|
——————————————— Archive, June 2005 ———————————————
Now that you have taken my advice and started staying away from controversial topics - have you found your editing here more pleasant and enjoyable? →Raul654 23:52, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
- No I feel myself in a complete void. :) Cat chi? 00:34, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
|
Beultifull isnt it? Cat chi? 15:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just as the title says, from what I've seen you say it seems like you know very little. So I'm asking you to please stay out of historical discussions which you know very little about. Putting things which you found on a google search doesn't impress anyone, except mental midgets. - Unisgned Moosh88
- On wikipedia you cannot ask people to leave out of discussions. Your knowledge of Wikipedia:Wikiquette is non existent. History is open for interpretations. There are always at least two different versions. Thats one solid thing in History science. Cat chi? 22:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's Great
edit
Hey thanks for telling me that, since I know nothing about history. NOT! Yes, I know that history is often written by the winners, but I also know that sometimes on Wiki, history is written by idiots. So yeah go ahead write all the crap articles that you want, if I relied purely on Wiki for historical knowledge I'd be a fool.
- Dont ever post anything in my userspace again until you mature into an adult. Cat chi? 03:15, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
|
Hi,
I want to get a clear perspective on the man who is called Saladin Eyyubi.
I have read about this man. In some pages there stay that he is arabic, in some that he is kurdish and in som that he is turkish.
What's the true?
I have read what you have written. On what bases do you ground your facts? Did you really engaged in the history of Saladin or did you put something together about what you have heard from older historians. Is there any definitive statements that can prove what origin Saladin has?
Please don't misunderstand me, I don't want to disrespect you at all. It's that I am so confused about this thing for now.
- I don't recall editing this mans article. I have no opinion on this issue on top of my head. If you could give the articles link I can give you a healthier response. Cat chi? 22:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Whereas, much good discussion and work has previously occurred on the Barnstar and award proposal page,
Whereas, the level of discussion and progress on the abovementioned page has dropped to a record level of none; no constructive commments have been made on existing awards since May 17, 2005,
Whereas, many "Vote or Die!" have been left open, namely two, as a result of this lack of discussion,
Whereas, nine proposals lie untouched by Wikipedian hands,
Whereas, you have previously commented and helped on the abovementioned page,
Therefore, I, who have absolutely no command in ordering this whatsoever, instruct you, とある白い猫/Archive/2005/06, to return to the barnstar commitment and further the creation of Wikipedian awards; vote liberally and spread your constructive comments.
(Signed)
Cmd. Bratschetalk 5 pillars of the Barnstarium Army, 03:22, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
p.s. And I hope you come back-b
- I dont enjoy leaving wikipedia but users keep harassing me. Their edits concentrate on reverting my edits only. No one so far have taken the mesures to stop this.
- When I give governmentatal data thats pov because "governments have been known to lie" [1] some sane looking reverts dont quite have a basis. They are an expert on any and every issue I write.
- If they could make Star Trek POV they would. Which is the only thing they havent interfered.
- Even for articles I wrote such as Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies was bad [2]. I was "abusing" templates. I can go on forever.
- In sum its pointless for me to edit wikipedia. They find ways to bother me. They are obsessed with my edits. Their lack of edits rather than reverts is the living proof of this. Two users work together and get involved in revert wars in almost any article I edit. They have 6 reverts while I have 3. There always is a consensus against me by the same users on almost any article I touch. Cat chi? 21:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Wow, that's terrible. You seem like a dedicated editor and decent person; why are these users targeting you? I hate to see people leave this great project just because some jerks are ganging up. If you would like me to mediate or something, I'd be happy to. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 21:41, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
- I am not really sure. My theory is: my "futile" attempt to NPOVise Armenian Genocide. I requested sources so that my counterpart prooves genocide etc... I asked him to use sources that are not specilised with the event only. You know standard stuff... It wasn't a very pleasant discussion overall. Their edits are on average minor things, which is fine, aside form that they revert me, the less I edit the less I get reverted obvliously. They keep reverting until I "give up" no discussing in talk at all. Meanwhile I write entier articles. I dont know what you can do to stop their obsession with me. I dont want regular users in the crosfire as they may do what they do to me to you as well. Admins on the other hand can handle any harassment like I recieved better. They wont intimidate me with their harassment. But its rather pointless me to write anything as everything I write is pov, regardless of its contents quite frequently. Its just one revert war after another. Cat chi? 22:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You know what? I've found that editing contreversial articles isn't worth my time; the stress and toll it takes on me does not equal any work done, or any satisfaction found. My suggestion is, forget about the Armenian article altogether, and go do some RC patrol to get your stress level done. Nothing like good old work! Anything else, feel free to get on my talk page. Cheers, Bratschetalk 5 pillars 01:29, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Ture, but now any article I touch becomes controversial. I have POV disputes with the same individuals on any article I go. Such as PKK, I am supposed to cite sources and yet I am supposed to "not discard the work of others out of hand". I am required to accept everyone elses work without them citing sources. Look at any POV dispute I have its with the same two idiots. Cat chi? 10:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear about your disillusionment with Wikipedia. I think you are a valuable contributor, I would rather have you around. On the other hand, it isn't important enough in the grand scheme of things that is should cost you that much stress. Wish you all the best, whatever path you take. Guettarda 16:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I dont enjoy leaving wikipedia but users keep harassing me. Their edits concentrate on reverting my edits only. No one so far have taken the mesures to stop this.
- When I give governmentatal data thats pov because "governments have been known to lie" [3] some sane looking reverts dont quite have a basis. They are an expert on any and every issue I write.
- If they could make Star Trek POV they would. Which is the only thing they havent interfered.
- Even for articles I wrote such as Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies was bad [4]. I was "abusing" templates. I can go on forever.
- In sum its pointless for me to edit wikipedia. They find ways to bother me. They are obsessed with my edits. Their lack of edits rather than reverts is the living proof of this. Two users work together and get involved in revert wars in almost any article I edit. They have 6 reverts while I have 3. There always is a consensus against me by the same users on almost any article I touch. Cat chi? 21:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have removed your RFCs against Davenbelle and Stereotek because you didn't create a subpage for explaining and discussing the problem. If you still think a RFC is appropriate, please examine some existing RFCs to see how this is done. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user. Yours, Radiant_>|< 09:10, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks that makes me very happy. Cat chi? 09:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I should point out you haven't cited any evidence, nor any applicable policies, nor have you found anyone to certify the basis of the dispute. Honestly, after reading your text, I still don't have a clue as to what's going on here. Radiant_>|< 10:48, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
- The RFC still isn't certified by the required two parties, thus it remains invalid. Please read RFC procedure for the details, but it is assumed that if you are the only person having the problem, then it's not RFC-worthy. Stereotek has requested that this be deleted; if Davenbelle has no objections, I will do so in the near future. Radiant_>|< 11:24, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Hi. As you can see here my rfc cases future looks grim. how should I proceed now? Cat chi? 11:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It's just a technicality, there is a substantive problem here because you three can't work together. I'll do some research and see what you and Davenbelle and Stereotek are up to, then I'll try to suggest some solutions to all three. Hopefully we can work something out and you will no longer feel harassed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm getting permission from Stereotek and Davenbelle on this. If they insist, we will still have to delete it.
You may want to take a copy now. There are wiki providers such as memebot which would give you a reasonably Wikipedia-compatible place to copy it to for reference. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I have deleted it on request of one of the subjects. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
it would seem you have a legitimate basis for complaint with regards to the situation outligned. justice can be done by my self, and a few of those like my self.
- James Jones
- What do you propose? Cat chi? 01:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Do you realize your Talk page is very confusing? I have no idea where to post. Anyway, thanks for the offer of the vandalbot, but I don't use IRC. Sorry. RickK 04:22, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
ok. while the topic can be controversial I did not remove anything. See how again my edits and hard work is gone. Please assist. Cat chi? 15:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Have you ever seen this? If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. But like "Bad Wolf" of Dr. Who, Same individuals are appearing on all wiki time frames. I just want to deal and reason with individuals and not senseless reverts. You were talking about doing something about this on RfC page. I am all ears.
- I see you as a guide as you are one hell of a guide. Should I reopen my RfC case directly and tell it to the two people (you and silsor) to comment? Or some other course of action? Cat chi? 23:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding the policy of Wikipedia everytime , especially about the neutrality of the articles. Have A Nice Day aozan
If you revert the GAP Project page to the copyvio one more time, I will block you for 24 hours. RickK 21:27, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Coolcat, that's an excellent system you got running there. Can I ask you though - why does everything the bot posts have a black background, at least in GAIM? The 'excuse' is coming out as black text on a black background, which of course isn't good :-) Dan100 (Talk) 13:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Actually the color codes works fne on Mirc. I'll change excuse text to something else, hopefully makeing it readale. Its Cyan on mirc. The black background is to make sure the text is readable. It is just a quencedence of GAIM to read both color codes as the same maybe. Ill change it to something else. Tell me if it looks better. Cat chi? 20:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please no! I just hope this is a wikibreak... Ta bu shi da yu 04:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I serriously considered leaving. Infact I was gone for 15 days plus. Later decided to make it a temprorary wiki vacation. Its an extended vacation until I resolve some issues with the two users who "mercilessly" revert stalk my edits. Cat chi? 10:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Glad to see that things are sorted :-) Ta bu shi da yu 23:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Things arent quite sorted yet. I still recieve my revert stalking experience. I am less inclined to edit at the moment. Cat chi? 12:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Who's stalking you? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I have commented on the talk page of Armenian Genocide. I do not have any knowledge of this article or the issue it documents. However, I have noticed many words in the article that must be sourced. The article is not neutral, IMO, until this can be done. I am unsure what the issues are that you documented, or which side of the political divide you exist on: I have made my comments as a disinterested 3rd party. As that disinterested 3rd party, I have no preconceptions about this article as I have no knowledge of it. I have made my comments in such a manner. I hope this helps. If there are further issues to be aware of then I would be happy to hear them: I would also be happy to hear from the other side (whoever they are). - Ta bu shi da yu 02:49, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If you file another RFC and provide detailed evidence, along with the specific policies that the behaviour has affected, I will look into having it endorsed. However, please make sure that you provide sufficient evidence that at least two users have attempted to resolve the problem. My suggestion is to use the following RFC as a guide: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alfrem. - Ta bu shi da yu 1 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)
- Coolcat, I've just been talking to Fadix, and I'm wondering if we can drop the whole RFC business. I say this because the Armenian Genocide page became heated and I fear that both sides (Fadix and yourself) have traded insults and personal remarks :-( For the good of the article, would you be willing to say sorry to Fadix about those things (not about your stance on the article - I'm not asking for apologies on opinions held!)? I have said the exact same thing to Fadix. I hope that you won't find this to be an insult and if you find my suggestion offensive then please understand that I am only trying to find a way forward on the article, and of course find a way that two fine editors of Wikipedia can coexist on this site, even when they have strongly differing opinions! - Ta bu shi da yu 2 July 2005 01:59 (UTC)
- Ah! Just saw the RFC - I thought it was filed against Fadix! Plesae ignore my comments on the RFC, they were made out of ignorance. I will review it and comment. My other comments about the dispute between Fadix and yourself still stand though... I hope the two of you can work together, rather than against each other. - Ta bu shi da yu 2 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)
|
