User talk:とある白い猫/Archive/2007/11

NASA Spoken Article
I would like to know the text-to-speech software and voice used for this file: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:En-NASA.ogg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.81.76 (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not really remember. Machine speech is disliked and I discontinued doing this. -- Cat chi? 00:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

PKK and Belgium
Hi, White Cat,

Sorry, but I can't find anything about an official declaration by the Belgian authorities about the clashes between PKK and the Turkish Armed Forces. Your request is not forgotten and I keep searching, but I just wanted to inform you of my failure upto now....

Cheers ==^.^==

--Moumine70 11:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyright
Hi White Cat. As you cann see at the bottom of my usepage, I have been approached about an image suspected to be non-free. In fact, it is an image clearly lifted from Google Earth. I feel it can't be used, but I am only a humble editor and so I'm not sure what to do now. Can you tell me where to report the suspected transgression or what else to do? Thanks. athinaios 00:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Google earth images are not free and have no business being here unless being used on the article on Google earth. The uploader can seek a similar free image from NASA archives. Google earth images can be speedy deleted by using Db-copyvio -- Cat chi? 06:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Your user page
Greetings White Cat! I'm currently revamping my user page and I like yours so much that I'd like to use it as a model for mine (format, etc.). I thought I should ask your permission before doing so. Please let me know if this is all right with you. Fullmetal2887 (discuss me) 02:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Feel free to! It's licensed under a free license after all! :) -- Cat chi? 06:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

your comments regarding episode articles on the admin board
After becoming embroiled in the seedy underbelly of Wikipolitics following TTN's attempt to merge all Angel episodes, I was starting to become discouraged from editing. What initially attracted me to Wikipedia was the idea that working together, we can incrementally create a great article - but some experienced editors on the discussion that followed made it sound as though official policy was merge/delete everything except GAs.

I just wanted to say that I think you've outlined your position very well on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Episodes, basically articulating everything I wanted to say about the spirit of Wikipedia but didn't know how. So thanks. Kweeket 21:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words. I have been trying very hard to get this problem addressed, There are over 15,000 edits to be reviewed as this mass deletion had been actualy going on for over a year. People started with less popular shows. -- Cat chi? 22:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do want to add that I am just one person, feel free to participate in the discussion agreeing/disagreeing with any of the points mentioned. -- Cat chi? 23:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive
Mind archiving this page? -- Cat chi? 15:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes... 68.39.174.238 16:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? -- Cat chi? 16:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I never archive... 68.39.174.238 20:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you always this unfriendly and closed to any advice/request? -- Cat chi? 20:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not, I'm just terse since these questions didn't seem to call for much elaboration. The emotions behind short text unfortunately are easily lost in writing and (re)reading. 68.39.174.238 00:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. Well my concern is that overly long talk pages become harder to use. People with slow bandwidth would have a hard time contacting you. Given you have a decent amount contribution I was merely trying to help you and people trying to contact you. -- Cat chi? 00:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Porthos-where no dog had gone before2.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Porthos-where no dog had gone before2.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ejfetters 00:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Birth date & Name
Thanks 4 the extensive summary. It is a lot of work. What would be your position in creating a sub-page and moving the birth date and name related information (including the images from commons) to this article and give a short summary and a link to that article. In-favor of this move is the current size of the article and there will be separate "talk" page for this very controversial issue. There are couple threads in the main article, and it seems this repeats every couple months. --Rateslines 17:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I did not add the name section. Thanks for the kind words. I merely dissected a source I found on his birth date. I don't think a seperate article is necesary as I feel all that can be said has been said extensively. Of course I may be wrong but I want to wait until more information is available. The breakaway of the Kurdish uprisings related section was merged back later on. We do however need an article on this "Rumi calender" as I do not have the slightest idea what it is. It would be a fine addition though. -- Cat chi? 18:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Rumi calender:" There is an article related calenders, I will look into it and see what is it's extension. I have been for a long time thinking a sub-page related with ""Personal life."" I was thinking moving controversial issues, wife, name, birth date, (even the claims of ethnic nationality and even the claims of his sexual orientation) could be covered under this page. This will create a substantial coverage and may be an answer to your "until more information is available." Also, it will bring stability to the main article. Instead of constantly removing these controversial edits, it give a medium to these arguments with a warning message at the top. I think this is needed for FA status (stability of the article). --Rateslines 18:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not every claim is worthy of this article. They need to be from reliable sources. This article should be about the personal life of Atatürk. You may want to break away anything else (such as reforms) instead. What do you think of this? -- Cat chi? 18:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Check the Islamic calendar (Hijri). --Rateslines 18:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You pointed to a good position regarding the Rumi. It is more complicated than I thought. It will be a good and valuable addition. It can be linked to "The Memoirs of Naim Bey."--Rateslines 18:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ottoman empire used two calenders Hijri (Islamic calendar) and Rumi. Rumi may be this "Turkish calender linked as a red link. -- Cat chi? 18:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you intentionally ignoring my comments? I strongly discouraged an article like Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's personal life. At the very least you should discuss such major changes. -- Cat chi? 22:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Are you intentionally ignoring my comments?" Of course not!!! I'm not 24 hrs online. I have been thinking of creating a sub-article for extending the personal life 4 a while. The original article reached 110K and did not have enough space to grow before people begin to cry. There were threads about the size I did not initiate those threads so I'm not making it. You were right, there was not enough text collected under the main page to initiate, such a section, before your additions. Your extensive addition gave the perfect beginning. It had citations, normal text development... So and so.. Hope we can do the same type of analysis for other controversial, but important, "Personal" issues. I was even thinking putting a family tree (graphical) under this new sub-article, but they will all take time. This is not my full my time job. :-)) His family background has been controversial for many years. I sincerely believe the value of this page. I'm not rejecting the point of reliable sources. I think it is time. --Rateslines 00:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 110K isn't really a gigantic size for an article. Most featured articles are around this size. The 32k limit was for browsers in 2001, it is now a symbolic limit these days. Articles are now broken apart typically when they exceed 100k significantly. So there is no urgent reason to break the page apart.
 * I really think an inverse logic should be applied to this. Generally stuff broken outside of bio articles are specific incidents like his involvement with the independence war, ww1, or his presidency. Anything else should stay on the page.
 * Would that work with you?
 * -- Cat chi? 01:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Anything else ..." what is anything else if not his personal life. Besides If we are not going to create an article which looks like "Senin kanin akarmi? Sen ataturk degilmisin?" There is going to be personal issues of this person. I prefer his global achievements should stay in the artile, not the reasons of his failed marriage or how did we f.. up his will (selling AOC or killing the independence of TTK or TDK). WWI, independence, presidency are his major achivements. I'm also favor of having sub-articles for these too, DO not get me wrong. I have not guts to engage these issues. Specific response: (1) There are featured Bios that has personal sub-articles. (2) Having "sub-article" does not us prevent us giving conclusion (summaries) of these in the main article. It is not a break away article, you know. (3) "Symbolic limit" technologically you have a point. However, I tried to print the page it is 39 pages. That limit has also includes an readability side. By having sub articles we cam create a balance between dept-ease of understanding (dept in sub, ease in the main). The size limit is a good idea, because gives us chance to organize ourself. I'm ready to listen and accept all the other positions you brought. But I sincerely believe it is time to have this sub page. Rateslines 02:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Anything else can be any other section I did not mention like the cultural referances one I just created. On wikipedia stuff expanded off of bio articles are typically more important stuff like global achievements. Popping out the personal info is typically the last resort. As for the commercial it is a work of fiction and is not related to Atatürk's life, hence why it is a seperate article. -- Cat chi? 02:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "As for the commercial it is a work of fiction" I'm not denying it's significance. I'll be happy if it sticks in wikipedia. I was not trying to change the topic. As I said before; if someone engages to write Independence War or WWi from soley Ataturks perspective I can be a minor co-editor. I do agree extending personal life can be left to some other time. Look! we work what we are interested in. Such as what you have been working on. But I did not find a cooperative work on Ataturk which takes my interest. I do not want to engage a big project as a major editor. This brings us to my question: What is wrong in your perspective (besides the subject is controversial) if I want to develop his personal information. You have to understand that this sub-page is not a spin of. It requires monitoring, but so if we keep it under the main page. One last time: I got all your positions, except if I'm willing to engage this task, WHY not? Why can't you help monitoring it? It seems it is perfect time for this page, given current conditions. That is all I guess, we exchanged everything related to this issue. Rateslines 03:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh I guess i haven't expressed myself clearly. What I am saying is you can expand Atatürk's personal life on the main Mustafa Kemal Atatürk page. You can do this by creating sub articles on Atatürk's involvement with world war 1 and/or the independence war. I'd be happy to add Atatürk to my watchlist. Infact I just have. -- Cat chi? 09:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Look. You told me your position. I have clearly explained why your position is not developed with enough consideration. I also pointed that you are not a major editor to this specific article, but I have seen you given good efforts to other articles. With Humanly possible way, within the limits of politeness, asked you "If there is (you will) a major edit, I will be a co-editor" But you have not shown such an interest. I also offered to you "Come and help me." Ataturk's personal life is what I'm interested in and you can't dictate what I like or dislike (any kind of wars including WWI and Independence). ALL your response is "NO NO NO." Do it the way Cat likes. But your constant "you can " or "you can can't" statements are clearly an violation of "WP:OWN" the article. This is so unneeded activity on your behalf. Instead of reaching a compromise on the topic level (I left your edits on the main page, a compromise move on my side) you have choose me as your a ""personal target"". I'm sincerely improving the content. I'm faced with your personal "persecution". Just give me a space. ONE more time. I'm extending my hand. "Help me! for the development of the personal life of Ataturk. Give a little bit space to me." Rateslines 13:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am quite baffled. I was merely making comments based on the general manual of style used in wikipedia which your article examples for Lincoln demonstrates. I have spent a great deal of time on wikipedia working on different topics and this is merely the general way of doing things. One can write an entire book simply on Atatürk's involvement on a single skirmish let alone war - it has a great amount of potential for growth than Atatürk's personal life.
 * Bio articles aim to cover a persons general life while sub articles cover specific events or time frames in greater detail like George Washington: George Washington's early life (1732-1754) -> George Washington in the French and Indian War (1754–1758) -> George Washington between the wars (1758-1775) -> George Washington in the American Revolution (1775-1783) -> Presidency of George Washington (1783-1797) -> Post presidency George Washington (1797-1799). Mind you that this is in the chronological order of the sections. Content of the articles do not overlap each other. The sub article you want to create for Atatürk covers his entire life.
 * I do not see what is there to compromise from all that. You are welcome to explain why you want a mirror bio article for Atatürk's entire life and I can reconsider my position.
 * -- Cat chi? 14:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not doing something new. Background and personal life of Preity Zinta, Tchaikovsky's personal life. These are not a mirror bio-articles (nor Ataturk's is a mirror). Clearly I'm not in violation of any manual style. Just your personal style. The way you want to shape the sub-articles is your own personal taste. Simply I'm not interested in your personal taste. Only your positive (improvements) to what I want to work on. And for your question part. Your compromise is this: "If you are not willing to engage in rewriting whole any section you TOLD ME to engage (I would compromise and be a minor editor), just "give me a space."" Rateslines 15:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not my style at all. I'll be sorting out those specific examples right away. You seem to be under the impression that you have some sort of higher ground and are not interested at all in seeking a consensus. If you are not willing to see me as an equal, there is no point in continuing this. I won't be constantly defending myself to you or anybody as that is no way to engage in a civil discussion.
 * I apologize for my attempts to help better shape your privately owned article. You are more than free to do your thing as you see fit. As it turns out, my efforts to improve Mustafa Kemal Atatürk article was a waste of my time.
 * -- Cat chi? 15:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Khazar Ibrahim
I contest the Prod. I was not even notified. Being a "press Secretary of the Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan" is enough to make a person notable. -- Cat chi? 18:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * you provided a comment on my talk page - permalink version
 * This article was listed on WikiProject Deletion sorting/Azerbaijan by me; I strongly prefer to notify groups with knowledge and interest rather than individuals. As a matter of my personal opinion, I have little sympathy for people who decry the fact that they were not personally notified when an article that they are interested in (or began) is being considered for deletion.  However, that does not mean I won't act on your request.  I will undelete the article and take take it to WP:AFD based on your contesting the PROD ... I'm also of the opinion that the 5-day period shouldn't be used as a hard and fast rule, that time doesn't run out to contest (well - if a year passes ... perhaps then ... reason comes into play then). If you do not have the article on your watchlist, please add it; if you have it, but were away or not in a position to contest previously, I understand. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 19:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, I deal with far too many articles. My watchlist for the most part is useless for me. It is generally accepted an extra step of good faith and civility to notify the creator. This is typicaly expected from the nominator. prodwarning exists for a reason (it is displayed on the prod template itself as well). All that aside, I see 2,400 hits on Google establishing notability (IMHO). Mind you this is the English spelling. I do not know the spelling in the Azerbaijani language or in Cyrillic script (used in Azerbaijan). I am not really interested in expanding the article as I know very little about the man or Azerbaijan. I merely encountered his name while writing Fall 2007 clashes in Hakkari. He made a statement behalf of the Azerbaijani government in response to the 21 October PKK attacks. I created a stub for him in the hope that it would be eventually expanded. -- Cat chi? 19:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Q Images
Hi, I wanted to bring up another similar issue with the images on the Q (Star Trek) page. There are 2 fair use images there of the same subject now, and quite frankly, I prefer your image because it captures the subject in a more common appearance throughout the series, in the red Starfleet uniform, rather than the God image in the infobox. However, I do think the God image has a better full face view. Wondering if we can't find an image in the red uniform with more of a complete face view to replace them both. I looked at memory alpha, and there was one, but it was from early TNG seasons, and I think it would be better if we got a more current one, from later TNG seasons, or even Voyager. Ejfetters 22:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll work on it now. You are right. Red uniform does suit our Q better :) I do think we can use two images on this article. Perhaps an image of Q with his son or wife or both! What do you think? -- Cat chi? 23:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I did find Image:STDS9Ep107.jpg on my initial search. A minor crop of that image would give us a good profile. -- Cat chi? 23:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Shostakovich
Hello. Have you made a mistake? Some of us are puzzled why you would want to merge the article about the personal life of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky with the article about Dmitri Shostakovich? --RobertG ♬ talk 16:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * DOH! I want to request the merge of Tchaikovsky's personal life to the right article. I may have made a stupid mistake. Mind correcting it for me? -- Cat chi? 16:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you want to withdraw the FAR of the Shostakovich article as well? --RobertG &#9836; talk 16:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Mmm. Perhaps but I think such a review would not hurt anyways. Please take the action you think is best (you can keep the FAR or close it reverting my edits). I'll agree with whatever your decision is. -- Cat chi? 16:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My advice? - I'd withdraw the merge request (because the personal life article appears to be summarised reasonably well in the Tchaikovsky article at Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky) and I'd withdraw the FAR for Shostakovich unless you have specific evidence that the article is not comprehensive.  However, the decisions are yours: let me know what you want to do.  --RobertG &#9836; talk 16:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry - I got distracted by Real Life&trade; for a bit there - I see you've sorted matters: do you still need help? I can see how you made the mistake: the top of the "Tchaikovsky's personal life" article does rather major on Shostakovich, doesn't it?!  --RobertG &#9836; talk 17:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea, the intro needs work. I was wondering how I could be so much in error, now I know. Yes the matter seems sorted. I withdrew the FAR nom but I think I'll stick with my merge suggestion.
 * I feel bio articles should focus on "personal life" of the person. Individual professional achievements and milestones can be individual articles.
 * -- Cat chi? 18:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Notification of Request for Arbitration "TTN, part Deux"
I've requested Arbitration regarding TTN's numerous edits to TV and other fiction articles, and included you as an "involved party" in the request. The request can be found at Requests_for_arbitration, and you should add a statement to the section somewhere under mine. Thanks. -- Y&#124;yukichigai (ramble  argue  check ) 21:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured List of the Day Experiment
There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Smile


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Marlith  T / C  18:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

OMG Manga Covers - Fair Use Disputes
I don't know if you want to step in at all, but as you saw i said elsewhere, if i have to put up hipocritcal stupidity i won't be sticking around here. You can see more cases in my contribution's list. --Zeal Vurte (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, do stick around! Allow me to explain whats going on and why is it going on.
 * Although I do not know the exact details of the issue you are dealing with, I want to explain a painfully stupid thing. Companies that sell manga are commercial institutions and are very protective of their copyrighted works. There were confrontations between wikipedia and such copyright holders in the past and these had been the basis of some procedures. Had you put the images to a smaller site, such as a fansite, the copyright holders would not have the resources or energy to "deal" with it. But when the images are at a visible 'big' site such as wikipedia, people do complain. And these complaints are often more than a bunch of non-binding angry letters. Copyrights are indeed annoying and are quite stupid and the world would be a better place without them, however they are there and we do need to abide by them per legal restrictions.
 * We could ask the Mangaka Kōsuke Fujishima to release the images with a free license and if he agrees these images could be used freely. But I have my doubts Fujishima would agree to it. After all he charges people money per each of these which is how he makes a living. But it may just work.
 * I really do value your work here. List of Oh My Goddess! manga chapters need improvement even without images. Please do not see this incident as a discouragement.
 * -- Cat chi? 17:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Guess i'll go with what is normal here and cross-post this, even though it's a silly and superfluoes process imo.
 * I understand the copyright issues, but the images are allowed under a fai-use license and i shouldn't have to counter every attempt of someone who doesn't understand that, to remove them. --Zeal Vurte (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also to add to that, i'm leaving after seeing Rettetast's reply. Short stay huh? ;) Just as i expected really. See you on the forums and good luck with your plans for the episodes, you'll need it IMO. --Zeal Vurte (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, legally speaking you'd be right. These images can be used almost recklessly under a fair-use license. But the freeness of the encyclopedia would be an issue then. Images, especially non-free ones are a pain to deal with. This issue on fair use images has been an endless debate and I can go into further details if you like...
 * I'd really hope this wont discourage you (despite what you said). It isn't easy to write comprehensive encyclopedia and there has to be some standards. Upholding to those standards is of course much much more difficult than coming up with or enforcing the standards in question. I myself do not always agree with these overly restrictive guidelines and policies on non-free content.
 * I however spend most of my energy in creating or expanding articles either directly by editing or indirectly by seeking out interested parties. A series like OMG is far too large for a single person to cover. Your presence here would cheer up Bell-chan ;)
 * -- Cat chi? 05:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Requests for Arbitration
Just a reminder... in case you'd forgotten about it. Anthøny 22:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't but my section is already quite long. Care to add your comment to the arbcom case? -- Cat chi? 23:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

IFD of Image:Porthos-where no dog had gone before2.jpg
Unecessary non-free image. Goes against WP:NFCC -Nv8200p talk 05:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

TTN Arbitration, yet again
FYI, you probably shouldn't be getting involved in a discussion with Jack Merridew on the Arbitration page, since it's specifically noted in the how to that the request page isn't the place for discussion. It might piss the arbitrators off a bit, and the last thing you want is to not be able to weigh in if and when the case is accepted. (Or have your opinion discounted because "that dude doesn't know when to stop") Besides, you gotta save something for the actual case page itself. :P -- Y&#124;yukichigai (ramble  argue  check ) 09:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh I just added numbers from a graph. It was not intended to be a response to anybody. I don't have any intention of continuing a discussion. It is important evidence to demonstrate that the problem is of grand scale involving many articles and users. My post is intended to demonstrate only that. -- Cat chi? 10:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom questions (White Cat)
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.


 * 1) What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
 * I am just a mere editor on en.wiki. I am a commons admin if that matters at all... I would not classify any of those examples and etc as a "position". None of them is a big deal.
 * 1) Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
 * I feel this is an area where I can employ my experiences. I do not really have a detailed answer to this question as I merely want to serve the community.
 * 1) Have you been involved in any arbitration cases?  In what capacity?
 * I was an involved party on two past cases (WP:RFAR/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek (2005) and WP:RFAR/Moby Dick (2006)) as an "involved party". The two cases were filed over harassment complaints. I have been "involved" with many cases. For the most part, I observed. Among the most interesting cases was WP:RFAR/Armenia-Azerbaijan and WP:RFAR/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. I am currently an "involved party" on WP:RFAR/Episodes and characters which opened on 22 November 2007.
 * 1) In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well?  Any you think they handled poorly?
 * I really do not feel I am in a position to question the decisions of arbcom. I really feel it is very easy to look back to a closed case and 'judge' it so anything I put here wont be truly fair. Arbcom is overloaded with cases and they are doing quite a decent job. However I feel there were one case (WP:RFAR/Armenia-Azerbaijan) which were handled less than perfectly. There was a second case (WP:RFAR/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2) over the mater which was handled exceptionally well. I do not believe arbcom did poorly on the first case. Remedies could have been better worded and enacted and the second case perhaps might have been avoided - but all that isn't really important. Resolving such a complex dispute is however an exceptional accomplishment for arbcom - it just could have gone more smoothly though. There may be a third case judging from enforcement logs: case 1, case 2.
 * 1) Why do you think users should vote for you?
 * Had I been voting for a candidate, criteria I would look for at the candidate would be candidness, honesty, sincerity, impartiality, credibility. I recuse myself from judging myself per coi :P. I'd hope the users would vote for a candidate (whoever it may be) that has these fine qualities.

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press late Monday or early Tuesday (UTC), but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 04:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll be working on my response so please disregard this for now. -- Cat chi? 06:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * All done. -- Cat chi? 12:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom table with portfolio links
Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.

My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. &mdash; Sebastian 05:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I just read your statement. That you are proactively addressing any concerns by citing many negative links makes your honesty believable. But do you really have no positive links to show? &mdash; Sebastian 07:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Bad qualities are clearly well defined in Wikipedia so I cited those. As for my "good qualities", I am not sure how to cite those as there is no fine definition of what is "good behavior"... I strongly dislike "bragging" about myself. People seem to be fascinated with the level of access candidates have... I have none on "Wikipedia" but I am a commons admin if that matters at all. On my Rfa #4 it was said to be unimportant so I did not mention it on my statement. I figured people would ask me what they'd like to know per their own criteria. I was asked some questions but nothing too spesific so far. I am waiting for such questions feel free to ask them per your criteria for example. -- Cat chi? 17:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't you just look at what the others provided in the table and provide something similar? It's not bragging to include a few links to contributions or diffs that you can be proud of. Personally, what I want to see is evidence of people skills, conflict resolution, or diplomacy. &mdash; Sebastian 18:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Preity Zinta
Hello! Back in time you had added a merge template to the Preity Zinta article and its daughter article.

As you requested, the daughter page was merged into the main article as the info really belongs to the main article. Now, what should I do? I proposed the daughter article up to deletion. Is that what I have to do? Shahid •  Talk 2 me  13:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That would violate the GFDL. It should just become a redirect of the page was properly merged. I am glad an agreement was reached. -- Cat chi? 17:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So could you please help me? I'm just not a big expert in these things:) Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be more than happy to help. What is the spesific problem? Everything looks in order. -- Cat chi? 19:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops sorry, already done:) Thanks. What do you think about the article? Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hawt! :)
 * Should be a GA or FA. I dono what to say. I know nothing about the topic.
 * -- Cat chi? 20:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)