User talk:Yandman

File:Kyokpae banner.png

Archives

0

Cody3925

Why do you keep reveting the information me and my classmate are putting on "NORTH ROWAN HIGH SCHOOL"?

Because it reads like an advert: I've replied in more detail on your talk page. And please refrain from removing content from my talk page. Yandman 07:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

john k

Hi - I'd be happy to help revert, if it's needed. I just saw the guy's ranting edit summary come up on my watchlist, took a look at the edit, and decided to revert. john k 17:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

OhNoitsJamie

Thanks for the vandalism revert. He was already one step away from being blocked as a vandalism-only account. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 08:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wessam Reda

Hi Yandman, The essay "New Look for Islam" is my personal writing but not really a personal essay as such. It contains solid verses from the Quran and modern interpretations for those verses supported by a great Islamic scientist like Dr. Hassan Al Turabi. I do hope you'd reconsider it and do whatever editing you feel would shape it up for publishing on the renowned Wikipedia. Best Regards.

Hi Wessam, you can publish your essay on your user page (the best is to create a sub-page in your userspace, and link to it from your main user page). However, this is an encyclopaedia: we don't accept non-notable and opinion articles. What you could do is use your knowledge on the subject to help out other editors in the relevant articles. Have a good day. Yandman 13:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Baristarim

I will also like to mention that the resolution in question was non-binding.. You have said that the removal of a cited fact is vandalism, but I also would like to remind that use of citations that don't back up what is written is called original research.. The fact that Turkey must recognize the Armenian Genocide is not in any of the accession documents, please see talk page.. The EU (EU is a different entity than the states that compose it) has not made such a formal demand to the present day.. Baristarim 00:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not taking a stand on this issue, it can be mentioned in other articles, but here it is not appropriate, it gives the impression that recognition of the Armenian Genocide is a prerequisite of Turkey's adhesion to the EU, whereas it isn't.. Some people might want it to be so, but until there is a formal demand from the EU, it is not the case...Baristarim 01:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for my somewhat strong worded edit summaries. These were aimed at Netzgurl. And I agree with you that "proximity to the middle east" should be removed. However, the paragraph descibes stumbling blocks, not brick walls. I agree with you that the resolution is non-binding, however the fact is that Turkey's refusal to recognise the genocide (why is this a "blanket statement"?) is seen as a problem, so much so that the EU parliament has produced a public document showing it's disapproval. This could make Turkey's bid fall, hence the term stumbling block. Yandman 16:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You see, that's exactly what I mean by agenda pushing.. RfC is used to invite people who are not familiar with the subject so that they can give their opinion.. It is not used to ignite a debate among the usual contributors by saying sanitization.. May I ask why did you leave messages for everyone about the RfC that you knew would get hyped up over this?? And now you expect me to believe that you are acting in good faith and that there is no agenda-pushing going on?? If you were so interested in the article getting to a futured status, address two posts that I put yesterday and two days ago, they dealt specifically with what needed to improve in the article.. Please try to be more constructive and try not to turn certain talk pages into battlefields.. Baristarim 18:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw your other posts.. If you have joined Wiki to try to experiment with igniting gang wars, than go somewhere else.. saying sanitization of turkish history is not a constructive way of doing things.. You could have said this is a dispute about whether the armenian genocide should be mentioned bla bla. please feel free to pass the message on?? please, there is no agenda-pushing , right?? talk about good faith.. Baristarim 18:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Yandman 19:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you stalking me? Anyway, if you saw my other posts, you would have noticed that "sanitization" was not my term, and that I do not edit articles only relating to one subject, as opposed to some. You'll also notice that I spend most of my time correcting vandalism and rewriting articles so they conform with NPOV, which is how I came across the Turkey article. Yandman 19:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

who was stalking you? I said i took a look at your posts where you pasted there is an RfC please take a look, only in the pages of people who you knew would get hyped over this, why didn' you leave the same message in the pages of other Turkish users.. Don't assume that there is some kind of Turkish conspiracy going on, see good faith.. And please see personal attacks policy again, there was nothing in what I wrote that was a personal attack, I was only pointing out to you that the way you approached this matter was not constructive.. Don't be this impulsive.. You are assuming that there is some sort of conspiracy whereas there isn't one, I have explained a great deal in the talk page and elsewhere about this subject.. The article is way too long as it is, none of the other country articles are this long.. You are comparing things in a way that is offensive to people, see the talk page for my reply to what you said about China, turkish human rights and China is not even comparable.. Every issue is considered in a case-by-case basis, pls don't make inappropriate comparisons.. There is no Ctrl-F test for NPOV, that's way too politically correct: That article still needs a lot of work, other articles about turkish history and republican history are not complete, the controversy surrounding this issue needs to be mentioned but not in a way that half the Turkish-EU relations section gets imbroiled in it.. History section will soon be trimmed as well.. Baristarim 21:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I was only referring to the fact that you have posted the RfC notice to the talk pages of people whom you knew would get hyped up over this, why didn't you notify other Turkish users who have contributed greatly to that article?? That was not constructive and comprised the prejudice that all Turkish users of Wiki were into this great conspiracy or something.. That's all that I was referring to, it was someone else that had notified by e-mail that you posted the RfC notice to other people's talkpages and later on I checked to see if it was true.. That's it, I was not stalking you or anything, believe me.. :)) In any case, there is no reason to.. You are assuming that there is this big Turkish conspiracy cabal going on, but it is not true.. In any case.. Have a good day :)) Baristarim 16:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:OWN and stop referring to Wikipedia as our encyclopedia, advising others to learn about contributing to our encyclopedia and telling them that we don't accept something - instead of pointing them to the appropriate guideline or policy. Prefer formulating such sentences as inclusion/exclusion of that info might be contrary to WP:etc.. Please also see WP:Bite and refrain from giving the impression to newcomers as if there is some sort of cabal in wikipedia by implying that wiki has owners.. regards Baristarim 22:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What edits are you talking about? I've got a funny feeling about this... Yandman 18:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you mean about the other notice I put on your talk page about WP:OWN.. :)) Well, it was just an advice, seeming that you liked to police around a bit, I just tried to show you how it would feel like :))... In any case my comment was legitemite, don't refer to Wiki as ours and we, it would deter newcomers from giving the impression that they are them and others are us.. It is not good style, that's all.. Baristarim 16:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you're referring to the standard warning templates I use as an RC patroller. Yandman 07:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Baristarim 2

I noticed that many Turkish editors communicate in Turkish on the articles' and their own talk pages??!! If you will notice, I communicate in English with most Turkish users.. But for most Turkish users, English is their second language, therefore it is more efficient to communicate in Turkish sometimes.. I or other users don't have to ask permission from you of any kind to to use a particular language, especially our native languages, when we are talking between each other, all the edits and nearly all discussions in the talk pages are made in English and that's all that matters.. If you will notice, all Greek, Arab, Iranian, French users also communicate between each other in their respective languages.. All my postings in the talk pages are English, and you have no business to ask others to use a different language when they communicate between each other.. If you will notice I also communicate in French with other French users, and that is also none of your business.. Are they entitled to communicate in the way they want???!! Well I know a lot of French users who might feel extremely offended about what you just implied as if we needed to ask you for entitlement of some sorts.. If you want to understand what Greek, French, Turkish, Arab etc users are saying to each other, please go learn those languages so that you can understand.. What is your problem with Turks?? You could have easily said I noticed that many editors communicate in their respective languages on the articles' and their own talk pages - why did you single out only Turkish users??? Gees, then you ask me to assume good faith on your part, well you have a lot of nerves.. If there is some particular thing you didn't understand and that you would like to understand, you can ask me and I will be happy to translate it for you (as long as you don't ask me to translate pages and pages of posts).. All you needed to do was ask.. Baristarim 17:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, Barış! He didn't insult your mother ;-) --Tzekai 17:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked the question "Is it appropriate for me to ask them to speak english?" so as not to offend anyone by making sure it was good witiquette. However, as you stalked my edits, you managed to be offended. Please calm down, stop stalking me, and take a well deserved rest. Yandman 07:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Baristarim 3

No, u r still taking things out of context: what resonates before anything when Turkey is mentioned are being Muslim (the big daddy of all), economical problems (the real big daddy in the eyes of people who truly rule EU), human rights, Cyprus, Kurdish rights etc.. Please see this article written by an Armenian political science doctor and historian and published in panarmenian.net [1] that proves this point. As for Turkish-Caucases relations, it would also take things out of context.. Everyone who follows global geopolitical conjecture would know that Turkish-Israeli relations, one of the main and most important axis of Middle East, is much more important than even Turkish-Greece relations.. But even that is missing from that section.. These can be fully discussed in foreign relations of turkey and history of turkey, the article is already way too bloated.. The way some edits were done made so that half the EU-Turkish relations were about the recognition of the Armenian genocide, that also damages the credibility of this article, that's all I am saying... In the light of what I said, I think that you will agree that some edits were nothing but agenda-pushing.. Baristarim 18:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought Turkey was secular? And if being Muslim is a problem, I don't know how France stays in the EU...(joke). As for the agenda-pushing, I agree with you completely: some editors shamelessly push pro-Armenian crap, and some shamelessly remove anything that does not make Turkey look like paradise on earth (I had an encounter with 'NetzGurl' or someone like that). I really think that the armenian issue is an important part of what Turkey is for its neighbours. And I agree with you that those above us probably don't give a damn about it (or anything that isn't about cash...), but as a citizen of an EU state, what is discussed non-stop on the TV,radio, newspapers, is the genocide issue. Yandman 07:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I can agree with the fact that the Armenian Genocide would be more important in the eyes of the general public than the rulers.. If you noticed, I am still trying to improve the article by restructuring, prose and finding more sources.. As for agenda pushing on both sides, u r right.. Netzgurl, yep I know, he contacted me via email and we had an argument about it, don't worry, persnally I am not a fan of those people :)) Ah, as for the translation :)) Well it was a short text asking why we were not putting any photos from the east or southeast anatolia (anadolu in Turkish), and that said that Turkey was not only Istanbul or Izmir and were we ashamed of our own country etc.. There were some insults in it too, blaming us (the turkish users) of being elitist etc.. I am going to remove it because there are words like sons of bitches, f.. your wife etc in it.. Probably just someone passing through :)) Baristarim 16:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh, I wish all trolls wrote in turkish. Much harder to feed them that way (at least for those of us who don't understand a word of what they're saying). Yandman 19:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Crystallina

re: Danny Shea: No need - it's already been pointed out, and admins tend to take these things into account when closing AfD discussions. Crystallina 12:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Alphros

Mind explaining how this image is fair and balanced?

Please sign posts with ~~~~. The NPOV policies that we respect when editing text don't directly apply to images. The image is certainly PoV, however it is presented as such, and therefore NPOV is respected. For example, see Stalin. yandman 08:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

ed g2s

See comments on my talk page under the section "Publicity stills". That should explain my actions. Thanks, ed g2s • talk 13:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Iwazaki

dear yandman ,

you havent answered my questions yet.plus i hope u wouldnt give me any warnings as i was only doing the right edits. i sencerely believe that Bin laden article is erroneous at some points.

--Iwazaki 03:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What questions? You haven't asked any questions. See Special:Contributions/Iwazaki yandman 07:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Twentyboy

You're not allowed to remove comments from talk pages. You're allowed to come and tell me what you think of my comments but you're not allowed to do that. Besides, everyone discusses things on talk pages. Twentyboy 07:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines. "Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." yandman 07:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

judging from your talk page, your behavior tends to cause a lot of conflict. Please do not cause conflict with me. Twentyboy 07:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please! Twentyboy 07:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm done arguing with you and I'm done reverting that. Your page has a lot of conflict and I think I should avoid you. Bye! 65.31.99.71 07:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I just unblocked Twentyboy and the associated IP address. The user claims to have nothing to do with Chadbryant and WP:AGF requires that without more specific evidence, we assume good faith. I'm going to continue monitoring the situation. Chadbryant remains indefinitely blocked (for now, at least) due to a large amount of abusive edits from that user. --Yamla 18:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If you continue to harass me and go around sending rumors, I will inform another administrator on you. I told you leave me alone 65.31.99.71 18:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No. yandman 19:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You're really mean, dude. Just mean. I don't want to have anything to do with someone whose behavior is mean like yours is Twentyboy 01:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Twenty, you've got to learn to respect the rules. If I suspected you were a sockpuppet, it's because you were using the article talk pages as chat pages in the same way as Chadbryant. Maybe you're just both very talkative, and I made a mistake. In any case, don't use the pages for chit-chat (use your talk page), don't make personal attacks on other editors and things will go fine. yandman 07:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm new here. Don't be so harsh on me though. I really thought you had just accused me of being a sockpuppet because you hated me. I guess not. I guess you really thought I was a sockpuppet. Anyway, I can understand why you went directly to an administrator. A person who is using a sockpuppet wouldn't admit it so maybe I understand why you just went directly to a adminstrator before talking it over with me. Anyway, I'm sorry to you and I am VERY TALKATIVE :D Twentyboy 09:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Could you please read over Twentyboy's talk page as well as mine, and then tell me what you think? Also, please don't neglect the page histories. THL 09:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Al-Andalus

I don't want to pin you as just another vandal because I've never encountered you on Wikipedia before, so i'll give you the benifit of the doubt. However, you should know that it is protocol to enter :Talk and contributing productively beyond a single sentence if there is disagreement resulting in an articles constant reverting. This is moreso true if you've been requested to enter chat several times.

Also, as per the last edit summary, the New York Times and BBC don't call it a Fatwa, they call it a "Fatwa". The current NPOV rewording now avoids stating whether it IS or it ISN'T a fatwa, and instead merely mentions that the signatories weren't clerics, leaving it to the reader to look further into the issue. Reverting back to the previous version would reinsert a POV.

As satated, if you want the article to state that it IS a fatwa then enter the talk page and present your arguements. Otherwise refrain from inserting that POV, as I now have also refrained from inserting that it WAS NOT a fatwa, and instead it now read a NPOV edit which avoids stating either side and mentions both that the signatories were not clerics or islamic leaders and that it is commonly refered to as a fatwa. Al-Andalus 08:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is a bit more complicated than that. Consider "John says that people are generally nice". Your version would be "Although he has no formal recognition as a sociologist, and has never studied psychology, John says that people are generally nice". You agree with me that the second statement is definetly not NPOV. I think we should just say he released a "fatwa", as the beeb does. yandman 11:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

PStrait

Hi Yandman,

Thank you for your comments. I will restore the warnings if Wikipedia policy dictates I need to or if there is a community consensus to that respect. I am hesitant to do so because they resulted from my first edits on wikipedia when I was not aware of the policy, and so I think they leave a black mark on my record that is not reflective of my citizenship as a wikipedian. I know this issue is currently being debated, and if the consensus ends up that they should stay on the talk page, I will restore them.

Happy editing!

PStrait 15:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I would have but them back on automatically, but it didn't look like you were a vandal. What you can do, if you want to start from a clean slate as it were, is create a new account. Anyway, best of luck on the 'pedia. yandman 17:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Twentyboy 2

Please do not make pointless silly edits as you have done to the King of Queens page. First of all, the edit you made was so unimportant and it didn't even sound right. I encourage you to stop nitpicking and trying to start trouble here at wiki. There's a wiki page called don't be a dick. I'm not sure exactly how to write it out, but please read it. thankyou yandman! Happy editing! Twentyboy 11:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That page is on meta, not wikipedia: [2]. Anyway, the sentence in question was rephrased by 65.31.99.71, your alleged sockpuppet. This version was not, in my opinion, consistent with the tone of an encyclopaedia, having a more informal grammatical construct (replacing "she usually admits it" with "she'll usually admit to it" etc). Therefore I reverted back to the previous version. And as for your insult, if you feel this is "pointless", why did you make the edit in the first place? Nitpicking is what makes the difference between an FA-class article and the rest. yandman 16:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Twentyboy 3

I'm just telling you that I am going to revert it back to my way because if you read the next sentence, there's a source of it. Melinda saying she was one of the worker ants to a queen bitch is basically calling her a bitch. Happy editing! Twentyboy 21:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And where's the source? yandman 21:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to go into the history and find the person who wrote that sentence, then track him down on wikipedia and ask him. Be civil about it. Happy editing! Twentyboy 21:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not a source. You should have a look at WP:source and WP:BIO. Any statements made about living people that could in any way be considered negative have to be backed up with links to third-party sources that say the same thing. yandman 09:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You've been blocked for being a sockpuppet, but not of the guy I thought you were. My apologies... yandman 17:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

THL

Yes my friend, Twentyboy is finally gone:) Man that guy/gal was annoying. I now see why he/she was so defensive about being accused of being a sockpuppet; though I guess he/she was telling the truth about not being Chadbryant. Well, it is now over, hopefully. I look forward to seeing you around. Cheers, loud and deafening cheers. THL 22:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi

Hey yandman, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 04:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yamla

You said: "Hi Yamla, would you mind rolling back [3]? I've reverted today's with popups, but it's rather slow, and from what I gather, you have a faster tool. Is there a way we can automatically remove any links to that site? User is a serial linkspammer, but was not given a final warning until today, so I've not listed him at wp:vandal. Yet."

Nope, do special tools that I'm aware of, but I've taken care of the situation.  :) --Yamla 15:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Your special tool there being a big vat of elbow grease... Thanks for the help! yandman 15:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Trojan traveler

In light of the discussion concerning the use of the word terrorist in relation to the Al-Qaeda organzation, I have made a RfC. If you would like to comment, you can do so here. Thank you Trojan traveler 03:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Roger. yandman 07:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Cerebral Warrior

This was neither an emotional speech or a personal attack. I was merely stating the fact that it is easy for people have not been affected by terrorism to speak of terrorists as though they have done nothing wrong. The mindset of these people usually changes after they have had to identify their mother/father/brother/sister/husband/wife/uncle/aunt/grandmother/grandfather/friend using a combination of dental records and a few pieces of charred skull. Cerebral Warrior 03:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That, in my opinion, is emotional. And this[4], in Wikipedia's opinion, is a personal attack. As is saying "if you try to prevent us from calling an organisation that kills innocent women and children terrorists, how can you expect to be treated in a civil manner?". yandman 07:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you are not emotionally disturbed by the horrific deaths of almost 3000 people (among them many little boys and girls) intrigues me. May I know whether you are a follower of stoicism, or whether you (in the words of Russel Crowe in the role of Joh Nash) have been bestowed with "two helpings of mind and just half a helping of heart"? [[User:Cerebral Warrior|Cerebral Warrior]] 16:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I repeat: "that, in my opinion, is emotional". I think what you meant to say was "why do you stay neutral on disturbing topics?". Because this is an encyclopaedia. yandman 17:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I mean do you not feel sorry, on a personal level, for those who died that day and their families? Cerebral Warrior 17:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course I do. So? yandman 18:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Then why do you propose that Al-Qaeda, who caused so much pain both to the victims and their faimilies should not be called a terrorist organisation. Do you think that little Christine knew what the reason was for her to die that day? Do you think she realised the geopolitical decisions and errors, made both by Islamofascists and by the US that were responsible for her death? No, that innocent girl only knew that she was going to Disneyland, but that simple dream was cruelly cut short, for reasons she could not even understand. That is why Al-Qaeda are terrorists. And that is why the whole world agrees that they are terrorists. So, the next time your mind tells you not to call them what they are, please look long and hard at Christine and think about whether or not the people who took that two year old girl's life were terrorists. Cerebral Warrior 18:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Very poignant. However, appeals to emotion are a logical fallacy. You can't build an argument on emotions, and you should always be very careful of those who try to. Al-Qaeda attacks civilian as well as military targets. So does the US. We can't start calling one of them terrorist, because it would mean there would be no reason not to call the other one terrorist. By the way, fascism is an ideology that is both nationalistic and corporatist, which islamism is definitely not. yandman 21:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not appealing to your emotions. I am only asking you how you would explain to that little girl's friends that the people who killed her were not terrorists. Cerebral Warrior 07:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not me. I can say that Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organisation, that Ahmadinejad is a dangerous fruitcake and that George Bush is a cocaine-sniffing silver-spoon aristocrat pretending to be a christian cowboy so that those stupid enough to fall for it will vote for him, but wikipedia cannot. yandman 09:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You're saying that Christine was not terrorised by the fact that the plane she was on was crashed into a building? You think she just sat back and thought "Oh well, guess I'm going to be incinerated now." Cerebral Warrior 11:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that although Al-Qaeda has commited terrorist attacks, we can not call it a terrorist group. If you look at the 9/11 page, it says "terrorist attacks". As I said above, Al-Qaeda attacks civilian as well as military targets. So does the US. We can't start calling one of them terrorist, because it would mean there would be no reason not to call the other one terrorist. yandman 11:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not using my userpage to campaign for or against anything? What part of it do you find offensive? By the way, the latest addition was a direct quote I picked up from Wikiquote. Cerebral Warrior 07:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's just say that your userboxes, along with your choice of quotes, reflect your rather extreme personal opinions on matters that have nothing to do with Wikipedia. yandman 09:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Where have I mentioned that my choice of quotes or userboxes reflect my opinions? Cerebral Warrior 11:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"This user believes that..." is rather explicit. yandman 11:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you find offensive about my beliefs? Do you support terrorism or Islamofascism? Do you not agree that the Koran encourages violence and that Muslims have killed and continue to kill innocent people? Cerebral Warrior 12:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Err.. the Quran says "And do not kill yourselves (nor kill one another)". And as for "Muslims have killed and continue to kill innocent people", that's called affirming the consequent: Terrorists kill people. Some terrorists are muslim. Therefore muslims kill people. yandman 12:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ofcourse the Koran encourages violence and genocide. Don't believe me? Check out Jihadwatch Ann Coulter said All Muslims may not be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims. Cerebral Warrior 12:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You act as if only Muslims kill people. What about Christians? Or Buddhists, or Hindus, or atheists or Jews? The Bible also advocates violence, yet you only seem concerned with the violence advocated for by the Koran. Why? Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 05:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Because none of us should have to die for (in the somewhat brusque words of Ann Coulter, which I do not necessarily agree with) "smelling good and not answering to the name Muhammad". Cerebral Warrior 06:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've yet to have any Muslim try to make me smell bad or convert me. I've had several Christians try to do so though (the converting part, none have tried to make me smell bad, only my crust punk friends have done that). You are attacking a false and bigoted image of Islam. Your argument is a classic straw man. Have you even met a Muslim? Ever tried having a polite conversation with one. And please realize, if a Muslim (or anyone for that matter) did try to kill me for not converting to their religion I'd be fighting to the death. But it hasn't happened. Honestly, I'm a lot more afraid of the local fundamentalist Christians I deal with all the time than I am of the "islamofascist" boogey man that I've yet to encounter in real life. And that's not for lack of encountering Muslims, I've known several, as well as non-Muslim Middle Easterners. My last girlfriend was an atheist who emigrated with her family from Iran, partly out of fear of persecution since their dad was a political writer who wasn't on the governemnt's good side. In other words, I'm well aware that there are serious problems with some Muslims, just as there are serious problems with some Christians, but most of the ones I know are perfectly nice and respectful. Of course, if they continue to be persecuted and hated, it wouldn't be a surprise if they started living up to their false reputation and fought back, because no one likes to be oppressed. Not me, not you, not Muslims. And if you don't agree with that quote, why are you using it to answer a question I directed towards you? I really don't care what Ann Coulter's opinion is. She's no better than Osama bin Ladin and I mean that with no exaggeration. She just hasn't killed anyone yet, but if the tables were turned she probably would. Her rhetoric is just as hateful and ignorant as al-Qaeda's. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm making a final formal request to Cerebral, on his talk page, asking him to accept the current version of his userpage: [5] and generally improve his behaviour. yandman 07:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi 2

Ah yes. Interestingly enough, the Turkish parliament is currently drafting a bill to make it illegal to deny the Algerian Genocide. [6] As for the Turkey article, you're really just wasting your time. :-) Even if you come to some compromise, it will still be removed by various anons and new users, or perhaps users that weren't aware of the previous discussions. Even if you add it to the "see also" section it will still be removed. You have to understand, yandman, that the issue is still highly sensitive in Turkey. Besides, even if it's not mentioned there, we do have a large paragraph about the genocide in the Ottoman Empire page, so that's something. Furthermore the Armenian Genocide article follows WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and doens't make it 50/50 between the majority view held by scholars, and the minority view (that it wasn't a genocide). Thanks for you kind words, it was nice to finally get the mop after being here for a year! Regards, Khoikhoi 05:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow. You're the first person here who understood the whole "put your name as the title" thing. Truly, admin material... It's a shame you're so pessimistic, though I know you're probably right. I can't help thinking that if we managed to convince the team of Turkish editors that "guard" this page, we could counter the anons. It's a shame that France still refuses to recognise the Algerian genocide (the worst was that whole "role positif de la l'influence coloniale" debacle). What I find important in the Turkish position is not so much the denial (why should govenments have to recognise genocides that have nothing to do with them?), but rather the "enforced denial" whereby you can be prosecuted for not denying. yandman 06:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Twentyboy 4

WWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! you're like a little kid running to tell on a big bully who just kicked your ass. As soon as she blocks me, I will be back here in 5 minutes. All I do is unplug my modem you dumb fuck. :D STUPID BITCH!!! I HOPE YOUR HEAD GETS CUT OFF AND SOMEONE WIPES THERE ASS WITH IT AND THEN STABS YOU IN YOUR HEART!!! NO ONE CAN KEEP ME FROM HERE YOU DUMB PIECE OF SHIT, NOT YAMLA'S STUPID ASS OR YOU!!! NOW HURRY UP AND SIT IN SOME TRAFFIC SO I CAN SEE YOUR HEAD ROLL DOWN THE STREET

Charming. yandman 10:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

SHUT YOUR STUPID ASS UP NOW!!! GO GET YOUR GODDAMNED ADMINISTRATOR TO BLOCK ME SO I CAN COME BACK HERE AND START EDITING IN FIVE MINUTES!!! ACTUALLY JUST GO OUT AND GET PUT YOUR HEAD UNDERNEATH THE WHEEL OF A CAR YOU DUMB FUCKER AND THEN HAVE ROSEANNE BAR GET IN THE VEHICLE AND HIT THE GAS 65.31.99.71 10:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)