User talk:Richwales/Archives/2012-07

Re: Allison Scagliotti
My apologies. I didn't see that the "Smith" name is not used in the actual article. I only added it in the personadata, anyway, not the actual article itself. QuasyBoy (talk)  19:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Confederate States of America
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Confederate States of America. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

OK I removed "Obama fraud defenders"
OK I completely removed it, as you requested. Thank you for pointing out the rules. University Internet Cafe Booth 6 (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I am too septic
All the same please watch the Turkish invasion merger thing. Let us see if it will turn out to be an Ian-Idis affair. (If not I will be happy to have made a pre-emptive step). Who knows, maybe they will put the Makarios declaration at the flash sentence... All the best. --E4024 (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've registered my opinion on the proposed merger at the article's talk page, and I'll be keeping an eye on the relevant articles.  Although I do not believe the merge proposal should be tied to any proposal to rename Turkish invasion of Cyprus, I have no objection at all to a calm and reasoned discussion of this question separately from the merger discussion.  I note, BTW, that this renaming question was discussed in 2010, and there was no consensus for a change at that time — which doesn't mean people can't bring it up again now, of course.


 * BTW, I think the word you meant to use in this section heading may be "skeptic" (US spelling) or "sceptic" (British spelling). "Septic" refers to a medical condition.  —  Rich wales 16:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * On "septic": Possibly it refers to my condition of being a "bad polyglot" (a person who speaks several languages, badly :-) although I hear frequently that my Turkish is excellent. Thank you. --E4024 (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. Regarding the idea of renaming Turkish invasion of Cyprus at some future time, you might want to do some research (if you haven't done so already) on what terminology is used to describe this event in reliable mainstream English-language sources — particularly, sources not directly connected to any of the parties to the conflict.  My impression is that most English-language, non-Greek, non-Turkish, non-Cypriot news sources probably say "invade" or "invasion", though I freely concede that I might be mistaken.  Whatever phraseology is most commonly used in the mainstream English-language news media, I predict most neutral editors will insist that the same phraseology must be used in the title of the article.  Regardless of the title, the article itself may (and should) certainly discuss a wide spectrum of views on the nature of the event — note that WP:NPOV says that "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."  You may be tempted to argue with me on this, but please keep in mind that I am not the person (or group of people) who will need to be convinced regarding a possible change to the article's name.  —  Rich wales 18:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Moldovan
See my reply on my talk page. — Adi  Japan  15:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Turk(ey) - related articles
In my short WP experience you are one of the very few neutral-objective users I have seen regarding Turkish-related articles. Therefore I kindly request you to see the Northern Cyprus talk page. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

@Intervention: Here you can learn, if you wish, several details concerning the Turkish intervention in Cyprus. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Here, the Green Line of 1963 also a Turkish "opera" of 1974 (I promised myself not to use exclamation marks). In 1963 the Turks were crying loud, just like the actors of a terrible opera I watched yesterday evening, but in the case of Cyprus there was real blood, not tomato paste, on the Turks' bodies... --E4024 (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, I am not doubting that serious wrongs were committed. My understanding is that the available reliable sources assert wrongs committed by both sides; this fact does not by any means excuse what was done by anyone, it just makes the events as a whole that much more depressing.  Our challenge here is to incorporate the available information in order to present a comprehensive view of the entire situation.  —  Rich wales 14:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Dubious demographics
Just a heads-up. I think that 46.19.99.6, who you blocked a couple of months ago, may have reappeared as 46.19.99.3. Strictly speaking, this would be block evasion. I've left a message on their talkpage, and they're not currently editing - but if they start adding more numbers which are improbable or which contradict sources... bobrayner (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up. I'll look into it.  —  Rich wales 15:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And they're doing it again. etc. Sorry for nagging you; but you know the backstory, whilst a random admin at AIV doesn't 718smiley.png bobrayner (talk) 09:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've blocked the new IP address. Blocking of IP addresses needs to be handled cautiously and conservatively, but if similar misbehaviour pops up again on another IP address in this same /24 range, I'll do a range block.  —  Rich wales 14:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Groovy. I've watchlisted some of their favourite articles. bobrayner (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Disputed territories
Hi, What do you think? Instead of enlarging the existing ARBMAC umbrella (it's easy for people to say "Cyprus isn't in the Balkans"), would it be practical/desirable to build a new "Ottoman successor states" umbrella which includes all those problem areas of ethnic/nationalist pov-pushing plus a couple more? bobrayner (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Over at your proposal to extend ARBMAC to Cyprus, JClemens mentioned the possibility of broader sanctions covering "disputed territories", and in particular Fut.Perf. and Roger Davies mentioned "the former Ottoman Empire". I think that actually identifies the problem quite nicely; Cyprus and the various Balkans disputes all involve Ottoman successor states, and there's a couple more areas in the near east which currently have the same kind of problematic editing. Of course, our Arab-Israeli battlefield has already had plenty of attention in its own right (at arbcom and elsewhere).
 * However, simply talking in terms of the Ottoman empire could cause pushback among some, since much of the pov-pushing comes from a historical perspective of Our People Built A Glorious Nation And Then Suffered Under The Turkish Yoke And Then Freed Ourselves &c. So a different phrase might be more palatable.


 * Good question. The impression I'm getting for now is that ArbCom isn't going to agree to anything like this unless and until an actual case is presented to them.  If you'll look at this exchange on Newyorkbrad's talk page, there seems to be some sentiment toward producing a general sanction regime that would encompass disruptive editing dealing with any disputed territory — subsuming the zillion separate discretionary sanctions currently in place.  There was also a [ suggestion] made to consider a case whose scope would be limited to the question of imposing discretionary sanctions, but without dealing with the conduct of specific editors.  Not sure where that's going to lead yet.  I also note that the noise level on Cyprus-related topics seems to have gone down of late — perhaps in part because Justice Forever has not yet reappeared — so it might be necessary to wait for edit-warring to resume (!) and go back to ArbCom at that time.  —  Rich wales 21:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK; those are good points. bobrayner (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Bloody Christmas in Cyprus
Hi. I know I am taking very or too much of your time but I am sorry I have not so many places to go here in WP. I read carefully your advices and make sure I understand. I still hope to be able to work to improve WP to become a better encyclopedia. I tried to put the infamous "Bloody Christmas" in Cyprus in the relevant Disambiguation page and it was immediately deleted. I hoped to make this an article, with help from other users of course, although I wonder how many people are there around here with the guts to face the gods of Olympos. Now this is what we have in WP about the "Bloody Christmas": "Atrocities against the Turkish Cypriot community were committed during the invasion of the island. Contemporaneous newspapers also reported about the forceful exodus of the Turkish Cypriots from their homes. According to the Times journal issued in 1964, threats, shootings and attempts of arson are committed against the Turkish Cypriots to force them out of their homes.[53] Daily Express wrote that "25,000 Turks have already been forced to leave their homes".[54] The Guardian reported a massacre of Turks at Limassol on 16 February 1964.[55]" Please read that paragraph carefully. We are talking about the atrocities against Turks in Cyprus in 1963-64, during the "Bloody Christmas". According to our WP article the atrocities were committed "during the invasion of the island". I may be wrong (I was too young then to remember), has there been a Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1964? (Because the newspapers that had the guts to inform of the assassinated Turks were printed in 1964.) I wonder where are some of our very careful contributers to correct any ortographical mistake by deleting entire sentences on Greek sorry Cyprus-related articles... Is no-one disturbed of the fact that WP presents Cypriot Turks killed a decade before as victims of a posterior Turkish invasion? I really wonder what Jimbo Wales would think if he saw how the encyclopedia he helped create treats some issues... --E4024 (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Best not to bring Jimbo Wales into this. Perhaps it shouldn't have been directly reverted, but what did you expect if you called it "an ethnic cleansing campaign in the Republic of Cyprus, began by the Greek Cypriots, aimed at the annihilation of Turkish Cypriots" (emphasis added)? That's jumping up and down and begging to be reverted. (It's probably also completely wrong, as one incident is not a campaign.) If you want to create the article, why not create a draft in your user space, User:E4024/Bloody Christmas or something. Actually having an article makes a much better case for inclusion on a disambiguation page. Keep in mind NPOV though, if you go in with the language you used in that disambiguation page, you will not be able to make any sort of progress. CMD (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Look here. Richwales, am I doing the correct things?.. Best. --E4024 (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I looked at the above edit, and I'm confused, because it didn't appear to have anything at all to do with Cyprus, and it also didn't seem to have been written by you. Are you sure you gave me the correct link?


 * In order to do a proper article about "Bloody Christmas", we'll need sources of a sort which we're allowed to use in Wikipedia. I tried just now to find neutral, encyclopedic / news-like sources recounting the events in question, and I wasn't able to find anything online.  I did find a lot of sources with a clear pro-Turkish bias, but I couldn't find anything with a pro-Greek bias to balance it out.  And many of the online sources I found appeared to be ineligible per WP:SELFPUB.  So, for the moment, I'm not sure what to do.


 * Also, I need to mention (for the benefit of you, a non-native speaker of English) that the expression "look here" has an idiomatic meaning (scolding or rebuke) which I'm sure you did not intend. "Look at this", or "take a look here", would be safer.  —  Rich wales 04:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should block me for not knowing the detail about "look here" (joke :-). I really did not. I was trying to show you that I am trying to do things in co-operation with the community. In the dif I sent you I made a mistake or there was an edit conflict. I thought you would touch the arrow with "see previous edit"; please do so. Also please take a look here. As regards bias, yes even Greek writers have written in favour of the Turks; i.e. they have written about how they (Turkish Cypriots) have been attacked at because of their ethnicity. I think RS does not have to find a balance between the dead and the killer. There are several English newspapers reporting the events and also books, even one Greek Cypriot user, who was all against this at the outset, came out with a book in English; see at the Discussion Page of the Disambiguation thing. All the best and thank you for helping with such an important issue. --E4024 (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I understood what you really meant, and I did not take any offence. I was just offering a friendly warning so you wouldn't inadvertently make the same mistake to someone who might not be as understanding.


 * As for the mention of the Cyprus "Bloody Christmas" event, I think the material at Cyprus intercommunal violence looks like a reasonable start — though I haven't been able to check the sources, because many of them are apparently not online, or are in Turkish. I would recommend finding (and incorporating into the Cyprus intercommunal violence article) some sources which substantiate the use of the phrase "Bloody Christmas", especially by Turks; note the comments at Talk:Bloody Christmas questioning the place of "Christmas" in Turkish tradition, so we can see there are skeptics who will require convincing on this point.


 * Assuming the Cyprus intercommunal violence article can be improved by including verification of the name "Bloody Christmas", I could then see putting a minimal mention of the events in the disambiguation page — possibly something like "a name (Turkish: Kanlı Noel) for attacks on Turkish Cypriots in December 1963".


 * Finally, please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for material in Wikipedia; you need to go back to the external sources used in the other Wikipedia article, and cite those sources, not the other Wikipedia article itself. —  Rich wales 14:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Negativity at Talk:Nicosia
Richwales, I am visiting your talk page as soon as I saw your initiative. I would like to tell you, paraphrasing your own words, that please feel free to "remove a(ny) negative comment(s) made by one (this) editor about a general group of other editors". Causing you headaches is the last thing I would like to do. I apologize to you. All the best and take care. --E4024 (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks, I'll do that. It's important to try as hard as we can to focus comments on the subject of an article — not on other editors' motives, backgrounds, or good faith (or perceived lack thereof).  Taking the high ground by always acting courteously, even if you may think others are not, would go a long way toward resolving numerous disputes, not only here on Wikipedia, but in the "real world" too.  —  Rich wales 22:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Amendment request declined
This is a courtesy notification that an amendment request you were named in has been declined.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Richwales
So Masri managed to bully you away? Sad, sad. Thank you anyways. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)