|
——————————————— Archive, July 2005 ———————————————
Coolcat, I've processed about a thousand copyvios. I have never accepted anonymous permission to use previously published material. I held this page to the same standards as every other copyvio I've evaluated. How can you say you were unfairly treated?
You said that you re-wrote the history pages that I deleted, yet they contained at least a full paragraph of copied, previously published material. (let me know if you want me to email you the text in question, not being an administrator you won't be able to see the deleted history I'm talking about).
Finally, why don't you say to my face what you've been saying behind my back??--Duk 2 July 2005 00:47 (UTC)
- I am not talking behind your back. I am not jumping from admin pages to another, filling RfC cases etc. I just ask people to compare the copy vio page and the alleged page. I tell them copy vio im MY pov is unaproporate. I have every right to do that. They compare and react. If a paragraph is indeed copied from the site and is not on the canadian PD site, feel free to delete it. Just tell me exactly what you deleted so I can rewrite and re add knowlege back to the article. Please do not remove everything but only the copy vio material, just because a paragraph (Id love to know which) is violating "copyrights" (who owns copyrights?) doesnt mean you get to delete everything. All images on the article with the exeption of two are from the same US PD source. Just google image search for the image file names. The other two, one is fair use of areal picture of ataturk dam and other is a graph created by a felow wiki user which replaced the "bad" us gov graph. Cat chi? 2 July 2005 01:00 (UTC)
- Finaly, I do think your judgement is unfair. You are in error, partialy if not completely. Cat chi? 2 July 2005 01:05 (UTC)
- What was my error? Not taking anonymous granting of copyright licensing? Do you honestly believe that Wikipedia should accept anonymous granting of copyright licensing? And if you are really the author of the text in question, why didn't you note earlier that it was PD? --Duk 2 July 2005 01:17 (UTC)
I sent you an email;
Coolcat, below is a sample of copied text from the GAP project's second copyvio deletion (this is the version that you said you re-wrote)...
...copied text emailed to Coolcat, admins can see the page at [1]...
It contains exact copies as well as derived writing from http://www.adiyamanli.org/ataturk_dam.htm.
When I evaluated this copyvio there was no evidence that it was PD, only an assertion from you that you rewrote it. As you can see from this sample, you didn't fully re-write it.
--Duk 2 July 2005 14:25 (UTC)
- You are welcome to send me every instance of what you think is a copy vio, preferably ones that arent on the canadian PD page. Oh and btw, please do not use the RfC page to discuss this matter, use the talk of same RfC page. Cat chi? 2 July 2005 12:55 (UTC)
- The material you mailed me was not in the article on last delete. Note that I am not bothering to discuss on who wrote the older version of article and its copyright status because thats talking to the wall. Cat chi? 2 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)
A simmilar content existed however:
The primary objective of GAP is to normalise levels of development, income, and living
standards between the southeastern region and other regions of Turkey. Creating economic
and social opportunities and promoting business, GAP is transforming the region completely.
Critical infrastructure, such as airports and highways, is being constructed to support the
development of the region. GAP will provide jobs to an estimated 3.5 million people directly.
GAP will provide jobs. Airports and highways will be constructed. This isnt something adiyamanli.org made up. It was Turkish Gov's plans. Cat chi? 2 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)
- Are Turkish Gov. plans PD? And did you note this when you first posted the article? Did you note this and provide a source when the copyvio was being evaluated? Or are you now, weeks later, trying to explain away you plagersim and copyright violations and paint yourself as a victim?--Duk 2 July 2005 15:12 (UTC)
- This is ridiclous. You are calling names and making less sense each time. I ask you to stop calling me names in a civilised manner, I would hope to see a civilised reaction. Cat chi? 2 July 2005 18:18 (UTC)
I would have thought you would make sure material that apears to be copy vio is not in any PD sites so as not to clutter copy vio system. Cat chi? 2 July 2005 15:21 (UTC)
- If you want to used previously published material in Wikipedia it's up to you to identify the source, its licence and to note all of this on the article's talk page. Do this BEFORE you copy, not weeks after the copyvio has been processed--Duk 2 July 2005 15:36 (UTC)
- Right, for me I just copy pasted material in a TXT file in my hard drive. Later found an image on google image search. You obvioulsy dont believe me, or do not want to believe me (I do not rally care). We are discussing the latest version of the article not an elder version. I am not accepting violating copyights, I am not fighting for the elder version either. Just to satisfy you, or people like you (other copy vio people), I rewote the article. Not once but twice. Deleting the article only annoys me. Instead if you just told me whats violating copyrights (like your mail) I would have been more than happy to fix anything that supposively violating copyrights. This way everyone including me would be happy. Cat chi? 2 July 2005 18:18 (UTC)
- Coolcat, its not the job of the administrators clearing copyright violations to re-write the articles, they revert or delete. See the instructions at WP:CP. You claim you re-wrote the version that I reverted, but before reverting I still found substantial copyright violations. This might have been an honest mistake on your part, but I explained my actions on the talk page, and many times since then. I want you to stop saying that reverting this page and deleting the history that contained copyright violations was a mistake. And I want you to remove #5 from your RFC. Stop lying.--Duk 2 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)
- I tried to reason with you, but you are a wall. Keep calling names, its rather amusing. Cat chi? 2 July 2005 18:53 (UTC)
- Coolcat, your re-write still contained copied text, thats why it was reverted, and the history pages deleted. It's not the duty of the administrators evaluating copyright violations to re-write articles.--Duk 2 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)
- ...Keep calling names, its rather amusing. -- Are you refering to my serial liar, plagerizer and copyright violator comment? --Duk 2 July 2005 19:18 (UTC)
- Coolcat, I just read your comment on Tony's talk page. There seems to be a misunderstanding. I have no comment whatsoever about the current page. My comments are completely in regards to the second copyvio that I processes two months ago. I have done everything to avoid you since then, aside from defending my actions on that page.--Duk 2 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)
I also personally think the FAC was too soon, so I ask you to close this nomination and figure out what is going on. We still have a problem with mainly sources, not with images this time. However, we cannot find all of the sources during the FAC period, so we should at least send it to peer review before making it to the FAC for the fourth time. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 2 July 2005 15:52 (UTC)
- I am not going to call off the FAC. I just want to see all points people object to. That way we can improve them before FAC time expires. This wasn't something I did on my own. I asked several people, including raul if they would want to see this on a second FAC. Cat chi? 2 July 2005 17:46 (UTC)
Hi Coolcat. I did reinsert your photo, and I don't object to your other edits, but I want to keep as much info, pro and con, in the article as possible. That was why I rolled back to the earlier version. I'm not going to put anything in myself. I did relink to your photo, and please feel free to put in as much other stuff as you like, I was mostly concerned not to lose anything. Sorry about the mix up. Fire Star 2 July 2005 17:34 (UTC)
- No problem. I was just trying to do clean up. The image is not mine, just the only image I found on a google image search. :) Cat chi? 2 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)
- Things seem to have quieted down a bit. I'd like to get the new editor discussing things, if possible, but I have to leave soon (of course). Wish me luck! Fire Star 2 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)
- Good luck, although I don't know if a person like me of which a dark cloud folows has any luck to spread :) Cat chi? 2 July 2005 19:44 (UTC)
No, I was not the person who deleted the latest version. See; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Southeastern+Anatolia+Project
Looks like User:Radiant! was the last person to delete the article. --Duk 2 July 2005 20:46 (UTC)
As I said before, After my copyvio work two months ago I've had nothing to do with this page, aside from defending my actions. In your RFC complaint #5, are you refering only to the latest deletion of this page? If so you should mention this in the complaint, and I will strike out my comments.--Duk 2 July 2005 20:55 (UTC)
- Oooook. Sorry for screaming and annoying you. GAP Project is being very stressfull for me. The stress I get from the people I discuss in RFC isnt helping either. Now, I am not trying to get the older version which you rightfully can mark as copy vio as identical material was on the alleged page. It was also on a PD page. If you, or some other copy vio warrior was investigating the article they would have seen the PD resource and never bother Copyvioing the page. Regardless... I did rewrite the page so I really don't want to discuss the older version(s). Just please don't mark me as a repetive offender as I don't believe I am one. My problem is not with you, but with the two people on RfC bothering me. --Cool Cat My Talk 2 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)
- I'm sorry we had this confusion and I apologise for my strong language. --Duk 2 July 2005 21:24 (UTC)
- It was my fault as well, I should have checked the delete logs. :( Cat chi? 2 July 2005 21:32 (UTC)
Since you asked... One web site had only one sentence coppied from it which I did reword. The other, had about a paragraph. The latter one is the one I asked permision from. I do not remember the urls. If you could post me the two urls as they apeared on the ex copy vio notice, I can easily tell you which one it is. --Cool Cat My Talk 3 July 2005 04:16 (UTC)
- First of all, I think you are missing the point, violating copyrights and plagiarism is a very bad thing. It is a form of theft, it is intellectually dishonest. It Squanders huge amounts of time of the people who have to clean up your mess. Don't do it. And if you do, get GFDL permission and document it BEFORE posting a copyright violation.
- Second, I asked you months ago for an explanation of what came from where on this article. You couldn't explain to me which text came from which website, let alone convince us the the license granted was GFLD. I have no second thoughts about deleting this article. And I have no intentions of re-visiting this article. Of course, you can always try another administrator.
- Finally, I'm simply astonished that you have no shame. Don't you realize how much trouble you've caused for other people, and how much of their time you've wasted, all because you were too lazy to follow the rules and do your own writing? And then you repeated your crime, over and over. And then you act like a victim when other people clean up your mess. Think about this, Coolcat. It might be one of the reasons why you are having a tough time at Wikipedia. I don't want to have any more contact with you- until you've accepted responsibility for your actions, apologize to me for all of my time you have wasted, and quit acting like a victim. --Duk 3 July 2005 16:18 (UTC)
This is utterly mind-boggling. A copied sentence, a copied paragraph? These are not matters for the copyright lawyers! --Tony Sidaway|Talk
- It's not a matter of a simple copyvio, but rather, the non-stop complaining, for months afterwards, where Coolcat claims he's been mistreated. He hasn't been mistreated (with regards to Dianosis:Murder). Yet over and over Coolcat cites Diagnosis:Murder as evidence of his mistreatment, blaming the copyvio people who can't read size 28 text and misrepresenting the situation. Tony, do you begrudge me defending myself?--Duk 6 July 2005 00:07 (UTC)
I think the state of the current RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Davenbelle and Stereotek demonstrates that intervention by the arbitration committee may now be merited. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 4 July 2005 17:28 (UTC)
- It shall be done. Cat chi? 6 July 2005 11:14 (UTC)
Hi there! Sorry but I won't be restoring anything about this unless I am convinced that the page is in fact not a copyvio. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 18:42 (UTC)
- How can I convince you? Cat chi? 6 July 2005 11:11 (UTC)
- Since I rarely judge copyvio matters, I'd suggest you state your case at WP:CP and see what they think about it. There's also enough admins around there to restore the article if necessary. Radiant_>|< July 6, 2005 11:14 (UTC)
Ou article is sadly under attack. Its perhaps a good thing, becuase when the VFD fails noone will again be able to say the article shouldnt be on Wikipedia. Your Keep vote would be appreciated. -Husnock 5 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)
I've made a proposal at Talk:Southeastern Anatolia Project#Clarification and would appreciate any comments you might have there. --Duk 7 July 2005 03:10 (UTC)
There must be a POV about the ARMENIANS article
edit
please look to Armenians talk page, I told why there must be POV in the article. I put but they are deleting it. -- aozan
About Kemalism Article
edit
I created an article about Kemalist Ideology, I saw that Islamists and some against the Turks and Mustafa Kemal were vandalising Mustafa Kemal Article, may be article could be vandalised, what could I do if that thing is happened? - aozan
- Both cases fall under vandalism. You can list the incident in WP:ViP and proper mesures will be taken. I am on vacation so I can do little at the moment. Also remember to sign every post. Cat chi? 9 July 2005 14:07 (UTC)
Thanks, I will be glad if you send me a massage if you want to give an advice or a warning or just to talk about something what you want,cheers -- aozan
I deleted the Armenian genocide term from the text on Turkey page in pre-historic, because it was not related with history of the modern Turkey (For example Laussanne Treaty, Sevres treaty are related with the article but Armenian genocide is not), it is only related with Ottoman Empire, I am asking you is my deleting genocide term from there vandalism? If you say "yes you are doing vandalism" , I will stop deleting it from the term in the text in Turkey Page. -- aozan
- Removing POV is not vandalism, however determineing what is POV and what isn't is something that may be a challenge. Each article has a Talk page. Instead of editing parts in articles it is often beneficial to edit the talk page and discuss your cases. Cat chi? 11:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- You may also find WP:Vandalism insightfull. As you will clearly see POV edits are not vandalism. You are also protected by WP:NPA. No one should be insulting you or discussing you in any way. Talk pages exists so people can and should be discussing the topic not the individual editors.
- WP:NPoV has a set of guidelines on how to edit articles where POV may be present. Cat chi? 11:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- I can guide you to the best of my abilities. I am currently on a business trip so I have limited time on the internet. Cat chi? 11:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I said in the talk page of Armenians Article why there must be a POV, you can see, I understood that you are busy, sorry to disturb, but I will continue to putting it, please look to Armenians talk page, until you say "Do not put POV tag" I will continue, but before you make any decision, please look at there , to Armenians talk page , why I put the disputed tag when you have time, ıf you say to me that I am not right , I will stop, I don't have any problem with them, but I can not accept that thing until there is a primary document about an order or a plan that belongs to Ottoman Government to kill the Armenians --- aozan
- I cannot "fight" for you. If you think something is POV you may try to NPOVise it. If you are unable to NPOVise something you may want to point out exactly what is POV on the talk page. NPOV does NOT mean No Point of view. It means Neutral point of view. Baseless POV (ie POV without sources) do NOT belong to wikipedia, that is correct. That doesn't make all POV bad. Cat chi? 11:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- Armenian Genocide is a significant topic. Referances to it should not be removed however all referances should neither establish it as a fact nor as fiction. It is a disputed topic such articles should be written in such a way so that it doesn't establish only one side of the story. I wouldn't classify Armenian Genocide as a neutral article. I haven't read the article you mentioned. You may request a Peer review if you want to have views of random people, these people will side with you if you are right, some will often try to rewrite parts. You may want to identify POV paragraphs/sentences and paste them in the talk page.You can argue on what you dont like about them. Usualy even people opposing you will be reasonable. If not other mechanisms of wikipedia may be used, however you should not need such mesures normaly. Cat chi? 11:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- I will investigate the matter. If I see POV I'll point it out in the talk page. You can mimic me on other instances on statements where you see POV. It is not easy to NPOVise an article. It takes time. Be patient, ammend, edit, discuss and you should be fine. You may also try editing less contraversial articles aside from this one. Why not improve for example Istanbul as well? Cat chi? 11:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi Coolcat, I'll restore this version per the discussion on the article's talk page. But there is still some material that is copied from the previously published text (leftover from your refactoring); for example, The range of new products under cultivation is also expanding appears at [2].
I'm going to leave sentences like these out, just so there is no more controversy. The information can be re-written and added later. Please wait till I'm done restoring (I'll do it in parts) and be very carefull not to add any more previously published text by accident. --Duk 19:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
- PS. I'll strike out text on User talk:Coolcat/GAP temp that still needs to be re-written.--Duk 19:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
OK, its done--Duk 23:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
- I understand, I wont be touching the article untill you are done. I tried to rewrite the sections you marked, check if it works. Here: [3] Cat chi? 12:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
OK Coolcat, I'm done, the final section has been restored. --Duk 18:31, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Wasn't that article you were looking for titled Egyptian burial rituals and protocol? Anyway, you can drop info my way by email. I can't promise, I'll write anything on the short term, but I'll make sure it gets passed to the right people if you can't write it yourself. - Mgm|(talk) 17:35, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
- No I will write it myself. Just not this week. :) Cat chi? 17:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- Let me know once you finish. I'd love to read it. - Mgm|(talk) 18:00, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
I noticed your comments on the PKK talk page. I'm currently attempting to correct grammatic and POV errors in the text, and have provided a diff on the talk page showing an initial series of edits. If you'd take a look at it, I would appreciate it.--Scimitar 19:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
- Sure, I am currently on vacation so I do not know how much well of a response I may come up with. In about a week, I will deffinately give a complete response. Just dont give up on me :) Cat chi? 15:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, well, I'll probably get started on more edits then, and hopefully I won't muck things up to badly! If you have any problems with the changes I make, I'm more than ready to discuss them.--Scimitar 15:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
- Sure. Cat chi? 15:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Is it possible for you to place a talk link to your user talk page as well like my sig? Cat chi? 15:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- I'm actually not sure how to do that. --Scimitar 16:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
- Nevermind. --Scimitar parley 16:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
- you should see: Scimitar my talk Preferences My watchlist My contributions Log out
- On the top of the screen.
- You should have a signature field in "Preferences". You have (I believe) Scimitar there which is the default sig, alink to the user page. Change that to something like this: Scimitar|Scimitar]] [[User talk:Scimitar|<sup>My Talk</sup>.
- <sup></sup> is just fancy btw Cat chi? 16:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Aww.. too late :P Cat chi? 16:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
There's a tool called Wikimedia Commonplace, but I can't remember where to download it. Make sure you are logged in when you use it. - Mgm|(talk) 18:45, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure that if you ask at the commons, someone will know. - Mgm|(talk) 18:49, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Recieved with thanks. I shall make good use of that :) Cat chi? 10:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi Coolcat.
I noticed that you created an Office page to keep track of your tasks and tools. It's an excellent idea.
One thing you might want to do, however, is create it as a subpage of your User page (for example, as User:Coolcat/Office) rather than in its present location at User Office:Coolcat. The latter creates a new apparent namespace ("User Office": really a pseudo-namespace), which is generally frowned upon. Let me know if you need any help with the move; I'd be glad to get rid of the old redirect for you once the page move is done.
Happy editing, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
- I did as you asked. I also placed the redirect on a quickie delete. Lets see how fast can you delete the redirect :) Cat chi? 09:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Oh an you are welcome to "steal" my ideas :) Cat chi? 09:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Too late; MTG beat me to it to delete the redirect page. Thanks for moving it over. :) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
- Anytime. Oh and btw (something completely unrelated), I am trying to rename and move all images on the page Ranks and insignia of NATO Armies Officers to commons. I could move every image individualy but hope to find a faster and more fficent method. I have already moved images of Turkey UK and US. Cat chi? 13:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Nice work on G20 developing nations -- the flag format is very funky! — Matt Crypto 14:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
- I actualy am imroving all G##'s . Thanks. Cat chi? 14:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- You may find Group of 77 satisfying :) Cat chi? 16:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- Nice! — Matt Crypto 16:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Hi Coolcat, on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek you state;
Davenbelle marked GAP project a copy vio. Material was PD and is used on 11 websites of which two are PD. Copyvio people deleted the page anyway as copy vio people if they are marking pages as a copy vio make sure material is not on a PD source.
Could you please cite your source and identify the PD publication, or remove the claim that this material is PD.
I'm the Copyvio people deleted the page anyway and there was no evidence persented at the time showing that this material is PD. If you can demonstrate that this material is PD then please do and I'll reconsider, otherwise stop claiming that it was improperly deleted.
--Duk 23:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
- Why are you bothering me with this? It is old argument which we discussed. You are a bit to defensive and this is starting to bother me. The stuff you are throwing me is coppied from the RfC. GEEEZ! Cat chi? 02:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think he's trying to harass you, Coolcat. If you feel that Davenbelle unfairly or inaccurately marked the article as a copyvio, then it would help if you made more information available about the source of the material. Without evidence to back up the assertion that the material is public domain, Duk had no choice to but to delete it as a copyright violation. He's bringing it up because you mentioned it in your RfArb case, and is hoping to clarify if you still believe the material to be public domain. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
- I can prove copyrights by sacrificing my identity, which I do not want to do. From his (duks) prespective what he did is right even though I wasn't violating copyrights but as he pointed out it would be retarded to accept "annonymous" copyrights. Since I can't/don't want to proove copyright status I had rested my case earlier on. Cat chi? 12:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- The rfc entry was about the same material appearing on a Canadian PD source of which a Copy vio expert like duk would notice when checking for copy vios. That would be a proper "assume good faith" enviorment. Cat chi? 12:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- I am just mad I see duk "defending" himself again as I havent suggested/pushed the copyrights to arbcom evidence. The material on arbcom was coppied from the RfC which duk and several others discussed this matter to death. This was coppied to Arbcom listing, then was coppied to where it is now by an arbcom member as that is the porper procedure. So I am being yelled at by duk yet again. :( Cat chi? 12:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Coolcat, I'm more than happy to let this drop. But every time you claim this copyvio was mis-handled I will defend myself. The problem with your making a false claim like this, over and over again for months on end, is that people start to believe it, even if it isn't true. I'm not the one keeping this alive. --Duk 14:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
- It is the copy fo RFC on Arbcom request page. I was not the one copinging it nor do I feel it matters. Why the hell would I insist on something that I have rewritten better than the older version? Cat chi? 14:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- OK, then please remove item number 5 under the Statement by Coolcat section at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek. --Duk 15:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
- IT IS A GOD DAMN COPY OF RFC. Which was coppied to requests for Arbcom before your involvement in the RFC. And was coppied to Requests for "arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek" but NOT by me. I encourage you to start reading what I am posting you more carefully. Cat chi? 15:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Wonderfull, then please remove the incorrect information. Striking it out would work too :) --Duk 15:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
- Done, please do not waiste my time on this anymore. Cat chi? 16:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I noticed your sig links to User:Duk which redirects to User talk:Duk. You may want to modify it so that it links directly to your talk page. Cat chi? 16:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Please cut the links out, but not the history. I have checked other organizations, they do not have this much links.
I reject the seperation. That can not improve anything. I reject this. -unsigned Tommiks
- I am sorry, I feel history should be covered in greater detail. This does not mean we are going to completely remove history from Kurdistan Workers Party. Cat chi? 20:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- I know you spent a lot of work on this article, but we need to break articles larger than 32 bytes. This has nothing to do with Kurdistan Workers Party but is because of technical reasons. Cat chi? 20:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Also please sign your posts. Cat chi? 20:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Everything in the history of this organization is very important. I do not see myself in a position to select which activity is more important and which one is not. How could anyone can see themselves is a mind boiling thing for me. This organization brought financial breakdown, killed the political system (including parlementers), There is no other organization, and goverment in the recent history killed more Kurds than PKK, PKK integrated "terrorism law" to Turkish justice system and Turkey's daily life. If you break the document into sections, I can not accept my name associated with it. AS I have SEEN examples of people breaking the document integrity, and then document turns into a mud. I have also seen these changes performed willingly, to make the document fit one specific idealogy, by assigning importance. If there is one document that will be larger than the "so called page limit". It should be this document. Can YOU protect the integrity of the document if it is composed of multiple pages??
-UNSIGNED Tomminks
- PLEASE sign your posts so I know who is posting the message. Cat chi? 21:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedias software is not designed to run properly on pages exeeding 32 bytes. This is how it was programmed long before this article is introduced. Also people with dial-up (56K) connection would have one hell of a time loading the page. Cat chi? 21:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- I monitor a lot of articles. Some have been broken into smaller pages. If someone presents garbage into the article I'll gladly trash it. Cat chi? 21:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- You do not need to explain me the PKK horror, I have first hand experience. Cat chi? 21:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I understand you are being frustrated. Please rememember the wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Understand that extreme views regading PKK is not something uncommon. I am tring to reason with him. You may want to create an article under your userspace temporarily. Cat chi? 22:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- I'll just wait a bit before editting. I don't have a problem with extreme views, but this was hardly my decision. I mentioned it on the talk page, nobody disagreed until now. I just don't particularly like being accused of having a pro-PKK bias. If you guys feel I'm doing a bad job, I have no problem backing off. Also, I've read the policy on biting, but I appreciate the thought. All the best. --Scimitar parley 22:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
- I posses some anti-PKK bias, whatever that means. So I need people like you with no to little knowlege/bias to NPOVise the article and improve quality with an objective manner. I frankly cant see my POV. I am not going to comment on what you are doing because I am not watching it too closely, I just glance at the changes. I trust you will improve the article. I do not want to interfere with your edits. Cat chi? 22:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- I do not want to take sides for the sake of evading rever wars and other crap. Contraversial articles are always a pain in the ass. Cat chi? 22:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- I just hope you dont get over stressed. You are doing a fine job under pressure. Cat chi? 22:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
(as you know) I've put up a number of flags of the PKK on Commons:Deletion requests, you can argue your case there. Regards, Joolz 16:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
Hi!
The pages you wanted to have deleted where not Wikipedia article, they where project pages. They are Guild aimed to assemble editors and direct their efforts, and therefore not subjugated to "no original research".
Take a look att Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG.
If those guilds are to be delete, so should Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:SIIEG.
--Striver 00:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
- Hi! Conspiracies are fun and the discussion perhaps goes forever. But please understand certain wikipedia policies confine us to certain rules.
- Wikipedia strives on verifiable facts. Therefore, no original research should prevail on wikipedia.
- Wikipedia is neither a forum or a free webhost. Wikipedia is not a soapbox either.
- Wiki projects exist to improve quality of multiple wikipedia articles.
- You are welcome to create a wikipedia project to improve the quality of all conspiracy articles.
- Cat chi? 01:37, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi!
Of course do we have wikipedia policies to confine us, and im sure we both are happy to abide by them.
And of cource is "no original research" a part of it. But as you noticed, that is a project page, not a article. There is a great diffrence. In the project page, we can air or views and belifes, but we can not do that on the article. Its like a talk page, its not a part of the encyclopedia, and thereofor abides by diffrent rules.
Those guild are not aimed to be soapboxes, neither to be a chat room. Its sole aim is to give a more coherent view to the topic, and make the editors to have a expanded knowledge of the articles related, resulting in higher standard for each article. Those projects are aimed at just that: Improving articles.
You en with "You are welcome to create a wikipedia project to improve the quality of all conspiracy articles."
Well, that is exactly what i have done. In what way do you not agree with me? And please, let us reach a conlusion on talk page befor reverting or puting those templates there again, revert wars are not encouraged, rather talk is. You cant just speedy delet them when somebody whants it to be there.
have a good day :)
--Striver 02:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
It's good to see someone willing to help out with copyvios. Please add them at the bottom of a day's list, and do sign them with date and user name (~~~~). Keep up the good work. Rl 10:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
- Actualy I can do beter than that on server: irc.freenode.net and channel: #en.wikipedia.vandalism I have a bot that was ment to detect vandalism. It apperanltly does a good job detecting copy vios. An unintended function if you will. Feel free to use it ;) Cat chi? 11:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll take a look. Did you post the source code somewhere? Rl 11:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
- Code isn't open source only because I am too... well... protective of my code... Cat chi? 11:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
It ment to be a joke, so it reads in the template. Geezz... Cat chi? 10:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- I know, that's why I said BJAODN rather than delete. Radiant_>|< 17:13, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Oh! I always interpreted BJAODN as delete. Awwww... Sry :P Cat chi? 17:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
How can I send you e-mail? -Unsigned 195.175.37.70
- You can send me an email by using the E-mail this user link on my user page or alternatively by clicking here Cat chi? 18:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
You placed a speedy tag on this article with the explanation "posible copy vio Sistine Chapel Choir, indentical material posted here". I'm just curious about your reasoning. Have you evidence of copyvio? I was unable to find any, but my only resource was Google. In checking the main article, I note that it does not have the Early History section, which constitutes a significant portion of the article. (I will admit I am curious as to why this was simply not amended to the original.) Finally, the article appears to have been blanked at the same time the speedy tag was applied. I'm wondering why. (BTW, pleased to see another SETI screensaver user at work. Yay us!) Denni☯ 23:59, 2005 July 30 (UTC)
- When one suspects a copy vio it is necesary to "blank" the page untill copyright status is established. The copy vio tags aren't always acurate. Infact for Sistine Chapel Choir it was a false warning. When one is suspecting a copy vio and blanks this page the copy vio template clarifies for us to not reintroduce copy vio material to the /temp . It's just the procedure. The parts that werent copyrighted were not blanked. Cat chi? 11:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yay for SETI! Cat chi? 11:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- I believe it is necessary to have some evidence of copyvio before acting on it - just a hunch is not enough. If there is evidence of copyvio, then a speedy tag is not appropriate - you should use the {{copyvio|url=}} tag. That was the cause of my confusion. Normally, pages are blanked only with the application of a copyvio tag, never with just a speedy tag. As per the copyvio page, here's the procedure:
- ==== Actions to take for text ====
- Remove the text of the article, and replace it with the following:
{{copyvio|url=''place URL of allegedly copied material here''}}~~~~
- Where you replace "place URL of allegedly copied material here" with the Web address (or book or article reference) that contains the original source text. For example:
- {{copyvio|url=http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/hovawart.htm}}
- After removing the suspected text violation add an entry on this page under today's section at the bottom of this page.
- Optionally, add template:nothanks to the article creator's talk page, to notify them of the problems with posting copyrighted material to wikipedia.
- Denni☯ 19:23, 2005 July 31 (UTC)
- Sweet, but you are failing to see the big picture. After placing the copy vio notice author copied identical content to temp. So I requested the delete of identical content speedie. Cat chi? 22:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Text from the Catholic Encyclopedia has passed into the public domain. Articles which use text from the Catholic encyclopedia should have the the {{Catholic}} template added at the bottom. The online site is copyrighted, but that doesn't apply to the 1913 text (read Catholic Encyclopedia). You can safely put back the material you've removed which originated from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
See also, Category:Based on Catholic Encyclopedia --Duk 01:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
- Hmm I guess that was a false alert, thanks for the heads up. Cat chi? 11:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
|
