User talk:Mywayyy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Retribution revert-wars? 2 Greco-Turkish relations 3 Friendship 4 Renewed revert wars 5 User notice: temporary 3RR block 5.1 Regarding reversions[2] made on July 4, 2006 (UTC) to Kalymnos 6 Συμβουλή/-ές

[edit] Retribution revert-wars?

(Copied from User talk:Telex:)

Mywayyy, don't. First, these edit wars are harmful no matter what the merits of the case are, and if you persist I'm going to press to get you indef-blocked. (Your block evasion through anon IPs should by rights have gotten you at least a week by now anyway.) And as for content, you should have noticed by now that with Istanbul/Constantinople we have the naming issue not merely in the intro sentence but actually in as many as two separate articles of their own, and the section structure of the main article. It's already there, dammit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your threats. Would you accept this? —Khoikhoi 17:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually have fought to keep the historical names (Greek, Armenian, etc.) at the top of the page in Turkish geography articles. Many of the pages that I've mentioned to you have the historical names because I've reverted people trying to remove them. You're being very unreasonable, Mywayyy—you're fixated on one city when I already explained to you that the world does not revolve around it. Historical names are helpful, take a look at Braşov for example. No one's fighting over having the Hungarian name up there.

Check the statistics at User:Telex/Ethnic identity in Greece. There is an actual (and large) Turkish minority in Western Thrace, and the Greek government agreed to preserve it (under the Treaty of Lausanne) in return for Turkey keeping Greek minorities in Istanbul, Gökçeada and Bozcaada. That's why your can use Turkish when communicating with public services and in certain state schools the medium of education is Turkish in that part of Greece. —Khoikhoi 21:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree! :) I've been accused of being a "Greek chauvinist" many times so I don't mind being a Turkish one. ;) Anyways, how many articles are you planning to do this? I don't think it's fair to have the Greek, Armenian and Kurdish names at the very top of Turkish city articles and for Greek articles just hiding the Turkish names near the bottom. I wouldn't mind if you only do it for a few articles, however. —Khoikhoi 03:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so you're saying we can stil have it in the 1st paragraph, but just not at the top? I agree to that! We could prhase it like, "Alexandroupoli has a sizeable Turkish population, which they refer to as Dedeağaç". How's that? Well, I don't think you can consider people that have lived in Trabzon, for example (and still do) as "foreigners". That's why I think the Greek names are appropriate at the top—also because they're useful. For example, look at the Hrodna artice:

Hrodna (or Horodnia; also Grodna) (Belarusian: Гро́дна, Го́радня, Гаро́дня; Russian: Гро́дно, Grodno; Polish: Grodno, German: Garten) -- in Belarus

However, you won't find many Poles there (at least that's what I think). —Khoikhoi 03:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

But Mywayyy, the Kurds aren't recognized as an offical minority group in Turkey, so should we delete the Kurds in Turkey article? Who says we should write articles based on what your or my government says? I think we should accept other sources as well. I like your suggestion—I've already added Κωνσταντινουπολη in the 3rd paragraph, is that ok? The problem is I have a feeling a lot of people might not accept that, I've seen people constantly try to delete "until 1930, the city was officially known as Constantinople". Now that's chauvinism.

BTW, what about Tilos and Thasos? —Khoikhoi 04:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, how should I fit that in? As for Tilos and Thasos, I don't think having a Turkish population (past and present) is the main factor here. It's also a fact that the islands were a part of the Ottoman Empire for years. And again, I don't want to go back to square one, if the Greek name from one city (Istanbul) gets removed, are you going to start removing the Turkish name from all Greece geography articles? That just doesn't seem to blance out! :p —Khoikhoi 04:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You two might be interested in my thoughts I left at User talk:Hectorian. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you're saying now. Just make sure you don't go on a rampage! :p Your suggestion sounds fair. Have we got everything cleared up? —Khoikhoi 19:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That page is not about Istanbul, now is it? There's a convention put down by Wikipedia and we have to adhere to it wether we like it or not. An encyclopedia is not a place to make compromises and please each other. Please don't take these issues to personal levels. DeliDumrul 17:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The "Turkish Alphabet" version of the name was removed from the top of the Istanbul page after I made my point and changes. I did not protest to that and did not add it back later. I might have done reverts to last good versions which might have put it back, i'm not sure about it. Anyways, the convention simply states that you either put all of them in the first line or carry all of them to another place. So if we put Greek name in Istanbul then we need to put others too, just like Armenian name was added. About the "Turkish Alphabet" version, it's just a matter of a dot, and i don't care that much about its being there or not. My Best DeliDumrul 17:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I can't agree to that. You know, Greek names are at the top of many Turkish cities, and that's where they belong. It's a matter of format rather than significance to some people. Though I'm not reverting it for now. Just to spend more time on more productive subjects rather than this one. Again and again, simply if there are a couple of names (i.e. not longer than half a line) they are put at the top, if more you put them aside. What's going in these pages is really disturbing, because to me Greek and Turkish people are good neighbors and good friends. It has always been like that (aside from political disputes and some false-intentioned people). DeliDumrul 17:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm really sorry to hear those words from you. I've been to Europe and Russia. Lived in Turkey as well as both Canada and U.S. in North America. There is no way, I would agree that Turkey is far behind developed countries, neither the country nor the life standards are poor. You very well know that most of the human rights organizations are indeed political weapons. I'm sure you didn't intend to do so, but those kind of statements are both offensive and destructive. I just mentioned about our peoples' friendship to address that the disputes in Wikipedia are hurting it. I don't think we need to discuss our countries' policies, wikipedia is certainly not the right platform for that. Respectfully DeliDumrul 19:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greco-Turkish relations

Thanks for letting me know, the anon was dumping a huge amount of text from the Assembly of Turkish American Associations. It's therefore an apparent copyvio. Kolay gelsin! —Khoikhoi 03:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I reported both you and the other guy at the 3RR board, before I noticed there was a copyvio issue. I'd still like to remind you that these kinds of rapid revert wars are considered harmful, even when you're right about the content. According to the letter of the law you were breaking the rule too, and given your previous history you should be rather careful about that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

- FrancisTyers · 08:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Mywayyy, re your edit summary here: [1]. You misunderstood. It's not me that should be "more careful about 3RR policy in the future". It's you. My report was correct. You are again in breach of policy through block-evading (and continuing to make content yet new reverts). Even though I can sympathise to a degree because with your previous reverts you were on the right side content-wise, you were still revert-warring. I have again reported you. I won't object if, in the light of your motivations in the previous revert war, you can broker with Francis to let you off on a promise to stop this kind of behaviour. But you need to learn to accept the rules here. If you're blocked, you don't edit. Period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've extended your block to 48 hours per User talk:88.218.38.182. If you feel this action is unjustified, please consider contacting another Administrator to review your case. - FrancisTyers · 11:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Extended to 72 hours per User talk:88.218.54.203. Same conditions above apply. - FrancisTyers · 18:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Mywayyy, you really don't get it, don't you? You're blocked. You're not supposed to be editing. Every time you try this (88.218.35.125 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)), your block-extensions will escalate. Try this two or three times more and my guess is you can safely consider yourself indefinitely banned by community consensus. Which means you will never again be able to contribute anything without getting immediately reverted. If you have any interest in becoming a respected member of the Wikipedia community ever again, then please do the only reasonable thing you can do now: wait out your block, and then come back. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Extended to 96 hours per User talk:88.218.35.125. As above. - FrancisTyers · 08:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friendship

Thank you for letting me see why there are problems between the two countries. I think I'll take the highway. Take care, mate. DeliDumrul 13:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renewed revert wars

Hey Mywayyy, welcome back, but when I said to return after waiting out your block I didn't mean for you to return and re-start the revert-warring exactly where you left it! Let me make it clear that this will still be seen as disruption, and I very strongly advise you not to even approach 3RR by wide margin this time. Admins can block for disruption in repeat cases even without 3RR being touched technically. -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi FPS. I want to make clear that I also hate those revert wars. But some guys like you leave me no choice. Please explain to me why do you keep adding the Turkish name on places that have no Turkish population whatsoever and have little or no imprortance to Turkish people. You might say that this is due to Historical reasons, beeing occupied for like 400 years. OK agreed. But nearly ALL Greek cities were occupied for like 400 years, do we need to add Turkish names there too? Many other cities around the world were occupied by various civilizations on various times, do we need to add all names there too? Tell me FPS how is Simi or Kalimnos or Samothrace significant to Turkish people? Now lets say you REALLY want to add it for your own strange reasons..well do it in the text content just like in Istanbul article. By the way I dont see the same attitude by you in Istanbul article. Why not add the Greek name AT THE TOP of the article? I will absolutely not tolerate this situation.Regards.Mywayyy 11:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as my own personal opinion is concerned, please see the discussion we had on Hectorian's talk page the other day, I think I made my stance pretty clear. It's not because the Islands are significant to Turks, it because the contact with Turkish is significant for the history of the Islands. But now it's really more a matter of Wiki principle here. The revert warring must stop, that's paramount. If you feel strongly about these issues, get some process going that leads to consensus (maybe mediation or a centralised policy discussion page.) What you can't do is just say: I want it this way, I'll revert forever no matter what the others say. "I will absolutely not tolerate ..." is just something you have no right to say on Wikipedia. There have been some strong voices for the inclusion of these names in the lead, it's standard practice both in other places in Wikipedia and in some other encyclopedias (I just checked Brockhaus 2006, the German equivalent to Britannica, for instance). You will need to give some signal that you would be willing to accept a community consensus solution even it wasn't all Yourwayyy, otherwise we'll never get anywhere. -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. as for the on-top-or-not-on-top issue, I find it childish to fight about that as if it was a matter of symbolic significance. It's not, it's a matter of textual practicality. If it's simple (just one or two names without much necessary explanation) , it goes in the lead. If it's complex (more than two or three names, complex historical issues attached), it goes down in the text. First case is Kos (needs just Italian and Turkish); second case is Istanbul. Simple. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

Hi, the next time you block-evade I will indefinately ban you. - FrancisTyers · 09:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Right you are now indefinately blocked for evading blocks, edit warring and general disruption, Please go away. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Συμβουλή/-ές

Maybe u do not even care in listening some advice by me, but i will take my chance... The way that u edit (mostly revert) is a really unconstructive way. u give no reasons for that, but only (allow me the words) 'childish excuses' and strong greek POV. Personally, i would also like to see the greek name in the first line of Istanbul (it's absense from there was the main reason for your first reverts), but this is not the way to achive it. in order to avoid double-standards (since some users do not want the name Constantinoupolis be added in Istanbul, i have removed the turkish name from Komotini (maybe u'll say it is not the same-and it isn't, according to the greek POV-, but there is a relevancy between the 2 cases that will prohibite one-sided edits or reverts in both articles. removing the turkish placenames from all the greek articles is really a nationalistic attitude that will not be permitted here. do me a favour and take a look in the wikipedia policies and guidelines, for they are really helpful! Και κάτι στα ελληνικά: το ελληνικό όνομα βρίσκεται σε πολλά τοπονύμια της γείτονος και εγώ το έχω προσθέσει και σε άλλα-και θα συνεχίσω να το κάνω-. Χωρίς ίχνος εθνικισμού ή οτιδήποτε άλλο... απλά, γιατί έτσι πρέπει να είναι, σύμφωνα με την ιστορία, την ετυμολογία τους κ.ο.κ. Από την άλλη πλευρά, και τούρκικα τοπονύμια έχουν λόγους να βρίσκονται δίπλα σε ελληνικά νησιά και πόλεις. Lastly, in order to be absolutely fair with u, i expect everyone (administrator or not, who have talked to u, or not) to have the same stance, use the same language and take the same measures against anyone, the next time a greek placename will be removed from a turkish town, island or city (where it has every right to be). reconsider your attitude and the language u use, that's the summary or my words, cause, believe me, the admins are not kidding... they will block u indefinately... Regards --Hectorian 23:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)