text:
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/mentorship

If you have any comment related to the Cool Cat mentorship, please raise it here.

Coolcat prohibited from mediating
That is not rigjt. 4-3 is not a pass, this was replaced by the warning tag. Fadix 17:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * My understanding is that the arbitration committee works by majority vote. --Tony Sidaway Talk  15:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, each against vote substract, and it takes 4 supports(which means, 4-0,5-1,6-2 etc.) to get approved. Another proposition replaced this one, which was approved, and it was the warning tag. Fadix 01:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No, Fadix you're thinking about the four votes required to close a case. In that particular instance the contrary votes subtract one vote each from the tally and the case isn't closed until the tally reaches four. See Arbitration policy under "Final decision" for a detailed description of how decisions are generally made: simple majority.

 * By the way, I decided to remove the decisions because they were redundant and a little intrusive. The final decision contains the same text.  --Tony Sidaway Talk  02:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tony for the clarification. There is still the fact that both, the tag thing and this passed, both are contradictory with eachothers. Fadix 02:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think they handled this contradiction by quietly forgetting about the tag thing. It isn't in the final decision.  --Tony Sidaway Talk  04:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat prohibited from restructuring
User:Cool Cat is required to abide by the ArbCom's decisions. He has engaged in many "restructurings" of talk pages and has been required to limit his editing of talk pages as a result. This is appropriate. Votes on requested moves for example should go at the end of the list (end of a section enough for me) and he's free to comment on a request in progress at the end of sections. No Problem — Good Wikiquette. — Davenbelle 10:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you're being pragmatic about it. I have asked the arbitrators for clarification so they'll have to decide how literally they want the judgement to be interpreted. --Tony Sidaway Talk 20:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

More personal attacks by User:Cool Cat
User:Cool Cat has added a note (new diff) to his user page blaming his low activity on "several disturbed individuals [who] have been actively annoying me." This is an obvious reference to Karl Meier, Fadix and myself. This is inappropriate behavior on his part and I request that his mentors advise him of this. User:Cool Cat should cease his personal attacks on us if he wants us to leave him some space. I also find his quoting RickK's comment about him back at us offensive. — Davenbelle 06:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I've reverted that edit pending resolution of this issue with Cool Cat and my fellow mentors. --Tony Sidaway Talk 06:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Ara Ara,
 * Firstly disturbed individual is hardly a personal attack.
 * Do not think you are the only person I am dealing with. I was talking about people like User:MARMOT and several others who have been using vandal bots or have been vandalising my and other CVU members' user page and user talk page. People are being slow in taking more agressive steps against returning vandals and I don't like it. Compared to marmot you are a mild irritation. Just because you are objecting, I'll clarify. By all means your efforts to basicaly irritate me made me 10 times more determined in the end. I would have probably gotten bored long before the RfAr started if it weren't for you. I however find your behaviour in the past unacceptable, Arbcom wasn't too terribly pleased about it either.
 * My user page is a place where I explain people my frame of mind. I do not need to be extremely clear about what I am suggesting on my userpage infact it is generaly viewed as a better practice to write general statements than ones directed at spesific users. A random person who is just reading my userpage will not know who am I referancing to but will be aware that "I am not in the mood" or "I feel discouraged" to write complete articles. The statement in question is general in nature. You or the other two are not significant enough to my wikipedia experience to be applicable of such a comment. Additionaly I am sick of anwering people on why I haven't made many recent edits.
 * Now I think about it you seem to know about a comment on a sub-user page. Why are you aware of this? There is no way one can know about what I added to my user history page in 3 hours of me posting unless he is stalking given if this person is told to not monitor. Also given you complained about me recieveing RickKs vandal fighting barnstar, I cannot take your complaints seriously.
 * I do not "want you to leave me some space" thats an arbcom ruling you are failing to observe. You are complaining the silly on everything. I will have to file a second RfC and RfAr if this continues. -- Cat chi? 09:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that Cool Cat has now himself added the disputed section back, and commented out the word "disturbed".  It's a rather bold thing to do in my opinion, but I guess the mentors should decide about that.. Another question is why do Cool Cat want to start all this? We haven't had any contact with him for quite some time now, and frankly this look like he just want to make himself the center of attention again. Apparently, somehow, he likes the attention. There is a word for that kind of behavior, and that word is "trolling". -- Karl Meier 10:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I have negotiated an alternative wording with Cool Cat. I think it more accurately reflects his feelings on the matter, criticising some people for behavior that was determined by arbcom to be a breach of civility, without calling anybody names. --Tony Sidaway Talk  10:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Amusing, I am trolling in my own userspace. Pathetic, just pathetic. -- Cat chi? 09:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree, it is indeed pathetic that you are trolling in your own userspace. -- Karl Meier 10:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Kawaii! -- Cat chi? 11:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Both of you, please stop this. I'll not hesitate to refactor this page if the backbiting gets out of hand. --Tony Sidaway Talk  11:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Davenbelle's thanks to Tony for dealing with this issue
Thank you, Tony. Such personal attacks are unacceptable from any user and I agree that this mentorship is the appropriate place to raise such issues. I would urge User:Cool Cat to disengage from us; provocative edits such as this recent one only serve to exacerbate the situation instead of allowing him to "improve" himself. I would also like to ask him why he moved the user history page? It certainly seems like an attempt to hide this; it broke the link I gave to his edit... — Davenbelle 05:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't see why there should be any problem with actions taken to remove personal attacks from view. A very laudable effort to remove all cause for complaint. --Tony Sidaway Talk  08:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Why the hell do I need to explain every thing I am doing in my userspace to you davenbelle? Unlike you I am archiving my talk page. Unlike you I am making an effort to make wikipedia a better place instead of complaining the silly about another user.
 * I moved my history page because it was in User:Coolcat's namespace. I also subst the entier history section as the template was in my view redundent. I then "redirected" the now subst history page the page history is there. I can rearange my userspace the way I damn please. I do not need to explain you or anyone why. -- Cat chi? 09:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Davenbelle, provocative comments on Cool_Cat's userpage cannot have their desired effect if you don't look at them. If Cool_Cat puts inappropriate messages on his user/talkpages, one of his mentors will notice; it's not up to you to point them out.  Given that you yourself were admonished to stop bloody stalking him (not, I'll admit, the ArbCom's exact words), it seems rather dodgy to me that you're cropping up here to make complaints.  "I was just checking out Cool_Cat's userpage, in defiance of the ArbCom ruling, and what did I see but ...".  It's amazing how much offensive material there is out there if you go out of your way to be offended.  --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I think that the editors that he continue to harass with his constant attacks against in his userspace, should be allowed to atleast complain about his trolling. We have left him alone, and do whatever he want's to do, but he continue doing stalking of his own, and try to throw mud at us in every possible and impossible way. It should indeed be the mentors job to monitor his userspace and block him if he do anything seriously inappropiate, like dedicating a whole subpage to his attacks against us, but I haven't seen that happend yet. I don't think there is any reason for us just to accept his trolling against us, and it's only reasonable that we bring these attacks to the mentors attention. -- Karl Meier 17:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Making derogatory comments on one's own userpage, whatever else it may be, is hardly "stalking". Cool_Cat's appointed mentors are quite capable of monitoring his userpage without your help.  You, Fadix and Davenbelle are not supposed to be monitoring Cool_Cat in any way, shape, or form – not even to ensure his mentors are doing a good job.  I suggest you each privately vow not to look at Cool_Cat's userpage again this year, and let his mentors deal with his misbehaviour; what you can't see where you aren't supposed to be looking can't hurt you. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I on the other hand, suggest that Cool Cat stop making personal attacks against us in his userspace for the rest of this year, and apologize for those he has already made. I will not accept his mud-throwing campaign against my person, that is also against many of Wikipedias policies. I suggest that Cool Cat end his harassment. The ArbCom had counselled me to let others take the lead in monitoring Cool Cat. There is no decision that says that I can't protest when he is attacking and harassing me. I will not allow my name to be abused by Cool Cat, against Wikipedias policies. -- Karl Meier 17:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Go away, you idiots. Both of you - David Gerard 18:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I am so glad I'm color blind. If a bit of purple or rose color does this to sighted people, I'm better off without. --Tony Sidaway Talk  01:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

fuddlemark, we were not counseled to never read User:Cool Cat's userpage, we were counseled to let others take the lead monitoring him — i.e. take a lesser part in monitoring him. This is what I have done (and I thanked Snowspinner). I have not edited the articles that we previously were at odds over; I have had nothing to do with the CVU or the image-use issue. I make no reference to him in my user space. It is User:Cool Cat who is not letting go. Tony thought my bringing my concerns over to the attention of his mentors a "reasonable complaint" and that I was "responding to the provocation in an appropriate manner." — Davenbelle 04:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * It's okay to stalk someone provided you don't stalk them to excess, eh? Ridiculous.  Don't read his userpage.  If he does anything stupid(er) there, Tony will deal with it; it's not up to you.  It's not your problem.  Deal with it, and if you can't deal with it, then leave in a minute and a huff... or something like that anyway.  Tony is Cool_Cat's mentor, and it's his job to handle such situations; he won't haul down the fire and brimstone you feel is necessary, but that's because he is equipped with at least a modicum of good sense.  Why don't you go umpire softball for a while?  It works for me ... --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * fuddlemark, see: . — Davenbelle 06:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Stalking?
How did Davenbelle find out about (and subsequently edit) this if he's not stalking Cool_Cat? The subpage was never listed on WP:RFA. Alphax τεχ 15:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Techincaly thats him stalking Adam1213, though I do not see that making the action any better. -- Cat chi? 15:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmmm, nine minutes after creation, and before Cool Cat accepted or declined. But Cool Cat is right, Davenbelle can't have gotten this from watching Cool Cat.  Perhaps from Recent Changes or from watching adam1213's own contributions.  Davenbelle, what's up? --Tony Sidaway Talk  15:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't see why this is relevant. Why should Davenbelle explain to anyone where he saw these edits? -- Karl Meier 17:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * It's a big wide Wikipedia where Cool Cat isn't. I suggest you go in search of it - David Gerard 18:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Ara ara,
 * Let me count the reaons why as you put it Davenbelle should explain to anyone where he saw these edits:
 * The arbcom ruling establishing that Davenbelle has had been hounding me. He was asked to stop. So he has a history of stalking which is established to be an unnaceptable behavior by a number of people including User:Jimmy Wales (regarding an incident which someone was stalking User:RickK)
 * It is imperasive to notice the creation of a page before its even advertised. The only method I know is the monitor of RC feed. It had taken Davenbelle less than 10 minutes of the page creation to "coincidentaly" oppose an RfA. Infact his vote was the first one. Not even the nominator had time for his "support" vote. Oh and I declined the RfA because I do not feel it has approporate timing just yet. It appears someone is "stalking" Adam1213, if he accidentaly noticed the page and accidentaly voted oppose then of course stalking is not the case.
 * From my perspective Davenbelle is just choosing a new user to stalk.
 * -- Cat chi? 18:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * CoolCat, I really strongly suggest you just try to leave this issue entirely alone as well. It's difficult but quietly putting up with people you'd rather not deal with is an important skill on Wikipedia, and probably the best move I can think of in this case - David Gerard 18:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll give the simple truth. I left a farewell message for User:Cool Cat re his leaving at 09:37, October 23, 2005 (UTC). A few minutes later I refreshed my watchlist and there at the top was a newer edit by Adam1213 with a timestamp of 09:45, October 23, 2005 (UTC). It was a note to User:Cool Cat about the RfA. I had opposed the previous RfA and have not change my view on this issue. I also felt that a link to the previous request was appropriate. Eight minutes later I saved my edit to the RfA.

I do not feel that my reading User:Cool Cat's talk page or user page is in any way wrong; he uses his user space to talk about me and has often made personal attacks there. I have suggested that he remove the various references to his opponents from his user space — to no effect. If he were to agree to not malign us, I would be far less concerned with what he has to say. — Davenbelle 03:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, your farewell message. "Better luck elsewhere" and a link to a picture of a catastrophe happening to a cartoon cat.  That wasn't very friendly, was it?  You two have never gotten on, and you've stalked him in the past and have been warned about it, so please be more circumspect about the kinds of edit you make on his talk page.

 * I notice that Karl Meier (who I am told is the editor formerly known as Stereotek) is also spreading bad statements about Cool Cat, claiming on your talk page that Cool Cat's alterations of the color scheme of his contact page amount to trolling. I don't doubt that Cool Cat is being a little mischievous, but you're clearly both letting him wind you up, and both proving that you are continuing to monitor him, despite good advice by the arbitration committee that you leave that to others.  If you won't take the committee's advice, why not take mine?  Go through your watchlist and remove all references to Cool Cat.  You'll feel better for it.

 * Cool Cat, a word for you too. Please be wary of doing things that might appear to justify Davenbelle and Stereotek's involvement in any way.  Forget about them.  Remove all pages related to them (and Fadix, who is being very sensible about this matter) from your watchlist.  If you seem to be sniping at them from under cover of the mentorship, you may find that it becomes less of a cover and more of a prison.  My personal advice is that you should avoid contact with them, and leave your mentors to act as mediators. It would be a good idea to remove references to Fadix, Davenbelle and Stereotek from your contact page unless you really think you would have reasonable cause to contact them rather than bring an issue to this page.

 * This mentorship has got off to a fairly good start, but it may fail unless all parties show good faith and are seen to do so. Some cause to doubt good faith has been given on both sides and I'm more than a little concerned. --Tony Sidaway Talk  12:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The Garfield cartoon hardly depicts a "catastrophe" — they're just leaves. Did you note that it was the cartoon published that day, the day User:Cool Cat left in a huff seemingly because he felt the whole wiki (Marmot, Snowspinner and me) had fallen on him? Irony, again.

 * Tony, I will cease all monitoring of User:Cool Cat and cull related pages from my watchlist if he agrees to your above suggestions and my earlier request to remove the other references to myself as well; call it standing-down, disengaging or moving on. It is a big wiki. I have already offered to stay away from Turk/Kurd/Armenian articles (plus the Trek and Nato badges, etc) and ask that he steer-clear of other pages I've taken an interest in. If he removes the sniping, I will trust the mentors to ensure that it stays that way. I would also ask the User:Cool Cat cease monitoring my editing (see: User:Cool Cat/Wikistress_meter&action=history and see the edit summaries).

 * Cool Cat, please, agree to these suggestions and move on. — Davenbelle 06:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC) stricken — Davenbelle 08:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * (Karl, please endorse this proposal)

 * I agree with, and support Davenbelle's proposal. -- Karl Meier 07:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that sounds sensible. Cool Cat, I think it would be great if you'd agree to this. --Tony Sidaway Talk 11:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I am not going to agree with anything. They are going to leave me alone one way or another. I do not negotiate deals with stalkers/hounders/bullies/whatever. They will get the hell away from me, no ifs, no buts, NO CONDITIONS.
 * I will not remove referances to you on my talk or userpage, I am merely quoting arbcom. Because last time I did that you started tfding templates on my userpage, removing categories from them and such. You complained about commentsonmy userpage that did not address you. Revıew the past 500 editson my userpage. I have more than adequate reasons to complain about MARMOT. And next thing I know you opposed the RfA before the nominators vote.
 * I am complaining about your hounding and you are continuing to do so, there is no reason why I shouldn't complain. I have been more patient with this than I should have.
 * -- Cat chi? 09:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Garfield
Wow, that is one unfunny Garfield strip. - A Man In  Black  (conspire | past ops) 11:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Akuma (悪魔)
Please see Akuma (oldid) and this edit where User:Cool Cat added a bit to his user page referring to Karl Meier and myself as his "Akumas" (which is still present on his user page as of this writing). I feel that this is another example of User:Cool Cat using his userspace to mount personal attacks; that it is done using a Japanese word would seem to indicate devious intent.

Please also see Special:Undelete/Akuma (mythology) where you'll find "The akuma is a creature of Japanese mythology, representing evil. It has an enormous flaming head with eyes like coals. It flies through the air brandishing a sword. Even the sight of an akuma is said to bring bad luck."

— Davenbelle 05:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

 * See this and please take note. It can hardly be surprising to anyone that Cool Cat regard those who stalked him as his Akumas.  It won't cause any problems if you don't insist on poking through his edits, which you've been specifically advised not to do by the arbitration committee and by many others including myself. --Tony Sidaway Talk  06:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

 * See these; you are giving license to his personal attacks. Of course he is entitled to feel however he pleases about anyone; however, as you've pointed out, he is not free to use his user page or this mentorship to snipe at us. — Davenbelle 07:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

 * You are complaining about something generated by your behavior of which you only know about because of your behaviour. Perhaps there wouldn't be a need for such comments if you didnt stalk/continue to stalk in the first place. I am free to complain about the nonsese you are continuing on with. If you don't like it, don't read my user page. If I indeed am snipeing you, someone else such as Tony Sideaway would complain about it ages ago. -- Cat chi? 07:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think that's a personal attack. Anyone can look up Akuma in Wikipedia and find out what it means. He says he apologizes to everyone but you, which is hardly surprising. You yourself admit he's entitled to feel how he likes and that you two don't get along. Simply stay away from his userpage, it'll cause both of you a lot less grief. - Mgm|(talk) 08:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I find it interesting that his mentors or as Cool Cat for good reasons call them "Guardian Angels" fail to react to his continued herassment and personal attacks against me and Davenbelle, and claim that he is free to use personal attacks against us, because he has what they believe is good excuses for it. Also the fact that anyone can look up Akuma in Wikipedia, and see that it means a "demon or Satan", doesn't make it "not a personal attack". If calling someone a daemon or a satan is not a personal attack, then what is a personal attack? I suggest that Cool Cat end his trolling and harassment against me and other named Wikipedians. I haven't had any contact with Cool Cat for several weeks and this just looks like another attempt to attract attention to himself, only because he enjoy the attention too much. There is no excuses for personal attacks and the fact that he continue to harass me, eventhough I haven't had any contact with him for a long time is something that his mentors should react to. -- Karl Meier 19:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself, Karl, I observe that since being warned off by the Arbitration Committee from monitoring Cool Cat, with the threat of serious consequences if you were found to be stalking or hounding him in future, you and Davenbelle have contributed approximately one third of all edits on this talk page devoted to discussion of his mentorship. You have been gently advised by two mentors and one arbitrator to move on and find other things to get interested in.  Please do so. --Tony Sidaway Talk  22:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Sure. And speaking for myself, I observe that Cool Cat continue to harass me and call me a satan/demon on his userpages, despite the fact that I have had almost no contact with him for a long time. I also observe that his "Guardian Angels" keep making up excuses for these verbal abuses against me and fail to react to them. -- Karl Meier 05:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Don't play me for a fool. In the days immediately prior to Cool Cat's "Akuma" comment, you had personally made two comments on Cool Cat's second RFA, made edits on Davenbelle's and Fadix's talk pages claiming that Cool Cat was trolling, and made several edits on this page.  Both parties in this are conspiciously failing to disengage.  David Gerard told you directly: "It's a big wide Wikipedia where Cool Cat isn't. I suggest you go in search of it." Please do so, and leave others to deal with any problematic behavior by Cool Cat. --Tony Sidaway Talk  18:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmm, I'll just add some educative input to this debate, since its an encyclopedia. A guardian angel is a spirit who is believed to protect and to guide a particular person. The concept of tutelary angels and their hierarchy was extensively developed by Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, in the 5th century. Hence a guardian angel protects from harm and guides to make a better person/editor. -- Cat chi? 18:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Fact is that Davenbelle had made a suggestions about disengaging, which I immidiately agreed to. However, Cool Cat clearly refused that suggestion and then continued his unprovoked harassment in his userspace, calling me a satan/demon. I haven't been monitoring Cool Cat and I haven't had any contact with him for weeks. I have left the issues to his mentors. However, I am disappointed that they are not doing what they are supposed to and punish him when he makes personal attacks against named Wikipedians. It shouldn't be his mentors job to make up excuses for his violations of important policies. -- Karl Meier 19:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Don't put conditions on disengaging. Just do it. --Tony Sidaway Talk  04:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Remember, you are User:Cool Cat's mentor, not ours. Please mentor your cat — and see: this and this for further aspersions and sniping. — Davenbelle 05:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Kawaii, he is complaining about this, which is me complaining about his edit which I find odd. -- Cat chi? 11:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Does the phrase "lay off" really mean nothing to you? Harrassment and wiki-stalking is a perma-bannable offence. Please don't attempt to find out the Committee's willingness to quell difficulties the hard way.
 * James F. (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I landed here, not because I am following Cool Cat, but because Davenbelle posted something to this effect in Karls talk page, and that I visited his page to see if one of his oppose votes to an RfA was the result of someone warning him to vote, and seeing Davebelles post, I clicked on it. I'm justifying my presence there before answering (I don't know if I should do...).

 * I know I would not care being called a demon, but it is my understanding of the policies, that if someone in the community doesn't like what is in ones user page, he can request from that person to remove it, and that that person probably should remove it. Also, Davenbelle and Karl are claiming that they will leave Coolcat alone if Coolcat stop referring to them. If I was under impression of being hounded by someone, and that that someone claims that he will leave me alone if I stop referring to him in my user page, I would stop, if I really want to get rid of that person. If Coolcat really percieve a stalking, by the current behaviour of Davenbelle and Karl, and that this really causes him a problem, then the benefit of deleting few words or few lines from his user page, that don't bring any real information about him, will clearly outweigh the 'disadvantages' of not having those things in his user page.

 * Also, it should be clear, that one of the main reasons why I got against Coolcat, was him referring to me in his user pages, this was also why I continued my evidence page, which I left previously and that I also left participating in the cases. Since, one of the reasons brought, about our critical view of Coolcat, was his uses of his user page. I'd then think that the Arbitration committee did take into consideration those pieces of evidences, and that that could have, even if slightly, still influenced in some way their decision.

 * Also, I fail to see what is the problem with Davenbelle warning the mentors of Coolcat directly, since one of the arbitrators, (Fred), when I asked, if something could be done with Cool cat page, before it was deleted, he answered that now those things should be brought to his mentors and that the arbitration committee did enough already.

 * And finally, there is nothing in the conclusion of the Arbitration committee, that includes warning mentors as stalking Coolcat, since it appears that neither Davenbelle or Karl have been involved directly in the reversion of Coolcat edits, or anything directly involving those users without en intermediary (in this cases the mentors), I don't believe what those users are doing in against the arbitration cases decision, and again, this is my opinion only. Fadix 17:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Davenbelle
This is being extremely difficult. I do not see a solution out of it... -- Cat chi? 04:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

 * See a revert war on Ilısu Dam, an article I started and wrote which davenbelle should not have been present. I am not a heavenly creature and I do have a limited paitence, please assist. -- Cat chi? 09:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

See also my response to this situation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Davenbelle blocked — Davenbelle 03:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Prior to my edit on November 18th, User:Cool Cat had not edited Ilısu Dam in nearly 2 months, yet he edited it many times in response to my editing. His edits are POV (he has a history of POV editing), he removed reasonable edits of mine, ignored my attempts to discuss this on talk:Ilısu Dam and asserted that he'll "start revertiong [sic] [me] without reading [my] edits". He has made quite clear below that he wants to use the ArbCom counsel about "hounding" him to effectively ban me (and Karl Meier) from the very articles that he has continued his POV editing on.

This is not about "harassment", it is about User:Cool Cat seeking to demonize his opponents and establish ownership of articles that he wishes to express a certain POV.

— Davenbelle 03:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Be careful. Your own edits on that article tipped it towards an extreme pro-Kurdish position. You don't get a free ride. My advice to you is to just stay from that article; your editing there was a clear attempt to provoke. In the light of your editing there I'm beginning to have my doubts about Karl's good faith. Could it really be just coincidence that you're both making certain edits on articles that Cool Cat has edited? With your history, there is legitimate cause for doubt. Staying away is probably the only way to avoid arbitration. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I do not believe that I tipped the POV of the article; please review my edits and note that the section about the Kurdish Human Rights Project's view was part of User:Cool Cat's original version (to his credit; copied from Southeastern Anatolia Project); I only reworked it a little bit. My editing of Ilısu Dam was not intended as a provocation, it was an attempt to improve the article and to see if User:Cool Cat and I could work together; it is he that refused and simply started reverting me. I have not conspired with User:Karl Meier as you're implying; we have not communicated off-wiki in many months — even through the ArbCom case. This has been deliberate, on my part at least, in order to avoid the appearance of a conspiracy re User:Cool Cat. I believe that the whole Kurdistan flap was due to User:Cool Cat feeling emboldened by my block. As far as "staying away", I'd like to ask from what? Everything User:Cool Cat was found to have a history of POV editing on? Please note that he has never edited The Kurdistani and my vote to keep it was much of why Red Wolf blocked me. — Davenbelle 06:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Sure, of course it's a conspiracy against Cool Cat that I fix a typo and remove some empty space in a few articles that I am not banned from, and has not been adviced not to edit. It's actually so obvious, that I can just as well admit that it was something that was planned all along. Hundreds of e-mails and telephone calls was exchanged to plan these truely evil and bad-faith actions. All I can say is that I was very surprised, that everybody was so naive about my intentions, for such a long time. -- Karl Meier 07:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Continued harrasment by Cool Cat
It seems Cool Cat has started to harass me and revert my edits again. And now he even makes false claims that I have been banned by the ArbCom from editing any article, that he has previously edited (such as articles re Kurds): I suggest that his mentors makes it clear to him that this is not the case, and that he should end his harassment. -- Karl Meier 20:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Simply don't touch about 20 articles, out of 820,000 this includes Kurdistan Workers Party. -- Cat chi? 20:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * please give us the full list. — Davenbelle 04:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * You are not in a position to make any demands. It's obvious that you are PoV editing again according to your anti-Kurdish/Turkish nationalist PoV. We already made an offer to stop editing any articles re Kurds, Turkey, Genocides and so on, but you refused that offer. I'll continue editing these articles because I am interested in them, and I suggest that you stop you harrasment and false comments about me being banned from editing them. -- Karl Meier 20:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Fill an rfar then. -- Cat chi? 20:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Please recall: Does the phrase "lay off" really mean nothing to you? Harrassment and wiki-stalking is a perma-bannable offence. Please don't attempt to find out the Committee's willingness to quell difficulties the hard way. James F. (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC -- Cat chi? 20:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes Cool Cat. Please recall that message, and quit your harassment, PoV editing, personal attacks and other offensive things you are violating policy by doing. I haven't had any conflict with you for I think months now, but editing those 820.000 articles is not as much fun as harrasing other editors like me, right? -- Karl Meier 20:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I am also interested in editing the Armenian Genocide but I am not doing so and will not do so for a year even though I have no ruling to prevent me from doing so. The only time I will edit Kurdistan Workers Party will be me reverting you or davenbelle. Stay away from 20 (or less articles) and you wont have any problem with me. You already know which articles I were heavly involved with. I will interprete any edit in those as harrasment and I will perhaps revert them without reading. -- Cat chi? 20:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't care what you "interprete" my edits in articles regarding these issues as. Fact is that if you revert my edits without even reading them, you sure will be in trouble at some point. However, if you agree to the previous suggestion, and stay away from all articles regarding Turkey, Kurds, Genocides, Armenia and any other such articles where the neutrality of your edits has been disputed, then I will also stay away from these articles. I also think Davenbelle will agree to that suggestion. -- Karl Meier 20:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I will agree to be "banned" from any article that User:Cool Cat's mentors ban him from. I do not want them to refrain from a ban because they may feel they may be giving me free rein to edit an article they feel that User:Cool Cat should not edit. — Davenbelle 04:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * You should care, you should be making an effort in staying away from me. Which you have honored till your edit on the PKK page. -- Cat chi? 20:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I was staying away from you Cool Cat. You are the one that is attacking and harassing me, in order to push you well know PoVs. I suggest that you quit you harrassment and PoV pushing according to the ArbComs decisions. -- Karl Meier 20:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * It wasn't me editing the Kurdistan Workers Party prior right? You made an edit and I simply reverted you. You were not interested in this article prior to stalking me. If your interests changed over time with my edit behavior to be more synced with my interests, what does that tell you? -- Cat chi? 20:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * You are right. I was making an edit and you where reverting me, in order to promote your anti-Kurdish PoV's. I suggest that you quit harrassing me and pushing your personal PoV's, all over the wiki. After all there is 820.000 articles to edit right? There should be no idea in following me around. Also, if you hate PKK/the Kurds, then please start a blog or a website and tell the world about it there. Do not lower the quality of Wikipedia in order to promote your personal ideas. -- Karl Meier 20:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * People on IRC knows I do not have an anti-kurdish pov. What is anti-kurdish pov anyways? Is there a universal Kurdish pov I can oppose? I am not pushing my pov. PKK has been recognised as a terrorist organisation internationaly and I merely mentioned that on the article lead, unlike you I do not blind revert unless revert warring with you and davenbelle, and even then I load the first diff. Please do not lower the quality of wikipedia for your desire to stalk me. Stalking me lowers wikipedias quality as I have to waiste time with you instead of editing something else. -- Cat chi? 21:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * You know, trying to provoke me only makes you look bad. (regarding very recent edits in kurdistan and Kurdish people) -- Cat chi? 21:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't care what your silly chit-chat team "know" and doesn't know. What I do know is that the ArbCom made a decision that you have been PoV editing in the past and has been causing damage to many articles, they also made it clear you are still doing it. The ArbCom decision was very clear about all these issues. Anyway, regarding stalking and blind reverts, it should be very clear that it is you who is harassasing me with your personal attacks and reverts all over Wikipedia. You have also just mentioned that you will be reverting my edits in the future without even reading them (something that I have never done with your edits).

 * Did I "provoke" you by fixing a typo and removing some empty space? Now you are being silly Cool Cat.... Quit your stalking please. I can edit whatever articles I want, and there is no reason for you to revert reasonable edit. It's almost vandalism and surely violated WP:POINT: -- Karl Meier 21:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * If I used that word you would complain abou personal attacks, however unlike you I am reasonable. I am most certanly not the silly party you revert warred over sections moved to talk and thats not your only rveert war. You have two rvert war cases on ANB/I of which one is with me. How many revert wars are you allowed? How the heck can you talk about WP:Point when you are revert warring this much? -- Cat chi? 09:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * You followed me to that article and then removed large amounts of referenced information that didn't suit you personal POV. Several editors (including me) opposed your actions, but that didn't stop you. You just continued your endless revert-war against the concensus of the other editors, dispite having nobody supporting your actions on talk. -- Karl Meier 10:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Warning to Karl Meier and Cool Cat
I shall block you both if I catch you edit warring any more as you have done on and. I am warning you both. This has nothing to do with the arbitration case or the mentorship, it has to do with the disruptive behavior of both of you. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Response to Karl Meier's complaint
On the subject of the complaint by Karl Meier, I agree that this was extremely provocative behavior by Cool Cat. There is no reason why Karl Meier should not edit Kurdistan and Kurdistan Workers Party, neither of which Cool Cat had touched in over two months. Cool Cat's reverts of Karl Meier's edits were completely unprovoked and completely unjustified.

I'm giving Cool Cat a last warning on this. Any further edit warring on these articles will result in an immediate block and then I'll go to the other mentors to recommend that we ban him from those articles. Any further aggressive reverts by Cool Cat concerning Karl Meier, Davenbelle or Fadix, in any context, on any article, may result in an immediate block and a recommendation that we ban him from the article in question. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Cool Cat is reverting on the Kurdistan article again: . This time I did not respond with a revert, despite Cool Cat's refusal to explain this actions on talk. However, another editor of that page, Diyako, did just that. -- Karl Meier 20:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I explained my actions, article is a mess hence the cleanup tag article is not neutral hence the POV tag. I will not tollerate your interference with my wikipedia editing given our past history. I intend to make something usefull out of that articles pathetic shape, please do not interfere. However if you have to at least try making usefull edits rather than revert warring over a sigle endline carracter or the template tags?
 * It is entierly up to you on how ugly/nice this will go. If you seek uglyness I will hold nothing back, if you want to make wikipedia a better place I will most certainly will not interfere, having said that I rather you stay away from a handfull contraversial articles I am involved in the best interest of wikipedia.
 * Tony if you block me from an article over a single BYTE you will leave me in severe confiusion. -- Cat chi? 21:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

 * You haven't explained your anti-Kurdish/pro-Turkish government POV editing. You have just mentioned that you think that the article is POV without giving any reason. The ArbCom has already made a decision that you have a history of POV editing in these articles, so I suggest that you end your disruptions. Anyway, it was you who started this revert war, and it is you that continue it, despite resistance from several editors on that article. Given your past history of extreme POV editing and harassment against me, I will not tolerate your current actions there. -- Karl Meier 22:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I merely moved sections and added two temlates. It takes two people to revert war, hence you are equaly guilty. I am respecting arbcoms desicion hence why I am not npovising myself. I merely am trying to get page in the attention of wikipedia community. If I wanted to push pov I could have created a sockpuppet and do it secretly. You do not push pov by placing notices to the ANB and take the article in the attention of administrators. No one can push pov on that article appearing on the ANB and get away with it.
 * Turkish goverment has a uniformal POV? I do not have an Anti-Kurdish pov. I am not racist. Certainly not anti-kurdish (whatever that is). I am not a sockpuppet of the Turkish gov. Please dont treat me as such and please do not label me of random things.
 * I do not have to explain my edits any more than the edit summary. I already made explanations on what I am trying to do. I cannot explain the move of sections to the talk page in greater detail and I am not even certain what you want me to explain.
 * Nothing is disrupted this is standard procedure. It is you being disruptive by waisting my and other mentors time. I encourage you to stop WP:ABF and try WP:AGF. -- Cat chi? 11:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Karl, please let other editors take the initiative here. Nothing can be gained by either of you, or by Wikipedia, by this continued bickering. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool Cat followed me to that article (not the other way around) and is obviously POV editing again. I am disappointed that the mentors has yet failed to react to his PoV editing, because it was one of the major issues that was mentioned in the final decision by the ArBCom. -- Karl Meier 16:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Another thing is that I am not banned from any articles, and the ArbCom decided that it is Cool Cat that has a history of POV editing, not me. I was adviced to let others take the lead in monitoring Cool Cat, and that is what I have done, and will continue to do. However, now, the fact is that he continue his harassment and follow me around in articles that I am editing, pushing his personal pro-Turkish government POV. I believe I do nothing wrong by opposing his latest POV "suggestions" in an article that I am editing anyway. -- Karl Meier 16:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Ok, how am I POV editing when moving sections to talk and adding a POV tag? My harrasment to you was the removal of a single line. You on the other hand harrased me on Talk:Kurdistan by discussing the contributor. Don't expect others to be civil if you cant be civil. There is no POV in declaring PKK as "terrorist" as it has overwhelming international recognition to that end. What you are doing is as far as I care is "baiting" me. And as far as anyone care I will not hessitate to bite the bait since otherwise I have to deal with you more. If it is fine for you to bait me, it is then fine for me to bite the bait. -- Cat chi? 09:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * You are POV editing because you remove information that is valid, referenced, and important to that article. It's just as bad and destructive as adding some unreferenced and useless POV nonsens. Regarding declaring PKK a terrorist organization on Wikipedia, that would be a clear violation of NPOV, eventhough Turkey and Turkey's allies all agree to use that label. The reason is that PKK and PKK's allies/supporters doesn't believe that it is what we can call a terrorist organization, and is opposing that definition. What we can do is to mention the verifiable facts without choosing a position ourself. In other words we can mention that this and that countrys government, consider the PKK a terrorist organization. -- Karl Meier 10:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, hence I suggested that PKK had been recognised by some nations and international organisations as terrorist. If it was properly placed in talk and if lead wasnt colosal no one would add the double referance. You serriously revert too easy you should revert as a last resort. Reverting till other side gives up is not proper npovisation procedure, instead its very disruptive. Why do you think 3rr exists? You really think it exists so people can get others blocked for their amussement? -- Cat chi? 10:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Continued disruptions and POV editing by Cool Cat
I suggest that Cool Cat's mentors should take a close look at what he is doing now at the Kurdistan aticle. Especially this edit: -- Karl Meier 23:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I've seen it. The editing seems to have been done in good faith and the material was copied to the talk page for discussion. I believe (and hope) that someone has now restored it all, because it probably doesn't need to be removed while it is discussed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

And again I want to remind Karl that he's sailing extremely close to the wind on this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Please define disruption. By your definiton any edit I make is disruptive. -- Cat chi? 11:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

 * The material was all added back again by me and other editors, that has also complained about his PoV editing on that articles talkpage, but Cool Cat apparently continued his revert war on that article, and has removed the referenced information yet again. -- Karl Meier 16:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Then you agree that my usepage should be blanked as a user did blank it and I reverted. Pov editing requires the addition/removal of material. I only moved several sections to talk of which you are continuing to interfere. -- Cat chi? 20:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I warned you both that if I caught you edit warring again I would block you. I'm blocking you for twelve hours and taking the case to WP:AN/I for review.   Cool Cat, I'm also going to go to the other mentors and discuss what to do about your continued disruption on Kurdistan. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I've noticed that CoolCat's changes on the Kurdistan Worker Party were not only reverted by Karl but also by a number of other editors. This has little to do with stalking. It's just plain POV editing against concensus. Maybe, it would be a good idea to establish a list of articles of which all these disputants are banned and have them ask others to make the changes. - Mgm|(talk) 22:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Francis Tylers revert of me on this article was because of the removal of the disputed template. He thought I removed it (which was not the case). Realise that he somewhat reverted himnself to something like my version. -- Cat chi? 09:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm less concerned about Karl. If Cool Cat wasn't allowed to edit, say, Kurdistan I don't see why the same ban should apply to Karl, whose edits are neither generally contrary to consensus nor problematic, except when he edit wars with Cool Cat and the both indulge in personal attacks. We're also in a position to impose a ban on Cool Cat, while a ban on Karl would require a community consensus which, although I could be wrong, I don't think would be forthcoming. Karl is no innocent in this but he was on this occasion the wronged party, when Cool Cat attacked him without provocation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Concensus is based on a majority. Karl Meier have generated artificial concensus prior to the arb com case. His contribution it talk discusses the contributer not the contribution. Which is not only uncivil but should also never be tolerated.
 * There will always be a concesus agaist me whenever karl meier edits articles and make personal referances on how horrible I am. Really little changed since the arbcom case. Please see: Talk:Kurdistan. Also review the diff I made on Kurdistan Workers Party, I did not revert Karl meier on that one. PKK has internatinal recognition as "terrorist" I mereley made that statement on the lead, FrancisTylers on IRC notified me that it was a duplicat statement so we discussed the matter on IRC. FrancisTylers edit should be viewed as concensus here since it was not solely derived from Karl Meiers concensus.
 * Tony me reverting a byte may not be the best edit I have ever made on Kurdistan. It certanly however does not give the right for Karl Meier to revert every edit I make to Kurdistan at which all I did was introducing the POV temlate and move several sections to talk for furter discussion.
 * Removing material to talk for further discussion really is standard procedure. A pov pusher would not bother. I am not going to discuss content but you would agree Kurdistan should not be a blog of every referance of Kurdistan on the net. See external links if you like. -- Cat chi? 09:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * If you want to remove large amounts of referenced information on a controversial article like Kurdistan, you should discuss these changes on talk first, and see if you can create a concensus for your actions. It's should have been clear to you from what happend on that article, that there was several editors that was opposing you POV removal of valid content, and that there was no consensus for you actions. But obviously you didn't care about the opinion of the other editors, and just continued the revert war against the concensus on that article. -- Karl Meier 10:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No I dont have to, then people dont discuss it. Removal of info (action) leads to reaction wich leads to a discussion. I do care about the opinion of other editors. I am not a regular revert warrer like yourself. Your concensus is derived from your revert warring and uncivil coments in talk. Not based on some discussion. You also disrupted the slowly starting discussion with the reason of "me pov editing". If I was indeed pov editing an admin would block me. Which did not happen. Tony blocked you and I for revert warring on an article he warned us not to, he was not taking sides if I am mistaken.
 * While I am not trying to accuse anyone edditing the Kurdtsan talk page, if extreme kurdish nationalists manifested on that page and hold the "concensus" with an army of sock/meat puppets you would side with them too? -- Cat chi? 10:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat prohibited from archiving
From: Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek:

 * User:Cool Cat is not permitted to archive any talk page other than his own.

See: and  where User:Cool Cat archives the Wikipedia:Vandalism SWAT Team talk page.

Plus this for an explicit statement of intent: I hereby today will start ignoring all rulings levied on me

— Davenbelle 04:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Fred Bauder's advice on restructuring was to follow the spirit of the prohibition, not the letter, and no harm was done by archiving 65kb of talk page.

Dave, it's now absolutely clear to everyone that you are stalking Cool Cat again. You've been told again and again to stop it, and you just won't. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * To monitor someone's edits and report them here is not the same thing as "stalking". I don't think Davenbelle do anything wrong by reporting Cool Cat's violations of the ArbCom's decision. It seems like the right thing to do and it has absolutely nothing to do with so-called "stalking". -- Karl Meier 09:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I dont know about that but voting on straw polls in the opposing corner, revert warring on an article he wrote cant be coincidences. -- Cat chi? 09:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Again, it's you that started the revert war by reverting Davenbelle's edits only one day after he made them, not the other way around. And you haven't been editing that article for months. Also, there is nothing strange about opposing an deletion request on an article that he was editing anyway... The block of Davenbelle was entirely unreasonable. -- Karl Meier 10:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course there is nothing strange. Then why are you complaining about me following you around? There is nothing wrong about me removing a single line from the article which made the code more readable. -- Cat chi? 10:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * There is something wrong with reverting peoples edits for no good reason. That is harassment and stalking. -- Karl Meier 10:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Yup and I was blocked for it. Baiting another user is also harrasment. -- Cat chi? 10:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Karl, when I say that I think you're stalking Cool Cat, I think you'd better listen. Meanwhile since the other mentors haven't raised any objections, and I've received a polite nod from the Arbitration Committee, I'm going to ban Cool Cat from editing Kurdistan and Kurdistan Workers Party. The ban takes effect immediately and will last for seven days. The reason is that I am not confident that he is yet able to edit those articles without causing or becoming the focus of disruption, either through his own actions or the actions of others. The ban will be announced on WP:AN/I and on the projected page for this mentorship. It will be enforcable by any administrator, subject to review by the mentors as per the mentorship arrangement. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact is that, fully two months after the arbitration case ended with you, in David Gerard's words "being let off with a warning", you and Davenbelle account for 40% of all edits on this talk page, despite repeated warnings to disengage. I recognise that Cool Cat has engaged in egregiously disruptive behavior also, and he's gotten a ban for it. The sole question remaining now is: what do we do about you and Davenbelle? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, why don't you start another one of your ArbCom cases, since I am stalking him by editing this page? However, there is also one thing you should be very clear about, and that is that I don't care one bit what you do regarding these matters. There is obviously no such thing as "fair play" here on Wikipedia, anyway. -- Karl Meier 17:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

 * One thing interest me though... How do you know that I and Davenbelle made 40 % of all the edits? Did you count all our diffs in the articles history? -- Karl Meier 17:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Antagonising the mentors (the very people who are meant to be supervising the person with whom you have a conflict) is not a good idea. The time Tony has spent on this mentorship is astounding, and he is absolutely right: this mentorship is for Cool Cat's development and self-improvement, not a vehicle for you and whoever else to satisfy some unhealthy personal vendetta against him. I completely concur with Tony Sidaway. - Mark 08:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Japhetic languages

Apparently, this is the same as Japhethitic languages. It looks to me like the term "Japhethitic" would make more sense that "Japhetic".

Gringo300 06:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

This article is a stub. It doesn't describe who used the term very well nor how and when it apparently became obsolete.--Mack2 (talk) 12:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Japhetic languages


text:
CKAT

CKAT (600 AM) is a Canadian radio station in North Bay, Ontario. The station, owned by Rogers Radio, a division of Rogers Sports & Media, airs a country, news and sports format.

History
The station originally launched in 1967 at 93.7 FM, and was acquired by Northern Broadcasting, the owners of CFCH.

In 1979, CKAT adopted a country format and moved to 101.9 FM. In 1980, CKAT and CFCH were sold to Telemedia.

In 1996, Telemedia swapped the stations in a move similar to its 1990 switch involving CKSO and CIGM in Sudbury. CKAT took over CFCH's AM frequency, and CFCH moved to the FM station and adopted the new callsign CKFX.

In 2002, Telemedia sold the stations to Standard Broadcasting, who shortly sold them to Rogers.

In fall 2005, CKAT and CIGM underwent a format change, with country music cut back (although not entirely eliminated) in favour of increased news and sports programming. Since the change, both stations used the following slogans such as "Today's Country", "News Leader" and "Sports Leader".

The station's general manager is Peter McKeown, a former morning man for many years on CHUR and CKAT.

In 2009, CKAT's sister station CIGM in Sudbury (under the ownership of Rogers Media) was acquired by Newcap Radio and then converted the station to the FM dial. CKAT is currently one of the last high-powered commercial AM radio stations operating in Northern Ontario.

On July 2, 2013, at 3:00 pm, Rogers dropped the AM 600 CKAT branding with slogan "North Bay's News Leader/Today's Country" and rebranded CKAT as Country 600.

On June 15, 2021, Vista Radio, an unrelated company to CKAT launched a new FM radio station with the return of the heritage CFCH call sign in North Bay airing a country music format as Country 90.5. The launch of the new CFCH-FM makes it the second country music radio station in the North Bay market with a similar branding to Rogers' CKAT Country 600.

title: CKAT


text: User talk:71.34.68.94

title: User talk:71.34.68.94


text:
William Carleton (disambiguation)

William Carleton may refer to:

 * William Carleton (1794–1869), Irish novelist
 * William Carleton (Massachusetts businessman) (1797–1876), American inventor and philanthropist
 * William P. Carleton (1872–1947), Anglo-American film actor, sometimes billed as William Carleton Jr.
 * William T. Carleton (1859–1930), Anglo-American film and stage actor
 * Will Carleton (1845–1912), American poet

title: William Carleton (disambiguation)


text:
Available seat miles

In passenger transportation, available seat miles (ASM) or available seat kilometers (ASK) is a measure of passenger carrying capacity. It is equal to the number of seats available multiplied by the number of miles or kilometers traveled by a vehicle.

In the airline industry an available seat mile is the fundamental unit of production for a passenger-carrying airline. A unit in this case is one seat, available for sale, flown one mile. For example, an aircraft with 300 seats available for sale flying 1,000 statute miles would generate 300,000 ASMs for that particular flight. That the seats are available for sale is critical. An aircraft that had 300 seats but which was limited (for regulatory or technical reasons) to selling only 250 of them on a particular flight of 1,000 miles would generate 250,000 ASMs on that flight, not 300,000. Similarly, if passenger seats on a particular flight are dedicated to crew rest purposes, such seats would not be included in the calculation of ASMs for that flight.

Cost per ASM / ASK (CASM / CASK)

CASM (or CASK) is a commonly used measure of unit cost in the airline industry. CASM is expressed in cents to operate each seat mile offered, and is determined by dividing operating costs by ASMs. This number is frequently used to allow a cost comparison between different airlines or for the same airline across different time periods (say for one year vs the preceding year). A lower CASM means that it is easier for the airline to make a profit, as they have to charge less to break even. A low CASM, however, is by no means a guarantee of profitability. Further, CASM should only be compared across airlines with care. For instance, all other things being equal, an airline with a longer average stage length will have a lower CASM, because fixed costs will account for a lower portion of its total costs. For this reason, to be meaningful, CASM comparisons across different airlines generally require, at a minimum, that CASMs for all airlines be adjusted to a common stage length, or that the CASMs be graphed versus the stage length of all the airlines being compared.

CASM is generally calculated for a particular airline (or portion of an airline—for instance, an airline's Pacific operations as opposed to the entire airline) for a particular period of time—a year, a quarter, a month and so forth. It can also be calculated for a particular route of an airline. However, when it is calculated for anything other than the entire operation of an airline, the relevant costs will inevitably involve cost allocations that require judgments. For instance, the salary of the airline's senior management needs to be spread across the different parts of the airline and can be divvied up across its routes according to many different methodologies—by the number of flights on that route during that time period, by the number of flight hours on that route, etc. There is not necessarily any right method for making such cost allocations, but it is important when making comparisons across airlines that if an allocation methodology is relevant (i.e. less than the entire of each airline is being compared) then the same allocation methodology is used with each airline being compared.

For a simple example of the calculation of CASM, in the second quarter of 2011, Southwest Airlines (including its AirTran Airways subsidiary) had operating costs of $3.929 bn and 31.457 bn ASMs, as reflected in Southwest's SEC Form 10-Q for that period. Southwest's system CASM for the second quarter of 2011 was then: CASM = Direct Operating Cost / Available Seat Mile = $3.929 billion / 31.457 billion = 12.49 cents

Ex-fuel CASM or CASM ex-fuel
CASM excluding fuel is a commonly used measure to compare the cost performance of airlines excepting the cost of fuel. Due to the volatility of oil prices, airline fuel cost is generally not viewed as controllable (other than in the short-term via fuel hedging). Therefore, management's success at controlling costs is often judged by looking at how the airline's ex-fuel CASM changes from one period to another. For instance, in the second quarter of 2011 Southwest Airlines had fuel costs of $1.527 billion (again, including its AirTran subsidiary). Southwest's system CASM ex-fuel for the second quarter of 2011 was then:

CASM ex-fuel = (Direct Operating Cost - Fuel Cost) / Available Seat Mile = ($3.929 billion - $1.527 billion) / 31.457 billion = 7.63 cents

Again, care must be taken in comparing CASM ex-fuel across periods. In particular, if average stage length for the airline has changed significantly, this could have a significant impact on CASM ex-fuel.

Southwest Airlines’ first quarter of 2018 CASM excluding fuel and special charges was 8.65 cents, roughly equivalent to JetBlue Airways and more than 20% lower than American Airlines, United Airlines and Delta Air Lines, while ULCCs are lower like Spirit Airlines at 5.83 cents while Frontier Airlines' is undisclosed.

Revenue per ASM (RASM)
RASM is a commonly used measure of unit revenue for airlines, expressed in cents received for each available seat mile and determined by dividing various measures of operating revenue by Available Seat Miles. This number is frequently used to allow a comparison between different airlines or a comparison of the same airline across periods. In theory, the higher the RASM the more profitable the airline should be, assuming that the CASM remains constant. Various measures of revenue may be used. Passenger RASM (or PRASM) is passenger (or scheduled ticket) revenue per ASM. Operating RASM or Total RASM is the airline's total operating revenue per ASM.

So, for instance, in the second quarter of 2011, Southwest had scheduled revenue of $3.876 bn and total operating revenue of $4.136 bn. Southwest's system Passenger RASM and Operating RASM for the second quarter of 2011 were therefore:

Passenger RASM = $3.876 billion / 31.457 billion = 12.32 cents

Operating RASM = $4.136 billion / 31.457 billion = 13.15 cents

Again, RASM comparisons across periods or across airlines also need to be made with care. All else being equal, revenue generally increases with average stage length. However, revenue generally does not increase as quickly as stage length, meaning that RASM typically decreases as average stage length increases.

At constant prices, world airlines RASK fell by 51% from US¢17.5 in 1960 to 8.6 cents in 2015, while CASK went 54% down from 17.5 to 8.1. For the world airline industry between 2003 and 2017, CASK excluding fuel was around US¢6, fuel CASK was between US¢1 and US¢3.5, and RASK was between US¢7 and US¢10.

title: Available seat miles


text:
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 6

Proposed statement of purpose for disambigs
Should we take it as an official goal of every disambig to minimize the length of time that a user spends reading it before proceeding expeditiously to the proper specific page? --Smack (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd rather state this in terms of the minimal amount of text necessary for proper identification. Otherwise some smartasses may copy half of article into dab page and then argue that the first sentence ensures this "minimal time", reading of the rest being voluntary. mikka (t) 01:43, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say the fundamental goal is minimise time spent to make a successful selection, thus this being the official one (not with that wording). To minimise time means to minimise text as much as practical.  If necessary we can state that explicitly.  Neonumbers 06:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Time is the goal, and near-minimal text is a significant means toward it. The smartasses need to be directed to discussions about the involuntary aspects of reading such as The Psychology of Computer Programming, by Gerald M. Weinberg, 1973 (i guess), where he describes reading a page with a vague awareness that there was a misspelled word on it, and saying "Oh, there it is!" when he reached the last paragraph.  If you read letters instead of words, you're dislexic, and while most of us read mainly words and sentences, the process is drastically changed by changing the length or organization of the page, even if you don't read enuf of it to be expected to deduce the organization from the part you consciously read. --Jerzy•t 07:01, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
 * Where would we "declare" such a goal? - grubber 11:36, 2005 July 30 (UTC)
 * It should be stated on Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). In fact, it already does say that, Keep in mind that the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the page they want quickly and easily.  RoySmith 13:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I've met with some minor conflict on the matter of whether dab-pages are targeted to readers, editors, or both. The current statement supports targeting dab-pages to readers primarily.  There are those who feel that dab-pages are resources for encouraging the expansion of wikipedia by putting all possible (or plausible) variations on the semantics on the page; this is especially true of abbreviations.  This inclusive approach is certainly helpful to editors, but sets aside the readers convenience in favor of equating a reader with an editor (or encouraging the reader to become an editor). I'm wondering if in addition to a tactical use case statement, as the cited passage is, a strategic statement that addresses this reader/editor conflict-of-needs might also be useful to include. Courtland 01:43, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

 * With respect to Courtland's comment above, I believe the encyclopedia (and therefor, the dab page) exists to serve readers. Stuff for editor's benefit should be on talk pages, or in Wikipedia namespace, or some such location outside of the main article space.  --RoySmith 16:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not sure that having more links can be ideally confined to being a benefit for the "reader" or the "editor". A reader may very well find many links useful or interesting to read, while an editor may very well want to get to the specific article he wants to edit. - Centrx 00:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think everyone but you has figured out that the admitted benefit to anyone of non-dab'g lks on dab pages is far outweighed by the harm done to readers, whether or not there is a net benefit or harm to editors. This artificial division is just a shorthand, for me, and IMO so obviously artificial as to invite no confusion. --Jerzy•t 07:01, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
 * Why does the benefit of helping to direct the many readers who want information that does not precisely correspond to the article with the name of the dab page not outweigh the imperfect clarity that results from having few more links that are distinguished by clearly different formatting? - Centrx 17:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * _ _ I may just be too tired to parse that sentence, since i am inclined to write long sentences myself. On the other hand, i'm pretty sure some commas and maybe another period or two could go a long way to speeding up my comprehension, no matter how well rested.
 * _ _ What i can discern immediately is that you assume
 * for no discernable reason many readers with, i think, tangential goals,
 * low cost of meeting what i would think must be disproportionally numerous needs, and
 * "[a?] few more links" where i expect several times as many (see the diff i cite at );
 * likewise, you
 * assert "few more links" producing "imperfect clarity" with no connection or desirability that i can see,
 * invoke "clearly different formatting" that seems to refer to nothing i've noticed, and
 * fail to address what seems obvious to me:
 * there are many more articles than Dabs, and
 * articles are much more naturally amenable to loose associations,
 * creating a presumption that you are seeking consent to exploit a resource (Dab pages)
 * that can do relatively little to promote your goal, and
 * is more vulnerable to interferance with its narrow and clear goal than is the larger resource (articles).
 * --Jerzy•t 09:08, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

We may have to take steps to further distance this policy from that of TLAs, which are developing a significant subculture with its own rules.—Wahoofive (talk) 04:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

 * On the contrary, I think that we should take steps to create a common policy with the TLAs. I do not like to see subcultures emerging on the wiki.  We've done quite enough to confuse new readers and editors without de facto partitioning the wiki into autonomous enclaves. --Smack (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I've made a proposal for addressing abbreviations (not just TLAs) as a group at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation. My feeling is that we can successfully address abbreviation-based disambiguations and "word"-based disambiguations as distinct but related beasts and not be drawn into a fractal balkanization of the wiki into subcultures. So far, I've had no (0) responses so either a) noone knows about the proposal, b) I've shocked people into silence, c) people are wondering how to apply a straighjacket via internet protocol (SoIP), or d) not enough time has passed for folks to digest the proposal.  The Proposal might be better placed elsewhere and it can certainly be moved, either by me or someone else. Courtland 13:04, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you can separate "word dab pages" from "acronym dab pages", since many combinations of letters are both acronyms and words, depending on the context. RoySmith 02:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be facetious, but have you taken a look at Category:Disambiguation lately? Consider page two where the "A's" get going in earnest and let me know if you still feel there are not many many abbreviations that can be treated separately from words, at least in English. Courtland 02:53, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * That is true, but also take a look at ABC, which I will clean up pending a stalled discussion on the talk page. --Smack (talk) 01:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Place-related dab pages - an experimental organization
I've applied an experimental organizational style to the disambiguation page Rochester where the majority of the target articles are cities in the United States (not all, though). In order to provide some decision support information for readers to choose a link I've added categories of size to segregate the populated places. This is only an experiment and I wanted to get some feedback on it so it can be agreed whether or not this is an appropriate organizational method for long lists of similarly named places. I'm wholly open to re-organizing along lines of, say, hierarchical place (i.e. by state) or strict alphabetical or other options. Thanks for taking a look and providing some input here. Courtland 13:12, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * My preference (as a minimalist) would be to pull the Rochester Institute of Technology and Rochester Products Division entries out of the place names section, and I'd also get rid of the categories by size, and just fold all the US locations together, alphabetized by state. Perhaps, it would make sense to add the pops in parens after each entry, thus:
 * Rochester, New York (pop 219,773)
 * sort of like you would put years of birth-death after a person's name. --RoySmith 15:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I also vote that the Institute of Tech and the GM division don't belong on this dab page at all. I don't have a problem with the organization by size, though. You need some sort of organization, although alpha by state as Roy suggests is okay too. This MOS is intentionally nonprescriptive on organizing principles. Roy's suggestion of putting the population or each one would make it too difficult to maintain, though.—Wahoofive (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * on maintenance of populations : information would typically be from census (for U.S.) done every 10 years, so continuous update would not be typical. on birth-death similarity : that was what got me thinking of something along these lines, the lifespan data included for biographical references.  on places and organizations on the same page : I did originally have these items segregated from the rest but an editor came along and agglomerated them as a way of indicating that the organizations were associated with the city under which they appear.  Should there be a Rochester (cities) or Rochester (population centers) or similar page to allow segregation of one class of uses from the other? Courtland 16:37, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Putting "Roch, NY" & "RIT" together is just plain wrong, bcz their natural association is irrelevant to 99.9% of dab'ns. "Rochester" as a nickname for RIT is plausible, and would qualify it for the Dab under the guidelines, but well separated from the cities and towns. Rochester offices, and Rochester-derived names, of organizations are probably not Dab'n-relevant, even in the See also "section", and in any case must pass a notability test. I'd probably trash any that lack mentions in the article on the city. --Jerzy•t 06:33, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
 * The style guide says that "the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the page they want quickly and easily" (emphasis added). Because most people don't know the population of the place they are looking for (and that may be why they are looking), they will have to scan down the list to try to find it.  Organizing in an alphabetical (by country, then state) manner allows for quickly finding the location, or seeing that the location isn't on the dab page at all.  Having an article like Rochester (cities) would be ok if there were a lot of other things to disambiguate.  Counties and townships generally have their own disambiguation pages (e.g. Washington County, Washington Township). —Mike 23:33, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * _ _ The population is helpful to editors (i'll say more) but (as pointed out) not to readers (and a big maint burden), so the pop is a distraction & should not be visible to the reader. If we thot every reader knew the state they had in mind, then alpha by state would be ideal -- but in fact i doubt many readers will type "Rochester" planning to then slog thru the dab looking for the state name: they should type "Rochester NY" and hope for a rdr to "Rochester, New York".  The dab is for cases like Fargo (movie), which is set almost entirely in Minnesota. Readers seeing "Fargo" in a context with,  say, "Minneapolis" and "Brainard" will key "Fargo", note that Fargo, Kentucky is remote from the context and try Fargo, North Dakota even if they've never watched The Electric Company.
 * _ _ That implies that having big cities first (high pop surely correlates with high WP traffic better than any other practical org'n we can come up with) has some value, and we do no harm in endorsing the maint of that organization by those who want to bother. (Hopefully those adding places without any pop info at hand will put them at the bottom of the list. But it's hard to imagine what kind of violation of this organization would merit an RfC!) The rendered page should be in order of decreasing pop, but not display the pops. Instead, the markup should look like this:
 * * Rochester, New York
 * * Rochester, Minnesota
 * * Rochester, Kentucky
 * and editors who find the order worth their attention will conscientiously revert changes from "200k" to "220k" (to keep it clear that more than one significant figure is just an unecessary distraction to the editors, since which city wins a closer race than that is of insignificant moment) but more than likely not bother to update with new census figures, since changes of order will be rare.
 * _ _ I strongly endorse the largest-first org'n, not bcz it bcz it's the best (tho i think it is), but bcz it is reasonable, and it pre-empts 15 really bad organizations that someone will try out if there's no sign of a clear one being in place.
 * _ _ Finally, i hope everyone agrees that duplicating pop figures is of so little utility to Dab'n that that info should be gotten from the article, rather than clutter the dab page with them. --Jerzy•t 06:33, 2005 August 26 (UTC)
 * I do not think the singularly low size of Rochester, Kentucky warrants its placement alongside the most important Rochester, New York and above the 50,000+ population municipalities. - Centrx 15:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * that was on the page before I arrived; I did not add it and I agree. Courtland 01:11, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Sample disambiguation article
I think a sample disabiguation article, perhaps using "Blah blahs" would be useful in quickly determining a style aspect that you are not familar with. Has anything like this existed before?--Commander Keane 12:25, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea. The same page could have several examples using different approaches. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * A gallery of dab-pages that exist, copied at a particular stage of development and annotated, as opposed to an artificial construct I think would be a better approach. Courtland 01:16, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds great. Nominations are now open.—Wahoofive (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I've made organizational changes below to make clearer what the "proposed" examples are versus the "accepted" examples. In so doing, I deleted a couple of comments around examples I proposed that didn't pass muster (and comments from Wahoofive on why they weren't the best examples); see here for the talk-page version prior to these changes. Courtland 12:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Positive examples

 * high-use abbreviation: ABC, exemplary revision
 * person-heavy dab: John Taylor, original revision in question, recently improved version

Negative examples

 * Abandonment (example version)
 * Overhead (example version)

Proposed examples

 * negative example improper use of disambig: ESPRIT Company Courtland 12:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

A person-heavy dab article (John Taylor)
John Taylor (original revision in question; recently improved version) was cited as a good example of a person-heavy dab article in Talk Archive 1. Courtland 02:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC) (additions to this intro Courtland 12:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC))
 * _ _ That would be in the archive's discussion of 2005 May 2 thru 26, it seems (tho one heavy participant's sigs are un-time-stamped, and enough to derail my intention to specify the exact revisions referred to). My reading is that the sectioning & use of TOC directives found approval, but no one commented on its verbosity nor its use of multi lks per entry, in, e.g., the  final revision of that period.
 * _ _ I have cleared out what i consider its promiscuous lks & "micro-bios (i.e., telling more of the story than furthers dab'n, as if the Dab page needed a little interesting detail beyond the Dab'g detail). I think the result is more of "a good example of a person-heavy dab [page]". I invite comment on the difference.
 * _ _ Even if my approach turns out to be more restrictive than most editors', i am hopeful that i've landed us a lot closer to the meaning most of us assign to "only enough descriptive information that the reader can distinguish between different people with the same name" and "unless [further lks] may be essential to help the reader determine which page they are looking for". (While this is not WP:POINT -- i believe every change i made is a good one -- my focus did not extend to the issue of red lks; rather than distract from less controversial aspects, i limited my rd-lk removal to dropping the rd lk where there was a mentioning article to lk to instead. I actually added a rd lk, to the final entry, to replace the ext'l lk that i suppressed into a comment (for use by editors considering starting the corresponding article): IMO, an ext'l lk should  never occur on a dab: if it were urgent enuf to be on a Dab page, it would be urgent enuf to rate a stub instead, and the purpose of our ext lks is to provide access to detail (e.g. verification, or unencyclopedic throroughness), not to substitute for viable articles.
 * _ _ It may also be worth mentioning that i duplicated one entry, slightly modified as to order of the information. That puts in two groups a person who qualifies for each of them; i recommend that approach over trying to tune the groups titles to deal avoid the overlaps among them that keeping the usual groupings would force. --Jerzy•t 05:28, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

Capital letters at start of each point
It reads I think it could allow easier navigation if only proper nouns were capitalised, and other words left starting lower-case. This makes sense, since the sentence has already started, eg: "Colour may refer to: colour" makes more sense than "Colour may refer to: Colour". Is there any oppostion to this capitalisation rule changing? --Commander Keane 14:03, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. Most of this MOS, like other WP policies, was developed to codify and standardize what was already being done. Almost all existing pages use the capital letters. It wouldn't be worth it to change 9,000 dab pages just for this. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * opposed The standard title format in Wikipedia is to start with a capital letter, regardless of whether the word/phrase is a proper noun or not. The standard in place in Wikipedia should be reflected in the disambiguation style guideline, in my opinion. Courtland 01:31, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Time out?
It is my impression that there is more arguing going on here than collaborating. May I suggest everybody take a short break to let their wikistress level moderate a bit? --RoySmith 15:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Your impression possibly, I think everyone is being constructive, but if you think I have wikistress, let me know. --Commander Keane 10:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Be instead of Mean
Is there anyway this style guide could encourage the phrase "Something may be" or "Something is" instead of "Something may mean"? Wikipedia is, after all, not a dictionary. -Acjelen 21:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I often use "Something may refer to". I don't know if the guide should discourage "may mean"; however, it could at least be removed from the examples. Eugene van der Pijll 21:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The guide doesn't actually prescribe any wording; I'd be fine if you want to change the examples. "may refer to" is good. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that mean doesn't just mean "To be used to convey; denote" as in defining a word dictionary style. It also means "To intend to convey or indicate" and "To have as a purpose or an intention; intend" (as in I didn't mean to crush that egg, or I mean to read an article on quantum physics). For this reason I think mean is actually the perfect word to use. I thought I read somewhere that "may refer to" should be avoided, but don't remember why -- jiyTalk 00:26, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is one of the very very few things which I think needn't be prescribed. As long as it's something on those lines, and the subject Something is capitalised and the first word in the sentence fragment, and of course the leading line's not overly long, other lines will work fine.  "may refer to", "may be", "may mean" and even "could refer to" etc. are all fine by me.
 * I think it's clear in this context that the "mean" has no dictionary connotations. Neonumbers 05:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Regarding this, is there really any reason to change the leading line to be more verbose than it needs to be? —jiy (talk) 07:07, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Two words and three syllables (re-fer to) where one word and one syllable (mean) could state the same meaning looks pretentious and wastes neuronal processing cycles. --Jerzy•t 08:07, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

Personally, I'd generally use "be" instead of "mean" or "refer to". -- User:Docu
 * This would be poor English. The word that the disambiguation page disambiguates is not any of the lines listed or the articles referred to. Words have meanings, or they refer to other words or meanings, but they have no substance of being in themselves. Furthermore, many disambiguation pages contain items that do not so directly correspond to the main term. In pop, for instance, it could never be said that "pop" is "Mayan Calendar"", or that the term "pop" is equivalent to the term "father". - Centrx 02:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Those examples aren't very good. 'Pop' doesn't mean Mayan Calendar, nor does it refer to Mayan Calendar. 'Pop' is the first month in that calendar.  I have corrected the referenced disambiguation page to reflect how it should appear.  'Mayan Calendar' should never have been a lead link on that bulleted item.  Also, my 'pop' is my 'father'.  Isn't yours?  Therefore they are equal.  (Of course 'pop' is slang, and 'father' is formal, but we're not really talking about that kind of equivalence.)
 * Your argument breaks down in that most dab pages tend to be just a little ambiguous about what they are talking about—the term or the actual item. For example, if we say Pop can mean, one can infer from 'can mean' that 'pop' is probably just the word; if we say Pop may also be, one might infer we were talking about the physical presence behind the word.  If we were more explicit and said The word 'pop'... or The term 'pop'..., it becomes much clearer that the word 'pop' isn't a soft drink, but it does mean that.  On the other hand we can say A 'pop' is or A 'pop' may be a soft drink. —Mike 03:16, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * My "pop" isn't my father; it's the can (or more specifically the contents of the can) of Caffeine-Free Diet Coke I'm drinking as I write this. My father is my "dad". I have never used the word "pop" to refer to my father, but I realize it can mean "father". ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * _ _ Sorry this is long; part of that is my fault, and part is that when people are stubbornly confused, it takes longer to make clear sense.
 * _ _ Centrx is right on this, tho the abstractions invite confusion, and tho we could quibble over whether the sin in question is "poor English" (ungrammatical) or "poor logic" (failing to reflect the real function of the same symbols in different contexts).
 * _ _ It is false to say that the first occurrence of the term being dab'd is or may be any of the people or things specified in the cases below. The subject of the first sentence is something different from any of them, and this is clearest in cases like "yellow".  Without trying to write a real Dab for "yellow", such a dab could in theory begin as follows
 * Yellow may mean:
 * Yellow, the range of colors perceived by the human eye when irradiated in turn with single-wavelength light of each wavelength between xxx and yyy millimicrometers.
 * Yellow, cowardly, fearful, or otherwise under the influence of disabling emotion
 * Yellow, to become more more yellow in color, from a light color by oxidation, or from a shade of green or orange by bleaching
 * _ _ Note that the three entries respectively begin with the noun "yellow", the adjective "yellow", and the verb "yellow", and the only "yellow" that can have the same relationship to all three of the entries' lead words is the word "yellow", something distinct from the color, the emotional attribute, and the color-modification phenomenon. Or, more precisely, the character string that is the common spelling of those three words, each of those words being an instance of a different part of speech.  (This is highlighted in the entries by the second and third ones beginning with an adjective and verb respectively, and each having intermediate language that bridges each to a noun, since WP article titles are nouns.
 * _ _ The function of a word is to mean something: to carry out the speakers intention to induce the listener think of  (in this case) the color meant, or emotional attribute meant, or process meant, by the particular word the speaker intended  and hopefully (by means of the context) implied. The function of the spelling or character string in this case is to specify the only element, common to the three words, namely one spelling.  It is that commonality which produces the need, in light of multiple meanings, to disambiguate.
 * _ _ (We could in theory lessen the confusion by putting "yellow" in quotes or italics in the lead line where we currently bold it, a convention used to distinguish the string from any concept that the string is the spelling for. I think it would be cluttery and ugly enough, along with the bolding, to fall short of being an improvement.)
 * _ _ We also could clarify using "may be", as long as we started each entry with "Yellow, a word meaning ...". (Not a made-up bad idea, but in fact, similar to language that i removed from one dab in the last week or two.) But that stretches the period of abstraction out longer than necessary; better to get back to the parallel but simpler concrete language as quickly as feasible.
 * _ _ Mike is right that many, perhaps most cases entail much less cost in using "may be", but only because the cognitive dissonance evoked by our use is less when all the entries are nouns: people are less likely to notice we have said something illogical then.  In truth, Mike's logic calls for additional words:
 * The referant of an instance of using pop may be...
 * _ _ Writing "...may mean" is always correct, and using the same correct wording in every dab (rather than a different wording where we can get away with it) has the advantage of keeping pedants like me from screaming when we see "Yellow may be...", and keeping normal readers from being slightly distracted, by a corner of their mind (that you can think of as the pedant-al lobe) from screaming subliminally in their normal ears. The best plan is to always use the same (correct) wording rather than trying to shorten or hide the abstraction involved in the cases where you've got a good chance; the pedantal lobe will be happier, and in fact so will more folksy parts of the mind that just appreciate the mental shortcuts that sticking to the same wording in (superficially) different cases permits.
 * _ _ The examples should all use "may mean" but not put emphasis on it; if editors think of it as just "local custom" rather than something they need to get their heads around the multi-level underlying meanings of, we'll all be happier. --Jerzy•t 08:07, 2005 August 27 (UTC)

One-wikilink guideline ... changed examples
I took the step of implementing the full guideline as it is written, not the bolded emphasis, by adding an "or" to the proper example(s) line where a second wikilink is introduced according to the guideline that it "help the reader determine which page they are looking for". I hope that reducing the stricture of the guideline by adding a "relaxed" example is sufficiently acceptable to folks that the dubious template can be removed. If this is not sufficient, then could we specifically discuss what would be a sufficient change to allow us to reach a non-dubious condition for the guideline? Thanks. Courtland 03:55, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * What we for sure need is a better example than Dark Star, which is a link to a dab page. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The quotation marks added to the primary link in the example are of a type appropriate for indicating the primary link, but I think there ought to be some discussion about whether this is the best formatting to do that. Quotation marks seem to be an uncommon method. - Centrx 15:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The following is a quote from a punctuation guide published in 1960 that I often use for reference (the emphasis is mine): "Quotations marks are used to enclose the titles of magazine articles, chapters of books, names of songs, titles of poems, and other titles". Courtland 21:51, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * If you mean that the reason for putting quotation marks around "Dark Star" is because it is the name of a song, then this is a poor example to have in the Manual of Style for someone reading may get the impression that putting quotation marks around the primary link is the standard, suggested procedure. If you mean that the reason for putting quotation marks around the primary link is because it refers to an encyclopedia article and putting quotation marks around the article name is common, recommended style in the English language, that applies to standard English works which from the outside of an encyclopedia refer to the inside of that encyclopedia rather than to interlinking within this wiki encyclopedia. There may still be good reason for it to be standard practice, but its recommendation in the many styleguides of the English language is not sufficient as the sole reason. - Centrx 02:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know how I can be clearer .. the quotation marks are there because it is the title of a song. Why make it more complicated than that? If you think it is a poor example, replace it. If you think this is an uncommon stylistic weirdness, which it seems you do, I don't know what to say to that but that I disagree and that I'm no grammarian myself. Courtland 02:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Canterbury (disambiguation)
Could someone take a look at Canterbury (disambiguation) and edit it if neccessary. I'm not too sure that it's correct in its present form. --Commander Keane 15:16, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Correct isn't the goal. Effective is the goal, and I'd say it's excellent as is. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Reporting mark
Template:Reporting mark is often found in disambiguation pages, but it adds extra wikilinks and bolding, which is distracting. Eg: CAD (disambiguation) has "". Do you think it would be ok to replace this template on dab pages with the equivalent text, eg "(AAR reporting mark CAD)"? --Commander Keane 04:15, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Since lots of pages use that template, many of them TLAs, I'd suggest raising the issue with some of the editors on those railroad pages before getting bold. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


text:
B66

B66 may refer to:
 * B66 (New York City bus) in Brooklyn
 * Douglas B-66 Destroyer
 * Sicilian, Richter-Rauzer, Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings code

title: B66


text: Talk:CKAT

title: Talk:CKAT


text: User talk:69.198.189.37

title: User talk:69.198.189.37


text:
User:24.0.91.81

Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty we're free at last!

title: User:24.0.91.81


text:
User:Oyg

Search user languages

Hello, and welcome to my page.

In real life, I'm a computer programmer from Waltham, Massachusetts. I don't think my username means anything, but if it did, I bet it would be a science fiction character. Anyhow, I was born in 1982 and go to MIT grad school. My personal life is pretty boring, but if you want to know more, ask me.

I'm a relatively new Wikipedian. I just registered the username Oyg in 2005, but I made a few anonymous contributions before then.

I have the "E-mail this user" feature turned off because I don't want a lot of emails, but if you would like to reach me, email my Wikipedia username followed by @gmail.com.

I'm still developing my Wikiphilosophy. Generally I'm a mergist. Context and organization make the encyclopedia better.

This is a work in progress. I'll add more later.

title: User:Oyg