User talk:Fadix/archive3

FYI

I though our dispute was resolved guess not. I spoke and act too quickly. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration needs your attendance, I copied your statement.

true personal remarks

You may be interested in reading this policy discussion:

Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks#true personal remarks — Davenbelle 19:08, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

fyi, I moved your comment on the above page into the 'true personal remarks' section as I believe that was your intent. If you did intend it as a separate section, I'm sorry. — Davenbelle 20:23, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

an example from my evidence page

Please visit my ~~user page~~ evidence page at User:Davenbelle 10:16, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Now at User:Davenbelle/Evidence re User:Coolcat. — Davenbelle 23:50, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

a vote for your consideration

fyi, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Rankings. — Davenbelle 01:16, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

What a coincidences, I find it and vote, and the first thing I learn, you have warned me about it in my talk page. I think I will buy some lotery tickets... Bah, too tired to buy them. :) I was actualy surprised that Coolcat would go through the end trying to get it approved. Such a childish classification of members. Fadix 01:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This whole thing is a silly wastes of peoples' time; it's been going on for awhile and will go nowhere. laters, Sgt. Davenbelle 01:44, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

(p.s. did you see this: User talk:Sam Spade/Detective agency?)

Wikiway

I Assumed good faith trying to answer your question. This message is derived from Wikipedia:Wikiquette and Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. Some of the scanerios I will come up with are not related to you but are just examples. I purposly chose articles you have never touched for these examples. I am not acusing you of all this material, I want to explain how we do thing in wikipedia, I am using some of our relationship regarding certain articles as examples as well.

I recomend you to also assume good faith when reading things editing, during your entier stay for example declaring hidden agendas for instance is not exactly "good faith".
Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible. If someone contributes and you completely dispute it you can move it to talk, however dont remove it from the article. One way to do it is commenting it out, that way its not visible but there. You are welcome to be bold but if someone disagrees on points you may want to try to reword the same thing or let your remote party reword and reword the reword. Amend, edit, discuss. If you treat the other parties views with respect, no matter how ridiclous they are, you will have less conflcit, does not mean you have to agree. Explain reversions in the edit summary box, or by commenting out material above the commented material, or talk page. Best practice is to give a reason in summary box, and elabotrate in Talk. See how I commented out material people did not like in Kurdish people. They simply revert, that achieves nothing. I was a bad example for you with my reverts. It wasn't smart, that I can admit. I am not always right, sometimes that is the case even with admins.
Be polite, on wikipedia you should try your best not to try to insult the other party, this would fall under personal attacks as well. Just what are personal attacks? First, respect the right of others to hold their views. This does not mean that you have to agree with them, but just agree to disagree. Be tolerant of others views, even if you disagree with them. You may well regard the other party's views as being on the fringe. This may even be true, but Wikipedia is aiming for a neutral point of view, not to exclude unconventional views. We are not trying to write a "single correct version of the truth." So if one for example claims Creationism is a wasite of time, one should not ignore him/her nor one should not declare him/her things (Satan, Sinner, etc..), if one is not explaining myself and baselessly adding facts to the article, that would not be Vandalism, but POV, while reverting saves the day, the person will not be satisfied witha simple, "dude thats POV". Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party.

So its not about the person its about the article. If for example, one suggests God does not exist, you should not declare that one the Satan however never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is. Just because the person said "I do not believe in God" does not mean he/she is a POV-pusher. Everyone is free to express my views, articles if neutral should not conflict with these, while staying factual. This is not easy.

People can't see you or know for sure your mood. Irony isn't always obvious, and blunt, raw text can easily appear rude. Be careful of the words you choose — what you intended might not be what others think. In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we hadn't. Say so. I am not trying to acuse you of things but you declared Tony and me as Revisionists, you declared me as troll. I declared you high on drugs. Who is more guilty is irrelevant, we are both guilty. This is what we mean by the italics above.
We should work toward agreement argueing facts, not personalities. How horrible of a person I am or you are is not the topic. If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate. Concede a point, when you have no response to it; or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste. Don't make people debate positions you don't really hold. Unless you have had views regarding Turkish-Greko relations, it is best for example for you to be not invloved in the discussion, while you are welcome to contribute, dont declare me of Turkish origin and how horible I am or things, this isnt something you personaly need to worry as you limit your edits to Armenian Genocide. But understand this. Davenbelle and Stereotek are not follwing proper wikipedia conduct.

Be prepared to apologize. Forgive and forget. Edits based around hate will earn you and/or me a ban eventualy, either through 3rr or some other reason. Personal caonflcits are discouraged and hated on wikipedia. I tell when I realise I am wrong. I did many times.
Recognize your own biases and keep them in check. I am by no means POV proof, neither you or anybody are, however what appears as POV is not necesarily POV. What you believe are facts can be POV. Some material you believe in may be infact product of propoganda. History is open for debate. Armenian Genocide certanly has debatable aspects number of casualities being one.
Give praise when due. Everybody likes to feel appreciated, especially in an environment that often requires compromise. Drop a friendly note on user's talk pages, or list them at Great editing in progress. We are not enemies, you causality page was great. I am not saying this to look nice, I think it is nice. I may suggest wording here and there, then again I may not. We are not enemies, I dont believe that. I however do think you have flaws. I may have flaws, you wont make me realise them by increasing my wikistress ;)
Remove or summarize resolved disputes that you initiated. - Self explanatory. We havent gotten to this phase yet.
Help mediate disagreements between others. What I am trying to do in the dispute between Azerbaijan and Armeina. I could care less for both countries and for the dispute. I tried to unite people, but so far no discussion has started.
If you're arguing, take a break, a day or two maybe a week. Its not the end of the world if the article has POV. I havent touched Armenian Genocide for quite some time. I recomend we ignore edits to it untill we resolve our issues. Then we can discuss their edits. One problem at a time. Walk away or find another Wikipedia article to distract yourself — there are 6,980,543 articles on Wikipedia! Take up a Wikiproject or WikiReader, or lend your much-needed services at pages needing attention and Cleanup. Or write a new article.
Keep in mind what Wikipedia is not.

No personal Attacks

Specific examples of personal attack include:

Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."
Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Religious epithets are not allowed even if the contributor is a member of a purported cult.
Political affiliation attacks, such as calling someone a Nazi
Profanity directed against another contributor.
Threats of legal action
Death threats.
Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time which may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery. Sysops applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and Jimbo Wales of what they have done and why.

Other specific examples of ~~Coolcat~~ personal attacks added by Stereotek:

"I know some of their facts better than people who sit in an office and make smart talk" [1]
"You cant read either, the color format is discussed above" [2]
"==Stereotek + Fadix = Death==" [3]
"I think you should cut back on crack".[4]

Stereotek 18:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no excuse for such attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Stay cool.

Things we must agree on if we have a future on wikipedia

I am NOT your enemy, neither are you mine.
I am NOT a POV pusher, at least not intentional.

Things we shoud agree on

Do not expect me to accept for instance "Armenian Genocide" as a fact, I obviously oppose your views. Hear me out. You do not have to "defeat" all my cases, I can find ways to defeat all of your cases. Thats not how you figure out what is POV what isnt. For example: Instead of declaring "Turkey Commited Genocide", saying "Turkey is accused of Genocide" See how Creationism starts? Any sane scientist will probably dispute it eyes closed. Yet the article is there.
You do not have to oppose any idea. For example I can ask how factual the gasing is. Is it an isolated incident, were childeren gassed? Etc. We do not have clear numbers of how many people perished (a word I would use instead of Murder). We cant talk about solid facts if we do not have solid body count. Idealy each paragraph and section of the article is Neutral. "Turkeys denial of the Gencide Fact" is not NPOV. I am not truing to make your case week, I am trying to tune down words and make sure factual stuff is on it. I am not declaring you of a "Hipocratical Lier" by saying this. Self check and fact check should be done on any dispute.
I do not CRY on other users pages, I ask for advice, Tony had been my mentor long before you created your account, he can tollearate my ill temper and give me good advice. Your conduct is flawed, not as flawed as the users I mentioned earlier on. I personaly think you have great potential. Dont waiste it please. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Holly COW!!! I don't get it... Fadix 01:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) Fadix 01:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First, You should leave a note on my talk page if you are not going to respond there at all. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 17:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More wikipolicy include:

Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all views (more at NPOV). The Talk ("discussion") pages are not a place to debate value judgements about which of those views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis. Use the Talk pages to discuss the accuracy/inaccuracy, POV bias, or other problems in the article, not as a soapbox for advocacy.
If someone disagrees with you, this does not necessarily mean that (1) the person hates you, (2) the person thinks you're stupid, (3) the person is stupid, (4) the person is evil, etc. When people post opinions without practical implications for the article, it's best to just leave them be.

What do you not get? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 17:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't get why you are loading my user page. Stop repeating, you are ignored. Reffering to Wikipedia policies won't make your cases stronger, when you are misusing them and trying to fit your behavour in accordance with them. Now, could you please stop loading my user page with irrelevency? Fadix 18:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You win!

See you in hell. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Er! What the hell are you talking about? Did I miss something? Fadix 23:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide edits

Hi Fadix, I was wondering about this edit: [5]. I couldn't help but notice that your edit summary seemed a little strange, since as far as I can tell, you actually made the article worse instead of fixing "vandalism". Could you show exactly what this vandalism was that you were reverting, and why you reverted the entire article instead of just fixing it? silsor 02:57, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Read User_talk:Fadix#Coolcat's edit Tony addressed the same thing. As I see, Coolcat hasn't stopped his lobbying game of throwing mud on members by posting on peoples user page. Just let me ask you something, is it permitted in Wikipedia to get others post archived hours after they have been posted? Fadix 14:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't answer my question at all. Why didn't you just un-merge the two paragraphs if you thought they shouldn't be merged? silsor 22:59, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

This was not it, if you read my answer, you'll see that I admitted having overreacted in that cases. Coolcat has used the same method in various other edits, to change articles. And you'll see this if the arbitration is approved as evidences. Please answer my question, is it accepted in Wikipedia to archivate a post made hours before? Fadix 00:21, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Torque's website

That's a tricky one. We do put up pointers to misleading websites (for instance we have a whole article to a site called jewwatch which is basically a load of antisemitic bullshit). But I agree that we should avoid citations of misleading sites that users may wrongly assume are endorsed by Wikipedia by virtue of being cited. I don't think I have a firm opinion on this, but I won't restore that link if it's deleted again. I think it's a matter of judgement and I think it may well be better to err on the safe side here and not cite it at all. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, you make a good point about invalid contact information. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding this edit summary, please stop implying to anonymous users that they need to register an account in order to discuss or be taken seriously. silsor 02:00, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

This is a question of respect. Things just started to cool down, if I have a disagreement with someone, I expect to be able to talk with him, either in his talkpage, either in the talkpage of the article. It is the least I could ask. When someone that don't bother registering or justifying added claims in the talk page, of such a hot article, the least I, as one of the major contributor of the article could ask such a person, is to register an account and discuss the matter so that we do not end up again in a revert war. If you disagree with me here, I would like to know why. Fadix 02:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree because you are implying to the anonymous user that they will not be taken seriously unless they register an account. silsor 03:48, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Bainer, can you please tell me if this statment is personal attack? : "As I see, Coolcat start back again what has been addressed over an over. Coolcat, continue abusing Wikipedia, you have just archived posts made hours before they have been archived, this is a clear abuses of the archiving idea. Archiving is not there to hide posts which you don't like, you can NOT archive posts that were just made hours ago. I will be adding this in the list of evidences against you. The votes are 3-2 right now, and once it is approved, I will be adding the evidences one after the other, I am telling this for you to know. It is kind of humorous that you edit Raffis post, and tell how this section is about the Armenian genocide, but you have no problem above this post to talk about my “fanatic writing.” I told you before, and will tell you again, you are ignored. Fadix 14:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)"

Coolcat has left of it: "Coolcat, you have just archived posts made hours before they have been archived, this is a clear abuses of the archiving idea. Archiving is not there to hide posts which you don't like, you can NOT archive posts that were just made hours ago. Fadix 14:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)" Besides, is it acceptable to archivate posts made few hours ago? Regards. Fadix 01:58, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fadix, the criticism about archiving recent posts was probably accurate, and I wouldn't consider that part a personal attack. Archiving should indeed only be done on old posts. The rest of your post was probably borderline personal attack - I can understand the frustration, but mentioning the arbitration request and telling him that he is ignored is not helpful and might even seem threatening. Like I said, I understand where you're coming from, but you probably could have stopped after the first part. Sorry for the slow reply, by the way. --bainer 05:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tabib/Rovoam

If as seems likely the case goes to arbcom, they'll address any contributions Tabib might have made to the current situation. I'm not closely involved with the editing on these subjects myself, I'm just trying to deal with what seems to be quite irrational and obsessive behavior by one rather dysfunctional editor. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian Genocide or Assyrian Massacres?

Yesterday, Coolcat unilaterally moved the 'Assyrian Genocide' article to a new title 'Assyrian Massacres'. I thought that maybe you would like to consider this vote: [6] on moving the article back to its original title? Stereotek 05:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Photos in "Armenian Genocide" article

Dear Fadix, I have posted this on "Armenian Genocide" talk page however you might have not seen it. I would like to put it here as well, just to make sure that you read it. Sorry for double posting. (BTW when I have time I will continue to translate Talaat's notes from Turkish and I will post them on discussion page)

Dear Fadix, as a reader of wikipedia or any other encyclopedia, I can’t and do not need to know every detail in the history. Actually that is the reason why I am using an encyclopedia. Because of this reason I believe that anything, which is used in the article, has to have a reference. It will not do any harm to Wikipedia to use more references, especially for photos, just the opposite it will help Wikipedia to be a well-credited reference. And more importantly, the captions and names of the photos should not be "Armenian genocide" or "Turks killed 1.5 million Armenians in 1915". How can you understand whether it is genocide or not by looking at the pictures? Please do not miss my point here. There is an article about "Armenian Genocide" here, which is currently being disputed. And when you use such names/captions for the pictures, this is pure propaganda. If the photographer is known then most probably where the picture was taken is known. Then "Armenian massacres in this city" or "Armenian civilians near this town being relocated" can be used. But if neither the photographer nor where the picture was taken is not known, then that picture cannot be used in an encyclopedia as a reference. Please do understand my point here. Using such photos without references is too abusive. One can find a picture belonging to an Iraqi, or Palestinian today and play with it in Adobe Photoshop and create such a photo, which will look like a Turk or an Armenian in 1915, and claim that it belongs to Turkish or Armenian civilians massacred by Armenians or Turks in 1915. Cansın 8.51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Your concerns are reasonable. Please post it on the Armenian genocide talk page. Regards Fadix 15:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted under a new header, thanks. Cansın 20.10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)