User talk:Francis Tyers/Archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


See [1] to see how to make an automated redirect, and read about all the details about Wikipedia:Redirects if you want to know more. Thanks for editing, and feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Tuf-Kat 19:22, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Just to clarify, click on the link I provided and then "edit this page". You have to type #redirect [[DESTINATION]] to make a redirect. Tuf-Kat 19:23, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks :) -- FrancisTyers 19:32, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anarcho Punk Ideology[edit]

Thanks for making a contribution to this page. I think you are the first to make an actual contribution to the content of the article (other than spelling corrections, etc.) other than me :)

Hey man, no problem :) -- FrancisTyers 00:36, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary[edit]

Dear contributor, first I would like to say a big thank you for your time, care, and enthusiasm in editing Wikipedia articles. I hope you find it just as much fun as I do.

I am writing with a small suggestion. I wonder if you could write an edit summary every time you make changes to an article (or when you start a new one). Even a short summary helps. To see how often you have done so in the past, you may go to USERNAME.

Edit summaries are important for a number of reasons. Every time you change an article, a record of that change propagates to every single person who has that article on their watchlist. Most people have an article on their watchlist because they care a lot about it, so they would like to be informed about what is going on with it. Accurate summaries help people decide whether it is worthwhile for them to check a change. This is why your edit summary, which will take you maybe 15 seconds, is a time-saver and a great act of candor to the other people interested in the same article as you. Accurate edit summaries are important because they create trust regarding your contributions and help resolve disputes.

There are other, very convincing reasons for putting an edit summary. More information is available at Wikipedia:Edit summary. If at any point you have any questions about this rule (or anything else for that matter), please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you and happy editing! Hyacinth 20:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No problem, I normally do it, unless the change is really trivial or i forget, just check that page yourself, i summarise more often than not ;) FrancisTyers 20:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kurdistan Workers Party[edit]

Bad timing :) Well I have been writing the article from scratch. I actualy have "proof" via numerious webpages which I added before writing the article, I had taken a sleap break though. I welcome any productive contribution, Id prefer to finish my version first though, often I am quoting the web sites I provided. There isnt much I can say about PKK that is pleasant. --Cool Cat My Talk 05:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Francis! Sure, I can and will help out as much as I can and will (of course I want). The idea of splitting up in different articles is excellent. I was thinking of creating a PKK wikitionary on, but had problems setting up the MediaWiki. I would also like to confirm the Turkish translation of "Fuck the Borders". :) I am still trying to think of a Kurdish one. Will notify you when I get a good translation.
--Berxwedan 10:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cool thanks man! I'll update the Fuck the border page. I'll start a section on the PKK Talk page for re-formatting the article. - FrancisTyers 13:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Man, I've read over the PKK article a couple of times and it sounds worse every time. I don't understand why you guys are pampering with this User:Coolcat guy. The guy has an agenda and is clearly biased. Check the Al Qaeda article. They've done HUGE acts of terror but the writer of the article have used NPOV. In the article there are no "wannabe neutral"-wordgames like "assumed by some, but not others", "some claims, but others don't", "americans thinks like this, jihadists think like that", "called this by this groups, but this by the other group", etc etc etc etc.. It's like a soup man.. :) --Berxwedan 22:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I know, tell me about it. The reason we're tolerating him is because basically any changes we make will be reverted. Please feel free to make additions, but try not to remove any stuff for now, even if you are duplicating or contradicting something that he has written. If you get what I mean :) Ideally it should be possible to out-information him. - FrancisTyers 28 June 2005 13:22 (UTC)

PKK timeline[edit]

I was wondering about what is not working...

If you think the important dates are missing you are welcome to add, but the dates in the timeline is correct, even though I must admit most of the criminal activities are missing, as it is collection from Turkish News Paper articles. Turkish goverment did not publish any report on detailing PKK's activities.

I 'm adding the timeline to give chance other people to work on. THAT IS THE MAIN IDEA BEHIND WIKIPEDIA right?

My main problem isn't with the information contained within the timeline necessarily, my problem is the timeline. The layout. It breaks Wikipedia. The rest of the page re-sizes fine, but that timeline introduces scroll bars along the bottom of the screen (and i'm running 1400x1050!). It just looks wrong. No other "terrorist" organisation pages have timelines that break their pages and neither does the page on Turkey have a timeline detailing their abuse of the Kurdish people. And to be honest, its the first time I've seen this timeline in use in Wikipedia.
A note from the comments on the timeline:
Above item is in process of translation, you are welcome to assist me in this process. Also it does not "look right"
The author admits it does not look right. Please don't add it again until it does. If you want to work on it to improve the look, feel free. But don't add it to the article until it is finished. - FrancisTyers 1 July 2005 07:50 (UTC)

This timeline is a 1600 px timeline. That is because PKK is a very complicated issue with multiple dimensions. I have a 1024 pixel screen it is very very o.k. in my screen. I do not scare from scroll bars. I was wondering if your reaction is outlined in "timeline detailing their abuse". That smeels, because it laied out very clearly how PKK is tourtured people and shaped their international politics in Turkey, that torture is as inclusive statement (I'm a kordek, from erzurum).

I don't care either way about the information, the article is already in as bad a state as it is. The thing I don't like is the look and feel. I don't think it adds anything to the page and it certainly detracts from it. Its difficult to read and to be honest I think it looks really ugly. How about making it a vertical instead of horizontal timeline? - FrancisTyers 1 July 2005 15:46 (UTC)
I tried vertical. It does not accommodate textual information as good as vertical one.

Timelines, have been used in many contexts.[edit]

It is a wikipedia application that enhances the information.

I would like to see a bright person like you in adding timelines to wikipedia than opposing it.

None of those timelines give me a scrollbar at the bottom of my screen. Personally I don't think they enhance the information. Especially in this case. - FrancisTyers 1 July 2005 15:42 (UTC)

Not everyone is textaul[edit]

Some of us graps the information, which has multiple dimensions and complex relationships, in graphic form more easily.

I tried to move some of the historical information from Turkish, If you edit the sentences I would be very happy. Also, there is a very good summary about the effects of PKK on Turkish population (30 years of low intensity fight). I would like to translate to English, but it would require someone to work on my translation. Would you be interested in this?


I hope to see a better discussion. If you continue to discuss me I sincerely believe it is not going to produce a plesant enviorment. You are a veteran wiki editor. I hope to see a veteran editor on the oposing corner. --Cool Cat My Talk 17:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not discussing you man, I was discussing the state of the article. I think it is in a pretty poor state and when I have some more time I'm going to have a proper go at it. - FrancisTyers 17:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it editing or killing the knowledge ...[edit]

I would like to see your inputs to PKK as you many times claimed that it needs a better structure.

I have seen your changes, they are ELIMINATING information. You have no right to eliminate information.

The first sentence you eliminated is aligned with the definition of terrorsim is not making aticle NPOV. It is changing the facts.

Context Sentences gives the meaning, Killing the context does not improve anything.[edit]

G.A.P. is the biggest effort. PKK's suport from Syria can not be explained without G.A.P. You have to be more carefull when you delete things, because ender the idea that this should move to another page, you deleted all the referances to the efforts of Turkey to improve the poverty in that region. This is not true. G.A.P. page is more datailed than a single paragraf that aims to detail the efforts of Turkey in the region, which caused PKK to find support.

You have to know more about a topic before editing it.[edit]

You have deleted the general definition of activities of PKK and changed to "creation of an independent Kurdish state in Kurdistan". This sentence is not true. It was true only for the years between 1993-1999, only only Turkey and Iraq. Kurdistan covers the range Iraq, Syria, Iran, Turkey. It did not begin with that argument (it is seperationist from Turkey), and for sure they will not end with that argument.

Sir, with all the respect, you have to either let people who lived through those times decide what is the best wording, or read more. But really read more about it. Not just from one side. PLEASE TRIANGULATE. Read from US, Turkish, German, etc. And use not local definitions bur global definitions.

PLEASE, PLEASE do not kill the document.

What makes you think that people who lived through the times will have the most information about it? I may have been to a country, but that does not mean I know more about it than someone who has studied the country for longer than me. Just BEING there doesn't make you MORE INFORMED. You are the one who is killing the document. - FrancisTyers 17:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are nuances that makes a big difference. Nuances that one can learn with extensive interaction with those concepts. Hope you are sure does nuances are. As a very clever and decent person, I really want to see you fixing the first sentance of the document. Which that sentence reflects the soul of everthing coming behind. What you are dealing is a an organization involved in taking more than 30,000 souls.

What is your position?[edit]

This is a response for a remark you made inclusing my name on a subject that does not involve me. Dear Francis Tyers; What about you? A Bulgarian? I'm a living proof Kurds can coexists with other cultures (vice versa) in Anatolia. I have my own mother thong, Turkish on top of it, and a little English. Like a lot of my friends with Kurdish origin. There is no ethnic/cultural hatred on my side, neither them have. Can you say the same thing? So why do you have to put me into this argument. Are you saying I’m a liar? What is the purpose of linking me to Turkish State? If you think my additions are not realities, you are substantially off from common truths. (in the postmodern sense :) ) I guess that is also possible. A simple fact for you; Berxwedan openly defends the arguments of violence and demands immunity for people who perpetuate them. PKK is a criminal organization. There is nothing else to it. Berxwedan is a substance to a crime. There are laws against it. And these laws are older than Turkish State. You have to learn to separate these concepts. It is that simple.--tommiks 21:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope you continue in adding to PKK page. There are so many people who deletes information. It is o.k. if you hate Turkish State. I have nothing to do with it.--tommiks 21:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to the text.[edit]

You know, Turkey is not in EU. So that "dillema" is not over. EU is openly stated they are looking excuses to kick Turkey out from the process. I guess you claim that you are French. Help me out, did any time France claim PKK is a terrorsit organization? There are traces of financial support for to PKK originating from your country. I'm putting that text in, if you do not mind.

Ideally is good.[edit]

Thanks, I appreciate that. I have the same sentiment for the laws and rules that define the behaviours. They are ideal which should be seeked, but sadly practice might fall short.--tommiks 19:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NP. I thought about it for a while :) Btw, I'm not saying Turkey is worse in this sense than France, as France has its own problems with ethnic minorities that stem from the same lack of consideration. I guess its managed to avoid any major problems by being a much richer and more developed country. - FrancisTyers 19:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Village Guards[edit]

Interesteing, for Village guards I have no comment for you. You know everything about what happened and is going on in the region apperantly. I do not know what you are trying to do, but its a horrible practice to push arguments off of articles like this. --Cool Cat My Talk 13:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually I don't know everything that is going on in the region. I wouldn't class myself as a scholar of the region at all. I am however capable of researching using (in my opinion fairly neutral sources), they are all listed at the end of the article. I would really like to get my hands on the text of the 1995 Turkish Parliament report into 'Unsolved Political Killings' that is mentioned in many of the sources, and would be grateful of any assistance in this. I think it might be useful for the PKK article aswell. I welcome contributions to the village guards article. In your opinion does village guards deserve an article of its own? If you think not, please put on a VfD. :) - FrancisTyers 13:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think should know several things avout the viliige guards. I dont put articles onf VfD because I dislike them.
  1. Turkish millitary thought PKK was a bad idea.
Well, they would ;)
  1. Idea was invented By Ozal who is said to be kurdish in origin.
Sources I've read say he is partially Kurdish in origin.
The "idea" was implemented in 1987 by the Governor Hayri Kozakcioglu of the Provinces of Martial Law (OHAL). It's official name is "Temporary Village Guard System". (Gecici Korucu Sistemi, in Turkish). --Berxwedan 11:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  1. Villige guards were affiliated with PKK on many occasions. It wasnt uncommon to have morning villige guards (who consecutivrely did nothing but get paid) and night time preforming PKK duties depending on their agreement with the PKK.
Could you give a source for this? I can imagine it is true, and i'll add a line to the article, but it would be nice to have a source.
In some areas, the Village Guards were more loyal to the PKK than to the Turkish government. There are no sources on this though. It's "hearsay".--Berxwedan 11:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  1. Yes it is true, just like any law evforcement people abuse the power they got, each town had few guards without anything balancing powers aside from the few Gendermeries which patrol the region.
I agree, can you think of a good way of wording this?
  1. One reason the abolishment of the town guards is hard because of their attacks.
  2. Generalising the group as evil in general is POV tho. Mind that I am not declaring the reporsts as lies or as fabricated. I refuse to believe each and every Villige guard is hired by the govermrnt solely to commit crimes and etc.
I agree! You can't generalise in this manner about everyone in a group, the same way as you can't generalise about everyone in the PKK.
The problem is that the Village Guard system is a way for the government to "buy" loyalty from Kurdish clans. The Village Guard system makes this legal. Which means that as long as there is a Kurdish issue in southeastern Turkey (northern Kurdistan) the Village Guard system will exist. It has nothing to do with "continuing attacks". The HPG (military wing) has already declared that they will not attack any Village Guard that refuses to join Turkish military operations. PKK also abolished attacks on Village Guard villages in the mid-90ies. The name "Village Guard" itself is not relevant anymore. It should be named "Kurdish clan battalions within the Turkish army" or something similar.--Berxwedan 11:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  1. I honestly think this should be ept in PKK article as Villige Guards alone is not a notable article. Besides, I dont believe villige guards is the acurate translation.
I got this translation from all my sources, if you can think of a better name (perhaps the official turkish name?) I would be happy to rename. Note: I just discovered a better name would be "village guard system" or "Koruculuk", should i move to rename?
  1. Almost any illicet drug in Erope/US is shipped through Turkey, while not made in turkey, this is a known problem. Corruption in gov does not help in combating this.

I basicaly agree and yet disagree with you.

PS: You should refrain from using Kurdistan to define protions of turkey, its not standard and is POV. You will be offending some kurds I know as well as most (if not all) Turks I have known. Its a sensative matter, trust me, last thing you want is a revert war escalating. --Cool Cat My Talk 11:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I realise that articles shouldn't be put in VfD just because someone doesn't like them, but if you think that it isn't worthy of its own wiki page, i think it is. Thanks for your comments, I will try and adjust the article somewhat, I definately realise that every village guard is not a complete criminal, but you should also recognise that the same goes for members of the PKK. You made some analogies with Vietnam in the PKK article, a similar thing happened there with people in the US employment during the day then VC at night, or informers on the US. Please take a look at the village guards article and see what you think now. I have taken on board your suggestions and hopefully a better article has resulted. Please feel free to suggest more. (ps. i readded your note about "US Navy's collection of news articles"). - FrancisTyers 17:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
copy vio, impressive. what other tricks do you have? --Cool Cat My Talk 04:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The copyvio was put on as some of the stuff was directly copied, I didn't check the precise copyright status, but it looked copyright to me, the ICT page has the © on the front page. I wasn't sure so I asked on IRC first, I received a couple of responses that indicated that yes it was appropriate to put a copyvio notice on. This is not a trick. Btw. Nice comeback ;) - FrancisTyers 12:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no problems :) please comment on my editing - Kassem 08:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

by the way, using "kurdistan" word might be offensive to the turks, well using "south-eastern turkey" name is offensive to most kurds, so I suggest both be put : South Eastern Turkey ( what nationalists kurds call North Kurdistan ) or something like that. I know the turks choke every time somebody says "Kurdistan", but this is not my problem. A few years ago, the word "kurd" was forbidden too. now they use it. so they'll have to adapt to "kurdistan" too, as it is in every dictionary and encyclopedia of the world ( check the Collin's English Dictionary, for example, or the french Larousse )

- Kassem 12:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


See also: Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Comment about individual users

 — Davenbelle 12:59, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for your note. I didn't actually write the article, a friend of mine did; and she actually worked hard to make it more objective. (She is a VERY zealous citizen though LOL) She did include a section for critisims of the UCA.

Also, to clear up what I believe is a misunderstanding: the UCA is quite organized and operative right now. We've accomplished a lot in the past few years. We just recently hired new web designers and all of our websites are being completely rebuilt from the ground up. (That nasty flash page is just a temp front splash screen until the final version is finished.)

In any case I thought your suggestion about making it a much shorter article was a valid one, and I took the liberty of cutting it down to about half the size it was. Perhaps you'll consider changing your vote?

Trish Kincade
Oficejo de Hegemonaj Aferoj de UCA
Hey, you should recreate this page (probably best starting with a 2-3 paragraph stub) when the treaty is signed. Also Press Secretary eh, would a move to the USA be required? ;) - FrancisTyers 14:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
LOL, actually I took a quick look at you CV, and you may want to look here and see if any of the open positions interest you. Trishkincade 17:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GFDL pics on Commons[edit]

Hi, you added pics on Wikimedia Commons tagged as GFDL but didn't provide any futher informations. Please specify at least the author and source or they will have to be deleted. Thanks. --Avatar-en 7 July 2005 12:48 (UTC)

Done, I wasn't aware this was necessary when uploading your own content. Thanks for the heads up. - FrancisTyers 8 July 2005 10:35 (UTC)

Hope you get home safely :)[edit]

Dude, drop me an email once you get home safely, or let me know on my talk page / irc :) --Dejan Čabrilo 07:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Politics of Moldova[edit]

Could you please give the reasons for the NPOV tag at the Politics of Moldova page at its talk page. Electionworld 20:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. :) - FrancisTyers 21:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was not the one who edited the Politics of Moldova in that way, I was just wondering why somebody placed the NPOV tag without a notice on its talk page. Electionworld 10:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for the nice, and very timely, work! I am the guy who nominated it for CSD, I'm glad the article got salvaged. --W.marsh 04:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 13:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello Francis Tyers. There are long discussions at Talk:Ancient Greek phonetics, and apart from re-organising the article in a NPOV way, we need more info. Information like the current names of Reuchlinian and Erasmian systems - perhaps they are traditional and reconstructed, before some years they were also called iotakistes (gr ιωτακιστές) and etacistes (gr ητακιστές) because of the disagreements between the two systems on ι,η,υ (if I'm not mistaken), information like how the erasmian/reconstructed system has involved and modern criticisms of the reconstructed and the traditional system. I hope you can help us a little bit. You may share your thoughts at Talk:Ancient_Greek_phonetics#Conclusion, or you may mention one or more books that we should check at Talk:Ancient_Greek_phonetics#articles_that_we_need_to_check. Well... talk to you later! +MATIA 12:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll check them out, although I'm not particularly well read on the subject of phonetics, let alone those of Ancient Greek :) If you have anything specific you'd like me to look up that you can't find let me know :) It seems you have just one guy who disagrees. Regarding the books, 1. I can't find, 2. Isn't published until next year, 3. I can't find. If the guy is trying to say that the pronunciation of Greek hasn't changed in 3,000 years then I'm pretty sure he's wrong. Pronunciation changes all the time in all languages/dialects. I'll read through the talk page and comment if I think something is missing or can be clarified. - FrancisTyers 14:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old English[edit]

Hey, Francis. Just wondering, could you tell me which of those nouns is the subject, and which is the object? Is the cow doing all the eating? Thanks! --James


FYI you forgot to sign your comment on the dicators VfD. [2] Thanks for your input. 172 23:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done :) - FrancisTyers 23:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello from Spain[edit]

Hello Mr. Tyers. I am the author of the Spanish 1988 general strike article. Also the author of the first version of the "Land and Freedom" movie article and some other contributions (the CNT-CGT split in the Anarchism in Spain article, for example). I saw you decided to delete some of the "consequences" part in the Spanish 14-D general strike article. I do not blame you for that, since I must admit what you left was more neutral than what you deleted, so I do not intend to revert it, but maybe in future edits we will find a way to add more information to the "consequences" part because that day was so important that, for example, the next general strike in public education is called, not by accident, for the next 14-D. I would normally invite you now to contact me at but the planet-save server is down and we have lost our e-mails, so reply me here if you wish. Yours sincerely, El Roble (the oak)

No problem, I don't really know much about it, my knowledge of the history of spain is probably not as wide as yours, but I get very suspicious about economists making assertions :) I have the article on my watchlist so you can talk on the Talk page there if you want :) - FrancisTyers 13:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Counter Insurgency[edit]

Update. Silly me. This should be in the Iraqi Insurgency article. No wonder you were confused. I have removed it. Wallie 19:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem man :) - FrancisTyers 19:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wheeler quote[edit]

Thanks for adding the quote to John Archibald Wheeler. Could you possibly add a source for the quotation? Thanks. Finell (Talk) 02:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done :) - FrancisTyers 10:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for your kind words. I'll upload more in the future. The only problem is that I haven't too many media, published prior to 1973, i.e. "Soviet-PD". Unfortunately, later ones are subject of the copyright protection and can be uploaded only sometimes under "fair-use" copyright tag. Cmapm 00:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Thank you for the compliments, but the Soviet Union article is clearly and completely broken. This is not a POV is a fundamental truth issue. This article is a perfect example of what is very broken with Wikipedia -- little thing called "Truth." --AustinKnight 18:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you check the source at the bottom in the references section? Can you outline one or two of the parts of the article that aren't true? - FrancisTyers 18:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is a LIE to intentionally leave out large portions of the truth. Go look at any valid reference for the sort of behavior that the Soviet Union engaged in, how it ascended, how it declined, who got killed in the process of this malevolent experiment, etc., etc. I tried to fix some of the buffoonery, in particular the puffed-up language re. how wonderfully "recognized" the USSR was, **just before it collapsed**, only to have this truthful statement struck. The article is nothing more than an apologist re-write of history, some of which I had to dedicate a large portion of my own personal freedom to deal with when I was about your age. I do not take that lightly, nor would I be dismissive of the many patriots of freedom, inside and outside of the USSR, that gave their lives in seeing to its demise. As written, the article has no real sense of honor. --AustinKnight 19:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is the Library of Congress a valid reference, because that is where the article is sourced from (or so I'm lead to believe from the Reference and the talk page). I don't see the words wonderful or wonderfully anywhere in the article. The collapse of the Soviet Union is dealt with in the History section.
the Soviet Union had official relations with the majority of the nations of the world by the late 1980s.
Which part of that is puffed-up? Perhaps we can come to some kind of consensus? This is a large topic. Have you consulted some of the linked sub articles? There is a lot on the sub articles that isn't found in the main article. - FrancisTyers 20:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

racist comments[edit]


Endorsing racist comments ("Cry me a river, white boy.") on wikipedia is counterproductive.

-Justforasecond 21:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think I endorsed them. I said that they weren't racist, sexist or an insult. That doesn't count as an endorsement. - FrancisTyers 21:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for welcoming me, the edit to East Leake must be the smallest edit I've made so far. I'm pretty much concentrating on the area around Nottingham, there seems to be a few gaps I can fill in. Bevo74 19:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for welcoming me too, and that small spelling edit.... (Ryan 02:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC))Reply[reply]

No problem guys :) - FrancisTyers 02:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit conflict[edit]

Hi, I was doing major cleanup on environmental vegetarianism and had an edit conflict with you. What I want to do is save my version, then look at the dif and put all your changes back in, which I think would be the easiest way. Is that OK? I didn't want you to think I was removing your changes. Peace, delldot | talk 19:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. - FrancisTyers 19:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, the note is there now. Peace, delldot | talk 19:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks - FrancisTyers 19:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I think I've got them all back in. You might want to have a look and let me know if I've missed anything though. Sorry for the hassle! Peace, delldot | talk 20:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, looks like you got it all, thanks! - FrancisTyers 20:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for you welcoming me. Actually I'm active mainly in the breton Wiki and I just come in the English wiki to find some good articles to translate. I had a look on your user page and add the Breton translation on your fuck the borders page. Cheers or Kenavo as we say in our language. --Fulup 15:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I actually edit a few Breton related topics here. Redon, Ille-et-Vilaine is one of mine that I translated from the French wiki and the image is one of mine that I added to both :) - FrancisTyers 15:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That was quick ! I'm from Kemper (Quimper). You can rely on my translation (I doubt you could find 10 breton speakers on the English wiki to confirm before a while), I'm a linguist and I translated the breton Main page and Wikipedia breton interface. --Fulup 15:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool, I'll move it up to partial, 'unconfirmed' is normally for when the person i've got translating it doesn't understand English perfectly, you seem to. I'm a student (masters) of linguistics too (at University of East Anglia). Kemper is actually one of the towns I haven't visited. My parents have a house in eastern/south Brittany, in between Redon and Rennes so I've been around quite a bit. My mother also taught English in Guingamp for a while. I did my first degree in Aberystwyth in Wales and love the celtic languages, although I have as of yet not learnt one. - FrancisTyers 15:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please don't trivialise meatism, specism or make presumptions of others ethinicity and please don't make personal attacks.

Thank you.

How silly do you want this thing to become?

We are certainly into Panto season here [ ... oh, yes we are ... oh, no we are not! ]

Actually, the analogy is a very good one as the user Vigger pointed out.

Do you think some troll calling vegans Mr Meatpuppet is not a personal attack? 18:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not commenting on Viriditas. I do think that his edit summary constitutes an impersonal attack, impersonal because he doesn't know who he is attacking. This RfC is not about Viriditas though, it is about Canaen. I would be happy to make a comment should an RfC be made. I don't remember making presumptions about the ethinicity of other users, perhaps you could point it out to me? And as to your suggestion that I am trivialising "meatism" and "specism" (sic) I'm afraid I am not trivialising them because they need no trivialising. - FrancisTyers 18:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rhyming slang[edit]

I remain unconvinced. The newspaper article, being a newspaper articles, doesn't cite its sources and could have easily got it from the slang website. It does seem in-jokey, at least, and I think we should hold in-jokey things to a higher standard of verifiability than boring things. Morwen - Talk 01:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. Maybe, then. Morwen - Talk 01:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

deeceevoice arbitration[edit]

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Deeceevoice

-Justforasecond 18:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, please don't vandalise the page by removing signing. Thanks

And I quote: This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct, which many editors agree with in principle. However, it is not policy. If I choose not to follow the guidelines this is my sole right. I am entitled to NOT sign my messages and DO NOT sign them for me, you do not own the pages on Wikipedia.

You are of course correct. I shall not use {{unsigned}} with your comments in the future. - FrancisTyers 14:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very easy of you to first say I'm vandalising (by removing YOUR modifications of MY message) and then say sorry. 14:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see where I apologised. - FrancisTyers 14:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My point exactly.
I also don't see where I modified your message. - FrancisTyers 15:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By adding content I did not approve. 15:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You misunderstand me. I did not modify your message. Signing a message does not constitute modification of that message. - FrancisTyers 15:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does, if someone chose NOT to sign his entry (as you obviously have something against my use of word message) then unless I agree someone else signing it for me, it shouldn't be modified, and yes, the addition of new content is also a modification. 15:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll allow you to have the last word as I've made enquiries and everyone I spoke to agreed with me. I suggest if you want to expound further on your definitions of modification, entry and message you write about it in your live journal. - FrancisTyers 16:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, FrancisTyers or you prefer Francis?

You know at that page moldovan language there allways was a consensus that the User:Node ue is just making troll. That was not his last page, he did something similar with Zlatiborian language. So, because of him many users has just left the page. Even in reality the things are not that dramatic as are presented here on the page Moldovan language. In Moldova everybody recognize the fact that they speak romanian. And this is true since Moldova was part of Romania. The rest is just politics. Don't be part of political crusade of Node! -- Bonaparte talk 14:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both is fine, Francis if you like :) As you can see from my user page, I believe that "language" is a political and social construct, not a linguistic one. We all have our own language in our heads... when they are mutually comprehensible within an area or state we call them "dialects" or "languages". This is my point of view. Romanian is a political and social construct as Moldovan is a political and social construct as German is a political construct. So if some people say there is a Moldovan language thats enough for me. I dealt with Node on the Montenegrin language page too. The circumstances are different however, here you aren't trying to say that it isn't a language and get the article moved to Moldovan (linguistics). I dislike nationalism wherever it comes from, and you find a lot in the language articles, in this case serbian chauvinism and romanian chauvinism is slightly more annoying than montenegrin chauvinism and moldovan chauvinism. I say let them have their "language", what difference does it make to you? I'm not going to take sides but it would be nice if users followed talk page conventions to make it easier to follow for the rest of us. You'll note I haven't made any reverts in the article space to non-consensus versions that I'm aware of. - FrancisTyers 15:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even the page was blocked many times because of his reverting war. When the page was blocked then all went OK. We had enough time to discuss on the talk page. But since it was unblocked again then appeared also this guy with his approach. Bonaparte talk 15:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, you'll note I haven't been very active in the article space. My concern is to keep the talk page readable. - FrancisTyers 15:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have posted a message on Justforasecond's talk page asking JFAS to top harassing Deeceevoice and posting all over Wikipedia about her. To me, this is pure and simple harassment. I'm hoping that JFAS will listen to reason and let the RfA run its course but if JFAS doesn't I plan on bringing a RfC against him. Please check out what I wrote on his talk page and, if you agree or disagree, please post that there so there will be a record of all this. Thanks,--Alabamaboy 02:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Francis

I found your comment on my talk page. Could you please tell me what in particular is harrassment? Filing an RfAr is standard wikipedia practice when an editor does not respond to an RfC (as far as I read on the page about dispute resolution). It has already been accepted by one arbitrator. I put a notice on the administrators noticeboard because of deeceevoice's talk page. I found much of it offensive and obscene, but in particular the part comparing filing an RfAr to a "lynch party", with kerosene, etc. was over the top. If you think I'm overreacting to that, well, I'd be interested to hear why.

Thanks, Justforasecond 03:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm moving your deletion notice, since you failed to look at the article history and see that vandalism has been committed and thus, that's why it was "nonsense". If you still feel it's "nonsense", feel free to put it back on and I'll vote against it. --Xinoph 23:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops, should have checked that :| see talk page - FrancisTyers 23:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No proble, just trying to make sure. Xinoph 23:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]