from the film producers indicates slight changes regarding titles such as no Fleet Captain, etc.

Also, please, please do not change things just to change things. There is no reason to modify any of the pics that have already been placed on the page (i.e. Enterprise Admiral Pics). The only reason your graphics were modified/replaced was to make room in the table for more columns. Most of your pics were left as is, i.e. next generation pips and original series stripes.

Within a few days, enlisted section will be revamped and graphics files added. I have public domain images from the producers of the show. G.Night. -Husnock 12Mar05

[edit] Enterprise Admiral Pips

Thanks for your great new pics of all the rank insignia. I did have to go back to the old Enterprise Admiral pips, however, to maintain factuality. A detailed explanation of this is on the talk page of the Ranks and insignia of Starfleet. Hope you dont mind, we just want to keep in line with whats been seen on the show. Talk page will explain the full reason.

I look forward to working with you on the enlisted section. -Husnock 12Mar05

[edit] Admin

Thanks for your question about adminship, but Ive turned that down before. Admins ahve become little more than vandal police, spening most of thier time blocking anon IPs who vandalize articles. I am also in the military, subject to deployments, and may be away for Wiki for long periods of time. Thanks, though for the support. -Husnock

[edit] Alternate Ranks

Can you use your new Next Generation pips to create the following alternate ranks in Ranks and insignia of Starfleet? Here are the descriptions based on what material I have seen:

• Flag Officer: An Admiral "Box", however with no pips inside
• Brevet Admiral: A standard four pip admiral box, with the first pip being a black hollow.

Thank you! -Husnock

[edit] ST:TNG Enlisted Pips

All your changes to the Starfleet rank article are great. I agree with saying the silver pips are first season only. BUT- The enlisted CPO pips were worn through the entire Next Generation series. O'Brien wore such pips through the fifth season and several characters after that also displayed gold pips as CPO rank. The column in this section should state "ST:TNG" and not Next Generation First Season. -Husnock 13Mar05

• ok.

Here is the answer to your question cut from the article:

"When Star Trek: The Next Generation was first aired, enlisted personnel were again a very ambiguous subject. Apart from occasional dialogue addressing an extra as “Crewman”, no set of enlisted ranks or insignia was established in the first two seasons of the Next Generation. By the third season, the character of Miles O'Brien had been developed into the first recurring enlisted role since Yeoman Janice Rand of the Original Star Trek series. The rank insignia worn by O’Brien was confusing, however, in that he was often addressed as “Chief”, but appeared to wear the insignia of a Lieutenant (in one episode he is actually addressed as “Lieutenant”). By the fifth season of the Next Generation series, a system of rank insignia for enlisted personnel had at last been established. Such insignia was actually identical to officer pips, with a variation in the number of pips displayed depending on an enlisted member’s status as a Petty Officer, Chief Petty Officer, or the higher CPO ranks. The rank pips in the Next Generation series also were displayed in silver and gold with silver worn by officers and gold for the enlisted ranks. Later Star Trek productions would eliminate this gold/silver distinction and establish gold pips as the standard insignia for all grades."

About O'Brien, his backstory establishes him as a career enlisted Starfleet member. During the Next Generation he is supposed to be a Chief Petty Officer and in Deep Space Nine he eventually is declared to be a Senior Chief Petty Officer. P.S.- I like all ur other changes to the article! -Husnock 13Mar05

• fun. guess that sums it up.

---

I have noted your contributions on my User page as well! -Husnock 13Mar05

[edit] Armenian Genocide

Well it certainly could do with a cleanup, but I wouldn't know where to start. Why don't you put your ideas on the talk page and see what people think? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:40, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh it's fadix? I've encountered him elsewhere briefly. Not a particularly unreasonable chap. Here's what I advise:

1. Please, both of you, start signing your edits so people other than you and fadix can tell who said what.
2. Be nice with him, try to find your differences and work out a way of putting them that you will both agree with.

You're not here to argue about what happened and what did not--different authorities will say different things and that's okay, it's our job as encyclopedists not to find out who is right about what happened but to record faithfully all significant opinions about what happened. I think you should both be able to reach a form of words that you can both agree on. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:38, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fadix, etc

I won't take sides between you two. I want to see signs that you have both read, understood and abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially the following ones:

• No personal attacks
• Consensus
• Neutral point of view

So far despite the protestations from both sides I'm not seeing a lot of this from either of you. No calling one another childish, no calling one another whackos. I'll be watching both of you and I don't want to be disappointed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:28, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Coolcat, just a friendly word about your discussion style.

You write please do NOT revert, overwrite, scream, whinine, swear, insult me/my edits.

Firstly, and it's the most important: never ask another editor not to revert what you do. If you are replying to this, look down to the bottom of the page and you will see "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." And that includes reverting. While reverting is not always the right thing to do, and repeated reverting is usually a sign of a serious problem, please do not presume to tell other editors what they can and cannot do with your contributions. The same goes for overwriting. No article belongs to you. Even your own contributions do not belong to you in the sense of your having a right to see them accepted unaltered.

Secondly, you come across as a little arrogant. There's nothing wrong with that--especially if you're a talented editor (and this may be so if you've got a barnstar for your work on fan articles). However your arrogance here leads you to presume that other people you encounter may be inclined to "scream, whinine, swear, insult me/my edits." That is an insult, whether you agree that it is or not. I remind you that I've asked you to consult and try to understand the policies and guidelines. Please make sure that you spend some time doing so. I'll be watching. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:42, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you Coolcat

I appreciate your fair and balanced efforts very much. Unfortunately, you're up against someone who thrives on confrontation and argumentation and is not going to prove reasonable no matter what is said. It takes strength to deal with a character like this, emitting massive kilowatts of negative energy. I returned after an absence, and am appalled at what has taken place; your original idea of maintaining the initial page until mediation was the proper course, but you needed support. Understandably but unfortunately, those who are looking over our shoulders are operating from the rules of fair play, while the party dealt with has other ideas. At any rate, I have posed questions at the talk pages of both involved administrators that I invite you to check. Thank you again. --Torque March 17, 2005

[edit] Mediation request filled

Coolcat, I have reuqested mediation, and a mediator has asked me to choose the mediator, I have chosen a mediator... present your cases there and I will present mine. RegardsFadix 00:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images on VfD

Just so you know, I'm removing Image:FAdm.jpg, Image:STAdPic.jpg, Image:STVAD.jpg, Image:STRAD.jpg, and Image:STComo.jpg from VfD and placing them on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion where they belong. —Korath (Talk) 01:16, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian Genocide

Thank for your message. I do agree with several of your points, the first one being that the some of language used in the article need to be toned down. Actually, I think I did try to do just that in some of my edits, but of course I agree that there are still much work to be done. Also, on second thought, I do agree that there is really no reason that France should be emphasized in the lead section. What I do not agree about however, is your suggestion that we should just use the word "scholars" and not mention that the vast majority of Western and Armenian scholars are supporting the genocide theses. This is in my humble opinion an important (and very solid) fact, and something that the reader of the article has the right to know. Stereotek 08:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, but there is still no doubt that the vast majority of Western and Armenian scholars support the genocide theses. This is what the article should mention, and currently does mention. Stereotek 15:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response to your requests for appraisal

Sorry, I'm going to have to be negative here. I think you're going about it the wrong way.

Firstly I think your new newbie text is still far, far too hostile and tends to treat Wikipedia as if it were some kind of debating medium. It's also against the spirit of Be Bold. Telling an editor you're going to revert his edits is unacceptable.

Secondly I don't think you should keep checklists like the one you have apparently compiled with the user you're having problems with. Your goal should be to try to understand him, even if he may appear sometimes to be a little insulting. If you can do the former, it will help Wikipedia far more than escalating to the point of completely alienating him. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here's a section from the Editing policy that I'd like you to look at. Notice the open, inviting style, how it encourage users to jump in and make changes, even without discussion. I think you should read these policy documents and imitate their tone. It will give new editors a better feel of how best to enjoy working on Wikipedia.

There are also different editing styles in the sense of how bold people are willing to be:

• Generally, most of us think we should be bold in updating pages.
• Virtually no one behaves as though previous authors need to be consulted before making changes; if we thought that, we'd make little progress.
• Quite the contrary: some Wikipedians think you should not beat around the bush at all—simply change a page immediately if you see a problem, rather than waiting to discuss changes that you believe need to be made. Discussion becomes the last resort.
• An intermediate viewpoint accords that dialogue should be respected, but at the same time a minor tweak should be accepted. In this view, to edit radically or not will often depend on the context—which seems reasonable enough.
• There is a place for all of these attitudes on Wikipedia.

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

See: Wikipedia: No Personal Attacks for a definition of personal attacks between users. usually, it involves name calling and attacks about someone's personality, family, etc not to do with Wikipedia articles. Dissenting opinions on articles are not personal attacks. -Husnock 20Mar05

[edit] Re: Your message

I have no opinion on the topic of PKK, I just saw that there was a serious dispute on the talk page, so I thought it would be right to apply the POV tag.

P.S. I don't think I left anything anonymous, did I? -=vyruss=- 03:44, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I never posted anonymously, I was just reading. When I decided to contribute I got an account. Thanks :) -=vyruss=-

[edit] Fadix

He's stubborn and very wordy in his justifications, but unless he has directly insulted you, I can't say whether he commited personal attacks. Do you have any examples? Mgm|^(talk) 08:48, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

"I will not stop “accusing” you to have a hidden agenda because I am not accusing, I am just pointing to the fact that you do have a hidden agenda, I do not need to accuse you, your editions clearly show it."

"You are not a moderator, a moderator can differentiate himself from his biases, you can't, I don't recognize your authority. Fadix 20:49, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) "

"BWAHAHA!!! (sorry could not retain myself). So Sir is neutral :)"

They also suggest the article will be more one sided so that it is neutral, I refuse to believe there is a concensus accepting the genocide, the general tone of the article is propoganda. Any edit I make to the article will be immidiately reverted by Fadix.

Article goes like this: 1 Armenians in Anatolia 2 The Armenian Genocide 3 The Camps 4 The Special organization (Teshkilati Mahsusa) 5 Millitary trials, Istanbul, 1919 6 Recent History - Timeline 7 Official Recognition 8 Turkish intellectuals who support the theses of genocide 9 Armenian Genocide memorial 10 See also 11 Resources 12 External links 12.1 Websites supporting the genocide theses 12.2 Websites opposing the genocide theses

While no/limited mention of the oposition because all oposition is propoganda, thats fanatic.

"For instance, during the Military tribunal, testimonies in the effect that Dr. Saib and Nail, an Ittihadist deputy, were heading two school buildings used as child extermination camps. Both Saib and Nail were allegedly in charge of providing the list of children who were to be distributed among the Muslim populace; the rest of the children were to be sent to the mezzanine floor to be killed by a mass gassing installation. The Children were sent there under the pretext to take baths, but were poisoned instead.

While the total number of victims that perished in all camps is hard to establish, it is by some sources estimated that close to a million would be a reasonable figure. This figure excludes Armenians who died in other ways, but may include the Special organizations participation in the events; the majority of the excluded losses are recorded in Bitlis and Sivas"

General tone has comments. And that does not sound remotely Neutral.

[edit] Ataturk's irreligion

Atatürk's irreligion is very well documented: "I have no religion," and a neutral description of it belongs in the section that gives his motivation for Turkish cultural and political reform.

Denial or deletion of Atatürk's irreligion is not neutral—I would characterize these repeated deletions as vandalism. Tony Sidaway (unsigned) --129.55.200.20 talk

Very odd. I don't recall saying that. Looking at your talk page history, the author seems to be 129.55.200.20 (talk · contributions), and a whois suggests that it's someone at MIT. I'm in London. Actually my last edit to your talk page amounted to a suggestion that you should lighten your tone in responding to new editors. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Check

I've asked an developer to check for sockpuppets following an anonymous post to Fadix' userpage. Hopefully, that will tell me whether there's any sockpuppets involved in this dispute.

In the mean time, could you please respond to the following (from my talk page)?

The above is not personal attacks. However what indeed is a personal attack is to suggest that Fadix should be on crack:[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AArmenian_Genocide&diff=11229718&oldid=11229384)

In my opinion Coolcat is a POV editor, that among other things claim that the Holocaust never happend: [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AArmenian_Genocide&diff=11348548&oldid=11347861) and suggest that something like this should be neutral: [3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kurdistan_Workers_Party&diff=10504042&oldid=10504030)

Fadix on the other hand seems to be a reasonable guy, with a good understanding of Wikipedias NPOV policies. Stereotek 15:52, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• No, I can't check your IP. I'd have to ask a developer to track it down before I can track your location. Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator

Fadix isn't the only one who gets to choose a mediator. Mediation can only take place if you agree to work with the same mediator. You could agree or suggest another one. But don't think he's forcing you to agree or something. Mgm|^(talk) 09:27, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dictionary

I hope you don't mind me editing your user page, but you said Wikipedia is a dictionary, which obviously isn't true. It's an encyclopedia. Mgm|^(talk) 09:03, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Productive edits are more than welcome feel free to add items that will enhance it. -- Cat ^chi? 09:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Nosrail

I'm keeping an eye on him and I posted to the admin noticeboard. Mgm|^(talk) 09:57, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archvie Discussion Page

Can you briefly explain how to do this? Thanks. -User:Husnock 22Mar05

[edit] ST: Motion Picture Ranks

Star Trek: The Motion Picture had no rank of Lieutenant Junior Grade. This is established in several offical sources from the producers of the film (there also was no rank of Fleet Captain in the Motion Picture). Also, the original sereis rank stripes were of a different style, fabric, and color than the later motion picture ranks. Motion picture stripes were more "metalic". Please do not remove the Motion Picture column from the Star Trek rank article. Thanks -Husnock

---

[edit] Atatürk

It is hard to believe that we cannot name the article about a person as his real full name. Anyways,, Thx --DBL2010^talk 08:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

[edit] Öcalan

I'll give it some thought, but I think two articles are better than one. On the other hand, I will add them to my watch list and help preventing vandalism. Guettarda 17:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't agree that it would make any sense to merge Abdullah Öcalan with PKK. -- Curps 17:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Which vote are you referring to? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I think the individual is still notable in his own right; he is not the organization, and the organization is not him. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contacts, and the "food chain"

So...do I make it to "random veteran" or "promising veteran"? (I think after >6 months & 2000 edits I have made it past newbie). I like the pyramid though. I was rather surprised to realise that Tony is not an admin. Guettarda 18:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Tony Sidaway is an admin. — Davenbelle 18:53, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

He is? My bad. Food chain is my way of categorising. It is difficult to tell who is an admin on wikipedia as people dont yell their adminship, which is good. :)

I categorise people like you as veteran. 2000 edits is very significant as a number. Another factor is the nature of your edits. How many articles did you crate from scratch. How well were your edits etc.

I classify people as newbies if they do not wiki-format like tables images. People dont tag in that category for long.

You can find out who's an admin here or at Wikipedia:List_of_administrators. Guettarda 20:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I liked it better not spaced - it loses some of its effectiveness when you have to scroll. Guettarda 22:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I like this better - it's detailed, clear. I might (personally) differ on the importance placed on barnstars (because I don't have one ;)) but if I had to judge someone I didn't know I would probably use your system. Admin status is a funny thing - there are people who aren't admins who have a lot more clout here than some admins (like BM) - and some people who are admins who you just have to wonder about. Admin status is supposed to be "no big deal" - just trusted members of the community - if you think about it, anyone who earned a barnstar should be an admin. But there's politics involved - Sam Spade outranks half the admins here in terms of his contributions and his clout in Wikipedia, but many people don't like his politics or the company he keeps (or attracts), and there would be quite a few people who might vote against his adminship.

I would probably but the bureaucrats on the level just below Jimbo - at least the senior bureaucrats like Ed Poor, Cecropia and TUF-KAT and the stewards like Angela (a member of the Wikimedia Foundation Board) and Anthere. Angela especially seems like an almost legendary figure. Ed is an interesting - and sometimes controvertial - figure. Anyway, good job on the figure. Guettarda 19:23, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Genocide

I salute you for your neutrality and for having the fortitude to deal with the amazing interloper. I didn't get back right away on your survey, because I got sucked into the goings-on after my absence; I wanted to see what Fadix had to say regarding personal attacks. Of course he attacks you (that's his strategy), sometimes overtly ("You are lying") and sometimes sneakily, accusing you of POV and everything else. (But at least he hasn't gone so far as to call you a "RACIST NAZI-LIKE FK.") I don't have the tenacity to keep up with the Wikipedia developments as you have bravely done. You really deserve a medal. I can see your survey idea has been criticized; Fanadix surely has enough supporters, like Stereotek, who appears to be a fellow Armenian. If you have questions, mannyporter-at-yahoo-dot-com is a way to reach me. I may not get back immediately, because I sometimes don't check on a regular basis. --Torque, Mar 23 2005

[edit] Fadix and others

I've posted requests to some mediators, developers and the WP:DAO. If you want me to take other actions, please back up your statements by providing diff. links. I simply don't have the time to track down who said what when, especially when the arguments between you guys is spread over several pages. Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abdullah Öcalan to merge with PKK

Regarding your comment on my talk page...

Sorry, no on the reconsidering. I have both articles watched, and if they are vandalized on my watch, I'll do what I can. But as to simplifying your workload... watching one more article isn't going to break your back. But AO while a part of the PKK is not the PKK, and the PKK while certainly a large factor in his notability is not AO. It's not like we take Abraham Lincoln and merge his material in with United States Republican Party...because after all, Lincoln was just a washed-out country bumpkin lawyer before he got involved with under the Republican banner, nor do we merge Yasser Arafat with the Palestinian Liberation Organization...because after all Arafat would be insignificant without his involvement in the PLO. The person is notable, the organization is notable, and both deserve to have separate (and I add emphatically), better written articles. I will not reconsider or reverse my previous vote on the matter. —ExplorerCDT 16:49, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Al Qaeda will probably wither and die after the death of Osama bin Laden. Who knows if the Government of Tibet in exile will last after the demise of the current Dalai Lama. The Mongol invasion of Europe was effectively impossible after the death of Ghengis Khan. The Congress of Vienna failed after the death of Metternich in 1848. France's First Empire was finished after the fall and death of Napoleon. The dustbin of history is littered with movements, countries, wars, or other monumental efforts that ended once the person involved with them failed, died, or went on to bigger and better things. But does Al Qaeda equal bin Laden, the Mongol invasion of Europe equal Ghengis Khan, the Congress of Vienna equal Metternich, France equal Napoleon or Tibet-in-Exile equal the Dalai Lama? No. The people involved and the organizations themselves are independently notable. And as such, the articles on these topics are not merged...especially not for such a pathetic reason as to make it easier for an editor to battle occasional vandals. —ExplorerCDT 17:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Good. I assume this settles the matter? —ExplorerCDT 17:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Movie Pins

Your alteration of the movie pin pictures created an inconsistency in that the new pic you used was larger than the others. There is also no reason at all to replace the LTJG Pin pic which looks fine and fits nicely in the article. Your efforts on the article are greatly appreciated but there is no need to replace existing pictures with identical ones. Thanks for your understanding -Husnock 24Mar05

I understand your logic, but please, please, please leave the movie pins alone. There is absolutely no reason to modify or change them. The article is pretty much at a complete stage now. There shouldnt be anything to correct except for factual errors and new info from official sources. Thats my opinion. -Husnock

[edit] Service Stars

You said:Just like in the millitary and scounting a nice thing would be to have service stars for the number of years people contributed to wikipedia.

Now I'm not sure why exactly you told me this, but if you had some plan drafted, I'd like to see the link. Though, I must say I'm afraid it would promote a seniority hierarchy. -- Mgm|^(talk) 00:59, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contacts, and the "food chain"

I do not consider myself to be part of a food chain or rank system. I believe the concept would be damaging to Wikipedia. I have taken the liberty of removing my name from your list. I am just another editor like you. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian Genocide

He does seem a little overwrought. I had a look at your latest change and, although I couldn't follow all of it, the effect did seems to be largely cosmetic, improving the English grammar. It could be that he is seeing something that I am not. If you ask for my advice, I'd say take it slowly and gently and try to convince him that you don't intend to harm the article.

Ask him if there's anything in your edits in, say, the first three paragraphs that he has a problem with, and ask him to explain it. If not the first three, the next three, and so on. Be sure to explain why you made the changes you did, politely, and be ready to concede any point that he may make that seems to make some sense--it's better to have a compromise that you're both happy with than to try fruitlessly to make him accept everything.

Another approach would be to put up only a small change, and see if he reverts that. This enables you to focus discussion on a specific piece of text and explain his opinion, and you can explain why you thought the change made the article better.

Slow work, but very rewarding if you can convince him and together you produce some productive edits. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I find that the best way to get around this kind of problem is to work out what changes I can make to an article that other people will support, even if there's one person who won't. Use the discussion fully and see what other editors think about your changes. He's far more likely to accept a change if he sees that it isn't just you proposing it, but other people who think it's the right thing to do. And it may just be that you'll find that other editors also oppose your proposals--and then you'll have learned something. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I find your color tags very irritating. I know you're trying to make it easier to illustrate the way you're trying to gain consensus, but I think the consensus here is probably that you shouldn't be using color. Don't edit other people's comments if you can help it, just make your own comment and refer to theirs by quoting or paraphrasing a small, relevant bit of it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and people do like it if you say "sorry, I boobed" or something. Even if you meant well, but they got angry, it's a sign of respect and people do appreciate that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:36, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Be patient. If they're waiting for you to be banned, and always assuming you're not doing anything wrong, then the best thing to do is just wait until they realise you're not going to be banned.

I won't get involved in that article unless an edit war develops or there is real vandalism, in which case I may protect it or ask someone else to do so. It would be unethical for me to step in and say Fadix has to listen to you. If he develops a habit of acting like that with a few people, or he genuinely is acting as if he owns the article, reverting all changes, you and some others might like to raise a RfC on that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:57, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Because it's a Wiki we don't like to protect/lock things unless absolutely necessary. I'm only permitted to protect user pages and subpages (as your template is) if they're subjected to repeated vandalism.

A RfC is a Request for Comment. It's part of the dispute resolution process. Read about it here:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tony, let me ask you a question. Would you accept in anyway, that someone merge two positions and present two views as equaly valid? Will you accept that in a natural selection article, the creationist view is presented equaly, and merge with natural selection, without sayin who says what? Would you accept a presentation of two theses as two different but equally valid? Coolcat resist to present who says what, he want to delete that one version is from the Turkish government and the other from most scholars. Fadix 03:28, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I understand your point, Fadix. I don't think it would be right to do so. On the point of "concentration camps" versus "relocation camps" I do not see your point, however. You seem to be claiming that the term "relocation camps" was never used and Coolcat has introduced it, but when I searched I found that the Armenian National Committee of America quoted with approval Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), a ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee who said the following:

"For years, Members of Congress and people within the Administration have shied away from recognizing the Armenian genocide in particular. Yet there is ample historical evidence--including that of American eyewitnesses--that Armenians were forced from their homes on short notice, were sent on death marches across the country, were massacred along the way, and were starved because they were provided no food or water on the march or in the inadequate relocation camps in the Syrian desert. If that is not intentional infliction of death or harm upon a group of people, I don't know what is."

Are these camps the same ones you and Coolcat are discussing? Please forgive me if they're not--I know very little of the events in question and practically none of the geography of the region.--Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Those were the transit camps, not the concentration camps. As I said, the word relocation camp has been used few times, but to be used for transit camps. The transit camps were to direct the convoys until they were sent in the "concentration camps"... the term relocation in those cases could have been used. fadix (unsigned)

Okey doke. Sounds fine. So could we say "The Ottoman Empire set up a recorded twenty-five to twenty-six concentration camps and relocation camps..." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:57, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat want us to find another name for it. But isn't it wrong to say that we can not invent an expression all by ourselve to be included in an entry? Isn't it wrong to say that Wikipedia is not the place to post personal theories? If it is not wrong to say that, is it right to say, that we should call something the way it was called? If yes! In all honesty, why would you think Coolcat will opose to this entry? Like he oppose that we specify that most in the academia support one theses against the other? Would it be one sided to report something like that, when it is true? Fadix 04:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On Stereotek's user talk page, you say: The article currently is an accusation in general, that is not the right tone. Both views should apear 50:50.

This is what Fadix is getting at, I think. As he put it, it's like I set out writing about Natural Selection and some Young Earth Creationist insisted on juxtaposing the views of his minister, or the biblical account of Noah's Ark, alongside the findings of the naturalists, 50/50.

NPOV does say we should represent all significant points of view, and certainly the Turkish government's point of view is a very significant one, but this doesn't automatically mean that an NPOV article will simply give "equal time" to the Turkish point of view and all the others. You need to meet Fadix and the others on their own ground, firstly with the accounts of the historians and secondly examining contemporary references to see if the historians are consistent and reliable. It may be that they've got it wrong and that this isn't what historians are saying at all. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ranks and Insignia of NATO

Aside from the time consuming contraversial articles I developed this. What do you think? -- Cat ^chi? 07:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cool! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] mediat template

Why the hell did you move my template registered under my user name. What is your problem? -- Cat ^chi? 07:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

While I should just ignore that, for it's purely hostile tone, I'll explain.

Nobody here "owns" anything. It looked like a page name typo, so I moved it, and re-edited the talk pages to refer to it in the new location. By your tone, it sounds like, in reality, you mistakely created a personal-use template in the common "Template:" namespace. In either case, moving it to User:Coolcat/mediat is the right option. You can use it like a template by wrapping it like this -- {{User:Coolcat/mediat}}. You may want to see the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:User:Coolcat/mediat. You're welcome. -- Netoholic @ 08:20, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

My apologies, I have been dealing with too much vadalism directed at me. Its difficult to tell what is and what isnt :(. FOr your case that was good. -- Cat ^chi? 09:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Side note

If you want to delete a page that you made yourself, do not empty or "blank" it. Mark with {{deletebecause|Reason}} -- Netoholic @ 08:23, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

thanks dude! appreciate it. shuffdog-talk 08:44, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your disputes with other users

Hello. You drew my attention to an edit war on Armenian Genocide, and I had a closer look at the article history and the dispute. The only way I can see that I could possibly get these users "off your tail" is to protect the article in question. Without specific links to questionable behaviour of these users, and lacking the wish to go trawling through all the history to find it myself, I cannot block these users at a mere request. If you want to provide me with such examples, I would be happy to examine them. - Mark 09:28, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And I see that you are in mediation over the article at Wikipedia:Requests for Mediation. I wouldn't want to interfere with the mediation process. It would be wrong of me to intervene in such a situation. - Mark 09:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

w00t! Thanks! --Viriditas | Talk 09:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fadix

I really can't do much here; I don't have any more power than you do. All I can do is suggest you open an RFC or RFAr, making sure you refer to examples of behavior you find unacceptable. Also, don't forget to mention the fact that the mediation comittee is still is quite inactive. Sorry.

As an alternative you could see if Snowspinner or blankfaze would be willing to file such a request for you through his office of investigations if you find the task too daunting yourself. Whatever, be sure that admit anything you may have done wrong. It will help loads. Mgm|^(talk) 11:08, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian Holocaust ar Holocaust (disambiguation)

I find it quite strange that you disavow the reality of the Armenian holocaust. There is more than ample evidence for its existence; the only ones denying its reality are the Turks. While there may be questions about the motivation, there are none about the act. Denni☯ 17:56, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. You can do so using four tildes (~~~~).

You say Neither you and I can determine the facts. A misleading pro genocide claim is not open minded wikipedia material when there is significant oposition. Significant opposition does not render a claim moot. If that were the case, a number of listings in the Holocaust (disambiguation) article would not be there - those who engage in such acts are quick to deny them when put to the wall. While there may be some POV in the Armenian Genocide article, that does not mean it did not happen. Denni☯ 20:19, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

[edit] Your problems on Armenian Genocide

You ask if this is what Wikipedia is about, editors ignoring one another and reverting their edits all the time. Well this is certainly what it can be like on certain articles to which some editors bring a lot of emotion. I've been looking at your edits. My conclusion is that you are giving out the wrong signals, and bluntly failing to assume good faith in the case of Fadix (who is no angel himself).

On Torque's edits, I think you do yourself a disservice by failing to acknowledge that (whatever you think of the validity of his edits) he has launched some extreme personal attacks on Fadix, most of which I removed but you can see them in the history of the article. It also seems to be the case that Torque didn't actually make many article-space edits, and many of his other edits just seem to be rants against Fadix. He is certainly the kind of editor who tends to get labelled a problem user. You are not, but you are being treated like one.

The other reason Fadix is attacking you is that he thinks you should accept as established fact that the transportation of the Armenians during that period of warfare, in those conditions, amounted to a crime of genocide--the killing of people for reasons of race--and not try to brush it away by saying "but the Turkish point of view is that this is the kind of thing that happens in war" or whatever. He thinks you're trying to remove facts from the article--it may be that you have inadvertently changed emphasis in a way that has destroyed factual content in Fadix's eyes.

If the facts are on his side, you shouldn't complain. If they're on your side, you should be able to demonstrate this conclusively. He could not forever stop you adding relevant factual information to the article, for instance, even if it tended to contradict his beliefs. We're making an encyclopedia so if you can come up with relevant facts that contradict Fadix's point of view then he should let them into the article. If you restrict yourself to changing the emphasis then Fadix will simply assume that you're trying to erase facts. If you add facts then what can he do? If they're relevant, he'll have to accept (eventually) that you have made the article better. Of course there can be a lot of arguing about what is relevant, but your best bet here is to examine the work of historians on this. If a significant number of reputable historians say X or Y, well that tends to count for something.

But please stop the following. I speak bluntly because you will listen to me:

1. Complaining about people's behavior on your user page--where they cannot legitimately reply. If possible, don't complain about other people's behavior at all, just ask them politely what it is about your edits that's so wrong. And listen. If you listen, other people will listen to you. I think one of the problems with the stuff on your user page is that it gives a clear signal that you think you know everything and you're here to set things right, when this obviously isn't the case. You make the same mistakes everybody else does, but you encumber yourself with an aura of infallibility, setting yourself up as arbiter of the neutral point of view, when clearly you're no such thing.
2. Acting as if you're qualified to solve problems, mediate, or whatever. Like me, you're just another editor.

   Yes I am an admin, but that just means I have a few more links on my Wikipedia pages and I'm held to a higher standard of behavior than other editors. It doesn't mean I can speak for Wikipedia any more than you or Fadix.

Oh, and signed: --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I want to add that I have nothing against adding facts when they are documented, as long as who says what is clarified. Fadix 04:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greco-Turkish relations

I think you should leave this article alone. Adam 07:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

On the article: I can suggest anything I please. You are free not to accept my suggestion.

On my website: When I say I created it, I do not of course mean I created it in a technical sense. I am not a website designer, and the site was professionally designed. What I meant was that I created the concept, I do all the research and compilation, and I upload all the data myself. Adam 08:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's under construction. Adam 10:02, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ranks.

Actually, in my fascination with ranks, I've already read those, including rank insignia of the various NATO and other military units. :-) --Deathphoenix 16:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When leaving posts on my User Page, please observe proper page format and use three "===" on either side of the message title post. A good way to do it is to hit "Show Preview" to ensure that your post is in line with the way the page is set up. Thanks. -Husnock 13:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian Genocide

I can't lock a page just because one person thinks it's going to get worse. They wouldn't be able to edit it then. If you have not succeeded in convincing people of your argument, and it's even got to the point where they're saying you're a troll, there's probably nothing you, personally, can do in the way of editing. Your edits would not pass consensus. But you could do is put the article up for WP:RFC or perhaps even peer review. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you telling that there is such a thing as Peer review? Then, why the hell, was the article not placed there in the first place? Is there historians there, so that Coolcat "shouting" of "biases" could stop once for all? Fadix 00:58, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fadix, you are entitled to comment on Tony's comment here; it's a talk page, after all! — Davenbelle 01:56, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

• This is MY talk page you TALK to me. You can TALK to TONY on HIS TALK page. As he is NOT likely to read what you post here.
• You are welcome to post things that Involves talking to me.

• This is my talk page use it to talk to me not to some one else.

If you want to say what I should do, don't make the same mistake yourself, you've been doing it on my own talkpage and elsewhere. Fadix 01:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I was talking to you not him on your user page, you are/were trying to get me banned. I on the other hand was trying to get an admins attention so they could intervene with your personal attacks.

[edit] Re: Clones...?

Hi Coolcat. If you suspect these users to be sockpuppets of one another (i.e. the same person, using multiple usernames) then the best course of action is to contact a developer by email, such as Tim Starling or Jamesday. They can determine if in fact that is the case. - Mark 01:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

April

[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 interfereing 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". -- Cat ^chi? 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:

• Publication of the United States Institute of Peace: Sovereignty after Empire Self-Determination Movements in the Former Soviet Union, Hopes and Disappointments: Case Studies: Nagorno-Karabakh. Solomon

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 "Asume 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 concensus 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 seperate 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 agression and provocation of Fadix and others. I noticed that Fadix was overly assertive and aggressive, so I decided to interrupt agressively 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 agression. 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. Apperantly you don't with the level of personal information you've provided. Its the preferences we have in life. -- Cat ^chi? 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. -- Cat ^chi? 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. -- Cat ^chi? 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. ;) -- Cat chi? 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 seperately. Now you are two different things. Liks will stay avalible 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.  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)

• If you're looking for Wikipedia coders, you need Wikipedia:Developers. Mgm|^(talk) 07:21, Apr 8, 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 seperatists" 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 comprimised

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. -- Cat ^chi? 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? [2]

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 -- Cat ^chi? 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. -- Cat ^chi? 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. :) -- Cat ^chi? 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 -- Cat ^chi? 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 actualy 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 propoganda 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. -- Cat ^chi? 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. -- Cat ^chi? 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 propoganda 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. -- Cat ^chi? 00:08, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note that my communication with fadix is different. -- Cat ^chi? 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: -- Cat ^chi? 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 backgorunds. 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 harrased, 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. -- Cat ^chi? 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 harrassed, 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. -- Cat ^chi? 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 [3]. I just removed the offending content. Stereotek 08:06, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure use proper median to report it. -- Cat ^chi? 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. -- Cat ^chi? 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 -- Cat ^chi? 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 -- Cat ^chi? 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. -- Cat ^chi? 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. -- Cat ^chi? 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 concensus 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 recieved, 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. -- Cat ^chi? 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)

May

[edit] Editing My Post

This is getting out of hand. Why are you editing my post on your poll? You actually said that you designed the internet and I have repeatedly told you not to edit my posts. Please stop now. AngryParsley 21:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I told you why I dont want it in my user space. Cat ^chi? 05:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PKK

Why do you insist on adding the "timeline" when it obviously doesn't work properly yet? Stereotek 12:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• It works properly and perfectly. Its aligned improperly slightly. Why dont you do something else for a day come back tommorow and see what I got? Allow me to write the article. I am writing this article from scratch. I have basis for my arguments. Cat ^chi? 12:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

It didn't work perfectly when I checked. I've commented it out for now. (note: not removed, commented). I have also added a section to the talk page for disputed facts. I've tried to remain not NPOV, but I have stated articles that I have come accross in my reading, I encourage you to do the same. I have I've acknowledged (and contrary to my initial intentions) that i've posted an article that contains "kurd" in the header, please note however that this article is not particularly pro-kurd or pro-pkk, at least in my estimation (especially in the context of the disputed "fact"). I urge to to remove this if you wish in the interest of keeping further references in the spirit of the original suggestion (i.e. without "kurd" or "turk"). You'll note I added a URL that suggests that the accusation of the murder of teachers is a correct accusation. Please take the time to write for the enemy. :) - FrancisTyers 03:19, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categories on user pages

Would you mind deactivating the categories on your user pages? In particular, User:Coolcat/P142 has a number of "live" categories that result in your page appearing in lists of articles. Categories can easily be deactivated by dropping a bracket or by adding a colon in front of the word "category". Thanks, -Willmcw 09:53, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

My most sincere apologies, I wasnt paying attention to categories. Fixed. Cat ^chi? 11:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Not to worry. It's an easy mistake to make, especially when copying in an article to edit. Lots of us have done it too. Thanks for fixing it so quickly. Cheers, -Willmcw 18:18, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian Genocide

Hello Coolcat.

I have just been to the Armenian Genocide Talk Page. It is quite a long page and I have not read all of it, but I find it unusual that your comments are littered throughout. You must be very passionate about your beliefs. How did you form these beliefs? What evidence did you use? If you are very passionate that an entire nation are manking up the idea that their ancestors were murdered, raped, and tortured, then you must either have some evidence to the contrary or a personal/patriotic motive. I would be very interested to hear what you have to say. --User:Drchessman 08:53, 4 May 2005 (unsigned/uncategorised)

For one, no one is claiming the whole thing is fictional. I know the Turks are sensative about its classification. My words littering the article does not conflict with this. If you want to discuss the matter further notify me in my talk page. I havent suggested much just got insulted so far. Thanks. Cat ^chi? 15:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies

You seem to be having a little trouble with this page. Templates may not be the best route by which to build a table. Some users may be irate. I don't have a strong opinion, but I have technical skills and I can preserve the content before the use of templates falls under attack. Would you like me to help? — Xiong熊talk* 01:32, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of the day

Thank you for your help on my attempt to create a "Picture of the day." I know...I didn't know what I was doing. Dbraceyrules 03:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

And thanks from me too. I normally keep these up to date, but ran out of time recently. However, POTD selections are made from the list of Wikipedia:Featured pictures (usually in the order in which they get elected from WP:FPC). I've now replaced your selections for the next couple of days to fit in with the normal pattern. - Solipsist 06:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

What is the pattern? Cat ^chi? 23:10, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Well the basic guidelines are at Wikipedia:Picture_of_the_day#Guidelines, with a little more on the talk page. But essentially, Pic of the Day is selected from Wikipedia:Featured_pictures in the order in which they are promoted. To get the order, its best to check the WP:FPC archive, although it is often easier to get it from the order of pics in Wikipedia:Featured picture thumbs.

However, we are not yet promoting more than 7 new FPs a week (unlike Featured Articles), so we have to reuse older pictures. To spread things out, I'm currently alternating one new, then one old. The old pics are selected in the order of an earlier Pic of the Day archive — checking that the pic hasn't been delisted in the mean time. We are currently nearing the end of Wikipedia:Picture of the day/June 2004. -- Solipsist 07:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categories at RfA

I removed the subheds because (1) they are counter to the long-established style of the page; and (2) they explode the size of the TOC and make the individuals hard to find among the visual spam. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:56, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

Hi! I see you created a model on commons: "Millitary Insignia". But shouldn't it be rather spelled "Military Insignia" (only one "l" at "Military")? Med 23:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Fixing. Cat ^chi? 23:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{GenericCountryStub}}

Hi Coolcat - just found out about these. They would be great - if not for one tiny little detail. They automatically assume that all countries have geo-stub categories. They don't - only about 1/3 of countries do, for the simple reason that for many small countries, it is easier to group countries together into one category. Because of this, if people start using your new template, a lot of stubs are going to end up uncategorised (and therefore out of reach of casual editors). Unless all countries get separate geo-stub categories (which would mean that some countries would have a category with only one or two stubs), it's probably going to cause more trouble than it's worth. Sorry, because in principle it's a good idea - it's just that reality has fallen a bit short this time! Grutness|^hello? 06:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

If you can get me the list of countries categorised together I can create a slightly more complicated template and subtemplates to compensate for this. - there is a list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types, but - to be honest - I wonder whether it's worth the effort. It seems a lot of work to go to, and the result doesn't actually reduce the work that editors will be doing, or make it easier to remember what to code. What's more, there are still concerns with the servers about the use of metatemplates (which this basically is) and the use of icons such as flags on heavy-use templates (and consideriing how many US and UK stubs there are, those flags will be on a LOT of articles!). This is why the icons have disappeared from a lot of stub messages. Also, the list changes regularly and frequently when new Wikiprojects come along or when a country reaches the point where a separate category looks viable, so the new stub template would have to continually be revised and tweaked (as far as country-geo-stubs are concerned, for instance, I've recently gone through all the countries that have yet to get their own stub categories, counting how many stubs are listed for each (the result is at User:Grutness/Geo-stub tallying) - there are about four countries that could well be split off very soon, if there is enough call for it from groups associated with editing these countries). Grutness|^hello? 00:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

Coolcat, a lot of your work is appreciated in Star trek but it borders on Original Research. Adding ranks that have never appeared in the show, anda re simply based on the theories of fans, is not justifible. Your recent article on the Comparative Ranks and Insignia of Star Trek bears serious looking as to source material. Also, I had to remove your admiral insignia from Ranks and insignia of Starfleet sicne I think you'll agree the insignia you put on the page never actually appeared in Star Trek. Please take a look at what you're doing and remember the rules of "No original research". I appreciate most of your work and would ahte to see some of your articles get deleted. -Husnock 03:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[4] Cat ^chi? 04:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek to discuss your new article. I cant stress strongly enough that an unoffical fan web page is NOT source material for an encyclopedia article. -Husnock 05:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

It looks like the article will stay, but will need some serious revamping. Did you copy the whole thing off another site? We also need to determine where the rank pips came from for the other races. No hard feelings here, we just need to do whats right and keep Wiki free on conjectured articles with no sources. -Husnock 05:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Exterminate!

en:wikipedia --> commons:wikipedia

Is there a fast way to transfer images like so? I got most of my NATO ranks at en, want to move them to commons. I knowA I can simply reupload but thats very time consuming... :( For such a transfer do you know anybody who could help? Thanks Cat ^chi? 17:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I know nothing about media, really. User:Quadell and User:Rama are both involved in media to a certain degree and may be more help. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terra Prime

I just started typing give me a break. Cat ^chi? 22:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that - I just saw a blank article and assumed it was a test page. My mistake. Sheldrake 22:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

No problem. :) Cat ^chi? 22:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Support for FAC

Come and show your support at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ranks and Insignia of Starfleet. Thanks! -Husnock 07:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rank insignia

I like what you are doing with the NATO rank pages. However, I do feel what fits nicely on one page might not suit another, and that your replacements on British Army officer rank insignia and British Army enlisted rank insignia (which I reverted) and perhaps also the U.S. Army officer rank insignia (& Enlisted) pages, were not as aesthetically pleasing (ok that's POV) but more to the point, they were not best fitted in the page layout. They were also confusing when they said there was no officer designate or student officer equivalent. There may be no distinctive insignia in each case, but, aside from OF(D) in the U.S forces. Where they obviously exist should it not read no insignia instead?. The pages in question are or should evolve into more description including prose, than the comparative pages (excellent though these are) and can present the same stored pictures in a different way to suit the article. Incidentally, I am trying to get an image of a coductor's insignia (the highest WO1 in the Brit Army). It's bascially the same but in a wreath not unlike the WO2 Quartermaser. kind regards Dainamo 23:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome to fix inacuracies. The british ranks as they originaly appeared occuped too much space and were hard to read. The enlisted ranks looked fine, however the officer ranks had data I could not comrihend. I think a horizontal table looks better, and is more readable. You can fix any inacuracies, my data sheet regarding Of-D and Of-S is incomplete so I have no idea. instead of No equavalent you can write No insignia, which seems to work fine.

I'll investigate the coductor's insignia further.

I am not going to revert the page, I hope you may reconsider. The reason I used the NATO template is if anyone fixes something on the template it affects multiple pages. Cat ^chi? 19:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Although I don't see what was incomprehensible about the original layout, you have won me over on the point about, when necessary, only having to change just one source of data on a template to effect the changes across a number of pages. I have thereore reinserted the NATO template, but I have also re jigged the page as a whole to avoid large gaps and imbalance. Dainamo 11:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Starfleet Insignia

I know you did very good images at that page, and I commend you for them. However, I wish to tell you on what I am doing and why. Instead of using many little images to create the pips, I am making just one graphic for use with the rank. That will reduce the need of having many images to be used. I am doing this, since this was one of the complaints at the FAC for this article. I wanted to address the concern, and also might get that person and others on board for support of the article. I hope you are not upset at what I am doing, but I hope you understand what I am doing. Regards, Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "To go when safe"

IMAO North Korea seems like it fits in there better but I've never been either. Thanx 68.39.174.150 07:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps Cat ^chi? 19:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek

Hi Coolcat. I would like to work together to push for Star Trek to be a featured article. However, I feel that the article as it stands is a mess and requires a complete rewrite. The information presented is fine, but it seems to be lacking certain information and links. Please help by contributing your opinions to Talk:Star Trek. Thanks. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Gladly. Cat ^chi? 00:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image Changes

Please stop reverting Zscouts new images on Ranks and insignia of Starfleet. Your method of pics "side by side" does not appear well on all browsers and causes spacing problems. Many people have complained about it. A single pic for each rank will solve the problem. Please g with te system and not against it. Thanks. -Husnock 02:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Death threat?

    .            .   .
       '       .     .
    :  ;       : .   ;
    |   _.---.._ .   |
    .-"'        `;"--,
    L""--..__    | .'J
    |:`' - ..`""-.'  |
    |.        `":J   F
    J:   ,-.    .|  J
    J    FG)|   ;F  |
     L.  `-'   .J   F '
     L:        :|  J/, ,   .my
     |'._      :| /^_,- '  \-)
     `c-.__'- .;F/ =_,;_"  F"J
   - -=_,) `"--3'7'"    "-J  |
  .   ' .-';,F;L,4_  "-.  `  F
      ,   ' ;'/    ^-,  "-._J
  .%52_._' ,-' ,     .   .-;_
  `3_((  "`   .-`;  -' ,5-'  "-._
      `-._ .-"    "-; //  \,     "-._
          "   itz    `G    L._      `\
                      `L   J  `"-._   \
                       |    L,-"' `\   \
                       J    '     _J;   \
                        L     _,-'  `\ ,-)
                        \._,-'        `r',;=-.
                                       (f _,/'
                                        "'

Does this count then? -- Wegge 21:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Wobble

[edit] 3RR violation

You have been blocked for 24 hours under the three revert rule for edits you made to Kurdistan Workers Party. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list. -- Viajero | Talk 19:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] USS Voyager

Hello, Coolcat. I noticed you moved USS Voyager (Star Trek) to USS Voyager (NCC-74656). I personally feel that the former (Star Trek) is the better title, which is why I moved the article there from Starship Voyager last year. I propose moving it back to "(Star Trek)"; if you have any comments, please drop by the discussion page. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Also I'd appreciate your opinion at Talk:Ranks and insignia of Starfleet#Page Move. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your ST Images

Thank you very much for the recent images and additions to the Star Trek article. They look really good. Thanks as well for beating me to the punch in splitting up the LTJG pictures. That was on the do list plate.

I see you continue, however, to change the spacing of the rank pics and revert to your previous version of multiple pics, side by side, instead of a single pic for each rank. This has been beat to death on the discussion page and a very large number of people wanted a single picture for the ranks rather than multiple pics side by side which is your method. According to statements, it caused wraparound problems and was an issue with the browser that is used in Great Britain. ZScout fixed the problem, people then said the pictures looked better, so there really is no reason for you to keep going back to the old pictures you had. I ask you please to stop doing this. Your changes will only be reverted by ZScout, myself, and others. Thanks for your understanding. -Husnock 18:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battle for FAC

The battle has begun again to make Starfleet ranks and insignia into a featured article. Your efforts and time are much appreciated, even if head butting has occurred every once and awhile. Your support would be most welcome! Thanks. -Husnock 18:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Good sir, I have put a poll on the FAC nomination page to move that entire section of debate from the person who ahd such views that the article was useless, unacademic, and non-encyclopedic. I see no reason to clutter the FAC page with such things and need support to move that entire section to teh article's talk page. Thanks for your support! -Husnock 05:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Very well, sounds reasonable. Cat ^chi? 20:39, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

We are under havy attack at the FAC page. People have resorted to name calling again. They now propose to break up the article, get rid of the tables, and one writer is again challenging the image sources while another states he will advocate to delete the article. How low can people go? In any event, thanks for your support. -Husnock 20:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Military badges on Commons

Hi! I have responded on my Commons' user talk page. --Mormegil 17:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

June

[edit] Controversy?

Now that you have taken my advice and started staying away from controversial topics - have you found your editing here more pleasant and enjoyable? →Raul654 23:52, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

No I feel myself in a complete void. :) Cat ^chi? 00:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Beultifull isnt it? Cat chi? 15:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) [edit] Your Knowledge of History is Limited Just as the title says, from what I've seen you say it seems like you know very little. So I'm asking you to please stay out of historical discussions which you know very little about. Putting things which you found on a google search doesn't impress anyone, except mental midgets. - Unisgned Moosh88 On wikipedia you cannot ask people to leave out of discussions. Your knowledge of Wikipedia:Wikiquette is non existent. History is open for interpretations. There are always at least two different versions. Thats one solid thing in History science. Cat chi? 22:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC) [edit] That's Great Hey thanks for telling me that, since I know nothing about history. NOT! Yes, I know that history is often written by the winners, but I also know that sometimes on Wiki, history is written by idiots. So yeah go ahead write all the crap articles that you want, if I relied purely on Wiki for historical knowledge I'd be a fool. Dont ever post anything in my userspace again until you mature into an adult. Cat chi? 03:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saladin Eyyubi

Hi,

I want to get a clear perspective on the man who is called Saladin Eyyubi.

I have read about this man. In some pages there stay that he is arabic, in some that he is kurdish and in som that he is turkish.

What's the true? I have read what you have written. On what bases do you ground your facts? Did you really engaged in the history of Saladin or did you put something together about what you have heard from older historians. Is there any definitive statements that can prove what origin Saladin has? Please don't misunderstand me, I don't want to disrespect you at all. It's that I am so confused about this thing for now.

I don't recall editing this mans article. I have no opinion on this issue on top of my head. If you could give the articles link I can give you a healthier response. Cat ^chi? 22:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Call to Action

Whereas, much good discussion and work has previously occurred on the Barnstar and award proposal page,

Whereas, the level of discussion and progress on the abovementioned page has dropped to a record level of none; no constructive commments have been made on existing awards since May 17, 2005,

Whereas, many "Vote or Die!" have been left open, namely two, as a result of this lack of discussion,

Whereas, nine proposals lie untouched by Wikipedian hands,

Whereas, you have previously commented and helped on the abovementioned page,

Therefore, I, who have absolutely no command in ordering this whatsoever, instruct you, White Cat/Archive/2005, to return to the barnstar commitment and further the creation of Wikipedian awards; vote liberally and spread your constructive comments.

(Signed) Cmd. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} of the Barnstarium Army, 03:22, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

p.s. And I hope you come back-b

I dont enjoy leaving wikipedia but users keep harassing me. Their edits concentrate on reverting my edits only. No one so far have taken the mesures to stop this.

• When I give governmentatal data thats pov because "governments have been known to lie" [5] some sane looking reverts dont quite have a basis. They are an expert on any and every issue I write.
• If they could make Star Trek POV they would. Which is the only thing they havent interfered.
• Even for articles I wrote such as Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies was bad [6]. I was "abusing" templates. I can go on forever.

In sum its pointless for me to edit wikipedia. They find ways to bother me. They are obsessed with my edits. Their lack of edits rather than reverts is the living proof of this. Two users work together and get involved in revert wars in almost any article I edit. They have 6 reverts while I have 3. There always is a consensus against me by the same users on almost any article I touch. Cat ^chi? 21:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that's terrible. You seem like a dedicated editor and decent person; why are these users targeting you? I hate to see people leave this great project just because some jerks are ganging up. If you would like me to mediate or something, I'd be happy to. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 21:41, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I am not really sure. My theory is: my "futile" attempt to NPOVise Armenian Genocide. I requested sources so that my counterpart prooves genocide etc... I asked him to use sources that are not specilised with the event only. You know standard stuff... It wasn't a very pleasant discussion overall. Their edits are on average minor things, which is fine, aside form that they revert me, the less I edit the less I get reverted obvliously. They keep reverting until I "give up" no discussing in talk at all. Meanwhile I write entier articles. I dont know what you can do to stop their obsession with me. I dont want regular users in the crosfire as they may do what they do to me to you as well. Admins on the other hand can handle any harassment like I recieved better. They wont intimidate me with their harassment. But its rather pointless me to write anything as everything I write is pov, regardless of its contents quite frequently. Its just one revert war after another. Cat ^chi? 22:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• You know what? I've found that editing contreversial articles isn't worth my time; the stress and toll it takes on me does not equal any work done, or any satisfaction found. My suggestion is, forget about the Armenian article altogether, and go do some RC patrol to get your stress level done. Nothing like good old work! Anything else, feel free to get on my talk page. Cheers, Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 01:29, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

  Ture, but now any article I touch becomes controversial. I have POV disputes with the same individuals on any article I go. Such as PKK, I am supposed to cite sources and yet I am supposed to "not discard the work of others out of hand". I am required to accept everyone elses work without them citing sources. Look at any POV dispute I have its with the same two idiots. Cat ^chi? 10:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry to hear about this

I'm sorry to hear about your disillusionment with Wikipedia. I think you are a valuable contributor, I would rather have you around. On the other hand, it isn't important enough in the grand scheme of things that is should cost you that much stress. Wish you all the best, whatever path you take. Guettarda 16:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I dont enjoy leaving wikipedia but users keep harassing me. Their edits concentrate on reverting my edits only. No one so far have taken the mesures to stop this.

• When I give governmentatal data thats pov because "governments have been known to lie" [7] some sane looking reverts dont quite have a basis. They are an expert on any and every issue I write.
• If they could make Star Trek POV they would. Which is the only thing they havent interfered.
• Even for articles I wrote such as Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies was bad [8]. I was "abusing" templates. I can go on forever.

In sum its pointless for me to edit wikipedia. They find ways to bother me. They are obsessed with my edits. Their lack of edits rather than reverts is the living proof of this. Two users work together and get involved in revert wars in almost any article I edit. They have 6 reverts while I have 3. There always is a consensus against me by the same users on almost any article I touch. Cat ^chi? 21:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFC

I have removed your RFCs against Davenbelle and Stereotek because you didn't create a subpage for explaining and discussing the problem. If you still think a RFC is appropriate, please examine some existing RFCs to see how this is done. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user. Yours, Radiant_>|< 09:10, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks that makes me very happy. Cat ^chi? 09:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I should point out you haven't cited any evidence, nor any applicable policies, nor have you found anyone to certify the basis of the dispute. Honestly, after reading your text, I still don't have a clue as to what's going on here. Radiant_>|< 10:48, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • The RFC still isn't certified by the required two parties, thus it remains invalid. Please read RFC procedure for the details, but it is assumed that if you are the only person having the problem, then it's not RFC-worthy. Stereotek has requested that this be deleted; if Davenbelle has no objections, I will do so in the near future. Radiant_>|< 11:24, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hi. As you can see here my rfc cases future looks grim. how should I proceed now? Cat ^chi? 11:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's just a technicality, there is a substantive problem here because you three can't work together. I'll do some research and see what you and Davenbelle and Stereotek are up to, then I'll try to suggest some solutions to all three. Hopefully we can work something out and you will no longer feel harassed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I've moved the RFC to your userspace, User:Coolcat/Davenbelle and Stereotek. Good luck with Tony's mediation. Radiant_>|< 13:52, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting permission from Stereotek and Davenbelle on this. If they insist, we will still have to delete it.

You may want to take a copy now. There are wiki providers such as memebot which would give you a reasonably Wikipedia-compatible place to copy it to for reference. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted it on request of one of the subjects. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] _____

it would seem you have a legitimate basis for complaint with regards to the situation outligned. justice can be done by my self, and a few of those like my self. - James Jones

What do you propose? Cat ^chi? 01:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalbot

Do you realize your Talk page is very confusing? I have no idea where to post. Anyway, thanks for the offer of the vandalbot, but I don't use IRC. Sorry. RickK 04:22, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion

ok. while the topic can be controversial I did not remove anything. See how again my edits and hard work is gone. Please assist. Cat ^chi? 15:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Have you ever seen this? If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes. But like "Bad Wolf" of Dr. Who, Same individuals are appearing on all wiki time frames. I just want to deal and reason with individuals and not senseless reverts. You were talking about doing something about this on RfC page. I am all ears.

I see you as a guide as you are one hell of a guide. Should I reopen my RfC case directly and tell it to the two people (you and silsor) to comment? Or some other course of action? Cat ^chi? 23:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Special thanks

Thanks for reminding the policy of Wikipedia everytime , especially about the neutrality of the articles. Have A Nice Day aozan

[edit] GAP Project

If you revert the GAP Project page to the copyvio one more time, I will block you for 24 hours. RickK 21:27, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal bot

Hi Coolcat, that's an excellent system you got running there. Can I ask you though - why does everything the bot posts have a black background, at least in GAIM? The 'excuse' is coming out as black text on a black background, which of course isn't good :-) Dan100 (Talk) 13:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Actually the color codes works fne on Mirc. I'll change excuse text to something else, hopefully makeing it readale. Its Cyan on mirc. The black background is to make sure the text is readable. It is just a quencedence of GAIM to read both color codes as the same maybe. Ill change it to something else. Tell me if it looks better. Cat ^chi? 20:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You are leaving?

Please no! I just hope this is a wikibreak... Ta bu shi da yu 04:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I serriously considered leaving. Infact I was gone for 15 days plus. Later decided to make it a temprorary wiki vacation. Its an extended vacation until I resolve some issues with the two users who "mercilessly" revert stalk my edits. Cat ^chi? 10:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see that things are sorted :-) Ta bu shi da yu 23:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Things arent quite sorted yet. I still recieve my revert stalking experience. I am less inclined to edit at the moment. Cat ^chi? 12:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What's happening?

Who's stalking you? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have commented on the talk page of Armenian Genocide. I do not have any knowledge of this article or the issue it documents. However, I have noticed many words in the article that must be sourced. The article is not neutral, IMO, until this can be done. I am unsure what the issues are that you documented, or which side of the political divide you exist on: I have made my comments as a disinterested 3rd party. As that disinterested 3rd party, I have no preconceptions about this article as I have no knowledge of it. I have made my comments in such a manner. I hope this helps. If there are further issues to be aware of then I would be happy to hear them: I would also be happy to hear from the other side (whoever they are). - Ta bu shi da yu 02:49, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you file another RFC and provide detailed evidence, along with the specific policies that the behaviour has affected, I will look into having it endorsed. However, please make sure that you provide sufficient evidence that at least two users have attempted to resolve the problem. My suggestion is to use the following RFC as a guide: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alfrem. - Ta bu shi da yu 1 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)

Coolcat, I've just been talking to Fadix, and I'm wondering if we can drop the whole RFC business. I say this because the Armenian Genocide page became heated and I fear that both sides (Fadix and yourself) have traded insults and personal remarks :-( For the good of the article, would you be willing to say sorry to Fadix about those things (not about your stance on the article - I'm not asking for apologies on opinions held!)? I have said the exact same thing to Fadix. I hope that you won't find this to be an insult and if you find my suggestion offensive then please understand that I am only trying to find a way forward on the article, and of course find a way that two fine editors of Wikipedia can coexist on this site, even when they have strongly differing opinions! - Ta bu shi da yu 2 July 2005 01:59 (UTC)

Ah! Just saw the RFC - I thought it was filed against Fadix! Plesae ignore my comments on the RFC, they were made out of ignorance. I will review it and comment. My other comments about the dispute between Fadix and yourself still stand though... I hope the two of you can work together, rather than against each other. - Ta bu shi da yu 2 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)

July

[edit] GAP project

Coolcat, I've processed about a thousand copyvios. I have never accepted anonymous permission to use previously published material. I held this page to the same standards as every other copyvio I've evaluated. How can you say you were unfairly treated?

You said that you re-wrote the history pages that I deleted, yet they contained at least a full paragraph of copied, previously published material. (let me know if you want me to email you the text in question, not being an administrator you won't be able to see the deleted history I'm talking about).

Finally, why don't you say to my face what you've been saying behind my back??--Duk 2 July 2005 00:47 (UTC)

I am not talking behind your back. I am not jumping from admin pages to another, filling RfC cases etc. I just ask people to compare the copy vio page and the alleged page. I tell them copy vio im MY pov is unaproporate. I have every right to do that. They compare and react. If a paragraph is indeed copied from the site and is not on the canadian PD site, feel free to delete it. Just tell me exactly what you deleted so I can rewrite and re add knowlege back to the article. Please do not remove everything but only the copy vio material, just because a paragraph (Id love to know which) is violating "copyrights" (who owns copyrights?) doesnt mean you get to delete everything. All images on the article with the exeption of two are from the same US PD source. Just google image search for the image file names. The other two, one is fair use of areal picture of ataturk dam and other is a graph created by a felow wiki user which replaced the "bad" us gov graph. Cat ^chi? 2 July 2005 01:00 (UTC)

Finaly, I do think your judgement is unfair. You are in error, partialy if not completely. Cat ^chi? 2 July 2005 01:05 (UTC)

What was my error? Not taking anonymous granting of copyright licensing? Do you honestly believe that Wikipedia should accept anonymous granting of copyright licensing? And if you are really the author of the text in question, why didn't you note earlier that it was PD? --Duk 2 July 2005 01:17 (UTC)

I sent you an email; Coolcat, below is a sample of copied text from the GAP project's second copyvio deletion (this is the version that you said you re-wrote)...

...copied text emailed to Coolcat, admins can see the page at [9]...

It contains exact copies as well as derived writing from http://www.adiyamanli.org/ataturk_dam.htm. When I evaluated this copyvio there was no evidence that it was PD, only an assertion from you that you rewrote it. As you can see from this sample, you didn't fully re-write it.

--Duk 2 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)

You are welcome to send me every instance of what you think is a copy vio, preferably ones that arent on the canadian PD page. Oh and btw, please do not use the RfC page to discuss this matter, use the talk of same RfC page. Cat ^chi? 2 July 2005 12:55 (UTC)

The material you mailed me was not in the article on last delete. Note that I am not bothering to discuss on who wrote the older version of article and its copyright status because thats talking to the wall. Cat ^chi? 2 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)

A simmilar content existed however:

The primary objective of GAP is to normalise levels of development, income, and living
standards between the southeastern region and other regions of Turkey. Creating economic
and social opportunities and promoting business, GAP is transforming the region completely.
Critical infrastructure, such as airports and highways, is being constructed to support the
development of the region. GAP will provide jobs to an estimated 3.5 million people directly.

GAP will provide jobs. Airports and highways will be constructed. This isnt something adiyamanli.org made up. It was Turkish Gov's plans. Cat ^chi? 2 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)

Are Turkish Gov. plans PD? And did you note this when you first posted the article? Did you note this and provide a source when the copyvio was being evaluated? Or are you now, weeks later, trying to explain away you plagersim and copyright violations and paint yourself as a victim?--Duk 2 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)

This is ridiclous. You are calling names and making less sense each time. I ask you to stop calling me names in a civilised manner, I would hope to see a civilised reaction. Cat ^chi? 2 July 2005 18:18 (UTC)

I would have thought you would make sure material that apears to be copy vio is not in any PD sites so as not to clutter copy vio system. Cat ^chi? 2 July 2005 15:21 (UTC)

If you want to used previously published material in Wikipedia it's up to you to identify the source, its licence and to note all of this on the article's talk page. Do this BEFORE you copy, not weeks after the copyvio has been processed--Duk 2 July 2005 15:36 (UTC)

Right, for me I just copy pasted material in a TXT file in my hard drive. Later found an image on google image search. You obvioulsy dont believe me, or do not want to believe me (I do not rally care). We are discussing the latest version of the article not an elder version. I am not accepting violating copyights, I am not fighting for the elder version either. Just to satisfy you, or people like you (other copy vio people), I rewote the article. Not once but twice. Deleting the article only annoys me. Instead if you just told me whats violating copyrights (like your mail) I would have been more than happy to fix anything that supposively violating copyrights. This way everyone including me would be happy. Cat ^chi? 2 July 2005 18:18 (UTC)

Coolcat, its not the job of the administrators clearing copyright violations to re-write the articles, they revert or delete. See the instructions at WP:CP. You claim you re-wrote the version that I reverted, but before reverting I still found substantial copyright violations. This might have been an honest mistake on your part, but I explained my actions on the talk page, and many times since then. I want you to stop saying that reverting this page and deleting the history that contained copyright violations was a mistake. And I want you to remove #5 from your RFC. Stop lying.--Duk 2 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)

I tried to reason with you, but you are a wall. Keep calling names, its rather amusing. Cat ^chi? 2 July 2005 18:53 (UTC)

Coolcat, your re-write still contained copied text, thats why it was reverted, and the history pages deleted. It's not the duty of the administrators evaluating copyright violations to re-write articles.--Duk 2 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)

...Keep calling names, its rather amusing. -- Are you refering to my serial liar, plagerizer and copyright violator comment? --Duk 2 July 2005 19:18 (UTC)

Coolcat, I just read your comment on Tony's talk page. There seems to be a misunderstanding. I have no comment whatsoever about the current page. My comments are completely in regards to the second copyvio that I processes two months ago. I have done everything to avoid you since then, aside from defending my actions on that page.--Duk 2 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)

[edit] Starfleet ranks and insignia FAC

I also personally think the FAC was too soon, so I ask you to close this nomination and figure out what is going on. We still have a problem with mainly sources, not with images this time. However, we cannot find all of the sources during the FAC period, so we should at least send it to peer review before making it to the FAC for the fourth time. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 2 July 2005 15:52 (UTC)

I am not going to call off the FAC. I just want to see all points people object to. That way we can improve them before FAC time expires. This wasn't something I did on my own. I asked several people, including raul if they would want to see this on a second FAC. Cat ^chi? 2 July 2005 17:46 (UTC)

[edit] Ashida Kim

Hi Coolcat. I did reinsert your photo, and I don't object to your other edits, but I want to keep as much info, pro and con, in the article as possible. That was why I rolled back to the earlier version. I'm not going to put anything in myself. I did relink to your photo, and please feel free to put in as much other stuff as you like, I was mostly concerned not to lose anything. Sorry about the mix up. Fire Star 2 July 2005 17:34 (UTC)

No problem. I was just trying to do clean up. The image is not mine, just the only image I found on a google image search. :) Cat ^chi? 2 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)

Things seem to have quieted down a bit. I'd like to get the new editor discussing things, if possible, but I have to leave soon (of course). Wish me luck! Fire Star 2 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)

Good luck, although I don't know if a person like me of which a dark cloud folows has any luck to spread :) Cat ^chi? 2 July 2005 19:44 (UTC)

[edit] Southeastern Anatolia Project

No, I was not the person who deleted the latest version. See; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Southeastern+Anatolia+Project Looks like User:Radiant! was the last person to delete the article. --Duk 2 July 2005 20:46 (UTC)

As I said before, After my copyvio work two months ago I've had nothing to do with this page, aside from defending my actions. In your RFC complaint #5, are you refering only to the latest deletion of this page? If so you should mention this in the complaint, and I will strike out my comments.--Duk 2 July 2005 20:55 (UTC)

Oooook. Sorry for screaming and annoying you. GAP Project is being very stressfull for me. The stress I get from the people I discuss in RFC isnt helping either. Now, I am not trying to get the older version which you rightfully can mark as copy vio as identical material was on the alleged page. It was also on a PD page. If you, or some other copy vio warrior was investigating the article they would have seen the PD resource and never bother Copyvioing the page. Regardless... I did rewrite the page so I really don't want to discuss the older version(s). Just please don't mark me as a repetive offender as I don't believe I am one. My problem is not with you, but with the two people on RfC bothering me. --Cool Cat My Talk 2 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)

I'm sorry we had this confusion and I apologise for my strong language. --Duk 2 July 2005 21:24 (UTC)

It was my fault as well, I should have checked the delete logs. :( Cat ^chi? 2 July 2005 21:32 (UTC)

[edit] Diagnosis: Murder

Since you asked... One web site had only one sentence coppied from it which I did reword. The other, had about a paragraph. The latter one is the one I asked permision from. I do not remember the urls. If you could post me the two urls as they apeared on the ex copy vio notice, I can easily tell you which one it is. --Cool Cat My Talk 3 July 2005 04:16 (UTC)

• First of all, I think you are missing the point, violating copyrights and plagiarism is a very bad thing. It is a form of theft, it is intellectually dishonest. It Squanders huge amounts of time of the people who have to clean up your mess. Don't do it. And if you do, get GFDL permission and document it BEFORE posting a copyright violation.
• Second, I asked you months ago for an explanation of what came from where on this article. You couldn't explain to me which text came from which website, let alone convince us the the license granted was GFLD. I have no second thoughts about deleting this article. And I have no intentions of re-visiting this article. Of course, you can always try another administrator.
• Finally, I'm simply astonished that you have no shame. Don't you realize how much trouble you've caused for other people, and how much of their time you've wasted, all because you were too lazy to follow the rules and do your own writing? And then you repeated your crime, over and over. And then you act like a victim when other people clean up your mess. Think about this, Coolcat. It might be one of the reasons why you are having a tough time at Wikipedia. I don't want to have any more contact with you- until you've accepted responsibility for your actions, apologize to me for all of my time you have wasted, and quit acting like a victim. --Duk 3 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)

This is utterly mind-boggling. A copied sentence, a copied paragraph? These are not matters for the copyright lawyers! --Tony Sidaway|Talk

It's not a matter of a simple copyvio, but rather, the non-stop complaining, for months afterwards, where Coolcat claims he's been mistreated. He hasn't been mistreated (with regards to Dianosis:Murder). Yet over and over Coolcat cites Diagnosis:Murder as evidence of his mistreatment, blaming the copyvio people who can't read size 28 text and misrepresenting the situation. Tony, do you begrudge me defending myself?--Duk 6 July 2005 00:07 (UTC)

[edit] Request for arbitration

I think the state of the current RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Davenbelle and Stereotek demonstrates that intervention by the arbitration committee may now be merited. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 4 July 2005 17:28 (UTC)

It shall be done. Cat ^chi? 6 July 2005 11:14 (UTC)

[edit] GAP project

Hi there! Sorry but I won't be restoring anything about this unless I am convinced that the page is in fact not a copyvio. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 18:42 (UTC)

How can I convince you? Cat ^chi? 6 July 2005 11:11 (UTC)

• Since I rarely judge copyvio matters, I'd suggest you state your case at WP:CP and see what they think about it. There's also enough admins around there to restore the article if necessary. Radiant_>|< July 6, 2005 11:14 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Starfleet ranks and insignia

Ou article is sadly under attack. Its perhaps a good thing, becuase when the VFD fails noone will again be able to say the article shouldnt be on Wikipedia. Your Keep vote would be appreciated. -Husnock 5 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)

[edit] The GAP Project

I've made a proposal at Talk:Southeastern Anatolia Project#Clarification and would appreciate any comments you might have there. --Duk 7 July 2005 03:10 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ViP

[edit] There must be a POV about the ARMENIANS article

please look to Armenians talk page, I told why there must be POV in the article. I put but they are deleting it. -- aozan

[edit] About Kemalism Article

I created an article about Kemalist Ideology, I saw that Islamists and some against the Turks and Mustafa Kemal were vandalising Mustafa Kemal Article, may be article could be vandalised, what could I do if that thing is happened? - aozan

Both cases fall under vandalism. You can list the incident in WP:ViP and proper mesures will be taken. I am on vacation so I can do little at the moment. Also remember to sign every post. Cat ^chi? 9 July 2005 14:07 (UTC)

Thanks, I will be glad if you send me a massage if you want to give an advice or a warning or just to talk about something what you want,cheers -- aozan

[edit] Am I doing Vandalism?

I deleted the Armenian genocide term from the text on Turkey page in pre-historic, because it was not related with history of the modern Turkey (For example Laussanne Treaty, Sevres treaty are related with the article but Armenian genocide is not), it is only related with Ottoman Empire, I am asking you is my deleting genocide term from there vandalism? If you say "yes you are doing vandalism" , I will stop deleting it from the term in the text in Turkey Page. -- aozan

Removing POV is not vandalism, however determineing what is POV and what isn't is something that may be a challenge. Each article has a Talk page. Instead of editing parts in articles it is often beneficial to edit the talk page and discuss your cases. Cat ^chi? 11:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

You may also find WP:Vandalism insightfull. As you will clearly see POV edits are not vandalism. You are also protected by WP:NPA. No one should be insulting you or discussing you in any way. Talk pages exists so people can and should be discussing the topic not the individual editors.

WP:NPoV has a set of guidelines on how to edit articles where POV may be present. Cat ^chi? 11:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I can guide you to the best of my abilities. I am currently on a business trip so I have limited time on the internet. Cat ^chi? 11:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I said in the talk page of Armenians Article why there must be a POV, you can see, I understood that you are busy, sorry to disturb, but I will continue to putting it, please look to Armenians talk page, until you say "Do not put POV tag" I will continue, but before you make any decision, please look at there , to Armenians talk page , why I put the disputed tag when you have time, ıf you say to me that I am not right , I will stop, I don't have any problem with them, but I can not accept that thing until there is a primary document about an order or a plan that belongs to Ottoman Government to kill the Armenians --- aozan

I cannot "fight" for you. If you think something is POV you may try to NPOVise it. If you are unable to NPOVise something you may want to point out exactly what is POV on the talk page. NPOV does NOT mean No Point of view. It means Neutral point of view. Baseless POV (ie POV without sources) do NOT belong to wikipedia, that is correct. That doesn't make all POV bad. Cat ^chi? 11:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide is a significant topic. Referances to it should not be removed however all referances should neither establish it as a fact nor as fiction. It is a disputed topic such articles should be written in such a way so that it doesn't establish only one side of the story. I wouldn't classify Armenian Genocide as a neutral article. I haven't read the article you mentioned. You may request a Peer review if you want to have views of random people, these people will side with you if you are right, some will often try to rewrite parts. You may want to identify POV paragraphs/sentences and paste them in the talk page.You can argue on what you dont like about them. Usualy even people opposing you will be reasonable. If not other mechanisms of wikipedia may be used, however you should not need such mesures normaly. Cat ^chi? 11:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I will investigate the matter. If I see POV I'll point it out in the talk page. You can mimic me on other instances on statements where you see POV. It is not easy to NPOVise an article. It takes time. Be patient, ammend, edit, discuss and you should be fine. You may also try editing less contraversial articles aside from this one. Why not improve for example Istanbul as well? Cat ^chi? 11:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Coolcat/GAP temp

Hi Coolcat, I'll restore this version per the discussion on the article's talk page. But there is still some material that is copied from the previously published text (leftover from your refactoring); for example, The range of new products under cultivation is also expanding appears at [10].

I'm going to leave sentences like these out, just so there is no more controversy. The information can be re-written and added later. Please wait till I'm done restoring (I'll do it in parts) and be very carefull not to add any more previously published text by accident. --Duk 19:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

PS. I'll strike out text on User talk:Coolcat/GAP temp that still needs to be re-written.--Duk 19:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, its done--Duk 23:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I understand, I wont be touching the article untill you are done. I tried to rewrite the sections you marked, check if it works. Here: [11] Cat ^chi? 12:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

OK Coolcat, I'm done, the final section has been restored. --Duk 18:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Egypt

Wasn't that article you were looking for titled Egyptian burial rituals and protocol? Anyway, you can drop info my way by email. I can't promise, I'll write anything on the short term, but I'll make sure it gets passed to the right people if you can't write it yourself. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:35, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

No I will write it myself. Just not this week. :) Cat ^chi? 17:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Let me know once you finish. I'd love to read it. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:00, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kurdistan Workers Party

I noticed your comments on the PKK talk page. I'm currently attempting to correct grammatic and POV errors in the text, and have provided a diff on the talk page showing an initial series of edits. If you'd take a look at it, I would appreciate it.--Scimitar 19:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I am currently on vacation so I do not know how much well of a response I may come up with. In about a week, I will deffinately give a complete response. Just dont give up on me :) Cat ^chi? 15:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay, well, I'll probably get started on more edits then, and hopefully I won't muck things up to badly! If you have any problems with the changes I make, I'm more than ready to discuss them.--Scimitar 15:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Cat ^chi? 15:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

Is it possible for you to place a talk link to your user talk page as well like my sig? Cat ^chi? 15:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure how to do that. --Scimitar 16:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind. --Scimitar ^parley 16:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

you should see: Scimitar my talk Preferences My watchlist My contributions Log out

On the top of the screen.

You should have a signature field in "Preferences". You have (I believe) Scimitar there which is the default sig, alink to the user page. Change that to something like this: Scimitar|Scimitar]] [[User talk:Scimitar|^{My Talk}.

 is just fancy btw Cat ^chi? 16:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Aww.. too late :P Cat ^chi? 16:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mass upload

There's a tool called Wikimedia Commonplace, but I can't remember where to download it. Make sure you are logged in when you use it. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:45, July 20, 2005 (UTC) I'm sure that if you ask at the commons, someone will know. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:49, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Recieved with thanks. I shall make good use of that :) Cat ^chi? 10:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Namespace for your office

Hi Coolcat.

I noticed that you created an Office page to keep track of your tasks and tools. It's an excellent idea.

One thing you might want to do, however, is create it as a subpage of your User page (for example, as User:Coolcat/Office) rather than in its present location at User Office:Coolcat. The latter creates a new apparent namespace ("User Office": really a pseudo-namespace), which is generally frowned upon. Let me know if you need any help with the move; I'd be glad to get rid of the old redirect for you once the page move is done.

Happy editing, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I did as you asked. I also placed the redirect on a quickie delete. Lets see how fast can you delete the redirect :) Cat ^chi? 09:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh an you are welcome to "steal" my ideas :) Cat ^chi? 09:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Too late; MTG beat me to it to delete the redirect page. Thanks for moving it over. :) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Anytime. Oh and btw (something completely unrelated), I am trying to rename and move all images on the page Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies Officers to commons. I could move every image individualy but hope to find a faster and more fficent method. I have already moved images of Turkey UK and US. Cat ^chi? 13:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] G20

Nice work on G20 developing nations -- the flag format is very funky! — Matt Crypto 14:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I actualy am imroving all G##'s . Thanks. Cat ^chi? 14:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

You may find Group of 77 satisfying :) Cat ^chi? 16:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Nice! — Matt Crypto 16:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Committee case opening

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFA, The GAP project

Hi Coolcat, on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek you state; Davenbelle marked GAP project a copy vio. Material was PD and is used on 11 websites of which two are PD. Copyvio people deleted the page anyway as copy vio people if they are marking pages as a copy vio make sure material is not on a PD source.

Could you please cite your source and identify the PD publication, or remove the claim that this material is PD.

I'm the Copyvio people deleted the page anyway and there was no evidence persented at the time showing that this material is PD. If you can demonstrate that this material is PD then please do and I'll reconsider, otherwise stop claiming that it was improperly deleted. --Duk 23:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Why are you bothering me with this? It is old argument which we discussed. You are a bit to defensive and this is starting to bother me. The stuff you are throwing me is coppied from the RfC. GEEEZ! Cat ^chi? 02:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think he's trying to harass you, Coolcat. If you feel that Davenbelle unfairly or inaccurately marked the article as a copyvio, then it would help if you made more information available about the source of the material. Without evidence to back up the assertion that the material is public domain, Duk had no choice to but to delete it as a copyright violation. He's bringing it up because you mentioned it in your RfArb case, and is hoping to clarify if you still believe the material to be public domain. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I can prove copyrights by sacrificing my identity, which I do not want to do. From his (duks) prespective what he did is right even though I wasn't violating copyrights but as he pointed out it would be retarded to accept "annonymous" copyrights. Since I can't/don't want to proove copyright status I had rested my case earlier on. Cat ^chi? 12:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The rfc entry was about the same material appearing on a Canadian PD source of which a Copy vio expert like duk would notice when checking for copy vios. That would be a proper "assume good faith" enviorment. Cat ^chi? 12:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I am just mad I see duk "defending" himself again as I havent suggested/pushed the copyrights to arbcom evidence. The material on arbcom was coppied from the RfC which duk and several others discussed this matter to death. This was coppied to Arbcom listing, then was coppied to where it is now by an arbcom member as that is the porper procedure. So I am being yelled at by duk yet again. :( Cat ^chi? 12:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat, I'm more than happy to let this drop. But every time you claim this copyvio was mis-handled I will defend myself. The problem with your making a false claim like this, over and over again for months on end, is that people start to believe it, even if it isn't true. I'm not the one keeping this alive. --Duk 14:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It is the copy fo RFC on Arbcom request page. I was not the one copinging it nor do I feel it matters. Why the hell would I insist on something that I have rewritten better than the older version? Cat ^chi? 14:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, then please remove item number 5 under the Statement by Coolcat section at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek. --Duk 15:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

IT IS A GOD DAMN COPY OF RFC. Which was coppied to requests for Arbcom before your involvement in the RFC. And was coppied to Requests for "arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek" but NOT by me. I encourage you to start reading what I am posting you more carefully. Cat ^chi? 15:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Wonderfull, then please remove the incorrect information. Striking it out would work too :) --Duk 15:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Done, please do not waiste my time on this anymore. Cat ^chi? 16:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sig

I noticed your sig links to User:Duk which redirects to User talk:Duk. You may want to modify it so that it links directly to your talk page. Cat ^chi? 16:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seperation of the history?

Please cut the links out, but not the history. I have checked other organizations, they do not have this much links.

I reject the seperation. That can not improve anything. I reject this. -unsigned Tommiks

I am sorry, I feel history should be covered in greater detail. This does not mean we are going to completely remove history from Kurdistan Workers Party. Cat ^chi? 20:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I know you spent a lot of work on this article, but we need to break articles larger than 32 bytes. This has nothing to do with Kurdistan Workers Party but is because of technical reasons. Cat ^chi? 20:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Also please sign your posts. Cat ^chi? 20:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PKK butchered ??

Everything in the history of this organization is very important. I do not see myself in a position to select which activity is more important and which one is not. How could anyone can see themselves is a mind boiling thing for me. This organization brought financial breakdown, killed the political system (including parlementers), There is no other organization, and goverment in the recent history killed more Kurds than PKK, PKK integrated "terrorism law" to Turkish justice system and Turkey's daily life. If you break the document into sections, I can not accept my name associated with it. AS I have SEEN examples of people breaking the document integrity, and then document turns into a mud. I have also seen these changes performed willingly, to make the document fit one specific idealogy, by assigning importance. If there is one document that will be larger than the "so called page limit". It should be this document. Can YOU protect the integrity of the document if it is composed of multiple pages?? -UNSIGNED Tomminks

PLEASE sign your posts so I know who is posting the message. Cat ^chi? 21:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedias software is not designed to run properly on pages exeeding 32 bytes. This is how it was programmed long before this article is introduced. Also people with dial-up (56K) connection would have one hell of a time loading the page. Cat ^chi? 21:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I monitor a lot of articles. Some have been broken into smaller pages. If someone presents garbage into the article I'll gladly trash it. Cat ^chi? 21:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You do not need to explain me the PKK horror, I have first hand experience. Cat ^chi? 21:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tommiks

I understand you are being frustrated. Please rememember the wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Understand that extreme views regading PKK is not something uncommon. I am tring to reason with him. You may want to create an article under your userspace temporarily. Cat ^chi? 22:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll just wait a bit before editting. I don't have a problem with extreme views, but this was hardly my decision. I mentioned it on the talk page, nobody disagreed until now. I just don't particularly like being accused of having a pro-PKK bias. If you guys feel I'm doing a bad job, I have no problem backing off. Also, I've read the policy on biting, but I appreciate the thought. All the best. --Scimitar ^parley 22:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I posses some anti-PKK bias, whatever that means. So I need people like you with no to little knowlege/bias to NPOVise the article and improve quality with an objective manner. I frankly cant see my POV. I am not going to comment on what you are doing because I am not watching it too closely, I just glance at the changes. I trust you will improve the article. I do not want to interfere with your edits. Cat ^chi? 22:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not want to take sides for the sake of evading rever wars and other crap. Contraversial articles are always a pain in the ass. Cat ^chi? 22:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I just hope you dont get over stressed. You are doing a fine job under pressure. Cat ^chi? 22:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Commons images

(as you know) I've put up a number of flags of the PKK on Commons:Deletion requests, you can argue your case there. Regards, Joolz 16:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy delet template

Hi!

The pages you wanted to have deleted where not Wikipedia article, they where project pages. They are Guild aimed to assemble editors and direct their efforts, and therefore not subjugated to "no original research".

Take a look att Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG.

If those guilds are to be delete, so should Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG.

--Striver 00:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Conspiracies are fun and the discussion perhaps goes forever. But please understand certain wikipedia policies confine us to certain rules.

Wikipedia strives on verifiable facts. Therefore, no original research should prevail on wikipedia.

Wikipedia is neither a forum or a free webhost. Wikipedia is not a soapbox either.

Wiki projects exist to improve quality of multiple wikipedia articles.

You are welcome to create a wikipedia project to improve the quality of all conspiracy articles.

Cat ^chi? 01:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi!

Of course do we have wikipedia policies to confine us, and im sure we both are happy to abide by them. And of cource is "no original research" a part of it. But as you noticed, that is a project page, not a article. There is a great diffrence. In the project page, we can air or views and belifes, but we can not do that on the article. Its like a talk page, its not a part of the encyclopedia, and thereofor abides by diffrent rules.

Those guild are not aimed to be soapboxes, neither to be a chat room. Its sole aim is to give a more coherent view to the topic, and make the editors to have a expanded knowledge of the articles related, resulting in higher standard for each article. Those projects are aimed at just that: Improving articles.

You en with "You are welcome to create a wikipedia project to improve the quality of all conspiracy articles."

Well, that is exactly what i have done. In what way do you not agree with me? And please, let us reach a conlusion on talk page befor reverting or puting those templates there again, revert wars are not encouraged, rather talk is. You cant just speedy delet them when somebody whants it to be there.

have a good day :)

--Striver 02:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CP

It's good to see someone willing to help out with copyvios. Please add them at the bottom of a day's list, and do sign them with date and user name (~~~~). Keep up the good work. Rl 10:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Actualy I can do beter than that on server: irc.freenode.net and channel: #en.wikipedia.vandalism I have a bot that was ment to detect vandalism. It apperanltly does a good job detecting copy vios. An unintended function if you will. Feel free to use it ;) Cat ^chi? 11:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look. Did you post the source code somewhere? Rl 11:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Code isn't open source only because I am too... well... protective of my code... Cat ^chi? 11:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Extraterrestrial Wikipedians

It ment to be a joke, so it reads in the template. Geezz... Cat ^chi? 10:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I know, that's why I said BJAODN rather than delete. Radiant_>|< 17:13, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Oh! I always interpreted BJAODN as delete. Awwww... Sry :P Cat ^chi? 17:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail

How can I send you e-mail? -Unsigned 195.175.37.70

You can send me an email by using the E-mail this user link on my user page or alternatively by clicking here Cat ^chi? 18:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sistine Chapel Choir/Temp

You placed a speedy tag on this article with the explanation "posible copy vio Sistine Chapel Choir, indentical material posted here". I'm just curious about your reasoning. Have you evidence of copyvio? I was unable to find any, but my only resource was Google. In checking the main article, I note that it does not have the Early History section, which constitutes a significant portion of the article. (I will admit I am curious as to why this was simply not amended to the original.) Finally, the article appears to have been blanked at the same time the speedy tag was applied. I'm wondering why. (BTW, pleased to see another SETI screensaver user at work. Yay us!) Denni☯ 23:59, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

When one suspects a copy vio it is necesary to "blank" the page untill copyright status is established. The copy vio tags aren't always acurate. Infact for Sistine Chapel Choir it was a false warning. When one is suspecting a copy vio and blanks this page the copy vio template clarifies for us to not reintroduce copy vio material to the /temp . It's just the procedure. The parts that werent copyrighted were not blanked. Cat ^chi? 11:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Yay for SETI! Cat ^chi? 11:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe it is necessary to have some evidence of copyvio before acting on it - just a hunch is not enough. If there is evidence of copyvio, then a speedy tag is not appropriate - you should use the {{copyvio|url=}} tag. That was the cause of my confusion. Normally, pages are blanked only with the application of a copyvio tag, never with just a speedy tag. As per the copyvio page, here's the procedure:

==== Actions to take for text ====

Remove the text of the article, and replace it with the following:

{{copyvio|url=''place URL of allegedly copied material here''}}~~~~

Where you replace "place URL of allegedly copied material here" with the Web address (or book or article reference) that contains the original source text. For example:

{{copyvio|url=http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/hovawart.htm}}

After removing the suspected text violation add an entry on this page under today's section at the bottom of this page.

Optionally, add template:nothanks to the article creator's talk page, to notify them of the problems with posting copyrighted material to wikipedia.

Denni☯ 19:23, 2005 July 31 (UTC)

Sweet, but you are failing to see the big picture. After placing the copy vio notice author copied identical content to temp. So I requested the delete of identical content speedie. Cat ^chi? 22:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Public Domain Catholic Encyclopedia (Sistine Chapel Choir)

Text from the Catholic Encyclopedia has passed into the public domain. Articles which use text from the Catholic encyclopedia should have the the {{Catholic}} template added at the bottom. The online site is copyrighted, but that doesn't apply to the 1913 text (read Catholic Encyclopedia). You can safely put back the material you've removed which originated from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

See also, Category:Based on Catholic Encyclopedia --Duk 01:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm I guess that was a false alert, thanks for the heads up. Cat ^chi? 11:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

August

[edit] Jtkiefer's RFA

Hi, White Cat/Archive/2005. Thank for supporting my RFA! Even though I did not get a consensus vote of approval I have learned a lot by reading the comments provided by my peers and appreciate your support. Thanks again.

alias calcorg {
 if $chan = $null {
   %origin = $nick
 }
 else {
   %origin = $chan
 }
}

on 1:TEXT:!calc*:*:{
 calcorg
 msg %origin $nick $+ , $2- = $calc($2-)
}

# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
############## ACCOUNT SETTINGS ##############

# The family of sites we are working on. wikipedia.py will import
# families/xxx_family.py so if you want to change this variable,
# you need to write such a file.
family = 'wikipedia'
# The language code of the site we're working on.
mylang = 'en'

# The dictionary usernames should contain a username for each site where you
# have a bot account. Please set your usernames by adding such lines to your
# user-config.py:
#
# usernames['wikipedia']['de'] = 'myGermanUsername'
# usernames['wiktionary']['en'] = 'myEnglishUsername'
#
#usernames = {}
usernames['wikipedia']['en'] = 'My Bot Name Here'

############## USER INTERFACE SETTINGS ##############

# the encoding that's used in the user's console, i.e. how strings are encoded
# when they are read by raw_input(). On Windows systems' DOS box, this should
# be 'cp850' ('cp437' for older versions). Linux users might try 'iso-8859-1'
# or 'utf-8'. If this variable is set to None, the default is 'cp850' on
# windows, and iso-8859-1 on other systems
console_encoding = None

# tkinter isn't yet ready
userinterface = 'terminal'

# Should the system bell be ringed if the bot expects user input?
ring_bell = False

# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-

import wikipedia, config

mypage = wikipedia.Page(wikipedia.getSite(), 'User talk:Cool Cat')

mypage.get()

mypage.put('New text to replace old text', 'Fill out the comment field in this field.')

mypage.put(mypage.get() + 'Added text here', 'Bot adding text')

def output(text, decoder = None, colors = [], newline = True):
    """
    Works like print, but uses the encoding used by the user's console
    (console_encoding in the configuration file) instead of ASCII.
    If decoder is None, text should be a unicode string. Otherwise it
    should be encoded in the given encoding.

    colors is a list of integers, one for each character of text. If a
    list entry is None, the default color will be used for the
    character at that position.

    If newline is True, a linebreak will be added after printing the text.
    """
    if decoder:
        text = unicode(text, decoder)
    elif type(text) != type(u''):
        print "DBG> BUG: Non-unicode passed to wikipedia.output without decoder!"
        print traceback.print_stack()
        print "DBG> Attempting to recover, but please report this problem"
        try:
            text = unicode(text, 'utf-8')
        except UnicodeDecodeError:
            text = unicode(text, 'iso8859-1')
    if logfile:
        # save the text in a logfile (will be written in utf-8)
        logfile.write(text + '\n')
        logfile.flush()
#    ui.output(text, colors = colors, newline = newline)
    print text

#def input(question):
#    return ui.input(question)

#def inputChoice(question, answers, hotkeys, default = None):
#    return ui.inputChoice(question, answers, hotkeys, default)