--laertes d 20:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)--laertes d 20:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)--laertes d 20:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC){| style="border-spacing:8px;margin:0px -8px" width="100%" |class="MainPageBG" style="width: 55%; border:1px solid #084080; background-color:#F5FFFA; vertical-align:top;color:#000000;font-size: 85%"|[reply]

Hello Laertes d! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Khoikhoi 02:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

|}

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Khoikhoi 16:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from attempting to impose your POV in the avbove-mentioned articles. Instead, discuss these issues in the talk pages of these articles.--Yannismarou 16:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You regard "Greece travel guides" as a reliable history source?! Please ... --Yannismarou 16:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Great Fire of Smyrna. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Thulium 23:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Khoikhoi 10:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] (first personal attack - you had been warned by User:Hectorian to cease personal attacks)
[2] (second personal attack after you had been warned)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 24 hours. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. If you want to dispute this decision, and let another administrator re-examine your case use template {{Unblock}}--Yannismarou 10:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violation of the 3 revert rule. It is clear that your changes do not have consensus, so please gain some agreement with the other editors before trying to reinsert your changes. Further violations of 3RR can result in longer blocks. Syrthiss 20:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not stupid. that was an unnecessary insult. Oh wait, It was stupid of me to compare such primitive Turks to the Germans. hahaha... Odst 17:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Laertes,

Re this comment, blocks are really a last resort to protect the encyclopaedia. They aren't intended as punishment.

If you feel that another user's behaviour (personal attacks, etc) require administrative attention, you can file a report at WP:AN/I. Best wishes, Jakew 13:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Ata-8.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)==

I changed the content of no citation. If you insist on accusing me, please try to accuse me on the right "crimes" and not on not existable ones! Probably, somebody else did it, but I am your easy target!

And honestly, I don't know what the outcome of the edit-warring you have will be, but warnings of the kind "if you do that, I'll do this" do not help, they do not build trust between editors, and they just do not work with me.

And, try to follow the advice Michalis (which, by the way, is nothing but POV) made: Don't mess up other people's discussions. Go on with your useless "tit for tat" edit warring and talking, but don't mess the discussions other people want to initiate. Let them do their more useful job! Cheers!--Yannismarou 18:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for violating the three-revert rule on Greek War of Independence.  Your block will expire in 3 days. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Deskana (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:St.clair.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If someone comes to your house and uses your computer, you account will be blocked to prevent vandalism from occuring to it. The block will expire whenever the blocking administrator decides it will. My advice to you is to either lock your computer or log out of Wikipedia. Since I live in halls of residence with other students, I either lock my computer or lock my door when I'm out of the room as someone could have a lot of fun messing around with an administrators account. --Deskana (ya rly) 00:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:St.clair12.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't create articles that are copyright violations / plagiarism from third-party sources. I remember I once deleted the same text under some other title, and I'm pretty certain it was taken from somewhere on the web. In fact, I distinctly remember reading very much the same text some years ago in McCarthy's Death and Exile, which is probably the ultimate source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My memory of texts I've once read is pretty good. I am certain your text is extremely close, probably word-for-word identical in parts, to McCarthy's passage in his chapter 1. I have not the slightest doubt it is close enough to count as plagiarism. I haven't got the book here to check, but if you want to upload the page, we can ask a third party to check and decide. Until then, I don't intend to undelete it; if you must you can ask for undeletion at WP:DRV. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for the upload. So, we have:

Etcetera. I'd probably find more of the kind if you'd uploaded also the next page from McCarthy, or the relevant passages from St Clair or Philips. I stand by my assessment that this is close enough to count as plagiarism/copyvio. But feel free to go to WP:DRV, I won't object if you can convince another admin. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Sorry Laertes, what you need is a crash course in proper academic citing practice. Believe me, if this was a student paper, it would be a sure fail. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Finlay 153.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Phillipsaa.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Massacres in Peloponnese. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing.

AlexiusComnenus 21:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am blocking you. You have been basically continuing the same old edit war you've been conducting on two different articles for weeks now, as far as I can see, and I see no constructive debate on the talk page apart from repeated assertions that your version is better than the other. This is extremely counterproductive, even if you then stop just short of 3RR. I blocked the anonymous user too, of course - he was actually already beyond 3RR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure, i have been debating these guys over months nad nothing has changed so far and i have the right to include well sourced information into an article which was "wiki-censured"..--laertes d 21:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi how are you? i remember you were giving me advices about fixing the article but not to open a new thread on the issue, right? Then now i expect you to come and fix the vandalisms that started since the time Alexius opened a new article about the whole issue of massacres in that time..User hectorian by now already violated three revert rule--laertes d 21:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What title did he use? Massacres in the Peloponnese is still deleted. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new article is called Massacres during the Greek Revolution and it is not the same thing. I would also like to have some moderation on this issue. I feel that I have done nothing wrong, and that in fact it is Laertes who is ruining the article. AlexiusComnenus 02:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

alexius stop your little games nobody is buying them, peoeple are not doing anything because they also dont want massacres being mentioned as well..--laertes d 10:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User talk:Sandstein. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (Diff) Sandstein 11:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly cant see how it can be classified as a personal attack? you inded voted for the deletion of the article about massacres in the greek war of independence claiming it to be POvfork and therefore now i think you have responsibility to prevent vandalisms in the main article..And Alexius indeed is a Greek nationalist who try to impose his nationalist point of views in every single article..--laertes d 12:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Massacres during the Greek Revolution. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. AlexiusComnenus 16:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have particular problems assuming good faith regarding the sockpuppetry thing; but it remains a fact that you and your IP account combined have violated the WP:3RR at Massacres during the Greek Revolution, and you've been blocked very rectly, thus I have to block you for 48 hours.--Aldux 16:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Laertes d, Please be cool and avoid from Rv-Edit wars. Please take into consideration your block history in future edits. The article which you deals are also in the watchlists of many user and closely observed. When the atmosphere is warmed in a specific article please go to any other Turkey related one for a while. There is to much work todo. Note; is your mail activated? Regards.Happy editing. Must.^{T C} 11:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laertes, best thing to do is ask an admin for help. Try User:Francis_Tyers, User:Khoikhoi or User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise. They've all been involved in Greco-Turkish disputes and i've consulted them many times when faced with these kinds of disputes. Thanks, --A.Garnet 11:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Toynbee.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for severe violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIV. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Sandstein 19:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that such edits are not acceptable under any circumstances whatsoever, and may lead to a substantially longer block if repeated. Sandstein 19:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shame on you Sandstein, youre a so called administrator, we both know thats not the first time you blatantly took side on an issue. Actutally it is you who has to be blocked from being an administrator..For all his insults against me and agaisnt all his obvious vandalisms and POV impositions in the article youre not even warning user Alexius..--laertes d 20:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take aWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Makalp look.Regards.Must.^{T C} 05:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated Selim Deringil, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Selim Deringil satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selim Deringil and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Selim Deringil during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Svetovid 00:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Selim Deringil, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Svetovid 00:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922). Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing.

AlexiusComnenus 00:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated Selim Deringil, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Selim Deringil satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selim Deringil and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Selim Deringil during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Svetovid 19:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot just remove that template; that's vandalism.--Svetovid 19:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The screen jumped up due to a pic loaded and I accidentally pressed the wrong button. Apologies for the lousy revert here: [3]. See the talkpage for more. NikoSilver 15:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Sorry for misunderstanding, it's just that the tool I was using showed me the article contained some weird characters. But then I went back and checked and couldn't find those. Zondi 22:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I see what was the problem. In the Notes section, Anvil presss Poetry is spelled with triple S. You can go ahead and correct this typo:) Zondi 23:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i corrected it:)..--laertes d 23:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me it was a joke, how can you block one user who made more than 3 reverts within 24 hours, but yet do not block the other user who also made more than three reverts in the same days? Look better, [[4]]

Previoulsy of my reversions, User Kekrops violated the three revert rule, actually he would have violated the 7 revert rule if there were such a rule..He made 7 reversion in two days...And funny thing here is i have been discussing the issue on talk page and ggive reasons for my reversions, unlike people lik Nikisilver who makes blind reversions..--laertes d 06:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tariqabjotu, i still expect an answer from you for the points that i adressed you above, user Kekrops made 7 subsequent reversions without waiting 24 hours to pass, in that case you should block either both of us or none of us, thats the sound thing to do..--laertes d 19:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can not change the facts of the history. We can only explain the events. Best defense is telling the parts of the story that is not explained. It is better to explain than not to mention. If you do not mention or not involve with explaining your position, people will think that you are hiding and you will be labeled guilty by this action (even there is nothing to hide). The best approach is to explain everything in detail. If you give your time, you would recognize that not telling the story had brought all these problems. Thanks for your efforts. OttomanReference 04:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think you may help us resolve the conflict in that article in which i had been banned previoulsy..Another administrator, FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} made certain edits, but the User Nikosilver again showed up and put the article again in its old format.. he has been pushing his greek nationalist POV in this or any other Turkish related article for a quite while..A Kurdish User said in the discussion page, or at least implied that, he doesnt have problem with my editings..Can you come and present some ideas about the discussion in there? --laertes d 20:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but i was asking your help in order to prevent relentless POV pushing of Nikosilver not to confirm his POV without even reading what has been said..He reverted a third party administrator opinion to his own version and you "protected" this version..

And If you check an eye to discussion page you will notice that, let alone five days, in a thousand year nothing is going to change with Nikosilver..--laertes d 21:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, resorting to uncivil personal attacks by referring to people by their nationality is never a good starting point for resolving a dispute on the article. Not long after you got off your block, you proceeded to continue partaking in edit-warring – the same activity you were blocked for. You're on thin ice... -- tariqabjotu 22:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"referring to people by their nationality"

Where have i done that can you show me?

I said greek nationalist POV, there is also Turkish nationalist POV and both of them has no place in a serious discussion or allegedly encyclopedical context..

i thought i was blocked for reverting three revert rule right? Have i violated it now, why am i in a thin ice?

and i also noticed youre not adressing the points i made above, an interesting behaviour indeed..But i have to say i am terrified at the thought that i am on thin ice, god forbids it..i mean it.--laertes d 22:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not something i do in my previous blocks but this time the blocking decision is taken by completely arbitrary decision of the administrator who took that decision..

i didnt insult as it has been claimed, nobody can show one single word that can be considered as an insult which is prounonced by me

second, about this claimed edit warring, i merely restored the edits made by a third party administrator as he seems to try to find a reconcilatory way between different opinions, in this ongoing edit warring..[[5]]

As it can be noticed, i simply reverted to the version prepared by FayssalF..

i want some other administrator to evaluate this issue..--laertes d 00:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Laertes d (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have merely restored the article to the version prepared by FaysallF, as i think, he was representing a third party administrator opinion in this ongoing edit warring..That can hardly be clasified as edit warring in itself. And actually i only made two reverts, could have done the third one but i chose not to do so..And i havent used any word that can be classified as an insult.Two days ago when i have been blocked for violating the three revert rule, actually user Kekrops was also violating that rule as he made 7 reversion without waiting the passage of 24 hours..Even though i have warned several times the blocking administrator about it, he didnt even give a reply to me as he usually does..I think some other administrator might evaluate this situation, as Tariq seems to not having a neutral position to settle the dispute..

Decline reason:

You are a repeat offender. Your block was proper - and IMO too short. If you cannot control yourself, why don't you quit the subjects which agitate you so much. Please don't get yourself banned - you're well on your way. -- Y not? 14:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The thing that i fail to understand why do these people do not focus on the points i have been making but instead come up with some generalized arguments like I am being a "repeat offender"..I am not involved in an edit war after my recent block just two times reverted the article in a version prepared by another administrator..

i have not offended anyone, i merely said what is obvious, that Nikosilver is a Greek nationalsit who tries to push his nationalist point of views in every single article..

I think i behaved quite in a constructive way in this article, i explained the reasons of my edits in the talk page [[6]], i contacted with Kurds who has grievences with Turkey and asked their opinion about my editings [[7]]. and Ozgur basically said that he doesnt have problem with them, but Nikosilver and Kekrops are continous POV pushers of wikipedia and interestingly nobody cares that Kekrops violated the three revert rule before me..normally this article has to be an area of interest for Kurds especailly for Kurds who are resenting Turkey, not some hard line Greek nationlists and some other pseudo-racists who are backing them..

therefore dear Y, please keep your advice to yourself as they seem to me nothing more than an administrator coming to his administrator friend's help..

And let me add this, this is not that certain subjects do agitate me as you are claiming, but the kinds of behaviour, double standarts, implicit racism of some fellow members here which is agitating me.. Otherwise i dont have any problem with having such an article as Human rights of Kurds in Turkey..--laertes d 14:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really, haven't you still thought that going by the rules will actually help you? I sincerely feel very sorry for your inability to restrain your temper even now! Laerte, There's no CABAL against you! You're just acting wrong accusing everyone of conspiring and throwing off personal attacks! You keep, and keep, and keep doing it, regardless of the consequences, regardless of how many people tell you not to, regardless of your interests in advancing your views! Will you ever understand that you are not helping yourself with all this? That you could very well be still editing and expressing yourself while you are now blocked? Like-it-or-not, these are the rules: Be civil even to those who you feel they do not deserve it. Why do you fail to grasp this? Couldn't I have been swearing at you all the time like the way you do? I'm sure you'll delete this message too (as you did with the one where I tried to show you how to use the {{unblock}} template), but if you followed what I say, you'd probably be much better off! NikoSilver 16:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

niko please, the discussion page of this article in question clealry shows your manipulative intentions, so refrain providing yourself with a benevolent image in my talk page where i am accusing you with certain things..--laertes d 16:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suit yourself. Bye. NikoSilver 16:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laertes, I was in a rush yesterday so could not give reason for edits, I do have a few problems however. I do not see any problem with my wording of him being a goldsmith and poet in the intro, but I find the term "literary bent" awkward. Also, WP:Lead states you have to summarise the article in the intro, not mention what is just notable - nowhere in the article does it mention Aristotle other than the intro so that is why I removed it.

Another section you added I am not sure on is the following:

"In his youth, Suleiman's greatest hero was Alexander the Great[7] and he wanted very much to learn how Alexander had meant to unite the peoples of the east and the west.[8] He was much influenced from Alexander's dream of building an empire that would encompass both the people of east and the west, creating a drive for his subsequent military campaigns in Europe, in Asia and in Africa."

Does the author cite any primary material that Suleiman admired Alexander? If we can make reference to it it would be better, such as how i refer to Busbecq and Contarini for example. Also, the wording is not great, "greatest hero" is too contemporary, whilst "east and west" is used twice.

I dont want it to look like I think I own this article, but I put a lot of effort to get it to GA and want to get it to FA eventually, that means adding info that is good quality and relavant and not just for the sake of it. I've wrote this here so you can respond. Thanks, --A.Garnet 10:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garnet,. i see your concerns but i think Suleiman's being influenced from Alexander is quite a relevant point, as it also explains partly his continous policy of expansion, or lets say partly legitimize it..And two different authors mentions about it as you may notice, althought they dont provide a primary source as far as i remember, i dont have the books now with me..

the other thing, his being a discple of Aristotle is also a relevant point, i also liked the idea of his keeping a daily diary when at war..I can add these things not to the intro but to the different placs of the article..The wording is not good, i know, as it repeats east and west two times but i didnt have time to work on this as there this infamous article that i have been dealing with...--laertes d 12:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Garnett, i think you may be right after re-rading the article, these lines about aristo may be damaging for the cohesivenness of the article, i was just check reading the book for some relevant points..--laertes d 11:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. I therefore blocked you for a period of 1 week as you have been blocked before. Please discuss your issues and look for a consensus once you are back. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, ı have been talking in the talk page all that time if you look at there you can notice it, plus that was the original name of the article when it was first opened..(And it wasnt opened by me)There isnt any content dispute, just kekrops doesnt like the title massacre and change it to something else without any dialogue in the talk page even though i invited him many times..Even more interesting ı actually invited you as well some days ago to present some ideas and waited for a time, but since you didnt come then i reverted the artice..--laertes d 15:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Laertes d (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been talking in the talk page all that time as can be seen from the talk page[8], and many times invited the other user to do the same when i am reverting the article[9], yet he contınued to revert it without any discussion. then i also invited the now blocking administrator to present some ideas about the problem[10]. However since no reply came, i continued to revert the artice, but ı have never violated the three revert rule..ı think that blocking decısıon to say the least, is to long, actually unfair..And someone can please explain me how can the other user who is violating the three revert rule, when i am not, and also who repeatedly refuses to discuss the issue in the talk page, but continuously change the original name of the article to something else only gets 2 days of blocking when ım having for one week..

Decline reason:

Your block is longer because of your lengthy block log. This is your third block for edit warring this month, and the 9th this year. We assume that people should learn from their mistakes. Please stop edit warring. Successive blocks will continue to grow longer. — Pastordavid 18:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

for heaven's sake are you reading what i have written above? I talked more than enough in the talk page, mostly by myself since Kekrops didnt bother to give any answer[11], then i contacted the now blocking administrator and asked for his opinions, he didnt even give any reply [12]. And i didnt violate the three revert rule, i havent violated any specific wikipedia rule, that was the original name of the article, what mistake are you talking about? i warned the administrator that an edit warring is going on three days ago, and he didnt do anything..this is just so cheap, as it seems block review is about one administrator is backing the other...And why are you deleting the links in the unblock request page?--laertes d 19:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I count 6 moves of the same page in 3 days, a page which you had already moved before under a different name, and which you knew was a controversial move. Such disputed moves should be (a) discussed on the article talk page, and (b) listed at requested moves. To continue to move them yourself, knowing that there are objections, is edit-warring. That is enough for me to uphold the block, even if there was no other edit-warring on-going (which there was).

I did not delete the links in the ublock request page. You put a request for an administrator to review your block on your userpage, which listed you page in the category "Users requesting unblock." An administrator (me) did review your block. When I reviewed and declined your unblock request, you were removed from the "Users requesting unblock" category. If you wish, you may place another unblock request on your talk page, but do not remove the first one. Pastordavid 19:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i moved the article to its original name, what it is controversial about it? And there is so far onle one single user who is against that so "controversial" move. And i talked enough in the talk page, so dont tell me you need to talk about it in the talk age..and i gave reasons for my editings , i invited the other user to join in the discussion many times [13], which he never did. i warned now blocking administrator 3 days ago, and pastor you indeed deleted the links in the unblock request page[14]

this gets as cheap as one can conceive, you dont give me any answer but keep continuing telling the same things..--laertes d 20:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Laertes d (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Upon the advice i received from an administrator, i would be happy if this block would be re-reviewed, prefereably by someone who can explain me why i am being blocked, then why for so long. the text is the same with the previous one..ı have been talking in the talk page all that time as can be seen from the talk page[18], and many times invited the other user to do the same when i am reverting the article[19], yet he contınued to revert it without any discussion. then i also invited the now blocking administrator to present some ideas about the problem[20]. However since no reply came, i continued to revert the artice, but ı have never violated the three revert rule..ı think that blocking decısıon to say the least, is to long, actually unfair..

Decline reason:

Your block has been explained previously. You have been blocked repeatedly. Continued disruptive behaviour will receive further and longer blocks. Please avoid edit warring and disruptive editing. Please also note that WP:3RR specifically says that 3RR is an upper limit and editors may be blocked even if they do not exceed that upper limit. — Vassyana 04:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

i am asking what is it distruptive about my edits, you are still not answering my question, if unblock review is about some aministrators showing up and say "yeah he was right about blocking you" without adressing any points that has been made why the hell there exist such a section then?..

There is nothing disprutive about calling a massacre massacre, reverting the article to its original name, after talking on your own in the talk page, and especially after warning the "administrator" days before to take a look to the article..blocking in that case is nothing but a show of power it has nothing to do with preventing disruptive behavior as i warned the exact same administrator to take a look in the article days ago...

the same article youre showing also states that Vassyana, blocking is done in order to prevent disruptive behavior not as a mean to punish users, demosntrate power, but unfortenelty this is exactly what fayssal is doing..

I am putting review thing again, hopefully this time declining administrator would explain what is it disprutive about the edits i have made..--laertes d 12:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Laertes d (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

'

Decline reason:

Unblock abuse, talk page protected. — Sandstein 21:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

VikiProje Türkiye'ye davet / Invitation to join WikiProject Turkey

Merhaba, sizin VikiProje Türkiye'ye katılabileceğinizi düşündük. Ayrıca yalnız başınıza ya da diğer kullanıcılarla birlikte Türkiye ile ilgili maddeleri düzenleyip geliştirebilirsiniz. Eğer projemize katılmak istiyorsanız lütfen katılımcılar sayfasını ziyaret edin ve adınızı yazın ya da projenin tartışma sayfasına tıklayın. Eğer herhangi bir sorunuz varsa benimle ya da bir başka VikiProje Türkiye üyesi ile bağlantı kurabilirsiniz. Hi, I was thinking that maybe you would like to join the WikiProject Turkey. There you can also find and contact users who are trying to improve Turkey-related articles. If you would like to get involved, just visit the participants page and/or inquire at the project's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other member of the WikiProject Turkey.

--Absar 10:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Laertes d,

Please have a look at the talk page of the Ottoman Empire before reverting the changes I have made. The reasoning is discussed under the "to do" section following input from why the article is no longer in GA form. Much of the info removed was simply duplicate language, or basic copyediting. Thanks! Hiberniantears 17:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Laertes, I think with a bit of work Suleiman can be made ready for FA. As for Ataturk, I think it needs a lot of work just to get to GA. I will look over them soon. Cheers, --A.Garnet 21:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Laertes d, thank you very much for the link, I will have a look at the article when I come back later tonight, saygılar... --Kudret abi 17:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for For persistent edit-warring after previous blocks for the same reason. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. ELIMINATORJR 15:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

. ELIMINATORJR 15:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminator, if you check the discussion page of this article you will notice that i behaved quite reasonably unlike POV pusher racists and ultranationalists..the last edits that i have reverted came from the sockpuppetry of user AlexiusComnenus, he has been using several IP adresses..Plus wikipedia states that vandalism can be reverted even if it violates the 3 revert rule..The last edits that i reverted were unilateral deletion of properly sourced content..Check this [15] or this [16] All these reversions were against clear vandalism and against a sockpuppet who is using innumerable number of different IP adress, each time to vandalise what he doesnt want to see..--laertes d 16:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Laertes d (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

For the edits i have made i discussed the edits in great length in the talk page as can be seen from here.[15] The edits that i reverted are coming from the sockpuppet of user AlexiusComnenus who has innumerable number of different IP's..I merely reverted obvious acts of vandalisms from an obvious suckpuppet..AlexiusComnenus and his sockpuppets keep deleting properly sourced content unilaterally for over months..There is a section about the massacres Turks committed against Greek civilians and i several times said that i dont have any problem with having such a section but the problem is Alexius and his sockpuppets do not want massacres greeks committes to be seen..I know that i violated 3 revert rule but i reverted unilateral deletion of a large properly sourced content from a sockpuppet, and as far as i know reverting obvious acts of vandalism is not considered to be violation of 3R..See the reversion i made: [16]

Alexius, with the IP 74.134.238.58 [17]

76.199.1.114 [18]

70.225.166.166 [19]

80.15.132.42 [20]

With his own user name [21]

And his recent I adresses that i reverted in the article:

87.203.160.163 [22]

85.75.172.58 [23]

A specific example of his sockpuppetry: thats an edit by IP 74 [24] and thats from alexius with his user name :[25]

The IP adress 74 has its own talk page and has even been blocked once separately of alexius hımself and Alexius admitted that it was his own IP once: [26]

Always the same exact edits in the same exact articles with several IP'S and reverting a large sourced content from this editor cant be counted as a bad faith edit of 3 revert rule in my opinion. -- laertes d 21:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The links you provide indicate a content dispute, not vandalism warranting a violation of the 3R rule. Any misbehaviour on the part of your edit war opponent is not a justification for your own edit warring. — Sandstein 07:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Suggestion[edit]

Laertes, I've just made the following suggestion to the administrator who blocked you, and he's willing to go along with it. I've suggested that he reduces your block so that you can edit. In exchange, you promise to follow a one revert rule for one month - that is, if someone reverts your change, don't re-revert it, but discuss it with them.

What do you think? Are you prepared to do that? Jakew 22:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you go along with this I'll reduce the block to a week (same as the last one). Please note that I also blocked the editor you were warring against. ELIMINATORJR 22:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks i accept that one revert rule for one month..--laertes d 06:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'd like to point out that this is your tenth block for edit warring in seven or so months. You're very lucky you haven't been permanently blocked. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Right - your block expires on 3rd September. As jpgordon says, there will be no more chances - if there is a next block, it will probably be indefinite. ELIMINATORJR 09:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any difficulties, feel free to ask me for assistance. Also, don't forget that WP:ASSIST is there. Jakew 10:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks Jakew, i would use that WP:ASSIST thing..My biggest problem is however, although i dont have the sightest doubt that all these IP adresses listed above do belong to one single user called AlexiusComnenus , it seems i cant persuade anyone to it..

Among many other things, this new IP 87.203.160.163 insistently claimed himself to be a new user and not Alexius in the talk page[17] , however, how come a user who joined in wikipedia in 27 August can make exact same Alexius edits in these articles in the very same day he joined in wikipedia: Greek War of Independence‎ and Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)‎ He made his first edit on 27 August 07:25 and by 09:10 27 August he was knowing almost everything about me: [18] it is written: "Laertes, you are over 3RR, stop edit-warring you have been banned many times for this infantile behavior" And thats an edit by Alexius with his user name long time ago, how similar isnt it?: [19] İt is written: "You have been banned repeatedly for this nonsense, please do not ruin this article, you willbe over 3RR if you revert again"

Believe me there are tones of such similar examples that i can list..Anyway thanks for your help..--laertes d 09:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I have to say that I have trouble believing that all these IPs are the same user. They come from a wide range of locations: the United States, the Netherlands, France, and Greece. Maybe you need to give them the benefit of the doubt? Jakew 14:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if thats the case Jakew then i obviously exaggerated the IP's which are used by Alexius, however i still think that this new IP 87 is belonging to him with some others..He also admitted 74 to be his own as well..[20] An IP adress with a separate talk page and even blocked once separetely of alexius [21]..Anyway i wont push that issue any more..--laertes d 22:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he's 74 then I doubt he's 87. One is in the US, the other Greece. I think you're wise to drop the issue, anyway. Jakew 22:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

arkadaşlar merhaba, şu sıralar wikideki ermeniler iyice azıtmış durumda, türkiye ve türkler hakkındaki tüm kaynakları referanslarıyla birlikte imha çabası içerisindeler. özellikle "Turkey", "Turkish People" ve "Turkic peoples " sayfaları ve bunlar ile bağlantılı sayfalar hiç olmadığı kadar tehdit altında, türkiyenin neredeyse tüm şehirlerinin sayfalarına kendi ulusal reklamlarını eklemek üzereler. bununlada yetineyip kendileriyle hiçbir alakası olmayan "tarihteki türk uygarlıkları" ile ilgili makalelere saldırma çirkinliğinide atlamıyorlar. lütfen aşşağıdaki bu ve bunun gibi wiki bağlantılarını kullanarak bu tehdite karşı koyalım. sayıları bizden çok daha az yeterki organize olalım. saygılar

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
• Wikipedia:Requests for page protection
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism

--hakozen 01:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've rolled back that edit and asked the IP to discuss on the talk page. If it turns into an all-out edit war again, then I certainly will re-protect the article. ELIMINATORJR 14:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned Vonones about his edit-warring. As for you, please don't remove tags without discussion AND reaching consensus on talk pages. Thanks. ELIMINATORJR 17:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have blocked that IP for a while. ELIMINATORJR 10:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Chioss.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Pelopp.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. COBot 22:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>hi >hi Ottoman, i have to say i really dont like your picture editings to ataturk article, okay i do understand that you want a describing picture for all the separate sections, however these pictures that you have added are often in very poor quality and Ataturk himself is not visible at all..Or some of them are just simply bad pictures, for instance: >Image:Ataturk-Inonu-Bayar.jpg >This one is one of the worst pictures of him i have yet seen. I beg your pardon but have you looked for it too much? Or dont you think that there already enough pictures for this article? Regards--laertes d 22:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to remove pictures: 1) non context (explaining the subject) pictures can be transfered to Ataturk gallery see: commons:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk 2) Pictures have to be aligned with the story. There is a Wikipedia:Manual of Style They should be at the beginning of the section (when you print them they should be printed with the text). 3) I appreciate with your "bad pictures" idea and if you can find non-"bad pictures" that matches the criteria I would like to see them in the article. I have no opposition for non-"bad pictures." My opposition is: The 1930's and 1920's in Turkey skilled photographers were rare like everything else.

Telling the story by matching the realities of his time is not an insult to the person. It gives life to him, not just a pretty face. Especially if you find pictures of him with the public doing what he promised to do, "work for the people of Turkey, Turks". I would appreciate if you REPLACE the pictures with better ones, instead of REMOVE them. Among the criterias of better picture should include explain the story, part of the story. Thanks --OttomanReference 11:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

Please refer to the above page for a suggestion on getting this article back on track.

Cordially, Drieux 03:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I disagree with some of your edits on the section "Greek Community in Anatolia." I voiced my qualms on the talk page for the Greco-Turkish War, I would appreciate I response.

Cheers! AlexiusComnenus 20:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the famous 'failure to communicate' has arisen. The point that I was making had to do more with the process of trimming the size (and possibly the scope) of the overly long citation(s). I really do think that a good reference should be found on the topic of editing for space without losing the gist of the information. Again, since I don't know about anyone's educational background, I cannot make assumptions about the level of familiarity with peer reviewed material. It astonished me the first time I realised that Wikipedia is the largest such 'journal' in the history of Man. I get quite a thrill out of thinking about that.

Is this clearer? If not-- or even if it is-- please let me know. One of the most patent problems with this article is the lack of low temperature communications. That's another thing that I want to get corrected, if possible.

Cheers, Drieux 11:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did say you have to discuss your reverts fully on the talk page, and that violations of this would be rewarded by block. You've also been edit-warring quite a bit over the last few days. Moreschi ^Talk 13:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I merely re-reverted the article since Alexius had deleted a citation again without any discussion, what are the other edit warrings are you reffering to, let me guess reverting Alexius for deleting other sourced materials in other articles.. --laertes d 17:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I request your help to face a disgusting and offensive behaviour against we Turks from a nationalist Greek named Cplakidas in the article Greco-Italian War. He denies the evidence of scholars like the British Mack Smith (with precise book & page references) about the fact that the Greek army was able to stop temporarily the Italian army in Epirus because the soldiers were nearly one third (or more) Anatolian Greeks (moved to Greece after the 1922 exchange of populations) who had the warrior mentality of Ottomans. That is the reason the Greeks fought bravely and not like "a bit coward" Balkan Greeks, as they have always done. And this is confirmed indirectly by the same Churchill who compared the Greek resistance in Epirus to the one of our glorious soldiers in the Dardanelles during WWI. The same bravery of the soldiers of beloved Ataturk, wrote Churchill. But the nationalist Cplakidas erases all this references and call racist the reference to Smith & Churchill. I believe Cplakidas is the racist when denies that our courage was transmitted to the Anatolian Greeks after centuries of our domination and influence on them. Read the related talkpage to see how he denies even the declarations of the Italian generals about their mistake in evaluating the strength and resolution to fight of the "renowned weak" and corrupt Greek army.Eteturk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.215.160.97 (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have reverted your edit regarding ethnic cleansing of Turks and Bulgarians. First of all you do not make it clear who victimized the Turkish population. Additionally, by the reference you provide and its title, I'm assuming that you refer to the ethnic cleansing done by the Greek army during the Greco-Turkish war. This cleansing is already mentioned two items lower in the list. If you refer to a different cleansing, revert to your version, but please clarify more. --Ferengi 08:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe it is well documented by reliable sources and that it is significant enough (i.e. not localized and small scale), then it's ok by me to add it back to the article. However I get the feeling that these were probably isolated events, that acted as precursors to larger scale ethnic cleansing. If that's true, then they probably belong to relative historical articles about that period and not in the ethnic cleansing list. I let you be the judge of that. --Ferengi 08:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you indefinitely for persistent unacceptable behaviour. You block log clearly shows that we have tried to keep you as a contributor, but you clearly haven't changed your behaviour. Maxim 14:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim, i have been blocked previoulsy of edit warring with nikosilver, alexiuscomnenus, and Kekrops, all these users has been criticized by several users, including admins, of making POV pushing nationalistic edits..I think it was more than unfair what you have just done, at least could i learn for what specific reason i am being banned..It seems you even didnt read what i have been talking all the time in there, what specific disruption are you refferring to.--laertes d 14:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Laertes_d for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. NikoSilver 13:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merhaba; Suleiman the Magnificient maddesinin geçmişine bakınca yoğun olarak adınızı gördüm. Her ne kadar 1 yıldan fazladır Vikipedi'ye girmediğinizi farketsem de sizden bir ricam olacak; eğer Vikipedi'ye katkı yapmaya devam edecekseniz lütfen Türkçe Vikipedi'ye de sahip çıkın. İngilizce vikipedi'de birçok Türk var ve büyük kısmının Türkçe vikipedi'de hesabı bile yok. Lütfen Türkçe vikipedi'yi sürünmekten kurtarmaya yardımcı olun. İyi çalışmalar. --♪♫Atakan^0652|message 20:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was wondering if you'd be interested in setting up Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Turkey), based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). Now it's not a contest in itself, it's designed to motivate people to inspire others to improve content and build something which demonstrates the hard work going into the country which is visible. The focus is more on quality improvements but new articles are welcome too. Eventually a Turkish National Contest could be created to fuel it, like Wikipedia:Awaken the Dragon, in which contestants can choose to keep the Amazon vouchers themselves to buy their own books for more articles or put them into book fund to help editors further improve Turkish-related topics by giving them the books they want. It will begin though as purely an improvement drive. If interested, or you think anybody else might be interested, alert them and sign up on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey talk page at the bottom. Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]