User talk:EthemD/Archive

Turkey Article
First of all I should appreciate you for your excellent achievement in that article in the History section, I have also tried a lot changing that. However, wouldn't it be better if sth like this was added at the end of that paragraph(about Armenian Genocide):"However there are reasonable doubts that in fact the issue was in fact mutual ethnic fights between Armenians and Turks which were provocated by foreign powers and that both Armenian and Turkish people were violently massacred.      "
 * You can check the references at the discussion section of Turkey article. They are in the "Resources of so-said Armenian Genocide and Edit Request" Best regards--Lonewolf94 (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliment, Lonewolf94! Yes, indeed, that is a good hypothesis to this issue - definitely worth mentioning. Personally I think the sentences I edited together with your sentence should be enough about the Armenian Genocide in that article. There is not even that much about The Holocaust in Germany's article, although there is no doubt it happened. It's not really a friendly topic and might give a wrong image of the people, so I think any other sentence involving the genocide should be kept away from this article and only in it's own article. (Of course unless something huge changes). Thanks for the help! --EthemD (talk) -07:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thinking of it again, it might not be a very popular hypothesis so I'm not entirely sure if it belongs there yet... massacre is a strong word and foreign powers is a bit too vague... so I will need to investigate a bit longer! Meanwhile, added a few sentences to make a better connection between World War I and the Armenian nation. Hope you understand! --EthemD (talk) -08:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've completed my investigation and that point you mentioned (Lonewolf) is definitely worth mentioning. It is completely different from the two most common propositions. I've edited your sentence to make it more unbiased and more reasonable from a third party. Let me know what you think!


 * "The most common hypothesis for the high amount of deaths of Armenian people is the ones blaming either the Turkish authorities or the Armenians, however there is also the hypothesis that foreign powers have provoked and arranged a war between the Turkish People and Armenian People or even took part in this event." --EthemD (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the contribution to this case. --Orcunbaslak (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks EthemD, I appreciate you again and I am happy that at last my references are useful but I didn't exactly understand what you are trying to tell, may be we can develop that sentence or you can explain it to me. Still I think we are good because at last something changed in that section.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 10:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Lonewolf, nice to hear you liked the change! Well, I thought your sentence would have looked odd in that paragraph if I hadn't changed it. First reason is because of the context - it needed to fit-in with where I was going with the paragraph. Second reason is, because this hypothesis is technically another reason opposing the Armenian Genocide. Though our goal is not to give another reason to not to oppose the genocide, but to give the possibilities for the deaths, say that it might not just be Armenian-Turkish relations but also foreign ones involved. If I put your sentence in, it would not likely be accepted since it would sound biased, if not put in context. Just my thoughts on that, hope you understand! Cheers, -EthemD (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently, there are some extremists, who believe that the Armenian Genocide is a fact without reasoning. He(they?) simply deleted my paragraph. :( How is it possible such things are accepted? My sentences weren't even biased! -EthemD (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah I have just seen it and I am sorry for that. As you would know Westerns had to live with blacks for centuries to get rid of their biases. So think how much it would take Wikipedia editors to get rid of their biases. Unfortunately people are biased but I think we should keep trying.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Any updates on Turkey issue ? I'm sick of those biased Armenophilists. --Orcunbaslak (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Haven't had the time to repeat what I've said just in different words... but it seems like many have not been doing anything to correct that section of the article. Honestly, I'm not going to waste my time trying to change fixed-minded, biased people. How have you been doing? EthemD (talk) 06:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Turkey. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tiptoety talk 22:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Tiptoety. I didn't start an edit war. My Internet is a bit broken and gets disconnected frequently. I was still using the same page to submit new edition, and seem to have submitted it twice without noticing, and someone managed to edit my text in between... it's good to know what I can do if my comments on the discussion aren't considered though! -EthemD (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Can you look over this talk page. Are persecution and assimilation same for you ? Takabeg (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Takabeg. No, I don't think persecution and cultural assimilation are the same as they are fundamentally different things. But I can imagine that cases of cultural assimilation could be viewed as persecution by people, depending on the circumstances. I had a brief look at that page, but I didn't fully understand why you linked it. If you want me to contribute, I don't have time to do that at the moment, it will have to wait a few days. EthemD (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Maalesef söz konusu madde taraflıdır. Yine de vaktiniz olmadığı için boşuna uzatmayacağım. Hadi hayırlı işler. Takabeg (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Pardon, tam anlamadım. Bana maddi ispat olduğunumu göstermek istiyordunuz? Benim zamanıma düşündüğünüz için sağolun, ama yine de görüşünüzü kısa bir şekilde anlatsaniz memnun olurum. EthemD (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Help
I hope you can contribute to the ongoing discussion on Talk:Chepni Turks. This user's behaviour is not understandable, despite I had sources about naming Chepni Turks as Chepni Turks (which is scientific name for this Oğuz clan) he insists on reverting it. İyi günler dilerim. -F.Mehmet (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with the topic, but I will try, if I can, to contribute. - EthemD (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Slm
Selam, bu ve bu sayfalara gel. Suriyeliarap milliyetciler burda cok propaganda yazdilar. Ozellikle ikinci sayfada arapci GAZETICI fisk ve turk dusmani olan bir emeniyi kaynak olarak kullaniyorlar. Tarihli suriye olarak iddia ediyorlar ama Suriye 60 yil once Fransizlar yarattigi yapay ulkesi. Bunun disinda Arapca wikipedia'da bu sacma iddialara dolu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasanamca (talk • contribs) 05:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)