User talk:NYC-ALB

Hi. Wikipedia has Neutral Point of View policy, which means that we can't have anything biased towards the Greek side. This includes having "scare quotes" over article titles. I hope you understand. --Khoikhoi 18:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your input. About so-called ""scare quotes"", (Wikipedia) "In spite of their pejorative label, such quotes may be used legitimately. An author who uses quotation marks in such a manner may do so in order to disclaim responsibility for the words, or to emphasize that a specialized, narrowed or historical sense of the quoted material is being suggested." -The CIA World Fact book uses them for "TRNC" and for its "President". The quotes are necessary. Otherwise, it would be lending legitemacy to an un-legitemate claim. So to not use the quotes would be biased toward the occupying side. --user:NYC-ALB 2006 03 19


 * Despite that the CIA uses them, it would be POV to use them here on Wikipedia. Let me give you some examples:


 * Writing "autonomous entities" is to imply that the entities are not autonomous, by Wikipedia's judgement.
 * We do not write Operation Iraqi "Freedom" or "Democratic" "People's" Republic of Korea regardless of what we think about them.


 * Do you see I mean? --Khoikhoi 19:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

- -Reading other disputed articles in Wikipedia, I see that quotes are not used, and when used, they do become tiresome for the reader. I see that using just words to say the item is internationally not recognized, and is illegimate, is better than using quotes. So I will NOT USE the quotes, to go along with Wikipedia's equality to other disputes, and for readability (although quotes are not wrong by themselves for this topic in other writings (at other web sites)). --user:NYC-ALB 19:41 2006 03 19  UTC


 * Thank you for understanding. However, your recent edits need to be reverted as well, because you still added scare quotes the words like "President", "Offical", and "Prime Minister". You also added quotes to the Turkish interwiki, which makes it so people can't go there. Please revert. --Khoikhoi 19:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

--Makes sense. I will change it back now --user:NYC-ALB 20:03 2006 03 19  UTC


 * Thanks for your compliance. :) --Khoikhoi 20:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

--I'm having trouble finding the link to "quotes to the Turkish interwiki". can you let me know where it is?

--I thought I had it, but cannot find it still. could you let me know? (where are "quotes to the Turkish interwiki")?--user:NYC-ALB 20:32 2006 03 19  UTC


 * The thing at the bottom, it looks like this: Kuzey Kıbrıs Türk Cumhuriyeti . Btw, your edits are still POV. Calling the Turks "colonists", saying that the Republic of Cyprus is the only offical one, de-capitalizing the words Northern and North... Please read WP:NPOV on why this is not ok. --Khoikhoi 20:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

--Does it go under "== See Also =="? If not, could you let me know where (and thanks in advance for your help)? I put it there, but the link will not show up. I removed Official, and put South, and re-capitalized the Ns, and got rid of "colonists". --user:NYC-ALB 22:10 2006 03 19  UTC


 * Thanks. Interwikis always go at the very bottom of the page, usually under the "external links" section with all the other interwikis. --Khoikhoi 22:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

--OK, I think (hope) that I got the link right, and the rest of the clearly POV edits of mine removed. I still did make a few minor changes (and a few spelling corrections), and I think those are highly defensible, but in case I left in something POV, please let me know. --user:NYC-ALB 22:32 2006 03 19  UTC


 * It looks good, but it looks like you capitalized the word northern too much. Some other user reverted your edits, so instead of reverting just go ahead and fix the typos and such. Also, you don't need to change the spelling of "recognises". Both Commonwealth English and American English are acceptable here on Wikipedia. --Khoikhoi 22:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

May 2013
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Kosher tax (antisemitic canard). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Avi (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.