User talk:Lonewolf94

Talk:Armenian Genocide
If you read Talk:Armenian Genocide from the top of the page, you will see that the last piece of boilerplate states: "This is not a forum for general discussion of Armenian Genocide. Any such messages will be deleted or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article." Your last posting was evidently general discussion and has, as the message suggests would happen, been deleted. If you want to argue about the subject, this is not the place. We're here to write an encyclopedia. I do hope this is clear. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am only bringing another point of view to this subject. If I have violated the rules of Wikipedia in any way, I am sorry. However, don't forget that the Armenian Genocide page is not objective and only tells one side of the subject. I believe that this situation violates the rules of Wikipedia. That's why I write those things, to tell Wikifans another side of this subject and banning it is bad. And if we are not supposed to discuss it with every aspect, why the section is called "discussion". I know that it is a sensitive topic but it is sensitive for both aspects.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The talk page is for discussing the article, and changes to the article, but not for discussing the subject of the article. Help:Talk page should explain this in more detail. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to be wandering back into usenet territory on Talk:Armenian Genocide. Please don't do that. The talk page is for discussing changes to the article and only for that. As regard personal attacks, if you stick to commenting on the article you will be much, much less likely to have any problems in this regard. That would apply to everyone else who is posting there too. But they've been here a while and should know that already. Best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mr.McLellan, I did not understand anything from this message. What is my exact fault, can you be more specific. I have only offered a new section about the Turkish efforts to solve the Armenian Genocide, and a historian whose work can be helpful to the Armenian Genocide page. I have also questioned the objectivity and reliability of the article's resources and editors(as well as mine). If you can specificly inform me about my fault-you talk about personal attacks but I have put special effort into being respectful and calm as much as I can- I will be glad.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks warning-notification
I would like to warn you against the personal attacks at me. I'd recommend you to act in accordance to WP:PA rules. Please kindly stop such behavior, that shall be addressed in accordance to the rules and regulations, if otherwise. Aregakn (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC) An acceptable term of fact but as I said keep in mind that you have been making personal attacks too.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have evidence, show it now. If you don't, then, according to WP:PA:

"Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." You've made another personal attack withall the outcomes. Aregakn (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You are probably mixing comments on the changes one wishes to make or the behavior with personal attacks!


 * Quote: "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character..."


 * Your claims of attacks:

For a sarcastic guy like you

I have to make a warning to you, Hittit,

Yes, your desire to advocate the bias of the Turkish state in again rewriting history is obvious. That's for sure. It's a shame that your knowledge of facts does not match with the reallity of their existance. In addition you lack references always

As if some editors are not trying to improve articles but to make at least one, I'd call it, pro-turkish change. Lonewolf94 forgets that this is not a propaganda site. I'd suggest you, comrade, to think about (once again) ADDING VALUE

First of all, you are totally unaware of history.


 * There are none that are attacking a personal character from what you sited but 1: "For a sarcastic guy like you". I shall remind you, if your memory is short, that some 3 hours before that you said at least 2 times that you are sarcastic and what I said is what you claimed you were:
 * 1) Of course, Turks butchered Armenians! (If you can't understand it, it was sarcasm.) Lonewolf94 (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Yeah, this is propaganda, Mr.Patriocide!-sarcasm again- --Lonewolf94 (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As you see I didn't attack your personality if not only repeated what you said. In addition calling somebody sarcastic is not an abuse, is it (leaving alone repeating that after him).


 * Any other evidence you think is directed as an attack to the person (even if from your list)? I'm ready to answer them. And I'll continue this discussion on your page as it's needed to be only on 1 page and it is the continuation of my warning-note. Aregakn (talk)


 * Unfortunately you failed to continue 1 discussion on the page it wasstarted on even after being asked. Also you clearly explain not but make claims. This is your choice. When it comes to reporting personal attacks do not blame me not to have tried to clear out things with you first. Regards Aregakn (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wanted to send you message in your talk page because I thought that it would have been easier for you. If you don't want, I won't do it. I showed you why I accused you of personal attacks now I tell you "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.". It appears to me that you are trying to disable who are opposing, I hope I am wrong and you are enough civilized not do so.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You might be interested
You might be intersted in participating in the article Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims Hittit (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I will come as soon as I can. However I looked at the article and discovered that my history knowledge is not that good about East Trakya Turks. So let me first have a history lesson review.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

your conduct
I'd like you to know, that your way of addressing me and other editors are not unnoticed, even if they are not commented. But not commenting them doesn't mean endorsing. It is clear provocation of editors and bites from your side. The fact, that you might not be aware of all the rules doesn't mean you aren't responsible for not being civil enough. This is a call for you to kindly stay in the frames of civility, not to provoke editors or bite them. Aregakn (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Be more specific, what is my fault?--Lonewolf94 (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not accusing. I am asking to be more attentive towards bite and civility when you address editors. Aregakn (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Give me an example of that so that I will not do it again or decide if it is a problem.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A simple example is emphasising the nationalities you believe editors have as "Aregakian" etc. Aregakn (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, if you don't want me to do that I will not do that. It was obvious that your real name is Aregakian and that you are Armenian, but it is not important. Besides, do you have any problem with "Mr." and "Sir", because I like using them. And before you ask I will keep on using "so-said Armenian Genocide".--Lonewolf94 (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You really are not familiar with wiki rules, are you?
 * I don't mind being called "Sir" as long as it is not done to ridicule.
 * You can call it however you wish. It was an advice from my side, because whoever reads your comments easily sees they are with majorly bias and prejudice. This implies directly, that you are here with an agenda, and not for objective editing. Neither do I know why I should ask you to do something that is good for you; those were just advices. Aregakn (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I really am trying to be respectful and calm but what is this-You really are not familiar with wiki rules, are you?-, are you kidding with me. Of course I dont know all of them by heart. You say that my edits are predujiced and biased but I have concrede bases as you would have for what you know. And my edits only problem is the fact that they are bringing other things which might prove otherwise and prevent a monolog in Armenian Genocide.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, if I hear that some conduct of me is against the rules I first strt looking for them as mentioned in the comment, reading them, and then arguing (or agreeing). My other comment was after you arguing without getting yourself familiar with them pretending that what you did was not a violation.
 * The second issue: your edits are tendentious as all your comments are with not even single doubt, that your minority and compromised authors might be wrong and you never even pretended there might have been a genocide. You did not come to research and edit but to change the article to a state-POV of Turkey and this is what I said is clearly seen. I only recommended you to change the manner of commenting, not your opinion. It is my will to try to help (even opponents) and yours to think of it or not.
 * As for what I know (as you said): it is based on the vastest majority of non-compromised reliable sources. Aregakn (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My knowledge is also ased on the vastest majority of non-compromised reliable sources. Besides you accuse me of not having a single doubt on the facts, but you also without any doubt believe in the Armenian Genocide and as your comments on Khojaly Massacre suggest your every accusation that are made to me and to the ones who are questioning the fact is also valid for you.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, no feeding trolls anymore. From now on it is a cold cooperation. Be careful not to be mistaken. Aregakn (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Turkey. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I am tempted to have a checkuser run on you, with regards to IP 85.97.19.13 and IP 85.101.204.35. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I accept the fact that my first edits at that article were a little bit of vandalism. But after that I have made a good research and shown the reasons why an edit is neccessary. I know that because of my persistence to change that paragraph you will warn me again so let me first defend myself with my own words that I have written in Talk:Turkey,
 * "I really do not understand why you are undoing my edits and calling me vandal or propagandist. I gave you my reasons why that paragraph and its resources are unacceptable and invalid. I did my edit with showing references, and I told that there would be an edit three days ago. So what did I do wrong!? I am doing this job with my best manner so if you want me to find more references or discuss it more, I would understand and respect but I also want to be understand and respected."

Best regards,--Lonewolf94 (talk) 09:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)