Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
This is a Wikipediauser talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cavann.
I was sort of freaked out when I saw the notifications that Whately had undone all of my revisions, so you can't imagine my relief when I saw that you had restored so many of them. Thank you for that. I'm a pretty new editor and still kind of shaky on my feet. Revanneosl (talk) 00:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may file again after the RFC has closed if a consensus has not been reached. If you have any questions leave a MSG at my talk Page or the DRN talk page --Cameron11598(Converse)00:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sümela Monastery
Merhaba Cavann! Bu Sümela Manastırı makalesinde ki yunan dayatmacılığı sinirlerimi bozuyor. Ben birçok resmî kaynak ekledim tartışma sayfasına. Soumela ya da Sumela asla kabul edilebilir değil, sadece yunanlaştırma çabaları olarak görüyorum. Resmî kabul gören Sümela Manastırı elbette. Bu konuda taviz verilmemeli.İyi çalışmalar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.109.191 (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ingilizce'de ü yok yalniz. Almanya'daki Münih (München) bile Munich diye. Göttingen gibi SIK kullanilir olmasi lazim ingilizce olmayan karakterler icin, Sümela boyle mi? Cavann (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you have been warned before for incivility. You introduced the concept of WP:BATTLE into the discussion, but it seems that you have been battling also. Please don't assume that just because I am a Christian, I am incapable of editing or discussing things from a neutral perspective. StAnselm (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not put it that way. I just consider you citing a nonexistent consensus while removing sourced content -especially in the context of your edit history- highly inappropriate, given that you have failed to provide relevant sources for your version. Cavann (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that you picked and chose one terminology among several in that ILGA report, while also ignoring the terminology on ILGA map (which is newer), especially considering this template is also a map. Cavann (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anatolians (Indo-European people) is a subset of Ancient Anatolians. Given the short length of article it does not need its own article yet. Furthermore, it is not clear if some of the groups spoke Indo-European languages or not; therefore, a more comprehensive article makes sense. The article needs to be expanded and there is already a list somewhere I think. Cavann (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is redirected again to Ancient Anatolians, and returned to cover all ancient inhabitants of Anatolia, it will have just as little content (in fact less) as the original article covering the Anatolian-speaking groups. As the current article is primarily is composed of a list of different groups living in Anatolia in ancient times, the most appropriate title would List of ancient people of Anatolia. Alternatively it could be named Ancient peoples of Anatolia, which is the title of the corresponding category. Krakkos (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I already said the article needs to be expanded. I'm not against Ancient peoples of Anatolia, but it is similar to Ancient Anatolians, even though not exactly the same with the corresponding category. More importantly, it is not known what language some groups, such as Trojans (see: Trojan language), spoke; it could be Indo-European or not. Therefore an overarching article on all ancient Anatolian peoples make sense. And an article on peoples is not the same as an article on the country/region as in Prehistory of Anatolia. Cavann (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ancient Anatolians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mingrelian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi Cavann! When you added sources to the article Turkey, in some cases you have forgotten to include the relevant page numbers that verify the assertion. Could you add them to the article? Cheers, eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have been misunderstood. I completely agree with your point, and fully agree on the point about the Royal College of Psychiatrists source. I was trying to make this clearer on the article, and will attempt to make clear the research pointing to biology in the article. --Scientiom (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).
So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.
What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.
The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.
Note the difference between "majority are heterosexual" and "not more likely to be LGBT" - both are mentioned in the paper, but they're not synonyms and the latter is a more significant finding. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find "not more likely to be LGBT" or "not more likely to be" in the paper. Are you sure that's Stacey 2001? What's the exact wording? Cavann (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC) Nevermind! :) Cavann (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Turkish help needed
Hello Cavann,
I'm contacting you because we need some Turkish translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on tr.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Turkish Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Turkish people you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of QatarStarsLeague -- QatarStarsLeague(talk)15:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the source for the number of Turkish/Muslim civilians deaths in western anatolia 1919-1921
Please look here [[1]].
The source for the number of Turkish/Muslim civilians deaths in western anatolia during Greek occupation 1919-1921 is being deleted.
The deleting users do original research on the talk page [[2]]
and claim the death toll exceeds total muslim number. They claim muslim pop was 1.1 mil but they only use a statistic of 1893 for Aydın Vilayet. But the source refers to all areas occupied by Greece. (Aydin VilayetHudavendigar VilayetBiga VilayetKocaeli Vilayet parts of Ankara Vilayet. In those areas 3-4 million Muslims were living before Greek occupation.
In Aydın, Muslim population was 1.4 million in 1914 but the deleting users use a census of 1893 which is 20 years earlier!
The Ottoman census of 1914 here [[3]].
They add sources which states at least 15.000 Turks were massacred however those sources call this a minimum number and do not exclude at all that the death toll was hıgher. As it is known from many sources Greek troops burned many villages and towns during occupation and muslim death toll was very high.
The source comes from Cambridge University and the author is Dawn Chatty. Still they deleted the source by doing original research, can you please correct this or inform admins? Thanks 88.250.208.19 (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've the article watchlisted so don't worry to msg me on my page too, unless you want to commend on something more general/else. CheersAlexikoua (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite weird, since you performed wp:ninja revert without participating yet in the article's discussion. Keep in mint that cooperating with recently permablocked users (as the unlogged ip above), can get you in serious trouble.Alexikoua (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it wasn't a discussion worth adding into before a revert. You ignored an Oxford professor based on your incorrect understanding of Western Anatolia. Cavann (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing such an extraordinary number, I've done an in-depth research in order to see if this is confirmed by mainstream bibliography. I wasn't that lucky. But I will appraciate if you can find finally something on that.Alexikoua (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Learn how to read", "are you that geography illiterate", insinuations of belonging to a neo-Nazi organization. Enough. Your incivilty ends here. One more comment like the above and I will ask that you be sanctioned. First and final warning.
In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you. Athenean (talk) 19:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for telling me. I think I also warned you about deletion of reliably sourced relevant material, so you do not need another warning. Cavann (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your reverts that I encounter are usually quite predictable. I advise you to review core Wiki policies. I hope you agree that Wikipedia articles need to be neutral. Cavann (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I advise you to review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. They are two policies that you have been violating for a long time. As far as my reverts being predictable your disruptive behaviour at Istanbul is a good example why they are so predictable. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις
It's interesting that you come to my page for even the smallest perceived issue, yet you delete everything I post on your page.[5] Interesting indeed. Cavann (talk) 01:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You give me a copy-cat balkans-2 warning which you just received just above from Athenean, for reverting your removal of a pie-chart without discussion or consensus and you want me to take it seriously? Your disruption, edit-warring and personal attacks on Balkans-related articles is a matter of record. You have no reason to give me any such warning based on specious pretenses. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις01:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cavann, I was wondering what "far-right crap" you were referring to here and then I saw it was clickable. Please don't accuse other editors in a content dispute of belonging to some awful club like that. I don't know Dr. K. personally or off-wiki, but I'm pretty sure he's not some sort of Greek nazi. Let's not resort to such name calling. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ordering an editor to not make dumb edits (as you did with Mttll) is uncalled for. Everyone can make mistakes, which should be corrected and perhaps pointed out, but biting other editors is not productive.
Templating an editor who's been with Wikipedia for years (such as Athenean) and is unlikely to make newcomer mistakes (which most Twinkle templates are intended for), is considered rude except in the most extreme cases.
I can see no cause for you labeling Athenean a disruptive editor. He was one of several editors who disagreed with and reverted your contributions. Singling out one editor isn't right.
Rather than engaging others in an attempt to understand why they were reverting your edits, you immediately resorted to a belligerent tone.
Rather than seeking additional opinions from relevant WikiProjects if you couldn't come to an agreement, you resorted to threatening everyone at Talk:Turkish people.
Your recent editing history at Turkish people shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Hi, I made a draft proposal for a map of the Hittite Empire you have requested here. Could you please check it and let me know if this is OK? Thank you --Ikonact (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's glad you finally understood that arguments provided by others may have some sense, like in the wp:or Hittite map case (which it seems you agreed, provided you preferred a soured version instead) and the need to support your positions by fully citing the references you added, but an instant reverting strategy is a sign of weak control and wp:own.Alexikoua (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to be taken more seriously, don't ask page numbers from 5 page journal articles,[6] (Wells et al. is only 5 pages) and do not edit war about those tags. I take arguments that make at least a bit of sense (such as the Hitite map) under consideration. Cavann (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the Hittite map case you reconsidered only after a couple of instant reverts too, not to mention you were initially pretending that the map was taken from a specific book (i.e. The Empire from the Hittites [[7]]) but unfortunately for you I have full access on this.Alexikoua (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The map was based on the book, if you read the Chapter of Suppiluliuma I, which describes extent of Hittite rule and control. But, I decided this [8] was a better source. Cavann (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnicity, nationalism and ancestry
While I can understand your frustration with the way things work here on wiki sometimes, I would advise against leaving this message [[9]]. Trust me, it won't accomplish anything. (and also, I don't think he/she was necessarily referring to you when they said "Turkish nationalists"- i.e. its true that many Turkish nationalists, as well as their Armenian and Greek counterparts, find the idea that Turks are related to Greeks and Armenians and thus have been fighting their relatives problematic for their nationalist ideologies...). Just a suggestion, having seen how things work here (I'm sure you have too, but still) for awhile.--Yalens (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Athenian has a disruptive editing pattern, so this comment was not in isolation. But you are right, it won't accomplish anything. I had warned him about personal attacks before.Cavann (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spiteful revert
This [10] is a single-locus HLA study, exactly the kind Cavalli-Sforza and many others criticized Arnaiz-villena for. This kind of methodology is not accepted in the human genetics community. You were told on WP:RSN that this is not a reliable source. Don't edit war here as well. Athenean (talk) 05:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jobling et al., in their genetics textbook "Human Evolutionary Genetics: Origins, Peoples & Disease", state that Arnaiz-Villena’s conclusions on the Sub-Saharan origin of Greeks, is an example of arbitrary interpretation and that the methodology used is not appropriate for this kind of research. Karatzios C. et al., made a systematic review of genetics and historical documents, showing great flaws in Arnaiz-Villena’s methodology and theory on the Greeks/Sub-Saharan genetic relationship.
Three respected geneticists, Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Alberto Piazza and Neil Risch, criticised Arnaiz-Villena's methodology. They stated that "Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics. The limitations are made evident by the authors’ extraordinary observations that Greeks are very similar to Ethiopians and east Africans but very distant from other south Europeans; and that the Japanese are nearly identical to west and south Africans. It is surprising that the authors were not puzzled by these anomalous results, which contradict history, geography, anthropology and all prior population-genetic studies of these groups."
It's true that this wasn't the paper that was retracted (and that paper was retracted for political, not scientific reasons anyway), but it's awful science nonetheless. Athenean (talk) 05:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not how WP:NPOV works. You are free too add criticisms and opposing viewpoints, but you cannot delete sources just because you do not like them. And I was "told on WP:RSN that this is not a reliable source." Really? Where? Cavann (talk) 05:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd actually have to agree with Athenean here. Really, basing a whole section on this study by Arnaiz-Villena really isn't a good idea. It's a really controversial paper, as Athenean's quote attests pretty well. Fyi it has actually been discussed before that there may be a relationship between Greeks and North Africans, but this relationship is thought to go much further back, and it doesn't include Greeks but actually most parts of Europe. For example, it's true that Greeks have a very high (domininant in some regions) frequency of Y-haplogroup E1b1b (associated with North Africa and Somalia), but it also appears often in neighboring peoples like Albanians, Bulgarians and yes Turks, as well as in the Middle East, and its found at a low frequency across pretty much all of Europe except for the extreme north-east. Arnaiz-Villena's interpretations aren't a thing you want to rely on by themselves, to say the least.--Yalens (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually came across this page cause I had an argument about sensible representation of information, after people commented about technical correctness of information. [12] Everyone has at least 1+% anything, and all humans descend from Africa. Yet, we do not say here (British_people#Ancestral_roots) that British people descend from Africans, even though it is technically correct.
I find this completely unacceptable [13]. There is nothing "racist" about my comment. What's racist about it? That many Turks are descended from Greeks and Armenians? Or that Turkish nationalists are extremely uncomfortable about it? So please explain what is racist about it. On the other hand, falsely accusing someone of racism is a very serious personal attack. Don't do that again. Athenean (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Turkish nationalists" had nothing to do with a talk page discussion. Besides its irrelevance, your comment came after I criticized your list. Cavann (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But how is my comment "racist"? You may want to think about that, because you will need to explain it when I report you to the appropriate venue, at the appropriate time. Athenean (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of blind reverting you can easily take a look at the map in Prehistory of Anatolia, which is based on this, not widely accepted theory. It will be more civil to remove it entirely as a product of minority view instead of blind reverting and restoring a wrong caption.Alexikoua (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, that wiki article says "moving from their former settlements into south and central Balkans displacing the former non-Greek inhabitants of Greece." So Greeks moved from somewhere into south and central Balkans (Greece), according to that. It doesn't say that there were Greeks in Anatolia. Cavann (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"This invasion by the Hittites displaced other peoples living in Anatolia, who in turn displaced the Middle Helladic Greek-speaking peoples to the west. This enforced exodus from Northwestern Anatolia created a wave of refugees who invaded what is now southern Greece and destroyed the Early Helladic civilization.". That's what the specific map describes, Hittites moved to Anatolia and displaced the Greeks. The latter (green circle with blue directions moved west if you can see) moved to s.Balkans.Alexikoua (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, Dietrich doesn't necessarily agree. (2004, newer version) says (p. 3 and 4) (text obtained thru image to text software)
It can be said, therefore, that there are no convincing archaeological
grounds for supposing an invasion of Greece in Early Helladic III’. It is
possible, of course, that migratory movements into this region left no rec
ognizable archaeological traces; but this is a dangerous and unworkable
argument. It seems best then to abandon the belief in a large scale incursion
accompanied by a clear and sudden cultural break. Although the linguistic
evidence points to the introduction of Indo-European languages during this
period, this was an infiltration rather than an invasion. The origin of such
Indo-European elements is uncertain, but Anatolia remains a candidate; for
there is cultural similarity between early Troy VI and Middle Helladic
Greec&’; it is possible that the «pre-Greek’ -nth-, -Ss- place names existed
in Anatolia; and cultural contact between that part of the world and the
Greek mainland is evident in archaeological finds from as early as Neolithic.
Exactly, that's what I've pointed from the very start; that this is not a widely accepted opinion, in fact it's mostly reject today. But this map shows exactly that movement of Greeks (&Hittites) of that time and it's directly taken from Mellaart. It would be more civilized to remove it all the way, instead of restoring a wrong caption (to make it more simple: blue directions=Greeks, brown=Hittites).Alexikoua (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Turkish people shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Cavann you keep deleting the analysis comparing Turks of Anatolia with Turkmens and Uzbeks. By now there are enough scientific tools for this comparison that is available to a multitude of independent researchers. As this is an on going research area it is important to let people know about the state of the art analysis.
turkishhistorian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems the specific map [[17]] lacks a source. I see also several problematic issues on this, but as a first step it will be enough to have the specific source (with a page of the book/journal or whatever the source is). In case you can't find this map somewhere, I will appreciate if you admit.Alexikoua (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because he isn't active in en:wiki. Since you are interested in this map now, as per request in laboratory, I'm asking you. I wonder how Assyrians conquered the entire Mesopotamia from 1400 BC, this happened almost one century later. Where's the Mittani?Alexikoua (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.
Do not be critical in headings: This includes being critical about details of the article. Those details were written by individual editors, who may experience the heading as an attack on them. and
Don't address other users in a heading: Headings invite all users to comment. Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user. (Some exceptions are made at administrative noticeboards, where reporting problems by name is normal.)
I noticed that your heading are extremely critical and some adress other users with whom you are in dispute, i.e:
User:Yerevanci, previously topic banned editor due to arbitration enforcement discretionary sanction, falsifying sources (diff)
"editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect" and
"Be careful with edit summaries. Edit summaries are relatively short comments, and thus potentially subject to misinterpretation or oversimplification. They cannot be changed after pressing "Save", and are often written in haste, particularly in stressful situations. Remember to explain your edit, especially when things are getting heated; to avoid personal comments about any editors you have disputes with; and to use the talk page to further explain your view of the situation."
many other useful stuff
The edit line of your comments frequently contains snide comments about editors you have disputes with:
(Rv. Source falsification. 2 editors (Proudbolsahye and Alexikoua) warned.
(Rv. Source falsification. 2 editors (Proudbolsahye and Alexikoua) warned. Despite newer sources, sources such as Akcam 2012 still misrepresented. Go to talk.) diff
Misrepresenting issues is a part of what I consider to be your disruptive pattern (diff)
This was a disruptive attempt by Proudbolsahye (diff)
....
If your intention is to discredit your opponents and to (mis)lead some uninitiated administrator to support your position and sanction them then you are making a big mistake. I propose you not to continue with this behavior and to try to AGF and work with your fellow editors.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot take this seriously. Source falsification was not a "snide comment," but a genuine concern, explained at length here: [18][19]. Civility does not mean not addressing concerns about user conduct. Cavann(talk)00:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are appropriate noticeboards for that purpose. It is wrong and disruptive to use headings and edit lines to repeatedly violate wikipedia policies and guidelines. It can not be justified with "addressing concerns about user conduct" excuse. This is my honest opinion and friendly advice to you and my last comment on this page about it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. Some of those diffs are indeed from noticeboards such as ANI. And if one is falsifying sources, I see no problem saying it in a edit summary, since I am editing that page and fixing the text. Cavann(talk)17:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming bad faith, wikibullying, and other belligerent behavior
I notice you are accusing a lot of editors of "falsification of sources". This is a very serious accusation. There is a significant difference between good faith disagreement over interpreting a source, and outright source falsification. Casually accusing everyone who disagrees with you of source falsification is assuming bad faith, which is disruptive. The way you micromanage and revert every edit to article also smacks of WP:OWN. Constantly threatening other editors with ARBCOM is a type of wikibullying behavior. I suggest you assume good faith and adopt a more cooperative attitude, you will see editors much more willing to accomodate you if you do. Nobody likes a belligerent editor. You are only making things harder for yourself. Athenean (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to assume good faith when you are making the same mistake, even though the issue had been discussed at length at the article talk page and various user talk pages. I will gladly cooperate if you do not ignore core Wiki policies, such as Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:NPOV. It was also your pattern of edit warring that made things harder.[20]
I am, as always, willing to cooperate if editors start caring about what the sources actually say and stick to them, rather than advancing their POV.Cavann(talk)19:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In spite of your nice words, you are continuing with the assumptions of bad faith [21] and incivility. This really needs to stop. By the way, did you mean to undo the wikilink as well, or was that just a casualty of your blanket revert? If no, then please don't blanket revert like that, it is very disruptive. Athenean (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to talk to you, since every time I cite a wiki policy or criticize something, you seem to see it as personal, such as assumptions of bad faith, incivility, patronizing, etc. I thought you had added a wikilink to Turkification again. As for Greek genocide wikilink, that seems to falsify sources too because Bjornlund never uses genocide with respect to Greeks, only with respect to Armenians. He specifically says this:
"In 1914, the aim of Turkification was not to exterminate but to expel as many Greeks of the Aegean region as possible as not only a “security measure,” but as an extension of the policy of economic and cultural boycott, while at the same time creating living space for the muhadjirs that had been driven out of their homes under equally brutal circumstances."
"Greek genocide" would not appear in the text, it's only a link to the article covering the "various campaigns of ethnic cleansing and expulsion", thus fully appropriate. I consider this matter closed. Athenean (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To enforce an arbitration remedy in the Macedonia arbitration case, you are topic banned from all editing on any topic related to the Balkans, broadly construed, with the exceptions listed at the linked policy for appealing or clarifying the ban. I strongly encourage that you read that policy to understand the scope of the ban, as since you are aware of it, you will be expected to avoid edits which violate the ban altogether. Any violation of the ban could lead to a block from editing. Should you wish to appeal this decision, you may appeal either to me as the sanctioning administrator, to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard following the instructions there, or to the arbitration committee. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:48, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, I have plenty of my own differences with Cavann and disagree with certain things he does, but I find this resolution to be pretty unjust with regards to Turkish people. As one of the few members in the dispute who isn't of the involved nationalities, I'd say Cavann's main flaws were not being a POV edit warrior by nature, but rather a combination of impatience and clumsy diplomacy. To his credit, both are symptoms of heavy exposure to the ubiquitous nationalist edit warring around wikipedia, and the well-sourced information he was trying to add had previously been unjustly excluded from the page, probably because it is viewed very unfavorably by nationalists from more-or-less all the countries (Turkey, Greece, Armenia) concerned. That's not to say that endorse Cavann's position and take his side against Alexikoua, Athenean, etc, (I don't: I think both sides should have tried much harder to actually negotiate rather than merely argue), but I find this solution rather one-sided. While Cavann was, as I said, impatient and occasionally undiplomatic, he wasn't so disruptive to warrant such a harsh punishment as an indefinite topic ban. I regret that I didn't have the time to comment on the arbitration case.--Yalens (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I was wondering if you'd be interested in setting up Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Turkey), based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). Now it's not a contest in itself, it's designed to motivate people to inspire others to improve content and build something which demonstrates the hard work going into the country which is visible. The focus is more on quality improvements but new articles are welcome too. Eventually a Turkish National Contest could be created to fuel it, like Wikipedia:Awaken the Dragon, in which contestants can choose to keep the Amazon vouchers themselves to buy their own books for more articles or put them into book fund to help editors further improve Turkish-related topics by giving them the books they want. It will begin though as purely an improvement drive. If interested, or you think anybody else might be interested, alert them and sign up on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey talk page at the bottom. Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Asian 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa.01:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
New 10,000 Challenge for Canada
Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge is up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Canada like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Canada but fuelled by a contest such as The North America Destubathon to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. I would like some support from Canadian wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile! Cheers. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
![[8]](http://www.utexas.edu/courses/classicalarch/images1/Hittiterulemap.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AlterOrient2.png){kind=link}