User talk:Jd2718/Archive 1

Merritt/W.Cross sign
It's actually at a very unlikely location - at the junction of Chapel Street and Forest Road (Route 122) in New Haven. Presumably, northbound Rt 122 leads you to Route 63/69, which connects to the Wilbur Cross, and southbound Rt 122 leads you to Rt 34, which also connects to the Wilbur Cross (not the Merritt!). Just saw it a couple of weeks ago anfd thought it was unusual. --Polaron | Talk 00:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What's going on with the CT page?
Any clue as to why people keep revising that cities & towns section? Seems like you're constantly doing an revert. mikemillerdc 21:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're not doing anything wrong at all! BTW, if you see any other tasks that you think we should do on the CT page, go ahead and edit the to-do list at the top of the talk page mikemillerdc 16:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Late reply
Hi! I guess you could try to follow the dispute resolution process. That's always a good idea. You could also read WP:NPOV, or Naming conventions (Greek and Turkish named places) (the latter of which isn't an official policy). When dispute resolution fails, the next step is mediation, but I don't think we're there yet. ;-) Cheers, Khoikhoi 21:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Southeastern Connecticut AFD
You should probably be aware that there is a Southeastern Connecticut Regional Council and is an official region. See here for more. --Polaron | Talk 20:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The regional councils are grouped such that towns with similar demographics are together plus there is a functioning (but weak) regional government so I think it these regional councils provide some semblance of civic identity to its residents. They also roughly correspond to transit and school districts. I'm willing to contribute significantly to creating proper region articles if that is the consensus. However, in my opinion some regions might be better off grouped together into metro areas e.g. Greater Hartford and Gold Coast. --Polaron | Talk 17:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Joe Lieberman
My pleasure. Good Luck with the article! -- Avi 05:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman
"His career has been marked by a willingness to cross the aisle and put principal before party," reads like a campaign commercial to me. A neutral point of view should include neutral points of view about the political parties themselves, I think. The phrase implies that Joe Lieberman is better than other Senators (who follow their parties more closely) because of his "principles." If there was a direct quote of someone saying as much, that's one thing, but I think it reads too much like an endorsement of Lieberman, which would violate an NPOV. Bridger 22:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

'His career has been marked by a willingness to ... put principal before party.'
Your idea of a proper article introduction is quite different from the mold I'm accustomed to dealing with in other politicians' articles, I must confess. His history, as a politician, in elections is much more pertinent for introductions than vague phrases such as the one quoted above, or "he can appear conservative on social issues."

Most U.S. politicians support Israel, and while Lieberman's vocal leadership on the issue is certainly something for the article to cover, support for Israel in and of itself is not noteworthy among U.S. politicians. Italiavivi 01:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm of the opinion and experience that "politics lead" paragraphs as you demonstrate them are unnecessary, and often undesirable, in politicians' articles. I would note that most politicians' article leads stick with service and election history, as well.  Please, don't remove Lieberman's service/election history again. Italiavivi 12:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom questions
Hi Jd

I've answered your questions Thanks for taking an interest. Paul August &#9742; 21:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way thanks for the "petty vandalism" ;-) Paul August &#9742; 20:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom elections table
Thank you. I was just about to do that and you saved me the trouble. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note on the arbcom table. I was glad to help out, though I hope the end result winds up assisting rather than hindering good judgment by the voters. Meanwhile, your userpage has me puzzling; I'm a geography buff, and I'm working hard to come up with "five countries that no longer exist." :) BTW, will you be coming to the New York meet-up next month? Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What is "BTW, will you be coming to the New York meet-up next month?" this about?
 * And, USSR, GDR, FRG (or whatever Berlin was part of), Yugoslavia, and I miscounted (not so hot for a math teacher, esp one teaching combinatorics just now). Maybe I counted West Berlin and West Germany as 2, even though I only passed through the latter. Jd2718 04:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's only three: the combination of the two German states was accomplished by the accession of the states of the GDR into the FRG, so the Federal Republic of Germany still exists. See here if you're curious. More importantly, see Meetup/NYC. Newyorkbrad 04:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: edit counts. Just about everybody who's running for ArbCom is on this list, List of Wikipedians by number of edits. -Will Beback · † · 00:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'll put the link at the bottom of the table for now. Thanks for that. (And sorry to but in to the conversation). Carcharoth 00:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hillock65
Hmmm how odd. That should fix it now :) Glen  20:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Tags
You are right about the NPOV tag.. I think I misplaced it, other tags should have done the trick.. As for the research, I really don't know what to say since many Turks have only heard about this following a conspiracy-theory scandal that made waves on the Net in a bunch of "impartial" web-sites. I don't even know if there is serious research that can be done about this. I mean, it can be true, along with nearly all other conspiracy theories, but I have yet to come across a serious academic paper, either on a political or an anthropological level, on this.. What do you think? Cheers! Baristarim 15:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Re : Candidates Voting
Indeed. It only serves the mere purpose to "peer pressure" candidates into voting apathy. - Mailer Diablo 22:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Please assume good faith ... I am not trying to peer pressure anyone into anything; I want to know if they are going to vote for fellow candidates or not, because that will affect how I make up my mind about who to vote for. That is the point of the question and answers, of course. Also, I do not see that this has anything to do with "Administrators open to recall" ... heck, I didn't even comment anywhere in that discussion you just linked. -- Cyde Weys 23:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks like he has decided to revert all my comments on it. Given history this is definitely not a good sign. - Mailer Diablo 22:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want, file a report at Admin's Noticeboard/Incidents to bring this issue to attention. - Mailer Diablo 22:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll add my statement soon. - Mailer Diablo 23:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought you should know better than this, for you have spent so much effort in getting rid of divisive matters. I see this no different from asking on RfA the question : "There's an admin recall category, it is in the spirit of good admin candidates, what do you think of it...?". Please reconsider your question. - Mailer Diablo 23:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Apology
I am a relatively new user. I got involved following the ArbCom elections as a crash Wikieducation. And it has been. Today, however, another editor acted, I believed, badly, but in my attempt to call him on it, I seem to have set off a minor Wikipisssingmatch, which was not my intention.

I have followed some very experienced editors for a month now, and I thought that knowing how they were voting would help me make my decisions (I still think it would), and was quite annoyed when I saw what looked like a push-poll being added to each page, and then the counterweight being deleted. However, these are experienced candidates, and each is independently answering "no, I will vote" "no, but I won't comment" "I will not oppose, but I will support" or "Yes, I will not vote" with the kinds of reasonable and responsible explanations I would expect from serious ArbCom members. That's as good as I'm getting, and it makes sense.

There has not been cross-discussion on the question pages until today; there should not be. (but jeez, how hard to insert a heading as a separator???)

And finally, I apologize for causing a ruckus and distracting anyone from the important election that will open in just a few days. Jd2718 01:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's alright, don't worry too much or feel guilty about it. It definitely wasn't your fault. - Mailer Diablo 01:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The best thing to do if something like this occurs in the future is to work directly with other users; you can do so via Dispute Resolution. Try not to get others involved as all hell will break loose, as you have seen. But yeah, it wasn't your fault, so don't worry about it. — P ilotguy  (push to talk) 03:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jd2718 :-) Your overall interest in the ArbCom election is a Good Thing! No worries about the above. Have a Great Day! Take care, --FloNight 12:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, a bit of controversy before the vote is better than during the vote (when people will feel compelled to add little comments to their votes), and this election was bound to create controversies, and more are still to come I'm sure. NoSeptember  13:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree. Absolutely no apology needed, though as you can see, forest fires can spring up from seemingly nowhere. I think you were quite right to draw attention to this issue. Carcharoth 14:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Babi Yar
I left a comment at the discussion page, hope it helps.--Hillock65 05:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Your vote against FloNight
I don't usually bug people about their votes, but you seem to be under the impression that FloNight has been an arbitration clerk for 3 years? She was appointed 3 months ago ; in fact, the clerk's office was only formed in January 2006. I do agree that too long an association with arbitration matters could produce burnout, but that's not the case here. Thanks. Thatcher131 16:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I could see sense in an argument that 3 years is too long for anyone to be exposed to the worst wikipedians on a daily basis; maybe make Arbcom an 18 month committment with 3 groups rotating at 6 month intervals. With the present set up I don't see enough difference between 36 months total service and 39 months to warrant a vote against. YMMV of course. Cheers. Thatcher131 17:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have an idea. Would you be willing to support me if I agreed to end my term early by 3 months if you and the community wants me to do so at that time. I put that condition in because I wonder if you will want me to in 3 years. If you did, I would be willing to ask the community for feedback on the issue and then decide.


 * You see, I truly do not think that burnout will be a problem for me. In fact, I think that I will be less likely to have problems with stress related to the position because of my life experience dealing with difficult issues and difficult people. Most of my adult life (I'm 48 years old), I worked at very high stress jobs and learned early how to deal with the stress. Developing good coping skills to deal with difficult situations is an important life skill. The other factor is the low level of stress in my life now. Many Wikipedians are in the phase of their life where they are under stress from their schooling, starting their careers, starting their families, and so on. Right now my life is settled and I am not dealing with these issues.


 * Interested in hearing your thoughts on my above points. If you do not want to discuss it, that is okay too. Take care, FloNight 16:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a commitment to consider ending your term in the middle of a year would be more disruptive than anything else. I would expect that three or four months of clerking, while providing experience with ArbCom processes, are no more likely to produce burnout than three or four months of any other intensive (but not necessarily ArbCom-related) role in the project. Plus, 2 3/4 years into a 3-year term, there is assuredly going to be someone any arbitrator has displeased with a decision urging him or her to leave, but that's hardly the voices that should be listened to.
 * As for Thatcher131's suggestion, I understand the reasons for the suggestion, but this ArbCom election process seems to be time-consuming once a year, let alone twice. If the current rate of turnover continues some change might have to be made but I don't think that is the one. Regards, Newyorkbrad 17:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I see your point. I'm basicly trying to kick the can down the road and deal with it in 3 years instead of now. I honestly do not think that Jd2718 will still see this as an issue then. But if so, I think I can deal with the issue in a way that is not disruptive. ArbCom members leave the project on fairly long wikibreaks all the time. I do not see this being that different. Thanks for your thoughts, Newyorkbrad. I value hearing the opinion of the community on this matter. :-) --FloNight 17:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you Jd2718 :-) I am looking forward to hearing more of your thoughts about this matter. FloNight 18:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested
Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: ArbCom Tally Stalled
So it has! Barely an hour and a half and I'm getting a message, do you guys just sit and watch it all day or something? The machine it's running on seems to have restarted itself for no particular reason; I'll have it back in a few seconds – Gurch 13:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Reconsider
Okay, per Jimbo's comment I've reconsidered this. See here. Since you brought this up I'd like your opinion on how to proceed from here, as the situation is at least midly confusing. Yours, ( Radiant ) 00:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Atlantic Branch
I just added two references. --NE2 01:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Meetup NYC
Hey, just wanted to say hi and thank you for coming to the WikiMeetup in NYC this past weekend. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 04:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Userpage flag change
FYI. I just changed the flag you had of Georgia to that of Georgia (U.S. state). I did this in the fact I thought you did not go to the former republic of the Soviet Union, but through the American state. Merry Christmas. Chris 13:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thessaloniki
I don't get it, originally you reverted to my version, but now you reverted to Niko's version. What made you change your mind? Khoikhoi 20:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I said "weird bot..." because reverted your edits. Khoikhoi 20:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

So what version did you mean to revert to? Khoikhoi 20:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, ok. No problem! Khoikhoi 20:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether intentional or not (I cannot tell yet) this revert seems antagonistic, especially since there is no record of a concensus or you taking part in it. The general agreement was obvious: that it is the name used in just about all slavic langagues, including polish, russian and ukrainian. These are hardly Greek dialects and their population is about twenty times larger than that of Greece's slavic neighbours. I hope that settles it. Thanks Politis 17:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hah!
Must be fun :) Trying to avoid nationalism in these articles is like trying to avoid mud in a pig sty :/ - Francis Tyers · 01:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Club of New York
Come see: Wikipedia Club of New York. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 14:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Vanishing comments
Good spot, cheers. Catchpole 09:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Your message
Hi Jd2718. Thanks for your congrats! I did not request a different tranche, it just worked out this way. You got your wish and I got a seat. Both of us happy :-) --FloNight 12:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What?
I communicate with you here as well because your comments indicate that you did not follow the discussion on the talk page. The slavic languages link was opened as a discussion topic by myself on the talk page. Good. I suppose this must be the marking period with hundreds of school work to look over and it gets too much at time, so one can blow it in other places, yeah? ;-) I know the feeling, especially after Hanukkah. Also, I have to point out that it was your excellent observation on how Thessaloniki is said in russian, polish etc that made me change my mind. Better now? Have a nice one amigo. Politis 09:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Juan Cole
Why have you added Cole to the section a second time? He's already in the section, higher up, in the paragraph detailing responses to proposed academic boycotts. Jayjg (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It was easy to miss. I had moved it up in order to logically combine related items, and to create a sort of timeline. Bollinger and Cole were both responding to the proposed academic boycott, so I figured a link to the Boycott, and a combination of the two views, made sense. Jayjg (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What does 'thus was the page made' mean?
I ask again, what does 'thus was the page made' mean? The article Thessaloniki was made for this link? Do you understand that the word 'region' covers many countries in southeast Europe or the Balkans? I will keep the text we all agreed and remove the link. Have a good one. Politis 23:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I normally do not respond on my own talk page, but I didn't want to leave this comment with no response for comparison.
 * The phrase 'thus was the page made' was written by someone else. I do not know what it means.
 * This was the first time you asked me, when you write 'I ask you again' you are misleading casual readers.
 * While 'region' can have a multitude of meanings, the intent of all involved, except apparently you, was modern Macedonia (parts of Bulgaria, Greece, and the FYRo Macedonia)
 * When you write "I will keep the text we all agreed..." you are dancing around the agreement, which included the link in question, which you dismiss in the next breath "...and remove the link" Jd2718 00:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The explanation about 'region' makes sense but it is really not obvious...
 * I think you misinterpreted the 3RR.
 * 3RR specifically states : "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia page within a 24 hour period."
 * The definition of 'revert' is : "To revert is to undo all changes made to an article page after a specific time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical in content to the page saved at that time."
 * This was not the case:
 * The text you are refering to read: ""Slavic languages of northern Greece|Slavic languages of the region".
 * I changed it to something different: "Slavic languages of the region".
 * But then Niko changed it to: "[[Slavic languages of Macedonia (Greece)|Slavic languages of the region".
 * And that is what I altered in the spirit of compromise. There was no 3 changes of an 'identical text'.
 * Of course, you are welcome to revert it to Niko's compromise if you so wish. Politis 00:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Best to remove diff to personal information
Leaving the diff to that guy's address and other details allows anyone to see it. Best to remove the diff and get an admin to delete it from the page history, and then get it oversighted (so that even admins will no longer be able to see it). Carcharoth 03:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Specifically Requests for oversight. Note how they say use e-mail and don't post diffs (I used to make the same mistake). :-) Carcharoth 03:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just edit the locations where links to the diffs exist. No need to remove everything. Just fudge it enough to make it more difficult for anyone to find anything. Maybe replace the ANI post with an "e-mailed an oversight request" note, or something, or just a "dealt with now" comment, to avoid drawing attention. Carcharoth 04:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Vanitysmasher
Well, you can tell him yourself about it I guess. I have deleted his comments where he added the personal info (which means only admins can see them), and then I got someone to oversight them (which means no one can see them). So basically, you can't see most of his edits anymore. Khoikhoi 04:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem! Khoikhoi 04:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi
No, I didn't say that you were anti-Turk :)) I just never ran into you before, and I have seen some hardcore slugging out in that page, its previous version, and the related AfDs, so I am a bit paranoid :) I am totally cool with that article actually, and I have no problems with the general idea. Nevertheless, I have only seen too often things get blown out of context, sadly. I have seen a quite few things in my life, so there isn't much that will make me uncomfortable but when I sometimes see this overdoing of criticism of Turkey (sometimes out of context as well) I am obliged to look for sources to counter them, which makes me look like I am pushing pro-Turkish POV. I hate doing so, but there is not much to do about it either I suppose. It's life, basically..

Have a look at the first AfD, for instance - you will see what I mean :) In any case, I see that you added your name to WP systemic bias.. Otherwise I was going to advice you to take a look there if you would be interested in light of what you just told me! As for the article in question, it still needs a lot of work, and some major work at that.. Anyways.. Cheers! Baristarim 06:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, I am against any renaming that will force the exclusion of very important information about the rights and the situation of the Kurdish people in Turkey. Please see my recent expansion of the gender equality section and my post in the talk page. That needs to be talked about. It is not fair to have an article that will only list people who got thrown in jail but not mention the fact that thanks to the efforts of the Turkish state hundreds of thousands of girls are going to the school for the very first time, breaking millenia old feudal traditions. That's all I am trying to say: The scope of the subject matter is complicated. You wrote that the problem was not specific to the Kurdish women. That's not true! Please see the BBC story that I cited. I hope that you will understand why I am kind of being very blunt in that talk page: I know the extent of everything that happened and is happening, that's why I can't stand the article being filled with genocide allegations, decades old ECHR cases being given half the article etc. Baristarim 07:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Occupied territory
What's your problem, math teacher? Ludvikus 16:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

West Bank & Gaza Strip
Do you have any criticism of the following: The the West Bank (current), and the Gaza Strip (until 2005), are called occupied territories by those advocating the strongest Palestinian position. However, neither territory is deemed soverign. These lands were allegedly liberated from Turkey in World War I, at the end of which the League of Nations was formed. And the League of Nations had granted Great Britain a mandate over this land, which was then a part of Mandatory Palestine. Accordingly, Great Britain was not an occupying power in relation to this land. It was an occupyer when the land belonged to the Ottoman Empire before the Great War. The British subsequently relinquished their mandate and these territories were occupied, as a consequence of war, by Egypt and Jordan. In the 1967 War Israel liberated this land from its late conquerors. The Balfour Declaration had been adopted by the League of Nations, and the United Nations is deemed a successor organization to the League. Accordingly, the terms of this Declaration are deemed International Law. Consequently, Israel has the legal right to claim this land as its own - under International Law. However, the State of Israel has decided that it is not in its best national interests to assert its soverignity over these two pieces of land. A major reason for this is the existence of a large Arab population, and relatively small Jewish population in Settlements. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ludvikus (talk • contribs) 16:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Sorry: --Ludvikus 16:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Pendanticism
Exactly: another juicy dangled bait. Thanks! – SAJordan talkcontribs 17:57, 31 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Unnecessary roughness
My new year's resolution was to be less of a bitch, so I guess I'm off to a bad start. Anyway I'm trying not to break any more china, many thanks for your wise suggestion.--G-Dett 15:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Your note
Okay, thanks, I'll take a closer look. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Bernadotte
you have been "guilty" of many reverts on this page. I find your behaviour strange. It does not look well on you. You seem not to have acted in good faith here and you may deserve a ban or atleast a warning for this report IMO. Cheers, Amoruso 16:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring
You've made 3 reverts in 24 hours at Folke Bernadotte. I know that you are an experienced editor and you know that edit warring is unacceptable. It fosters bad feelings and prevents proper resolution. You ought to be using dispute resolution like mediation when in a conflict, not aggressively edit warring. Dmcdevit·t 17:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting, are you suggesting that you and Mackan79 are the same person ? Because I was replying to him that it's a possible slander to call Regev what he did. And no, reporting like you did + the fact you got the warning proves unforuntately that it wasn't a good faith report, I hope you refrain from that in the future. Cheers, Amoruso 17:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So you find it acceptable behavior to report something and then get warned for the same thing you reported ? Please don't accuse me of throwing around accusations. Amoruso 17:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like you to review that as well. Cheers, Amoruso 18:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi...sorry to bother you but Mackan79 wanted me to let you know that he was blocked for edit warring for 72hrs. I'm trying to help him out. MetsFan76 19:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

'86 Mets
I take it you aren't a Mets fan! Don't tell me BoSox!!!!! =) MetsFan76 20:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok now I'm completely confused. You're not a Yankee fan, are you? =) MetsFan76 20:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok that's funny b/c I live and work in the same borough as you. Is this my dad? lol MetsFan76 20:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So I just saw your comment on Dmc's page. I added one of my own as well.  I don't like how SlimVirgin added her thoughts when she was just as wrong here. MetsFan76 23:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course I mean well but this really got me angry. I am constantly seeing 3RRs going either unchecked or just given a warning, not 72 hours.  And when certain people are involved, then I get a little suspicious.  Anyway, you are right.  I will chill (its the Bronx blood flowing here) =) MetsFan76 23:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Your note
I don't see that there's any need to wait three days. The discussion is moving ahead, and you may find it moves more productively with the people currently on the page. My experience of the other editor has been very poor indeed, to the point where I have no further wish to engage, to be honest. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll certainly let you know. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Black people
Thanks for keeping an eye on this page!futurebird 05:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II
Hi! I saw your interests page, and I wish to explain a bit situation with mentioned history-related article.

In fact, we don't want to erase content of this, it will be merged into more global article like "Occupation of Ukraine".

Also, as you can notice, current version of article contains >50% about Holocaust, it's not the primary goal of it. If it will be merged into Occupation of Ukraine it will be more title-specific. Because at that times, there were Soviet people, not Ukrainians. And article particularly speaks about Jews.

Also, you mentioned, that article is referenced, but I want to tell you that most references are not valid, since citations were misinterpreted by editors. You can see talk page for more info. Briefly, the strongest accusations were provided from some journalist, which has only one article on history, and has no historical background at all.

Thanks for understanding, please provide your arguments. --Galkovsky 06:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Kékrōps
Left a note on his talk page. Khoikhoi 05:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, your comments on the talk page seemed somewhat provocative to me. Saying things like "Did you really mean your purpose is to bury the Turkish and Aromanian?" is almost putting words his mouth. Please avoid such comments in the future, as it obviously offended him, and the situation only seemed to get worse after that. Khoikhoi 10:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. I see what you're saying, but just keep in mind that it's always important to assume good faith in situations such as these. Cheers, Khoikhoi 02:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

List of bus routes in the Bronx
I don't think you understand my objection. The Bronx-designated ("Bx") routes that enter Manhattan are right above, in the table, as the only routes that mention Manhattan. The list of routes from other boroughs is there to point to routes on other lists that enter the Bronx. Why did you remove the link to list of bus routes in Queens, where a reader can see information about the Q44? --NE2 22:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you please respond here, on User talk:NE2, or Talk:List of bus routes in the Bronx? Thank you. --NE2 22:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If we list routes on multiple pages, then we have to update all of them when a route is changed (or we add new information pertaining to the history), and there is a risk of the entries in the various tables becoming desynced. By separating the routes by prefix, we make each list a manageable size while avoiding duplication. I still don't understand how adding a redundant list of which "Bx" routes cross into Manhattan to the Bronx list solves this "problem". --NE2 22:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a list of routes in the Bronx, and details on the "Bx" ones are included. The pages that have details on the other routes are linked at the bottom. I would not object to a list of bus routes in Westchester County, New York linked in the same way. --NE2 23:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I already explained that this is a bad idea because of duplication. --NE2 23:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about the rewritten introduction to list of bus routes in the Bronx? --NE2 23:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is a list of all routes that enter the Bronx. Those with other prefixes simply have detail on another page. --NE2 23:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Orange train station
My first message:

OK, Wikipedia's guidelines say we should try to work this out, so here's my "off-line" effort to reach out and figure out why we are having this disagreement.

I think the first thing we should do is define the disagreement. As I understand it, you object to the phrase, "West Haven and Orange are the only towns on the New Haven Lline without stations." Since this is, to me, a simple statement of fact, I'd like to get to the bottom of your objection. My guess is it may come down to "does a Metro-North station in Orange actually serve the town, or is it just geographically located there but serving others." If you agree that that's the basis of the disagreement, we can go from there.

But I want to know also where you're coming from, in terms of your understanding of the region and the issue. Are you familiar with the area on the basis of having driven the roads and knowing the towns, or are you working from maps? (If I sound condescending in any way, be sure that these are straightforward questions, because your comments lead me to both conclusions.) And are you at all involved in the controversy between proponents of the two stations, which became something of a competition. If you are of the mindset that West Haven should have a station and that if Orange has one it would threaten West Haven's chances, or if you have any other ax to grind, please be up front about it.

As for me, I am a resident of the area, and have driven the area numerous times. I am very familiar with Marsh Hill and Lambert roads, as well as Race Brook, Orange Center, etc. I have also talked to residents of Orange about how they view the traffic patterns and how well-traveled the roads are. I am a native of the area, but I don't have a dog in the fight over the rail stations. I am not an opponent of either.

Well, that's a start. It will help me to form my arguments to know the answers to those questions. I'll look forward to hearing from you. - In response, you wrote, in part:


 * One of the quickest ways we can decide that the section should stay is to find out exactly what the initial money was appropriated for. We should establish that this is more than planning money, and that there is a real timetable, etc, which may not be so easy. Has there even been an EIS?

As for an environmental impact statement, yes, here it is: http://www.ct.gov/dotinfo/lib/dotinfo/who_ea_intro_chp01tochp08.pdf

As for appropriations, here is the best I've found so far, a notice of a public hearing: http://www.ct.gov/dot/ical/eventDetail_page.asp?date_ID=CDCDCFCBC783CDCAC9

However, you are framing this in terms of whether the station is realistic or not. That's way beyond where this started. Again, the statement was "the only two towns on the New Haven Line without stations." You haven't challenged the accuracy of that statement. The article also says that as of 2006, there were plans to build stations in both towns, which acknowledges both where the plans stand (not definite) and the fact that there are plans, which is what justifies the first statement. Again, it is a simple statement of fact.

What troubles me too is the challenges you are making to my defenses, to wit:


 * You are claiming that Marsh Hill Road is a major north south road serving Orange. That will certainly depend on your definition. Certainly twon residents would name the three I did (all state roads) before Marsh Hill, and likely not think of Marsh Hill at all. That Lambert 'lines up' with Marsh Hill does not make it the same road. It certainly does not have the same geometry, same usage patterns, etc.

This is simply not a true statement and I don't know how you came to your conclusion. I have talked to town residents, and I have read letters to the editor of the local newspaper opposing a Stew Leonard's dairy store on Marsh Hill Road, on the other side of I-95, BECAUSE it is such a major roadway. As for Lambert/Marsh Hill, if you come off I-95 and turn north, you go from Marsh Hill to Lambert when you cross Route 1. It is, for all intents and purposes, the same road. The others, also major roads, do not have the same access to the south side of Route 1 and I-95 that Marsh Hill has. Add to that a multi-screen cinema, restaurants, a hotel being built, Bayer (while it's there) and the highway exits--how can you possible say this is not a major access for Orange residents? The train station will only add to that. I wish you would trust me on this; I know people who live on these roads and I drive them at least once a month. It is a major road, therefore justifying whether the rail station off that road would serve Orange.


 * You claim that not all New Haven Line stations are in the center of their respective Connecticut towns. You cited Branford (not New Haven Line), West Haven (does not exist) and New Haven (untrue).

OK, Branford is not on the New Haven Line, it's Amtrak. West Haven's site has been chosen and it's about .75 mile from the center. Union Station is .7 miles from the Green (granted, there is a new station at State Street, which is four blocks from the Green--in or near the center, depending on your definition. Even if Orange's station were the only one not in the center of town, what does it matter? It's still an Orange station.

Sorry to be so long-winded. InkQuill 03:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten the section and even renamed it to make its lack of certainty clear. I hope this is acceptable to you, because I've put about as much energy as I plan to into this.


 * I have responded clearly and directly to questions you've raised, such as whether there has been an EIS, and you haven't even acknowledged it. You responded with "Will they be built? It sounds like a debate, not a done deal." I never said it was a done deal, but it's certainly more than a debate. Your lack of acknowledgment of sources you've requested, while continuing to make an argument as if I did not provide that source, is both puzzling and troubling.


 * To acknowledge your comments (and leaving out a long response I wrote that would just elicit another comeback), I'll grant that "the only road that Orange residents can use to get to I-95" is not correct. Earlier, I said, "it is the only north-south road in Orange with an entrance on I-95," which is correct. It is one of the ways to get to the highway, which is all I was trying to say. And I'm sorry I misquoted you. I did not intend to do so. InkQuill 00:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I did not mean to use local knowledge as a "cudgel," just to use it to correct what I saw as inaccurate statements. As you say, it's invaluable. Sometime when you drive up to Woodmont, I'll meet you at Sloppy José, we can share a plate of nachos and drive up to my sister's house on Lambert Road.  :-)  InkQuill 03:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Lieberman
The shortened lead paragraph may be appropriate, I'm not sure. The trouble with having any details here is that it invites everybody else to drone on about their hobby-horse issue, which is how the article became unwieldy and slanted in the first place. I try to keep the article from looking biased and I try to keep it readable (per WP:SIZE). But I don't own consensus. The whole pro-Iraq war thing is what sets people off, so I have to concede it's the most significant detail. Avt tor 22:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ottoman Turkish

 * 1) Ottoman Turkish is not just "modern Turkish written in a previous alphabet". In fact, it was largely unintelligible with the modern Turkish language, because it had many borrowings from Arabic and Persian. This was before Atatürk's Reforms in which loanwords were replaced.
 * 2) We have the Turkish names in articles like Samos Island because it used to be part of the Ottoman Empire. If you look at the talk page, according to one user, "the only Ottomans/Turks on the island were just limited to a small guard". The Ottoman Turkish name is appropriate due to historical reasons.
 * 3) The statement "Modern Turkish and Ottoman Turkish are one language, written in different script" is false. The Turkish language is essentially an invention of the 20th century, and it's unintelligible to the Ottoman Turkish language which has a real historical connection to these territories (yet irrelevant today).

The goal is not to delete the Turkish names in the Latin script, but just to make things more historically appropriate. We can show how these names were written in the Ottoman Turkish alphabet, in addition to the transliteration. Then people who can't read the Arabic script can understand as well. Khoikhoi 05:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There are no differences in place names. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 02:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

See this:

"Yes it may be a different language because as a Turkish person I cannot read nor understand Ottoman Turkish. It's not same grammar, same structure!!!! Who told you that? --Gokhan 10:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)"

<span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 22:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Try responding on his talk page. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 11:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
It just occurs to me I don't think I ever said thanks for trying to clear things up with the FB mess a few weeks ago. I appreciated the effort, and the one to get me back into the conversation. Best, Mackan79 15:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ottoman Turkish
Hi, I don't know how much knowledgeable you are about Turkey, but in high school we actually do learn Turkish literature since the beginning of Turkish written history, which of course comprises Ottoman period. The Ottoman Turkish literature we read, even in Latin alphabet, does not make that much sense to us, due to its different grammar and vocabulary. It's like a foreign language to us (unfortunately).

If you need example, this is a part of a poem by Baki (B%C3%A2k%C3%AE):

Nâm u nisâne kalmadi fasl-i bahârdan

Dustu cemende berk-i diraht itibârdan

I am educated in the best schools of my country and about to finish my graduate studies in an international business school. I believe I represent the well-read population of my country. And I can tell you, I cannot fully understand this poem. Some words are same or understandable but that's it. Reading or hearing it won't make a difference. And it seems this is one of the easiest ones.

--Gokhan 06:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: ArbCom voting
Thanks for your comments as well; we appreciate the feedback and thoughts. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 16:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence
Your vote at Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence, with Delete highlighted up front, is likely to be misinterpreted as suggesting the article (and its contents) be removed in its entirety, which would conflict with the remainder of your explanation. I would strongly suggest rewording your vote to Merge or Merge/Redirect, either of which would more accurately reflect your reasoning. Alansohn 16:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Estimate
I am still awaiting your comments on the talk page.Muntuwandi 05:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

I have seen your report but nowhere have I made more than 3 rvs in 24 hours so your allegations are incorrect. I know you disagree with the edits but please do not make accusations that are incorrect. Muntuwandi 02:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The uncomfortable truth
Why hide this? Inflammatory? Yes. True? Unfortunately such attitudes exist. And the efforts of some of the editors on the black people article over the last year or so have encouraged this sort of stuff. I think we should acknowledge it exists, but instead focus on the most accurate current modern most accepted scientific views, instead of out of date, controversial discredited material. I know that black people really badly want to believe that they are a separate species or race and superior to other races, but unfortunatley science does not support this view, and this view really encourages the absolute worst extrapolations, like the chart I displayed. You want to deny that such things exist? You want to deny that these nonscientific attitudes can be exploited to support the worst possible conclusions? Hmm...--18:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

commons:User:Jd2718
I assert to be the same person as commons:User:Jd2718. Jd2718 20:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration
Thanks, I've been watching it this whole time. I can't think of what to say however. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 04:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually think they were quite excellent, especially for someone who hasn't really been involved in ths whole ordeal. Many of the points you made were interesting and right on-spot. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 06:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, while I think you made good points, I would like to add that not all articles involved concerns Armenian-Azerbaijan situation, there are those which don't, and editing those makes them specific to the interest of a specific user, edit warring on that makes it the specific interest of a user. When others appear in a short interval and start editing those same specific articles and participate in the edit war, then this has nothing to do with Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. One such example is the article on Urartu, Tabib was fighting on it because he had a specific problem with it, not involved with the Armenian-Azerbaijani stuff, Tabib left Wikipedia and later on when TigranTheGreat started expending the article, a week later Dacy account was created a day later he start contibuting on it, a day later Adil who took a long vaccation from Wikipedia extending for months the same day reappear and start contributing reverting and helping Dacy. Check my statament and in my evidence page I will be working on bringing many more such evidences. The first time Adil appeared he was responsable of the locking of many articles, when he left a relative peace was the result, when he reappeared a countless numbers of articles were locked as a result. My accusation of meatpupping is not on the articles involving Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict or situation, it is on the articles which do not concern that. Example, is the interest in voting on the Category on genocide denial, and both Adil and Tabib, who are friends in real life, were the only Azeri users who on Wikipedia have edited Armenian genocide related articles, which again is totally unrelated to the Armenian-Azerbaijani question. Fad (ix) 17:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 18:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ladino is unfortunately in serious decline, dependending on the country.
Ladino is unfortunately in serious decline, dependending on the country.

Ladino is unfortunately in serious decline, likely irreversibly depending on the country. For example in Turkey it not understood by the younger generation of Turkish Jews especially, those who are under the age of 65, at all. And the elderly generation who largely know Ladino prefer to speak Turkish among each other and passed Turkish as mother tongue to the younger generations who as a result only speak Turkish. Though there is a page in Ladino in the weekly Turkish Jewsih newspaper Şalom which is likely itended for elderly readers, the rest is in Turkish. And those few who are interested in learning Ladino "learn" it in modern Spanish language courses (!) which is practically putting the nail in the coffin for Ladino.

Saguamundi

Re: Wheelwar
Thank you for your compliments, and please don't hesitate to comment on anything else in the future: we really appreciate your feedback and comments! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 23:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The Elm City
Inserting the sentence about the elm situation into the middle of the paragraph about the New Haven Green does not resolve the problem, it merely compounds it by scrambling the paragraph about the Green. I considered reverting your change, but I figure you are in the midst of a more complex operation. 'Nuf said. --orlady 20:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

about agf
I'm well aware of the Assume Good Faith policy. With nearly 9,000 edits, (approximately 2000 of which are in project space), I know what WP:AGF says and means. I redacted the comment, again, per WP:CIVIL. I understand you have a history of strong feelings on the Black People article. Regardless of those feelings, policy violations will not be tolerated on that page, and neither will continued edit warring. I appreciate your time, and your consideration in leaving the comment redacted. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    On Belay!  04:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly never said that. I was just saying that I understand fully the AGF policy. However, I also understand the WP:CIVIL policy, and that was an uncivil comment by definition, and thus is to be redacted. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    On Belay!  05:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please be aware, that I've asked for further administrator comment regarding the redaction (which I maintain is within policy), at WP:AN/I. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    On Belay!  05:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

paragraph move
The paragraph move was illogical, as I explained in a previous edit summary-- the term in the top section is "Israeli apartheid", not "apartheid", so logically a discussion of background info on "apartheid" wouldn't fall under the former.--Urthogie 05:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll revert myself. Please discuss though.--Urthogie 05:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nowhere else, but we can perhaps address the undue weight of being in the Lead of the article by doing a complete "Background" section which deals with the history of the use of the words as well, as a seperate subsection. How would that be for a compromise?--Urthogie