User talk:Hudavendigar

Welcome

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, article logistics, and other tasks.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention.
• The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Wandalstouring (talk) 09:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

A warning

I've come to make these warnings quite a bit to certain users yet many of them had the stubborn habit of ignoring me and have been topic banned from Armenian/Turkey related articles. I'm only going to ask you once sir, cease your disruptive articles right now, stop with the systematic distortions, or it's a straight complaint to Wikipedia administrators. I've asked you kindly more than once and yet you have chosen not to heed my words. I won't ask you again. Thanks.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Van Resistance. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Khoikhoi 22:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

My edits, factual and verifiable references and inserts have been systematically dropped or erased without any discussion in spite of my repeated attempts at having one. A well organized group seems to perpetrate these attacks, including personal attacks and name calling and hateful speech. While the group keeps their edit count low, forced me into too many reverts or edits. I would rather not play games, not look for ways to skirt wiki rules as others here do often but have a meaningful dialogue as I have real knowledge to share and contribute on these topics

Decline reason:

Merely believing yourself to be right does not justify edit warring or violations of the 3 revert rule. Also, initiating discussions yourself does not give you the right to violate those rules either. Discussion is to be done instead of repeatedly reverting to add your information, not while repeatedly reverting. Repeated reversions will get you a short-term block, and I see no assurance that you intend to stop edit warring over this issue. When the block expires, please seek dispute resolution and bring in outside parties before to try to add that information again. It should be noted that this has nothing to do with whether or not the information you wish to add is right or not. Merely that the act of edit warring is disruptive, and merits this block. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

---

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

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi - What's the story about vandalism, which articles? Rgds, Gokhan (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Erich Feigl 1

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Erich Feigl, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.monarchie.at/myth/author.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Dog eats dog! :-) Meowy 18:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring, notice of discretionary sanctions

As you seem to be engaged in edit warring in an area covered by an arbitration committee case, this is to be your warning that discretionary sanctions, as provided in this case may be applied to you. Specifically, further edit warring may lead to a block from editing, or a temporary ban from editing articles on which edit wars have taken place. Please make sure to use dispute resolution rather than engaging in repeated reverts. Khoikhoi 05:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The above warning was not in regards to Erzurum, but all the articles you have been recently edit warring on. You have been mass-reverting on multiple articles recently, something that is extremely disruptive. Most of your contributions consist of edit warring. I know in your view that you are trying to bring neutrality to these articles, but your previous methods (of constantly reverting) obviously haven't been working, it only brings disruption to these pages. Instead you must follow the dispute resolution process, and keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Calling other editors "well known propagandists", is not only inappropriate, but also a violation of Wikipedia:Civility. This is why I warned you that if you continue to revert against consensus on all these articles, you may be subject to these discretionary sanctions:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

So, please follow the dispute resolution process instead of constantly reverting these pages, or you may be placed on the sanctions mentioned above. Khoikhoi 20:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite follow. Meowy for example is already on restrictions, see the List of users placed under supervision and this notification on his/her talk page. So are other users. What I'm trying to stress is that I don't want to have to put you on that list, but if you continue editing disruptively, I will have no other choice. Simply reverting again and again is not the proper solution to reach neutrality in articles, it is by discussing your changes and getting a consensus with other editors. Khoikhoi 01:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since you have chosen to continue to engage in disruptive editing, I am going to have to place you on editing restrictions. Please see below. Khoikhoi 06:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Erich Feigl 2

The article still has a lot of issues, but I am particularly curious about the source for your claim that Erich Feigl was a "Professor at University of Vienna". In which academic field? Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a good question. All my references refer to his Prof. title and U. of Vienna, but I have not been able to determine further detail due to my limited German. I need to ask around a little. Any help would be appreciated.--Murat (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, forgetting the question about his faculty for the moment, could you at least tell me the reference which says that he was a professor at the University of Vienna? Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Erich Feigl

An article that you have been involved in editing, Erich Feigl, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erich Feigl. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Namsos (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Not only I have been trying to edit this piece while fighting constant pov distorions, I have actually created this very entry. It has plenty of references to his life and work, and a lot more is easily available on line as his name produces thousands of hits. Your complaint sounds very disingenous at best. I am not all done yet though, it will get better, promise!--Murat (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

Just a courtesy note to inform you that you've been mentioned in a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#POV. Feel free to read and comment. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Notice of editing restrictions

File:Yellow warning.png

Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions, by notice on that editor's talk page. This notice is to inform you that based on your edits, you are hereby placed under the following restrictions:

1. Revert limitation (formerly known as revert parole). You are limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
2. Supervised editing (formerly known as probation). You may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area should you fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in your interactions with one another concerning disputes which may arise.
3. Civility supervision (formerly known as civility parole). If you make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then you may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses.

Enforcement: Violations of limitations, supervision, or bans imposed by the remedies in this case may be enforced by brief blocks of up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year.

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here. Khoikhoi 06:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, first off, let me clarify that reverting is when you undo someone else's edit (yes, it does include the re-addition of material that has been removed by another user). Your use of the word "vandalism" is incorrect in this case, because everything that you have been involved in so far is classified as a "content dispute", since you and your opponents have been disputing whether certain text should be included. This is not a case of vandalism (this is, for example). Secondly, many of the users that you have been reverting or the ones that have been reverting you are on the same restrictions, so IMO now everyone is equal, and no one is "winning" or "losing". What I've tried to explain to you is that edit wars get nothing accomplished. You keep reverting and reverting, and then someone reverts you, and the cycle continues. Wikipedia articles aren't meant to go back-and-forth like that. The only real way you get something accomplished is by discussing it with other users, in the hopes that you can form a compromise, or consensus. To answer your numbered questions:

1. After we last spoke you continued to revert ([1], [2], [3], [4]). On Sason, you reverted 3 times in the last 24 hours. Even though you came close to breaking the three-revert rule (which you were blocked for on May 31), three reverts is not some sort of magic barrier that prevents you from being blocked. An admin could have easily blocked you for simply edit warring. This is the type of stuff that occurred on Armenian-Azeri pages for example before the arbitration case. After that many users were placed on editing restrictions, a lot of the problems were solved. Aggressive editing can be characterized as constant edit warring, and basically a method of getting your version of the article by constant reverting as opposed to discussion. Is is the exact opposite of what is outlined at WP:1RR. Even if you believe the information you are adding is NPOV, if it is contested by several users, the best thing is to discuss it with them, and once you have come to an agreement, to implement that version.
2. I'm sure you've tried to be civil, but here I notice you referring to your opponents as "vandals", this is inappropriate because as I explained above, you're involved in a content dispute here. If other users have personally attacked you, please show me links of this and I will warn them. It is never acceptable to do so.
3. Yes, it is possible. You can get mentored at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. Wiki-adoption was created back in 2006 as a program designed to help new and inexperienced users.
4. Although you may disagree with him, it is within Namsos' right to nominate an article for deletion if he believes it is non-notable. However, as you can see from the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erich Feigl, it appears that many users there are deciding to keep the article, so I'm not sure that it matters anyways. Everything that you mention (awards, documentaries, books, Google hits, etc.) can be mentioned at the AfD (articles for deletion page). I have noticed that you've already made a comment there already. Make sure to keep an eye on that page, the discussion is typically open for five days.
5. I don't know the specifics about why your sources were removed, but if you feel like you're not getting anywhere with these disputes, you might try posting something at the Reliable Sources noticeboard if there is a dispute on whether your sources are valid or not. Another option is the new Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard. Finally, after you have made all attempts at resolving the conflict (including those two links I gave you), and you still feel like nothing has been accomplished, you can check out formal mediation. There, a mediator will get involved and act as a third party.

I hope all that I have said is helpful. Please feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any further questions/comments. Khoikhoi 21:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

How to make your references appear

Greetings ! To make references appear, you need a section ==Notes== <references/> or {{reflist}} Rcbutcher (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

First Kerevizdere

Hello, I'm surprised that this is the Turkish name for the Battle that the British called Third Battle of Krithia because on the map Kereves Dere appears on the far Eastern side, and the battle appears to have occured further West, between Saghir Dere and Kereves Spur. ?? Rcbutcher (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Bitlis

Yes, so far you did not violate any of the terms of your restrictions, but keep in mind that if you revert more than once on that page for the next week you will. Also, I wouldn't call the anon's removal "vandalism" since he/she provided a reason here. Khoikhoi 05:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Dardanelles victims

I noticed you changed 'military dead' to 'Casualties'. off the top of my head, I suspect the casualties are about double the numbers previously listed as 'dead'. Do you have figures to justify your change? Sandpiper (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok I had a look at Carlyon, who has turks 251,309 casualties including 86,692 dead: French 27,000 c including 10,000 dead (but they didnt count them), British 73,485 c including 21,255 dead, Aus 19,441 wounded plus 8709 dead, New Zealand 2701 dead plus 4752 wounded. But.....This is for Gallipoli, not the naval actions. So logically that naval campaign article ought to only show naval casualties? This would be much less. Probably possible to find who died/injured on the ships, but how to calcualte the proportionate losses by the defenders? Sandpiper (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The numbers are for the overall campaign, otherwise it would never make sense. It would be a challenge to get the numbers for the naval actions alone. One can go by listing the ships lost. I am sure we can find numbers for crew lost in each case.--Murat (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Erich Feigl 4

It appears to have been deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erich Feigl. BTW, new comments always go at the bottom of talk pages. Khoikhoi 01:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by resource? You can always contest the deletion if you want at WP:DRV. Khoikhoi 03:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, WP:DRV says, "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision). There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision." So, I guess you can leave a note on Jayjg's talk page regarding the AfD. Khoikhoi 20:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if you don't recall, I clearly said here that "You are limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page." You're aware that this is a violation of your restrictions, right? Khoikhoi 08:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the restoration of removed information is a revert. As for a compromise, if you feel the dispute is getting nowhere you try a formal request for mediation (on the condition that all other attempts at dispute resolution has already failed). As for the objection of the quality of the references, you probably already know this, but information at Wikipedia is not supposed to be based on the "truth", but verifiability -- that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia already has been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Therefore it is entirely fathomable that someone would dispute the sources more than the actual sentence. As for the actual deletion of the references, there is a difference between good faith removal and bad faith removal. Since you are involved in a content dispute with these users and since they appear to have provided explanations for removing the paragraph, this lies within the good faith category. Therefore, since this is not vandalism, there is no restriction to prevent them from deleting the paragraph as long as they provided a reasonable explanation. As for your last question, anyone from any party of the dispute can request mediation, since you are both equally involved in the dispute. I myself would like to see this dispute among others eventually resolved in the near future, and not have it drag on forever. Khoikhoi 19:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Murat, I made it very clear here and here that you are only permitted to one revert per page per week. So why did you keep reverting on Bitlis and Van, Turkey? I have no other option than to block you in order to enforce these restrictions, but were you not clear on what your restrictions were? I don't want to have to block you again, so please follow the terms of your restrictions that were clearly outlined here. Thank you. Khoikhoi 02:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:

Your the one adding the info, its better if you discuss and get people to agree to what you add instead of adding it everytime someone reverts it. --Namsos (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Erich Feigl 5

As I explained when closing the AfD, based on the material in the article and the arguments on the AfD page, it didn't appear to meet WP:PROF and WP:BIO, a number of the sources don't even mention him, and the reliable second party sources that did mention him give fairly trivial mentions. You're free to bring it to WP:DRV if you like. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you read the instructions at Wikipedia:DRV#Steps to list a new deletion review? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added it to the DRV page for you. For some reason it's not showing up yet, but I'm sure it will soon. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add any comments you wish underneath mine; please don't modify my comment though. Also, please remember to sign your comment with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The article has been userfyed at User:Hudavendigar/Feigl. Please leave the {{noindex}} template on the userspace article as you are cleaning and correcting it. Once you feel that you have successfully brought the article to wiki standards, it can be moved to article space and your subpage will be deleted. Please note that its userfication does not in any way protect it from an MfD, like any other page, and that the article should not be moved into article space until such point it would reasonably withstand an AfD. Good Luck. -- Avi (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)

The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The September 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fourteen candidates. Please vote here by September 30!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Erich Feigl Recovery

Hi. I'm not an expert on the subject. It does look better, and I would suggest that you get another German speaker to confirm the references. Also, perhaps approach some people who opined to delete it in the AfD, and see if they would change their minds now. That would tell you a lot as to how the article has progressed. Lastly, once it goes in to article space, there is nothing stopping someone from nominating it for AfD again, so do as much as you can to get it into shape now. Good Luck! -- Avi (talk) 02:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, but I think the place to raise this is at DRV. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)

The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Bitlis

Murat, you are still limited to one revert per week. Please respect this and discuss your edits. If you believe your reference is unfairly contested you can go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. There you can discuss it with third party editors. However, this edit warring needs to stop. Khoikhoi 03:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Religion section

Please add any comments or suggestions relating to the reversion of the Religion section at the talk page on Religion (2). Thanks! Salaam. Mohsin (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I have re-edited my version of the section, please add your comments on the Talk Page, whether you are in favor of my revision (hopefully), or the other after reviewing it, Thanks! Mohsin (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please vote at the Religion (2) section of Talk Page of the article Turkey, viewing Version 1 (my re-edited version for a neutral prospective) and Version 2, and decide which is the preferred version for the Religion section of Turkey at the below of the page, Agree or Disagree for Version 1, Thank you!!! Mohsin (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for violating the editing restrictions placed on you by Khoikhoi (talk · contribs) as part of WP:ARBAA2. The 1RR violations in question:

• Van, Turkey
  • Removal of "However, most historians agree that the Armenian residents, hoping to avoid the slaughter inflicted on the rural populations surrounding Van, defended themselves in the Armenian quarters of the city against the Turks"
  • Same removal
• Armenia–Turkey relations
  • First edit - not a revert
  • Removal of "genocide" again - small, but important
  • Re-insertion of some material from the first edit
  • Revert of paragraph removal

Please note that further violations of your editing restrictions will result in topic bans, blocks, etc. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 1 week for violating your 1RR editing restrictions on Van, Turkey: [5], [6]. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)