Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2010 Mardakert clashes. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2010 Mardakert clashes. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
You have recently edited a page related to the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Im not, in the sources shown there is no "confirmed killed soldiers, 300-400", its all civillian and soldier combined and even in the sources i have placed say the "6000" being killed are the soldiers, not even combined. TRAVERA1 (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the lists that are referenced include detailed information about every single confirmed military fatality; including names, birthplaces, dates of birth and death, addresses, military ranks, and more. Stop removing this information. The two sources that you keep reinstating don't support 6,000 military fatalities; even the Turkish Wikipedia that uses these outdated references presents 4,000 fatalities (no distinction between civilian and military). Demetrios1993 (talk) 08:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't claim there were less than 500 fatalities; if anything, my first edit summary that pertained to your edits was that there were less than 1500 deaths (both military and civilian) from the Greek side (diff). If you knew Greek, you would notice that those lists do make a distinction between military and civilian deaths; i already told you that they even include the ranks of each military individual that was killed. Demetrios1993 (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TRAVERA1, there are literally hundreds of names; each with its own military rank. I cannot post them here, or include a quote in the relevant reference. I will go through each name when i find some time, and once i am done, i will add the number of civilian deaths in the infobox; don't worry. Demetrios1993 (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can keep your silly little kurdish propagandas on wikipedia then, brainwashing western idiots. we know how things are actually going and gone in the field.. Ao192 (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
whats so disruptive about it, greek state ran sources, automatically greek claim, why do i have to use (turkey claim) on turkish state ran sources on other stuff, just because you dont have access to a book or a newspaper doesnt outright make a reference or a source false.. Eitherway, we know what happened to your stupid greek soldiers out there, they got what they deserved after massacring and doing all those bad things to those turkish cypriots. Keep using wikipedia as your shitty propaganda... Ao192 (talk) 12:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your behavior was disruptive because you continued to edit war, and disregarded the discussion in the talk page of the article, where three editors expressed their disapproval regarding your edits. And no, not having access to two outdated sources was not the reason; you knew that.
Materialscientist, since you have some experience with User:Ao192, can you please assess their recent behavior? Aside of engaging in edit wars without participating in talk page discussions, there is also an issue of incivility (diff1, diff2). I warned them about it prior of the second diff (edit summary); perhaps a warning from an administrator will be taken more seriously. Demetrios1993 (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2011 Hakkâri attack, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kurdish, HPG and Işıklı. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Turkish invasion of Cyprus. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
You have recently made edits related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. This is a standard message to inform you that Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Vanezi (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive edits on Cyprus pages
Hello, you seem to have made multiple disruptive edits on pages related to the Cyprus conflict (35th Raider Squadron, Battle of Agios Dometios, Manolis Bikakis are the few I remember), if you make another disruptive edit on any of these pages you will be reported and likely topic blocked due to the countless other issues youve had with multiple other users on these pages. I will also answer to some of the following issues you raised on some of these pages so that you dont make the error again:
1) As to the 498 dying in the invasion, the only source that claims that is the Turkish government which is an unreliable source in and of itself when it gets to Cyprus, the numbers by some have been estimated to be between 3,500 - 6,000 so that whole argument is moot.
2) ELDYK was 950 people at the begining of the invasion not at the end
3) As to Manolis Bikakis, it is not only the Greek ministry of defense (Which until recently never officially recognised actions on Cyprus), there are multiple eyewitness accounts from different battalions in Cyprus which all make the same claims about Bikakis, the only one disputing it, is the Turkish government (No surprise there).
4) As to the Mongols claim, it is historically true so again I dont see where your issue is.
5) If you think cutting off heads and throwing them in mass graves is ok because in your own words "They atleast had the decency to make a mass grave, they could've just let them to rot in the open" is something that makes me think you should maybe not be editing on wikipedia if this is your line of reasoning. ShovelandSpade (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobodys blocking me and nothing i've done is disruptive. You havent used a single non-partisan, reliable and a 3rd party source. you dont even read the biased partisan sources you use.
"1) As to the 498 dying in the invasion, the only source that claims that is the Turkish government which is an unreliable source in and of itself when it gets to Cyprus, the numbers by some have been estimated to be between 3,500 - 6,000 so that whole argument is moot."
"2) ELDYK was 950 people at the begining of the invasion not at the end."
Considering ur sources say 105 mainland greek soldiers died in the war, with 30 of them being members of the 1st raider squadron or whatever its just at around 900 then, no wonder i have written 4000-4500 there, its not exact.
"3) As to Manolis Bikakis, it is not only the Greek ministry of defense (Which until recently never officially recognised actions on Cyprus), there are multiple eyewitness accounts from different battalions in Cyprus which all make the same claims about Bikakis, the only one disputing it, is the Turkish government (No surprise there)."
Show me a single non partisan, non greek and a 3rd party source telling this, plus the "multiple eyewitness accounts from different battalions in cyprus." There isnt even a single page made about manolis in Turkish, let alone the government for christ sake.
"4) As to the Mongols claim, it is historically true so again I dont see where your issue is."
add it into the main invasion of cyprus then. Mongol invasion of cyprus.. The same article has "But the defenders of the camp stand firm and send the souls of the agarine dogs back to Allah." written. Agarine dogs.
"5) If you think cutting off heads and throwing them in mass graves is ok because in your own words "They atleast had the decency to make a mass grave, they could've just let them to rot in the open" is something that makes me think you should maybe not be editing on wikipedia if this is your line of reasoning."
I havent said "cutting heads off" is ok, mutilating a dead corpse is not a serious war crime is what i've said, neither are mass graves of dead enemy troops. Infact putting your enemies into mass graves is a sign of respect instead of leaving them to rot in the open. Which in my opinion is justified after all the Greek and Cypriot troops have done against the Turkish Cypriots peacefully living on the island (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Christmas_(1963) ) Again, its just a claim made by "eldyk members"
All the pages ive seen you in are using greek sources only (some a part of the government), im yet to see a single 3rd party account thats in a foreign language.
Your 4th sentence clearly shows who youre biased towards and what you are. Wikipedia is a place of original research and objective people, not for the likes of you. If you continue this type of behaviour your account is probably gonna get IP-suspended and all the pages you have worked on nominated for a deletion.
Battle of Agios Dometios
- "600+ Turks were killed"
Already disproven considering only 498 had died with the link i have just sent.
An additional 60 were killed as the same reference says above, totaling a number of 143. The same link above also says "dozens" of Greek soldiers were captured by Turkish troops.
- "6000 turkish troops were present"
Again, an unreliable partisan source, which refers to turks as mongols and agarine dogs, claiming this but we can still put it as an extra "Greek Claim"
- "1850 greek troops were present" Ive read every link there, not a single one mentions that. Putting all the units present like i said, 1 battalion is roughly around 1000 soldiers, ELDYK totaling up to 1000 and a squadron consists of around 50 to 500 men. we can roughly estimate the size around 3500 to 4500.
- "It was a greek victory"
The Greeks were begging and crying to the United Nations for a ceasefire, which the dumb turks agreed on and the ceasefire happened right before Turkish forces properly setting an attack on Nicosia and capturing it, which includes Agios Dometios, thus resulting the Greek victory on A. Dometios, not because they bravely fought against the invading "agarine dogs", it was because of the forced UN ceasefire which halted Turkish advance. The turks also captured a bunch of fortified locations and positions https://www.protothema.gr/greece/article/558431/elduk/ including the grammar house and the ELDYK camp, plus half of nicosia, i dont know how those doesnt sound like a victory to you.
Also half of agios dometios was captured by turkey before, again, due to the UN ceasefire, they could not capture the rest of the town.
- "Why are there so many "greek media claims"?"
Because every single article used as reference and as a "reliable" source happens to be greek which obviously
Manolis Bikakis
- "He had 8 missiles and 1 rocket, fought alone and destroyed 6 turkish tanks and used the last 2 to send "agarine dogs" back to Allah resulting in the destruction of a whole battalion, stopping the advance of the masses of mongols into nicosia and saving cyprus"
He also did not "save" Nicosia or A. Dometios. Again, it was the ceasefire. His actions happened right on August 16, which was when UN forced the cease fire. If Manolis wasnt even present (which he probably wasnt) nothing would've changed and Turkey could not have captured A. Dometios or Nicosia.
I hope i could cover some stuff up. Unless you bring an argument on how using POV partisan sources that arent 3rd party and were made by a government with 0 evidence are very useful and historically accurate sources, you clearly stand corrected. Ao192 (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is that all you had to reply with to this entire list?
By the way, you falsily reporting me because of me taking down partisan sources and pages with 0 original research done to them doesnt mean its disruptive editing. Sure it might seem like that to you but for me, its rather an advantage in me defending my account, lol Ao192 (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes because im clearly talking to an immature child who literally defended war crimes. And no you didnt take down partisan sources, you just replaced my sources with Turkish sources thus doing the exact same thing you accuse me of doing, difference is, my sources are eyewitnesses who have cross referenced these events, your sources are just Turkish propaganda pieces, thats not a proper rebuttal. As I have previously said, im working on fixing the sourcing issues from websites and am trying to directly use books but the books just confirm what the media has said. As to your "third party" issue, yes, when you can get someone from CNN, DW, C-SPAN or something on the hill with Manolis whilst he was fighting then we can talk about it. Until such time however, we go with what the majority of eyewitnesses say. ShovelandSpade (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Show a single turkish source thats in the article then. Show me the eyewitnesses, non of the greek sources say any existance about eyewitnesses. Ao192 (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, thats because I haven't added any, because there aren't any. Look at the view history and select my latest revision; there isn't a single Turkish source. I think you are just being ridiculous on purpose at this point. You don't mind 17 Greek sources being used, but when there isn't a single Turkish source being used, there's a problem.
Please, actually read the Greek sources yourself; I beg you. You just want the page to look like this as it fulfills your dreams, even though the Greek sources you use so much say the opposite.
I am still waiting on proof of the claims you have made about 'eyewitnesses' and 'Turkish propaganda' being used in this page. Instead of backing up your points, you call me a child or a 'war crime defender' and go straight to insults and false reports. Ao192 (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I was involved in an edit war on the "Battle of Agios Dometios" Wikipedia page due to another editor (Shovelandspade) using partisan sources and inserting information that wasnt actually written on said sources. I attempted to correct this by accurately representing the information from the sources and removing a particularly biased source that referred to the Turkish side with derogatory terms (ex; mongols, agarine dogs who got sent back to their gods). Despite my efforts to improve the accuracy of the article, my edits were reverted, and I was reported for making "POV and borderline nationalist edits." by user Shovelandspade. The reporting user claimed that I had been warned multiple times and described my actions as disruptive. However, I only used the same sources already on the page, correctly interpreting them, and added "Greek claim" to statements to maintain neutrality. I was banned for "using Wikipedia as a political battleground" by the staff member ToBeFree. While I understand that my actions may have been seen as contentious, my intention was to ensure the article's accuracy and neutrality. In hindsight, I should have sought consensus on the talk page before making substantial edits, to avoid escalating the conflict. Moving forward, I shall focus on constructive edits by discussing changes with other editors and adhering strictly to Wikipedia's guidelines on using objective sources and focusing on an neutrality. On another note, wikipedia staff should actually check the both editors claims and read the whole page, the page history, the talk page and the references used instead of jumping straight into conclusion of what the reporting side had claimed and banning whoever was warned before.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
