User talk:Kavas/Archive 2

On Turkish people's phenotype
Hello, Kavas; I'm Pablo Zeta, the one of White Argentine. Besides Wikipedia, I'm collecting data for a personal project of creating a website on the amount of people of the different races -or phenotypes, if you prefer the term- exisitng in the world. I've seen lots of photographs of Turkish people in WP and the Joshua Project, and your people don't look Turkic at all. I know you are classified as Turkic because of your language, but your phenotype seems to be Caucasian as any other Mediterranean people. The same happens with the Gagauzi people in the Balkans and the Crimea Tatars. Please tell me about your perception of your own people, if they look -at least from your point of view- Caucasian or Turkic. I'll be waiting for your reply; thanks.--Pablozeta (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

On Turkish people's phenotype. How do you see yourselves, Caucasians or Mongoloid?
Thanks for the brief class of history; I knew some of that info already, but some I did not. When you say "Black Turks", is it in the same sense that Russians refer to Chechnians as "Blacks"? Maybe I was not clear using the word "Turkic" (my mistake); with "Turkic" I refer to a phenotype that is an intermmediate between Caucasian (White, Europid) and Mongoloid (Yellow). Going through the photographs of Turkic people that appear in the Joshua Project and in WP, I see that only the Uyghurs, the Kyrgyzes, the Kazakhs, some Tatars -not the Crimean Tatars- Karapalkaks, Tuvinians and the Siberian tribes (Hazara, Koryak, Ewenki, Bashkir, Chuchki) look "Mongoloid" and have oblique eyes.

On the contrary, the Turk girl of this photo, and the Turkmen boys that appear in this photo don't look Mongoloid at all; the boy at the left is red-haired (although the photo of a Turkmen girl that appears in WP denotes Mongoloid features). I've seen in WP photos of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, historian Iber Ortayli, singers Hadise and Tarkan Tevetoglu, and model Kivanç Tatlitug; they look very Caucasian to me. My brother told me he met a Turkish tourist in Buenos Aires, and she was red-haired and blue-eyed. The same happens with the Gagauzes; this Gagauzi girl looks pretty Caucasian to me. This Hemshin girl might pass as German if she wasn't wearing a turbant.

Uzbek maybe are more difficult to classify, for the photos I've seen show them neither Caucasian-like nor Mongoloid-like. Some say that Azeris are genetically more related to other Caucasus peoples -or even to Persians, Talysh or other Iranid peoples- than to Turkics such as Turkmen of Uzbeks Armeniapedia. So, Azeris appear to be a case of Language Replacement. The case of the Gagauzes seems to be similar Origin of Gagauzes.

Sorry, I made it long. What I really ask from you is your personal perception of yourselves, the ethnic Turks (note I don't say Turkish, meaning born within the boundaries of Turkey; so don't count the Kurds born inside your country). Do you see yourselves as Caucasians, as Mongoloids, or as none of the two? --Pablozeta (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * İlber Ortaylı is a Crimean Turkish (not Tatar), Hadise is Circussian, Tarkan Tevetoglu is of Karadeniz region. Kivanç Tatlituğ is from Adana. Gagauzes is a Turkic speaking people, they applied for Turkish citizenship in the 1920's but Atatürk blocked their application as they are not Muslim. I think Oghuzs appear to be a case of Language Replacement, since Turkestan was an Iranian-speaking region historically. Azeri people is Oghuz people who migrated to first Iran, then Turkey, lastly back to Iran. According to historian Prof. Halaçoğlu, Hülya Avşar, a Kurdish singer and actress, is from the Avşar tribe of Oghuz people. That shows some Oghuz tribes became Kurds. People are mostly Caucasians, but it does not show there are no Mongoloids, for example actress Işık Aras has Mongoloid features (http://www.google.com.tr/imgres?imgurl=http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/660/g13217861266491qn5.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.forumezi.net/elveda-derken/73375-isik-aras-biyografisi-elveda-derken-dizisi-oyunculari.html&h=100&w=150&sz=5&tbnid=inZ96rQzq7_pEM:&tbnh=64&tbnw=96&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%25C4%25B1%25C5%259F%25C4%25B1k%2Baras&zoom=1&q=%C4%B1%C5%9F%C4%B1k+aras&hl=tr&usg=__kRfWszMDEz3HG3z4Ajkg15kf8wA=&sa=X&ei=TaGMTIjsOdjT4wanga3UCg&ved=0CCkQ9QEwBA). Kavas (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

On Joshua Project (2)
Hello, it's me again. I forgot to tell you that anyone can help improve the figures that appear in the Joshua Project, making it more reliable. For example, I sent them a message informing them that there were 12,000-15,000 Caboverdian Mesticoes in Argentina, with the link to the source article, and they updated that info in a few days. You can send them your figure of 500,000 Turks in France -specifying the source, of course- and they will change it.--Pablozeta (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

MV Avrasaya
I noticed your comments at Articles for deletion/Erdinç Tekir. It seems likely that the Turkish language sources you mentioned there could be used to expand the MV Avrasaya article. Unfortunately, I'm tr-0, so would you look over the article on the ship and expand it from those sources if possible. Mjroots (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've e-mailed the owner of the Fakta om Fartyg website asking whether Avrasaya is correct. I will be able to sort out the moving of the article if it is confirmed that the correct name is Avrasya. Mjroots (talk) 05:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've used the cite web template for the references you added. That template looks complicated, but can be condensed to or  for foreign language refs. Mjroots (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Turk vs Greek in Kuşadası
Let's be clear here. I am not Greek. I edit all articles the same, not trying to put a "positive" spin on things to make "my" side look good. That is WP:POV and what we are trying to avoid in this encyclopedia. If we have to hit readers over the head, like the media does, then these readers are too stupid to be reading an encyclopedia in the first place. The census at the exact moment of the Turkish takeover of Kusadasi is not known, and, most likely, not knowable. It is well known that the Greeks since 1000 BC or so, had a large presence around the shoreline of Anatolia. They were sea traders. The Turks were nomadic and moved into the area. After WWI, Ataturk decided to take the entire pensinsula for his new state of Turkey. He was successful. He probably would have liked to take the surrounding islands, too, but the Greek navy predominated at sea, as did Ataturk's army on land. Who took what when is good information. Putting s political "spin" on it, is not proper encyclopedic editing. Please stop. Student7 (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the main WP policies is to comment on the contribution not on the contributor. So, you're Greek or not does not interest me. Calling Greece as the occupier of Kuşadası in 1922 is an undisputed truth. You agree on it.

But calling Turkey as occupier is POV. You have called Turkey as occupier of Kuşadası. If Turkey occupied Kuşadası it was when Mehmed I conquered the town in 1413. (http://www.kusadasi.biz/info/guide/history) It has remained under Turkish sovereignty since 1413. If there was a one day in history where Greece had sovereignty, Turkey could occupy the city, but there is not such a day. You need a ratified treaty in which Turkey renounced in favour of Greece its rights over Kuşadası, there's not. Let's be clear here. You cannot occupy your own legal territory. Now, you can call Turkey occupied Cyprus as it is not part of it, but you cannot call Sri Lanka occupied Tamil because Tamil is part of Sri Lanka legally. So, the important point is the legal status of a city. If the sovereignty of some country over some city is recognized under international law, you cannot call that country occupied that city, if it expels hostile armies from it. Can you please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War? Malvinas Islands were under Argentinian occupation, and when it was retaken by British forces, it was not occupied although 61.3% of the islands are not British. So, calling Turkey as the "occupier of Turkey" is POV, as most parts of Turkey were inhabited by Greeks or Armenians prior to war. For example, you cannot say Iğdır is under Turkish occupation, it would be a marginal POV which is even rejected by Armenian government in Zürich this year.

What you have wrote as the history of Turkey is your originial research and not close to reality. The Turkish people were not nomads, it was Turkomens who were nomads, but when they have come to the lands now called Turkey they stopped nomadic lifestyle quickly. There were remaining nomads in 1920's, but they were a small part of Turkish population. Today only one aşiret remains in Turkey which follow nomadic lifestyle, and Turkish people are moving to cities from villages.

This is POV: The census at the exact moment of the Turkish takeover of Kusadaşı is not known, and, most likely, not knowable." According to census conducted by the Ottomans (note that the data of census is very accurate), Greek Orthodox were 44% of total population of Kuşadası, 54.65% of the population were Muslim. The article I have used uses the data borrowed from Kemal Harpat's book. (http://www.edebiyatdergisi.hacettepe.edu.tr/1998152MSacitPekak.pdf) The only place which can be called as a Greek town was Çirkince near to Ephesus in the region.

Greeks had a long presence not only at coastal parts of Anatolia, but also anywhere in Anatolia. In 1920's, in coastal parts of Aegean Sea, Eastern Thrace and the Pontus region. It was 1,500,000 Greeks actually moved to Greece from Turkey. The population of Turkey was 13 million, therefore Greeks were a minority in Anatolia, you cannot say Kemal conquered the Anatolian peninsula. The Ankara government only recovered Western parts of Anatolia. If you use the same formula, you can say Turkey is the occupying force in Anatolia, in the same situation as Israel which is the occupying force in Gaza. This would certainly be POV.

"He probably would have liked to take the surrounding islands, too, but the Greek navy predominated at sea, as did Ataturk's army on land." This is absolutely wrong. The Greeks have taken the islands in the Balkan Wars, in which Turkish navy has not shown any resistence except piracy. The islands were legally Greek islands, it wouldn't be a good idea to invade the islands even if you had the sea power. Some of the islands were under Italian occupation (why can I use occupation here?), so it was quite crazy to take the islands on the cost of starting a war with Italy. But, the Turkish Army had enough power to take Thessaloniki back, but it would be an occupation (why?), Atatürk opposed this idea. What Atatürk was trying to establish was a smaller nation state.

As the Greeks formed 44% of the city, I see your concern when opposing to the use of liberation term. However, it is not a word to watch in WP. See Liberation of Paris, Battle of Kiev (1943), and many others. The situation near to this is Alsace Lorraine in which Germans were living. Let's see. "Though the main towns of Alsace-Lorraine were liberated during the autumn of 1944, by troops of Generals Koenig and Leclerc, fighting raged on in the Colmar Pocket until 2 February 1945. The region was formally returned to France in 1947." in Territorial formation of France. Your objection to liberated word does not give you the right to use occupied for recovering of the city. Can you see the peace treaty finishing the war, http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Treaty_of_Lausanne? The Greek, British and Italian Armies were the occupiers according to the treaty, not the Turkish Army. (why?) On the other hand, "won permanent control" is worse, it is as if Turkey had no sovereignty over Kuşadası before 1922, or Turkey has still no sovereignty over Kuşadası today. Kuşadası is a town of Turkey since 1413, it did not win permanent control over it in 1922, because it remained under Turkish sovereignty throughout last 600 years. By the way, Turkey is not founded by Ataturk. He formed "Republic of Turkey". Turkey is an older country. It is as early as 12th century when Italians called these lands Turchia. So, I will revert your edit as I cannot see a more neutral source than the Treaty of Lausanne. Kavas (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you are confusing Ottoman sovereignty with Turkish sovereignty. The modern state of Turkey had much different aims and a quite different army and organization and political goals than the previous Ottomans did.
 * The Greeks were happy with the Ottomans and vice versa. The new state of Turkey had no use for Greeks. This is fine, but let's be clear. The two "Turkish" groups do not overlap only when it is historically convenient.
 * That is like saying that the "Americans" won the French and Indian War. They did not. Their ancestors helped the British win. Two different administrations. Quite different political goals and governments. Similar people though. Sometimes the same people. However, there are clear lines for each. Student7 (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * While I am not familiar with the specifics of the situation, it seems unlikely to me that the Italians (or any allied power) would have tried to land while opposed by the new Turkish army. They had learned better during the Gallipoli Campaign, where they were opposed by the old regime, but by the same Turkish leader, now a general! They would not have landed there if they did not expect a decent reception, I suspect. Student7 (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are unfamiliar with the specifics of the situation, you can start reading Turkish history before editing. At least you should read Treaty of Lausanne. Your thesis is in error.


 * I think you are confusing Ottoman sovereignty with Turkish sovereignty: Turkish sovereignty is Ottoman sovereignty and vice versa. If you can please read the Treaty of Lausanne, you can understand this. Please to refer to for example, Article 22 of the text. "Without prejudice to the general stipulations of Article 27, Turkey hereby recognises the definite abolition of all rights and privileges whatsoever which she enjoyed in Libya under the Treaty of Lausanne of the 18th October, 1912, and the instruments connected therewith." If Turkey had to renounce its rights on Libya, then Turkish sovereignty is Ottoman sovereignty because otherwise, Article 22 will be unnecassary. OK? Can you please read Imia/Kardak article? Turkey has territorial claims over these islands. Why? Because in the Treaty of Lausanne, there's not an article which clearly states that Turkey renounced its rights over Imia/Kardak. Can you see Turkish sovereignty is Ottoman sovereignty now? Turkey claims that the islands remain under her sovereignty, if Ottoman sovereignty was different from Turkish sovereignty it would be impossible to argue this. For example there is a town in Romania called Ada Kaleh, Turkey renounced its rights over it in the Treaty of Lausanne. If it was necassary to even renounce rights over a Romanian town, it is because Romania was part of the Empire, and former treaties had not an article on the status of Ada Kaleh. If the rights over a city under Ottoman sovereignty is not renounced, the city remains under Turkish sovereignty.


 * The modern state of Turkey had much different aims and a quite different army and organization and political goals than the previous Ottomans did: Not quite different, all generals were Ottoman generals, many MP's of the parliament opened in Ankara came to Ankara from the parliament in Istanbul after Istanbul was occupied. The Misak-i Milli was accepted in the parliament in Istanbul. The aim was the same, to keep Turkish independence and caliphate. Yes, the formal aim of Atatürk was to keep the caliphate in the Independence War. But, he was a Republican and after the war, he ended the Ottoman sultanate and finally he abolished the caliph position in 1924, because this position is not needed if you have a parliament according to him.


 * The Greeks were happy with the Ottomans and vice versa. The new state of Turkey had no use for Greeks. : No, they were not happy, they were a second class people as they did not believe in the 'final prophet'. They were not allowed to wear first class clothes. But, it was better for Greeks to be under Turkish control rather than Italian control. (See the war in the beginning of the 1700's.) But, after the French revolution, they became nationalist, and they started a campaign to establish a homeland. After the modern Greece was founded, their aim was Megali Idea, i.e. to join all places where Greeks live to Greece. The Ottoman government was not happy with this, Enver made life unhappy for the Greeks. Kemal was trying to get rid of Greeks in Anatolia because he did not want to govern an Empire, what he wanted was a small nation state. So, he did not try to take Thessaloniki back. But note that it was Greeks who offered to 1923 population exchange between Greece and Turkey.


 * This is fine, but let's be clear. The two "Turkish" groups do not overlap only when it is historically convenient. That is like saying that the "Americans" won the French and Indian War. They did not. Their ancestors helped the British win. Two different administrations. Quite different political goals and governments. Similar people though. Sometimes the same people. However, there are clear lines for each: No, they overlap. Ottoman was the name of the dynasty, it's a Turkish rule that people living under some dynasty takes the name of this dynasty. So, that's why Turks were called Ottomans in Turkey. However, in West, the Ottoman Empire was known as Turkish Empire or Empire of Turkey, while the Turkish name was دَوْلَتِ عَلِيّهٔ عُثمَانِیّه. You cannot compare French and Indian War to World War I, maybe you can compare it to Battle of Manzikert. You cannot say Turkish people have won this war, because it was Turkomens who won this war, but after this war the migration of Turkomens to the lands now called Turkey has been increased, so Turkomens who migrated to Turkey were designated Turks. (But many books call who have won Battle of Manzikert as Turks, without taking the difference between Turkomen and Turk into account.) As you know or not, German Empire was transformed to Weimar Republic after the WWI. It was later transformed to Nazi Germany. The difference between German Empire and Weimar Republic is similar to the difference between Ottoman (Turkish) Empire and the Republic of Turkey. Or, consider Russian Empire and Soviet Union. Or, consider Shah's Iran and the Islamic Republic of Iran.


 * While I am not familiar with the specifics of the situation, it seems unlikely to me that the Italians (or any allied power) would have tried to land while opposed by the new Turkish army. They had learned better during the Gallipoli Campaign, where they were opposed by the old regime, but by the same Turkish leader, now a general! They would not have landed there if they did not expect a decent reception, I suspect. Wikipedia Talk Pages is not a place for suspection. After all, you have to verify what you write, OR is not allowed. But, if the British Army had been the given the order, they would have defeated the Turkish Army. But, they were not given the order, as the British people was tired of the war. After WW I, the British Navy passed though the Dardanelles without any resistence. They occupied the capital city, Istanbul. How did Turks liberate Istanbul? The British forces went home as they were tired of war, so the British occupation authority in Istanbul was ended and Turkish troops entered Istanbul without a war. Indeed, Mussoloni had the idea to occupy Western parts of Turkey before WWII, but he could not accomplish this.

In summary, you started reverting the word liberated for describing the event on September 7, 1922. The word is POV according to you. Although I do not use it anymore, you insist on adding "occupied" word as a term to describe that event. As I have explained it to you, you cannot say, for example British occupied Falklands Islands since it's under her sovereignty, or French occupied Paris, or Turks occuopied Anatolia. Before posting a reply, reading at least the Treaty of Lausanne can help you. Kavas (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I would be happy if you post a reply. Kavas (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I will post on the site article. Student7 (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you study? Kavas (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Double names
I have attempted to clarify that WP:AT refers to the hardware constraint that every article must have a single title, the one embedded in the URL. That is not intended to say anything about titles which contain two names, like Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader.

Nevertheless there are reasons to avoid such names:
 * They are long, clumsy, and not usable in running prose.
 * When they are compromises to "settle" naming disputes, they usually just transfer the naming dispute to "Our name must go first"; see WP:LAME on Bolzano/Bozen.
 * Unless they are clearly usage, as Biel/Bienne, slashes should be avoided in titles. They look like subpages, which we don't do in article space. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really a special case. You have to be reasonably careful in phrasing, as with any subject who changes name or cognomen (like Daniel Westling or Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington or Aragorn); but no more. In this instance, do remember that we don't worry about spoilers; anybody who consults us will get the full plot, twists and all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Photo
There is no Erdogan at the photo? 195.240.250.105 (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just at right corner. Kavas (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia sources
Wikipedia sources do not have to be neutral they have to be reliable. This source is reliable. but it is not the only source for these facts. AMuseo (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: diacritics in article titles
Please have a look at e.g. Talk:Goran Višnjić for the relevant arguments and policies. If you still have specific questions, let me know. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Eggsy wotsit
Ta for that. (Sorry - thanks. Must avoid dialect...) Have you added this to the AfD to help other non-Türks? Peridon (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. Kavas (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Dikkat
Bizim "uyanık" komşu, sözde "yasaklanmış kullanıcıyı revert ediyorum" ayağına, çaktırmadan "kişi başına düşen GSMH" rakamlarımızı kendi kafasından uydurduğu sahte sayılar ile değiştirdi (IMF'nin linkine bir göz at istersen, yok öyle sayılar... Tamamen kendisi uydurdu...) Çok "hasta" bir insan, tek derdi Türkiye'nin imajını sabote etmek. Kesinlikle "iyi niyetli" değil... Adam sürekli birileri ile (özellikle Türk, Arnavut, Makedon) kavga halinde... Sürekli birilerini (kendi propagandasını kabul etmeyen kişileri) şikayet edip banletmek ile meşgul... Kesinlikle de üşenmiyor... "Rum yaygarası" tabirinin tanımı gibi bir adam... 88.251.98.32 (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed calling it a vandalism, but it's very possible that the page would be vandalized again in the future or made biased by POV-Pushers and there's no way to remove subtle vandalism unless some users waste time. I don't want to be the stupid one who wastes time on Wikipedia removing vandalism or creating unnecassary diambiguation pages or edit-warring or using talk pages to stop people deleting articles I have created which they find against their agenda. Kavas (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad
"Founder" is technically correct. I think I said that on the Talk:Muhammad page. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Please answer my question do you think making this argument is relevant: In the context of "Islam" meaning "Mohammedism"? Kavas (talk) 00:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't really care that much. I don't pay attention to the article on Islam. In my opinion Islam is the religion of Muslims. The main book of Islam is the Quran. That's my view. I don't care that much where the Quran is supposed to come from. Muslims believe that the angel Gabriel told it to Muhammad, as far as I know. But I'm not an expert and I'm happy to leave that article to people who care more. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Good for you, happy editing. Kavas (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Flag
Hi. How are you ? Are you busy lately ? When you have a time, can you read Talk:Republic of Ararat ? Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 04:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably you are correct, but I lack knowledge and have no time for that discussion. Kavas (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Yine when you have a time please look at Hakkâri. Takabeg (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Muhammad-FAQ-Images
Template:Muhammad-FAQ-Images has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 01:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not the creator of this template, I accidentally retargeted it and lost older history. The creator is Eraserhead1, I asked Eraserhead1 to fix this mistake but he did not help. Kavas (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Know him?
Hi Kavas. Do you know him ? Takabeg (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

NO Kavas (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

OK Takabeg (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Turkish people
Please don't remove tags. Do you also confuse Turkish people with Turkish citizen too ? In that article, the number of the ethnic Turkish is exaggerated. It's very clear. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Kitap
Kavas bunu kullandın mı ? Takabeg (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

quotation
What's this ?

What is

Türks name refers to two distinct entities both the confederation of medieval Inner Asia, Kok Turks and the Turks of modern Turkey. ?

You must not compose with your POV.

Because we cannot find such sentence in the source shown for this sentence.

Source said:

The Kök Türks are not to be confused with the Turks of modern Turkey - though the latter claım the former as ancestors.

If you want you can find other sources.

Takabeg (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all you have not read the book. If you can please read it, it's clear that the book uses the name for both Turks of Turkey and Turks of Gokturks, so uses this sentence to help the reader not to confuse them. But, you're using this sentence out of context to prove that Kokturks are not ancestors of Turks of Turkey. However, this cannot be infered from what you're quoting. Last but not least, you're not properly citing the reference. Kavas (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

We cannot find your explanation in the page 37 of that book. If you attempt to to help the reader not to confuse them, you must find other sources. Takabeg (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm also using that sentence you're using. And I'm doing not OR, what I write is not different from the text's meaning. Not confuse them=two distinct entities, Kök Türks=confederation of medieval Inner Asia, Kok Turks I'm not helping user not to confuse them, it's the writer who helps the reader by writing this sentence. And it is you using this book in Wikipedia. Let me repeat, the writer uses the word Turk for Kok Turks. The reader can ask "OK, but are they the Turks of Anatolia?" No, he says. Yes, Turkish people claim that Kok Turks are ancestors, but the names are used for different things, first for Kok Turks then for Turkish people. Think it like this: You have a class, you have two students with name Ayşe. You write a book about your class. You write I'm using Ayşe for Ayşe number 1, not for number 2 to help readers. OK? It's simple. Kavas (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyway that source is not appropriate to sentence that you composed. I recommend you to find other sources. OK ? Takabeg (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Kavas (talk) 12:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Anadolu dilleri ve Türklerin yaptığı asimilasyonlar hakkında
lütfen sayfada değişiklik yapmadan önce bu yazıyı tamamen oku, bir doktora öğrencisi olarak yazıyorum bu yazıyı;

En başta şunu söylemeliyim ki tarihte Anadolu'da (Symria ve çevresi haricindeki yerlerde) konuşulan hiç bir dil Yunanca ya da Hellenic diye tabir edilen dillerden biri değildir. Tarihçiler arasında Türklerin Yunan dili konuşan bir halkı asimile ettiğini idda eden Halil İnalcık haricinde kimseyi bulamazsın eğer bulursan da mutlaka bu kişilerin Halil İnalcık ile bağlantısı vardır. Anadoluya gelen kavimler arasında, Türklerden önce bu topraklara gelen Altay kökenli Bulgarlar vardır. Macarlar ile Türklerin (Ural Altay hibritleşmesi) tarihsel ve genetik bir gerçektir. Asya için; tarihte Tocharians örneğinden başka Türklerin her hangi bir Hint-Avrupa kökenli bir halkı asimile ettiği kayıtlarda yoktur(Tocharians Uygurlar tarafından asimile edilmiştir, anadoluya gelen bir Uygurlunun olduğunu sanmıyorum, Oğuz Türk boyları arasında bir Uygur klanı olduğu hiç bir kaynakta yazmaz.) Tarihsel Anadolu'nun yerli halkları arasında Hint-Avrupa kökenli dilleri konuşmayan halklar da vardır. Bu halkları topyekün "Greek" dilini konuştuğunu idda etmek Kelt halklarının Ermenice konuştuğunu idda etmek gibi bir şey. Bir dil bilimci olarak belirtmek istedim sadece. Macarlar, Çuvaşlar ve Tatarlar gibi halklar Ural-Altay hibritleşmesi sonucunda oluşmuşlardır. Anadolu Türkleri Ural-Altay hibritleşmesine ek olarak Anadolu'nun yerli halklarından biri olan bir Etrüsk kökenki Truvalılar (ya da Truva kökenli Etrüskler) olmalıdır. (hint-avrupa dilini konuşmayan bu halk daha sonraları Etrüskler olarak İtalya'da belirmişlerdir) --Alpha Beta Gaga (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Halil İnalcık'ın fikirleri uluslar arası çevrelerde itibar görmemektedir. Halil İnalcık'ın anadolu Türkleri hakkındaki tüm iddalarını buraya taşımak yerine ilk önce tarafsız kaynaklardan araştıralım derim ben, bu hataya bende düştüm çünkü zamanında. mesela genetik çalışmalar anadolu Türklerinin Etrüskler, Altay ve Ural halklarının hibritleşmesi sonucunda oluştuğu yönünde, sayın İnalcık'ın bilmediği şey ise bu üç faktörün de Hint-Avrupa dilini konuşmamış olması.--Alpha Beta Gaga (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Eğer tarihsel (trabzon) Pontic Greek dilini konuşan halk hakkında kafanda bir soru oluştuysa şu an doktora tezimi bu konu hakkında yazıyorum. Pontic Greek dilinin ortaya çıkması ve yaygınlaşması Laz halkının zamanla otoriter "(trabzon) Yunan sarayı" dilini kabul etmesine dayanır. Yani köken olarak Laz olan halk zamanla Yunanlaştırılmıştır. Mübadele döneminde bu dili konuşan halkın büyük bir kısmı insan takası için Yunanistana gönderilmiştir. Yunanistan kökenli Saray haricinde Doğu Karadeniz'de Yunan medeniyeti izine rastlanmamıştır (doğu karadenizdeki tüm medeniyet kalıntıları Lazika medeniyetinden kalmıştır). saray baskısı sonucu Pontic Greek dilini konuşmaya zorlanan Laz halkı hiç bir zaman asimile olmamış, bir çoğu kendi dilini konuşmaya devam etmiştir. ilginçtir ki Laz dili (Lazuri) da bir Hint-Avrupa dili değildir.--Alpha Beta Gaga (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

tüm bunlara ilaven Memlüklerden bahsetmeden edemeyeceğim. Levant bölgesinden Osmanlı'ya giriş yapmış Memlükler aslen Kırım orijinlidir. Ural-Altay hibritleşmesinden doğan en büyük halk olan Kıpçak (Kuman) orijinli bu halk Memlükler adı altında tarihte yeniden yıldızı parlamıştır. Şu an ki bir çok doğu, güneydoğu iç anadolu ve akdeniz Türklerini oluşturduğunu sandığım halklar Memlük göçleriyle oluşmuştur. Anadoluya Malazgirt sonrasında da girdiği varsayılan en büyük Türk halkı Memlüklülerdir. Memlük izlerine tüm akdeniz bölgesinde rahatça rastlayabilirsin. Karadenizin Türkleşmesinde rol oynamış Kafkaysa girişli Çepni Türkleri, İran bölgesinden giriş yapmış Selçuklular ve Kaşkaylar, balkanlardan büyük kitleler halinde anadoluya göç etmiş ön-Türk uygarlığı olan Bulgarlar, İzmir'in bir Türk şehrine dönmesini sağlayan Çaka Bey ve onun Türkmen-Moğol halkı, Moğolistan ve Azerbaycan kökenli Karamanlar gibi bir çok Asya kökenli halk kitleler halinde anadoluya göç etmiştir. eğer anadoluda Ural-Altay ve Etrüsk(Truva) uygarlıkları haricinde bir genetik kalıntıdan bahsedilecekse bu bence orta anadoluda yaşamış bir Kelt kavmi olan Galatlar olmalıdır. yani ille de Halil İnalcık'ın bazı iddiaları galip gelecekse bu sadece Galatlar üzerinden yapılabilir (ki bu konuda da her hangi bir genetik veya kültürel kanıt mevcut değil fakat anadolu Yörükleri'nin Türk-Galat medeniyetlerinin ikisinden de bir şeyler barındırdığı kuşkusu ilginç bir araştırma konusu olabilir) sevgiler.--Alpha Beta Gaga (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

First read Wikipedia rules, like WP:REF and WP:NOR. I'll answer your question. Kavas (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

you dont know anything about Turkic states in the middle east and asia. Khazars, Bulgars, Magyars may sound nothing valuable for you but Turkic civilization is a deep case to state about its origin. by looking your edits i can easily conclude about your knowladge. so please develop those valuable sources, dont remove them.--Alpha Beta Gaga (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless you read the rules, you cannot properly cite your sources. Kavas (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Stop
There is a conspiracy theory about Hizbullah being "founded by" the government, what happened is that Hizbullah is a seperate Kurdish militant group, which next to Islamism, also fights for Kurdish rights. The name of the article was changed from Turkish-Kurdish conflict to Turkey-PKK conflict because of Turkish POV complaints, as result we have an inacurate title. Eventough Turkish-Kurdish confilct may have not been a completely correct title, the conflict is infact between Kurdish groups, not all of which are alligned to or associated with, the PKK (although some links have been alleged (not confirmed)), in conflict with the Turkish state.

Remember, in articless about insurgencies, it is normal to add all insurgents at the same side of the box even if some of these factions have clashed with each other, which, in most cases, they have. Their internal clashes can be covered in the article itself. At present, the article includes information about PKK V Hizbullah fighting, Hizbullah factions infighting and alleged military links to Hizbullah aswell as it's crackdown against Hizbullah.Kermanshahi (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

First read Wikipedia rules, like WP:REF and WP:NOR. I'll answer your question this year. Kavas (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Alpha Beta Gaga
Kavas, following Alpha Beta Gaga's insulting post on my talk page, I have no wish to interact with said editor. Considering that prior to his/her insulting post I had no contact with Alpha Beta Gaga, I can only conclude that Alpha Beta Gaga is a sockpuppet. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

TS 1
Would a document like http://www.tse.org.tr/TSEIntWeb/Standard/Standard/Standard.aspx?081118051115108051104119110104055047105102120088111043113104073081083121074098047082105087100113 be useful for Wikipedia? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For what? Kavas (talk) 14:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Your edits in "list of modern conflicts in the Middle East"
Put your attention that the list says "location", not "participants". Your edits which placed various organizations on the list are not relevant (PKK etc.). Only political entities which govern a certain territory are relevant - either recognized, or with limited recognition (like Northern Cyprus or Kingdom of Kurdistan).Greyshark09 (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dima Khatib


A tag has been placed on Dima Khatib requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  Cind. amuse  01:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Your edits in the "Turkish people" article
I don't know where your sources come from but those have not any academic value accepted by any historian. --Confederatre (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Is Confederatre a sock of, or does the chain go back even further? —C.Fred (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, Cupcaker&Alpha Beta Gaga&Confederatre are all the same person. But, the chain goes back even further, Alpha Beta Gaga send a message of personal attack to user:Kansas Bear without contacing him prior to this: "Considering that prior to his/her insulting post I had no contact with Alpha Beta Gaga, I can only conclude that Alpha Beta Gaga is a sockpuppet." said Kansas Bear. What is his user name before Alpha Beta Gaga? I don't know. Kavas (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

i am a new user. you have some problems with Turkish people. Kavas, Turks are not Indo-European, your sources are completely fake and has no academic value.--Confederatre (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course, not. Alpha Beta Gaga, you cannot get the point, Turkic people assimilated Indo-Europeans. Kavas (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, what's my problem? Removing your claims? Kavas (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please do not restore this information with another sockpuppet, because you cannot find a reference, what you show is the result of a google book search and I'll revert you in this case. But, reverting you makes me waste time. Kavas (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Turkish military propaganda
I am not implying you are directly working for any propaganda network, however I see a pattern in your edits on Kurdish-Turkish related articles of deleting information that Turkey's military junta would rather than censored and adding anti-Kurdish propaganda provided by the Turkish regime. It is clear the operation sun article, as it is, is completely POV and is more of a propaganda peace than an actual Wikipedia article. What we should be doing is rewriting the article to meet wikipedia standards, both on neutrality and factual accuracy, instead of trying to preserve this propaganda information on the article about how "the great glorious turkish military won a decive and devine victory, completely crushing the evil terrorist forces."Kermanshahi (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not write "the great glorious Turkish military won a decisive victory", what I write is that both sides claim victory, which is neutral. The article which I object to being used as a neutral source, (but I am not against it as a reference for PKK claims) is written by a man who is against Turkish goverment's policy on Kurdish problem. That's the problem, you can use this article as a source but should keep in mind that it's not written by a neutral observer. "Or conversely, if the taking of the Zab base was so important, why was it that the army suddenly folded and left? The fact that a Turkish helicopter was felled by the guerrillas and many rank officers lost their lives are further evidence of the military fiasco suffered by the Turkish army. It was a fiasco not because the Turkish army was defeated by the PKK, but because there was a stalemate", he claims a mlitary fiasco, which does not seem to be a neutral observation, given the backgound of the author. Kavas (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you tell me which sources in the article are biased? If you want to delete them, we can discuss it. But, I don't like your revert, you never said that writer was neutral. Kavas (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Merhaba!
Türk olduğunuzu görememiştim. Talk:Turkey sayfasında İngilizce konuştuğum için özür dilerim. Türkiye ve Türklerle ilgili maddelerde yoğun Yunan, Ermeni ve Kürt vandalizmi var. Türkiye'nin antik bölgelerini (pers pontusu bile yunan yaptılar) ve hars zenginliğini suistimal ediyorlar. Burada bunu engelleyecek ve iyi İngilizce bilen daha çok arkadaş lazım. Selamlar.-F.Mehmet (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I write in Turkish since this is greetings.

1. Wikipedia'da İngilizce konuşmak zorunlu. (Write in English since people who only speak English would want to follow you.)

2. Yunan, Ermeni ve Kürt şeklinde etnik kökenlere vurgu hoş karşılanmıyor. (Do not comment on ethnic origin of users.)

3. Evet, çok arkadaş lazım, çünkü edit savaşlarında tek yönlü hareket yapmak yasak, bir günde 3'ten fazla değişiklik yapmak da yasak. Aksi takdirde, bloklanabilirsiniz. Ama, fazla arkadaş faydalı çünkü talk page'de oylamaya benzeyen oylama denmeyen tartışmalarda daha çok kabul görülen görüşe göre madde yazılıyor. Öyleyse tek taraflı hareket etmemeli ve edit savaşlarından uzak durmalıyız. Konuşma sayfasında yapılan oylamaların sonuçlarının aksine davranışta bulunmamalıyız. (Seek consensus for making an edit in a potential edit-war situation.)

Lastly, have fun at Wikipedia, but never think Wikipedia is reliable. Welcome! Kavas (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not a new user and I know most of the rules of Wikipedia but Thanks! Demeye çalıştığım üçüncü maddede değindiğiniz "edit savaşları" idi aslına bakarsanız. -F.Mehmet (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Cumans/Volga Tatars
Do you know anything about Cumans or Volga Tatars? I have spent some time trying to explain to an anon IP about published sources that state the Cumans and Volga Tatars were Turkic. Do you know of any other users that might know something about them and could bring a wider perspective? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have never read anything contrary to Cumans and Volga Tatars are Turkic. Turkic peoples=Any of various peoples who speak one of the Turkic languages. (http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Turkic+people) One cannot differentiate Turkic people and Turkic speaking people. The user cites a source about origins of Volga Tatars, but today they are all Turkic speaking, so they are Turkic. This is informal, but I have to say, I have Volga Tatar friends, and they say they are Turkic. Whoever can deny this? Kavas (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Bozcaada
Maybe you'll be interested in the discussion on page Talk:Tenedos Happy editting Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your offer. But, I'm not interested in joining that WP:RM. Kavas (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

2011 Kurdish protests in Turkey
In the course of rewriting the article (still needs a bit more filling out, but it looks much better and more encyclopedic now), I came across quite a few sources comparing Kurdish protesters to Egyptian and Syrian demonstrators in tactics and goals; one article even quoted a Kurdish religious leader assuring his congregation that the Kurds would rise up in the same way that Arabs have, etc. In light of the improved quality of 2011 Kurdish protests in Turkey and the addition of WP:RS linking it to other regional protests, what do you think of adding it to the 2010-2011 Middle East and North Africa protests article? Cheers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't change my view and do not want to continue this debate. Kavas (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Turkey Protests
Hi. I read the note you left on my talk page. You asked me to change my comment to a vote, but my vote would be neutral, so it will not affect things. If you have RS that mention Turkey as part of the Arab Spring, then be bold and it. However, as it stands now, we have very good arguments for including Turkey, and very good arguments for not including Turkey, so I am still neutral. My apologies. Unflavoured (talk) 03:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reply. That talk page discussion was so long, I was tired and had no time to continue it. Kavas (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Upgrading Yemen to Civil War Status
Elevate_Yemen_to_Civil_War Please express your views when you have the time. Peace & blessings. --Smart (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Grammar of a Sentence from Wikipedia
This sentence's grammar is incorrect: "The 2011 Kurdish protests in Turkey are an ongoing campaign by members of Turkey's Kurdish minority to demonstrate against restrictions of their rights by the Turkish authorities." Isn't "are an" problematic? And how can we correct it? Kavas (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This reads OK to me - you certainly couldn't say "is" in that sentence. I don't see any problem in a plural subject having a singular object: "The editors of Wikipedia are a motley crowd," for instance. JohnCD (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, Kavas. As long as I understand, Category:Turkish people is used for the citizens of the Republic of Turkey. But the article Turkish people is related with an ethnic group. So there is discrepancy between the "name of article" and the "name of category". However, I think this is easiest way to distinguish nationality and ethnicity. Takabeg (talk) 01:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Bu kategori olayı teferruat, Wikipedia'da zaten gereğinden fazla sayıda kategori var, fazla kategori göz çıkarmaz, bence kategorileri silmektense madde metinlerinde "nationality" ve "ethnicity" ayrımını düzeltmeye çalışsanız daha uygun olur. Kavas (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If you want Category:Turkish people for Turkish people (ethnicity, a branch of Turkic peoples) and create category with other name for citizens of the Republic of Turkey (including non-Turkic ethnic groups), I can support you. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * For detail, let's talk at Category talk:Turkish people. Takabeg (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Category:People of Ottoman Istanbul, Category:Ottoman İzmir/Smyrna. Bunlara gereksiz kategori denir. Takabeg (talk) 06:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Kurdish template...
Mr. Kavas. Do you have any opinion on Template talk:Kurdish independence movement ? Takabeg (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Yes. Kavas (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you ever heard a rebellion with this name ? Takabeg (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC) No. Kavas (talk) 19:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Turkish propaganda
If I were to make articles according to my own POV, they would be completely different. Instead I have tried to make all articles as neutral as possible. You and a bunch of other Turkish nationalists, however, have been trying to make every article involving Kurds into a piece of propaganda for the Turkish military junta. This can ofcourse not be tolerated and I will do my best to keep wikipedia neutral.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No complaints for your effort to make articles neutral. Please read my message again before editing. Kavas (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You claim I have tried to misrepersent sources according to my own POV, which is not true.Kermanshahi (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Report
Hi, Kavas. I reported User:Kermanshahi's personal attack against you to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Takabeg (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 Kurdish protests in Turkey
Can you and Kermanshahi (whom I've already contacted) please settle your difference of opinion on Talk:2011 Kurdish protests in Turkey rather than edit-warring on the article page? -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It's impossible to settle with Kermanshahi, he just starts to complain about my career in Turkish military junta. Kavas (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Wikipedia is a social media. Isn't it?

The source says:

"Many historians and the Armenian people believe the killings amount to genocide

Turks and some historians deny they were orchestrated

Armenians have campaigned for the killings to be recognised internationally as genocide - and more than 20 countries have done so."

More than 20 countries regard the massacres as genocide"

I have written this sentence citing this source: "Though the majority academic view shared by more than 20 countries is that the mass killings of Armenians amount to genocide, the minority view in academia shared by the Turkish government is that the killings were not orchestrated. " Among historians the majority view is that the mass killings of Armenians amount to genocide, and more than 20 countries have recognized the genocide, however, the minority view among historians and the Turkish government's position is that the killings were not orchestrated. ? Is there a mistake? Kavas (talk) 11:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Kavas. There's a few problems with the sentence in my view, but they are information content issues rather than grammar problems. The source says that "20 countries regard the massacres as genocide". This is not a very information rich sentence because it does not tell us what "regard" means here. The most natural meaning is that that the governments of more than 20 countries have recognized the massacre in some way officially, but it's not clear. What you have taken it to mean in your sentence, though, that it's an academic view shared by 20 countries, is not a likely interpretation and simply is not verified by that sentence. In fact, though I think you are right that the majority view is that it was a genocide, you can't verify that statement with this sentence. In a world where the majority view was the other way around, the source sentence could still be correct (though a bit deceptive), in that there could be 30 other countries that take the opposite position. Third, you can't say "20 countries have..." from this sentence. This tells the reader it is exactly 20, which misrepresents the source information. I will certainly leave this request open for other opinions.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I represent "Many historians and the Armenian people believe the killings amount to genocide and some historians deny they were orchestrated" as the "majority view is that Armenian killings is a genocide and the minority view is the killings were not orchestrated." Some editors argued that "Many" and "some" are WP:Weasel, so I had to change the wording and used instead "majority" and "minority". Kavas (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I have added "more than". The view is that Armenian killings is a genocide. Kavas (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you've pretty much missed the point of my post. Your sentence is not verified by the source you have cited as verfying it. It contains all manner of inventions the source does not say.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Armenians have campaigned for the killings to be recognised internationally as genocide - and more than 20 countries have done so." This is also from the source. I use the majority view and minority instead of Kavas (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Falsfying source
The source (BBC) says "Many historians and the Armenian people believe the killings amount to genocide

Turks and some historians deny they were orchestrated

Armenians have campaigned for the killings to be recognised internationally as genocide - and more than 20 countries have done so."

More than 20 countries regard the massacres as genocide" An editor called Athenean said that we cannot use this source since "many" and "some" are weasal words. so I rewrote this sentence as "Among historians the majority view is that the mass killings of Armenians amount to genocide, and more than 20 countries have recognized the genocide, however, the minority view among historians and the Turkish government's position is that the killings were not orchestrated." hoping it conveys the same information. Basically, I used "majority view" instead of "many" and "minority view" instead of "some". What do you think? Kavas (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that this "help" request has been left unanswered for five days - please don't be offended, but I have decided to de-activate it. By now, all the volunteers who monitor this kind of help request will have seen it and have chosen not to comment. I'm sorry, I don't know the answer either. If the question hasn't been resolved elsewhere, and you still need input on this point, then I suggest you try WP:3O. Alternatively you could re-activate the help request by deleting the "tp|" that I placed within your . -- John of Reading (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Cease and desist
Kavas, stop. The purpose of WP:CCN is not for you to launch into personal attacks against me. If you continue reverting you will get in big trouble, I guarantee it. Athenean (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I was planning to report this vandalism, but did not have time. Please give me a reasonable explaination why you changed the number contrary to the source. This is not the only case, I have been searching for it. Kavas (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Blofeld's Assistant was a sock of the banned User:Shuppiluliuma, so that's why I revert him. When a user is banned, anyone can revert their socks for any reason. I just saw that he was a sock and reverted, without paying too much attention to the details. Makes sense? Athenean (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't assume you had good faith, I think you wanted to lower that number to make Turkey look as a poor country, and you thought you would not be noticed since you were reverting a sock of a banned user. But, it's also possible that you made an unintentional mistake. Kavas (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:AGF, seriously. I was just reverting a sock of a particularly prolific sockpuppeteer. He has socked countless times, I'm not going to sit there and analyze his edits one by one. Athenean (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The last version before him is: $12,476 Kavas (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're on about, but if you really think that I would actually bother "to lower that number to look Turkey as a poor country" by a couple of hundred dollars, I have nothing more to say to you. Athenean (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I have asked you this before in Talk:Turkey and said that you were probably biased, but you did not reply. Kavas (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As well I shouldn't have. And I'm not going to ever reply to questions laced with veiled personal attacks. Have a nice day. Athenean (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

HELP
An editor who vandalized Turkey article for ethnic reasons doesn't allow me to add my comment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Geopolitical_ethnic_and_religious_conflicts Kavas (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent idea, I was about to report you to ANI, but you just saved me the effort. Athenean (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks my dear friend Athenean, but for now, no admin has shown interest. Kavas (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The cases are

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Geopolitical_ethnic_and_religious_conflicts&diff=441040588&oldid=441039892 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Geopolitical_ethnic_and_religious_conflicts&diff=441039682&oldid=441039099 Kavas (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * non-admin note: This seems to be a content dispute, which don't need any admin actions. If this is only between two editors, have you considered requesting a third opinion on the article's talkpage. Please follow the dispute resolution steps first, then further actions can be taken.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  20:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This really isn't a matter that needs administrator attention. Please try WP:3O or WP:DR.--v/r - TP 00:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)