User talk:A.Garnet/Archive 2

Hi E.A. I see that the Armenian Genocide has again been magically removed from Turkey and instead there are four lines about Armenian terrorism. Can you please explain why this is neutral.--Wiglaf 09:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi, i didn't notice someone removed it. Before you go jumping the gun i'd remind you that it was me who added that section that was removed, also it was me who expanded the section into politics which gave it far more information than would otherwise have been included in history. I'm also struggling to see four lines about armenian terrorism, what section are you refering to? --E.A 10:12, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know that you added the lines and I think you did a good job, I also saw that you reinserted the info. I believe the Armenian terrorism is mentioned as the 19th point on the section on post-1923 history. Best regards,--Wiglaf 20:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Kemal Atatürk

Please see my reposne in the article talk page. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 19:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

New TRNC page

Please look over the article Foreign relations of Northern Cyprus and see if there is anything you wish to add.--Expatkiwi ^{My Talk} 23:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so..--Expatkiwi ^{My Talk} 22:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, please look over the new article Politics of Northern Cyprus and see if there is anything you wish to add or ammend.--Expatkiwi ^{My Talk} 19:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Ataturk criticism

Thank you for requesting my comments on this article. However, my own knowledge is limited, and my participation, both in the Cyprus dispute article and the Kurdistan Workers Party article have largely been related to proof reading and POV phrasing.--Scimitar ^parley 22:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• Ah, I see that you're E.A. In that case, my contributions were also largely connected with keeping that nut Argyrosargyrou from spreading his propoganda. I'm afraid I'd be mostly useless in this case.--Scimitar ^parley 22:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

TRNC

I'm preparing some comments to submit to the TRNC (Turkish_Republic_of_Northern_Cyprus) discussion page and would apprecite you feedback/comments. Here it is:

• The article (Turkish_Republic_of_Northern_Cyprus) is far from being NPOV and reads like biased political commentary emphasizing and focusing on issues that have more to do with the Cyprus_dispute. For example: there is no section describing the People of the TRNC, but there is an entire section devoted to Property Issues (surely, this section should be in the Cyprus Dispute). The section on Communications and Transport has three paragraphs and each paragraph describes problems such as visa issues rather than giving facts and figures about airports, roads and so on. The History section is factually wrong (see below) and focuses on the non-recognition of the TRNC, rather than giving useful information on why and how the TRNC came into existence.

• It is factually wrong and misleading to say that (quote) The independence of northern Cyprus was proclaimed in 1975 under the name Turkish Federated State of Northern Cyprus (unquote). In 1975 Northern Cyprus declared its federated status as part of the Republic of Cyprus. It did not declare its independence until 1983, and that was after years of failed negotiations with South Cyprus and the international community. The article continues (quote) The name was changed to its present form on 15 November 1983 unquote. This is misleading. It was a lot more than a name change. It was the creation of a newly declared independent political entity called the TRNC. The Turkish Federated State of Northern Cyprus was a different political entity. The article needs to be corrected.

• If the aim is to create a NPOV objective description of the TRNC, which describes its Geography, People, Economy and so on, then such an article must include a History section which helps us understand how and why the TRNC came into existence; and a People section that explains who the Turkish Cypriots are and where they came from.

--Truth_Seeker 12:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've now added the text to the TRNC:Talk page. --Truth_Seeker 15:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

For the Xnt time

Please stop deleting relevant informations. Fadix 22:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Turkish Invasion of Cyprus

I've completed that nomination for you. You have to edit the section that links to the afd. You can either save it and then edit it, or copy past the whole afd header from another page and edit it in one go. I do the first because I'm lazy and it gives me the old afd without any extra work. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are you editing my page.

Stop it. This isn't an article so it doesn't have to be neutral.

POV removed

Recently there has been a lot of interference with this article. I appologize for my actions but I forgot that there were the other more in depth sections. I was trying to counter arguments that were being written in the body of this article, which now I have seen, did not belong in this article. Finally, I am monitoring all these articles for Turkish POV and Greek POV and skillful literary remarks which quite frankly should be kept out (and as a corollary, I should not have added what I put because it was counter to something someone else tried to write in a POV way - as a point of honor and with my heart I appologize). As a point any future changes to this article should be reverted and relegated to the appropriate subsection or new subsection. (UNFanatic 21:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC))

Image copyright problem with Image:Istanbul levent.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Istanbul levent.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

wowturkey.com images

^{Copied from my talk page --Sherool (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)}

All images fromw wowturkey.com are free for use. Copyright info here in Turkish: http://www.wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14278

Full translation courtesy of Metb82:

"Dear guests,

According to our ambition, we like the spreading of the photographs that we put in our wesite to be used and spread throughout the internet. The more it spreads, we are more proud of the work that we do without expecting anything in return. Please use our photographs as you like!

But we have a small request : If you really have to delete the tiny logo of our site from the photographs, then please mention our site as the source at the site that you are using our logo. This is unfortunately a legal must.

The whole rights and responsibility of the photographs on the website belong to the photograph owners. The copying and usage of the photographs on the site without permition from the photograph owners is a crime according to Idea and Art Works Law number 5846.

Who is the photograph owner? Who to take permission from? The rights for use of the photographs uploaded to our servers belongs to our site. For a commercial purposed use, permission must be taken, you can take permission by sending a private message to our member. You can be sure that both permission and an original of the photograph will be given. All you have to do is to send a message. There is no way for you to be seen as a thief, thats why please don't hesitate to take permission.

Thanx...

additional:The photographs that werent uploaded to our servers, meaning just given a link from other sites, do not belong to us. You have to follow the site the link was given, and take permission from wherever the link was given." --A.Garnet 15:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, unfortunately as free as that might sound, there seem to be one critical problem. They do not allow commercial use without permission (so it is in fact not free for any purpose), and images uploaded to the Wikipedia must allow for commmercial use. I'm afraid we have to either "convert" all the wowturkey images to fair use claims or contact all the individual photographers who contributed the images and ask theyr permission to release the images under a less restrictive license. Such images uploaded after May 19 2005 are in fact candidates for speedy deletion. --Sherool (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit of a beginner to all this copyright business, what do you mean by ""convert" all the wowturkey images to fair use claims" - is this a simple case of chaning the copyright template? --A.Garnet 16:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about the bad choice of words, fixing the copyright templates was what I meant. Replace the cc-at or free use templates and whateer with {{fairusein|whatever}} for example. It scertainly won't hurt to mention on the page that the images can be used freely for non-commercial purposes, but a fair use rationale should be added independantly of that fact as described on the Wikipedia:Fair use page (policy section mostly). --Sherool (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Hectorian

In fact i would like, as i have said to Adkagansu, a template saying 'this users supports the kurds to do whatever they want with their future' whatever this may be: independance,autonomy,federalisation,nothing at all? but that's the template i saw here and that's why i have this. i am thinking of deleting all templates and having only the EU,greece,orthodox and a few more 'bout languages and interests...Anyway, u seem a reasonable editor as well, and i've not seen u pushing POV yet:). i see where u come from and it is nice to see a neighbour editor unlike some others (i do not mean Kagan, not to be misunderstood). Cheers! --Hectorian 17:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well done!btw,i am not surprised that u are the only one to be interested in Accession of Turkey to the European Union article (whatever this suppose to mean). --Hectorian 18:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Congratulations

Thanks for your compliments regarding the Turkish literature article; I appreciate it very much. —Saposcat 04:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Turkey Article

First off, are you neutral and do you use NPOV?? Just kidding and hello. I am VERY late to the table on the Turkey article but was wondering about if there was ANY, even remotely, consensus for how to deal/link the Armenian Genocide or WHATEVER you want to call it to this article. This very understandable is VERY sensitive. MY point of view is that there should be at least SOME link/discussion of the ongoing issue of recognition or lack there of concerning the events. I am trying to go through past aurguments and it seemed like you were involved. This really isn't my battle but I feel "sucked" in now that ONE link to the Armenian Genocide won't be included. Is there a link to the ongoing contraversy regarding recognition of the events even that could be included. Anyways, I have already spent WAY WAY to much time on this issue and will probably go quietly into the night and let the people with an agenda win out. Thanks for letting me post my ramblings in here and have a pleasant day!Tom 14:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi A.Garnet, thanks for your response. I have actually given up trying to edit anywhere NEAR Turkey or Amenia since it really isn't my battle and seems like banging your head against a wall. I am sticking to NON contraversial articles...IF I CAN FIND THEM!! :)Tom 17:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Pontian Genocide

Hi im a greek wikipedia user. I just checked the discussion of the "pontian genocide" and saw that you were the one who added the neutrality contested tag- IMO you did well as

• the article is quite a mess and offers statistics only from the greek side.
• at times it is not clear whether it refers to the Greek Orthodox population of the Ottoman Empire in general or specifically to Pontian Greeks.
• wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a web site where everybody can post his political claims and ideas.
• at least one greek journalist (iakobos pretenteris) has claimed that there is no such thing as a pontian genocide, as there was not a systematic effort by the turkishstate of eliminating the pontian population, but of course nobody took his claims seriously in greece.

As the article is more or less controlled by the "greek patriotic lobby" it will be very difficult to make any sort of corrections. In any case, thx for contributing and trying to correct it. best regards--Greece666 04:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

• I find your point of view very interesting- especially given that you are from Northern Cyprus and I cannot fail to notice that this is often the moderate half of the island (in terms of public opinion). Unfortunatelly, most young ppl in Southern Cyprus have adopted an overly nationalist stance. Older Greek Cypriots who remember the common past of the two communities usually have a more moderate opinion (except of course from the supporters of EOKA).
• IMO the article should be renamed- the Greek opinion that a genocide took place could be exposed in a separate part of the article- the fact that the greek parliament and two american states recognized it as such is not enough to make it a fact. of course, as i have pointed out previously this is impossible to do given the zeal of gr patriots.
• by the way, the mention of elias venezis in the article on pontian greek genocide is unfortunate: he was not a pontian and his book is autobiographical. thus, he writes mainly about what took place in ayvali(his birthplace) and the labour camps in anatolia.
• i suggest you simply ignore the comments of gr patriots- calling you or anyone else names is more suitable to kindengarten than wikipedia.
• you could also check the greek cuisine article: i and user:macrakis maintain that gyros and doner kebab are one and the same thing. however, gr patriots simply revert. check the discussion page, it is a good exercise in modern gr surrealism!

with warm,unpatriotic salutes --Greece666 22:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

i thought you might find this interesting, since it has been written by one of the best historians on contemporary greece:

"Had the British not retreated in March and turned instead to the ill-fated Gallipoli landings, the capital must surely have fallen. Indeed, the Young Turk leadership had planned for an emergency evacuation to continue the war from Anatolia - much as actually happened in 1919. But this in turn raised the question of the security of the Anatolian heartland, inhabited not only by Turks but also by Greeks, Armenians, Kurds and others. The Ottoman leadership was deeply uncertain of the loyalty of these groups, especially with a Russian offensive looming. It had already deported Greek civilians from the Anatolian shoreline into the interior (the Russians were doing much the same with Russian Jews in Tsarist Poland, the Habsburgs with their border Serbs). But these deportations were on a relatively small scale and do not appear to have been designed to end in their victims' deaths. What was to happen with the Armenians was of a different order."

You can find the rest here; it might interest you since it is about the armenian genocide.--Greece666 06:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• "Some have questioned for example whether Europe would have intervened in the Balkans in the 90's quicker had the massacres been against Christians." - i think it would have been more probable. consider the support croatia and slovenia received from the very beginning from austria and germany. the yugoslavia wars are a good example of states acting along religious/cultural lines- i dont think it's a coincedence that (orthodox) greece and russia supported serbia.
• i also found the article quite interesting. mazower is arguably the best (living) historian on the balkans.
• in the conclusions of his book "the balkans"he discusses once again the issue of the treatment of muslims and especially ottomans. it is almost always forgotten that between 20 and 30% of the population of the balkans was once muslim; most of them had to leave their houses as refugees a short time after their territory was "liberated" by a christian state.
• to give but one example, consider the muslims/turks of the peloponnese who left their homes after the 1821 revolution (never to return and never to receive a compensation for their lost property- above never to be remembered, as from what i know in greece there is very little research on the issue).--Greece666 23:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)--Greece666 23:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• the book by mazower ("the balkans") deals little with turks and muslims per se as it focuses on balkan history (19-20th); having said this, IMO its a great book.
• about turkish cretans: i think they all left with the population exchange of 1922-3, as did all turks/muslims in greece (except for thrace). there was a book about them in greek recently.
• about sampson- yes. and ioannides had ideas similar to his.
• as a matter of fact i know that some turkish cypriots were killed in reprisals in 1974, but dont know a number (not even an approximate one).
• there was recently a documentary in greece about turkish cypriots in the 1960s and 1970s, entitled "the other side". it met various obstacles but in the end they showed it on TV.
• i dont know the book by McCarthy but it sounds really interesting. do you know when was it written?--Greece666 01:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

wowturkey.com

It should be sufficient for wowturkey.com to release a few images to Wikipedia under one of the free licences in WP:ICT#Free licenses. The other images in their site might be released under whatever licence they want. How could we ever control that?

Also, the same image can be licenced under some terms to Wikipedia and under some other terms to others, e.g. the readers of wowturkey.com. Again, how could we ever control what happens between wowturkey.com and some other party (e.g. reader of wowturkey.com)?

But they should realise that if they do this, then the readers of wowturkey.com could still come to Wikipedia and get the image under a free licence instead of wowturkey.com's normal licence. Since Wikipedia content is licenced to everybody under free licences, anybody anywhere in the world can use Wikipedia content freely without asking anybody's permission. Hence this kind of dual licencing only seems to make sense to me if both the licences are similar in spirit, e.g. {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} and {{gfdl}}, but if wowturkey.com wishes to have unrelated licences, it is upto them.

An important thing that I'd like wowturkey.com folks to realise is that Wikipedia content is not only free for copying and distribution but also for modification and commercial exploitation. It wouldn't be fair to have wowturkey.com licence the images to us unless we make sure they realise every aspect of the licence we're proposing to them.

BTW in order to maintain a good relationship with wowturkey.com, I'd say it would be best to ask them to licence to us only a few images instead of nagging them over every image in their site -- from your question, they don't seem to be willing to licence everything freely to everyone and we should respect that. Partially forgoing copyright interests in a few images among thousands is one thing, partially forgoing copyright interests in thousands of images is another.

Sorry for the long response. I wanted to be really clear. If anything is unclear please contact me. -- Paddu 20:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope by "limit the licence to just Wikipedia", you understand that the licences is limited not only to Wikipedia but all the readers, mirrors and other sublicencees of Wikipedia, and sublicencees of sublicencees, and so on. Hence the clause "Wikipedia content is licenced to everybody (who cares to use the content) freely". Thanks! -- Paddu 21:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

hey thanx for your concern we have the same feelings on the matter. Dont worry i will do the talking but i need to know what exactly i should tell them to write there. I need to know which kind of licence and which kind of related permission is needed. if they write there for wikipedia the images are free, would that be enough or do they have to write these images are free for any kind of commercial use. The first possibility is easier for me to accomplish but i will do my best for the second one too. I also need to know if we paste the permissions from the photograph owners like they ask right now, would that be also useful? thanx Metb82 23:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You need to ask them to release the images to Wikipedia under a licence that allows everybody to copy, modify and distribute the images commercially or noncommercially, in the spirit of the GFDL. Any of the licences listed at WP:ICT#Free licenses is OK. You can see Wikipedia:Boilerplate request for permission to get an idea. As I have already said too many times, having a free licence can in no way limit the permission just to Wikipedia. Everybody is allowed to copy/modify/distribute/make money out of these photos. -- Paddu 17:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

ok i see but i dont think they will understand this because people will already use and copy the image from wikipedia and they are happy with that as long as wowturkey logo is on. what im afraid of is, if i tell them that the images will be free for modification, they will think that people will try to remove their logos. there must be a simple way of asking them to do something because i can see that they are confused about the non commercial part. they are saying wikipedia is already not commercial and why do they need something like this. i explained to them but its not very easy for them to just release all commercial rights thats why they havent given me a solid answer yet. im saying again we should ask for a simpler or more specific way and honestly i dont really understand this licence thing too well either. The agencia brasil licence perfectly fits wowturkey i think but there must be an expert on wikipedia on licences that will help me be a connection between each question they will ask me and wikipedia asks for them. Metb82 20:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

let me translate you what i said here briefly: http://www.wowturkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25771

wikipedia da yüklenen her fotoğraf için belli bir telif hakkı(copyright) yani lisans seçmek gerekiyor. Wowturkey de bu konuda yazdığı üzere ticari olarak kullanmak izne bağlı ancak wikipedia da ticariyi kapsamayan telif hakları hiçbirşekilde kabul edilmiyor. Sizden ricam ya bu fotoğrafların logo bulunduğu sürece ticari olarak da bütün haklarının devredildiğini yazmanız, ya da yüklenmiş olan bütün fotoğrafların lisanslarını devrettiğinizi duyurmanız. Bu konuda yardımlarınızı bekliyorum. Teşekkürler.

In wikipedia, we need to choose a licence or copyright in every image that we upload. As it says in wowturkey, the commercial use of the images are due to permissions from photograph owners but wikipedia does not accept images that dont include commercial use. My request from you is either you write that as long as site logo is on, all (including commercial) rights are released, or you declare that the rights of the uploaded images that we choose are released by you

the site admins respond was:

Wikipedia ticari bir site olmadığı için, sitemizin ismi de açıkça belirtildiği için, tabii ki fotoğrafları istediğin gibi kullanabilirsin, sitemizin var oluş amacı bu! Ben şahsen kendi fotoğraflarımı orada görmekten gurur duydum.

Ancak "fotoğrafların bütün ticari haklarının devredilmesi" niye gerekti anlayamadım. Wikipedia sitesinde kullanma izni veriliyor sadece. Satma izni değil.

Because wikipedia is not a commercial site, and because the name of our site is clearly mentioned, ofcourse you can use the photos as much as you want. thats the ambition of our site! I personally would be honoured to see my own photos there.

But i dont understand why "all commercial rights of the photos should be released". In wikipedia, the rights to use are given only, not to sell."

and i reexplained but havent heard any response yet and so thats pretty much the conversation i had. Metb82 20:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia gives users the rights to modify and sell content. You could point them to our licence here: Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License to understand this. Though images are not required to be licenced under the GFDL, they have to be compatible, i.e. must allow free copying/modification/distribution commercially or non-commercially. There is a Turkish Wikipedia article on the GFDL here: tr:GNU Özgür Belgeleme Lisansı -- note that is an article on the GFDL and not the GFDL itself. Also you could point them to Jimbo Wales's letter: [1] that disallows non-commercial-only and by-permission-only images. HTH -- Paddu 19:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

sure i will thanx. Metb82 18:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Pontian Greek Genocide

Greetings. Sadly, I'm not sure whether to remain in this project at all. There is a group of editors that I feel are set out to drive out editors such as myself (and have already succeeded in driving out six other active admins) in the intereditorial battleground that Wikipedia has become. I'll get back to you if anything changes in the near future, but I'm beginning to hold less and less hope. Best, El_C 21:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Images of Turkey

Hey, I've uploaded some new pics, please don't remove them! Just Izmir, Istanbul and Antalya's views arent genereal seems of those cities. So, If you would like just remove them.

You think that there are so many pictures, see another countries images, they are even more alot than Turkey's. See the article; http://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonia Turkey has nice places, you can't change them. Don't remove them please! Cause, I'll put my images that I upload always!

Sincerely, Zaparojdik

One image of general views of cities

I have noticed that you are urging for to say "put general photos of Turkey for 'cities'" See the Adana photo that you are put, it's not a GENERAL view! So, I have put there all general views of cities and removed some old images of Turkey. Now, there are not so many picture and in the "cities" part; there are general views.

Sincerely,

Zaparojdik

Please be understanding!

"Geographic beauties of Bursa and surroundings" maybe look like somewhere in the world either. So, Turkey doesn't existby just trees, historical places and mosques! I have been uploading streets, buildings and THE LIFE in Turkey. Sorry, I'll put them again.

Now, I have uploaded so GENERAL a Istanbul photo and Bursa's general seems by day. Is it ok? And I have removed some pics of Images of Turkey gallery. I'm urging for to say they are much cooler and quality.

Pontian Greek Genocide

Yeah, I see what you're saying. Forget it then. I just wanted to let you know that I didn't write the article, and the most I have contributed to it was about one sentence in the recognition section. The rest was just wikification and formatting stuff. —Khoikhoi 22:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I know the perfect man to ask! I recall that there was a conflict on the Khojaly Massacre page between User:Grandmaster and the Armenian editors. Francis was able to resolve it by making the article neutral.

As for Amazon, no I don't have an account. Have you tried Google Books? —Khoikhoi 23:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I read the two pages, very interesting indeed. What part was most striking to you? —Khoikhoi 23:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes. We'll see what Francis says. I found the "...as we did to Armenians" part to be particularly interesting. Adios. —Khoikhoi 00:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey man, can you come and suggest names for the article on the talk page? - FrancisTyers 15:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Your 3RR violation in Turkey

These edits of yours are in violation of the three-revert rule, for which you could have been blocked. Please don't repeat this.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey&diff=56156414&oldid=56142358
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey&diff=56206020&oldid=56185578
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey&diff=56298205&oldid=56290411
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey&diff=56298920&oldid=56298226 (marked as minor!)
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey&diff=56519835&oldid=56505660
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkey&diff=56519937&oldid=56519835

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- Paddu 07:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Even if 3 and 4 are not considered reverts, 1, 2, 5 and 6 might be taken as reverts and you would still have violated. BTW it would be better if you can reduce your reverts. Note that there were others too with the same intention as you so you need not be the only person reverting.

Also, if you want to strike a compromise you should use the talk page of the article/his talk page/your talk page to decide on the compromise. I'm not sure what is generally done about partial reverts intended to strike a compromise, but doing these things in the talk page would be the safest. If the person you're edit-warring with refuses to discuss, you could space out your reverts in time and point others to the talk page in the edit summary. You could also try various methods of resolving disputes.

Anyway, be careful not to tread this path in the future. Thanks! -- Paddu 12:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry my bad. I confused between 1 June and 2 June. -- Paddu 13:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Turkish Cypriot

Hi A.Garnet,

I recall you mentioned to me awhile ago about the Turkish Cypriot genocide. It appears that 85.97.92.116 (talk · contribs) (Istanbul IP) recently made these changes to the 1963 article. I reverted them, but was I right to do so? It was the same anon who made these changes as well. —Khoikhoi 01:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! I'll get aount to reading it someday... —Khoikhoi 23:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Kemal Atatürk

I thought it was funny as it seemed like an attempt to de-humanize Atatürk by making him seem like a flawless God. He did many great things for Turkey, but he wasn't perfect. I hadn't noticed the second part, sorry. —Khoikhoi 23:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

POV article

A new article titled List of persecuted Turkish writers has sprung up. I think it should be deleteable as a POV fork, but im not exactly too sure how to go about it. Could you list it up on "Articles for deletion" ? --Kilhan 18:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah,nevermind. I've finally figured it out.--Kilhan 18:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

May I bring to your attention the Turkification article. There seems to be an edit war involving a couple of Greek users who seem all the too-eager to insert some highly POVish statements. It seems that there are unable to comprehend the scope of the article and Im unable to revert for fear of breaking the 3RR. Would you take a look over there? Thanks in advance--Kilhan 12:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"Nasty" would be the understatement of the year. Anyway, now that its gotten the attention of a few Turkish editors and some other neutral editors, things can only get better. Hehe, did you notice this bit of MPD[2]?

www.flickr.com/creativecommons/

A.Garnet,

You have to careful to take consider only the images under CC licences which don't prohibit non-commercial use, which would be the ones listed in WP:ICT#Creative Commons Licenses. Watch out for the CC licences listed under WP:ICT#Non-free Creative Commons licenses, which disallow either modification or commercial usage of the images, and hence are non-free (of course, if you write a fair use rationale, these images can be uploaded under the fair use category -- Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Fair use).

Hence you might upload any useful images from http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/by-2.0/ and http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/by-sa-2.0/. Remember that it would be better to upload free images into commons: rather than here as the images could then be used across projects, and could be used in galleries (which might sometimes be offtopic in en.wikipedia) in commons. However, note that there is already a bot at commons:User:FlickrLickr being used for precisely the same purpose. -- Paddu 20:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that FlickrLickr is only considering by-2.0 now, so you can consider uploading useful by-sa-2.0 images. Also IMHO if you think some by-2.0 image is an obvious candidate for uploading to commons, you might do so instead of waiting for FlickrLickr to upload (it might not upload soon). -- Paddu 20:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit I have trouble with it

The name is problematic, not that I don't believe it is a genocide, but rather for the notability of the term and it being based on wide range of peer reviewed publications. I also have a problem with the article as a whole, because it mixes different events with what happened to the Pontian Greeks, what happened to them is very special and if the article is supposed to discuss about them, it should discuss about them and not trying to connect various events. Alternative? I really don't know. This is even more difficult than the Assyrian cases, because while the Assyrian cases can be incorporated to the Armenian genocide article, which was what I said at the beginning should be done, the Pontian massacre was an event by itself which does not have a clear defined word to discribe it. My intention is not to undermine what happened, but rather impose standards on name conventions. The ideal would be to creat a page on the condition of minorities in the last years of the Ottoman Empire, we won't have to expend any Armenian section but redirect it to the main article, while we could developpe the Pontian Greeks cases without having to deal with the issue of having to find a difficult name for an article and wondering about the notability of the subject.--Fad (ix) 16:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

About Images of Turkey

First of all, I'm not "Zap", call me as Zaparojdik!

Everyone sent me congratulation messages about the images and requested me to put them Wiki Commons for foreigners also put them into Turkey page with their languages.

Just you change the gallery, I think you are a Vandal and anti-Turkish. Cause you put Turkey's most inchoate city's slum images. (Mardin- Mosque) Turkey is powerful a country and always developing. You can't change it by images!

Zaparojdik

• You threatening me? Wikipedia is not your own encyclopedia! I just want to say that you are so arrogant. I think you feel like this site's grandfather!

Please stop meddle to people's individual choices, because you don't have logical reasons for to change images into old.--Zaparojdik

Languages

Hi There! Can you translate my name in what language you know please, and then post it Here. I would be very grateful if you do (if you know another language apart from English and the ones on my userpage please feel free to post it on) P.S. all th translations are in alpahbetical order so when you add one please put it in alpahbetical order according to the language. Thanks!!! Abdullah Geelah 15:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

List of persecuted Turkish writers

The article wasn't deleted, as you may or may not have heard elsewhere, so I'm canvassing opinions for what to rename it to/merge it to on its relevant talk page. All reasonable suggestions will be entertained. BigHaz 10:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

New article

Hi again,

I stumbled upon this interesting article today—Cypriot Turkish. Just wanted to let you know if you haven't seen it already. —Khoikhoi 00:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the links on Turkish Cypriot. It's hard to find good data out there. Straughn 13:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

(to A.Garnet) No problem. BTW, do you think that this edit makes the article more neutral, or is it now slanted too much on the Turkish POV? Is there any way that Kyrenia District can still be mentioned? —Khoikhoi 20:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, the article looks a lot more neutral than when I first found it. BTW, I was talking to an elderly Greek man from Cyprus, and he said that a long time ago, before the governments got involved, Greek and Turkish Cypriots lived together in peace for the most part. Is this completely true? —Khoikhoi 22:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the discussion about this article in Khoikhoi's talk page, i'd like to tell u that the Republic of Cyprus differentiates between Cypriot Greek and mainland Greek. Cypriot greek is quite distinct from mainland greek. Personally, i have some problems to understand greek cypriots when they speak in their dialect, and i know that this is the case with every Greek in Greece. I am 100% sure that the official language of the R. of Cyprus is standard Greek (and Turkish). I am pretty much sure that TRNC has standard turkish as official language as well. so, i am going to make a minor change in that article. in addition, i would like to point that the number of speakers in Cyprus includes both TCs and Anatolian Turks. since the differences between the TC dialect and standard turkish as quite important, i think that the number of turkish-cypriot speakers should refear only to the turkish cypriots in TRNC. but i am not willing to make any further changes (if i'll get more involved in turkish related articles, some users may think that i hate the turks-something that really is not the case:)...). lastly, neither the GCs nor the Greeks in Greece say that both communities lived in harmony in Cyprus till 1974. we are perfectly aware of what was happening during the 50s-60s, or even prior, when the British took control of the island, or maybe even earlier, in 1821. Regards --Hectorian 23:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

(to A.Garnet again) Thanks again, that was really informative. —Khoikhoi 23:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No, i do not suggest that the RoC and TRNC's position is different in this case. i am saying exactly the opposite: that they have standard greek and standard turkish respectively as official languages, and not their own dialects-with the addition that R. of Cyprus also has standard turkish as co-official. if we include the anatolian turks in cyprus as turkish-cypriot speakers, i think that we cannot include the TCs abroad as well: in the same way that they were 'cypriotised', the later became -...ized. as for the past, the GCs are perfectly aware of all the things that have happened (i would not expect the official governmental website to state this, but i know they do). after all, these things happened just 40 years ago... in tet-a-tet conversations GCs go even further, and although they still primarily blame Turkey for the division of the island, they also accuse Greece (the junta)... sometimes i have the feeling that they feel more connected with the TCs, than with us, mainland Greeks! but still, the names Rauf Denktaş and Bülent Ecevit serve as a red piece of cloth for them... Regards--Hectorian 18:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Glad you responded

I agree with you on Cyprus, it needs to be reworded even though for most analysts some form of division is permanent. But the following needs to be included, albeit with clarifications if necessary. If you disagree, I would find your comments and reasons very helpfull. thanks.

• Turkey's main political, economic and military relations remain rooted within Western Europe and the United States. An associate member of the European Union since 1964, Turkey is currently in the process of accession pending the completion of negotiations. A major source of tension in its EU aspirations is the reluctance of France, Germany and Austria whose voters are apprehensive about Turkey's accession [3],[4], [5], [6], [7]. There is also concern over its human rights record [8], including freedom of expression. Another factor, is the issue of Cyprus, a member of the EU which Turkey does not recognise, but instead supports the breakaway Turkish Cypriot north. Supporters of Turkish membership include UK, Greece and Italy. Britain points out that it acts as a bridge beween the West and the Islamic east. Based on what it views as lukewarm support for its accesion to the EU, and alleged double standards in its negotiations, the Turkish public has become increasingly euroskeptic in recent times. A mid-2006 Eurobarometer survey revealed that 43% of Turkish citizens view the EU positively; just 35% trust the EU, 45% support enlargement and just 29% support an EU constitution .

Thanks again for your comments. Politis 11:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks for putting some thought into it. It still seems there is too much on Ataturk and the Ottomans (I think Ataturk, as a modernist, may have agreed with me :-)}, but I will not be carrying out any editing on them. Politis 12:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

About template Turkic States

Hey, how are you? Some editors protected Turkic States template with too many falses. Template:Turkic States For example; Yakutia is a Turkic State too and there it teaches to kids in school but some racist editors deleted it. Can you take a look? I dont have command for to change. Hope you can do something for right information.

Sincerely,

Zaparojdik

Hey!

Merhaba A.Garnet. Nasılsınız? In case you haven't noticed already, there's a dispute over at the TRNC article. The latest issue is that Aristovoulos changed the intro today from this:

The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti) or Turkish Cypriot State (Turkish: Kıbrıs Türk Devleti) is a de facto break-away state in the northern third of the island of Cyprus.

to this:

The "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" (Turkish: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti) was self-declared. The UN considers "TRNC" as legally invalid and calls for the withdrawal. It possesses an administration and infrastructure, located in the North third of the Republic of Cyprus. The de jure Republic of Cyprus can not exert its authority over its northern third, because of the Turkish forces.

See any problem? ;-) Perhaps you could join-in on the discussion, it would be nice to hear from a Turkish Cypriot. Thanks. —Khoikhoi 23:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I know how you feel. :( Thanks anyways, and kolay gelsin. —Khoikhoi 06:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, removing dispute tags is a pretty crappy thing to do. They don't get that if they actually fix the problems, then the tags can be removed. *sigh* —Khoikhoi 19:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Pontian Greek

Can we again discuss the title issue? It is really not fair to accuse a nation of genocide just on a whim.. It is a serious allegation that must be backed-up by serious academic research. The definition of the United Nations and the international law must be taken into account. Pls let's not use Wikipedia to fuel ethnic hatred. The article still doesn't have even one impartial source or citation. Pls reply... If not we can easily witness a proliferation of 'genocide' sites on Wikipedia, claiming that every nation in this world has committed genocide against each other... Baristarim 10:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

A. Garnet, I know that u are interested in the sanity of this article more than anyone, we have got to do something about it. If not, this is going to become a 'oldubitti', and create original research for others to jump on somewhere else. What do you propose? Baristarim 21:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Pontian title revisited

Hi. Note: I'm neither Greek nor Turkish, nor do I have any knowledge whatsoever about the alleged incidents. I do agree with your points, however, on the talk page of Pontian Greek Genocide. I read through the talk page, and there was one suggestion that was mentioned that seemed to be overlooked by all parties: "Pontian Greek Genocide Thesis". The word "thesis" is extremely neutral, and I'd have a hard time believing that (to give an overused example) either Jews and Neo-Nazis would object to "Holocaust thesis". I've added my points to the most recent discussion there, but bear in mind that I won't discuss the issue any further on that page. Please, however, feel free to discuss on my talk page. --Storkk 12:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Pontian Genocide dispute informal attempt for resolution

Hello. I've started a totally informal attempt to resolve the dispute. Please support it by explaining what exactly it is that you dispute about the article. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The article

Hi.. I just got back from vacation too.. It is nice to see you back, as you said For the time being, i'm simply too busy to take part in this nationalist merry-go-round, but when i have time i'm going to push for this article to be rewritten, and its title changed... Same here :)).. I should settle back in a day or two.. See you in the talk page! Baristarim 03:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"Cyprus Refugees"

Yeah, when I saw that article I was thinking..."aren't we forgetting someone"? I've added a {{prod}} tag to it. —Khoikhoi 20:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Not giving up, r u?

I hope that you are not giving up on Wikipedia :)) I took a look at the Cyprus Refugees.. We will have to look into it. SABIR, C'est la vie.. :))) Baristarim 03:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

An RM is in the works, just to let you know.. Bu hafta içinde hazirlayacagim.. Till then take care :) Baristarim 06:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Seljuq_dynasty

Iki tane iranli durmadan bu sayfayi karistirip Selcuklular Turk degil Iranliydi, Turkçe degil Iranca konusuyorlardi babinda laflar ekliyorlar, bu yuzden sayfa protected oldu, bir tek bazi yabanci tarihçiler onlari onlemeye calisyorlar ne yazik ki hiç Turk yok.. Ben de daha yeni goruyorum.. Talk page'i feci POV dolu.. Sayfa biraz ilgiye ihtiyaç duyabilir.. POV pushing, eh? Read this [9] even non-Turkish historians had enough!! Baristarim 02:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I know that Wikipedia can have health implications :)) I was just saying that if we could manage to show some sort of presence, that would suffice.. Mesela en son Turkiye makalesindeki Turkish-EU relations olayi gibi.. Tabi ki tek basimiza ne yapabilecegimizin sinirlari belli, ve Wiki'yi bir tartisma alani olarak gormememiz lazim ama yine de bazi konularda bilimsel olmayan bir yaklasimla uluorta ve context'inden çikarilmis bazi bilgiler one suruluyor.. Corbada tuzumuz bulunsun hesabi :)) Ben de yeni makale yazip positif yaklasmaya egilmeye basladim ama yine de bazi konularda koordinasyon eksikligi soz konusu, birçok makale oksuz kalmis gibi, mesela WikiProject Turkey, tamamen inaktif olmus bir proje.. Birlikten guc dogar hesabi :)) Her neyse canin sagolsun ne diyeyim.. Baristarim 10:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

What is democracy

Dear A. Garnet.

The concept of democracy is a very contested one with many different connotations. The meaning of the term has changed significantly during time, and it still has many contradictory meanings. As Robert Dahl, one of the leading theorists on democracy puts it: "’democracy’ has meant different things to different people at different times and places". Thus to label an entire country as democratic or not is highly problematic. For this reason 'democracy' is rarely used in attempts to operationalize an analysis of the nature of a polity - rather terms such a polyarchy is used. In its Copenhagen criteria the EU requires "stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities". These ideas are well alligned with the dominating idea of liberal democracy, but however vague and open for interpretation - thus judging a country democratic is a subjective assesment. Sorry for this whole lot - I certainly hope you dont find my comments patronizing, I simply prefer to explain my thoughts rather than embarking on a stupid edit-war. All the best Bertilvidet 20:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the photo of the sunset on your userpage claims to be across the Bosphorus. I would suggest it is across the Haliç and taken from the Galata Köprüsü. Bertilvidet 20:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it is always a judgement, and can never be hard facts, whether a country is democratic or not. When the European Commission published its 2005 Progress Report on Turkey, the Commission’s top representative in Turkey, Ambassador Hansjoerg Kretschmer, said there were still major areas in which Turkey lags behind European standards and that “Turkey today can certainly not be considered as a mature liberal democracy.” (See Turkish Daily News, "Ankara welcomes tone of EU reports, vows more reforms", November 11, 2005, p. 3.) This is his view. But in order to stick to NPOV policy I believe that Wikipedia should not make contested judgements. Bertilvidet 14:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Turkey

In fact I was just about to write you to ask you about the article :)) Although not about the restructering.. I have taken a look at other articles, I think you do have a point.. I hadn't looked at those articles.. I will switch them back right now, dont worry.. I was just going to reply to you about what you told me before about wikiproject Turkey and FA. I was wondering the same thing, we really need to get an article up there! So which article do you think has the best chance of reaching FA status? I mean we would like to get Turkey up there, but that might take a long time and, as u said earlier, it might not be that easy even if the article was perfect! Ottoman Empire? I don't know, that article also needs tons of work.. Otherwise what do you think we need to do to get Turkey FA? As for all the POV stuff out there, I am also not interested so much, but as u said, there is so much we can do.. I don't blame u for having had enough!! Otherwise I hope that u had a good weekend.. Baristarim 23:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, all it needs is a lot of work to polish what is already there overall.. I took back the restructreing.. I am sorry about that, I hadn't taken a good look at other articles.. I said origin and history of the name instead of etymology.. What do you think? In any case, if you are ok, I would also like to try to get it to FA.. Obviously we cannot be present here all the time, we have stuff to do in real life, but I am also willing to consecrate time into this and at least try to get it FA.. So count me in.. :) Another problem we have is that some articles that are linked by the article are not in the best state (foreign relations for ex), would that be a problem? Baristarim 00:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no problems.. The only problem that I have is that I don't have access to certain academic servers, Jstore etc.. Therefore sometimes it is extremely hard for me to dig up references and sources, particularly ones relating to specific issues - in contrast to news reports for example.. In any case we will see what we can do :) regards Baristarim 22:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Maslak skyline

Hi there. The Maslak image that you put up on "Turkey" was uploaded from wowturkey.com, so its bound to get deleted sooner or later. I replaced it with the one that previously stood in the article. Is that alright with you? --Kilhan 12:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Turkish/Turkish Cypriot

I'll see if I can find you a source for this. In the meantime, enjoy [10]. - Francis Tyers · 17:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

There are plenty of sources that discuss this on Google scholar and Google books. I suggest you start making a list of sources and compiling them on the talk page. - Francis Tyers · 13:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Muchas gracias

Hey A.Garnet, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 05:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Occupation of İzmir

Deletetion vote'u gördüm ama karışmak istemiyorum Garnet. It's not the right way. Daha sonra İzmir'den Kütahya'ya, Bursa-Gemlik-Yalova'dan Aydın'a 2-3 yıl boyunca işgal edilmiş bölgeyi, yaşayanlarını ve yaşamayanlarını konu eden bir madde hazırlanır (hazırlarım) :) There's enough material of international scope:) Ama bugün bayram. Bayramın kutlu olsun bu arada:) Cretanforever 19:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the page should be renamed Occupation of Smyrna. Please see the sources I have quoted on the talk page. - Francis Tyers · 12:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

(to A.Garnet) Done! Khoikhoi 05:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

(to A.Garnet again) Hemşo! If there's any information you can add on marinas in the TRNC, you are welcome to do so at this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinas_in_Turkey. I also removed the bestiality opus.

Hey Alf

I wanted a favor. It seems that User:Mustafa Akalp has been perma-blocked for Khoikhoi's RfA vote spamming. I had filed a relative incident at WP:ANI#RfA vote spamming. I really didn't think and didn't intend at that point that such a grave punishment should be inflicted on him. Both I as reporting user, and Khoikhoi as the victim, agree that his permanent block should be lifted. Khoikhoi filed a request for consensus to unblock him in WP:AN. Other users are concerned about him not accepting the fact that he did something wrong, and willing to do the same thing again (he indicates so in his e-mail responses). As it seems, the only solution would be for someone to mentor him, and explain the relative policy in his own language, since his level of English probably doesn't help him understand. Could you possibly undertake that responsibility?

In case you could, you need to explain to him that what he did was wrong for two reasons:

• He made his objection evident. This is not allowed, because it signifies what to vote.
• He addressed these messages to a selective group of users, that he thought would agree with him. Again, this is not allowed, because consensus has to be reached by all WP proportionately.

Despite the fact that we may share different POVs from time to time, I saw that you and Baristarim supported Khoikhoi too, which means that you acknowledge Mustafa was wrong in this action for one more reason. If he could understand those reasons and indicate he apologizes, that would definitely help in unblocking him. Thanks. •NikoSilver• 11:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Niko, i dont think i am the best person to try and mentor this man. Firstly i lack time and patience, second my Turkish is quite awful :). Thanks, --A.Garnet 15:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Anybody you could suggest? •NikoSilver• 19:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Occupation of İzmir

Occupation of İzmir was a sub article of Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) that explains what was happened from the first day to the last day within the PROVINCE of IZMIR. Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) covers much wider perspective. Province of Izmir was a very big side of the war which some of the Greek/Turkish activities in that region wanted to be wiped out from the history. It seems this time Greeks are the ones who doing the deed. (a) The towns that is listed as UNRELATED is within the ottoman province of IZMIR. (b) The last day of war which is cowered "fire in the IZMIR" was planned to be merged to this article to make the name fire less POV and more appropriate. (c) There were multinational issues during the occupation, which is not cowered by the text. The content of the article is GREEK POV, same as fire in the IZMIR and whole article of Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922). Turkish point of is constantly deleted and article become biased, even if the statements might have truth in them. With the deletion of Occupation of İzmir, whole text become GREEK POV.--OttomanReference 16:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Question

Speaking of massacres & genocides, what's your take on Turkish Genocide in Peloponnese (and it's AfD)? Khoikhoi 00:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Khoikhoi 23:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

...and things just got worse. Khoikhoi 03:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

Howdy. You mention "the most commonn criticisms which refer to his policy on Kurds and Islam", so can you add those criticisms to the article? There is only one brief mention of that in the article, and it seems like they should be included as well. Thanks. --AW 20:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi again. Some people mentioned you started a section with criticisms awhile ago and it was deleted, do you think you could re-add it? --AW 02:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletetion for the template:History of Turks

Hey,please take a look for this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Turkish_History_Brief Zaparojdik (talk · contribs) 23:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Hey, I am sorry for getting back a bit late. Have been busy :)) Yes, I had been away for a while because I got really stressed because of some of the stuff out there. And I also had some real stuff to do, so I just spontaneuosly avoided Wiki for a while. I was getting into situations where seeing them through would have cost me too much time with too little result. But this time my real life became too stressful so I took refuge here :)) Kinda funny when you think about it. Ama daha bismillah demeden gelir gelmez yine edit-war. :)) The usual, really :) Otherwise I hope that everything has been fine with you and let me know if there is something I can lend a hand with. Cheers! Baristarim 05:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. And don't ever call me or any other user "stupid" again. If you continue making personal attacks, you will be blocked. Cheers, Khorshid 09:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this edit summary: [11]: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Khorshid 17:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

MKA

Please take a look Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Regards. Must^TC 18:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Cooperation board launched

A new (and overdue) Greek and Turkish cooperation and notification board has been launched here. Stop by, have a look and sound off! Cheers! Baristarim 07:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Atatürk

Sure, but has Awiseman agreed to it? (or does he just not care anymore?) Khoikhoi 02:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As you probably noticed, I've unprotected it. :-) Khoikhoi 05:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Cypriot Refugees

AG, thanks for your message. I wish I could help, but in my experience some issues are just too charged for me to be able to make a useful contribution, and especially a useful contribution that has some chance of 'sticking', so I avoid them. Not only are feelings high around these issues, but there are many people who feel strongly enough about them that they spend huge amounts of time edit-warring and discussing them, something I'm not willing to do.

What I can do that might be helpful is to make some procedural suggestions. In a quick look at this article, I see that both the Greeks and the Turks have very weak documentation (if any) for many of their claims. A good start would be to find reputable, third party sources for all claims, and to avoid deleting content that you disagree with, instead inserting {{fact}} tags for unsupported claims. This is a sign that other editors need to find better sources. It would also be good to make a positive effort to find sources that disagree with your point of view. For example, you might have non-Turkish sources that support the position that the Turkish invasion was justified under international law and the relevant treaties. In that case, you should also try to find serious non-Greek sources that oppose that position, and present them fairly.

That is exactly what I have tried to do in the case of the Baklava article. I have looked for the best sources I can find, regardless of their conclusions, and reported on them. It is perfectly possible that someone will come along with good sources disagreeing with them, which will be fine. But in the meantime, I feel very comfortable reverting arguments supported only by links to random Web pages, since there is solid documentation of what is in the article.

Good luck, --Macrakis 17:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)