User talk:Chrono1084

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Renaissancee (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

January 2009
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. CardinalDan (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

International Freedom Alliance
see Talk:International Freedom Alliance. Regards, --JanDeFietser (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
You've repeated your edit to Women's rights in Saudi Arabia three times without any comment on the Talk page. Please don't do that. Noloop (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You also haven't started a discussion on the talk page and I justified my edits. If the grammar is incorrect, please correct it or at least tell me in your first revert but I've added a reference and much content so don't revert my edit. There's no POV in my edit, "renowned scholar" is in the source, please read it first. Nowhere in your sources does it say "In the West, the dress code is a highly visible symbol of oppression." Do you really want to start making a list of all the countries who restrict or ban the wear of religious symbol because the list is long and you can't put just a few if you want to be balanced.--Chrono1084 (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I've started a section on the Talk page. . Regards, Noloop (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

August 2010 - Edit warring on Prostitution in Afghanistan
Woah! Hold on guys!

Looking at the edit history on Prostitution in Afghanistan, this article looks like the scene of an all-out edit war between yourself and Jrkso!

I'm going to put a disputed template on the article (clearly it is!) - please could you read through WP:EW, and in particular WP:EW?

I think it would be better if neither of you made any further edits to the article - even if you disagree with the current content - without first discussing them first, and getting consensus on the associated talk page. It's just getting too heated, and things need to cool down a bit - I think that discussing any edits before making them will help here. Nuwewsco (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Congress of Paris (1856)
Turkey is regarded as an European country since 1856, Treaty of Paris following the Crimean war. http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0837645.html#axzz0wcgMiOYv Turkey is classified as an European country in Wikipedia, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_Qana_airstrike http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_2006_Lebanon_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reaction_to_the_assassination_of_Benazir_Bhutto#International_organizations Kavas (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your external link only talks about the Ottoman Empire and the closest thing to saying it's a European country is the following : "The Ottoman Empire became a member of the European concert" (which isn't exactly the same thing). Also you may not know but Wikipedia articles aren't reliable sources, that's why they are never used as sources on Wikipedia itself. But you're right on one point: some do say Turkey is a European (because of the 3% of its territory being on European soil, cultural and historical reasons) and Asian country but putting it in the Islamic world section is largely more consensual.--Chrono1084 (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia articles should have consistency, you cannot categorize Turkey as an European country in one article and not as an European country in another. That's why I sent you the links of these Wikipedia articles. Secondly, as you can see from https://pastel.diplomatie.gouv.fr/editorial/archives/dossiers/grand_traites/XIXe/paris_1856/traite.htm#haut, the treaty refers to the empire as "la Turquie", since Turkey had the same meaning as "دَوْلَتِ عَلِيّهٔ عُثمَانِیّه" (Devlet-i Aliyye-i Osmaniyye) used in Turkish. Kavas (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see, well if you want to it to be consistent, you should use the term Eurasia or Eurasian country like in the article Turkey. Altough leaving Turkey in the Muslim world section still seems more consensual.
 * As for your externe link, of course Turkey can be used as a name for the Ottoman Empire but it still doesn't prove that Turkey is more European than Asian and if you wanted to make your point, you should really have something more recent than something one and a half hundred years old (a lot of things can happen during that time ).--Chrono1084 (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Wafa Sultan
I saw on the edit history of Wafa Sultan that you removed my addition on Sultan's advocate of atomic bomb use against Muslims. What do you mean "YouTube isn't a reliable source"? The quotes I've posted in the article are found exactly in the videos. Are you denying that it's Wafa Sultan speaking? If that's not _the_ most reliable source (Direct quotes on a recorded medium, no paraphrasing), then there's no such thing as a reliable source. Don't do that. The Sphinx (talk) 08:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Youtube is usually not considered a reliable source as you can see for instance here or elsewhere but I don't want to get caught up in this alone so put it if you want, I'll just correct what is wrong and ask the noticeboard about this. Also please indicate at what moment that is being said, so it can be easily verified.--Chrono1084 (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi
How, precisely, is a bunch of nonneutral language ("luxury," "prosperous") relevant? Where, precisely, did I claim the deleted content was false? What, precisely, are the odds of this getting settled via discussion as opposed to an edit war? Şłџğģő 21:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is neutral written (it's the Telegraph, not the Sun ) so I don't see why this relevant information couldn't be in the article. It's hard to find "luxury" as POV when there are examples of why : "The property has a spacious garden and an area where the family erects a large tent to entertain visitors for celebrations. The property has a security gate and there is often a uniformed police officer sitting on a white chair outside." As he used correctly "luxury", I don't see why the author would lie about "prosperous". Also I didn't find "Psychopath happy", "victims still dead" in the article. I have to leave for a moment, I might not give you an answer right away.--Chrono1084 (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said "luxury" and/or "prosperous" were wrong. They are loaded terms, not errors. As for my admittedly snotty edit summary, it's a paraphrase of the deleted material. (And the Telegraph, while not a totally useless piece of crap like the Sun, isn't a completely unbiased source, either.) Şłџğģő  21:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You might see luxury and somptuous as loaded terms but they're just facts as I've searched for other sources, I often in them the word luxury to describe either his lifestyle or his house. It's important to say where and how he lives now but I'll try developping that sentence into something more. I can remove prosperous and add an internal link, I'm sure one of these days someone will write about the New Damascus district but luxury should stay. You can see the content and the sources added if you go in the article's history because Dougweller deleted it thinking I hadn't started talking to you.--Chrono1084 (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. "It's important to say where and how he lives now..." Why? (And while I agree with Doug's revert, I don't agree with his rationale. You appear to be right that he didn't check for a discussion.) Şłџğģő  14:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't expect to see this on a user's talk page, it really should be on the article's talk page. Having read that the villa had to be upgraded to have mod cons, I do wonder how 'luxurious' it was before. And not to mention his house arrest, while saying he's living in luxurious surroundings -- that's clearly wrong. It should be clear that although this man is living with his family in decent surroundings (I was about to right 'in comfort' but that wouldn't be correct unless he's pain-free, even then it's pov), he isn't free. See one of the sources, which says "According to the terms of his release from Scotland, Megrahi is not allowed to leave his family’s home in the New Damascus suburb of west Tripoli. The house has been converted to include all mod cons, and is under 24-hour guard by the Libyan authorities."  I can't find any source that says Gadaffi built his house, by the way. And the upgrade comment certainly makes it highly unlikely that both that statement is correct and the statement that the house was built shortly before his arrival back in Libya. I'm copying my comments do the article talk page. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that another contributor has brought an incident to the attention of the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents with which you are involved; the specific conversation is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--Chrono1084 (talk) 13:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
 You have been blocked for edit-warring on Prostitution in Afghanistan. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Appealing a block. --  tariq abjotu  14:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia
I'm sure you acted in good faith, but the official name of the country should come first. Please see our article for Togo, which begins, "The Togolese Republic..." Thank you! 2tuntony (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read this.--Chrono1084 (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The page title is the subject of the first sentence. 2tuntony (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * With your first edit it wasn't even in the first sentence, now it is. But it still isn't the subject of the sentence.--Chrono1084 (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at your talk page, I see you've had problems with a number of editors. Believe me, I'm not here to give you a hard time. "Togo" was just one example. Our article titled "J.D. Salinger", begins "Jerome David Salinger". Our article titled "Rihanna", begins "Robyn Rihanna Fenty". Our article titled "Lady Gaga", begins "Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta". Finally, our article titled "Abdullah of Saudi Arabia", begins "Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz Bin Abdulrahman Bin Faisal Bin Turki Bin Abdullah Bin Muhammad Bin Saud". This is an encyclopedia, and precision is important. The official name of something should always precede a nickname, or a name that is commonly, or colloquially used. Best wishes! 2tuntony (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok you've made your point: it does seem to be common and if it's the most common then the rules should be changed. The article France needs to be changed as well apparently Best wishes--Chrono1084 (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response, and thank you for pointing that about France. As no two situations are exactly alike, I intend to look into it a bit, when I have more time. But you are very likely right. Thanks again! 2tuntony (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome.--Chrono1084 (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Claims of growth
Please talk to me on the talk page if you have any issues. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you explain your revert on the talk page? How does "immigration" cause growth rates? -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 03:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅--Chrono1084 (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent Saudi Edit
I don't think that the statement that "many women" want change is supported by the cites (unlike "there is evidence that many women" don't want change which specifically is). I won't revert though but I'm sure some Saudi IP will. I've found that it is best to stick scrupulously to the sources to deal with the pro-Saudi POV-pushing editors. DeCausa (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand. My edit is supported by the following sentence on p.1 paragraph 5: "For the country's feminist and human-rights activists, and the many others who would like more freedom, the pace of change remains painfully slow." Although, the many other could be men as well so I should add this precision as well.--Chrono1084 (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! DeCausa (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * :) --Chrono1084 (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ergun Caner
Hi Chrono. Not that I like the guy, but IMHO you're exposing him too much. As you see, he was a bit inaccurate about his background, which costed him his demotion as dean. After a discussion with Drmies and Courcelles, we tried to leave most of his blatant lies out of the article, in order to avoid excessive controversy in a BLP. As for the religion of his mother, you have to know that he said she didn't adopt christianity and was a "woman behind the veil" until 1991 ... (see Faith and Family, March 2009, text and audio), which doesn't match the divorce files, dated during the 1970's. We can't be sure, although Mrs. Monica Inez Hunt, ex Caner, was most probably a Christian and never adopted any other religion. We can't be sure about Monica's nationality either: Ergun said she was a Turkish citizen (Statement from Dr. Ergun Caner, SBC Today). --Filius Rosadis (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, according to your turretinfan source, "There is good reason, from court documents, to believe that Caner's mother was not a practicing Muslim woman. Caner has provided at least one photo of her, and she was not wearing a chador in the photo." and this source talks about her being "a Swedish-born woman who was only nominally Muslim". This could explain why they didn't agree on the religious training to give to their children. On the other hand, all the sources I found were clear: she was Swedish so I'll make the change.--Chrono1084 (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right: this could explain it. When we're not sure, we can't assure. You cite WMonthly's Daniel Luzer, who hypothesizes Monica was only nominally Muslim. That's a possibility. But Caner didn't say that. He said she was a woman behind the veil, and a wahhabi, until 1991. Did they fight instead because Acar was too unreligious, and Monica too devout or extremist? Everything is possible when it comes to the Caners' story. Don't forget that Ergun, at least once, said he was born in Istanbul. But with all probability, Monica was a Lutheran, as most Swedes are. Her husband was the one nominally Muslim; he even hold a Christian second name: Martin (years after the divorce he changed it to a more Muslim looking name, which might have inspired Ergun when he, already a Christian, adopted "Ergun Mehmet" as his alias). He wanted his children to be raised up as nominal Muslims in order to prevent the Parental alienation syndrome. Sad and frequent story. But I'm not including all this in the article. The only thing we can be sure about is that his father was, at least nominally, a Muslim, born in Istanbul, married in Stockholm. If we're not sure about her mother, lets keep her out of the discussion. It's the least we can do for good old Ergun, he strongly dislikes discussions about his family. --Filius Rosadis (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with mentionning that the mother's religion isn't clear. But according to sources, he was raised only as a Sunni Muslim at least until his parents' divorce and then maybe by both but at least by his father. Also the latter is without a doubt a devout Muslim, the sources are rather unanimous and just thinking about him leaving just a Coran to his sons makes it clear that he isn't just nominal. But I really don't mind not putting that precision in the article.--Chrono1084 (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually both facts are extremely dubious and have been subject of considerable controversy. The father, a devout Muslim? Devout Muslims are prone to pick certain names for their children. Mr. Acar Caner's full name was Acar Martin Caner, and he gave to his son the name Ergun Michael (Michael is very Christian; as for Ergun, though quite nationalistic, it's the the name of a Mongol khan who fought against the Muslims). Acar most probably married a Christian, though this part is still unclear. Finally, Turkey, particularly Istanbul, is anything but a hotbed for devout Muslims even now, let alone some decades ago. But, after the divorce and when he started losing contact with his children, Acar became closer to his almost forgotten background. He married another woman, this time a Turkish or originally Turkish Muslim, and had two daughters. He changed his name (1980): from Acar Martin to Acar Mehmet. And finally, in his will (1989) he left his whole estate to his second wife, and sarcastically granted three korans for his sons. That's bitter indeed. That Ergun was raised up as a Sunni Muslim is strongly contested by several sources too, with convincing reasons. Ergun seemed to be quite unaware of basic practices and believings of Muslims (not devout ones, just average ones). He stated that Ramadan is 40 days long. He misstated the very islamic testimony of faith. That's like a purported Christian not knowing when Christmas is. I.e., not mere lack of devotion, but lack of knowledge about the most elemental basics. IMO this is not because he hated Islam or something: he hated his father. That's what his mother taught him. That's why he rejected not only a religion, even nominally, but also everything that reminded him his father's country. "I was born in Istanbul. I'm a sand monkey", he said. Sand in Istanbul? Perhaps in a nearby beach! And think about this: a new born Christian, a convert, years after adopting a fundamentalist version of Christianity, starts calling himself "Mehmet", while his name was "Michael" when he was purportedly a Muslim? It's very possible that Ergun received at least a bit of Muslim influence during his first years, before the divorce, but "raised up as a Sunni Muslim" suggests much more than that and doesn't match his notorious lack of knowledge about the basics of the religion. I'm sourcing the controversy about Ergun having been raised as a Muslim, within a couple of days. --Filius Rosadis (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Bosnian Genocide / Genocide in Bosnia
Since your last contribution at the Bosnian Genocide article Talk page, there has been prolonged discussion of the issues and a proposal to move the article to Genocide in Bosnia as a way of resolving some of the problems associated with the title "Bosnian Genocide". If you have any thoughts, your contribution to the discussion would be appreciated. Opbeith (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)