User talk:Fadix/archive5

All you need to do is edit this page. Of course you might want to leave a link to the archive at User talk:Fadix/archive 1

When you get a redirected page it says at the top "redirected from XXX. If you click on that link you will get to the redirect page. Guettarda 17:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's so stupid of me, I thought there was a code that could not have been edited by me. Fadix 17:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like help

I think the title says it all, if you would ever like some help with any of your articles relating to Armenia, The Genocide, Armenian History, Armenian People, etc. please feel free to contact me.--Moosh88 20:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. A member whos name I won't say told me that you're actually anti-Armenian. Is this true?

Sorry, I don't answer to such childish questions. Fadix ^{(My Talk)} 19:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you read what I posted above that it is not childish, I think you're being childish by not clearing up a rumor about you which I'd hope is not true.--Moosh88 18:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of your post was not a question, thosefor, it would be wrong to assume that I have considered it childish. The second was obviously childish, and even more childish is to think that I am the one that should answer an accusation against my person. It should be to the one making charges against my person to support them. And enough of it, I don't want this sort of crap polluting my talk page. Fadix ^{(My Talk)} 18:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok boz, have it your way--Moosh88 00:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Please Comment

In response to [1]

My opinion on the matter is that escalating arguments are the prime cause of helpful contributors leaving Wikipedia. While, Moosh is guilty of violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks, any action in response may turn things in the wrong direction, and he has certainly been a helpful contributor overall (see user Rovoam for a similar case). Thus, I say, forgive and forget, especially since we Armenians of all people should try to get along, despite our varying cultural backgrounds; մի բուռ ազգ էնք, էլի. --Aramգուտանգ 05:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While Rovoam is a bad analogy for this case, it's a good example of a general trend in Wikipedia where a user says or does something uncivil, and another retaliates by accusing him/her of violating a wiki rule coupled with a few strong statements, to which the initial person reacts to even more strongly, and it keep escalating until an arbitration case is started, after which, more often than not, Wikipedia ends up losing a valuable, if emotional, contributor. My policy on the matter is never to allow myself to be provoked in any way. An example of this can be seen in the top post on my talk page, where Rovoam, it seems to me, was trying to provoke me, and I simply wouldn't let myself get provoked. That's just my opinion and policy anyway, and you can choose to do whatever you decide for yourself. --Aramգուտանգ 17:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. What personal attack? I just asked him a question, he decided not to answer it, and that's the end of the story.--Moosh88 06:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User hy-N

see my reply to your post on my talk page at Template talk:User hy-N --Aramգուտանգ 03:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

new vfd

The prior VFD that you voted at ended with no consensus, a new VFD has been opened at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Historical persecution by Muslims. ~~~~ 18:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD pollution

Ril enlisted Persecution by Muslims for VfD again, just 24 hours after the article withstood the first VfD. You might be interested to watch it. [2] --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 10:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Nominations for WikiMedals

I've added your proposal to the main page. I presume you'll want to support your own proposal, but didn't want to take the liberty of voting on your behalf. - Jakew 12:13, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Many thanks. I doubt I will be here eternally, but probably for a little while yet. Adam 00:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reference of literature

Hello Fadix, I am impressed! I wanted to know something about Joseph Pomiankowski, because I want to write about German consultation according to Armenian genocide. So I searched “Pomiankowski” in Google and found your article in English Wikipedia. First time I visit English Wikipedia and most impressing is: Your scientific kind to use literature reference. I just started to work for German Wikipedia and searched for a possibility to use htm-orders for literature reference. Now I will use Your method in my German pages and want to thank you for the high level of Yours. Sorry for my bad English. Bye,--Anglo-Araneophilus (in Germany: Araneophilus) Anglo-Araneophilus 20:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you are talking about my Ottoman Armenian casulties article. I am really proud of myself for that article, I will add more materials on it later,... like the lists of Armenian refugees from various sources and Census of Armenian(that survived during the event) population in Lebanon, Syria etc. If you want any materials, just tell me. Fadix 21:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did'not mention the name of the article. Of course you are right. If you really offer to support me with materials, how should I hesitate to say "please do it". There is plenty of data in the web (http://www.armenocide.de for example) with a lot of documents. But my question maybe is as important as difficult to clear: How do you rate German responsibility of Armenian genocide. Could Baron von Wangenheim have stop it. What opinion predominate in Armenian people about it. Which rule did Kurdish people play in murder of Armenians compared with Turkish responsibility. So this is not the kind of questions easy to answer I guess. But I would like to learn more about this theme. Once again sorry for my English and thank You for Your generous offer. Bye--Anglo-Araneophilus 23:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Much questions to be answered :) I am preparing an entry about Germanys involvement, this might answer your question. As for the second question, it is a complex one. I'll try to answer but not now. Fadix 00:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coolcat

The position you take at the end of this post [3] is not acceptable. Coolcat will be back and in good standing. He will be expected to act responsibly but he will have every right to edit Armenian Genocide. Fred Bauder 23:35, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

The Turkish identity + Orhan Pamuk

The Turkish identity + Orhan Pamuk

Best wishes, Davenbelle 07:28, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

also: http://www.twentyvoices.com/ — Davenbelle 10:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

awards

		An Award
		I hereby give you this barnstar of diligence for your conscience, precission and exceptional neutrality in Armenian Genocide article where you fighted even against your own position only to give Wikipedia as much neutrality as possible --Gvorl 16:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your oppose vote on my RfA, but note that I have withdrawn my candidacy as of two days ago. --ZappaZ 23:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Coolcat-> User:Cool Cat

You are breaking links doing this "rename." Please cease, at least for now. Should you not, please exercise more care performing this sort of refactoring. — Davenbelle 11:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coolcat, I agree with Davenbelle, why don't you just place a redirect with your other alias to your recent one? It really is not Wiki to do that, you are braking links and eating servers memory, just by recopying the same data for such an insignificant edit. I think this can be considered as a misconduct, and is irresponsable. Fadix 04:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because that creates double redirects and slows down servers and causes other problems. The proper procedure is eliminating double redirects. --Cool Cat ^Talk 09:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is misconduct to insist on keeping what is wrong. Double redirects are much worse than a few (at worst 10 otherwise I would see it) broken links, which can be fixed instead of reverting 600 double redirects. --Cool Cat ^Talk 09:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also it does not require your inteference. --Cool Cat ^Talk 09:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Coolcat-> User:Cool Cat

You are breaking links doing this "rename." Please cease, at least for now. Should you not, please exercise more care performing this sort of refactoring. — Davenbelle 11:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coolcat, I agree with Davenbelle, why don't you just place a redirect with your other alias to your recent one? It really is not Wiki to do that, you are braking links and eating servers memory, just by recopying the same data for such an insignificant edit. I think this can be considered as a misconduct, and is irresponsable. Fadix 04:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because that creates double redirects and slows down servers and causes other problems. The proper procedure is eliminating double redirects. --Cool Cat ^Talk 09:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is misconduct to insist on keeping what is wrong. Double redirects are much worse than a few (at worst 10 otherwise I would see it) broken links, which can be fixed instead of reverting 600 double redirects. --Cool Cat ^Talk 09:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it is worst to just place a redirect to your other userspace to your current one, then editing bunchs, and braking links and taking server space. As for 600 double redirects, then, just blank your old user space, and place a hyperlink, tellin people that now you are using this user name. I still wonder why is the big deal on changing from Coolcat to Cool Cat, were you trying to hide your misbehavours or what? Fadix 16:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geez. You have no idea what you are talking about. The problem is the extra page load. Have a read of WP:ABF will ya? --Cool Cat ^Talk 16:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As for 600 double redirects, then, just blank your old user space, and place a hyperlink, tellin people that now you are using this user name. I still wonder why is the big deal on changing from Coolcat to Cool Cat, were you trying to hide your misbehavours or what? Fadix 16:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC) No idea right. Fadix 16:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not quote people on things they posted on the same chain. It is quite irritating. --Cool Cat ^Talk 17:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will, when it fits. You just write here to show you have something to say. I just made a little comment, and you blew it out of proportion. Consider this my last answer about this thing. Fadix 17:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok be irritating, and tell me it is civil too. I did say please. I did not blow anything out of proportion. I just dont understand why are you making comments regarding wikimedia. The software has an easier time with fewer redirects. --Cool Cat ^Talk 18:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RickK

I've only been here for three months, and I completely missed all of the RickK drama in the first place. So I absolutely have no idea what you are talking about, other then the part about me giving that barnstar to Cool Cat. --Phroziac^(talk) 22:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to be defensive. Hmm, that's interesting. --Phroziac^(talk)

05:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External link discussion notice

Hi again, Fadix. I added your talk page to my watchlist in case you wish to continue our discussion during the block period. Regards, El_C 23:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But, I will answer you in your talk page, when I am unblocked. Fadix 23:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good; looking forward to your response. Regards, El_C 00:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VFD

Did you use the "Add new AfD section" that is available almost at the bottom of the page? Anyway, I've never tried to add anything to vote for deletion, on the English Wikipedia before, so I am not too sure how to do it, and it's getting late here in Denmark... Maybe you could ask Davenbelle to take a look at it. -- Karl Meier 22:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I tried to add it to the list it anyway, and it's actually seems like it works allright now. It's on the list now and it's looks quite normal as far as I can see... Hopefully it is! -- Karl Meier 23:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat/Wiki-politics

While I sent you an email explaining my feelings on this page, I just respectfully ask you to be civil in the discussion. I have told Cool Cat the same thing on his talk page. Zach (Sound Off) 00:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for patience

Hi, in Lithuanian wikipedia we watched Armenian genocide discussions page for a while (nearly year, plus big amount of older discussions which were analysed too), as an extereme case of swampy POV discussion and conflict. Analysis of this case is already used as some kind of model which helps identifying and solving such conflicts, despite the fact that Armenian genocide discussion case is already unsolvable. Results (sorry, in Lithuanian only) are at [4] and listed as one of "must read" topics in Lithuanian Wikipedia:Help page, also, this my work was appreciated by giving me sysop and bureaucrate rights some time ago. So, some results:

There is kind of unsolvable discussions, because of reasons for them are not in Wikipedian users, but in the real world and conflict in Wikipedia is simply continuation of some external conflict.
Some kind of information can not be written as simple set of POVs, and leaved to community: in specific cases there should be athoritative specialists or other clearly authoritative sources involved.
Even worst kind of conflicts can be positivelly regulated: in case of members want to achieve some consensus and keep some rules, they can, maybe with external help from mediating administrators.
The worst scenario is trolling: troll is user who do not want consensus or common discussion rules. Such trolls should be identified and separated from simply those who have other opinion (clear indication of troll: user does not want to read other users comments, archives, or keep the rules accepted in actual discussion. Such troll keeps citing "Wikipedia rules", lack of time, etc., saying non-factual arguments, demagogy, like famous Coolcat's idea that his disbelief in proposition shows that proposition is POV).
Some singificant users very often feeds the trolls by swamping into discussions with them and, in worst cases, into personal conflicts (your case with Coolcat, sorry).
Admins should be controlled too, and there should be clear rules for investigation and filtering of complaints before any baning: some "personal attack" actually can be simply factual statement, also, admin can be easilly fooled by troll. (Coolcat-Jtkiefer case is rarely bright example).

WikiThanks

I would like to thank you for patience in this long lasted discussion - it helped community not only by showing historical facts, but by solving other intricated cases. --Gvorl 18:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Cat's politics page

I think ArbCom has done enough, please take it up with Cool Cat's mentors. Fred Bauder 22:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coolcat final decision reached

The arbitration committee has reacheda final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek case. →Raul654 23:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: ~~User talk:Raul654#User:Cool Cat decision~~. — Davenbelle 02:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

moved to: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek. — Davenbelle 04:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:my Rfa

To be honest with you, i'm more proud of recieving your neutral vote than those umpteen support votes because despite the fact that we disagreed(which everybody does at one point or another) you didn't oppose. I concur with the one page thing, but I don't think it's entirely true because if Coolcat was going for an RfA just after you had met him at the Armenian Genocide article, I doubt you'd be neutral there ;-) (you might have opposed, I haven't checked the archives, but regardless)
To boil it down, what I basically saw on that page was that Coolcat was being a jerk, and you thought you needed to be a jerk back. There's no need to stoop down to his level, from what i've seen and heard, you're better than that. In my opinion, most people who read that user-subpage are going to think "Man, this guy is a jerk" and ignore him; and I almost got into the same situation with Tony Sidaway, but he's a jerk too, so I just decided to take the high road there.
Anyhow, please let me know if there's something I can help with in the future. I can't guarantee you that we'll agree, but I can promise that i'll be as fair as I can. Karmafist 18:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok...

Definately an interesting turn of events on Coolcat deciding to self-delete there, he proved to be the least of all jerks in the end apparently. I guess I learned a lesson here from trying to solve an arguement that was better off solving itself with time. As for the RfA vote and the comment above, which was pretty much an olive branch by me that you apparently decided to slap out of my hands, it's water under the bridge. I've decided not to ever try to "console" you again, but if I can help in some other area, please let me know, and I will do so as objectively as I can -- i'm going to be an Admin starting next week and I have to set myself to a higher standard than the average Wikipedian because of that. Karmafist 04:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]