User talk:Stereotek

Talk item accidentally posted to User:Chalst

Hi, I got your message, but I rved it because you put it in the wrong place. I agree with your points, however I think these points would be better off tackled on a single page, and Islamophobia is the best candidate for master page. Generally, "Criticism of blah" pages are deprecated on Wikipedia: the criticism should be absrobed into the main page, but this may be a special case. There should be a single page somewhere dealing with: (i) fear and prejudice against all Muslims, (ii) fear, prejudice of Islamic nations, as well as rational critiques in the Huntingdon mold, (iii) fear, prejudice against peoples who happen to be overwhelmingly Muslim, eg. arabs, persians, (iv) fear, prejudice and criticism of Islam as a religion, (v) fear, prejudice and criticism of national cultures that happens to be Islamic, as well as cultural side of the pan-national Islamic culture. This page might consist of little more than pointers to all of the rest. ---- Charles Stewart 12:12, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Armenian genocide

Whomever you are thank you for your real neutral point of view, I was waiting someone who could moderate impartialy.

regards

Armenian Genocide

Your edits are not neutral enough in my opinion. No offense but it aint. I know you are working hard and I'll let you do your thing. I also would like to be informed on what you are doing. Fadex is only one of the view. As far as wikipedia is concerend the genocide is neather a fact or fiction. Its disputed by the many unlie what my conterpart claims. using words like most, murder is shifting towards pro genocide. I also do not see a reason why...

• france has to be empfisised on the lead text.
• the hole acceptance and rejection issue among scholars is so tangled. Should be JUST scholars.

The article currently is an accusation in general, that is not the right tone. Both views should apear 50:50. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:56, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Like it or not, the Armenian genocide is the second most studied genocide, if you claim it is debated, it would throw shadow on every other genocides following it, leading to the claim that only the Shoah was a genocide. I told you, research in any online libraries you want, start with http://www.questia.com/, and compare yourself the ratio... when it is most, it should be specified. The leading specialists in genocide comparative studies are all unanimous, the Turkish government theses defy logic. If the reader is easily convinced by reading the article that there is a genocide, it is because the arguments to support the genocide are stronger nothing more, and we can't do anything about it, you would wish informations to be deleted, but this would be against Wikipedia rules. You live in Turkey and you are under the impression that it is debateted, I live in Canada, and assisted to conferences, there were some about comapartive genocide studies. Professor Yehuda Bauer, a leading figure and specialist of the Shoah, recognised the Armenian genocide as being the cases the closest paralleled with the Shoah,... Professor Melson, whos family was survivor of the Shoah, claim that the Armenian cases is the archetype of genocides,... the association of Holocaust and Genocide scholars recognise the Armenian genocide the second cases of permedited genocide. How do you expect us to present this as 50-50. It can't be presented as such. So now people can understand that the article was more than neutralized, there is more space given to your side than it was required by Wikipedia. Believe me, if this passes to mediation or arbitration, it will end up that the product will sound more one sided than you find it to be at present --Fadix 01:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure how factual statistics from Fadix is regarding how widely genocide is accepted. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It doesnt have to be mentione in the header. I dont know how widely the genicde is accepted by world scholars. Curently the reader is biased for the article as "if experts know its right has to be right". Science proven itself that views of the majority do not necesaryly reflect reality, given the big discussion of "is atom dividible" of the early 20th century. Number of books do not represent the true scholar view ratio. It just shows the pro genocide side is more active. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:23, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

The data regarding scholars does not belong to the lead section. Currently article has material that refers to the pro genocide view, which is fine but should contain the oposing view, article should not promote the genocide thesis.
Some categories should be merged, A "diplomatic" sphere in the discussion asside from "historic" sphere should be added. I have exams to worry about untill tuesday night next week so my contribution will be limited meanwhile. I apologise for my attitude in the past days, its just that the way fadix handles a discussion drives the other party NUTS. I am calmer right now after tests I should be fine... --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

You are not a newbie, I would have thought youd know better than deleting sections of my work. The usage of the word "Independence" had been discussed in talk, you are insisting of putting it in there and usage of the word stirving is inaproporate. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What kind of an evidence do you want? I cannot give you fiscal statistics of the past 15 years. [usinfo.state.gov] That gives you the death toll.

A problem?

Do you have a problem? I see you edit everything I put in regarding any contraversial article. If you have a problem let me know. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My "problem" is that I consider your "contributions" to Turkey related articles to be POV, and of very low quality. I'll be watching your edits until that change. Stereotek 07:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Scope of problem: editcounts — Davenbelle 08:12, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

mediation spam

I thought I'd bring this to your attention: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:User:Coolcat/mediat. — Davenbelle 06:38, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it to my attention :-) Stereotek 07:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

View Coolcat member page

Look for what the guy is using his member page, he refers to us... and then, he has a foodchain. Is it under Wikipedia rule to qualify officialy members like that on someones pages, and even present hierarchies? The guy not only use templates and colors to act as a mediator(he isn't in the list of mediators). Fadix 16:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have seen it; it will hurt him. He is a self-styled 'mediator' - nothing more. He is on a clear path to arbitration. — Davenbelle 18:16, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

I am a person trying to cntribute being harrased. The way I refer to you is what I think. I am free to put whatever I like on my user page. You think all my edits are POV, even spelling fixes. I am sorry, you are just trying to annoy me. You started it, you asked for it. I will end it properly in a civil tone. You have hostilities towards me due to my views on the Armenian Genocide article. All 3 of you. I did nothing to deserve this. I requested Armenian Genocide be Neutral wtf is wrong with that? Neutrality means no one sided articles on disputed topics. You are on a conquest of some sort or something? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia

This is related the the Coolcat trolling discussion on the Armenian Genocide page.

Somebody placed a very POV paragraph on the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia page. I subsequently removed it to the Talk:Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia page in context of a propaganda discussion. Cool Cat subsequently claimed that NPOV information can be gleaned from the paragraph. Anyway the language of the thing is inarguably inappropriate and reveals something of Coolcat's POV. I've done some digging around the claims made in the para and its seem to be false. DJ Silverfish 22:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Coolcat straw poll deleted

My little straw poll was deleted as a personal attack. The next step would be a request for comment. Interested in the idea? — Davenbelle 00:58, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

My edits

I'd like to know why are you constantly reverting my edits instead of editing them. Please provide an answer in my talk page. Thanks. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:52, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kurdish people

Why are you replacing statements by goverments with Kurdish POV? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 07:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mebbe because governments have been known to lie... Davenbelle 08:31, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)