User talk:Meowy

A kitten for you!

File:KittE a Van cat kitten.jpg	A kitten for you!
	...Oh, wait... you have this one already. Anyway, kittens, wikilove blah blah etc. Good to see you back. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, good to see you back! Sardur (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all. Meows and Purrs. :) Meowy 23:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back!

I almost forgot that you've been gone for almost all this time :p

Also, can you archive this talk one of these days whenever you get the chance? :)--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Archived it :) Meowy 23:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Meowy. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Meowy. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Meowy. You have new messages at Nedim Ardoğa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

AE report filed by User:Grandmaster

User:Grandmaster has filed an AE report on Nagorno-Karabakh trying to limit participation in the article. Take a look as a user active on the article’s talk pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nagorno-Karabakh_article Dehr (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Kind of antagonistic

We never even met each other and already you acting as if I am some sort of enemy, accusing me of a variety of violations and such. I am just a regular Wikipedia user, not some sort of conspirator. Sopher99 (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It is nothing personal. I'm just astonished at the content of some of your article talk page and user talk page statements, and that you have got away with making them without any sanctions. I've been around a lot of articles that have generated heat, but I have NEVER seen a case of an editor POV-pushing in such an open and unabashed and sustained way. I suppose it is good that you are not being deceptive by trying to hide your lack of neutrality and impartiality (deceivers are generally not nice people) but it is not the correct attitude to have when editing an encyclopaedia article. Meowy 23:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that I am intense when it come to editing, I can't say that I am POV pushing. I was just startled by a magnanimous push by some of the other editors to try get the article to completely conform with Assad's conspiracy theory. I subsequently gave stark objections. Sopher99 (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to cherry-pick your choicest comments (especially since I suspect you will like them) but they all show that there is a strong pov that you are pushing, over-the-top statements like "The Syrian government is a ludicrous bunch of Saddam Hussein figures, nothing more". Meowy 00:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thats my opinion that I was expressing ion a Talk page. I never altered wikipedia based of the Syrian government bearing the likeness of Saddam Hussein's. I have however altered the page based of the Syrian government being ludicrous (making farcical statements that they can't back up with evidence). And yes I am anti-Assad (and anti-gaddafi/khalifa/tantawi/mubarak/maliki/king abdullah/al-thani), but I don't let that get the better of my responsibility to be neutral. I do however address edits by other users that I see to unreasonably skewed in the Syrian government favor in higher proportions than I do with with other types of edits (talk pages, mistakes, refs, ect). I focus on the Syrian page more only the Syrian page receives the highest POV-pushers. The Bahraini page does not receive a high amount of POV pushers, because both the "the west" and "the east" agree that the Bahraini protesters are not a foreign conspiracy, but a genuine revolutionary movement met with brutal force by the government. What I am saying is I am just really ticked off by these conspiracy-pushers, and that drives me to an intensive response. Sopher99 (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You know nothing at all about Syria. Your edits on Wikipedia that are connected to Syria begin and end with the "2011-2012 Syrian Uprising" article and its related fork articles. If you had any deep interest in and understanding about Syria you would have been editing other Syria-related articles and would have been doing it further back than 2011 - but you have done nothing like that. Probably you had never even heard of Syria until last year, but now, all whipped up with fake indignation fueled by whatever propaganda news channel you watch, you think you are an instant expert on Syria! Go back to watching Fox News and leave Wikipedia alone. Meowy 00:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, Meowy, you, especially with your last statement, are acting in the way you accuse him of acting. I'm sure you wouldn't like it is someone said to you; "Go back to watching Press Tv and SANA!", would you? It's a violation of wikipedias rules on civility, to be honest. I would kindly ask to refrain. Moreover, I think Sopher is trying to stop the page from becoming completely pro-Assad. Many socks of certain blocked users (for POV-pushing, vandalism .etc.) constanly vandalise the pages relating to the Uprising. These socks always vandalise battle outcomes, delete information, and are a general nuisance. It's just the influx of quite a few mysterious users, who usually have made few or no edits outside the Syrian Uprising topic, and are new, have started to alter the NPOV to a pro-regime POV. Trying to stop this isn't a serious crime.Goltak (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it might be time to take the issue to administrators, the single-issue editing aims of Sopher99, and his simplistic attitude to editing, do not contribute to a good article and are skewing it into an embarassing propaganda piece full of ugly POVs. Meowy 17:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's you opinion I suppose. Although I'm not sure admin's will agree. I say this because as far as I know Sopher hasn't actually pushed his POV when editing. And I have been working on the Syrian Uprising project for some time now. Goltak (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

A polite request

I kindly request once that you remain civil at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012; and yet you continue to post uncivil comments towards myself on there. Why? Wesley☀Mouse 20:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

What uncivil comments have I made towards you? Meowy 20:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It may not appear uncivil, but the way you've over punctuated your comments in a "stomping feet to make a point" manner, is a form of incivility. Perhaps before you send a comment to a talk page, do a "show preview" thing, and re-read what you're about to send as if it was someone else sending it to yourself. 9 times out of 10, a person will notice their comments looking a little abrupt. I use the show preview religiously, as it is the only way to know what I am about to send, before I send it. Last thing you want is to send something, and only notice afterwards that it may have sounded irrational. Wesley☀Mouse 20:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It honestly wasn't meant to be or to sound uncivil. The point of my post was that the proposed content would benefit by being brief and concise and to the point (by cutting out the trivia) - so my post was made deliberately brief and concise and to the point, indicating, with punctuation, what I think should go. If that did made it sound rather too abrasive and abrupt, then I apologise. Meowy 21:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you should strike out the uncivil comment you made [here]. Wesley☀Mouse 23:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You said exactly the same thing to me! I am quoting your OWN WORDS. So, it is uncivil if I say it to you, but acceptable if you say it to me - and also say a lot of other uncivil things as well like claiming I am producing "false facts" and "What part of keep to NPOV are you struggling to grasp Meowy?". Meowy 23:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Do I really need to repeat myself like a parrot? What I said was "I hate to say this, but you seriously need to read things carefully" in reference to a misinterpretation of a comment made by someone else. Nothing derogatory in my choice of words there whatsoever, and by no means are they uncivil. I've been down the uncivil route many a time, and know now that those words aren't what you are trying to imply. However, when you use the same few words and bold them too, then that is purposely directing insult towards another user. Check your manual of style my friend. Wesley☀Mouse 23:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow! You know no shame, my friend. Meowy 23:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

And what do you mean by that statement? Explain yourself please! Wesley☀Mouse 23:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that this conversation is now at an end. Meowy 23:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh I 2012% agree. And I would appreciate it if you refrained from further interactions with myself; as I shall not want to be interacting with you from this moment forth. Wesley☀Mouse 00:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Word choice

Here, you've made some rather extreme statements. In regards to your assertion that the article is fraudulent, I don't know enough to comment -- although I recommend that you should file for the article's deletion on this basis.

More troubling, though, is your description of someone as an "Armenian fascist". In modern society, to call someone a "fascist" is almost universally taken as an insult; the only exceptions are when you're referring to a historical figure who was part of an explicitly Fascistic organization, or who explicitly embraced Fascism. You don't know anything about this person (although I'm willing to grant that he probably is Armenian), so you can't, and shouldn't, call him "fascist".

I politely request that you remove that description from the page in question. DS (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I do know something about that person, and have come into online contact with him on a number of occasions off-wikipedia. If I were to post some of the obnoxious racist comments that this individual has made on his Panoramio account regarding Turks (including comments placed against the very same photos used in that Wikipedia article) I am certain that a reasonable person would agree that the word "fascistic" is an accurate description of that person's views and attitudes. I did use a small "f", so I was not saying that he was a card carrying member of a Fascist organisation. The article deletion route is not really appropriate - there was an Akner monastery, it is just not at the place detailed in the article. It is unfortunate that I cannot prove the photographs used in the article have been stolen - the Flickr account that they were stolen from is no longer online. Meowy 02:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I changed "fascist" to "racist"; also, the person I am calling racist is not a Wikipedia member. Meowy 20:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Mother Armenia

Please feel free to revert/change my wordings as you see fit. I am not an expert on Armenian monuments; I was instead trying to go back through LordSako's edits and revert what appeared to be extreme POV. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I had realised that after I had read more carefuly what I had reverted. At first I had actually thought (because of the insertion of the "heroes" word) your edit was part of an edit by LordSako or a supporter of his pov, hence my way-too-strongly-worded edit summary! Meowy 03:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

re Van cat

Responded. People in that part of the world sure have strange concerns. Who owns a cat breed? Preposterous. Can we not only care that they are cute+fluffy? I mean, just look at the adorable in the lead picture. This is perhaps the strangest piece of irredentism I've ever seen. --Golbez (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. There is nothing cuter or fluffier than a Van cat. Actually, I don't think there are substantial irredentist issues. For example, most of the claims in the "controversy" section have no sources: it is just some faulty OR from a few editors, and inflating the importance of a few rather silly articles and opinions. Meowy 02:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Why, the expression of that cat in the infobox has to be the most preposterous looks I have ever seen on an animal - and that's why I must absolutely have one of these!--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Restricting access to users in Armenia-Azerbaijan

I would like to pick the brain of more experienced users about the ongoing exchange between [User:Grandmaster] and a couple of administrators. Grandmaster suggests to restrict access to some and potentially to all articles in Armenia-Azerbaijan by excluding new users [1]. You can reply on my home page if you wish. Dehr (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Western Azerbaijan

Some remarks about the concept. Divot (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

And some interesting sorces here. Divot (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Meowy. You have new messages at Rafy's talk page.
Message added 16:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rafy talk 16:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Meowy. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Something you should know

I have posted this to EdJohnston's talk page. I believe you should raise this issue concerning Nagorno Karabakh.

"And what of the issue I brought to your attention?[2]. You are going to restrict "low edit" editors from Nagorno Karabakh, yet anon IPs can, and still, canvass for and cause disruptive editing in the Armenia-Azerbaijan articles! IF if ANY editors are to be restricted, then anon IPs should not be allowed to canvass for or edit in Armenia-Azerbaijan articles." --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Admins get no satisfaction from blocking anon IPs - they can only satisfy their power-lust when they block, or otherwise abuse, people they can name. :) Meowy 12:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Meowy 21:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

re tulips

Got an eye on it, but so far it's just got you two on it and no edit wars seem to be coming. --Golbez (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Stories Project

Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share.

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project, or if you know anyone with whom I should speak.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm ..... someone has no idea what I really think about "the Wikipedia community" and "the cause"! Meowy 18:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	It is with great pleasure that I award Meowy this Civility Barnstar, in recognition of his excellent civil behaviour towards other editors involved in a peaceful debate surrounding content dispute on Talk:Georgian Orthodox Church. Wesley☀Mouse 23:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Offensive edit summary?

Chill out. There was nothing offensive about my edit summary. Accusing an editor of making an offensive edit "without giving any evidence is a serious lapse of assuming good faith." My primary concern there was the word "seized", which, to my knowledge, was not your addition. --Kober^Talk 04:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

An edit that removed most of my edit and that had an aggressive "mind NPOV please" as its summary sounded offensive and seemed obviously directed at me, but I will accept that it was unintended. As for that "seized", yes, I did not place it there, but you have no source indicating how this former Catholic church was obtained by the Georgian Church; whether it was legally transferred rather than simply seized. Meowy 02:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Problems with Template:History of Georgia

Hi! I'm writing to you as you seem to have helped resolving a recent conflict at Georgian Orthodox Church, and I am in a bit of a conflict with User:GeorgianJorjadze, who was part of that affair, over this template. I would greatly appreciate it if you, along with other users, could come have a look at it.

I initiated a discussion there on the talk page before changing the actual template, and started implementing the changes only after getting feedback from the other interested participant. I feel some changes are objectively needed to bring this template to the standards present in other similar ones, and have explained them in more and more detail as the discussion progressed, while GeorgianJorjadze mostly stated his preference for the old version. He's reverted any attempt I, and another unrelated contributer, have made at changing the template. Confronted with particular problems, he fixed them partially on his own rather than trying to work out a compromise version including some of my changes, as I did repeatedly with his own. After his last revert, instead of answering my arguments for the changes, he went to ask an admin to protect the template on the grounds that I am edit warring (User_talk:Wifione#Template:History of Georgia). I don't accuse him of edit warring, rather of poor ability to negociate compromises and admit he is not the only editor with rights on that template. For information, the version as it stands is his (he last reverted it to how it was before the discussion started, removing also the changes he had made), you can find my last attempts in the article history (last one is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:History_of_Georgia&oldid=491463391). I've exposed on the talk page reasons for all of them, last one is the most detailed. I would also appreciate if you (and other editors) could comment on a possible change of image (from the old map now used to the georgian coat of arms), for the sake of consistency with similar templates, and the inclusion or not of dates (I proposed a version with, but am rather neutral on the subject). In any case, I won't edit that template again until other, less partial, users, come and give their opinion on the matter. Thanks a lot!--Susuman77 (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Georgian Orthodox Church". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 May 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 11:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Georgian Orthodox Church, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Come on

Meowy, please consider redacting this comment by striking it through or whatever. Removing it would have been fine but it's already been responded to; better would have been to not have said it all. If it's not a personal attack (and some may well think it is), it certainly isn't very sensitive, and thus it is completely unhelpful. What's the point in hurting someone's feelings? I thought you'd be more careful in your remarks to other editors. Drmies (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I think what I wrote is justifiable so I don't want to strike it out. Wikipedia is not a support group or social media or chat room. We are all here firstly as "editors", not "friends". Wesley went around the talk pages of just about everyone he has been in contact with here mentioning the death of his mother, and went round them again seeing what replies he got. For Wikipedia specifically, I think this is an off-topic use of talk pages, (and in a broader context I personally feel it is a trivialising way of dealing with a death - why should one want such an amount of sympathy from complete strangers). Expressing disaproval of someone's actions is not a personal attack, and I was not posting it on Wesley's talk page. Nor am I going to be saying anything more about this, so I would like the issue to be closed. If it is OK with you I'll delete this section shortly. Meowy 15:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, whatever Wesley's conduct or mode of coping and the merits thereof, it's kind of cold to blast him for it. His comments caused no disruption--expressions of sympathy do not interfere with normal editing--but yours obviously did. It's part of getting along, and it's one of the (perhaps few) cases where if you can't say anything nice it's best to say nothing. But I'll leave this be. As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not much of a civility blocker, though my sympathy here is not with you. Close and delete if you will, though archiving is always better. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You are probably right in that it was all pointless and unhelpful. I was letting my personal opinions make more out of his postings than the reality of the situation justified (and was doing it on another editor's talk page which was hardly fair on that other editor). Meowy 16:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting

Thanks for the heads up. Fortunately, I appear to have completely missed the (rather tedious) excitement. Shocking that two editors would resist whitewashing attempts, eh? --Wikiboer (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

links

http://forum.vardanank.org/index.php?showtopic=135847

June 2012

Please make sure you follow procedures per WP:BRD, especially on articles in relation to Azerbaijan, for which Eurovision Song Contest 2012 does fall under. The information that you have removed isn't a POV issue, as there is a clear and reliable source citing the details, as well as it being well known through the television broadcast of the event. If you have objections in regards to the content, then the rightful thing to do is to open a discussion on the article's talk page, and build a consensus regarding what it is you dispute. Thank you, Wesley☀Mouse 02:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I had hoped you would have started to understand the finer nuances of editing, so it is disapointing that you do not see the difference between an "opinion" pov in a source and an editing pov. Your "clear and reliable source" is expressing an opinion, it is not expressing a fact. The opinion is the pov of the source. Get it? Meowy 02:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I had also hoped that you would have started to understand the finer nuances of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Sarcasm in the tone of your comment above is unacceptable, and on this occasion I shall assume that you made an erroneous mistake in what you wrote. Wesley☀Mouse 02:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You can assume what you like. I already have a fairly fixed (and fairly low) opinion of your editing skills and your people skills. Given your previous bad-faith communications and malevolently hostile actions towards me, I'm surprised you dare post here. Meowy 02:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)