User talk:Nargothronde

Welcome!

Hello, Nargothronde, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Lagenorhynchus Swine, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lagenorhynchus Swine

A tag has been placed on Lagenorhynchus Swine requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Lagenorhynchus Swine has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. David0811 ^(Talk) 14:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:Saber Tiger Band line-up 2010.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Saber Tiger Band line-up 2010.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

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

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Saber Tiger Band 2011 05.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Saber Tiger Band 2011 05.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

May 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Cyprus, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

September 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Constitution of Cyprus, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dr. K. 03:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Cyprus, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dr. K. 03:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Hymn to Liberty, you may be blocked from editing. Dr. K. 03:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• 1) :*@Dr.K.: I am not promoting a strong pro-TRNC POV, and while I appreciate your concern that these edits may have been propaganda, your argument and your tone is not warranted, and your response here with a pro-Greek/Greek Cypriot view is simply testament to your own politicising of and bias to the subject. The edits clearly did not intend to change or bend anything, but added to the available information, and were clearly referenced point-for-point. AND on your opinion that my edits were "turning something as innocent as halloumi into an ethno-political weapon", my edits simply added the Turkish spelling hellim to a product which, and wherever you read it you will find this to be the case, as people on both sides have consistently argued, Halloumi/Hellim or whatever you wish to call it, is a Cypriot product, as in Turkish Cypriot AND Greek Cypriot product, NOT a Greek product. You have no right to judge this subject with your own pro-Greek agenda, nor without committing yourself to a well-rounded un-biased well-informed round of research, something which you are clearly not doing, as I'm sure that if you had done, you will know that halloumi/hellim is exactly as I have described. I also appreciate that some of my edits were rightfully reverted in the beginning and allowed me review and amend the information, such as any points that were lacking the correct format for references or may have unintendedly let an irrelevant dribble get through, as was the case with one of my first edits definitely, but do not pretend that any amendments unintentionally perceived as biased etc warrant either your tone your answers or your actions. Nargothronde talk 07:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• 2) The source both writes and quotes: 1) "... “It is our national product. It is very important to everyone,” says Mr Yucesoylu, 59, who has been producing hellim since he was 28 years old. “It belongs to our community – all of Cyprus. This is where it was created. We make the real hellim. We will prove this around the world. It is our duty as Cypriots in Cyprus to protect this product. I lived through the war. My father was killed in front of me. But I don’t want my children to go through the same thing. We should live as brothers.”" and 2) "... As the second Greek application was submitted in 2013, in London the Foreign Office told the European Commission that its verdict on the PDO application must “ensure that its decision takes due account of inter-community relations”. Many in the north now claim that aim has not been met.", so 1) yes, it was a part of the source, and 2) while you're failing to realise that I did base what I wrote on the source and clearly without any interpretations, you're also failing to realise that I did not keep the word "claim" because as I understood from the article "Many in the north now claim that aim has not been met" meant that as far as the North was concerned, that aim had not been met, so intended to put that point across, but was not aiming to make a misleading interpretation, which would perhaps be to your pleasing, but was instead trying to be more acceptable. A simple suggestion on your behalf that the word "claim" be included is a welcome consideration, but please, like I said, while I do appreciate any constructive help wherever it comes from, which honestly, I do 100% welcome, be it critical or not, your needlessly hostile take on my edits just doesn't add up. I will concede that my edits could be improved, as they are increasingly getting; it's not my intention to do anything malicious here, but just get the facts right and be as inclusive as possible to all sides of the coin, and I will keep trying to do things better. So thank you for all of this. But please, all the same, be more civil about your tone and your assumptions, and don't throw threats or accusations where they are not warranted. Nargothronde talk 07:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• 3) By the way, I'd like to remind you that my amendments to these pages are simply aiming to provide neutrality and fact to information that is otherwise biased, misleading or incomplete, typically against the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. This DOES NOT mean that I am POV-pushing. On the contrary, I'm trying to rectify already existent POV-pushing that doesn't give a voice to all sides i.e. you believe halloumi is Greek, when it is CYPRIOT, as in TURKISH CYPRIOT and GREEK CYPRIOT, as in it has TWO official names in the TWO official languages of the island of Cyprus, Greek and Turkish, which developed halloumi/hellim TOGETHER, with different parts of BOTH communities taking great pride in making their own authentic takes on the traditional Cypriot cheese. And if you want to get into more details about it, there's an even more complex origin to it, if you're interested to read up on it (it's also all ironically on Wikipedia; look it up!). AND on misrepresentations and the bending of facts, the Hymn to Liberty page states "the Turkish representation broke away from the government of the Republic of Cyprus; there followed a period of intercommunal violence", suggesting that it was the Turkish representation's abandoning of the government in '1963' that caused the intercommunal violence between '1955 and 1964'. Go figure. Naturally, I fact checked, and changed that to: "... after rejecting the amended Constitution proposed by Makarios in 1963, and following the period of intercommunal violence during the Cyprus crisis (1955–64), the Turkish representation were left with no choice but to abandon the government of the Republic of Cyprus." So I'm doing the community here a service. And please do feel free to give me suggestions. Any unintended mistakes will be changed of course. And like I said, any and all suggestions critical or not are 100% welcome, but I'd prefer if you had a bit of civility. Nargothronde talk 07:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• 4) Look, *@Dr.K.:, while I do get that you could be trying to be helpful here, and although I'm starting to feel that's probably just wishful thinking on my part, I'd still appreciate it if that were really the case, but you're just monotonously crying strong pro-TRNC POV pushing even though that is clearly and demonstrably not the case, while you're also demonstrating your own blatant pro-Greek/Greek Cypriot/Republic of Cyprus/Southern Cyprus/Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus POV and anti-TRNC POV approach, which I'm sorry to say, but you're either very very strongly pushing yourself, especially your strong anti-TRNC POV, which is demonstrated by your attacking of anything defined by you as strong pro-TRNC POV, or you're just being ignorant on the subject(s) and attacking anything or anyone else that says otherwise. I'm not exactly seeing where you're drawing the line here on what pro-XXX POV pushing is, or who's committing it. First you say of me that "this account is an SPA bent on pushing a strong pro-TRNC POV", followed by "...and includes turning something as innocent as halloumi into an ethno-political weapon against all things Greek" and then some. Who is politicising what here? Who is strongly pushing what pro-XXX POV here? Who is strongly anti-XXX POV pushing here? What kind of "assessment" are you "standing by" here? The article is clearly and demonstrably already POV pushing a pro-Greek/Greek Cypriot/Republic of Cyprus/Southern Cyprus/Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus POV, which you yourself are clearly just onboard with, which again, is demonstrated by your hostility against anything on the contrary. AND I could tell you right now, Dr./Sir/Madam or however else you'd wish me to respectfully address you, that I could be very well inclined and justified to say that I want to push a strong pro-TRNC POV, owing to the already easily demonstrable strong pro-Greek/Greek Cypriot/Republic of Cyprus/Southern Cyprus/Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus POV and anti-TRNC POV that dominates almost every Cyprus topic, but perhaps much to your dismay, and I'm sorry for bursting your bubble here Dr./Sir/Madam, I'm actually demonstrably and intentionally NOT. If anything, I'm saying "I'm not pushing your POV, Mr. Turkish Cypriot, and I'm not pushing your POV, Mr. Greek Cypriot, or yours, Mr. Greek (and I also concede, Mr. Greek: I don't exactly know why you even think you're supposed to be involved in this; you'll have your say and your place in expressing your opinion in articles that concern you, or when certain things regarding Cyprus concern you etc, but on subjects concerning that country's own internal affairs or rights or cultural heritage etc that have absolutely nothing to do with you, you need to stop trying to get involved on false or misleading pretenses). I'm just getting the facts right here, for both communities' benefit (sorry again, Mr. Greek, but like I said, I don't even know why you're here), and getting all that has happened across. I think you'd appreciate that, especially Mr. Turkish Cypriot, because you have been sidelined and abhorred so much, and whenever someone tries to speak up for you, people cry "POV-pushing" and the politicising of innocent "Greek" things, that aren't actually Greek, and aren't even just Greek Cypriot, but that also belong to you aswell, and that you equally have a right to. Lets just get the facts right here and give credit etc where it's due."

• 5) AND about your argument concerning bad sources i.e. "unsourced diatribe and opinion which was rightfully reverted", it is laughable, to say the least, that you can attempt to find such reason to discredit the sources while also ignoring that they can easily be referenced and compared to other existing articles, which provide equal if not scarily similar testament to the very same concessions ie if you just type: the name of the article or anything similar, for example, I typed "in defense of halloumi" in Google, where the third result from the top is [1], the article you are decrying as including nonsense spurted by a worthless Turkish Cypriot man, while the first result is [2] which states: "Euripides Evriviades, Cyprus’s High Commissioner in London, vowed: "We will fight to the bitter end to secure our halloumi hellim, a truly Cyprus product"... which shows that this is not being politicised, but is an obvious issue of contention which both sides have come to agreements on, and which "has become an unlikely symbol of hope for reconciliation between Greek and Turkish Cypriots", where such emotions and experiences as those expressed in the original source were very consistently and ratifyingly contributed, as in where "Britain acknowledges what a Cyprus government spokesman calls the cheese’s “historic unifying nature”. Indeed, Britain is taking some credit for coaxing the Greek Cypriots, who represent Cyprus internationally, to ensure the PDO application included Turkish Cypriot hellim producers. “In keeping with our strong support for the Cyprus settlement talks, the UK encouraged the relevant parties to ensure the PDO application took into account the interests of all producers in Cyprus,” said a spokesman for the British High Commission in Nicosia.". This also included that "The joint Cypriot bid to secure commercial protection of the brand from foreign competition has powerful backing from Jean-Claude Juncker... He has hailed the halloumi affair as proof of the island's leaders’ commitment to re-unifying Cyprus. “This is not a small thing,” he declared in July when the application was published in the EU’s official journal. “It is a highly symbolic issue for both communities. We build confidence with such measures”." , this again shows that both the words halloumi and hellim are equally weighted and that there is a political significance, not to say that it needs politicising as you have wrongly accused me of doing, though the latter is still sidelined on Wikipedia as a small peripheral phrase that has been discounted to the bottom of an Etymology, instead of where it should be (at the top), with the most inconspicuous of wording, and I quote the Wikipedia page on halloumi/hellim as it vaguely and timidly describes at the sidelined bottom of the Etymology section: "In Northern Cyprus halloumi is generally known by the Turkish name hellim". This, I think, strongly warrants the edits in question, and the research and the edits themselves also credit the sources, and visa versa, as nothing but strong and completely reliable. I applied similarly rigorous research methods (and then some) for all my edits, and used the source that I believed was most applicable to get the message across in the most un-biased way possible. You can't discredit my sources. Your arguments regarding my sources are completely baseless. But I think like *@Tigraan: said, and considering the controversy some people might see on this topic, more sources could be provided to make that logical link between certain events being described etc, i.e. where I wrote: after (some stuff), the Turkish representation were left with no choice but to abandon the government of the Republic of Cyprus (emphasis added - the NPOV version of that sentence whould be "the Turkish representation abandoned..." But again, that's not to say the sources I've used can be attacked or discredited. The argument you've provided just doesn't stand up.

• 6) AND as *Cinadon36 (talk · contribs) very admirably said (by the way, I forgot to thank you for the comments *Cinadon36 (talk · contribs); they were really helpful), as I'm sure many others will, unless they are just as pro-Greek/Greek Cypriot/Republic of Cyprus/Southern Cyprus/Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus POV and anti-TRNC POV pushing as you, he very rightly feels my contributions do not have "a strong TRNC POV", and his suggestions that we all Assume Good Faith, and that "a POV should not be a reason for creating a hostile environment towards a user" I think should be respected instead of attacked by you. And I'm just corresponding with you here in good faith. Please don't take my standing up to your blatant hostility and accusations with any hard feelings. Just take it as a hint that you could better engage with the user you are absurdly accusing with wild "assessments" in proper conversation, rather than with a demonstrably hypocritically biased and hostile approach. And like I said, please, do feel free to give me suggestions. I'm only trying to contribute something good and void of pro- anti- anything here. Any unintended mistakes will be changed of course. And like I said, any and all suggestions critical or not are 100% welcome, but I'd prefer if you had a bit of civility here.

• 7) So to conclude, not just for you *@Dr.K.:, but for everyone in the Wikipedia community: there are many sections strongly pro-Greek Cypriot POV pushing and anti-Turkish Cypriot POV pushing, and the sources commonly contain unverifiable information and claims. It is also often written in an incredibly opinionated narrative, with the majority of the text concentrating on pushing said POVs with inconsistent and irrelevant information, much of which has not included very very robust references to link that logic between what they are narrating and the actual subject. This type of strong pro-Greek Cypriot POV pushing and strong anti-Turkish Cypriot POV pushing really needs to be stopped. Like with how the Greek Cypriots are guilty of attempted genocide but no action has ever been taken against them, and instead they have been rewarded by recognition as the government of all Cyprus, these types of strong pro-Greek Cypriot POV pushers and anti-Turkish Cypriot POV pushers are exploiting that political expediency to make baseless assertions and spoil Wikipedia, with assertions comparable to those made by Mr. Christides (May 10, 1999), that there was no ethnic cleansing or attempted genocide of Turkish Cypriots by Greek Cypriots. Until these people come to terms with the appalling behaviour of the Greek Cypriot community toward the Turkish Cypriot community and stop trying to persuade themselves and the world that each side was as much to blame as the other, there will be no reconciliation in Cyprus. And so long as there are so many strong pro-Greek Cypriot POV pushers and strong anti-Turkish Cypriot POV pushers, Wikipedia will continue to be riddled with selective disinformation on this issue. This needs to be stopped right now. Nargothronde (talk) 04:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

please sign your comments

Hello User:Nargothronde. I have noticed that your latest edits in the HelpPage were unsigned [3] If you do not sign your comments, pings to other users wont be sent, as far as I know. Certainly I wasnt notified, even if you had pinged me. You can sign your comments using this--->~~~~ at the end of your comment. Do not sign your contributions in the articles though! Have a nice day and I hope I will see more of your contribution in the future! Cheers! Cinadon36 (talk) 11:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Cinadon36: Oh thank you very much. I'll pay more attention to this in the future. Nargothronde (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Embargo against Northern Cyprus

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from http://www.mfa.gov.tr/cyprus-issue-_summary_.en.mfa. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much for pointing this out to me Diannaa. I'm actually a little careful about how I should approach my edits and amendments on this page, which are mostly on Cyprus. I've left you a message about this on your talk page. Nargothronde (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Dr. K. 03:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Your message has been noted. Thank you Dr.K.. Though you seem to be a little confused; the user has not reverted or undone a single editor's contribution at any Wikipedia page. Contrastingly, you appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Turkish invasion of Cyprus and various other Wikipedia pages related to Cyprus. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the relevant talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. You have already performed two reverts on Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Nargothronde (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

Your message November 2018 on Talk page Nargothronde has been noted. Thank you Dr.K..

Though you seem to be a little confused; the user has not reverted or undone a single editor's contribution at any Wikipedia page. Contrastingly, you appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Turkish invasion of Cyprus and various other Wikipedia pages related to Cyprus. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the relevant talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. You have already performed two reverts on Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Nargothronde (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Did TCs withdraw from the government or were they forced out?

I remember you, dear Nargothronde discussing the question somewhere in WP, and I bump into that, surely a Reliable Source and a balanced opinion (imho). I think you will find it useful. Thanks. Cinadon36 (talk) 10:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Cinadon36 I've taken note of it and I'm slowly compiling a list of more sources and information in my spare time. When I think I have enough significant and reliable sources I'll find a way to use them in making some good contributions. Please feel welcome to continue keeping me informed with any other relevant sources you might ever happen by. Nargothronde (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Nargothronde. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

When citing policy, you need to be careful that you get it right. The only editor that can be seen making WP:EDITWAR in this page history, is you. How can one single edit from Dr.K. be blatant attempts at edit war?

There is, however, another piece of Wikipedia policy you should take a look at: WP:BRD. When your Bold edit here was Reverted here, your next step should not be to reinstate your challenged edit, but to Discuss your suggestion in the talk page. When you repeat your challenged edit not only once here, but again here, it is the very definition of edit war.

You still have the chance to self revert and start a discussion in the talk page. But you should be quick before your third attempt is reverted by someone else. --T*U (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi T*U. Thanks for the advice. I'll be more careful with that next time. And I'm not familiar with the WP:BRD policy, but I'll take a look into it. Thanks for that!

About "reinstating my challenged edit", that is not my intention. I do initiate discussions on Talk pages, but they usually either go unanswered or become the targets of the gatekeepers of misinformation, such as Dr.K.. I could also refer all the other reverts he/she has monotonously made to my edits elsewhere citing identical if not similarly baseless claims. I would take it as an alarm and look into it if these things consistently popped-up, to see if I'm doing anything wrong. With my edits in questions however I don't see that to be the case at all. His attacks are misplaced and without merit. Refer to my edit summaries. Nargothronde (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Re gatekeepers of misinformation: Another policy you would need to learn about is WP:NPA about personal attacks. You might want to redact your accusations before this gets really serious, see WP:REDACT. --T*U (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I know this policy, and I will respect it. I have merely stated demonstrable fact, all in response to continuous bad faith editing and disruptive editing by the user in question, unless, if you are otherwise suggesting it is comparable to various hostile accusations and personal attacks made by that user against me? or their attempts to create a hostile environment on my Talk page and other Talk pages? or their continuous bad faith editing and disruptive editing? or their repetitive tendentious editing? or their trying to trap users in edit warring? or their blatant to civil POV pushing? or their giving undue weight to fringe theories coming from unreliable POV laden sources while discounting verifiable facts and reliable sources that go against their own POV? or their serious problems cooperating with others who they personally see as having contesting opinions? or their openly declaring that this is all in the name of defending "all things Greek"? or their being a good and "experienced editor" and this justifying their actions? I can keep going... Nargothronde (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

p.s. NONE of this is aiming to discredit or attack the user in question, BUT it is a rather direct response to a certain pattern of POV pushing, pretend civility, bad faith, hostility, personal attacks and disruptive editing etc by that user; it's usually best to try to respond politely and work with it in a civil manner, as I've been aiming to do, and I'll keep finding better ways to deal with this more properly, but that does not mean that it should be acceptable! Nargothronde (talk) 01:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

p.s. HOWEVER, if I am mistaken, if I'm going about this the wrong way, and if as you said I'm actually making hostile accusations or engaging in personal attacks against that user (or any other user?), I will simply accept it, and I will redact the statements in question. I would however also hope that the user in question would reciprocate with guaranteed assurances that the user will not continue to engage me or my edits as they have thus far. Nargothronde (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

If you, as you claim, are familiar with WP:NPA, you will know that a core sentence of the policy is Comment on content, not on the contributor. In my opinion, you have crossed that line severely and repeatedly in this thread. My suggestion to you is this: Go through everything you have written in this thread, ask yourself if it could be interpreted as comment on contributor. If you suspect it could be construed as a personal attack, either strike it out or support it with evidence (diffs). I have already mentioned one example, three times bad faith is another. There are more. --T*U (talk) 07:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I am indeed familiar with that sentence of the WP:NPA policy. I am also aware of my language in this thread, as I am equally aware of the language directed towards me in other threads by the user in question, including what I believe to be violations if not just flagrant misunderstanding and/or manipulation of the following policies: WP:CIV, WP:GF, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:BALANCE, WP:NOTTRUTH, WP:TE, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:BRD, WP:POVFIGHTER, WP:RGW, WP:EW, WP:DE, WP:NPA, and including what I've already said about the user's actions above, and then some. I can also compile and provide examples on request. So if you think it's right to pass these suggestions on to me, which I completely welcome, I also ask you to look into doing the same for the user in question. Thanks again for the suggestions. Nargothronde (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

You really are piling it on. I have taken your clue and looked at your user talk page and every single talk page you have edited since October in order to find attempts from Dr.K. to create a hostile environment on my Talk page and other Talk pages.

On your user talk page, there are four edits from Dr.K. this year. All of them are using standard templates that are used thousands of time every day in Wikipedia. You may, of course, disagree with their content, but there is nothing hostile about using the standard templates found at WP:USETEMP. On the contrary, they are designed so that editors shall not risk expressing themselves in ways that could be interpreted as personal attacks.

Regarding article talk pages, I have found 16 different talk pages where you have edited since 29 October. Of these, Dr.K. has edited two in the same period (while I have edited nine of them). On Talk:Cyprus, Dr.K. has made two edits (plus a minor correction), none of them directed towards you. On Talk:Northern Cyprus, Dr.K. has made one comment to you. I have read and re-read it, and I can not see any sign of hostility or personal attack in it. It is clearly on content.

I have used considerable time on this, and I do not intend to waste any more in the quest for examples of the language directed towards me in other threads by the user in question. In my opinion, you have two choices: Either redact or substantiate your personal attacks. --T*U (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I see I've been wasting my time trying to acknowledge and respond to these accusations. When a user is on a self-proclaimed crusade to edit or revert solid facts in favour of pushing a particular point of view, and when that user refers to those facts as a POV euphemism, they are by definition gatekeeping (protecting) misinformation. And when they respond to these edits by attacking the user responsible etc, and then claim to be "civil" or "experienced"-thus-correct etc, this only rings alarms. This is not a personal attack, nor is it a derogatory, demeaning or hostile etc remark. It is a fact. It is a well-assessed and prudent challenge against that user and their clearly incorrect behaviour. There is nothing here for me to respond to, redact, or substantiate. Thank you for looking into this and making sure nothing wrong is going on. I'm afraid however that in this particular case you're just barking up the wrong tree. I'll keep all of this correspondence in mind and try not to give away these assumptions again. Also, I'll be careful when citing policy that I get it right, and I'll improve how I deal with those who try to incite edit warring. Thanks again for all of the advice. Nargothronde (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure why I bother, but I will try one last time:

1) Above you have said violations if not just flagrant misunderstanding and/or manipulation of the following policies: WP:CIV, WP:GF, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:BALANCE, WP:NOTTRUTH, WP:TE, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:BRD, WP:POVFIGHTER, WP:RGW, WP:EW, WP:DE, WP:NPA, followed by I can also compile and provide examples on request. So I hereby request that you please provide one example of violation for each policy. That should be 14, if my count is correct.

2) To be even more specific, you have explicitly claimed bad faith three times in this thread. In the guideline WP:AGF, section Accusing others of bad faith it says: Avoid accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence in the form of diffs. So could we please have some diffs? Thank you! --T*U (talk) 08:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

To be brief and provide some examples (especially where certain violations are of more than just one policy):

• Civility Assume Good Faith No Personal Attacks "this account is an SPA bent on pushing a strong pro-TRNC POV across many articles related to the Cyprus conflict." Dr.K. 13:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC) | "The POV/propaganda nature of this SPA account's edits is self-evident and it is a waste of time discussing this propaganda with yet another SPA" Dr.K. 13:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC) etc

• Neutral Point of View Balance POV Fighter (Tendentious Editing) Righting Great Wrongs (Tendentious Editing) Advocacy "...and includes turning something as innocent as halloumi into an ethno-political weapon against all things Greek." Dr.K. 13:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC) | "The whole edit is OR, unsourced or depends on WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. Ed told you to propose this POV on the talkpage for a good reason. For example, your proposed text: Eight years after this, after espousing human rights and a desire to live side-by-side with the Greek Cypriot is POV. How can this happen after expelling GCs, and illegally confiscating their property? Many other details in the proposed edit are similarly POV. I have reverted it." Dr. K. 05:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC) (I later included the following "OR WP:PRIMARYSOURCES": which again saw similar baseless and POV laden responses.

• Tendentious Editing (especially One who "bans" otherwise constructive editors from their talk page) On Dr.K.'s Talk page: "Dear Dr.K., please stop reverting my edits on pages regarding Cyprus without citing credible cause..." Nargothronde (talk) 02:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC) - ". Dr. K.'s response: "... Just stop your POV-pushing and don't come to my talk again. You should go to the article talk instead. Read the note on my talk..." as well as the above example, where the user typically avoids constructive suggestion and instead focuses on creating a hostile environment towards the user he disagrees with, attacks them, and refuses to engage in dialogue.

• Verifiability Verifiability, Not Truth "The links you provided show an unsourced diatribe and opinion which was rightfully reverted." Dr. K. 17:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC) (Note: Refer to the type of verifiable sources I typically tend to include, based on what I've shared above, and understand how Dr.K. discounts them in favour of pushing and/or supporting his agenda to keep his own opinions and agenda in articles)

• Edit Warring Disruptive Editing BOLD, Revert, Discuss, Cycle The users first response is always to revert edits, seldom BOLD editorial problems, attack users and accuse them of A, B & C, sometimes BOLD POVs he disagrees with, and never discuss (unless dragged into it by fuelling his indignation towards anything anti-pro-Greek POV...) This again is clearly demonstrable in the majority of his reversions. The user supports misinformation. Refer to Turkish invasion of Cyprus & Northern Cyprus for two examples.

• I don't quite understand diffs at this time to try and conjure any. I need to do a bit of research into exactly what that means first, then get back to you.

These examples should be clear enough. If they're not, or I didn't provide them properly etc, please let me know.

p.s. For your reference: I looked at this post here, and though I responded rather stupidly here and there, I understand in the end it's trying to be helpful and it isn't aiming at dissuading or attacking me, and I'll only improve my contributions etc because of it. The activity of that user (in relevance to me or my edits) however is not so constructive, but is rather hostile and fixated on me. And that explains my confusion and my responses in this post. I'm not however trying to engage in a dispute with that user. I also seem to be somewhat fixated on that user, but there is a reason for that as well: as demonstrable, that user is repeatedly appearing and targeting me or my edits etc, regardless of my attempts to review, discuss and try again, regardless of my attempts to communicate with that user, regardless of my improved editing, increased inclusion of reliable sources, more concise and to the point language, better use of summaries... and they are doing so in a manner that I simply don't find constructive or helpful at all. And I still stand by what I said in that I am not attacking that user and that I am not making any baseless claims, nor am I trying to cause any issues but I'm responding with prudence and reason to a user that is clearly trying to impede or discredit both me and my contributions. Nargothronde (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

References

It would definitely be helpful if you learned about diffs. It is not very difficult, and it is a safer and far better way to present edits you want to comment on than trying to quote them (and in some cases misquote them). You can read all about it here, or you can take a look at the diffs I present in the following, where I will comment on a couple of your examples:

1) Regarding the "Neutral Point of View Balance etc." section: You first give a quote (about halloumi) that you describe as being from Dr.K. That would be this edit, which is a comment not from Dr.K., but from a completely different editor, obviously commenting on this edit from you. Then you quote this talk page comment from Dr.K. in Talk:Northern Cyprus. This is actually the only article talk page comment Dr.K. has made towards you, and I have already said that I have read and re-read it, and I can not see any sign of hostility or personal attack in it. It is clearly on content. Finally you describe that you added no less then 42 sources which again saw similar baseless and POV laden responses. You did not add the "sources" to the article, but just listed them in the talk page as an answer to this query from another editor. After you added the list here, there has been these four edits to the talk page: diff1, diff2, diff3 and diff4, none of them from Dr.K. So where are the "similar baseless and POV laden responses"?

2) Regarding the "Verifiability Verifiability, Not Truth" section: The comment you quote from Dr.K. is this edit, which is actually not a comment to you, but an answer to this edit by another editor (but they are, of course, discussing your edits here). The discussion continues with the edits diff1, diff2, diff3, diff4, making it completely clear that this is a normal discussion of article content in a specific article. How this can be construed as Refer to the type of verifiable sources I typically tend to include, based on what I've shared above, and understand how Dr.K. discounts them in favour of pushing and/or supporting his agenda to keep his own opinions and agenda in articles is beyond me.

3) Regarding the "Edit Warring Disruptive Editing etc." section: This is just another list of accusations without examples given.

Let that be enough comments from me. But I have a suggestions: Given that Dr.K. has made a total of four edits on your talk page, all of them using standard templates, and a total of one edit with comments towards you on article talk pages, how about redacting any accusations about creating a hostile environment on my Talk page and other Talk pages? And then an advice: If you are not able to substantiate your repeated accusations of bad faith (with diffs per WP:AOBF), you would be wise to redact those, too. --T*U (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm genuinely confused. Why is it that my comments (all in response to his/her comments) can be considered as personal attacks, but his/her actions or comments are not? I really don't understand where you're drawing the line here. This is all really pick-and-choose to me; he/she responds to my edits with clearly threatening accusations, and my attempts to mediate his/her accusations & communicate by leaving a polite message on his/her/the article Talk page and respond to those accusations leads to certain responses as highlighted above, which are clearly indicative of so many violations from that respect... any argument that they are not is simply without standing... and that prompts further responses from me... and only my responses get highlighted... I really don't get it.

But anywho, I'm not here to argue, and I think you're right we don't spend any time beating around the bush here. I appreciate you giving me all of these suggestions, and I understand you're trying to stand up for that editor because you don't think they've done anything wrong and you're just focusing on me etc. I still believe my points have standing especially from the position that you've drawn. I will assume good faith here and take what you've said on board. I won't redact anything; I've alleged nothing that is without merit and/or clear demonstrable evidence; I'll keep it all here as a future point of reference, especially since it's all just limited to my Talk page and a particular few responses to his/her actions/comments etc we're referring to here and there; it is all isolated; there is no capacity what-so-ever for it to become inflammatory, whether or not it is decidedly used to my detriment/benefit by another user. As far as I'm aware, discussion of behaviour in an appropriate forum (e.g. user's talk page or Wikipedia noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack (see: responding to personal attacks). And I think next time I'll just: 1) ignore things that might otherwise aim to spark a response from me, 2) if I see a clear issue, rather than accuse another editor, just point out their behaviours that are contrary to Wikipedia policies and provide summary examples, 3) avoid any "chunk of text" defense or emotional response, which can often lead to misunderstanding, 4) just avoid becoming confrontational whether it be in defense or not; just learn to accept it's not always worth responding to everything, 5) learn how to get around ill-intended tactics without being incited to respond in a way that can be used to harm me. And I'll definitely pay attention to learning about diffs for future reference. Thanks again T*U. I honestly appreciate this. Nargothronde (talk) 02:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 | Dear Dr.K.

Dear Dr.K.,

1) Please look at what T*U posted on my Talk page.

2) In brevity: please stop pretending you are a moderate and experienced editor valiantly protecting Wikipedia against POV euphemism.

The reasons for my edits were provided in the edit summary.

Don't overlook my edits or their summaries in favour of allowing the articles to include misinformation at the delight of your own personal opinion.

You might also benefit from looking at the following policies, to aid your judgement when thinking about reverting edits that you have a problem accepting or agreeing with:

• Denialism
• Historical negationism
• Civility
• Good Faith
• Neutral Points of View
• Verifiability
• Balance
• Verifiability, Not Truth
• Tendentious editing
• Advocacy & Activism
• Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
• a mission to combat POV
• advocations or activism
• edit warring
• disruptive editing

I also implore you to try your best to actually respect the community guidelines and not try and manipulate them for your own benefit; avoid allowing information in articles that adds or supports your own interpretation or analyses; avoid removing information in articles just because it doesn't add or support your own interpretation or analyses; as an "experienced editor": instead of following popular discourse or generalisation, try to first ensure that whatever you are thinking of reverting is presenting verifiable facts about actual events, to see whether or not they should be reverted as opposed to edit warring. Also, please avoid being that "experienced editor" with the purpose of protecting his/her own value based judgements or statements that infer his/her assumptions onto others. You shouldn't practise a policy of expediency. Thank you. Nargothronde (talk) 09:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Making assumptions

When I read we are only citing that Greek Cypriot media called Papadopoulos' claim a lie, so no need to mention both Greek & Turkish Cypriot media beforehand in your edit summary here, I took it for granted that you based your comment on the source. This was followed up by 4) Why if there is no mention or citing of "both Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot media" do we need to mention so? in your posting at Talk:Bloody Christmas (1963)/Archive 1#Greek Cypriot official view. I had some sympathy for removing it, even if I would prefer to use a "citation needed"-tag. Today I should check the source myself. When I found it to be dead, I managed to find back to it in the archives of Cyprus Review, and there was a clear support for the claim in the article: Papadopoulos’s claim attracted comment in the Greek and Turkish Cypriot media. Please avoid presenting your assumptions as if they were fact, especially if you use it as a reason for an edit. --T*U (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks T*U. I actually posted this on the Talk page for discussion. I also contacted the retracter of my first edit but they just turned out to be obstructive and unwilling. The keyword here is "we"; I was making a reference to the Wikipedia article, where it says: Reaction to this claim appeared in the Greek and Turkish Cypriot media,[38] with some Greek Cypriot media calling Papadopoulos's claim a blatant lie., and though on a personal note I knew that both Turkish & Greek Cypriot media responded (obviously), like you said, the source provided was a dead link and I just couldn't find it elsewhere except by limited reference, that's why I think removing reaction to this claim appeared in the Greek and Turkish Cypriot media was right as it was not in the source provided AND not supported by the explanation that followed. It's amazing you have found it, though! Could you share the link please? Thanks! Nargothronde (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

No, removing "reaction to this claim appeared in the Greek and Turkish Cypriot media" was 'not right, see WP:LINKROT: In general, do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. Please also see WP:KDL: A dead, unarchived source URL may still be useful. Such a link indicates that information was (probably) verifiable in the past, and the link might provide another user with greater resources or expertise with enough information to find the reference. You removed the text, but kept the dead link in the article, and that does not even seem to make sense. The link here is already in the article. --T*U (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see! I didn't realise I left the dead link in there. I also didn't realise that Cyprus Review link was already in the article! and I see where it says "Papadopoulos’s claim attracted comment in the Greek and Turkish Cypriot media". Next time it would be better to add a tag or find the right citation for it, starting with other sources in the article itself? And I'm not familiar with WP:LINKROT & WP:KDL, so I'll take a thorough look into it. Thanks for pointing these things out to me! Nargothronde (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Not quite... The "citation needed" tag would be if the link failed verification, that is if the link did not support the claim (which was what your edit summary seemed to indicate). In this case, the correct procedure would have been to mark the link with a "dead link" tag, thereby inviting others to find another source or, if possible (as it was here), to find another url for the original source. --T*U (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I see. I'll pay attention to this in the future. And I'll read up more on dead links etc to understand them better. Thanks T*U. Nargothronde (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

T*U I also see the contributions you and another user have made to my queries on the Talk page! Thanks alot for the input! Nargothronde (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Attribution

Regarding your edit to List of massacres in Cyprus here, I would ask you to study WP:CWW. It is OK to copy content within Wikipedia, but when you copy from one article to another, you are supposed to explain (in your edit summary) that you have copied and also create a link to the article you have copied from. In this edit, you correctly linked to the article you copied from, which is fine.

Also, when you copy text that includes sources, please make sure that you include the complete source. In this case, three of the sources were incompletely copied. The bot User:AnomieBOT managed to rescue two of them, while the third had to be manually copied. Regards! --T*U (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you T*U. I'll pay extra attention to these things, especially WP:CWW. Nargothronde (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

CS1 error on List of designated terrorist groups

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of designated terrorist groups, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

List of designated terrorist groups

Please note the designated in the article's title. That means that the list should only include those groups that are formally declared to be terrorist groups by a government or relevant organization, and where there is a reference that explicitly says that. See for example the UK list of Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations (where EOKA is not listed) as an example. It is simply not enough to reference that someone from a particular country has called e.g. EOKA a terrorist group. You are, of course, welcome to add information to the article, as long as it is well referenced. Sjö (talk) 13:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Its also not proscribed by the Turkish government either, its just a talking point of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs to win "points" at the UN, if you see the list of proscribed terrorist organisations in Turkey, there is no mention of EOKA (Not even on their MoFA page) or by the Turkish Police and im pretty sure there is no actual legislation banning EOKA in Turkey either. SirBlueWhite (talk) 06:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

"Its also not proscribed by the Turkish government"

I'm afraid it is.

"there is no mention of EOKA (Not even on their MoFA page)"

I'm afraid there is.

Please refer to my response to Sjö below Nargothronde (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback.

Based on this, and although the designation of EOKA as a terrorist organisation is clearly inferred by the Republic of Türkiye (Turkey) Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC, or Northern Cyprus) Ministry of Foreign Affairs, this is something that leaves absolutely no room for doubt (see below), but perhaps the inclusion of the UK as a current designator might not be as appropriate - even with inference to the British government on Cyprus which historically proscribed it as such - because the British Government right now does currently have a policy paper titled Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations that is available online and which does not include EOKA among the list of proscribed terrorist groups.

I still think EOKA should be included in the List of designated terrorist groups, as it is clearly designated as such by the governments of Türkiye and the TRNC, and this was already clearly referenced in my original revision, but maybe including Britain here too is not necessary legally correct at this moment in time.

This is the edit I now propose to make:

|- | | EOKA | Turkey, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus |-

I am also opening this up for discussion on the List of designated terrorist groups Talk Page under the thread "EOKA: Greek Terrorism in Cyprus"

Thoughts? Nargothronde (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

One of those is an unrecognized entity and the other like ive said, is a Turkish govt. political talking point, bottom line is, unless you can provide a source from Turkish Police (Or whatever organisation deals with proscribing organisations as terrorists), your edit wont stand or at least, give us a statute that prohibits EOKA on the Turkish mainland. SirBlueWhite (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

(1) Just to clarify in-case this was not already abundantly clear:

The Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Ministry of Foreign Affairs are authorities on this subject.

So is the Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye, as well as the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Türkiye…

The list goes on.

Demanding that a Turkish Police source also be cited here is as unnecessary as it is irrelevant. The citations provided are already verifying what has been presented and are also very clearly verifiable by third-party reliable sources, which have also been presented.

In-case this may also be the product of confusion stemming from the fact that neither the Republic of Türkiye or Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus have published online a publicly accessible list of state recognised terrorist organisations, please note that not all countries have the same processes of designation and not all publish lists let alone require their police force etc to publish such lists. In addition, as has already been aptly noted in this article itself: "among the countries that publish a list of designated terrorist organizations, some have a clear established procedure for listing and delisting, and some are opaque." Otherwise why don't you demand the Turkish Police Force also be cited in the - count them - 27 other terrorist organisations of which Türkiye are also listed as designators in this article?

(2) Please stop harassing me via my TalkPage and engaging in point of view pushing and disruptive editing here and elsewhere.

My TalkPage, the same as anywhere else on Wikipedia, is not your personal platform to try and engage in these disruptive dichotomy battles of opinions, or to feign being able to assert some magisterial “authority” over other users or their contributions or information already published in the wider world which, frankly speaking, you do not have.

If you wish to try and eschew other ideologies while helping build an encyclopedia, here is an article that can help you get started:

What is an article?

Reading and understanding the following might also be of help:

Editing articles

Core content policies

You should also familiarise yourself with the following three principal core content policies:

Neutral Point of View

Verifiability

No Original Research.

Also kindly note the following clearly defined expectations for any contribution (as taken from the core content policy article above):

“An encyclopedic style with a formal tone is important: straightforward, just-the-facts, instead of… opinionated. The goal of a Wikipedia article is to create a comprehensive and neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge about a topic. Wikipedia does not publish original research. An encyclopedia is, by its nature, a tertiary source that provides a survey of information already published in the wider world. Ideally, all information should be cited and verifiable by reliable sources.”

My proposed edit, which I'm providing again just for ease of reference, and with the inclusion of the Turkish Presidency reference above and then some, meets all of these requirements.

|- | | EOKA | Turkey, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus|-

Nargothronde (talk) 05:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on List of designated terrorist groups

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of designated terrorist groups, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can (bot)&section=new report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 10:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Behaviour on talk pages

Please see WP:TALK#REPLIED that says that "if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided." You have changed the text replied to at least two times, I suggest that you self-revert this edit and refrain from changing answered comments in the future.

Also, and more serious, see WP:TALKNO. I see on Talk:List of designated terrorist groups how you accuse SirBlueWhite of edit warring and making personal attacks, but I see no edit warring in the article and I see no personal attacks except if you consider the "Turkish nationalist POV" comment a personal attack. I urge you to comment on facts and references, not on the editor.

If you think that any editor has seriously violated Wikipedia protocol, like it seems that you do, the right places to report that is to administrators are for edit warring WP:AN3, for obvious vandalism WP:AIV and for other incidents WP:ANI. Please help keep article talk pages focused on improvements to the articles. Sjö (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I was not aware that a response was provided before I edited those comments, alas, I shall have a look as per your advice.

In the meantime, and just for reference, the user in question had seemingly followed me in a number of different Pages and TalkPages, including here on my own User TalkPage, as well as the List of designated terrorist groups Page and TalkPage, and all after the aforementioned.

And the advice you are giving me now on refraining from making accusations or personal attacks etc and focusing on content rather than an editor is the same advice I gave the user in question, albeit only for it to be completely ignored or even deleted citing "Im not reading your rant," "Not reading any of that rant" etc. The gradual shift in style and rhetoric you are thus witnessing in the discussion in the List of designated terrorist groups TalkPage is a calculated attempt to try and get that advice through one way or another.

Though I admit better methods could have been used, and I wholeheartedly appreciate your advice.

Regards, Nargothronde (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

You posted a rant on my talkpage which is almost the same one you throw at me on every page, im not going to waste my time reading the same things. SirBlueWhite (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I would like to apologize

Im sorry i edited your use page, that was completely unnecessary and stupid of me to do, i just sometimes get angry when someone says that to a war, any war actually. If you want i would like to discuss this with you,

have a nice day. Natieboi (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it was.

You "would like to discuss this", yet it seems you've already (and rather enthusiastically at that) tried to push your opinions through one way or another by vandalising a user's page...

Regardless, what exactly would you like to "discuss"? What do you wish to achieve by said discussion? And if you wouldn't mind me asking, how or why exactly did you come about this page (which is a User's Page / TalkPage, not an article) and then decide to vandalise it? Nargothronde (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I saw your post on the Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict talk page, you put an interesting argument saying that they concentrated more on during/after 1974 and less on the 1963 massacres, i do to an extent agree that there needs to be more coverage on the massacres that happened to the Turkish cypriot civilians in 1963, but i just think that way worse things happened during the invasion and thus being more coverage on the invasion than on the inter-communal violence, I'm an immigrant thats living in north Cyprus for over five years, and what i really hate is that for whenever they talk about modern cyprus history their story ends on the invasion, they just stop there and don't talk about any bad thing that happening during the invasion, and what i also really hate is that they don't even say its a war, i mean sure they know it was a war but they don't call it a war, and on both greek and turkish side, both sides (albeit to more of an extent with the turkish side) are absolutely brainwashed with all the shit their governments give. And when i saw your page, it felt like you were trying to teach people who knows nothing about this one part of history and leaving the other side. turks, and greeks both talk about cyprus history so one-sided where it feels so irritating. Natieboi (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The Cyprus Conflict, that is the conflict between the Greek Cypriots (Greece) and Turkish Cypriots (supported by Turkey) began following the sudden, violent and illegal seizure of power (coup) in 1963 by the Greeks, and their unrelenting efforts to either politically discount, displace or exterminate the Turks. It did not begin with the 2nd Greek coup in 1974 or their continued occupation, pro-Sampson vs pro-Makarios Civil War, Invasion, acceleration of attacks against the Turks or the Turkish Intervention that followed. Many horrible things happened during the Greek Invasion etc for sure but that is not where the history of the Cyprus Conflict starts and stops. Throughout the years 1963-74 the Cyprus Conflict existed and tens of thousands were displaced and turned into stateless homeless refugees. None of them were Greeks. By the time of the Turkish Intervention in 1974 many Greeks who did perish did so during their own merciless internecine war, which, ironically, the Turkish Intervention put an end to, along with the fascist military dictatorships in Athens and Lefkoşa. What it boils down to is this: hundreds of peace moves, solutions, concessions, reproachments... all of them rejected by the Greek Cypriots, because if it isn't pure unconditional enosis, they don't want it. The Cyprus Problem exists today because of that. Nargothronde (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello again, before i say anything, i still feel very guilty for editing you page, it is completely understandable if you hold any grudges against me because of that, i just hope that you can accept my apology and understand that i am truly, truly sorry.

Now, i don’t see where this is going, sometimes when these arguments happen on the internet about Cyprus , they sometimes end with both sides admitting that they have done bad things, but you really like to insist that turks never done anything wrong even when there is proof. In my opinion, everything after the first part of invasion and the turks aren’t really the victims anymore, i don’t see what are you trying to do, what I’m trying to do is for both of us to have an understanding that both sides did wrong. But you refuse. over half of GC (and same for the TC) wants a bi-communal federation. Most GC always wanted a federation after 1974.

But... there is no point in this, you have your opinions and i have mine, i'm trying to push you towards the middle but you keep staying on the edge of the political compass. But your opinions should still be respected. Natieboi (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I did not “insist that turks never done anything wrong”. I did not even suggest as such in any part of anything that I have said. I told you what the Cyprus Conflict and Cyprus Problem are. That's all.

And you'll forgive me for repeating your own words here, but you said the "invasion" means “the turks aren’t really the victims anymore”? So, they were victims, but then because there was the need for a morally and legally recognised military operation to protect them they were never really victims?

Are you sure of that position?

You also said "over half of (Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots) wants a bi-communal federation"...

Can you please back your claim citing multilple strong, reliable and cross-verifiable sources? Nargothronde (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Timeline of events in Cyprus, 1974 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timeline of events in Cyprus, 1974, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of events in Cyprus, 1974 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

London book event for "The Editors"

Hello - Reaching out because I saw that you were listed as a Wikipedian from London.

I am a writer who has covered Wikipedia for Slate, The Washington Post, and other publications.

My novel The Editors is inspired by Wikipedia and was published earlier this month. As part of the book tour, I will be in London on Thursday 29 of August at 6:30 PM at Newspeak House.

Details for the event here: https://lu.ma/ubri3176

Sorry for the short notice, but if you are able to attend the event, it would be great to see you there! No RSVP required; just show up at Newspeak house on Thursday evening. Stephenbharrison (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)