User talk:EtienneDolet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:EtienneDolet)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Akocsg (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

See talk page of the article Turkey. Akocsg (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Your AA2 Violations[edit]

Hi EtienneDolet, I am here just to warn you about the fact that you violated WP:AA2 in several articles ([1], [2], [3], [4] after your final warning here (I was warned as well). I am not looking for further confrontations and willing to cooperate in Khanasor Expedition and other pages. Consider this as a friendly reminder and please refrain from disruptive editing. Regards --Abbatai 09:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Turkish military operation in Afrin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kurdish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Your e-mail[edit]

I can't tell you what you ask.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Okay, simplified it in another e-mail. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Nope.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide to good article[edit]

I know we disagreed on the recent RFC about the Armenian genocide, but I still want to thank you for remaining civil and respecting the process. I think we share the goal of getting the article thought GA review and I look forward to collaborating with you in the future. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Billhpike: If nominating GA is what you're going to do, then I suggest to look into the last GA nomination. Frankly, I was highly disheartened by the fact that it was nominated by a user who did not do one bit to help resolve the issues raised by the GA reviewer. I stepped and tried my best to fix the problems and was nearing the finish line when I had to go on a very long break. As you can see by that GA nomination, the article is pretty much in GA shape already. The lead was the only obstacle from gaining that status. It had to be elongated or something. You can ask Jclemens (don't want to ping him just yet) if he's willing to look into it again. He's an excellent editor and one who already knows the article pretty well. As for me, I'm almost maxed out of energy trying to maintain the article and picking up everybody else's slack. I am willing to help out only if you're leading the charge. To be more specific, I can help you if you need some help regarding sources and point to some really important consensus discussions we've had over the 10 somewhat years that I've been editing the article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


Yes, Muş is in Anatolia - Anatolia means the Asian part of Turkey. That is why hundreds of reliable sources use it [5]. You can look this up in a dictionary, it's not controversial. I am considering posting this to the WP:FRINGE noticeboard if it keeps coming up, especially on article talk pages. You are insisting on a historical meaning, that is not widely in use, just because you prefer it. The majority of WP:RS call it Anatolia. If you wrote this in a blog, I might be interested in reading it, but ranting about it in unrelated discussions and telling editors they have been misled by Turkish state-sponsored propaganda is not conducive to collaboratively improving an article. Seraphim System (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Why are you moving goal posts? Whoever said anything about Muş anyways? Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Moving goal posts? What does arguing about Armenia have to do with improving the particular sentence that was the topic of discussion which is In the latter half of the 11th century, the Seljuk Turks began penetrating into medieval Armenia and the eastern regions of Anatolia. In 1071, the Seljuks defeated the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert, starting the Turkification process in the area; the Turkish language and Islam were introduced to Armenia and Anatolia, gradually spreading throughout the region. The slow transition from a predominantly Christian and Greek-speaking Anatolia to a predominantly Muslim and Turkish-speaking one was underway. - you can't insist that Anatolia means someting other than what the source means by it, which is why the reliable sources that are cited need to verify the text, especially on a difficult historical topic like this with such a challenging histiography, where different sources use the words in different meanings. The first issue is posting the correct sources, and then there can be a discussion. It also helps to find some sources that are accessible if material is being challenged, for the purposes of having a coherent discussion.Seraphim System (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
You raised the issue of Armenia, not me. So I responded by saying Armenia is not in Anatolia. None of the sources you point show that Armenia is in Anatolia because quite frankly, there are no such sources. So please just WP:DROPIT already. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I really want you to understand what this dispute is about so I will try to explain one more time: there are sources that I posted that discuss the Armenians role at Manzikert and during the Seljuk period. Armenians are not part of the nationalist Turkish literature - but these texts have had a lasting influence in the field. Fortunately in 2018 we have sources to support updating, or at least qualifying, so I am trying to understand why you don't want to update - is it because Armenia is not in Anatolia? Here is another source [6] - consensus discussions aren't just a tally of editors unsourced opinions, you do have to be willing to have civil discussion about sources, not insist that the majority of sources support your POV (without posting them). Are you willing to do that? - discuss just the sources and not your own POV in future discussions? Here is another source [7] The sourcing for this is overwhelming and very high quality. I will give you some time to think about it before opening a discussion on talk but I think it would help if you could just stick to discussing the sources. Seraphim System (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


I forgot to reply regarding this and sorry about that. Just wanted to say thank you for the barnstar! :)

Incomplete DYK nomination[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Stephen C. Ananian at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Stephen C. Ananian[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Stephen C. Ananian at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: Atamian[edit]

He was a French citizen at his death, so I assume their copyright laws apply. As of 7/30/2017 he had been dead for 70 years so, his works became public domain on 1/1/2018. Happy gallery! WQUlrich (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence
NPOV is possible if we all work for it!!! GPRamirez5 (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Precious three years![edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Commons-emblem-hand.svgAs have been edit warring on Turkish military operation in Afrin without participating in the ongoing discussion you are now subject to the following sanction for one month:

Topic banned from making any edits on Turkish military operation in Afrin. You may still use the talk page.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the community authorised general sanctions for the Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. This sanction has been recorded in the log. Please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction on the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page). Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.

--NeilN talk to me 02:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: Are you going to wait for my rebuttal before making a move like this? Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
You can appeal here if you wish. --NeilN talk to me 02:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: This is quite shocking. For one, I have been discussing this at the talk page. In fact, I was the one who started that discussion: [8]. The discussion is tilted to moving that particular sentence, but definitely not removing it outright. What SS did was remove it outright which contradicts what SS said in that very same discussion. I've even suggested that s/he move it to a more proper place: "So if you think it can be placed in a better place, then suggest it." However, s/he is nowhere to be seen on that TP since March 28 and has removed that sentence at least twice since then ([9][10]). In fact, since you say that edit-wars shouldn't happen when talk page discussions are ongoing, let me inform you that SS removed that particular sentence seven times ([11][12][13][14][15][16][17]), in which almost all these reverts weren't accompanied with any sort of justification on the talk page. So by your same reasoning, Neil, Seraphim should also be sanctioned for restarting old edit-wars that are against what the discussion entails in the first place. It's not a constructive approach on his/her end when the discussion surrounding that sentence is not one of removal, but of moving it elsewhere. And I'm not the type of user who doesn't participate in talk pages. I'm the third most contributor to Afrin's TP ([18]). And as for the article itself, I have contributed greatly to that article, making me again, the third most contributor there as well ([19]). I've added entire sections that have been vital for the understanding of the conflict. But that's digressing. With all that said, I can always resort to talking more and being much more cautious in my edits/reverts. There is definitely a conversation to be had as to exactly where that sentence be positioned. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
And nothing in the sanction is stopping you from having that conversation. It is, however, stopping you from reverting and ignoring the discussion. If the discussion concludes before a month is up, I will lift the restriction. --NeilN talk to me 03:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: Agreed, and will gladly do so. But it would also mean SS has been "reverting and ignoring the discussion" too since s/he hasn't participated in the TP since March 28 as well. Wouldn't it? I'm just wondering why there's two definitions of edit-warring violations here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Look at your edit summaries. No consensus on removal, There's a discussion about this on the TP. You seem to think you can revert and ignore Seraphim System's last post in the thread. It's not up to them to keep posting while you keep reverting. --NeilN talk to me 05:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: That last post from SS was from March 28 though. So from what I'm inferring here, Seraphim's reverts are just out of line of WP:BRD as mine. Just because someone has the "last word" at the TP doesn't give that user a carte blanche to edit war for weeks on end, especially when the discussion never entailed for blatant removal of reliably sourced content. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
So you can revert whenever you want without ever joining the discussion again? No, sorry. And please explain how the DW discussion was not specifically about the addition and removal of this content. --NeilN talk to me 13:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: So you can revert whenever you want without ever joining the discussion again? - No, I've already said I should have considered WP:BRD. For that, I apologize. But that rule applies to the both of us. SS too kept reverting without joining the discussion. And just because s/he has the "last word" shouldn't give him/her unlimited discretionary power to keep removing content from the article either, especially when it wasn't about the removal of content in the first place. In her "last words" on the TP, s/he specifically says: "I didn't see a better place for it, but if you can think of one move it there." That doesn't sound like a discussion to remove it entirely. And yet, I too agree that it should be moved and have since moved it. But can I request to be under 0RR instead of an article ban? After all, I have greatly contributed to the article, and I'm sure you'd agree. Yes, I did have a small bout of edit-warring for which I do apologize. However, the 0RR will prevent me from reverting, which is what you believe is the viable solution here, while allowing me to continue to improve the article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be easier to resolve the discussion and have the restrictions lifted? --NeilN talk to me 17:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: I'd say it's practically resolved and I will not pursue reinstating that bit of information. Let me pitch one last proposal though and see if it'll work. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Very well. I have taken you at your word and lifted the ban. Please don't make me regret this and fill out more paperwork. I've edit conflicted with your change. I will not rescind the lifting but expect you to edit appropriately. --NeilN talk to me 18:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@NeilN: Thanks Neil. By the way, is self-reverting something you suggest in a situation like this? Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Self-reverting is good before the situation blows up. It sends a signal to admins you are aware of the issue when formulating a comprehensive response might take some time. Right now, I would leave the content in question alone. --NeilN talk to me 19:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


I'm not sure, but User:My very best wishes may have violated 1RR on the Douma chemical attack page – diff, diff, diff. You are an experienced user, I wonder what is your opinion about it. -- Tobby72 (talk) 07:18, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tobby72: it’s confusing at first glance. Can you show me who or which version he reverted? If he reverted an IP then it doesn’t count in the SCW topic area. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
He has removed these edits – diff, diff, diff, diff, diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, there’s only one way to find out. I still think it’s confusing because from what I see there’s a lot of partial reverts. Partial reverts are still reverts, but if you were to report him, just be as clear as possible in the report so as to not confuse the admins as well. You should provide the revert first then describe which version exactly he’s reverting to. That way admins won’t overlook it. But from my view, yeah it appears to be a violation. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, it looks like User:Volunteer Marek is doing the exactly same thing. – diff, diff, diff. These two guys are obviously still working together. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
How about if you talk smack behind my back, and try to hatch your little plots against me, you have the courtesy to link my user name, so that I get notice? Ok Tobby? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: And to be clear Marek, I didn't want to get involved. Just gave my honest opinion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

You may want to[edit]

leave a comment on this thread.Axxxion (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

May 2018[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Women in Armenia. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Seraphim System (talk) 00:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you read Russian?[edit]

Used as a source here. What is odd, I am not seeing 1.5 million Muslims anywhere in the article. Thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Hi KS. So it does say 1.5 million. In Russian, there’s a specific word for 1.5: полтора. Hope that helps. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Listen, Etienne, I can count my own reverts, don't post on my talk page anymore unless it is required like an ANI notice. Seraphim System (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

You can count on it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


Could you please stop removing my genetic links on the Turkish people page,? Those studies are legit peer-reviewed genetic studies and they're very recent studies (2014, 2017, 2016 etc) (one is from 2006 but it's not only about haplogroups) whereas the studies in the Turkish people page are almost antiquated and they're mostly about haplogroups. While mine also included studies about haplogroups, they also included studies about autosomal dna. Stop removing my peer-reviewed studies.

I explained my contribution. Now let's talk about why I removed and edited some parts of the page.


the page says "Other studies found the Peoples of the Caucasus (Georgians, Circassians, Armenians) are closest to the Turkish population among sampled European (French, Italian), Middle Eastern (Druze, Palestinian), and Central (Kyrgyz, Hazara, Uygur), South (Pakistani), and East Asian (Mongolian, Han) populations.[218]"

However the study DOES NOT mention Armenians or Georgians. It mentions ADYGEI (Circassian) people. Armenians and Georgians were not included in the study.

"To examine fine-scale population structure and relatedness, we removed African, Oceanian, and native American populations. Representative populations from Eurasia were selected, and the analysis was repeated (Fig. 2B). Turkish samples clustered with Middle Eastern and European populations, particularly with the Adygei population from the Caucasus. South Asian populations clustered separately and did not overlap with Turkish samples. Kyrgyz samples clustered with other Central Asian populations, but they were relatively closer to East Asian populations (Fig. 2B). These results demonstrate that the PC analysis for the Eurasian region clearly delineates fine-scale population structure."

Also the study used Sardinian samples as well. "Supervised analysis was performed using individuals from the Middle East (Druze and Palestinian), Europe (French, Italian, Tuscan, and Sardinian), and Central Asia (Uygur, Hazara, and Kyrgyz)" dunno why you're deleting the Sardinian part. I've read that study before.

See? No mention of Armenian or Georgian peoples.

2- Leukemia study's link was dead, but now it's revived. However, the source is rather shady and in genetics we don't use diseases to explain genetics/genetic closeness, we rather use haplogroups and/or autosomal DNA. Also, I really could not find anything about that leukemia study before 2009 or in 2009. No NCBI link, no scientific study, no nothing. I couldn't find anything. I found the guy though. However, couldn't find his study published on a legit website like NCBI. Therefore that study has to be removed. There's probably no study about leukemia. If there is, then show me a link. We can include that study in "previous genetic studies" part. If there's no link to a scientific article or a page, then it'll be removed. In the genetics parts we should cite genetic studies, papers and articles. Not newspaper articles with no source.

3- That Mongolian study is antiquated. This study was published in 2003. Old studies like this must be removed. Because recent studies prove them wrong (like my autosomal dna study which found that the East Asian influence in Turks was 21.7%). However, i'm not really against removing it. We can keep it to show what previous studies told and what recent studies tell. It will show the difference.

4- Not all Turkic were nomadic. There was no need to change "peoples" to "nomads".

5- "It has been discovered through the Turkish genealogy database that at least 2 million of those who identify as Turks are in reality ethnically Armenian, most of whom were survivors of the Armenian Genocide"

Nope. Not even the newspapers that you posted mention this. Only this link mentions that and it says "Perhaps two million Turks have Armenian grandmothers. But they are supposed to believe that the genocide never happened."

First: This is the thought/theory of the author. Therefore it's not reliable. These numbers are not "official". This is literally the thought of an author. He most likely made that up.

Second: There's a huge difference between having an armenian grandmother and being "ethnically Armenian". You're manipulating your own source.

Last thing: Stop removing my recent genetic studies. Thank you.Buhedyar (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Buhedyar (talkcontribs) 20:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)