User talk:Markus2685
Welcome!
Hello, Markus2685, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Simplified Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!
You are probably overdue for a welcome. Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. --Markus2685 (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Capture of Garadaghly
There's still a bit of work required at Capture of Garadaghly (particularly in the later sections), but do you agree that the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view tags can now be removed? The main concerns seem to have been very effectively dealt with by yourself. I have revised the introduction to provide a better fit with the new title. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- The concern was (and still is), that the majority of the article is not based no neutral sources but on sources too closely associated with the subject and on primary sources like the Azerbaijani government or pro-government Azerbaijani news agencies. The main thing that was done, was changing the article title and deleting a few sentences which were unsourced or not verifiable. But as the NPOV problem is still not resolved I don't think one should delete the tags. --Markus2685 (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- That doesn't necessarily constitute an article which fails to keep a neutral point of view. As I understand it, the incident is not denied by Armenia, though Armenian sources differ on the number of casualties, as is reported in the infobox (it's a pity the information in the infobox hasn't been incorporated into the text). The article also draws on the writings of an Armenian-American, who is detailing the life of his brother who was fighting on the Armenian side in the conflict, and is unlikely to be exhibiting pro-Azeri bias. Azerbaijan's claims are not presented as fact, but are labelled as coming from one of the parties to the conflict. While it would be nice to have some Armenian official sources, if they simply do not exist there is not much anyone can do. There is still probably a case for the sources too closely associated with the subject tag remaining, but I am not at all clear what your objection is to the removal of the neutrality tag. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I understand your viewpoint. But I don't want to decide it. Maybe one should discuss this on the articles talk page. --Markus2685 (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- That doesn't necessarily constitute an article which fails to keep a neutral point of view. As I understand it, the incident is not denied by Armenia, though Armenian sources differ on the number of casualties, as is reported in the infobox (it's a pity the information in the infobox hasn't been incorporated into the text). The article also draws on the writings of an Armenian-American, who is detailing the life of his brother who was fighting on the Armenian side in the conflict, and is unlikely to be exhibiting pro-Azeri bias. Azerbaijan's claims are not presented as fact, but are labelled as coming from one of the parties to the conflict. While it would be nice to have some Armenian official sources, if they simply do not exist there is not much anyone can do. There is still probably a case for the sources too closely associated with the subject tag remaining, but I am not at all clear what your objection is to the removal of the neutrality tag. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Vandalism?
You should be really careful about what you call vandalism. Moreover, these articles are subject to discretionary sanctions, and I will place a template explaining those things below and log that I did. Note the revert limitation, please. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.
Drmies (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not once have I edited the mentioned artciles in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility. User Konullu has edited artciles related to Azerbaijan-Armenia by repeatedly deleting relevant "See also" artciles from Azerbaijani articles which mention massacres against Armenians (belonging to the same topic) without discussing it before (deletion 1), (deletion 2). His edits were revoked and he was asked to please discuss this first on the talk page. He has not done so.
- Also other users have decided that his repeated deletions are not appropriate.--Markus2685 (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
February 2013
Hello, I'm MelbourneStar. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Aziz Shavershian, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.
This site, and This site, don't meet our requirements for reliable sources. Please consider finding reliable sources from news outlets (as most of the sources cited in the Aziz Shavershian article are from the Media).
Also, the subject's ethenticity doesn't belong in the lead paragraph - only if that has strong ties to why he's notable, or if he was born in the country of question. —MelbourneStar☆talk 07:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Taksim Gezi Park
Dear Markus2685, I have noticed that you have made changes to the Taksim Gezi Park article, that is wonderful! However, you did not provided related and reliable source to your claims which is not good. Please be informed that I have rolled back your edits. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. See you around, --Murus (talk) 04:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Markus2685! Thank you for your quick reply and for providing a more reliable source: The New York Times from June 7, 2013[1]:
Gravestones from an Armenian cemetery at Taksim demolished in 1939 were used to construct stairs at Gezi Park, a republican-era project by the French planner Henri Prost that is like the jumble of high-rise hotels, traffic circles and the now-shuttered opera house on the square, named after Ataturk.
— Michael Kimmelman, NYT
However, since this is a serious claim that can be even interpreted as a slander, would you be so kind as to research it more. We know for sure that press acts as an echo chamber, so some history books may be of great help. By the way, what area do you refer to when you talk about "on the areal"? [2]
I am asking since near everything in Pera can be included under this category. Meanwhile, I will put the thing back into a limbo while you will continue your worthwhile research. Believe me, I have no political interest in this matter whatsoever, and am driven by the intent to keep this wonderful resource free of bigotry and bias! If you don't agree with me which is fine, you can submit for an arbitration, it is always nice to have a third pair of eyes involved. Best, --Murus (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, so just to make this clear. What exactly is bothering you? The word "demolished" or what is it? Because the fact that an Armenian Cemetery existed on the area of today's Gezi Park is undeniable and this information is supported by numerous reliable source. And also the fact that the cemetery is not existing anymore is something undeniable. So what exactly is bothering you that you still want more sources (although concerning to Wikipedia rules there are already more than enough reliable sources given). And sorry to say this, but your way of argumenting, makes the impression as you obviously have a political interest because saying that more sources are needed (although more than 6 reliable sources are enough) is not understandable and also saying that mentioning this fact could be "interpreted as a slander" reminds of people (mostly Turks) who find that saying there was indeed an Armenian Genocide is a "slender". This has nothing to do with slender or anything else. If the Armenian Cemetery was demolished and if this information can be supported by reliable sources (which it can) than this is a historical fact which belongs to this Wikipedia article. If someone, because of personal reasons, thinks it is as "slender" mentioning this fact, like many Turks think it is a "slender" saying that there was an Armenian Genocide, this is their personal problem and not a Wikipedia problem. --Markus2685 (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input, Markus2685! I indeed does not have any political interest in this matter, so rest assured! If you check the article's history, you will notice that at first I have written myself that the barracks and the park were situated on the grounds of a cemetery. When I conducted more research, I did change the wording to "near" since I did not find convincing evidence to that, and decided to go by the "do-no-harm" golden rule. In my humble opinion, Wikipedia cannot change the world, but merely is trying to inform it. I am also aware of the fact that the new Turkish generation that is engaged in protests now is sympathetic to the plight of the Armenians at the beginning of the 20th century. However, I think one should be cautious while arguing a case, and should be also careful about where to do so. But as I mentioned before, if you believe that I am wrong, go ahead with that arbitration thing, everything should be decided in a collegiate manner. Sincerely yours, --Murus (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have added an opening sentence to the history section and made a few stylistic edits. I am glad that we are having a worthwhile, cooperative discussion here. The sentence: "After the Armenian Genocide the cemetery was demolished in 1930 and its marble tombstones were sold in 1939 or were used in the construction of the Park" has too many citations, so I am asking to kindly reduce them to one or two, most authoritative. Best,--Murus (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC).
- Thanks for your input, Markus2685! I indeed does not have any political interest in this matter, so rest assured! If you check the article's history, you will notice that at first I have written myself that the barracks and the park were situated on the grounds of a cemetery. When I conducted more research, I did change the wording to "near" since I did not find convincing evidence to that, and decided to go by the "do-no-harm" golden rule. In my humble opinion, Wikipedia cannot change the world, but merely is trying to inform it. I am also aware of the fact that the new Turkish generation that is engaged in protests now is sympathetic to the plight of the Armenians at the beginning of the 20th century. However, I think one should be cautious while arguing a case, and should be also careful about where to do so. But as I mentioned before, if you believe that I am wrong, go ahead with that arbitration thing, everything should be decided in a collegiate manner. Sincerely yours, --Murus (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
June 2014
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Vehbi Koç. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, 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. 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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- The sections you were complaining about have been edited and improved. What do you mean by saying "to their preferred version". The artcile has now been edited to your preferred version, not mine. --Markus2685 (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I ought not have used the template. Read WP:3RR, you have hit three reverts today, this was just to let you know. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:AE
Hi. Please be aware of this: [3]. Thanks. Grandmaster 20:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Articles related to the Khojaly Massacre are covered by discretionary sanctions
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Template:Z33 EdJohnston (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
May 2016
Hello, I'm Darwinian Ape. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Perinçek v. Switzerland, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Darwinian Ape talk 23:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Markus2685. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Markus2685. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)