User talk:とある白い猫/Archive/2005/02

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)

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.

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)

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 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)

Edits to StarCraft
I'm taking this to 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)

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: 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)

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)

Vandalism?
Coolcat, Please review 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 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 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 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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)