User talk:Meurglys8

March 2022

Hello, I'm Archives908. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of European countries by population have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Archives908 (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your message. What do you mean by not appearing constructive? I corrected false information on the page. What is your rationale behind calling this as not appearing constructive? Alperunsal (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Greece is partially in Asia and partially in Europe. Do you think reverting my correction complies with the ethical stance of Wikipedia? If there are disputed corrections, you may propose re-corrections to them. Alperunsal (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a sign of courtesy, I am not undoing your unjustified reversion until I receive a reply from you. In case I won't get a reply, I'll undo your unjustified reversion in a few days. In case you keep unjustifiedly undoing my correction by abusing your admin power, I'll take other actions. Alperunsal (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your threats will definitely not work on me. In terms of your edits, they do appear to be unconstructive for several reasons. The information in the lead is factually correct. Although you keep insisting there are "factual errors", there are none as far as I can see. The information presented is clear and consistent with other geographical related articles regarding Europe. Therefore, there is no valid reason for a sudden overhaul of the long-accepted, well-written and concise lead. As for Greece, the country is broadly accepted as being in Southeastern Europe. Read the article. Archives908 (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one is threatening you. You seem to be unaware of the distinction between defending your rights (against an editor abusing their power) vs threatening someone.

Let me explain what is problematic / incorrect:

1. "the 51 countries and 6 territories and dependencies in Europe, broadly defined, including Cyprus, Kazakhstan, Turkey, and the countries of the Caucasus." There are actually 13 countries which are partially outside Europe (13 excluding Iceland... The case of Iceland is controversial. It can be regarded as European/American or only European.) and 2 countries completely outside Europe. Kazakhstan, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Georgia are listed here (the last two being the coutries in the Caucasus). Russia and Greece are deliberately and biasedly missing as the remaining two countries in Eurasia but not completely in Europe. Cyprus and Armenia are already outside Europe, so they are not in the same category as Turkey or Georgia. There are also other 7 transcontinental countries that are missing. If Wikipedia is neutral, it either lists none of these countries or all of them. Any objections?

2. Being Southeastern European doesn't make Greece Non-Asian. Turkey is also Southeastern European like Greece, but also Western Asian like Armenia.

3. Islands are allocated to the nearest landmass to them. A respectable amount of Aegean islands are located in Asia, if Anatolia is assumed Asia. If Aegean islands are counted as Europe, then Anatolia is also Europe. In both cases, either Turkey and Greece are both European/Asian or only European. Additionally, what is broadly accepted? Who are these broad acceptors? We are on Wikipedia. Science and geography have ultimate superiority over personal opinions of broad acceptors.

4. As I already shared a citation (which you unjustifiably deleted), there is a "broad consensus" (by using your jargon) on Eurasia being the continent, and Europe being a region/subcontinent of it. However, due to political reasons it is indoctrinated to be a separate continent in some (actually many) countries. Therefore, six Eurasian countries (Russia, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Greece, Azerbaijan, Georgia) are not transcontinental. There are 7 transcontinental countries. And there were 2 non-European countries which I kept with the intention of being constructive.

The second paragraph says "The most populous European country is Russia, with a population of 146 million. Turkey straddles both Europe and Asia, and lies almost entirely in Asia, with most of its population in the intermediate[clarification needed] region; though within its small territory in Europe, a small amount of its population is situated. Excluding Turkey, Germany is the second-most populous country in the continent."

5. Russia is also almost entirely in Asia (actually in the 18th century the boundary of Europe was changed (in a very scientific way!) to include a bigger part of Russia in Europe.). Why do we see its full population being counted, and not the population of Turkey? Biased 100%...

6. Not only a small amount of Turkey's population is situated in Europe. The population of Turkey in Europe is as large as the Netherlands and it would be the the 7th or 8th biggest country in the EU had it joind alone. Another false, manipulative information!

7. If we exclude Turkey and claim Germany is the second-most populous country in Europe, why don't we also exclude Russia? We have to exclude either both or none.

Hope I was clear enough. Any objections? Alperunsal (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I object to your proposal because the information you want to include is not necessary to include. The article in question is a WP:LIST and such technicality is not needed. As per MOS:LONGSEQ, "material within a list should relate to the article topic without going into unnecessary detail; and statistical data kept to a minimum, per policy". This list is not intended to go in-depth into each country's geographical peculiarities/complexities. Should readers want to learn more about any of the countries listed, they may link directly to the respective countries profile(s), whereby readers may find additional information about that country's geography/demographics. Hope that was clear enough. Archives908 (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Your explanation was clear enough. Thus, I edited as you explained. I discarded unnecessary technicalities and corrected flaws. Alperunsal (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"without going into unnecessary detail; and statistical data kept to a minimum"... Now, what is wrong? Why did you unethically delete my edit? There were unnecessary and false claims about a country witout any citations. No relationship with statistical data. What is the point of undoing my edit? You are unethically abusing your editor power. Alperunsal (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a warning: Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Alperunsal (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tunceli Province. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notices

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Acroterion (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Between the "vandalism" and "hate speech" abuse, you're blocked. If this recurs, the next block will likely be permanent./ Acroterion (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]