User talk:とある白い猫/Archive/2005/03

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

(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 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...

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.

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

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"

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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:
 * Please, both of you, start signing your edits so people other than you and fadix can tell who said what.
 * 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)

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)

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

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)

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 Images and media for deletion where they belong. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 01:16, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

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)

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&mdash;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&mdash;which seems reasonable enough.
 * There is a place for all of these attitudes on Wikipedia.

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

Personal attacks
See: 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

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=-

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.

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&mdash;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 &middot; 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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. &mdash; 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 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)

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

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)

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. &mdash;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. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 17:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Good. I assume this settles the matter? &mdash;ExplorerCDT 17:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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:


 * 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)

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)

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 --  .   You may want to see the discussion at Templates for deletion.  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)

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

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

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 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)

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

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)

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 &#9775; 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 &#9775; 20:19, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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! &mdash; 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.

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)