User talk:John Smith's/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Iris Chang

Hi John Smith's, I'm sorry to have reverted your edit on Iris Chang, as you might know there is a major edit war going on, and the situation over there is very fiery. As such, it's best that nobody do a significant edit as of right now that does not already concern with the war, as these edits might be easily lost in the ravages of war. Once again I'm sorry, feel free to contribute to this article once the war's over. Thanks -Hmib 20:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

I've put a note on the IP address talk page, and if there's another clear case of vandalism, s/he'll be blocked. However, I can't block him over a content dispute, and it seems to me that the removal of this [1] for example, is a content dispute. He should have edited it and not removed it, but it's written in a non-encyclopedic, POV way, and therefore shouldn't be allowed to stand as it is. That makes the removal a content dispute, not a case of vandalism. I don't know who wrote it, but if it was you, and you want your edits to stick, you must edit in line with our policies, particularly WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) June 28, 2005 09:35 (UTC)

I reverted everything I agree myself to do so, but I have no knowledge about game related stuffs, so I failed to find a reason to revert his edit. If you want me to revert those articles, please tell me what is a problem and its supporting idea.

--Flowerofchivalry 28 June 2005 09:46 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not sure but I think the user has violated 3RR rule. Would you please check that at Jung Chang.

--Flowerofchivalry 28 June 2005 09:54 (UTC)

No he hasn't. sorry

I think requesting page protection is a better idea rather than blocking him as long as he does not make personal attacks. --Flowerofchivalry 28 June 2005 10:00 (UTC)

That's ok.

Well he/she has been breaking the rules. If this user actually apologises or shows some change of heart, then I don't have a problem. I could imagine it being worse. But so far he/she just ignores everyone. John Smith's 28 June 2005 10:05 (UTC)

In my opinion, the user (I assume "he") cannot express his ideas because it has been seriously twisted and have strong emotion so people ignore him. I think it's gonna be worsen for while because of his frustration but he will go away once he realizes his "effort" does not make any change. Please note that if he starts discussion, you should refute that even if his discussion is rediculous. I'm specialized in history of Nanking Massacre and WWII in Japan, and concurrent Far East Asian politics, so if you need my help on those areas, I will be happy to help you, but I will not join discussion because of the dispute.

--Flowerofchivalry 28 June 2005 10:16 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice and offer of help. Mao Zedong is being edited again. I think some of the changes are ok, but if you feel you can make a contribution please jump in the discussion. I wil consider some changes later. John Smith's 28 June 2005 18:59 (UTC)

211.30.211.93

Sure, I'll help report this guy, he/she has done similar things to the other edits they've made. secfan June 28, 2005 09:38 (UTC)

Mao

Hello, as I mentioned before, I'm not strong enough that I can defeat anyone... I just leave a comment.

1. Mao let Chiang and the Japanese Army fought each other to defeat both of them.
2. Mao's revolution killed up to a tens of millions people just because of his struggling for power. Mao himself admitted "the mistake" so this incident should be emphasized.

By the way, "the user" uses Simplified Chinese. He vandalized my Japanese talkpage in SC. I think he is a Chinese in Australia.

--Flowerofchivalry 29 June 2005 09:47 (UTC)

My English Sucks!!

Ah... one of my biggest problems. If you don't mind, I would appreciate you very much if you fix all the language problems at Nanjing Safety Zone.

Thanks...--Flowerofchivalry 29 June 2005 10:31 (UTC)

Thanks for your help--Flowerofchivalry 1 July 2005 09:05 (UTC)

Content dispute

I haven't looked through all the examples you gave me, but the ones I did look at indicate this is a content dispute, not vandalism. Admins don't block people over content disputes. See this diff for example: the anon IP's version is more neutral. The previous version is badly written and uses POV terms. Please read our polices: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Three revert rule, and Wikipedia:Cite sources. All editing must be done in accordance with the first three policies, and the fourth is a highly recommended guideline. Regarding your dispute with him, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and for a definition of vandalism, see Wikipedia:Simple vandalism. In future if you want to report an incident to ask for admin help, go to WP:AN/3RR for a 3RR violation and WP:AN/I for all other incidents. SlimVirgin ^(talk) June 29, 2005 15:45 (UTC)

I warned him not to keep on reverting valid material. Based on the diffs I've looked at, he's reverting material I would also revert. SlimVirgin ^(talk) June 29, 2005 15:54 (UTC)

Jung Chang is not, to the best of my knowledge, an historian, and we don't use words like "celebrated." I again ask you to read our policies before editing any further. Also, please make yourself aware of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule (3RR), as any violation is likely to result in a 24-hour block. This applies to all the editors involved in this dispute, regardless of content. SlimVirgin ^(talk) June 29, 2005 16:09 (UTC)

4.250

Hi. I'm 4.250.xxx.xxx and almost always when I see that, its me. You said something about the format of a name to me. I thank you for the contacting me. But I care about sources (verify-ability) and data being available (libre) and everything connecting to everything data-wise (links). Don't concern yourself with me as far as formating is concerned (i.e. do as you wish). I don't really care as long as the data is still available. Cheers. 4.250.132.107 00:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC) FYI : I now have a user name WAS 4.250 12:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Responses of Germany and Japan to World War II crimes

It's nice to meet another history graduate on wikipedia (although I'm not an honours student)...What is your field of interest, by the way? Mine happens to be Sino-Japanese diplomatic history and World War II.

On the discussion section, I read your comments on why do people compare Japan and Germany's response to World War II...it said:

...people make the comparision between Germany and Japan to use it as fuel in their campaign against Japan over WWII.

To be honest with you, I also don't like the current state of the article either. It's not really balanced, and I really find that Japan (in detail) part quite distastful because it looks like a section for the Japan defenders. I'm a frequent contributor of that article (I was the one who put the picture of Willy Brandt going on his knees in Warsaw, which was removed for copyright reasons, and the current picture with Schroder in Warsaw, and I supplied 2 of the 3 further readings), and I'm not really sure if your comment on the discussion section is overly negative? I have 2 sources that compare Japanese and German memories of World War II...are you saying that Conrad and Buruma trying to whip up anti-Japanese sentiments, too? The first line of Buruma's book's promo is "Why do Germans know so much about the war, and Japanese know so little?" (I recommend reading that book, by the way).

Germany and Japan are often compared because they're the 2 major powers in the Axis alliance. I wouldn't say Italy, Croatia, Vichy France, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria as the major powers in that alliance, so I don't see a meaningful way of comparing them.

Although I'm not as extreme as other Chinese, but how much the Germans have done have often bothered me because I can't understand why the Germans can do so much more than the Japanese. As Buruma have pointed out, many Japanese hide behind the idea that they're different from the Germans because Japan didn't have a systematic extermination of a particular group of people (which is not true), which is partly the reason why I wrote the article on the Sook Ching massacre to disprove that myth.

~bourquie, 26 Sept 2005 10:26 utc

I guess it somewhat answers my question, and I thank you for that.

As I said before, I also don't like parts of the article Responses of Germany and Japan to World War II crimes. I favour criticizing Japan in an objective fashion. This is why I put the picture of Willy Brandt going on his knees in Warsaw. I get sicken by those radical (mainly Chinese) that takes it to an unreasonable level because it'll never convince anybody.

I always use Germany as a measuring stick (and not a weapon) for the level of remorse for World War II atrocities. Although I might have to say that this may not a meaningful measuring stick since many Japanese don't see their actions in World War II in the same level as the Germans, like many Japanese like to believe that they didn't commit systematic exterminations of certain groups of people.

I just wanted to say that you didn't like some of the users using Germany to criticize Japan. I just want to say there's a time and place for that. Buruma's book is a good example.

~bourquie, 7 Nov 2005 8:11 utc

I feel that it's suitable if it portrays an objective account of the German and Japanese response. I do concede that the article needs sufficient rewriting. Personally, it's also sad to see an article that I've spent a significant time on get deleted.

~bourquie, 8 Nov 2005 6:00 utc

All I'll say is that I disagree that we need to include all Axis countries in that article. The 2 further reading material only deals with Japan and Germany and they're both good enough to be published. Although there are other countries in the Axis alliance, the major ones are Germany and Japan.

About your support for the deletion, it's your right to start or add your support, but it was going to be deleted, I thought that it'd be deleted a long time ago.

~bourquie, 20:04 utc, 16 Nov 2005

Armenian Genocide Takes Too Much Space

Above all discussion on the alleged Armenian Genocide, I think this topic is taking too much space in pre-republic history section of the article. The more obvious Jewish Genocide in Germany is not even a paragraph in the Germany article. This seems pretty biased to me.

The Germans don't dispute the Holocaust, that's why. John Smith's 12:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

We don't admit because it is untrue. If the ottoman army didnt protect the ermanians during their immigration, none of them would be alive. They killed many defendless turkish people in a disgusting way. we will never admit this and we dont care whatever your brain minds.

Please dont compare with germans ever.!!

Well I'm sorry but the Association of Genocide Scholars would disagree with you on that one. If anyone is qualified to say what really happened, it would be them.

And no, I won't compare you with the Germans. They've come clean on what they did - most Turks haven't yet. John Smith's 21:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

You can find the pictures, documents and the history in www.ermenisorunu.com. it is in english. Ottomans archives is also open and proves everything. And definetly many graves of turkish people killed by ermanians.

That webpage isn't in English, nor is there a link in English. Please don't pester me with deflectionary tactics. There was inter-racial conflict, but what happened to the Armenians was far worse than what happened to the Turks. Anyway, I don't see why you're talking to me. Fadix is the chief charlie on the Armenian article. John Smith's 22:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, about the Armenian Genocide article

For correction of grammer and stuff, I would appreciate if you could also correct those. User:Fadix/Armenian Genocide This working version, will most certainly, onces completed replace the current version. Regards. Fadix 23:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The first two media in Mao page should be deleted

Well, if you understand what they said; if you could listen Chinese, you would know that this is not an interview of Mao!

Well if you could write good English I might have an idea of what you meant ^_^ John Smith's 15:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

ok, first let me explain what I think that guy meant. I think he means it's not the voice of Mao that was on the media files on the article somewhere, and you'd know if you knew Chinese. Anyway, I replied to your comments, check the Mao discussion page. Thanks. Colipon+(T) 03:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

What's different about my external link?

I've kept my opinions off of the main pages. But surely external links are allowed to be partisan? There are any number of links.

So why did you remove my link [2] about Chang & Halliday’s biography of Mao? Is this official Wikiedia policy, and if so what is it?

Does it only became partisan when it refuses to view Mao as a monster?

--GwydionM 18:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Seriously I didn't remove the link because it was you. I helped build up a page with something that I thought was completely obvious. Not commentary on anything historical, just an evaluation of a book and a row over it. Then someone queried it with a tag because they said it was "original research". The official tag inserted said that wikipedians are not allowed to simply insert their personal observations into articles. So I take it to mean that we can't link to our work outside of wiki either unless we are a recognised expert in our field. Otherwise I could write a praiseworthy account of the book on my old speaking union's website (I still write articles for them) and link it in. But I wouldn't because I don't think that is what wiki wants. Cheers John Smith's 19:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square protests of 1989

Is this the talk page you are referring to? I fail to see how my edits can be regarded as sabotage. I am aware that this article is a featured article and I presume you are the last editor in its current form? However, this article is not protected and I take it to mean that users may edit it further as they see fit, within reason of course. As I understand it, no one 'owns' any article on wikipedia even if they are the original author of that entry. Contributors who zealously guard and continue to hog 'their' articles goes against the idea of user participation at wikipedia. Unless you care to enlighten me about certain procedures I am unaware about, I really don't understand your behaviour.

219.95.10.130

Of course no one owns an article. But we have to reach a consensus, otherwise how could we ever have a half-decent article? Wikipedia would just be an unreliable clump of information that constantly changed. Your use of the talk page is more constructive. John Smith's 17:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

And just how may a consensus be reached?

Normally a consensus is reached by popular agreement on the talk page. That isn't always possible. But as I said, if we just insert anything in then wikipedia is even more of a joke than it currently is. I suggest you go read the help section on wiki to understand more or talk to an editor. John Smith's 10:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide "rfa"

Check this attempt out. Great formatting. try #2pschemp | talk 14:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh dang he figured out why the text wouldn't show up. here comes the circus!pschemp | talk 15:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey - I just looked at this situation, and it looks like you guys have a heck of a mess at Armenian Genocide. I've pointed this out to the arbcom to see if they'll consider taking a case against Ramil and/or the rest of that mess, but if they don't, would you be so kind as to file an RfC about it? If you do that, I can take the evidence from the RfC and put in a good arbcom case on it. Phil Sandifer 17:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

John Smith's, although I gave a quite technical answer, I also agree with yours. See my talk page. Regards, gidonb

Ok - fair warning. I am going to put the comments by user 71...etc. back into the talk page because I have a feeling we may need them for evidence. The checkuser has identified him as Ramil, Eagle, etc... so he's not really an anon anymore. I am SO tired of his rantings and just want it to stop, but I think we need to have all that evidence floating around for the moment. When its done, lets refactor viciously and remove the crap, but not yet. pschemp | talk 20:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Please have a read of the above policy, thank you! --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: C.Cat

I won't get involved in this, Coolcat is a veteran user and by now he should understand the policies also the arbitration cases ate a lot of energy and time so Ì decided to not deal with anything that touches Coolcat and just ignore him, I answered to him in the talk page but it was just because I had to explain to other readers the main points there. I do agree that there is a lot of work still remaining on that page and that we need more neutral persons feedbacks about what to change or add there to improve the article, if you have an administrator in mind go ahead, but I will from my side not warn an administrator about Coolcats conducts he has tree mentors and trust their judgement and I am sure that they are closely watching him already. Fad (ix) 22:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

photograph

This is not what Coolcat is requesting, he is requesting that I prove that those pictures can be used in Wikipedia without copyright infrigement and then in the same time, requesting that I prove that the deaths are Armenians. The sourcing(books etc.) are widelly available on the web, and from a website run by one Wikipedian who present the same photos and refer to the books from which they were taken in his own website and Coolcat already is aware of that. [3] This is not the type of evidences he is requesting, what he is requesting he knows he can twist it and then claim that it was not provided. Fad (ix) 01:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, sir

I so much appreciate your thoughts on my Wife Sheri. That means so much to me, personally and deeply. She is still with me, in ways no one believes. How did you find me, may I ask? Chris 22:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

KaiZhi

Hi, I've noticed the work you've done in reverting this troll's vandalism. On behalf of all the contributors to those pages, thanks a lot. I'm glad to see that jerk has been banned. However it's a shame his IP wasn't blocked as well..... John Smith's 17:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll happily block any reincarnations if you notice them. We only block IPs temporarily, though, and he may have a floating IP. Haukur 17:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Why are you rv my editions

I have been making the document easy to read. I did not add anything which is not already stated in the document. I have been putting arguments related to each other and writing introductory sentences to concepts that is covered. I demand explanation.--Karabekir 17:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

You have reverted my edit without reading the diff or the edit summary. This is unacceptable, cease such behaviour. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 09:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Coconut99 99

I responded to your comment on his talk page. Two wrongs do not make a right. -- JLaTondre 21:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Repeated from my talk page: Understood. My point was that there are established ways of handling these types of issues. It is better to stick with those and maintain the higher ground. -- JLaTondre 00:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

lol, you can't argue

You can't argue and start insulting my usersname? I showed the bias in the article and you never even attempt to refute it. That's your way of handling arguments by reverting whatever I wrote? lol —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coconut99 99 (talk • contribs) .

show me the evidence

on "though the reliability of the government's own reports has frequently been criticised by people both inside and outside of China."

I've shown my reference, now it's your time. Coconut99 99 23:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Put a relavant link please. Should one doubt what US say about global warming or human rights reports when the US government initially denied the existance of the eavesdropping case? I will give you sometime doing the research before removing what you have added. Coconut99 99 23:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

I hope that you read my response in the discussion page. What's included in the text follows word by word the declaration of these scholars published in the New York Times and Washington Post on May 19 1985. You can read a copy of the declaration here [4].

I truly believe that including the list of western historians who don't accept genocide claims in the opposition section is quite valuable for the quality of the article. Why do we have a opposition section to begin with otherwise. Best, Deepblue06 16:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC) 14:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the outline of the Turkey's position. Enlisted Western historians are sharing Turkey's point of view, that is, this is unsettled history and we cannot conclude genocide took place until historians prove it. So, I don't see any problem including their view in the subsection for Turkey's position. But I believe opposition should preced support, as that's the dominant view for Turkey's position. Best, Deepblue06 18:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC) 18:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC) 18:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC) 18:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I need your specific quote on Chinese government lying and covering up on LFG

I didn't find such sentence in that thing. Just like you don't give someone a whole bible and say it contains answer that sun resolves around earth.

Also, please give reference(s) to all opinions. Coconut99 99 18:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

When I have some time, starting next week, I will start back contributing. Fad (ix) 02:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi, are you still interested in mediation for Human rights in the People's Republic of China ? - FrancisTyers 01:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I'll comment after the other mediator has looked at it. Who is it btw? I can't find the name on the mediation page, or the talk page. - FrancisTyers 18:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, apparently Belan isn't mediating, so I'd be happy to if there is still a case to mediate, is CC still around? - FrancisTyers 21:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just to warn you that I will RfAr today

If you want to prepare a speech in the RfAr and have time right now, do it so, because this time I'm afraid I have to do it. You will hit your head on a wall if you read all the evidences I have accumulated and what can be concluded from it. Fad (ix) 16:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Francis is out of town, can you comment my modifications and proofread? (I'm on Linux and without a corrector). [5] Fad (ix) 17:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Editor removing your remarks

FYI, Justin Alvarez Jr. has been removing your remarks at 9/11 conspiracy theories talk page. Morton devonshire 19:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Hi, please review the WP:NPOV policy before editing politically controversial articles. Thank you. RevolverOcelotX

3RRV

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. RevolverOcelotX

Sock puppet? Due to your edits on Cultural Revolution

User:John Smith's, you are suspected of being sock puppets of User:The Middle East Conflict Man, currently banned indefinitely from the English, Bokmål Norse and Nynorsk Wikipedias for inflammatory edit warring. Characteristics include edits to socialism-related articles and templates such as adding pictures of infamous dictators throughout articles, accusations that socialism is the cause of genocide (using our article on Democide as a reference), equating Nazism and socialism and polemical condemnation of socialist principles. RevolverOcelotX

Please find qualified sources for the view

Hi. I got your message. I dont object to the number without doing some study on the topic, although I do suspect its inflated. I do object to the number being based on a reference from another Wikipedia article. That's not allowed. I want you to get a better source and find the academic consensus for the number among experts in the field, and report that with attribution to the qualified source. I'd do it but I'm a bit busy at the moment.Giovanni33 22:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR Vio

I just want to give you a warning about the 3RR which you did violate on Cultural Revolution. I will not report you if you promise to be more careful and abide by this policy in the future. There are still problems with the text, btw, which I plan to fix later on.Giovanni33 15:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

CVF

Nice catch. The first vessel is "expected" to enter service "around" 2012 - so conceivably could operate from the base in 2010 or 2011 for trials. However due to the delays/contract negotiations etc I don't think there's anyway the first vessel will even be in trials in 2012! Regards Mark83 11:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I know the delays are frustrating but look at the past procurement disasters - at least they're trying to do it right for once! --Mark83 12:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

..and F-35s to fly off them! --Mark83 13:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

JMSDF

Hi, I noticed there seemed to be a certain lack of Japanese Navy pages. I have some photos that I have taken - that I'm the process of adding to the articles. The best place for images is http://www.dodmedia.osd.mil/ - all US military - therefore public domain. However I have uploaded the only decent pictures I could find to either here or the commons.

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Oonami_Takanami_class_destroyer.jpg - No article yet ;)
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Murasame_class_destroyer.JPEG - Already linked to article.
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Japanese_Submarine_Oyashio_SS590.JPEG - Already linked.

Cheers Megapixie 13:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Blue-water navy 3RR warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. RevolverOcelotX

Request

I wasn't comfortable to be violating the 3RR by proxy if you know what I mean. I read the source provided and thought it was very authorititive, however here's my problem – if the PLAN doesn't qualify for blue water status then neither does the Netherlands or Spain (Italy questionable too, largely Med-focused). Yes, numerically the largest amount of units are littoral ships (patrol boats etc.) but the PLAN has a larger frigate/destroyer force than the UK! I think the best thing you could do is wait 24 hours than remove everything except the US and UK and then put a comment up asking people to put a reference on each addition justifying its place in the list. Mark83 21:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, I was working on adding reference for each when I saw your edit, let's see how it works out. I say this as a friend - watch the edits summaries [6]. I know how frustrating things can get, but take a deep breath before trying to fix things! It only makes it harder to compromise with people later on. Best regards Mark83 22:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Encouragement

Dispite the disagreements, I want to applaud you for you interest in history and politics. Oddly enough, I still repect you edits and views despite you childish attempts to circumvent and reporting undesirable results to admins over logicstics rather than debate. Hopefully over time, you will come to realize that you have more friends than enemies if you just take the time to understand. Again, please refrain from bias censors, as I would do the same. Hd8888 20:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force

Hi John, this is in response to the question in your edit summary of the above article. I removed the Navies category from this article as part of a cleanup of Category:Navies. This article is contained in a category of the same name, which is a subcategory of Category:Navies. Thus, within Category:Navies, it appeared twice (and after your revert it appears twice again). With dozens of articles appearing twice, it was difficult to navigate or even make sense of the category. I think it is much more useful now. If you look at the category page, you will see that all articles are still displayed, either as an article or a subcategory but not both (except for this one). I hope this answers your question. If you are agreeable I would like to change it back. Please let me know. Regards, Accurizer 20:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response. Articles can appear in more than one category. The problem with this particular category is that it became unuseful because of the numerous multiple entries. I think this happened when subcategories were created but the articles were not sorted accordingly. Thanks again. Accurizer 23:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Politics

Hello John Smith's. Sorry for taking so long to reply, but I've sent you a mail. Many thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 00:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC).

Prominent scholars

Professor Lewis and Villenstein are among the most prominent historians on Ottoman history. Other scholars are also all chaired professor at leading universities such as Princeton, and Columbia especially compared to the scholars on the other side, clearly many of them are prominent historians in this field. 24.211.192.250 16:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

We had this discussion before (you were also involved [7]), at the end we selected the ones that are prominent in Ottoman history and reached this wording [8] coined by Angus as a consensus (no reverts were made again until Karl Meier unilaterally removed it). There were other scholars which we eliminated (and many that could have been included). I, myself protected it from Lutherian twice, who wanted to add more names to the list. 24.211.192.250 23:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning

I thought that you deserve this warning more than I do, given that you keep reverting the article without contributing any of the discussions.

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Armenian Genocide. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. 24.211.192.250 18:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how much you know about the Turkish public view on the subject. But I can summarize it for you: Turkish public is not aware about the degree of hostility and hatred that exists in Armenian diaspora towards anything Turkish (just to give a simple example in the recent Eurovision Turkish public gave the second highest score to Armenia). This issue rarely makes the headlines in Turkey, Turkish public does not care about the subject, I honestly don't remember it studying at school in detail. However, there's some marginal ultra-nationalist groups which does not add up to more than 10 thousand people in a country of 70 million. These people led by lawyer Kemal Kerincsiz file lawsuits against everybody including many European bureacrats and politicians who speaks on this subject. I agree that these stupid lawsuits make Turkey look bad. But on the other hand, Turkish, Armenian, Jewish and Greek communities are living in Turkey in harmony side-by-side. I've many Greek and Jewish friends.

That being sad, I'm turkish and proud of my nation as much as anybody should be proud of their own, but not nationalist. If you are going to characterize everybody who does not buy Armenian claims at face value as Turkish nationalist then we cannot go very far. This is a disputed subject. There are many prominent historians who speak against it. Actually, if you compare the quality of scholars who are for and against genocide claims, you cannot deny the fact that scholars who are against it have academically more established careers. Armenian claims are usually promoted through political means and media (movies, documentaries) not through academic or legal means. The strategy is to get legistlations passed from the parliments of every possible country, and try to sell their story to Western public view (which they actually partially accomplished) as opposed to going to an International court, or agreeing to form a joint academic commission including third party prominent historians. I should remind you that Turkey stated that she's ready to accept the findings of a joint commission and its consequences.

As far as I see, you are reverting any contribution of "other side" regardless. This makes it difficult to assume good faith with you. I re-assumed good faith and wrote this message. I hope that you understand where I'm coming from. Best 24.211.192.250 19:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

John, I want to assume good faith with you, but you once again reverted the article with no explanation. Karl Meier's all edits were against the consensus in the talk pages (denial term for scholars: archieves show that there was a long discussion for this term and consensus has been reached; prominent scholars: Angus and I worked a compromise decreasing the number of scholars listed, so that really only most prominent ones remain such as Bernard Lewis and Gilles Veinstein and deservingly they are called prominent historians, etc). But you reverted the article once again to "combat" the "other side". We should be looking for the truth not fighting for who can shout louder. I'm sorry. 24.211.192.250 22:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You must be jocking, how many time was I in visit to family friends who had satelite and accessing to Turkish channels, and the subject of discussion was the 'so-called' Armenians. I had an univolved friend the other time, who had watched something literally picturing Armenians as nothing more than animals. As for Eurovision, there was some ultranationalist Turkish writter who wrote a paper saying how Turkey gave that score to Armenia. I myself visited the Turkeys fanclub official site and its forum. On the site, there was a section with links denying the Armenian genocide, the Armenian flag and country was simply missing in the list. When I decided telling this, I registered an account, since the forum was kept private so that those who were not registered could not view it. Once there, I have read one of the kind blasting, total blasting of the Armenians. Comparing the Armenian candidate to a dog, an animal, the typical hairy Armenians. Someoone compared them with hobits, as an answer, don't insult hobits. The association of fun club sites of other countries, requested them to remove those trash about the Armenians on their main page, they refused, the fan club was then kicked out from the association and the association threatned it with legal actions. When I told them why they are not removing it, with a very friendly message, they first asked me if I was an Armenian, I said what differences does it make, my post was deleted, they changed my password, I was intelligent enought to use the option lost my password, and reset it, when I said what was wrong why my things were deleted, I was banned.

All this, for a stinking stupid song contest.

You claim no one bother in Turkey? Well, many do bother, you will hardly find any Turkish organization website which does not at least have few articles 'disproving' the genocide. Every government site have a section.

You claim that those who deny the Armenian genocide are more in 'quality' than those who typically recognize it. Well, scholarly, maybe. This is a known phenomen. It takes more sofistication to revise the comon literature about a subject. This plays against your position. That it takes demographers like Justin McCarthy or specialists in denial of genocides like Lewy is not a good indicator there. It took people like Faurisson or Rassinier to play with the numbers, or Rudolf with his structured pseudo-scientific paper on Zyklon B using eachp methods creating various pseudonyms supporting eachothers to force his position on cyanide to deny the Holocaust. Sofistication is not only known in the Armenian cases, Vickery uses such sofistication to minimise the genocide in Cambodia by throwing numbers and statistics. Sofistication is the only tool of deniers, because they can not assess the usual available material, so they have to try on another level, a level where not much people could address. And here is the level I do address, and specialised addressing. This is why Mr. Holdwater, you are effectivaly prevented in making of the article, what your website is. Fad (ix) 20:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

==AFD==

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the nomination was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Assassinations committed by Armenian nationalists

The article is unencyclopedic and has no precedent, involves original research and is poorly sourced. See talk page.--Eupator 18:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Hardly any of that information can be backed-up by a credible source. -- Clevelander 18:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Even if they could, placing people in such a list is simply original research, who should be there or excluded is simply the judgement of the creator of this article. Fad (ix) 19:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete I totally agree, going around fishing murderers from a particular ethnic group, all more unrelated one from the other, like the example of the 16 years old kid is unencyclopedic. First, many of those murders have nothing to do with nationalists, example, Behbud Han Jevanshir killing was an act of vengence. Also, giving such a precendent, any person can decide that any ethnic groups murderers can be classified and an encyclopedic article could be formed out of it. To have such a classification, such an encyclopedic position should exist in the first place. I do not go around and post the list of the thousands of Turkish nationalists who murdered Armenians during World War I to then form an article out of it. It is unencyclopedic. Fad (ix) 19:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete can probably never meet WP:V --Pboyd04 19:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and per Fad's comment. The list will be perpetually incomplete and is rather judgmental about who is included. —C.Fred (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Should we now create an article for every two ethnic groups that have been assassinating one another?--MarshallBagramyan 19:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Hakob 19:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:NOT for indiscriminate lists. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - random list pulled together for an agenda. John Smith's 22:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - if it is becoming disturbing. Should we also delete the list I was preparing in parallel? Armenian notables deported from the Ottoman capital in 1915. Or is that one considered as kosher? Cretanforever
  • Vote modified to Keep but Reshape as per below Cretanforever
  • That too would be unlikely to survive AFD. It cites no references, so it I assume it is your original research - WP:NOR. Notables is a vague term, making the list potentially indiscriminate - WP:NOT. As said, unreferenced - WP:V. But I might be wrong. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Absolutely, that other article is just like this one, pov ridden original research.--Eupator 15:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Totally unencyclopedic. Besides the valid reasons raised above, this is forking, which is prohibited by NPOV rules. I could create a list of Turkish criminals and post it as an article, if these kinds of articles were to be allowed. Definite no-no for Wikipedia--TigranTheGreat 06:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Totally unencyclopedic and not pro-Armenian --Gokhan 12:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment I would like to present my apologies to Gökhan (and to him only) for having drafted such unencyclopedic content. How could I forget (even for a moment) that the angelic Armenian mind and such ghastly acts like politically-motivated assassination could never be associated. I am sorry Gökhan! It was such bizarre points as, some of these murderous political organizations still being active in one way or the other, sometimes under the same name (we can partition the article according to the different organizations, by the way!), some of the assassins having monuments erected to their memory (such as in California, of all places!), an entire industry functioning around propaganda, for what was it again, oh yes! for "vengence", these people killing priests, mayors, diplomats, without mentioning simple folk, for "vengence", the list of victims reads like the United Nations, for "vengence", and during all that time, their country sinking more and more into the mud, no one investing there, except to keep the hate machine alive. And since a hungry chicken will think itself to be in a corn barn, as we say in Turkish, history is built and re-built again to suit present needs. Krikor Zohrab's books become best-sellers in Turkey, and there are Armenians who don't know who Elisha Tourian is (from what I could see from a peek in a chat-site). For a moment I had the impression that it seemed familiar and that there was a sickly pattern, which prompted me to start the draft. I thought a list would do good. I am sorry again! Cretanforever

• Comment The list you made is inconsistent and incoherent and many of the assassinations range from the 1890s to the latter half of the 20th century. What purpose would that serve to a reader on Wikipedia? to show that Armenians have had a history of assassinating and killing diplomats? What does the Khojaly Massacre have to do with "Assassinations committed by Armenian nationalists"? Again, to establish the jurisprudence that Armenians have always had a knack for indiscriminately killing including that of civilians? I might as well create a "Turkish assassins" article that picks up on every single assassination of a foreign diplomat, citizen, innocent, civilian up to and including to the deeds of the Grey Wolves and Ali Agca.--MarshallBagramyan 16:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead! Do it! Assassinations committed by the Grey Wolves! (or Turkish nationalists) Some of which already have distinct articles here to which links can be established (Bahçelievler Massacre). Include those on foreign diplomats or other foreign nationals or in localities abroad. Including notable ones that have been attempted. You can put a "See also" link to mass-killings of civilians which have occurred in enclaves (or exclaves, regardless:) where they were known to be influent. Ranging from the 1890's. Including non-definite cases for which notable references have been made to them. (like Ahmet Özkan case in Chveneburi article where, despite that article's wording, their implication could not be fully established...although it is reasonably likely) I certainly won't put your list on deletion, but let you develop it. I like lists. Cretanforever

Here's some start-up material. It's in Turkish of course, but I can translate it for you and give more feedback. It seems that a core group of Grey Wolves who lived in Europe as exiles during the military rule in the 80's seriously planned to invade Costa Rica (which does not have an army) and establish a Turkish state there. [9] Cretanforever

Being cynical or sarcastic isen't an argument at all. No one is telling you to not creat pages about certain individuals. Here the question revolve around the article which you have created. Assassinations committed by Armenian nationalists say it all, it is a list of names, and there is no way that from such a subject there could be an encyclopedic article. I don't appreciate your tone, words like 'angelic Armenian mind' evidence(and I hope not) an ulterior motive in creating such an article, which would justify its existance.

Furthermore, what is the relevancy of the monuments erected? The justifications you came up such as industry functioning around propaganda only further convince the community to request its deletion. Fad (ix) 18:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The entire point is that making such articles is pure folly. I wouldn't make such an article even if I wanted to because its unencylopedic to Wiki's standards not to mention spurous. --MarshallBagramyan 18:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete --Davo88 19:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment There is such a concept as ethnic terrorism - there is no question about the veracity of the data, although it is incomplete, many more names can be added. In case of so-called assassinations committed by Armenian nationalists it can be re-phrased as assassinations (inlc. attempted) by Armenian Secret Army of Liberation of Armenia (ASALA, on US State Dept list of terrorist organizations), or Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutsyun party), or Hnchak party, or otherwise "Armenian terrorism". If there can be Islamic terrorists, Irish, Basque or Kurdish terrorists ("nationalists"), Iranian or Syrian state sponsorship of terrorism -- i.e., all pointing to a specific nation or ethnicity -- why can't there be Armenian terrorism or "Assassinations committed by Armenian nationalists"? The latter is actually a less harsh wording. The page should undoubtedly be improved, perhaps rephrase its title -- but removing it completely? It obviously shows a certain pattern, and that pattern has been identified as such by several sources. Also, I've raised a similar question here [10] - there is a page about a certain Lt. Ramil Safarov of Azerbaijani army. Whilst more famous than perhaps any other Azerbaijani Army Lt., at the same time there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of Azerbaijani and Armenian (as well as other) junior officers in any given army who kill, or get killed, committ atrocities or are victims of such. Thus, I raise the question, why should Ramil Safarov have a page in Wikipeda -- he is just one of the victims, who has killed himself and saw killings all around himself coming from a refugee family -- and not Armenian Army Lt-Colonel, much more senior in rank, Pargev Abrahamyan, who also used an axe, but to kill his wife, not enemy combatant? Everyday rapes and murders and other grave crimes occur in both Armenia and Azerbaijan - whilst unfortunate, still, why should they be written about in an encyclopedia? --AdilBaguirov 13:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It would help, if you read WP:NOT, which is a policy. I don't think I need to tell you what part is concerned. Fad (ix) 22:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment As I stated above, it would be fairly easy to put separate headings for ASALA, Dashnak and Hunchak actions within the article to make it look more like List of ETA attacks and Chronology of Provisional IRA actions, and I also agree that its main flaw is (and perhaps will always be) incompleteness. I object the WP:NOR relevance here though: Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position. All info here has been collected from previously published sources, to which I put direct links. There is no analysis or synthesis, it's a list of events. A killed (or attempted to kill) B at this place and at this date and in this manner. Discussions on phrasing and on deleting an article are distinct exercises. Cretanforever

You may create a list of ASALA attacks, I see no problem there.--Eupator 14:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Fad (ix) 22:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think they are worth copying in style, tone and nomenclature. However, it may be better to have an article for each of the ASALA/anything else you want to add. Chronology of PIRA actions does not include OIRA, RIRA or INLA ones, nor should it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll do that Angus. I changed my vote in that understanding. ASALA acts are already on the article for that organization. They just need to be wikified a bit. Therefore, I will draft something like Acts of assassination by Dashnakists etc. And Elisha Tourian and Moscow Metro Bombing, among others, certainly deserve articles on their own. Cretanforever

• Delete Unencyclopedic and inherently POV. --InShaneee 00:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

European Parliament

According to Wiki European Parliament and European Parliamentary Assembly are the same thing [11]. Basically, European Parliamentary Assembly is the former name of European Parliament. If you agree with this, can you revert your edit? Thanks 24.211.192.250 12:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

prominent

there are at least 5 to 10 more names opposing the genocide. we removed them and only left prominent names with consensus. if pominent is removed than 10 more names come back. making the article look more like a name and country listneurobio 23:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

agreed or not? i am waiting for your answer.neurobio 23:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

there is already a link at the end of that paragraph take a look at that. i dont know how to prove you they are prominent. take a look at their univercities besides We have chosen names that really published a noticable book or paper in ottoman history. others who just stated that there is no genocide but has no big publication are left outneurobio 23:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Blue Water Navy

I see what you mean. Though I am surprised that many of editors do not consider the Russian Navy to be a blue-water one, if that's the consensus, I would not try to change it. Thank you for reminder. Sydneyphoenix 02:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Emptying categories

Please stop unilaterally emptying categories. Category:Modern destroyers is meant to contain destroyers currently in service, like Category:World War II destroyers. TomTheHand 15:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Armenia genocide image

Dear John, I purchased that caricature from ebay. Unfortunately the seller did not provide publishers name or year. However, i will try to find more info on that and will let you know. All the best. Ldingley 19:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

your reverts and contributions on the armenian "genocide" topic amounts to propoganda and vandalism, I would therefore ask you to kindly cease this type of unwiki-like activity lutherian 13:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

dude, you are the ones adding and/or reverting to new stuff here, I already said on the talk page that this is not a museum or exhibit, there are more then enough photos and to change key words to make something that is POV even more so is just plain propaganda and vandalism. I was ready to accept the last version by Telex, but the hardcore elements just could not resist! lutherian 13:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Japanese war crimes

I read the above comments with interest. If you think there are good reasons for the deletion of whole paragraphs (etc) please say so on the talk page, and I will consider what you have to say. Deleting material which has stood for some time without consultation is inflammatory. Thank you. Grant65 | Talk 13:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wikipedia:Three-revert rule and Wikipedia:Consensus. You will learn these things if you hang around at wikipedia for a while. Cheers, Grant65 | Talk 12:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for sorting out the blanking to the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 page, the problem was caused by a software problem involving my bowser. Until this is fixed, I won't edit this page again. Sorry for causing you extra work. Addhoc 14:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Same Quote Twice

Heh, thanks for fixing that, in the Mao article. (Majin Takeru 11:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC))

Mao Article

It was directed to anyone who saw the need to get rid of the addition I made and me moving the quote to where it belonged (I added the quote, and the Li facts myself months ago). If I had time to argue all day, I would clean up some of the page and make it more about Mao, and less about Chang's view on Mao in history and how that book is correct. Even now, we have something about Mao: The Unknown Story providing ample documentation of certain things, whilst anyone who has followed the events around this book are well aware of the dubious claims and the fact that some of the people and documents they cite have only been found by them, magically. Not to mention, they take a document, then twist it with words etc. I am all for acknowledging Mao's role in deaths, but very much against taking the view of Chang and calling it fact. Her book is a good story, not a good historical work. I could go through and cite some pro Mao book at every turn if I felt the need, as Changs book is now cited all over the place in here. Hell, you could cite Dr. Li’s book at half the turns to, and it would contradict what Changs book says. It makes the article look sloppy, and gives to much prominence to Changs book. Again, I am sure you are aware of the fact that most historians who are in depth on the subject of Mao and China, do not have very favorable views on her peice. Throwing what it said about such and such a subject, at the end of every paragraph, gives this work way to much credit, and with all do respect the only people who can take 100 percent of this book seriously are people who are extremely anti Mao. Hope this was not to long. (Majin Takeru 18:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC))

You'll live. Atleast your honest. (Majin Takeru 20:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC))

Mao: The Unknown Story

Hi, please stop messing around with the information that I've added under the number of deaths under Mao. The sources are all there, under "Sources". You're flirting pretty close with vandalism there. BTW, I really don't know why you support Jung Chang's book, given all of its unforgivable flaws. If you have an open mind and are not simply a die hard commie hater, post on my talk page to see things from a different perspective.

Dirtymentality 21:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I didn't mean to call you a "commie hater", so I guess I must have worded that sentence wrong. I apologize for hurt feelings. Dirtymentality 22:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5