User talk:とある白い猫/Archive/2007/04

A 'rude' Riva72
Hello! I am sorry for disturbing you here at the English Wikipedia project but I was forced to do this by the Commons user WarX. He has completely blocked my access to the Commons with no sensible reason. I have to quote his reason written in Polish (sic!) which reads: papa Riva72, tylko kto cie teraz zrewertuje? I provide the translation here: 'ByeBye Riva72, who's gonna revert you now?'. In my opinion, he may have chosen Polish as not to be understood by the majority of the Commons users. I am not rude.. The actions of the Polish Wikipedians like WarX are rude. They are not the professionals. They 'do not like Riva72' euphemism :) and, as they cannot do otherwise, they 'revenge themselves' that way which is funny. Cool Cat, I ask you to unblock my access to the Commons (both ways).. I will not do any edits (if not forced to by crucial reasons..) and I will not upload any pictures to the Commons in the future. Tell me if it is possible to prohibit the Polish Wikipedia use the castle in Podhorce images.. It is important for the author of the photos and for me if they were not displayed with the Polish Wikipedia..

I have noticed this blockade by WarX while I was saving the following words at your Commons discussion page:

I have placed these two images to be deleted. I have placed the proper template as the deletion request. The templates were 'taken' (the revert action by odder) with no explanation given. I see this user action as irrational or vicious. The National Bank of Ukraine holds the copyrights to the coins issued by them and, therefore, to the coins images. The presence of these images in the Commons is the obvious 'copyvio' case. I was not aware of the fact that the coin images are copyrighted by law while uploading these photos to the Commons.

The photos in question:,.

--Riva72 00:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for these words and I thank you for understanding. Fortunately, I have this 'Riva 72' account at the English Wikipedia. Have a nice Sunday! --Riva72 00:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The war over the Castle in Podhorce began when I placed the following words under the article (which was written by me and edited only by me): The article is dedicated to Oksana, the lady who got me interested in the castle's history and who helped me to collect the resources and provided with photos of the castle. It was written in Polish nice and easy. I assumed it would be a nice accent to the article, a nice attribution to the author of the photos according to the licence provided. The dedication was an eyesore. Made people jealous? :) It was constantly removed. As far as I know no editor (publisher) removes the author's dedications because such action is a pure vandalism. Anyway, the history of the article and all discussions available there are very interesting.. Therefore, it is the most interesting and the most colourful article in the entire Polish Wikipedia section. :) The article on the castle is also the place where the Commons user Ejdzej showed his ignorance in a spectacular way as far as architecture details are concerned (for which he was blushing for a few days..). He simply made a fool of himself. That is again the argument to hate Riva72. :) The whole affair reminds me of Helen and the battle of Troy. :) You can read it and, therefore, judge yourself if Riva72 was trolling. There were none disruptive activities on the Polish Wikipedia on my part. :) Some Wikipedian administrators (mainly some Polish ones) are famous for 'closing mouths' of their discussion opponents in the forms of blockades when these "respectable" administrators run out of rational arguments. --Riva72 00:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC) + --Riva72 07:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * - the finest version
 * - the clumsy and vandalised version
 * - the discussion which is interesting
 * - the discussion which is even more interesting
 * - the discussion over the discussion
 * Unfortunately, the page with artistic images version cannot be displayed for your glance. :)

Anyway: Вінець ратних трудів — перемога, перемога — тріумф, тріумф — відпочинок or Owocem walki jest zwycięstwo, zwycięstwo prowadzi do chwały, chwała to zasłużony odpoczynek as was translated by me. '''The translated version is copyrighted. Do not repeat and share with friends! Do not distribute!''' --Riva72 05:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Al-Anfal Campaign
Hi I think we should rewrite this section if you mind me asking you this...

"Independent sources estimate 50,000 to more than 100,000 deaths; the Kurds claim about 182,000 people were killed. Amnesty International collected the names of more than 17,000 people who had "disappeared" during 1988. [2] The campaign has been characterized as genocidal in nature, notably before a court in The Hague. It is also characterized as gendercidal, because "battle-age" men were the primary targets, according to Human Rights Watch/Middle East (hereafter, HRW/ME)."

If we can add this section to it.

"This military operation, code-named the "Al-Anfal" campaign, resulted in the death of at least 180,000 people"

Source: Humanitarian Intervention: the United Nations in an evolving world order - Page 183 by Sean D. Murphy

It doesn't really sound encyclopedic due to the number of sources we can rewrite with my version on top and than add Kurdish sources since it sounds like a good starter any opinions? Lakers 04:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can add a source from the UN that would be great. Kurdish sources are fine provided they fall under Attribution -- Cat chi? 10:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests_for_arbitration
An arbitration case involving you has been filed. Feel free to comment there. -- Cat chi? 13:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A question
Hello! This is the last post for you from me both here and the Commons. I have this question: Can the author of the photo which is uploaded by her (or her representative) to the Commons under 'Creative Commons Attribution 2.5' licence prohibit one of the sections of the Wikipedia encyclopedia (the Polish Wikipedia section) to use the author's photo to illustrate an article available there? The author wants to inform about this in the permission section of the photo summary info box. I ask for a serious answer.. My question concerns the Podhorce castle images and the following note  which was reverted by the user called Ejdzej. Of course it may (maybe should) be shortened to the information that: The author of the photo prohibit the Polish Wikipedia to use her work which should be respected.. I consent to the three months blockade (which is still unjust) but we (the author and I who uploaded the pictures) still want to prohibit the Polish Wikipedia section to use the set of eight photos known as 'Caspod1-8.gif' to illustrate the seriously distorted article available at the Polish Wikipedia. For lots of other reasons, as well.. I would appreciate your answer. --Riva72 17:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There has been no such issue in the past of this nature... but as far as the license is concerned, by uploading it to commons you are to use a license like CC, GFDL, PD which allows anyone to use it for any purpose. So I do not believe prohibition of images can have any legal basis. Of course none of this has been challenged in court. -- Cat chi? 17:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Is it possible to stop being the Commons user (I mean a permanent profile removal) for personal reasons such as disapproval of the project and the feeling of serious repugnance to this project, to its ways (including these of conduct) and its ideology (to name just a few reasons)? I have started to have second thoughts concerning the Commons and the Wikipedia projects and I experience all the feelings mentioned. I would like to resign and ask you, the administrator, to remove my Commons profile with the condition that you remove all the photos and images (the coats of arms: and ) uploaded by me, Riva72. I would appreciate your understanding and your respect for my decision would be welcomed. --Riva72 19:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We do not have the technical means to remove accounts (removing an account would cause a number of problems). I could however delete your user page. I am sorry but I cannot remove other contribution including uploads and edits. -- Cat chi? 20:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not delete my Commons user page and my Commons discussion page under these circumstances.. Allow me to mark all my uploads with the deletion request templates and place at the deletion discussion page (mass deletion request) all my messages to you available here (I mean the ones called A 'rude' Riva72 and A request alongside your answers).. In my opinion it would be the best solution to the problem (if not the only as explained by you earlier) and let the majority of the Commons users speak their minds, express their opinions. It would also be the sign of the Commons (+ its administrators) respect towards me, Riva72 which I fully owe.. In my opinion, the Commons users like WarX and Ejdzej are not worth any respect.. It is my personal opinion to which I have rights and for which I cannot be blocked.. (I experienced blockades for my personal opinions and my gentle yet sharp answers in the past). --Riva72 20:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe throughout commons history no ones entire contribution was deleted per request. You are welcome to make such a nomination but I do not believe it would work. In any case, as much as I want to help you - I can't just act recklessly. I will post your request to the commons ANB discussion. -- Cat chi? 20:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What does not mean that it cannot be done for the first time. I am not welcome to make such nominations because I was blocked by the user called Ejdzej for three months (for making pictures more artistic or adding the second version to them -name it as you wish). This action by him/her(?) is ridiculous and childish. He/she(?) even do not posted any message to me in this case. :) I ask you to unblock the Riva72's account immediately. I will be kind enough to post no message until (or maybe after as well) the commons ANB discussion is closed. I would appreciate if you provided me with the link to this Commons ANB discussion. I think the use of the future simple tense is a promise itself. :) Thank you. --Riva72 21:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of your block. I cannot unblock people just because I feel like it. Weather I agree with you or not is irrelevant when it comes to me taking an administrative action as drastic as an unblock. The commons discussion is: commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. -- Cat chi? 22:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd only want to thank you for your cool attitude! I admire it. Good luck! A.J. 12:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Flags of ethnic groups -- suggestion
Hi. I don't mean to sound critical in my comments at the AfD about your nomination of this article but I really do encourage you to follow the AfD procedure's notification requirements (proper edit summaries) and suggestions (notifications to contributors) in the future. From my own experiences with articles I've taken to AfD, I found I've had better luck when I do this. --A. B. (talk) 15:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was planing on doing that. I generally do not nominate large articles for deletion (it is generally nonsese, pov fork, and etc). -- Cat chi? 16:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Template guru assistance needed...
Hello! Hope you're well. I have a simple (for a guru; not for me) template question. How would I add a category to a page if, and only if, the current page is in the Talk: namespace? Hope it's easy! Thanks in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That would require the usage if if/elses - which is a bit complicated. What template is in question? -- Cat chi? 16:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * An example would be 1911, although all of the Category:Attribution templates would need changed in time. Please don't change the live one! I need to arrange for a bot to copy it to the talk pages of all the articles first. If you know of an example of a template like that I can copy it from there and make a test one to play with. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am no admin, I cant edit it :) I'll copy it to User:White Cat/1911 and edit. -- Cat chi? 17:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dekteru dekteru (all done), is this what you need? -- Cat chi? 17:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrfect! That's exactly what I need. I really appreciate your help. If there's ever anything I can do to help you, please let me know. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 21:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A question to the administrator
Hello again! Please, explain me the reason for a one-year-blockade (at the Commons) which I was punished with a few minutes ago by the Commons user called WarX. The reason given by them is vandalizing image descriptions. This is a vicious action by the user because I have not vandalized any image decriptions.. I (as the author of the photos and the authorized person to do the upload as far as images called 'Caspod1-8.gif' are concerned and having the rights granted by law) changed the licences of some images from 'cc-by-sa-2.5' to 'cc-by-nd-2.5'. I inform that I have not changed the licences of the photos I wish to remain in the public domain and I state that I will not change this decision in the future. I request you for the explanation. I am sorry to disturb you and engage you in this matter but I was forced to do it. --Riva72 00:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Riva72 was unblocked by me, because he wanted to prepare deletion request, but he started tampering with licenses... I'm not going to be tricked so easily again. A.J. 07:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They were not tricked. It was the only way I could do in this situation. It is still a deletion request. I ask you to revert the Ejdzej user's action (applied to the recent photos) which is the violation of the law which I fully possess and which allows me to change the licence from 'cc-by-sa-2.5' to 'cc-by-nd-2.5'. The whole situation becomes annoying and unpleasant. As I said earlier: I have all the rights to do so. The form of the deletion request which the user called Ejdzej is thinking about would be exactly the same: the change of a licence type from 'cc-by-sa-2.5' to 'cc-by-nd-2.5' but it would not be appropriate because I do not have to ask the Commons administrators for the consent. Quotation: Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above. (Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 - legal code). My decision of changing the following licences has got one more reason which can be expressed with words: we cannot donner de la confiture à des cochons. I was led to these conclusion by the recent actions of both such "respectable" administrators as Warx and Ejdzej. I was extremely glad to read the following words by the latter at the ANB discussion page:

Riva72: To the user called Ejdzej: You are really a misleading person and not reliable what is a shame for the administrator.. as: Your upload of the to the article on  was done on March 5,2007 - proof: ]. You voted to preserve the article on the castle in Podhorce on March 3, 2007 - proof: - - no further comments - (213.199.192.60 15:07, 3 April 2007). Ejdzej: That's all true. - (A.J. 15:35, 3 April 2007). It is only the fragment of the discussion. I welcome you to read it all at: --Riva72 08:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)--Riva72 08:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool Cat, I ask for your personal deletion of the photos I tagged yesterday. My other statements in this chapter remain unchanged. --Riva72 08:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The photos which licence has changed:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

P.S. The user called Ejdzej violated the law and broke the previous 'cc-by-sa-2.5' licences given to these photos while he/she(?) blocked me for altering them, i.e. for making derivative works for which I again possess all the rights. He was even so rude and irrational to call the reason for my blockade: spoiling of images.. --Riva72 08:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry I have to remind the "administrators" like the user called Ejdzej that according to the (Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 - legal code) it is allowed to create and reproduce Derivative Works. --Riva72 09:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You were unblocked to nominate the images you uploaded for deletion as per the discussion we had here. You instead altered licenses. You cannot randomly change licenses. The "law" does not allow you to use a cc-by-nd-2.5 (commons incompatible license) after releasing images under cc-by-2.5. Commons policy explicitly forbids this kind of behaviour. You are making it increasingly difficult for me to help you.
 * I cannot delete images just because I feel like it. Being an administrator only means I have additional buttons, I still have to follow consensus like everyone else. Unless there is a consensus for delete, I can't delete the images.
 * -- Cat chi? 09:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The user called Ejdzej's words are again worth nothing: I was informed by them at the ANB discussion page that: The blockade is over. Please make a good use of it. Goodbye! A.J. 16:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

'''Nevertheless, please inform me how I can gently remove the photos (which were linked above) from the Commons depository. This will be my last action at the Commons and after that I would like you, Cool Cat, to remove my profile and my user page.. Thanks for understanding (and patience).''' --Riva72 09:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the newest information by the user called Ejdzej (which name, by the way, sounds awfully..) posted at the Commons ANB discussion user-problems page I wish to inform that I have never trusted the users called Ejdzej and Warx. Besides - recently - I have lost my trust to the Commons and to the Wikipedia projects. I am strongly convinced that the projects ways are dirty.. --Riva72 09:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that I had the right to change the licence types of some (if not all the photos uploaded by me) of these photos (mainly the photos called 'Caspod1-8.gif') as their previous licence cc-by-sa-2.5 was breached by the user called Ejdzej.. while blocking me and reverting the derative works of these photos. To remind you:
 * 7. Termination (Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 - legal code).
 * This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You (and it means the user called Ejdzej and all the Commons project which he/she(?) is the funny representative of) of the terms of this License. Individuals or entities who have received Derivative Works or Collective Works from You under this License, however, will not have their licenses terminated provided such individuals or entities remain in full compliance with those licenses. Sections 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 will survive any termination of this License.
 * Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above.

--Riva72 09:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not use me as a tool. -- Cat chi? 12:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are all tools, the sysops, of someone who holds all the Commons and the Wikipedia. Besides, you are tools of the users; you are for the users and not vice versa. Besides, I see you are only a Cool Cat. I even do not know if you are a man, a woman or an animal. The user called Ejdzej evidently broke the licence rules and you are a coward to admit this. This is all from my part. Bye, bye C.C! --Riva72 14:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

hello
please follow this link.Regards. Must . T  C 15:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your valiance, I wasn't particularly bugged by his comments though. He seems to be very upset due to his block. -- Cat chi? 20:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right: I seem to be very upset. Anyway, you are wrong thinking this feeling is the result of the block. It is a pity I was forced to place this answer at this place because I thought we had said everything to each other both here and at the Commons. Bye! --Riva72 14:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

IRC
Would it be possible for me to catch you on IRC? -- Cat chi? 17:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, sorry; generally speaking, I don't use IRC. Kirill Lokshin 17:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a gmail account? Gmail chat would also work. -- Cat chi? 17:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I would suggest that my talk page (or email, for more private matters) are likely to be the most useful ways of communicating. Kirill Lokshin 18:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As you wish, I'll prefer the public option then. The issue at hand is WP:RfAr#Category:Kurdistan. I was wondering if you could reconsider your position. Since you posted your opinion on the rfar page, I have gathered some additional evidence.
 * My reason in filing the case was not to find a solution to the actual content dispute. Several users have had been revert waring while avoiding/ignoring any discussion. The two mediation cases failed because of their inactivity.
 * -- Cat chi? 18:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kurdistana Sor.jpeg
Can you provide evidence that "Mehrdad R. Izady" released the image with a free license? -- Cat chi? 15:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't hesitate to nominate the whole article for deletion. Ciao! Behemoth 19:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting the entire article is a copyright violation? Care to elaborate? -- Cat chi? 19:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Behemoth 20:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Info
Did you know about this? Baristarim 13:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting, would you care to create a request on WP:RFCU? That user does have a history of sockpuppets. -- Cat chi? 13:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will file one right now.. Baristarim 13:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests_for_arbitration
You asked me to be patient. I have been trying to resolve this dispute for the past 2 months. People are ignoring discussion and I have been waiting for that time period. Same people are ignoring any avenue for discussion even now. What would you recommend I do? -- Cat chi? 16:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Continue to be patient. Temporarily walking away from an issue is very important strategy for content dispute resolution. There is no reason that this particular issue on Wikipedia can not be left unresolved for the time being. Trust that over time more interested users will give involved and the community will make the best decision. Take care, FloNight 23:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Madlax FAC
I thought you might be interested to know that I've nominated our Madlax article for FA. :) --Koveras ☭ 09:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I need your paws on this
I did some rewording and rewriting on the Anatolian Rock. In my opinion, it can be improved into a good article in time and it is a pretty interesting topic. Can you review it when/if you have the time? Cheers.-- Doktor Gonzo 12:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can look, but I know nothing on the topic. -- Cat chi? 20:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter, if you can just do one of those wikify, reword, restructure things when you have time. Thanks in advance.-- Doktor Gonzo 12:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the article a bit. I am not certain what more I can do without adding info on a topic I know nothing about. I also worked on both navigation templates that appear on the page. -- Cat chi? 09:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

A commons question...
Hello, I'm hoping you can help me out with a Commons question. I uploaded Commons:Image:Bacteroides biacutis 01.jpg using the CommonsHelper generated tagging. It looks ok to me, but apparently it's not. Any chance you can have a look at it and tell me why it is nsd tagged? It seems to be just the same as dozens of others, so if there's something I need to change I'd better get busy! Thanks in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not absolutely certain why but I suspect this is because of the lack of necessary "linkage" to the source of the image. If possible images should be linked to the image on the USGov website. This is to easily verify the copyright status of images in the future. I do not see any other problems.
 * That side, you should create a commons userpage.
 * -- Cat chi? 20:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Addressing the problem with RFA
I think you'll find Requests for adminship/Danny/Bureaucrat chat quite pleasing. Not that it means everything suddenly changes, but it's clear reasoned precedent for ignoring stupid and irrelevant opposes, however sincere they may be - David Gerard 14:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That is interesting. I have added it to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform. Feel free to comment there -- Cat chi? 19:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan
The arbitration case, in which you have commented on, has closed. The decision is as follows:

AdilBaguirov, Artaxiad (formerly User:Nareklm), and Fadix are each banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year. Aivazovsky, Atabek, Azerbaijani, Dacy69, Elsanaturk, Eupator, Fedayee, Grandmaster, ROOB323 and TigranTheGreat are each placed on standard revert parole; each is limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and required to discuss any content reversions on the article talkpage. ROOB323 is also placed on civility parole for 1 year.

You may review the full decision at Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 01:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan

 * Commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks & protections
 * I am seriously concerned with User:Artaxiad. He had very recently stirred some problems on commons using a sockpuppet. I was wondering if ArbCom (or some other group of people) has some sort of a process against this.
 * -- Cat chi? 20:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 00:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the follow up. Judging by the recent blocks (a list of them - not sure if its complete) I noticed Artaxiad had Kurdish, Greek, Armenian alternate persona (sockpuppets). Some of these were rather amazing such as User:Lakers. I was wondering if he has other alternate persona which may go under the radar if they are using open proxies and etc. Also the checkuser data will expire in a month. Something should be done to keep those to make it possible to detect future sockpuppets. I just don't want to deal with any more disruption from these/this people/person.
 * Oh and by the way, user seems to have voted witha few sockpuppets at Requests for adminship/Angusmclellan. More of his sockpuppets may be there
 * -- Cat chi? 10:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've had a talk with Mackensen. He told me that you'll need to talk to a commons checkuser since :en has no authority over commons. Go to m:CheckUser for the Commons part. I'll dig around on the RfA page, but I'll need help since I'm not an admin. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 10:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh this request was for en.wikipedia sockpuppets. Once we eliminate them all here, we can do a commons collaboration - though I do not feel that is necessary at this point since his disruption there is minimal. -- Cat chi? 11:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do want to be prepared should the need arise. -- Cat chi? 11:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Try WP:RFCU? - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 11:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, see Requests for checkuser/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan. Several of the users complained almost immediately. Sorry for the misplaced comments btw :P -- Cat chi? 19:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

procedure
Please check that am I followed correct procedure or not. Must . T  C 15:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You have provided no conclusive evidence to compare edit behavior of Ozgurgerilla. This should be "obvious" evidence. and  relationship is rather obvious (though you haven't cited that). Your RfCu case would be stronger if you had clear/"obvious" evidence. -- Cat chi? 19:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As for another checkuser - check this out .. Baristarim 03:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Users indef blocked because of this checkuser by Dmcdevit:


 * - I was amazed with this one
 * - I was amazed with this one
 * - I was amazed with this one

lol - I wonder what else is going around here... :) Baristarim 04:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser
Hi! I just wanted to say that I saw this ... oups! soory! I meant this ... No! Wrong again! I mean this (yea, finally correct), and I chose not to respond. Cheers!--Yannismarou 16:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a point good sir? -- Cat chi? 19:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ?--Yannismarou 19:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate the intended message. Was I being accused of something? I do not understand. -- Cat chi? 19:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Cool Cat. You are accused of nothing. It was a humoristic approach (which you obviously did not like) I tried to adopt (because I don't see any other way of approaching the whole issue). If you feel offended, disregard the comment, erase it, do it whatever you want, and have my apologies. As far the request itself is concerned, I'll first wait the execution of the CheckUser, and then I'll comment on it, because I don't want to be reagarded as trying to influence it in anyway. Cheers!--Yannismarou 19:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about, you merely got me confused... ;)
 * Checkuser is a merely a process to help eliminate disruptive users such as User:Artaxiad, it is nothing personal. It will help eliminate the paranoia developing in all of us - which I believe will be most rpoductive.
 * -- Cat chi? 21:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you see any "paranoia developing", speak for yourself and not for "all of us". Now, fully respecting the procedures in Wikipedia, I'll post my comments on the issue after these procedures are completed.--Yannismarou 08:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was being accused of being a sockpuppet too you know (by User:Domitius for example). Accusations of sockpuppetary shouldn't be flying around -- Cat chi? 11:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice!
I just found this sub user page of yours. Nice! -- Jreferee 01:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

username
Ltf take a look, to post your oppinion Requests_for_comment/User_names Must . T  C 16:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Gerek kalmadı. Bloklandı. Must . T  C 16:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not believe my involvement was necessary either way. -- Cat chi? 16:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Açıklama istemişlerdi.Düzgün ingilizce gerekir diye yardım istemiştim.Sağol. Must . T  C 16:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I would have gladly helped on that end. :D -- Cat chi? 17:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Military-Insignia
Template:Military-Insignia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —xyzzyn 21:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

PKK/Turkey
I tried for name of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Turkish-Kurdish_conflict. Now, OttomanRefence is trying.
 * Khoikhoi did not accept it. Khoi said that Uğur Kaymaz was a civilian Kurdish, he was killed, so it is not only PKK-Turkey conflict. But, current name Turkish-Kurdish conflict is wrong because that there is no ethnic conflict. There is a problem related to ethnic Kurdish problem but it is not directly an ethnic war. I asked the naming dispute to R.Cakır, and he said that "I think that "Turkish-Kurdish conflict" is not a good idea because it refers to some kind of civil war that does not exist yet. I would prefer 'Kurdish question (or problem, or maybe conflict) in Turkey' or Turkey's Kurdish question'. But, Khoi did not like the name because according to him not only Kurds are responsible for the conflict. He said that he would think about the name, but no suggestions came form him! I searched on the Internet, and found an article by Koç University academician Somer: "People seem to instinctively understand and fear that this time such a path may lead to a Turkish-Kurdish conflict, i.e. not only a conflict between the state and Kurdish separatists as the conflict previously was, but which involves ordinary people". from http://www.turkishpolicy.com/default.asp?show=fall_2006_somer That would be another nominee for the name: "Turkish state- Kurdish separatists conflict". Is "Turkish state - Kurdish separatists conflict" good?
 * If there is a voting, we should make a consensus. Any name other than current name is more suitable. But, at the last vote, people who are against the current name gave votes to different names so article's name did not change, since there were no consensus. We should refrain from this in a survey.Paparokan 11:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Cumhuriyetine Sahip Çık protest
I am not much of an article writer myself so I would welcome any assistance. -- Cat chi? 04:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for the invitation. I am not an expert editor either. However, I will do my best to contribute. I believe that it will grow up soon and will ignate the creation of similar Turkey-related articles of recent political issues in Turkey. Happy wikiProjectTurkeyEditing. CeeGee 04:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There is always a start ;) -- Cat chi? 04:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that you are the user who started the article above. According to the statistics that the Turkish media has shown, the amount of people who participated this incredible rally is over a million. Moreover, some citizens have jeered at TRT because of reflecting the number as 10,000. So, is it possible to change the expression 'over 200,000' to 'over a million' (since there is a huge difference between them) ?. Thank-you for your understanding, -- Bahar (Spring in Turkish)  &#9997;  16:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC) (Bahar|you may find me here)
 * Hi, I merely used the data provided my the Turkish Armed Forces website (according to Hurriyet.com.tr that is - I was not able to verify it). We could provide a range for the numbers from different sources - it is an estimate anyways. -- Cat chi? 17:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

protect your republic article
hi cool cat! you tagged the protect your republic rally article as a current event again. it's not a current event. as I said so in that article's talk page wether mr. erdogan should be the president or not is a current event, the rally is a past event. what is your rationale on tagging it? can you please elaborate on the article's talk page? thanks. best wishes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.102.180.116 (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
 * On wikipedia we tag very recent events as a "current event". The content of the article will develop during the course of this week such as how people react to it. When we have an article on an air crash, it stays as a "current event" for a week or more during the course of the initial investigation. The demonstration itself might be over but it is a developing story which makes it a current event. -- Cat chi? 18:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

hi cool cat, I don't understand the rationale behind your excision of the phrase secularist-leaning from the articel. it was a very clear part. when you say something made the people suspicious it means it may have made the WHOLE people suspicious. I added the word some there as not everyone in Turkey is suspicious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.102.180.116 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi, I am sorry but you'd have to cite a source that confusion was exclusive to "secularist-leaning" people. Non-secularist people may also be confused with his motives. We would need a credible source to exclude/include a specific group. -- Cat chi? 18:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, you maybe right but we also need a source for the claim that it made the people suspicious, saying just people is as ambiguous as saying some people, thus I thought it would be better to add something to describe the suspicious sect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.204.174 (talk • contribs)
 * The point of the entire protest is that very suspicion/belief. Every source talks about it. The president reportedly even aimed a direct comment about it towards the prime minister last Friday. We cannot determine the nature of protectors (their political beliefs and etc) without sources. "Some people" is as bad as "Every person" -- Cat chi? 19:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

hi Cool Cat, I yet again don't understate something, you removed the two citation needed templates I put on the article. They were perfectly suitable for that place as the allegations in that particular sentence were un-cited, as there were two separate allegations in oıne sentence I put two templates, yet you removed them. You could remove just one, the one at the middle of the sentence but you removed both. The section is still un-cited and if I put that template again I'm afraid you'll probably remove them again? Why did you remove them, is looking clearer more important than battling biased sentences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.245.114.193 (talk • contribs)
 * Please take it to the articles talk page not to my talk page. -- Cat chi? 09:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Protect Your Republic Protest
Can we close the move discussion? I would prefer not to have a move template on a developing current event. Once the current eventness has expired we can then discuss the move idea again (if you still feel it would be necessary then). -- Cat chi? 16:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine. --dllu 17:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you mind closing the debate? (Just to avoid confusion among people) -- Cat chi? 17:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I nominated the article for GA - just wanted to let you know. I also did some copyedits on the article. Cheers! Baristarim 06:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

images on Wikinews article
hi, thanks for contributing to Wikinews. however, there is a bit of a problem with your edits to the Turkish rally article. see n:Talk:Pro-secular Turks rally against Erdogan's possible presidential candidacy. best, Doldrums 20:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I replied to you there. -- Cat chi? 20:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Kurdish related articles
Help us for the Assessment of kurdish related Articles. --Bohater 08:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would love to do that but there is no wikiproject for it. -- Cat chi? 10:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Breaking the Law
Cool Cat I added the FA star to this section of the page is the breaking the Law's of Wikipedia? this is the link Tragedy_of_the_commons Max ╦╩ 15:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not know what "Law's of Wikipedia" are but such an edit is not in violation of any policies I know. That said - it isn't common practice either. Would you be a bit more specific on the nature of the problem? -- Cat chi? 16:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not know if the star was only to be used in the upper right corner of the FA page's. People can be a little crazy about FA stuff, just want to be on the safe side. Max ╦╩ 17:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Generally featured star is only used on featured on the upper right corner of the FA page and that articles talk page. Those are the "legit" usages. It isn't illegal to use it elsewhere but is often discouraged. There is no reason to overly advertise FA status of an article. FA status is no big deal which is the rationale behind the FA star image itself. -- Cat chi? 17:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Castles in France
To User:Angusmclellan, User:Cool Cat, User:Jamie Mercer, User:Bluap, User:Postlebury, User:LukeHoC, User:Johnbod, User:Sam Blacketer

I'm writing to you because you contributed to the discussion on Category:Castles in France, which resulted in the category being deleted, or redirected articles in that category. This decision, as I hope to show, was wrong and needs to be reversed. Please take the time to read the following and respond.

Firstly, I should say that I did not take part in the discussion because I did not know it was taking place. (I was actually in France following the presidential election campaign and, ironically, taking photos of French castles!)

My reasons for questioning the decision are:

1. As far as I can discover, the debate was not advertised on the WikiProject France page, so that editors with a declared interest in topics related to France could be aware of it.

2. Similarly, no mention was made on the WikiProject Castles page.

It would have been sensible to at least mention the proposal in these projects and to seek advice.

3. The problem identified is very real. The French word château does not translate easily into English. It can mean a castle (in the usual English understanding of the word - a medieval, military defensive structure). It can mean palace/stately home/ mansion (and in fact, English speakers will frequently use the word château with that meaning). It can mean a vineyard, with or without a castle or palace attached. And, even more confusingly, the thousands of water towers in France are named château d'eau.

4. Even the French sometimes need clarification. In recent years, French language guide books have often described castles as châteaux-forts to distinguish them from the palaces.

5. Some months ago I came across a page in Wikipedia called List of castles in France ([|see original]). This made the mistake of including article links solely because of the word château in the title; in fact only about half of the list were real castles - the rest were palaces etc and even some vineyards. I set about revising the list and along with other editors we managed to get the page as it appears now. We have gone on to add dozens more articles, particularly by translating pages from the French Wikipedia. All of these articles were categorised as Castles in France; any then categorised under Châteaux in France were moved over to Castles in France. The Châteaux in France category was left to be just for French palaces etc (i.e. what we as English speakers would call châteaux).

6. The Category:Castles by country lists 56 sub-categories and many of these are further divided (e.g. Castles in the United Kingdom is divided into Castles in England, Castles in Scotland, etc). The only country without a category concentrating on castles is France and this is a serious oversight. Anyone looking for details of castles in France now has to wade through a category that is not dedicated to castles!

7. The problems you identified with the original Category:Châteaux in France are real and need to be sorted, but this has been made worse by now lumping in all of the castle articles. Château de Puivert, for example, does not belong in the same category as Palace of Versailles, any more than Conisbrough Castle belongs with Buckingham Palace.

I would be interested in your comments, particularly on how to give French castles the same category status as castles in Denmark, Spain, England and other countries. I have to say, the only way I can see that happening is to reinsate the Castles in France category as it was and for some work to be done on where the real problem lies - in the Châteaux in France category. Emeraude 10:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It can be renamed back. I would recommend summarizing your argument before starting a cfr. -- Cat chi? 16:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted threads
The thread on CN was here, the one on ANI was here. DES (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Why can't stay the colors?
Why have you deleted the colors of the Kurdish project? It's a Kurdish Project, so why no colors like the flag? Who does say that it's WP:NOT? Please, discuss at first and don't change such thing so quickly! --Killaruna | talk 2 me!  19:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have already discussed. People haven't given a real response and archived. It is not a "Kurdish owned wikiproject" it is merely a list of Kurdistan related topics. See how national colors are not used on other similar wikiprojects. -- Cat chi? 20:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

== Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Vandalism_-Antikurdish ==

Could you explain (at the right place at ANI) in what way WP:V applies to those articles? I left a more detailed question at ANI. I know absolutely nothing about Kurdistan, which is why I have to ask what is going on. CMummert · talk 19:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have replied to you there -- Cat chi? 20:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ANB/I can get noisy and hard to work. If you would like, we can continue on user talk pages. After all, no imidiate admin action is necessary. -- Cat chi? 23:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You have already tried the things that I would recommend, so I don't think that there is a lot more to discuss. I don't see any good way to get a community resolution for things like this. CMummert · talk 00:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A few weeks ago I tried to bring up the matter to arbcom. It was declined for being a content dispute. Do you think I should pursue that avenue again? -- Cat chi? 00:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If it has only been a few weeks, it is probably too soon to ask again. I thought about it some this afternoon, but I couldn't think of any good way to proceed unless you accumulate a large number of other interested editors. CMummert · talk 01:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of the people including administrators do not want to touch anything "kurdistan" related with a ten feet pole. I was unable to accumulate anybody so far but I probably was not trying in the right location. I would welcome any hints. -- Cat chi? 11:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also people seem to have "flagged" me right now. Any nom I make will likely be opposed regardless of the rationale. -- Cat chi? 18:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Artaxiad


I was wondering why my comment was removed after 7 days. Artaxiad had caused additional disruption with sockpuppets and has threated to create more. Should I start a second ArbCom case? -- Cat chi? 23:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A clarification that does not get an arbitrator response within 7-10 days will usually never get one. Artaxiad is already banned for one year, the most that could be done would be to ban him indefinitely, but any admin can do that once Artaxiad has "exhasuted the community's patience." He appears to get around the ban by editing through open proxies and from a library and two universities in toronto.  Short of banning Toronto from editing, there's not much else that can be done.  He is basically in the category of persistent banned user like Bonaparte, Lightbringer, Jason Gastrich, and others.  Just keep stomping on them when they poke their heads out far enough to be identified. Thatcher131 23:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see, thats fine then. I would have welcomed arbitration committee saying something like "Artaxiad exhausted the community's patience" but I guess I'll settle with the solitude of silence :) -- Cat chi? 19:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Template:Military-Insignia
Template:Template:Military-Insignia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Megapixie 02:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Kurdistan
Yo, would you like to help out with this. Nothing has been done so far. -- Cat chi? 23:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem - what can I do? Please note it's protected, so I'm unable to edit it ~ AGK 23:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is the categorization of articles with Category:Kurdistan and its sub articles without any kind of sources. This is my approach (the four bullets) and this is theirs. With that kind of clear lack of WP:AGF I am not certain what avenue I should pursue. -- Cat chi? 23:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This users attitude is simply detestable. He seems to be Wikistalking me. -- Cat chi? 23:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And this ist our problem. []. --Bohater 23:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Inquiry
You have mass reverted my recategorization of a number of articles. I was wondering if you had a rationale for this action. I was merely recategorizing articles from a "Kurdistan" (which has unverifiable borders) to "Iraqi Kurdistan" (which has verifiable borders). In the absence of a reliable source, those entries can only be categorized as being inside of "Iraqi Kurdistan". -- Cat chi? 16:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The simple answer is this: you cannot just try to empty a category unilaterally. You have to go to CfD or some other place. I've reverted your mass-deletion of the category for now. If you would like some help, here's a map of Kurdistan from National Geographic. Khoikhoi 22:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can "mass decategorise" at the speed of categorization at my whim if the categorization is not done properly in a verifiable manner. Can you provide a verifiable and reliable source that those cities belong to Kurdistan? That website is a fansite and fails to meet WP:RS. Which issue of National Geographic is it from? Since I have been waiting for this reliable source for the past 2-3 months... I will depopulate those categories as per WP:V in 4 days unless I see a verifiable reliable source. After that please do not revert until you find a verifiable and reliable source. -- Cat chi? 23:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can. It's August 1992, Vol. 182, No. 2. Struggle of the Kurds (Saddam Hussein’s atrocities in northern Iraq have focused world attention on an ancient people seeking autonomy in their long-divided homeland.) Khoikhoi 00:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The word "Kurdistan" is not even mentioned once. That article clearly does not discuss boundaries of Kurdistan. I ponder how you came up with that link? -- Cat chi? 00:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is:

Khoikhoi 00:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Where did that map come from? What is it based on? Did Ed Kashi drew it himself? If so is he a reliable source in determining the borders? -- Cat chi? 00:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It comes from the National Geographic article, so I'm sure that someone associated with NG drew it. You don't seem to understand what the issue is. It doesn't matter what the borders are of Kurdistan are because it doesn't have exact borders. However, cities such as Muş, Van, and Dahuk are included in the shaded area, so we can add the category to their relevant articles. National Geographic seems to meet WP:RS. If it doesn't, please explain why. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 00:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not certain. I'll acquire that issue of National Geographic and read the rest of the material to comment on the issue any further. As far as I care the issue is on hold. Meanwhile please delete those copyvios. -- Cat chi? 01:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Cities on the Great Lakes
Hi. You created the article List of Cities on the Great Lakes a few days ago with the edit summary "listifying category" ... that article is most redundant to Great Lakes. I was going to propose its deletion, but decided not to as the lists aren't entirely identical. In your opinion, is it worth merging the two? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 03:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the list can be improved to hold more information such as which lake the city is on, which state and country its on and etc. Perhaps population too. It may also be renamed to List of cities along the Great Lakes. Each city should ideally also contain a citation that it is on the Great Lakes. -- Cat chi? 10:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The addition of that type of information would make the article a stand-alone list. List of cities along the Great Lakes is currently a redirect to Great Lakes (it was merged), but that can be reverted and expanded into a longer, more comprehensive, and more informative article. Thanks for letting me know, Black Falcon (Talk) 15:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Re Picture for In the news
Hi again Cool Cat,
 * ''Actual picture of the protest should be used instead of picture of Gul himself. I am not sure where is the best location to propose this...

Looking at Template:In the news, I'd say that template's talkpage – otherwise there are some other links in the infobox there... Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Zile
Hi,

When you have time, could you copy edit the article? I would really appreciate that.

See you,--Ugur Olgun 16:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)