User talk:Fadix/introduction

Initial suggestions

• Tone it down slightly — seems like a bit of a rant at the moment — which is understandable, but won't curry favour with the ArbCom.
• Discuss both sides of the problem — I've seen people claiming to be Armenians making personal attacks and generally using the Talk page as a toilet.
• Fill it out in the standard format.
• Discuss what outcome you would like to see from the arbitration process.

There are spelling/grammar errors, but I can give them a look over before you submit it. - FrancisTyers 22:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I have modified many things, what point should be modified more? Fad (ix) 20:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to correct what I can, but in some cases I wanted to leave it alone rather than change the meaning. John Smith's 22:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Leave me out of this Fadix or I will (correctly) accuse you of everything you have accused me of - with plenty of examples - and I will (again correctly) contend that you are attempting to hijak this article to be your own personal piece and that you refuse to accept any input provided by others. I sympathyze with what you have gone through on this thing and what we are mutually dealing with - but I caution you as well - your views concerning what is right for this article are not the only valid ones. Likewise you do not possess the do all and end all of knowledge, information or perspective on this issue. And I refuse to play your little games - particularly when it involves scapegoating me! And I will play my own if you push too hard and you won't like it very much. --THOTH 02:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Fadix has much to worry about. - FrancisTyers 09:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you threatning me? Fad (ix) 18:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I came to this effort initially at your urging as you may recall. However, in times past, I have refused to make certain posts (that you scripted for me - etc) under different usernames to support your positions as you requested of me - and I have this documented...as well as other similar things... I am sorry that this has made you upset - that I have not proven as mallable as you wished - though I have cooperated on some things - haven't I? (nothing deceptive however - as I don't go for all of this silly personal intrigue). Shall I go on or shall I just introduce this evidence into your proceedings? Like I said - just because you have a personel thing against me as well as a desire to lord over the content of this article is no reason for me to let you attack me for no reason. Two can play this game - and I won't be your sacrificial lamb and allow you to exclude me from contributing to this article and the process of creating this article just becaus of your personal animosity towards me. So like I said - just leave me out of it. I don't at all see the relevence of including me in your mutual games with the many headed Turks who are vandalising this article. I think you need to sit back and cool off a bit - perhaps expend your energies elsewhere for a while. And do you really believe me to be so harmless as young Francis seems to? --THOTH 20:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you could fabricate no end of evidence, but please stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox. - FrancisTyers 20:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Francis - your bias against me is clear in that you have deleated my contributions from the talk page while allowing others that are clearly of much less relevance remain. I have already asked you to stop doing this. Every post I make to the talk pages is directly relevant to either the article itself or arguments by people concerning either what should be in the article or justifying such. As Fadix is doing in his way I am doing my part to ensure that the article is not hijacked by vandals. I don't see why my contributions are any less relevant. However I refuse to get involved in all of this interpersonal stuff. I also find your baseless accusation that I would fabricate evidence to be quite slanderous. Just on what basis do you make such a claim? I have seen where you have urged Fadix to essentially offer me up as some kind of a counterbalance to his accusations against the various Turkish vandals and sockpuppets. I have no idea why you are so biased against me - but it clear that you are and that you have it in for me. It is my view that you are attacking me personally for reasons of personal bias on your part and not because of anything I have done. I feel that impartial arbritrators would agreee with me considering the evidence. So again - I ask you to lay off. I have nothing to do with these various sockpuppets and vandals and should not be included in any actions that rightly deserve to be directed at them and them alone. --THOTH 20:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say would, I said could. A letter makes all the difference. The correct term would be moved not deleted. - FrancisTyers 21:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So am I too asume that your intention in making that comment was just to goad me? I'm not sure that Fadix would appreciate that - considering what I might bring to bear. I'm not really interested in being involved in all of this interpersonal squabbaling at all. It has no interest for me. I see it as a complete waste of time. If Fadix sees value or need in pursueing these things then that is fine by me - but I'm not interested personally. In that regard I don't appreciate being dragged into these things. Likewise it brings me no joy to be involved even at this level and I certainly have no interest in putting anyone else down - even people - such as you and Fadix - who seem to have gone out of their way to single me out for punishment due to personal animosities of some sort. I suggest that you please resist the callings of your id and leave me be. I have no interest in these games - but if you attempt to make me some sort of sacrificial lamb I will fight back. --THOTH 21:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Singling you? But of course you have nothing to say about the fact that I have 'singled' nearly everyone else involved and INCLUDING ME!!!!

You're being childishtic, two times I have been requesting things involving the creation of usernames, recent one was implying what I needed a Turk to do(that part was an indirect request to that other person, as far as I know you don't know Turkish), and you know what happened, a Turk offered to help me(and I hope you are respectful enought to keep that persons identity private). Two Wikipedian members are aware of the situation and know why I did that, and another veteran, also administrator El_C who I said about the email I recieved during the period was warned by me about the situation which I considered premedited. I needed to know who was doing that and the only way for me to know was a Turk registering and supporting me so that the responsable email that person and so I accumulate that evidence(implicated with Tommiks cases) during the RfAr I was planing at that time forcing the responsable to come clean privatly(I know it wasn't clean, I admit) by email and retreaving that evidence. But I forgot to say that Turk to have a valid email and that person didn't had much time so I didn't wanted to bother that person(if you visit that registered users talkpage(the one you were witness of what I requested that person to say), you will read my past request about having a valid email) so I settled for a checkuser for that time being, which was refused. Either way, that person was really a Turk and was really supporting me, while this was durty, you can't use this, since it isen't against any policies or guidelines, and I admit that it was also motivated by the need of gaining some support against later, the IP unregistered users. I can't say I am really surprised of your retaliating mentality, you already did this in the past taking vengence and revealing informations about me even after being witnesses of the threats I had recieved. Have I known that you would go so cheap, I would have never proposed to help you to neutralise your positions to increase your OWN credibility. For your information, I didn't add you because of Francis, how many times have I requested you to go by the rules? Besides, my referrence about you isen't a big deal, you will be included anyway one way or another regardless of what I say, because this cases will be about the things happening involving that article and its contributors. I am tired to twist things and lie to you so that you listen to me(call that double talk for all I care). Also, be satisfied that most probably there will be a ruling against me for incivility and personal attack, so sleep well. I have requested you to help me from the beggining and you did all your way, and good going now. And shall I tell you what was the other time involved creating usernames (again involving evidences accumulation and I had NO CHOICE, but finally retracted doing that)? You are free to do whatever you want, but consider that evidences should concerns rules and policies here in Wikipedia. Had I done nothing, had I not warned Tommiks, this would have continued and the alias multiplied of socks supporting eachothers against me on an RfAr cases to divert the attention from the main issue would have resulted with the destruction of the article. Fad (ix) 22:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

also, to make that obvious about the fact that my inclusion of you is unrelated with Francis requests, he referred to Armenians, and you already know I don't consider you Armenian because you don't know the language. Fad (ix) 22:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Out of past concern for you I suggest you don't dig your own hole deeper. --THOTH 04:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

How so? You are here publically compleating your personal vendetta and still believing that I am out to get you. Fad (ix) 05:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Fadix - your not the one who should be accusing others of being childishtic (sic) or emotional about these issues - and I'll leave it at that. You reap what you sow. Again - please leave me out of all of this. I intend to (re)write the entire article - from the ground up - and it will be a much more powerful and much more immutable piece - even more Wikipedic - then you have ever been able - or will ever be able - to produce. It may never become the Wikipedia article - as you are determined to silence me in this forum - however I assure you it will be the do all and end all of this issue - and hopefully will be taken up by Raffi (contact me...) in Armenpedia or elsewhere - perhaps I will need to publish on my own - whatever - and while I would love to do such a thing with your support - it is clear that this will never be forthcomming - due to your deficiencies - not mine...I do hope that I can count on the support of other Armenians (weather you consider them to be or not is immaterial)...but its quite apparent to me that you have totally lost it - shame on you for dragging me into your crap...you are so blinded - in a great many ways - great shame...anyway - and again - leave me out of all of this BS - this is all I am asking - I don't have the time or patience for it. And don't blame me for what is clearly your problem - not mine. --THOTH 04:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What is this crap? For the LAST TIME the RfAr will be involving every people involved with the article. I WAS DRAGGED IN AN ARBCOM CASES AND HAD A RULING WHICH INVOLVED ME WHEM I WASN'T EVEN IN THE DISPUTE PARTY, once this is on the Arbcom, that I point to you or not, you will be pushed there and some users like Cool_Cat won't manage with the evidences. My single citation was a picturing of the situation of the article AS IS, it would have been dishonest from my part to include any other single contributors and not you. As for the article, this is quite arrogant of you, given that I have requested you to present your propositions and proposed neutralising them myself(and that I have even emailed you works to back up your own position) and that you always justified your unmoving for lack of times but you would of course have the time to copy past materials and long posts engaging as if the talk page is a discussion board. As for Raffi, he is more than welcome, at least that guy move and makes compromises a good person to work with and who is enough intelligent to understand few basic guidelines and policies. Also, I have never tried silencing anyone, and Wikipedia is not a forum, I only requested for you to discuss about the article with proposition ABOUT THE ARTICLE, the first 6 months I was there, more than enought I have debated, this endless circle leads NOWHERE. Fad (ix) 05:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)