User talk:Aecis/Messages 373-384

Enemy (military)
Hi, I noticed you declined the request for speedy deletion of this article. As an admin, thats your call, and I respect that. However, I would request that you reconsider, as a discussion was already underway on the talk page of this article between myself, the user who tagged it for deletion, the creator of the article, and another admin, Philip Baird Shearer. Given the arguments presented on the discussion page, I think there may be reason for deletion.

I am happy to open up an AfD to discuss this further, if you think this is the appropriate course of action.

Thanks for your time =) Lex Kitten 00:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks =) I see what you mean about it not meeting the speedy deletion criteria. Lex Kitten 00:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

OR??
I did not know that the paragraph was original -- it used references, at any rate, it was an attempt to add something positive. The same can be gained by putting a link to Turkish-Armenian relations which has some of the same material as contnt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackkalpakian (talk • contribs) 00:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I firmly believe that the Armenian Genocide entry lacks a vital reference -- the ICTJ document. Failing to include it leaves the impression that there is room for debate on the nature of the Armenian Genocide. It also represents the only time when Armenians and Turks litigated their dispute infront of a jurisprudential court. I hope that you do not simply dump out the new segment as a way of making a point.--Jackkalpakian 13:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge and bosnian Croats
I agree. I didn't have the time to improve those articles, so if you have the will and time to make it better:) Although probably it would be better to create article History of Bosnia-herzegovian Croats? Ceha 15:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

Northern Cyprus
I don't know if you saw the previous discussion of this issue at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive107, but the consensus there was that if 3meandEr persisted in his behaviour he should be blocked. I've already warned him on his talk page, so he's had fair warning. He's shown no interest in reaching a consensus or respecting an existing one, he's shown no understanding of NPOV and his contributions show him to be a single-purpose account with no interest or experience in editing anything other than the Northern Cyprus article from a highly POV angle. I'm afraid I see no likelihood of 3meandEr coming to a consensus that doesn't meet his POV agenda. I recommend that you block him and unprotect the article so that non-disruptive editors can continue developing it. We should not be preventing everyone from editing an article just because one new editor wants to be disruptive. -- ChrisO 23:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I'd like to point out that under the 0RR rule proposed and agreed on WP:AN, 3meandEr should be automatically blocked for his latest (and now quite willful) act of reversion. -- ChrisO 23:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, ChrisO needs to answer al the issues i have raised on the talk, plus ChrisO needs to stop pushing his agenda. I have provided referenced information that have been systematically deleted from the article. ChrisO repeats that i do not understand what NPOV is although i have illustrated on multiple occasions that his editing is not neutral at all!. To shut me up he has been trying to block me for quite some time with excuses of the sort "one purpose account" and "condemns" while he keeps turning things around. All i have said is in the talk plus the archive for the neutral eye to see. But i am afraid on northern cyprus article there are more "buddies" than neutral editors. Someone needs to judge from an objective point of view. ChrisO aint that person, proven. For example although i have more than once explained his biases here for example he went on (he himself unblocking the article and forced his suggestion onto the article here, although i never agreed with it, thus consensus was not in place for him to edit the lead. In fact all the verified sourced points i have raised he ignored completely, totally, 100%. The pov pushing on the article is phenomenal. Wikipedia is supposedly about inclusion of sourced facts by verifiable, credible, reliable sources in an impartial way, equal representation of all views, all the above, ALL, are being beset by the turkish view on that specific article. what can i say, just read for yourself what is going on in the talk. 3meandEr 16:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way Aecis, i think is more than fair to add back the tags please as the article is being totally disputed by myself, have included all reasons in the talk, and it is also full with weasel words that i have given examples more than once. Thanks 3meandEr 16:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, finally a person who cares. ok, dont hold your breath. please explain why my editing is my sourced opinion and not NPOV? 3meandEr 16:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason that i am asking you this is that as many times i have read both neutral point of view and NPOV_tutorial i can not see why i am violating either. To my understanding i am not. And repeadetly i aked this question "why" noone can provide an verifiable answer. 3meandEr 16:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Aecis and thank you so much for the effort, to explain to me why my proposed Lead is not NPOV. I see that you are not editing the article in question, I come to back to you since you are the only one willing to discuss and help me understand what is going on. I thank you once again for your time, I will disagree though with you on some issues, and ask you couple of additional questions if you don’t mind.

To have a clear basis for discusion please understand that the specific Semantics in my proposed lead are nor created, or introduced by myself. I simply quote. Terms like "occupied", "illegal", and "in violation of" are used by the international law in this political issue. That is why I have been insisting that I stuck to the facts. For example, the UNSC has repeadetly mentioned on official paper that the territory is “occupied” “illegaly”. However if I understand correctly, although there is evidence that the UNSC defined northern Cyprus “illegaly occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus” wikipedia policy demands, that statement to be excluded/silenced as it is taking a position?

The neutral point of view is meant to be neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Background needs to be provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. If UNSC believes that northern Cyprus is “occupied territory ….[]” it needs to be mentioned. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. Now, it is degraded to a “Greek Cypriot government view” and not a UNSC view. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader. Now the article defines and judges as true that “northern Cyprus” (by using the word “is”) a defacto independent republic = a republic not recognized, which is not true, not the only view on the subject. The term “northern Cyprus” has two views which are not given undue weight.

NPOV policy demands that one needs to “assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves”. “By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." The international community, the UN, the EU, ECHR, all agree that northern Cyprus is “occupied”. The “fact” (a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute) is as follows “the international community legaly identified northern Cyprus as occupied territory”. Why is this policy against the inclusion of the sentense side by side with the other fact “Turkey recognizes TRNC on that territory and not occupied”? Should both position be added side by side so that the reader can form her/his own opinion?

All these for now, I know you are a busy person, hope me asking you is not a burden. Thanks 3meandEr 17:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, Isnt kerem now a disruptive editor? Patronizing myself while i am trying in all civility without a single edit to have a discussion in good faith of what (in UN view) is silenced? (Besides the fact that he wants to buy you a beer :) )3meandEr 23:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi once more, what do you think of the suggestion? 3meandEr 16:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Naming of articles about football seasons
Hello! I hope you are feeling great! I would like to thank you for your concern with regards to this matter. I was actually following the manner in which the English football seasons were being named. It is my intention to have a more consistent naming title for all footballing countries. This would ensure consistency as well. Personally, I have no preference in the way these articles are being named. My only preference is to ensure that ALL these articles are standardized. Thanks for bringing up this matter. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 09:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

3meandEr
I've posted a request for a block or community ban at WP:AN/I - your comments would be appreciated. -- ChrisO 11:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

2007 Belgian government formation
Just added 2007 Belgian government formation to In the news. You might want to reword the blurb. Cheers, JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2007-11-10 00:29
 * Reply, copypasted from User talk:Jacoplane: I see no need to reword the blurb, it's a good summary of what's going on. I'm not sure about linking state reform to Partition of Belgium though. The fuss is about Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde (BHV), with opponents of splitting BHV accusing supporters of separatism. I think linking state reform to BHV would be more appropriate. A  ecis Brievenbus 00:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah you're right, thanks for correcting that. I was just being WP:BOLD in adding the entry. Also, I'd appreciate any feedback you might have @ Featured article candidates/Klaas-Jan Huntelaar. Take care! JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2007-11-10 00:48

Belated excuse
Hey, Remember me commenting on your talkpage about your request of protection for the article couple of weeks ago? Well, just wanted to say sorry. Time proved you right. :/ If you ever drop by Turkey, I'll buy you a beer to make up for it :) Cheers, Kerem Özcan 20:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Steaua Bucharest
There was a move request two days ago on WP:RM to move it to the Anglicized name. Why didn't you ask me first? Neil  ☎  12:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To reiterate - the move request had been open, and needed to be closed. I closed the discussion inline with the appropriate policy (WP:NAME) and precedence (Dynamo Kiev, Spartak Moscow, Bayern Munich, etc).  As far as I can tell, you reverted the move, undid the edits, and repopened the discussion because you did not agree.  Is that good conduct?   Neil   ☎  13:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If your opinion had nothing to do with it, then why did you undo the move and reopen the closed discussion? Neil   ☎  13:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have posted to Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents for input on this. Neil   ☎  13:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There is the same problem with FC Arsenal Kyiv and FC Dynamo Kyiv - the articles have been moved without any regard to the consensus or lack thereof, see Talk:FC Arsenal Kiev and Talk:FC Dynamo Kiev. I am not sure how to best bring this up, so posting it here - these moves are clearly part of the same campaign. Dkua 02:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the way I dealt with your closure of the move request of FC Steaua Bucharest yesterday. Looking back, I shouldn't have undone your closure without contacting you first, and I shouldn't have used certain words.  A ecis Brievenbus 20:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I shouldn't have reacted in the way I did, because my response probably provoked you into using those words. Thank you for the kind apology - it is appreciated.  No hard feelings and let's move on.  Neil   ☎  10:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for having done it even if it was done in a manner you feel you have had to apologise for. The difference here is the person who moved FC Arsenal Kyiv didn't have the guts to apologise - even though he moved it while the survey was (and is) still open and the opponents were ahead by 13 votes to 2. Dkua 22:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

what the hell are you doing?
how is the band fleetstreet not reputable? since when does something have to be reputable for it to be on wikipedia? just because YOU dont know, doesnt mean others dont, and wouldnt want to find out information. its not band spam, so shut the hell up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Volksy (talk • contribs) 17:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We were in an Article in the Camden New Journal. a London newspaper that is obviously based in the borough of Camden.


 * does this qualify?
 * it said we must have been published in a certain form, and newspaper is one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Volksy (talk • contribs) 21:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Taskforce/project Politics of the Netherlands
It would really depend on the goals of the project/taskforce and the number of participants. I have no experience with what would be the correct organizational form. I would be able to list the kind of goals I would like to see happen, things which I intended to do my self but due to wikisclerosis did not get around to doing: I would actively participate in a project which would intend to do this. C mon (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) An article on every current Dutch M(E)P
 * 2) An article on every Dutch M(E)P and minister in history (they recently finished a similar project on nl.wiki, it would be a translation job)
 * 3) Photo's on articles on Dutch politicians and parties
 * 4) Improve articles on Dutch ministries
 * 5) Improve articles on Dutch parties
 * 6) Improve/write articles on Dutch interests groups
 * 7) De-list Politics of the Netherlands (terminology) and esp. links to it
 * 8) Articles on Dutch local and provincial politics
 * 9) Improve articles surrounding politics of the Netherlands
 * I prefer to use English on en.wiki, so anyone can read what I'm writing. Anyway, I agree with your expanded topics/goals, I also added cabinets:
 * An article on every current Dutch M(E)P
 * An article on every Dutch M(E)P and minister in history
 * Photo's on articles on Dutch politicians and parties
 * Improve articles on Dutch ministries
 * Improve articles on Dutch parties
 * Improve/write articles on Dutch interests groups
 * De-list Politics of the Netherlands (terminology) and esp. links to it
 * Articles on Dutch local and provincial politics
 * Improve articles surrounding politics of the Netherlands
 * Political history
 * Elections
 * Cabinets (and formation)
 * Will you take the organization/filing requests/gathering support on you? C mon (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject A1 GP
I just saw your note in WP:F1, figured I'd give you this. WikiProject A1 Grand Prix already exists, it's just rather dormant. It's still a relatively small series, especially compared to Formula One. It's difficult to expect a large number of people to work on A1GP articles as they do F1. In fact, there has been recent debate on WikiProject Motorsport about demoting the A1GP WikiProject down to a Taskforce. The359 (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)