User talk:Akhilleus: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:30, 9 March 2008 editArsenic99 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users998 edits →Hello POV-pushing.← Previous edit		Revision as of 06:42, 9 March 2008 edit undoArsenic99 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users998 edits →Hello POV-pushing.Next edit →
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 193:		Line 193:
	::Sorry bout the link errors, fixed now. ] ] 06:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)		::Sorry bout the link errors, fixed now. ] ] 06:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
	:::Again I ask, why are you favoring Armenian edits that discredit or try to discredit Western or Turkish historians who don't support the Armenian Genocide claim, but find it unfavorable when I do the same. I'm not trying to "push" anything, I simply do not understand this unfairness. Why are Armenians able to put "criticism of work" type things on American historians they don't like, or "denier" labeling, but I'm not allowed to add "propagandist" labeling... If I'm wrong, please express that but it's silly to just pick one side all the time, it just isn't fair. And I'm sure as an honest man, you will understand. ] ] 06:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)		:::Again I ask, why are you favoring Armenian edits that discredit or try to discredit Western or Turkish historians who don't support the Armenian Genocide claim, but find it unfavorable when I do the same. I'm not trying to "push" anything, I simply do not understand this unfairness. Why are Armenians able to put "criticism of work" type things on American historians they don't like, or "denier" labeling, but I'm not allowed to add "propagandist" labeling... If I'm wrong, please express that but it's silly to just pick one side all the time, it just isn't fair. And I'm sure as an honest man, you will understand. ] ] 06:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
			::::But it isn't a historical fact... Have you read any books on the issue? Just because Armenians made a page called ] doesn't automatically make it a fact. Furthermore, a fact is something tangible or verifiable, like saying "An Armenian was killed by a Turk", but you cannot say that "The Armenian was killed in the Armenian Holocaust" because that's not a fact, it is a point of view. There needs to be proof of intent for a genocide to hold true, and the United Nations has not declared the events of 1915 as the Armenian Genocide, hence it isn't a fact, just a historical interpretation supported by the majority of Wikipedians, that's it. There needs to be solid proof that the CUP government of 1915 was ordering massacres or killings. If you want I can give you quotations from Talat Pasha himself sending out telegram orders to stop massacres of Armenians, or orders exempting Armenians from deportation from certain areas. So how is it a fact, please explain this to me so that I can understand. I didn't push a POV like "The Armenians are responsible for an Azeri Genocide" this would be POV, or "The Armenians are responsible for a Turkish Genocide" this would be POV, I'm holding a NPOV argument that you cannot declare a historical interpretation as a fact. I am not saying anything like "Armenians did not suffer" or "Armenians did not die", these would be examples of POV, and it is WRONG. I am simply saying that certain people that I put in that category push an Armenian Genocide POV usually with bad intentions with disregard for the Armenian sufferings. ] ] 06:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:42, 9 March 2008

Previous discussion: one two (Mar 21 2006-July 11 2006) three (July 20 2006-Sept 24 2006) four (Sept 30 2006-Oct 31 2006) five six seven (May 2007) eight (June 2007) nine (July 2007) ten (Aug 2007) eleven (Sept 2007) twelve (Oct 2007) thirteen (Nov 2007)

Doug's back

I've already reverted Boccaccio-inspired additions to Sappho & reverted somewhat more boldly at Ascent of Mont Ventoux. I wonder if you might be able to have a look at Liber sine nomine to see if any of the plagiarism you identified before (i.e. from Zacour) has been reintroduced. But he's been busy, so this is the tip of the iceberg. Wareh 01:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've had a quick look through everything and started Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Megullia Dotata. As usual with Doug, please do not take the fact that I let any of his work stand as suggesting that it does not harm the quality of the encyclopedia. Wareh 01:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the time to help with this. The additional user account used entirely for sandboxes gives some insight into Doug's absence and sudden reemergence with this flood of new material. My AfD is getting a cool reception, but at least some good editors will discover from it some articles that need major reconstruction. Wareh (talk) 05:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel 19:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Jesus (name) disruption again

Hi - I noticed that an user you've blocked earlier for disruptive edits on this page is back.

It looks as if the same user is editing information about himself, I have quarreled with him before about this, so I'd not like to interfere with his other pursuits. Thought you might like to know. --Alvestrand 14:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Got tired of watching his haranguing on Talk:Jesus, so I blocked him for 2 weeks. --Alvestrand (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sock block question

Akhilleus, there's a question about somebody you blocked back in June. See . Would you consider doing a 1 sec block on that account to mention that the original block was flawed? The user says she has been catching flack ever since. I take no position on the merits and am only expressing a desire to end the controversy once and for all. - Jehochman 19:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message on my talk page. I think the message you left should help, but if you could also do a 1 sec block that should catch anyone who goes to my block log and misses your message on my talk page. Regards. Kelpin (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

Hello fellow Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall category member!
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.

Hello fellow Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall category member!

I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach.

But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole.

I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though.

But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment.

Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all.

Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled.

I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes.

Larry Pieniazek

NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Misplaced Pages administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you.

The guinea pigs having said this is good enough, I'm working my way through the A's ++Lar: t/c 21:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Serena (porn star)

Is it possible to conclude the dispute on the page . It has been initiated 6 months ago, and has probably already reached its maturity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loner1979 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Persecution of early Christians by the Jews

I noticed you participated in the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Jews (2nd nomination) discussion and I thought you might be interested in participating in a similar debate over at Talk:Persecution of early Christians by the Jews. Feel free to come by and contribute your thoughts. - CheshireKatz (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Doctorates

Wiki Doctorate is a new scheme designed to recognise the people who "do all the work" on Misplaced Pages. It has been mainly developed for Misplaced Pages administrators however if you have done lots to keep Misplaced Pages on "the straight and narrow", including bieng members of different groups which help Misplaced Pages i.e "The Welcoming Committee. We have selected to email you because you can apply for the doctorate and we would be very greateful ifo you did and put the userbox on your user page to boost advertising. The following link will take you straight to our homepage.

Yours sincerely

--Dr.J.Wright MD (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

List of unsolved problems in Egyptology

Dear Akhilleus, you deleted this article. By any chance could you email me a copy of it or userfy it to my userspace? I would like to use it for class purposes. Thank you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

you might want to consider

--Filll (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Addition of articles

Why don't you add new articles to the "Definition" page of the Waterboarding article? There is a numbering system there. Editors have been adding articles in several other places, but I believe the "Definitions" page is the most logical place to put them. Badagnani (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the page I linked just a few lines above. It has a count of sources, which seems important, and was created for this purpose. Badagnani (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a good summary of Witzel

Well, yes. The only alternative is to point out that Witzel accuses Frawley of being, in order, "amateurish, naive", having "a simplistic approach", not "getting his history right", and "obvious misinformation", concluding with: "just as his philological expertise, Frawley's historical acumen is seriously lacking" and "his use of "material evidence" suffers from the same type of shortcomings, notably, a lack of scientific background reading and from misreporting." Really, I have no idea how to put all that on te page. Relata refero (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Note

Your remarks on the lead are beginning to sound like mine. My intent could be summarize here. It is not to create a promotional piece but a NPOV encyclopedic piece. I would be seconding your suggestion. MoS is not applied well. Many of my admonishions are based on that. My view on Pseudo are well summarized here. I'm afraid I am misunderstood. I am not a true believer. Anthon01 (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have at least 3-4 sets of diffs that lead to, by my own initiation, consensus improvements to the article. My comments are often unpopular but in the end I am proven to be right or mostly right. Here is one example. I get accused of being a true believer but its not true. The accuracy of the articles is important don't you think? Anthon01 (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, in my current holding pattern, I have created a link that I think you and others might find useful. Cheers. WP:PSCI Anthon01 (talk) 04:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread (blocks by JzG)

You commented on this earlier. Please see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Review of three of the above blocks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

ANI suggestion

You had made a very valauble suggestion in ANI regarding India/Pakistan related editors. Here is a possible . It takes time and Admins who are willing to truly be neutral and a stickler rules for it to work. We had at least 5 of them who made it happen. Taprobanus (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

SF Weekly

Thanks for the heads-up. I haven't had ti me to do much more than skim the first page, but so far it has all the earmarks of a hatchet-job, aimed at Griot while pretending higher motivations, on behalf of the pesty sister of the reporter -- the only surprise for me, really, is that the reporter admitted the relationship upfront.

I'll read it in full later, and I suspect I'll be drafting a response to the journalist's editor filling him/her in on things. --Calton | Talk 11:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Please

Hello could you see to this.::User Arditbido tried to change pageChaonians by using original research and his own interpretations of it.Then User:DragonflySixtyseven tried to remedy the situation that had escalated to an edit war with me and Ardibito by remaking the page but now its full of even more original research and the dozens of secondary sources are ignored with no reason and are on the talk page.I want the page restored to its original secondary sourced statenormal state.The talk page is full of secondary sources but they are being ignored and the page now looks very bad to say the least.Megistias (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Article recovery

Could you please move the deleted Carrom Dron Award to User:SMcCandlish/Carrom Dron Award? The material in it, while certainly not notable enough for an article, might make a good short section at Carrom. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 09:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you?

Could you contribute with your opinion here? talk chaonians.ThankouMegistias (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

hey

Can a cool admin help a guy out? I want to add one sentence to the world of Misplaced Pages. But I can't. The sentence is factual, provable, (based on the New York Times for goodness sake) but I can't get it on.

Fact: Circumcision decreases a man's risk of getting HIV Fact: Circmcision INcreases a man's risk of getting herpes and chlamydia.

The article on "circumcision" mentions the term HIV probably 100 times (I'm not joking) and mentions "herpes" or "chlamydia" not Once.

Can a cool admin stop two guys named Avraham and Jakew from deleting my ONE sentence I want to add? Thanks, 70.114.38.167 (talk) 06:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Mine and Griot's talk pages

I object to any display of the comments I made that will have them taken out of context. Either display the comments within the context of the actual short conversation where I was RESPONDING to Griot's snide taunting question of if I actually lived in SF or not or do not display them at all as this is a clear attempt at misrepresenting me by making it look like I said what I did out of the blue (and indeed as a threat as he falsely claimed). And if you look at Griot's history page I never even tried to delete the whole conversation but only restored it to the way it originally occurred as can be seen here: Just as I said on the ANI page It would clearly not be acceptable if somebody posted a sentence on my talk page that said...<br\>

Hey Bill I wanted you to know that I plan to kill the whole trivia section of that article that you wrote.

And I changed that user's comment to say...

Hey Bill I wanted you to know... that I plan to kill... you.

Regardless of what is viewable in the history for the savvy Misplaced Pages user Just as Griot has the right to have the comment mentioned in the article available for readers to see I deserve for them to be able to see why those comments were made. Also, I would like to point out that I can solve this myself by just TAKING MY YOUTUBE SHOOTING RANGE VIDEO DOWN. But I have not up to this point. Please respect my wishes and I will leave it up for people to see. BillyTFried (talk) 07:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I made an identical comment as the one above on Griot's talk page in response to Kurykh asking if he cleared this with me and he simply deleted all my comments. Doesn't seem very cooperative eh? Removing the video from youtube now. BillyTFried (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I just added my response to Kurykh on Griot's talk page again and Griot immediately deleted it again calling it vandalism. He also removed Kurykh's comment asking about if I was ok with this as well. You see this is the game he plays. BillyTFried (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Griot has requested via email that I post something to his talk page that he says will resolve the whole situation. His request seems reasonable enough so I will oblige him. BillyTFried (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Theory or not theory?

You said here that the Armenian Genocide is not a theory. But it is a theory, based on historical research by Armenian historians, it is a conclusion that Armenian historians have come up with and labeled as such. The Big-Bang is a theory, Evolution is a theory, doesn't mean they aren't true and it certainly doesn't mean there isn't evidence for them. Unless your hypothesis is that anything thats a theory is automatically false? http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Taner_Ak%C3%A7am&action=history

Let's face it, the label of Armenian Genocide, is a POV itself, it is concluding that massacres of Armenians were the deliberate action of the CUP government. Yet the Armenian historians have yet to provide the proof of this intent. They only provide the death tolls, and argue that the forged Andonian documents are true because of the death toll of Armenians, by saying "since there are so many dead, there must have been an extermination policy". I'm not trying to argue with your beliefs or what you've heard about the issue from non-experts. All I am saying is, that it is a theory because it is a point of view held mainly by Armenian nationalists. While there are some Western historians and scholars who approve of the genocide label, there are more that disapprove with it, and in the field of Ottoman history, there is a large majority who disapprove of this label.

But perhaps since the word theory is applied to mainly Sciences, I suppose you can argue that it is not the appropriate term for this POV, then please by all means, recommend me a better term and correct my ignorance. — § _Arsenic99_ 07:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding RfM

A Request for Mediation has been filed on the Waterboarding article concerning the content dispute in the first six words of the article. You have been named as a party and your participation would be appreciated. I believe this is the best approach to an amicable resolution of the dispute. Please indicate your agreement here. Thank you. Neutral Good (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Waterboarding.

For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 17:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Trying this again

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Waterboarding 2, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Misplaced Pages, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Neutral Good (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ears burning?

You've been mentioned at WP:AE#Waterboarding and Neutral Good. Jehochman 04:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please contribute here

Please contribute here Prehistoric Balkans Megistias (talk) 22:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions

Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello POV-pushing.

Please do not revert my edit, as "POV-Pushing" that was not my intention and you must have misunderstood. Category:Armenian Genocide Propagandists is not a POV category, it is the same as categories like Category:Armenian Genocide deniers. The administrator there said it was OK to use this political labeling, and so the category Category:Armenian Genocide Propagandists is perfectly within the rules. If you believe I am wrong, please create a CfD on both Category:Armenian Genocide deniers category and Category:Armenian Genocide Propagandists category. You should also include Category:Nazi propagandists and Category:Soviet propagandists. — § _Arsenic99_

As to your message... You cannot play one-sided in this issue, and pick what political categories for people is allowed and isn't and then threaten to block me, when Andranikpasha is allowed to make categories like this. This is just unfair and undemocratic. — § _Arsenic99_ 06:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry bout the link errors, fixed now. — § _Arsenic99_ 06:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Again I ask, why are you favoring Armenian edits that discredit or try to discredit Western or Turkish historians who don't support the Armenian Genocide claim, but find it unfavorable when I do the same. I'm not trying to "push" anything, I simply do not understand this unfairness. Why are Armenians able to put "criticism of work" type things on American historians they don't like, or "denier" labeling, but I'm not allowed to add "propagandist" labeling... If I'm wrong, please express that but it's silly to just pick one side all the time, it just isn't fair. And I'm sure as an honest man, you will understand. — § _Arsenic99_ 06:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

But it isn't a historical fact... Have you read any books on the issue? Just because Armenians made a page called Armenian Genocide doesn't automatically make it a fact. Furthermore, a fact is something tangible or verifiable, like saying "An Armenian was killed by a Turk", but you cannot say that "The Armenian was killed in the Armenian Holocaust" because that's not a fact, it is a point of view. There needs to be proof of intent for a genocide to hold true, and the United Nations has not declared the events of 1915 as the Armenian Genocide, hence it isn't a fact, just a historical interpretation supported by the majority of Wikipedians, that's it. There needs to be solid proof that the CUP government of 1915 was ordering massacres or killings. If you want I can give you quotations from Talat Pasha himself sending out telegram orders to stop massacres of Armenians, or orders exempting Armenians from deportation from certain areas. So how is it a fact, please explain this to me so that I can understand. I didn't push a POV like "The Armenians are responsible for an Azeri Genocide" this would be POV, or "The Armenians are responsible for a Turkish Genocide" this would be POV, I'm holding a NPOV argument that you cannot declare a historical interpretation as a fact. I am not saying anything like "Armenians did not suffer" or "Armenians did not die", these would be examples of POV, and it is WRONG. I am simply saying that certain people that I put in that category push an Armenian Genocide POV usually with bad intentions with disregard for the Armenian sufferings. — § _Arsenic99_ 06:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)