User talk:Kutsuit/Archive 1

FIFA 13

Please stop reverting my edits. I'm filling in the references on the page to make it more detailed; which is not the slightest bit of vandalism. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 14:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

To back me up: WP:Citing Sources please read what should be included in a references; I'm not using the format shown for the references, since there are more detailed formats for the references. The way you had the references they were bare, and the references are supposed to be filled out to show the information about the source. That is the basic way to source something, since you're relatively new to Wikipedia editing (you have sub-50 edits).Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 15:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, well for future reference (lol i'm punny) just revert back to the last edit so I don't have to keep reffing. Thanks for explaining. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 16:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Your Signature

Hi there, Kutsuit! Just letting you know that per this policy, it is confusing to editors (especially new ones) if you don't include your actual username in your signature.

Signatures which include no reference to the user's username (for example by signing with a nickname, as in User:Nickname) are strongly discouraged, as it can be confusing for editors (particularly newcomers). The actual username always appears in the page history, so using just the nickname on the relevant talk page can make it appear to be a different person. If necessary it is possible to change your username; otherwise, ensure you include your user account name, e.g. in the form User:Example/Nickname.

From WP:SIG

With that being said, you may wish to change it. Thanks! Theopolisme _:) 21:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kutsuit. You have new messages at Theopolisme's talk page.
Message added 21:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Great! Theopolisme _:) 21:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

CVUA

Hello, Kutsuit/Archive 1! The instructors at the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy have seen your hard work reverting vandalism, and we would like to thank you. But do you want to go to the next level? Would you like to know how reverts, warnings, reports, blocks, and bans all come together to keep this Encyclopedia free from disruption? Then consider enrolling today! Electric Catfish 23:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative: Come join us (and check out our new website)!

WikiWomen - We need you!

Hi Kutsuit! The WikiWomen's Collaborative is a group of women from around the world who edit Wikipedia, contribute to its sister projects, and support the mission of free knowledge. We recently updated our website, created new volunteer positions, and more! Get involved by: Visiting our website for resources, events, and more Meet other women and share your story in our profile space Participate at and "like" our Facebook group Join the conversation on our Twitter feed Reading and writing for our blog channel Volunteer to write for our blog, recruit blog writers, translate content, and co-run our Facebook and receive perks for volunteering Already participating? Take our survey and share your experience! Thanks for editing Wikipedia, and we look forward to you being a part of the Collaborative! -- EdwardsBot (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

European royal houses

You didn't mess up. It was my own computer's fault, which is why I reverted by revert of your edit. Sorry for the confusion.

Cheers,

Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm JMHamo. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Everton F.C. without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! JMHamo (talk) 08:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kutsuit. You have new messages at JMHamo's talk page.
Message added 08:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JMHamo (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to 2013–14 Liverpool FC season. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains under way. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. JMHamo (talk) 08:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Results by round on Liverpool F.C. season article

Did you not read the comment on the Liverpool F.C. season article about the Statto source? Could you please revert your changes. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that. As you know, everything on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable by a reliable source Happy editing! JMHamo (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello there

	I was thinking about you. Don't forget your morning cup of coffee :) Elspamo4 (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hahaha

Thank you for your message!! I was just saying to a work colleague the other day that we (Everton) needed to get 'stuffed' by someone, we have been drawing to many recently, and needed a good football lesson to kick us back into action again! I didn't expect it would be Liverpool to do this to us though! It hurts!

Hope your keeping well. Druryfire (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kutsuit. You have new messages at Ithinkicahn's talk page.
Message added 20:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Kutsuit. You have new messages at Talk:Use_of_capital_punishment_by_country.
Message added 06:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

» nafSadh did say 06:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Help needed!

Hi there, Bobcats 23!

I noticed that you were actively engaged in this article, a few months ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_cuisine

It seems that the user "Jerryine" is unwilling to keep certain European countries in the article for whatever reason it may be, even though the countries I'm trying to add to the article can be found in the template for European cuisine.

Is there anything we could do to stop this irrational stubbornness? --Kutsuit (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I advise you to reach an admin if it continues. I'll be following. --Bobcats 23 (talk) 07:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

European cuisine

Kutsuit, Kazakh cuisine does not belong in the European cuisine article - please see List of European cuisines, or here, for example. --IIIraute (talk) 06:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kutsuit. While investigating a user complaint posted on my talk page, I noticed that some of your talk page and user talk page remarks have been less than ideal. For example, in this post you describe a user who disagrees with you as engaging in irrational stubbornness. And on my talk page, here you use phrasing such as "deliberately being dishonest" and "resorted to other antics" and "evident to me that you do not understand". Such comments on other people's behaviour and speculation as to their state of mind is insulting and demeaning of your fellow editors, who you should treat as esteemed colleagues, even though you may disagree with them on editorial decisions. It's not the type of professional behaviour we are trying to promote on this wiki. It's not the type of language you would use in person in the workplace, and it's not welcome here. Please focus your remarks strictly on the content, and don't comment on their behaviour or speculate on their motives. Thank you, -- Diannaa (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Second time of asking

"That's not a fair request on your part and I would like to question the motive behind such a request. Why are you evading the discussion?"[1] This, coming just one day after Diannaa reminded you just above to "Please focus your remarks strictly on the content, and don't comment on their behaviour or speculate on their motives" (my italics) made me blink, as did your overall tone in that exchange. You'll have to stop getting personal or you may be blocked from editing. Bishonen | talk 04:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC).

This is ridiculous. The user I'm speaking to also said I was being disingenuous. Why don't you ask him to focus on the content as well? I took the initiative to start a discussion with someone who contested the content that I was adding to the article, yet he didn't want me to address him. Then what's the whole point of the talk page in the first place? Who else do I address? This is really getting ridiculous. --Kutsuit (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry neither Diannaa nor I seem to be getting through to you. Please consider the impression your interaction style has been making on two uninvolved admins, who have no reason to favour IIIraute or disfavour you, and have a think about your own posts instead. Consider whether they might in any way be received as provocative or inflammatory. And then, whether you think they might be or not, just stick to discussing content from now on. (I think you misunderstood IIIraute. He presumably intended to ask you not to keep addressing him personally, i. e. by name, because you were doing it in a negative way. That really needn't stop you from discussing content with him.) Bishonen | talk 06:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC).

I really don't care anymore, Bishonen. I'm out of the discussion. I've also been attacked with defamation, false accusations and speculations. Please just leave me alone. :-( --Kutsuit (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014: Talk:European literature

Kutsuit, after the warnings you have received about personalizing things, I simply don't understand how you could think it's appropriate to respond to IIIraute's post here, which was about content, with "'Please stop harassing me, IIIraute". I agree his edit summary was not ideal, but that's far from excusing your battery of unfounded personal accusations (and certainly no worse than your own edit summaries here and here): Could you please stop harassing me? I feel like you're trying to discourage me from contributing to Wikipedia." Do you realize those are serious accusations you're making? And it certainly doesn't get any better later in the thread. I'm tired of trying to explain Wikipedia:civility and talkpage etiquette to you. I'll give you three alternatives:

1. Only talk to, or about, IIIraute about content, without any baseless personal accusations. Don't refer to him by name all the time, after both he and I have civilly asked you not to; don't call him "my dear" (!), indeed don't call him anything.
2. Don't talk to, or about, IIIraute at all.
3. Or expect to be blocked from editing for disruptive editing and personal attacks.

All right? Those are the alternatives. Bishonen | talk 00:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC).

Persianate society

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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Farrokh

Kaveh and I are Internet friends (someday we hope to meet), but he isn't an academic historian and his qualifications aren't in history. You've found the source he uses so if that text desperately needs another source add the source he uses. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Tajikistan. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Alex2006 (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a strong accusation. I'd like to know where exactly you thought I added "original research". The Tajik language has many alternative names, one of which is "Tajik Persian". It is, after all, a variety of Persian. There are sources to verify this information in the article on the Tajik language. No original research whatsoever. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Kutsuit,

don't take it personally, but actually I expect that people writing on wikipedia understand at least a little how it works here. Your edit had several problems:

• The information that you changed in the infobox ("Official languages") is well sourced, and you changed a sourced content leaving the original source: this is called source falsification;
• You wrote that "officially" the language is Tajik Persian. Incidentally, the source that you ignored is the Constitution of Tajikistan, that clearly states (Art. 2) that the official language is Tajik. And what is more official than the constituion of the country?
• Third, you failed to provide reliable sources (and there aren't, since officially the language is Tajik: that's why I put the OR tag).

The example that you brought does not apply either. In fact, both in the U.S. and in the U.K. the official language is English. Of course Tajik is a variety of Persian, but this info - which is important - should go in the article, not in the infobox, where it goes the official denomination of the language. I hope that now you understood. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, talk about a condescending response LOL! Source falsification? Tajik is Persian LOL. All I did was use the alternative name of the Tajik language. It's not like I replaced Tajik with a different language altogether. Okay, whatever, you can keep Tajik in the infobox. >_< --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

:-) I know too that Tajik is (a variety of) Persian. what i was trying to explain is that this is (or should be) an Encyclopedia, so we should only rely upon reliable sources. If the Tajik people (or government) has decided - for sure also for political reasons - to define its language "Tajik", we can just report it. If tomorrow a pro-Iranian putsch will change the Art. 2 of the constitution defining the official language as "Persian", well, we will report it. BTW, the same story is happening right now at the Moldova article, with Moldovan Language vs. Romanian Language. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground

It depresses me to see you express such rolling-on-the-floor enjoyment of what you apparently perceive as an enemy being discomfited.[2] Please review Wikipedia is not a battleground and consider letting go of your grudges. If you're not able to do that, I predict you may not be very happy editing this site. Bishonen | talk 14:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC).

Nonsense. I hold no grudges and I would like it if you don't throw such accusations at me. I just found it funny that two members were using the same template against each other. Please stop following me around. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a very quick reply, which obviously didn't give you much time to click on my policy link. I wish you would click on it now, because looking back at the history of this page, I can't find a single soft answer from you; you either delete people's comments, or reply in a confrontative, personalising manner. Right above, I see a user giving you good information, and you tell him "Wow, talk about a condescending response LOL!" and "Okay, whatever, you can keep Tajik in the infobox". If you're anyway going to let the other person have their way, why do it so ungracefully and ungraciously? Please this time count to ten before you tell me the first thing that comes into your head. Bishonen | talk 14:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC).

PS, do you really have the impression I follow you around? What would I want to do that for? I caught sight of your post on Volunteer Marek's page. Bishonen | talk 14:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen, what do you want from me? I knew about this policy and it's got nothing to do with me. I hold no grudges against anyone, be it against IIIraute or anyone else for that matter. In fact, I wanted him to be my friend. I never deleted anyone's comments. All comments can be found in the archives. Also, I'm not confrontational. You have to show me where I've been confrontational. If I've ever been aggressive then it was probably out of self-defense, since I've been backed into a corner around here for the past month or so. (But that's okay; I'm used to being somebody else's punching bag.) As for the conversation above, the beginning of the reply was condescending, much like you telling me to count to ten before I make a comment. Anyway what's the problem? The user above made his point and I've conceded to him. Why are we mixing two different things together? You came to my talk page to lecture me about not holding grudges just because I found it funny that two Wikipedia users were sending the same template to each others' talk pages. I simply found it funny. Am I not allowed to laugh a little? If I had a grudge against IIIraute, then I would've joined Volunteer Marek and another user in the administrators' noticeboard and given my own opinion about him. But I didn't. I don't want to hurt anyone. I feel that you're out to get me Bishonen. You might think that my impression of you is unfounded but that's how I genuinely feel. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

DRN Bitcoin

Hi, Nadia, I'm also a volunteer at DRN. Just FYI, it looks like there's substantial progress being made toward a consensus at the Bitcoin talk page. You might want to put a hold on discussion at DRN (especially since a couple of the disputants have not chosen to weigh in there) to see what happens at the article talk page. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Will do, TransporterMan. Thanks for the message! :-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I'm just curious. Why are you so critical of this PhD thesis? Agrso 05:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Largest cities in Europe. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Alex2006 (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Nadia, you're editing disruptively on Largest cities in Europe and its talkpage. Please stop, and revert your latest edit to the article. See my post here. I'm also sorry to see you refusing to listen to what others are telling you, to the point of brushing off actual quotations from WP:BRD. Please edit more collegially and you'll have a better chance of gaining consensus. Bishonen | talk 13:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC).

June 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing on List of cities in Europe‎. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Alex2006 (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Alex2006 (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Article:Turkish language

Meanwhile, a heavy-handed policy of assimilation began to be imposed onto the Kurdish minority in Turkey, who comprise some 15-25% of the total population. The government especially opposed their language. Kurdish names, including the names of settlements, were changed to Turkish, no schooling in Kurdish was allowed and the Kurds were forbidden to use their language in public.

Explain how this passage is relevant in the article please, thanks. --Mttll (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess it's part of the history of the modern Turkish language. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the Turkish language. --Mttll (talk) 05:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough; I agree with you. I had it removed. :-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 10:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• What is the problem that you perceive with the dialect map in Turkish language?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Southeast Europe may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• alphabetical order, [[Albania]], [[Bosnia and Herzegovina]], [[Bulgaria]], [[Croatia]], [[Cyprus]] (including [[Northern Cyprus]], [[Greece]], [[Kosovo]], [[Republic of Macedonia|Macedonia]], [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Southeast Europe (SEE)

Kutsuit, I do not want to begin an edit war with you or with no-one else. Having said that, I request you kindly to do two things: 1. Read the article carefully. You will see that none of the major regional (SEE) organizations included in the article have Cypriot membership or participation. Decide your course of action after that. 2. The expression "Cyprus (including Northern Cyprus)", other than wrong, sits between clumsy and ridiculous. Especially after one user added Northern Cyprus into the regional states there. Have you ever seen articles referring to "Azerbaijan (including Nagorno-Karabakh)" or anything like that in a similar context? Or why don't you write "Cyprus (including TRNC, the British Sovereign Bases, UN-controlled areas etc.)"? The TRNC may be recognized or not is one thing, inventing terminology like "Cyprus (including Northern Cyprus)" is another. Please change that and remove "(including Northern Cyprus)" nonsense from the text. The rest we will see later. (I will not revert anything today but tomorrow I may change my mind. :-) Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

If you want to revert my changes tomorrow, then I'll simply revert them back, which will make you go against your claim that you don't wish to engage in an edit war. I'll mention Northern Cyprus separately but I wont remove Cyprus as it is clearly classified with Southeastern Europe by numerous institutions and organizations, some of which I cared to mention in the history logs of the article. You can say what you like to say about what constitutes a "major" organization and what doesn't, but I'll have you know that one of the so-called institutions mentioned in the article no longer exists, while the other includes the likes of Austria, Italy and the Ukraine with Southeastern Europe. The point is clear, which is that Southeastern Europe has a wide range of geographic, political and socio-cultural definitions, and it's up to an encyclopedia to mention all or as many definitions as possible, so as not to become biased or one-sided. Any removal of Cyprus from Southeastern Europe, despite external sources that classify the country with this region, will constitute as disruptive editing in my opinion. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Nadia, I know which organization ceased to exist or continues. When that organization existed, Cyprus was also existing, right? (Not a question. :-) Good-night, and thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

That organization also failed to include the likes of Greece and Turkey as members, so it means absolutely nothing. There are multiple definitions of Southeastern Europe, so why are you so obsessed with this institution in particular? Anyway, I'm going to get proper sources to verify Cyprus's place within the definitions of Southeastern Europe, and hopefully it'll put this silly argument to rest. Good night. :-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You Turkish racist

Dont like the facts that Turkey is not European? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.252.44 (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Your personal attack will be reported. Have a nice day. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I decided not to report you to the admins. Please be nice and remember that this is an encyclopedia. :-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 08:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Stop edit warring at Azerbaijani language or I will report you for disruption. Azeri is not spoken in "Eastern Europe", at least not that you've demonstrated. Ethnologue is not a reliable source, so you should leave the one we have. I'm glad you recognize that it's spoken in Iran - I suppose that's progress. — kwami (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I'll have you reported for the fact that you've reverted the article to an older version more than a month after you failed to contribute to the talk page. Yes, Azerbaijani is spoken in Eastern Europe. Perhaps you'd like to learn about Azerbaijan's geography. Secondly, you are in no position to decide whether or not Ethnologue is reliable. It is the most reliable source (in English) on the number of Azerbaijani speakers around the World. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing

Please stop your disruptive editing in the article on Southern Europe. The languages are classified according to their language families. Turkish belongs to the Turkic language family. Please stop removing that information from the article. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You are the one who threatened me only a while ago and later called my opinions "silly argument", right? But I have no intentions to respond to your personal attacks nor report you anywhere. I only -and kindly- request you to stay out of my talk page, as you are the only user who visits that page for this kind of activity. Go disturb other people who may like this language of yours. I am deleting someone's talk from my page for the first time. Good to know you, I should be more selective and careful here. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Vandalize an article again and I'll have you reported. You clearly don't know what the meaning of a threat is. I didn't threaten you, I proved your nonsense wrong by providing a source for a piece of information that you desperately wished to remove from an article. I'm not losing any sleep over your decision to delete my comment from your talk page. Ta ta. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Languages of Europe (Sardinian)

I saw you reverted my edit. I would like to explain the reason why Sardinian should not be included in the list. As the national law says, Sardinian is protected (protetto) by law. Protected means that at national level as well as at the regional one, Sardinian is protected by using cultural initiatives and meetings who encourage and support the local language. It's not official because in Sardinia the Italian language is used for all official purposes (IDs, road signs, schools, administration ...). In Italy, examples of official language along with Italian are German and Ladin in South Tyrol or French in Aosta Valley.--87.21.12.102 (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Kwamikagami

Just wanted to make you aware of Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Kwamikagami is a long-established editor, and knows editing procedure. If you have a problem with one of his/her actions, please engage them on their talk page with a substantive inquiry about their actions. Templating established editors, including using twinkle or other tools, is condescending, given their long experience with editing. VanIsaac_WS^cont 02:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Western world

Hi,

I just want to clarify what I said. Only current EU members cover all the requirements that are needed to be within this group. For example, most of these issues like human rights (minority rights), rule of law, etc. are the hot topics with most of these prospective countries. Therefore, only when they cover and close all the negotiation chapters for EU accession then we can add them as part of this section.

On Huntington, in his work he saw Latin America as a third part of Western world or akin to it.

I think I am clear now. Mootsticksi (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Huntington's views, that's precisely why your reverts were baffling. The wording in your reverted version made Latin America sound like another group altogether, which isn't what Huntington said in his book, as he clearly considered Latin America (especially some of the South American nations) as either part of the West or in the process of becoming part of the West, and he held similar views regarding Turkey. That's why, if you check the wording in your reverted version, you'd realize that it was less accurate than in the current version.
Regarding the EU map, I can move it to the bottom of the page and put it with the other images in the gallery section, if you want. And I can move the other EU/EUFTA map and put it in its place. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I am OK with this idea: The EU/EUFTA map within the section "Modern political" and the EU enlargement map within section "Maps".

Huntington saw Turkey as an example of "torn country" (together with Mexico) but the rest of Latin American countries were seen under different label (as a third part of Western world or akin to it), which is different from "torn country". Mootsticksi (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

He also considered Australia to be a torn country. Anyway, I'll adjust the wording there, but please undo your revert as you violated the 3RR policy of Wikipedia and it could lead to your account getting blocked. I don't want it to get to that stage so please undo your recent changes and let me adjust the article according to what I proposed. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I already made the changes based on our consensus. What I need to revert? Go ahead and make the changes. btw I am new here and do not know all the rules and requirements. Mootsticksi (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Turkish speakers in Europe

Regarding your recent edit to Languages of Europe, could you please tell me where on Ethnologue it claims that there are 70 million Turkish speakers in Europe? I couldn't find any reference to this myself, though even if I did I'd find it extremely hard to believe. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I think I know what's causing the confusion. If you consider the political boundaries of Europe, then there are over 70 million Turkish-speakers, most of whom live in Turkey. That's how the table is set up, judging by the other figures (e.g. the speakers of Russian and other languages). --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you. Europe is a geographical entity, and as such has no political boundary. Ethnologue's 70 million figure for Turkish is for the global Turkish-speaking population, and thus includes both the European and Asian part of bicontinental countries such as Turkey, not to mention a significant number of indigenous speakers elsewhere in Asia and Turkish diaspora on other continents. It therefore makes no sense to record this figure in a table whose stated purpose is to show "the number of speakers of a given European language in Europe only". The same goes for many other languages in the table, including Russian and Kazakh. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Europe has many definitions, including political definitions, and Turkish is just as European a language as any other language spoken indigenously in Europe. Anyway, if you have the exact figure of the Turkish speakers in geographic Europe, by all means add the figure. Same goes for the other languages. Otherwise there's no harm having the figures of the speakers within the political boundaries. Do you have an exact figure of Turkish-speakers within the geographic boundaries of Europe? --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 08:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Also bear in mind that Armenian would probably have to be removed as well, but I think consensus has already been established regarding languages of countries that are considered to be European for political or socio-cultural reasons. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 08:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

By the way, there are numerous sources that define Turkey, Cyprus, Armenia and similar countries as "European", and removing such content from the article might start an edit war in the future, so we might as well stick to what we have if every side is happy. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying that Turkish or any other language should be removed from the list. I am saying that that certain numbers reported in the table, such as those for Turkish, should be removed because they include a significant number speakers that are not in Europe by any definition of the word. I do not have any figure for the number of Turkish speakers in the geographic area of Europe, nor for Turkish speakers in all countries considered to be "European" (including those whose geographic boundaries are partly or entirely outside the European continent). Pending provision of such information, it's better to remove the claim of 70 million, as providing no information is preferable to providing false information. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

If you want, you can put 10-15 million, since that's an estimate of how many Turkish-speakers there are in geographic Europe. What about Russia, Armenia, Greek Cypriots, etc? --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 11:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I made the changes. Please let me know what you think. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but where are you getting these estimates from? —Psychonaut (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

From here:
1. Ethnic groups in Europe
2. European Russia
--Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any linguistic data in those articles. I suspect whatever numbers you have produced ought to be excluded under the no original research policy. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

If that's the case, we can simply restore the original figures, which were backed by Ethnologue. Make up your mind. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Please don't remove maintenance templates as you did with this edit to Languages of Europe without first fixing the problems described by the templates. There is currently an ongoing discussion at Talk:Languages of Europe regarding the problems with the table. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

POV war

Calling Azeri an Eastern European language is like calling Yupik an East Asian language. Technically true, but rather ridiculous to give as a primary definition. Deleting tags that your refs have failed verification is vandalism, and can get you blocked. — kwami (talk) 05:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Kwami, please don't be childish. The lede paragraph says that Azeri is spoken across parts of Eastern Europe and Western Asia, and the sources I provided verify that it is spoken in what is known as Eastern Europe, much to your dismay by the looks of it. Discuss the issue in the talk page of the article rather than causing disruptive editing all the time. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 05:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Re:Brunette

Absolutely. :-) And of course I was there! Alex2006 (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have been once to Saudi Arabia, for work. But the place where we were was not very inviting...It was July, we had 50 C. in shadow. Alex2006 (talk) 06:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Re:You're supposed to assume good faith, Alex

Hallo Kutsuit,
sorry, I don`t agree: first of all, I think that you are doing your edits in perfect good faith: you are just trying to let pass your POV that some countries (Azerbaijan, Turkey) are a little bit more European than they are in reality, and you really believe it: there are several edits of you that points all in this direction. Now, at the moment there are three editors who all have the same problem with you, in three different article, about the same issue. This means that we have here a general problem, and I find just normal to discuss this problem all together. Canvassing, means to invite friendly, uninvolved users to support your views, but this is not the case: moreover, in that case I would have invited him to join this discussion with a mail, instead of writing a message just below a message of you, where you were waiting for an answer: this shows full transparency. Good morning :-) Alex2006 (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

it is me again

Hi again Nadya, Centre-right politics and Centrism quite different in this case dont you think. AKP is frequently using religious and conservatist things to do things as you know (i assume you live in Turkey). elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 17:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I changed it. You're right, center-right is a more accurate term than centrism. But I don't think we should add Islamism or neo-Ottomanism to the infobox since these ideologies have been officially denied/rejected by the party. Other political party pages avoid having disputed ideological classifications in the infobox. Actually, I don't live in Turkey. I'm from Kuwait. :-D --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Re:I spotted another form of canvassing on your part, Alex

Dear Kutsuit, you are continuing to misunderstand how thing works in Wikipedia: inviting openly (on their talk page) other users to join a discussion of mutual interest is not WP:Canvassing. The two users which I invited were already involved in similar discussions with you, and I find a place where to discuss all together the best that one can do. Moreover, the fact that three users with some experience like me, User:Kwamikagami and User:Psychonaut have in different articles the same opinion about what you want to do shows only that you are going against Consensus. But you act as the driver who drives along an highway on the wrong side and call the police telling that there are thousands of cars coming from the wrong direction... :-) About the menace of reporting me to the admins if I do it again, I invite you to take a cold shower, count until 1000, calm down, and then read Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot. :-) Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 13:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

You have been blocked for 48 hours for edit warring and disruption on Azerbaijani language. Nadia, this block has been rather long coming; I've been on the verge of blocking you for battleground editing several times. (My choice of 48 hours is after some hesitation; I wrote "72 hours" at first.) I'm afraid I remember rather vividly how you resisted explanations from experienced users when we spoke on Talk:Largest cities in Europe,[3] (compare my edit summary to the linked edit), and your resistance to advice altogether, and I feel that this time I have to act.

I seem to keep saying this to you, to little effect, Nadia, but please edit more collaboratively when you return after the block. Don't edit war. Don't throw around accusations of "vandalism"[4][5] and "disruptive editing"[6] at the drop of a hat. Don't threaten people.[7] Don't attack others just-in-passing, as you did re Kwamikagami on Alex's page recently. This is not a good road you're going down.

I can't see the consensus for your edits that you refer to on Talk:Azerbaijani language. Considering how many people have been reverting your edits, and have in turn been reverted by you alone, it seems a strange claim. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 09:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen:, I will personally have you reported, alongside @Kwamikagami: and @Alessandro57:, to the administrators once the block is lifted. Your decision is rather pathetic and can be best described as biased. Unless you are deliberately closing your eyes, you will notice that I've been the only person trying to discuss the issues in the talk page of the Azerbaijani language article for the past one and a half months, and you will also see that consensus has been reached regarding the wording of the intro sentence, even with the user I've been originally in dispute with. But your bias against me has now become apparent and I will make it my effort from this day onward to see to it that you lose your administrator status as you have clearly abused it and handed out unfair and unbalanced decisions, not only against me but against other members too. This time I wont ignore it as you've crossed the line when it comes to your administrative duties. You need to explain to the other admins why you didn't equally block Alessandro57 for edit-warring, stalking, canvassing, personal attacks, false accusations, etc. This isn't the end of it, Bishonen, and you can take that to the bank. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to grill administrator Bishonen

Hi there, @Volunteer Marek:, I distinctly remember how user Bishonen was abusing his administrative powers against you a few months ago. Would you like to join me in notifying his biased/unbalanced behavior to the appropriate parties? --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 11:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall them doing anything of the sort.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:, I'm mistaken about my earlier post. I recall you once told Bishonen to stop bullying a new Wikipedia user. His contradictory and one-sided actions need to be penalized and he should be put back in his box. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello there, @Volunteer Marek:. Just to let you know, tomorrow morning I will briefly mention your name in the administrators noticeboard and talk page of Jimmy Wales regarding the time that you told the administrator, Bishonen, to stop bullying a new Wikipedia user. It will be part of my argument to show the appropriate parties where the administrator in question has specifically abused the powers and responsibilities given to him. You wont be required to give your opinion but you're more than welcome to do so. Have a good night. :-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, in that situation it was more like "threatening to potentially abuse admin powers", not actually abusing admin powers. You can mention me, of course, but I'm a bit wary of being misrepresented. Also, as a piece of advice, I don't think posting to Jimmy's talk page will have any effect (the guy's really too busy to deal with such matters), and if it does, it's likely not to be the effect you desire. I understand you're frustrated (honestly I haven't looked at closely at the locus of dispute) but taking a less-confrontational approach might work better here. Also, I believe Bishonen is a she.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Input requested

Hello Kutsuit, given your knowledgde and contributions on the Azerbaijan article, I ask you to share your thoughts on several issues that are being finalized on in Azerbaijan discussion board. The subjects at hand are country map, the relevance of drug trafficking and the expansion of Black January. As you know all the subjects are disputed by the new user Cyber-Policeman. Your input in these matters would be greatly appreciated. Mursel (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello @Mursel:, unfortunately I was unfairly blocked by a biased administrator (Bishonen) for apparently edit-warring in the Azerbaijani language article, even though I was the only member willing to discuss things in its talk page and even though I was restoring removed sourced content that mentioned Azerbaijani's linguistic presence in Eastern Europe, which was deliberately removed/vandalized by another editor who falsely accused me of having an agenda to Europeanize Azerbaijani. Unfortunately that's what you get in an open-source encyclopedia, as I'm sure you're already aware of. Once the stupid block is lifted, I'll gladly help you out. But be wary of abusive admins. Looks like the only way to get around this is to go straight to Jimbo Wales himself. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Ultimatum to Bishonen and a reminder to Alessandro57 and Kwamikagami

@Bishonen:, I am issuing you an ultimatum regarding your misuse of administrative powers. Should you decide, within the next 12 hours, to respectfully and graciously undo your biased action against me and inform your peers of your wrongdoing(s), I would be willing to ignore what you did and let bygones be bygones. If not, then I advise you to prepare yourself for a solid defense tomorrow as I'm inclined to take this issue to the administrators noticeboard and to the talk page of Jimmy Wales. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

To @Alessandro57: and @Kwamikagami:, you will be mentioned in the administrators noticeboard tomorrow morning to answer for your respective violations of Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to: failure to discuss content disputes in article talk pages, removal of sourced content, edit-warring, disruptive editing, canvassing, stalking, personal attacks and false accusations. This is only a heads-up to let you know about my intentions. I would have posted these notifications in your respective talk pages but obviously couldn't. I have done my job of notifying you and will not do so again. Good night and good luck tomorrow. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to take your complaint to any forum of your choice. WP:ANI is probably the most relevant. What I don't understand is why, if you think the block so unfair, you haven't posted an unblock request per the instructions I posted in the block notice. As described in the Guide to appealing blocks, which I also linked you to, the unblock request template would/will draw an uninvolved admin to this page to review the block. Well, unless it expires before they arrive. There's often a bit of a queue. Bishonen | talk 18:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen:, I have a life outside Wikipedia, therefore your failure to understand why I haven't filled an appeal form is irrelevant. In any case, prepare yourself for tomorrow -- or the day after, depending on how busy I am -- as you've got many things to answer. This isn't just about blocking me for "disruptive editing". You need to explain to the admins, and most likely to Jimmy Wales, why you haven't blocked the other two members for canvassing, personal attacks, false allegations, failure to discuss issues in the talk page for more than a month despite invitations to do so, and many other Wikipedia violations, such as removal of sourced content, stalking and (ironically) disruptive editing. You need to explain why you were not even-handed, why you haven't appreciated that consensus has been reached, why you made a decision that goes completely against the duties and responsibilities of Wikipedia administrators, etc. I am sure Jimmy Wales will not be amused to find out that you haven't changed your administrative behaviors since 2009. The ultimatum still stands as you are aware that it is not in my nature to look for trouble. But if you do not undo your wrong actions and apologize for your unevenness, I will have you reported not just to the admins but to the very founder and owner of Wikipedia, and I am certain he wont like how you've misused your administrative powers. The decision is yours. If I proceed with my complaints, you may risk losing your administrative status or have your administrative powers restricted. I advise you to be wise. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kutsuit. You have new messages at JMHamo's talk page.
Message added 12:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JMHamo (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Please don't return to battleground editing so soon

Hello, Nadia. I'm sorry to see you have so soon returned to battleground editing. Apparently the advice I gave you in my recent block rationale didn't move you. [8] This non-responsive response on Talk:Europe is a very wikilawyerish use of advice which I have given you yourself earlier. Note that the other user had already brought up the matter once, without mentioning your name, and had got no response from you (even though you edited Wikipedia in the meantime and were presumably watching the page), so it's hardly surprising that he tried pinging you. That's nothing like the ways you used to use people's names before I pulled you up about it. Why respond with threats in lieu of simply explaining the reason for your edit?

This is the last time I advise you to be more collaborative and less pointlessly confrontational. You think it's boring and so do I. Next time I'll simply sanction you. I understand that you think I'm "harassing" you whenever I speak to you, but please note that you got no support for that idea when you complained on ANI recently.[9] Your notion that outrage and threats will scare an admin away from dealing with you has no basis. I'd love to leave it to another admin, but the fact is the articles you edit don't enjoy much admin attention. That doesn't mean it's all right to behave uncooperatively on them. Atmosphere on talkpages matters. I realise you'll remove this post asap, but please read it first. Bishonen | talk 14:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC).

Quiet down Bishonen, before you embarrass yourself. If my response in Talk:Europe was "wikilawyerish", then by all means look at a couple of similar responses you've given me earlier: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kutsuit&diff=604835308&oldid=604599340 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kutsuit&diff=605535379&oldid=605119971. I don't suppose you're going to accuse yourself of the same thing, are you? But it's not the first time you've contradicted yourself, although you're doing a good job of building a bad reputation for yourself. If the other admins didn't see how biased you were earlier, they'll probably begin to see it the more you continue harassing my talk page. So here's my advice for you... Unless I'm not following Wikipedia rules, don't post any message in my talk page. If I broke a Wikipedia rule, inform me of it in a polite and non-condescending manner; otherwise don't give me suggestions that are unrelated to Wikipedia violations. Also, it's better you stop stalking me because it's doing you no good favor in the long-term. I'll have a better chance of listening to another admin's advice now than listening to your advice. Ta ta sweetheart and don't forget about preparing yourself for the discussion in Jimmy Wales' talk page. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh and one more thing... What do you mean by "I realize you'll remove this post ASAP"? Is that one of your typical failures in assuming good faith? Also, I see nothing wrong with what I did in the Azerbaijani language article today. No consensus has been established therefore the original intro was brought back until everything is settled in the talk page, as per Wikipedia guidelines, which an admin such as yourself should be aware of. As for the Europe article talk page, I'm perfectly right in saying that Alessandro57 shouldn't have addressed me but should have addressed the content, instead. So do me a favor and stop wasting bandwidth in my talk page. Also, don't falsely assume that I've been watching the Europe article when Alex first started his discussion in the talk page. Once again, you're falsely assuming something, which isn't surprising. And for the record, I have no pages in my watchlist. I'm not that bored of life. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

By the way, don't worry about me removing your messages. One day I'll dedicate an entire section in my user page for my stalkers, and I'll be sure to mention your name there. :-D --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• One more "sweetheart", one more "stalker", or any other kind of personal attack, and I will block you. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• • Ooh I'm quaking in my boots. Threatened with a block on a pseudo-encyclopedia... The horror! Feel free to block LOL, there's no need to find a justification for it. Just block for the sake of it, if it makes you feel better. ;-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Turkey etc.

Hallo !

Turkey and the other states are not European states. Geographically Turkey, Kazakstan, Aserbeidshan, Armenia, Georgia and Cyprus are Asian nations. The frontiers of Europe are the Bosporus, the Caucasus,the Ural river and mountains. The biggest parts of Turkey and Kazakstan are in Asia. Also it is not correct to include these states. It is only correct to include the European parts of these. It seems to be propaganda. The basis is the geographical determination, not a political. Another example, the Sinai peninsula belongs to Egypt, but not to Africa. And Northern Cyprus is an illegitime state. It is the wrong list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.120.84.9 (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

hi

join Talk:Turkey#National emblem please.....

Hello, Kutsuit. You have new messages at Talk:List of political parties in Turkey#Political position.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DRN needs assistance

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.

If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.

Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Thank you Thank you for your message on Alessandro57's talk page. I am frustated myself that this editor has stacked administrators and others in his favor. No one person can contribute without instantly being unedited. He will not even discuss a compromise or negotiate. Thanks again for expressing exactly how I feel. - Cpetty9979 Cpetty9979 (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cpetty9979: Hello there, Cpetty9979. Thank you for your kind words. I wouldn't waste my time with the likes of Alessandro57 if I were you, as you'd most likely get blocked by the admins in an unfair manner while he'd get off scot-free. Such is the absurdity of this pseudo-encyclopedia, whose admins are more interested in gaming the system than in making academic contributions to the articles. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yemen casualties

Your point that Saudi sources tend to undercount their casualties is well taken. However, there's not a lot we can do about that, as we need to go off of reliable sources per WP:V. User:EkoGraf has been doing a good job at keeping casualty figures up to date using reliable sources (a category that excludes PressTV, which frequently makes fantastic and unsupportable claims). Your numbers seem arbitrary with no strong sourcing to back them up. If you feel strongly about them, I strongly suggest that you try to obtain consensus on the Talk page rather than edit-warring, which won't get you what you want. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss the issue on the talk page of that article. Thanks. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I inserted some compromise wording in the infobox about attributing the figures to a specific source. However, I would again ask that you do not reinsert (as you did without an explanation) casualty incidents which have nothing to do with the Saudi-led campaign. Stick only to incidents linked to the military intervention, not to the overall war in general. EkoGraf (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mongols may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Ungern]] and mainly consisting of Mongolian volunteer cavalries, and Buryat and Tatar [[cossacks]]) -- liberated the Mongolian [[Ulaanbaatar|capital]]. Baron Ungern's purpose was to find allies to
• Oirats: 100,000? Torghuts (Kalmyks), 40–50,000? Olots, 40,000? other Oirats: mainly Khoshuts); 1,5–4,000,000? 5,700,000? Southern Mongols<ref name="lupm.org"/>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Cartakes

User Cartakes has started Original Researching again. If you recall, he was active on Mongols and Mongolic peoples; you reverted his change of Mongolic peoples from a disambig to a page as OR, and he's doing it again, claiming it's been "three days" and no one else has commented. He's difficult to work with as he keeps saying he thinks one thing while editing in a way that shows he does not at all believe what he says. Ogress _smash! 21:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)