| Revision as of 22:47, 26 July 2012 editRichwales (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Oversighters, Administrators18,012 edits →Negative comments at Talk:Nicosia: thanks for your comments← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:29, 27 July 2012 edit undoMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 7d) to User talk:Richwales/Archives/2012-07.Next edit → | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| == Turk(ey) - related articles == | |||
| In my short WP experience you are one of the very few neutral-objective users I have seen regarding Turkish-related articles. Therefore I kindly request you to see the Northern Cyprus talk page. All the best. --] (]) 21:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| @Intervention: you can learn, if you wish, several details concerning the Turkish intervention in Cyprus. All the best. --] (]) 15:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Here, the ] also a Turkish "opera" of 1974 (I promised myself not to use exclamation marks). In 1963 the Turks were crying loud, just like the actors of a terrible opera I watched yesterday evening, but in the case of Cyprus there was real blood, not tomato paste, on the Turks' bodies... --] (]) 14:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Again, I am not doubting that serious wrongs were committed. My understanding is that the available reliable sources assert wrongs committed by both sides; this fact does not by any means excuse what was done by anyone, it just makes the events as a whole that much more depressing. Our challenge here is to incorporate the available information in order to present a comprehensive view of the entire situation. — ]] 14:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Dubious demographics == | |||
| Just a heads-up.<br> | |||
| I think that ], who you blocked a couple of months ago, may have reappeared as ]. Strictly speaking, this would be block evasion. I've left a message on their talkpage, and they're not currently editing - but if they start adding more numbers which are improbable or which contradict sources... ] (]) 14:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the heads-up. I'll look into it. — ]] 15:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::And they're doing it again. etc. Sorry for nagging you; but you know the backstory, whilst a random admin at AIV doesn't ] ] (]) 09:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've blocked the new IP address. Blocking of IP addresses needs to be handled cautiously and conservatively, but if similar misbehaviour pops up again on another IP address in this same ] range, I'll do a ]. — ]] 14:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Groovy. I've watchlisted some of their favourite articles. ] (]) 14:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Bloody Christmas in Cyprus == | == Bloody Christmas in Cyprus == | ||
Revision as of 13:29, 27 July 2012
|
My current time is: 09:21, January 23, 2025 MST
|
|
Bloody Christmas in Cyprus
Hi. I know I am taking very or too much of your time but I am sorry I have not so many places to go here in WP. I read carefully your advices and make sure I understand. I still hope to be able to work to improve WP to become a better encyclopedia. I tried to put the infamous "Bloody Christmas" in Cyprus in the relevant Disambiguation page and it was immediately deleted. I hoped to make this an article, with help from other users of course, although I wonder how many people are there around here with the guts to face the gods of Olympos. Now this is what we have in WP about the "Bloody Christmas": "Atrocities against the Turkish Cypriot community were committed during the invasion of the island. Contemporaneous newspapers also reported about the forceful exodus of the Turkish Cypriots from their homes. According to the Times journal issued in 1964, threats, shootings and attempts of arson are committed against the Turkish Cypriots to force them out of their homes. Daily Express wrote that "25,000 Turks have already been forced to leave their homes". The Guardian reported a massacre of Turks at Limassol on 16 February 1964." Please read that paragraph carefully. We are talking about the atrocities against Turks in Cyprus in 1963-64, during the "Bloody Christmas". According to our WP article the atrocities were committed "during the invasion of the island". I may be wrong (I was too young then to remember), has there been a Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1964? (Because the newspapers that had the guts to inform of the assassinated Turks were printed in 1964.) I wonder where are some of our very careful contributers to correct any ortographical mistake by deleting entire sentences on Greek sorry Cyprus-related articles... Is no-one disturbed of the fact that WP presents Cypriot Turks killed a decade before as victims of a posterior Turkish invasion? I really wonder what Jimbo Wales would think if he saw how the encyclopedia he helped create treats some issues... --E4024 (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)Best not to bring Jimbo Wales into this. Perhaps it shouldn't have been directly reverted, but what did you expect if you called it "an ethnic cleansing campaign in the Republic of Cyprus, began by the Greek Cypriots, aimed at the annihilation of Turkish Cypriots" (emphasis added)? That's jumping up and down and begging to be reverted. (It's probably also completely wrong, as one incident is not a campaign.) If you want to create the article, why not create a draft in your user space, User:E4024/Bloody Christmas or something. Actually having an article makes a much better case for inclusion on a disambiguation page. Keep in mind NPOV though, if you go in with the language you used in that disambiguation page, you will not be able to make any sort of progress. CMD (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Look here. Richwales, am I doing the correct things?.. Best. --E4024 (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
- I looked at the above edit, and I'm confused, because it didn't appear to have anything at all to do with Cyprus, and it also didn't seem to have been written by you. Are you sure you gave me the correct link?
- In order to do a proper article about "Bloody Christmas", we'll need sources of a sort which we're allowed to use in Misplaced Pages. I tried just now to find neutral, encyclopedic / news-like sources recounting the events in question, and I wasn't able to find anything online. I did find a lot of sources with a clear pro-Turkish bias, but I couldn't find anything with a pro-Greek bias to balance it out. And many of the online sources I found appeared to be ineligible per WP:SELFPUB. So, for the moment, I'm not sure what to do.
- Also, I need to mention (for the benefit of you, a non-native speaker of English) that the expression "look here" has an idiomatic meaning (scolding or rebuke) which I'm sure you did not intend. "Look at this", or "take a look here", would be safer. — Richwales 04:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you should block me for not knowing the detail about "look here" (joke :-). I really did not. I was trying to show you that I am trying to do things in co-operation with the community. In the dif I sent you I made a mistake or there was an edit conflict. I thought you would touch the arrow with "see previous edit"; please do so. Also please take a look here. As regards bias, yes even Greek writers have written in favour of the Turks; i.e. they have written about how they (Turkish Cypriots) have been attacked at because of their ethnicity. I think RS does not have to find a balance between the dead and the killer. There are several English newspapers reporting the events and also books, even one Greek Cypriot user, who was all against this at the outset, came out with a book in English; see at the Discussion Page of the Disambiguation thing. All the best and thank you for helping with such an important issue. --E4024 (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- I understood what you really meant, and I did not take any offence. I was just offering a friendly warning so you wouldn't inadvertently make the same mistake to someone who might not be as understanding.
- As for the mention of the Cyprus "Bloody Christmas" event, I think the material at Cyprus intercommunal violence#Intercommunal violence continued looks like a reasonable start — though I haven't been able to check the sources, because many of them are apparently not online, or are in Turkish. I would recommend finding (and incorporating into the Cyprus intercommunal violence article) some sources which substantiate the use of the phrase "Bloody Christmas", especially by Turks; note the comments at Talk:Bloody Christmas questioning the place of "Christmas" in Turkish tradition, so we can see there are skeptics who will require convincing on this point.
- Assuming the Cyprus intercommunal violence article can be improved by including verification of the name "Bloody Christmas", I could then see putting a minimal mention of the events in the disambiguation page — possibly something like "a name (Turkish: Kanlı Noel) for attacks on Turkish Cypriots in December 1963".
- Finally, please keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is not considered a reliable source for material in Misplaced Pages; you need to go back to the external sources used in the other Misplaced Pages article, and cite those sources, not the other Misplaced Pages article itself. — Richwales 14:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Disputed territories
Hi,
- Over at your proposal to extend ARBMAC to Cyprus, JClemens mentioned the possibility of broader sanctions covering "disputed territories", and in particular Fut.Perf. and Roger Davies mentioned "the former Ottoman Empire". I think that actually identifies the problem quite nicely; Cyprus and the various Balkans disputes all involve Ottoman successor states, and there's a couple more areas in the near east which currently have the same kind of problematic editing. Of course, our Arab-Israeli battlefield has already had plenty of attention in its own right (at arbcom and elsewhere).
- However, simply talking in terms of the Ottoman empire could cause pushback among some, since much of the pov-pushing comes from a historical perspective of Our People Built A Glorious Nation And Then Suffered Under The Turkish Yoke And Then Freed Ourselves &c. So a different phrase might be more palatable.
What do you think? Instead of enlarging the existing ARBMAC umbrella (it's easy for people to say "Cyprus isn't in the Balkans"), would it be practical/desirable to build a new "Ottoman successor states" umbrella which includes all those problem areas of ethnic/nationalist pov-pushing plus a couple more? bobrayner (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Good question. The impression I'm getting for now is that ArbCom isn't going to agree to anything like this unless and until an actual case is presented to them. If you'll look at this exchange on Newyorkbrad's talk page, there seems to be some sentiment toward producing a general sanction regime that would encompass disruptive editing dealing with any disputed territory — subsuming the zillion separate discretionary sanctions currently in place. There was also a suggestion made to consider a case whose scope would be limited to the question of imposing discretionary sanctions, but without dealing with the conduct of specific editors. Not sure where that's going to lead yet. I also note that the noise level on Cyprus-related topics seems to have gone down of late — perhaps in part because Justice Forever has not yet reappeared — so it might be necessary to wait for edit-warring to resume (!) and go back to ArbCom at that time. — Richwales 21:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK; those are good points. bobrayner (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
For your patience with this scribe
|
Some Turkish coffee for you! |
| I know and recognise I consume a little too much of your time and patience here.
You may have got tired a bit. So sit back, forget WP for a moment and enjoy this cup of coffee I prepared for you and a piece of "lokum" or Turkish delight on the side. Thanks for being there... E4024 (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC) |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low 
to High 
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Negativity at Talk:Nicosia
Richwales, I am visiting your talk page as soon as I saw your initiative. I would like to tell you, paraphrasing your own words, that please feel free to "remove a(ny) negative comment(s) made by one (this) editor about a general group of other editors". Causing you headaches is the last thing I would like to do. I apologize to you. All the best and take care. --E4024 (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK, thanks, I'll do that. It's important to try as hard as we can to focus comments on the subject of an article — not on other editors' motives, backgrounds, or good faith (or perceived lack thereof). Taking the high ground by always acting courteously, even if you may think others are not, would go a long way toward resolving numerous disputes, not only here on Misplaced Pages, but in the "real world" too. — Richwales 22:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)