User talk:LOVELLtheLIONHEART

Suggestions made to Damac[edit]

I am making some suggestions for amendments to this article - and as such have not carried them out yet. After Damac's motives were questioned about the writing of this article (I added the title below to section off my talk) I suggest it is a relevant article - but needs amendments because it has been written in a subjective point of view (even if he says he has no axe to grind). He obviously has sympathies with certain groups - which is natural - if you check his user page.

1. Firstly it should be made clear on the article that that not only its neutrality but its facts are disputed too - so I would add totallydisputed in place of NPOV.

2. Secondly I would add as a note on the article that word pogrom was used as a concious decision by the writer himself (even though this seemingly goes against using wikipeadia as an original source in that he is putting his own slant on his research - yes the definition Wikipedia holds of a pogrom might with argument catch this in its net - but what do all the sources say) and that both Greek sources and Turkish sources and English ones for that matter do not use the word pogrom. We must not forget that this article might be used by people as verifiable sources - so merely adding the reason in a talk page is not sufficent in my opinon.

3. Thirdly it has to be put in historical context, that goverment of 1955 was close to fascisim in the sense that Arabic was also outlawed and that the religion was trying to be reformed - with the "call to prayer" in mosques sung in Turkish. But the government was a response BY THE PEOPLE THAT VOTED THEM IN to international events around them - and one can also assume that Greek provocation from Athens (as in Cyprus) was rife. What was Athens situation like in 1955?

4. Fourthly, both sides of the events must be told. Unfounded accusations have been made against the Orthodox Church I feel, and these need to be cleared up.

5. Fifth point - Using Mehemt Ali Birand's article as a "source" for everything said above is obviously misleading when M.A Birand does not mention any deaths or casualities. I believe in Damac's good intention in that he did not intendingly mislead. I think it just shows that he came to this article he wanted to create with a certain point of view and just found evidence to back it up. I am going to guess (and forgive me if I am wrong) but he probably didnt't even read M.A. Brand's article and just thought the initial paragraph was enough - if you follow the link you'll see that you have to be a member to read the full article.

But once these are cleared up this could become a strong article to help inform and educate bothsides. 82.145.231.132 11:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind coming out of the woodword and revealing who you are. I don't engage in discussion with persons anon.--Damac 13:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a username. Do I need to get one for you to talk wıth me on this matter? I want to make these changes but am dicussing first? Or do you want my real name? Do you need an email contact? Please let me know. 82.145.231.132 23:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you've added me as a sock puppet for Blue Sea? Can I ask what led you to this conclusion? 82.145.231.132 23:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to register with Wikpedia. No, you do not have to use your real name or provide your email address for public view. You are currently posting as an anonymous user which makes it difficult for other Wikipedians to see what you have been up to on Wikipedia.

You are User:Blue sea. All the evidence points to it. If you look at User_talk:Blue_sea, you'll note that on January 25, User:Blue sea, User:Steven Banks and User:82.145.231.79 posted on the same topics consultatively.

In addition, do you not see a resemblance between the following ISPs?

This involves someone accessing the internet from the same internet provider and using the same internet account. According to Wikipedia rules, you should be banned.

We're not idiots on Wikipedia, User:Blue sea!--Damac 09:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the user Blue Sea and if this is the way you write your articles and try and prove your points my discussion stands that amendments should be made to yoru article. I could come from the smae area and same provider as Blue Sea - I do not know. Though I did ring up my internet provider and you are incorrect on one score. It does not have to be the same Internet account. But I didnt want to register until I had tried out Wikipedia is all. You accusations are unbiased - though I don't blame you taking into account the recent attacks on you personally. I have checked all the sockpuppets you mention and it seems that Blue Sea is clever enough to change his IP completely at some intervals? Why are not then all the sockpuppets you have listed the same? [1] Check one that begins with 200. Is it not possible that Blue Sea is using false IP's or something and you really doN't know his IP? Else how could they be varied? However, my suggestion still stand and I do want this discussed. Please don't avoid the issues I have raised. If you continue to block debate then I don't see how this is going to be resolved. In my other two posts I just copied and past my other post's signature. I will not do so this time. 82.145.231.200 12:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm not going to waste my time debating with people who couldn't be bothered to take the one minute it takes to register with Wikipedia. By all means check out Wikipedia and see what it is all about. Once you've made up your mind on whether you want to join, then get back to me. Otherwise, I'm not interested.

I believe I am right on the ISPs. I've had similar problems with Irish nationalists. Maybe I got it wrong with the 200 ISP, but what about the others?

Do what everyone else does and sign up. It only takes a few seconds. --Damac 14:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice Damac. I've signed up and I will continue this on the talk page of the relevant article. LOVELLtheLIONHEART 18:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]