User talk:TU-nor/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, TU-nor, 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:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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! --RJFF (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

message

You have a message on the page Talk:Croats [1]--Sokac121 (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Turkish people". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 19:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It does not make much sense not to know your religion. Undeclared is better.)

Maybe in your mind , it does not , because you are turkish , thus muslim , thus you see the world that way . But in albania IT DOES MAKE SENSE , because in comunism it had been an atheist country . Let me also tell to you , dont have high hopes , even the 50 % of muslims in albania is a highly exagarated number , because the 1,5 milion albanians living abroad have not been counted in this census , and the very vast majority of them are either atheist/agnost ( such as me ) or catholic/orthodox . Furthemore , many people declare themselves muslims without being muslims or practising any religion , but as a tradition or a family trait . Please , be interested in the muslims of your country , or the religion statistics . If we need help , from someone to teach us what makes sense and not , we will call you , but dont have high hopes . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.70.107.227 (talk) 11:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ethnologue says 6 mill.

Do you have the mental capacity of at least a 5 year old kid , to see the sourced population per country in the box below ?! 3 milion in albania , 1.8 milion in Kosova , 0.5 milion in macedonia , 0,5 in greece , 0,5 in Italy etc. etc . Please stop vandalizing albanian articles . Dear turkish friend , we would apreciate if you would stick to your matters , of turkish interest . Otherwise you will be reported for vandalizing . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.70.107.227 (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Really??

If you had a minimum knowledge and understanding of linguistics you would know that there are no opinion when it comes to isoglosses, either they are present or they are not (they are words)!! The way you'd like the article to be written is a distorted interpretation of Orel's quotation, as he does not 'reconstruct other languages' but deals only with Albanian-Greek words in that section! The same he does with Balto-Slavic and other groups, so I don't understand what are you trying to proveEtimo (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Answer on talk page. --T*U (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Largest cities in Turkey

Can you check the numbers for Izmir in Template:Largest cities in Turkey? It looks a bit strange, a decline of more than 600.000 people in a year. The Banner talk 11:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Population exchange between Greek and Turkish Cypriots may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Rizokarpaso]], [[Ayios_Andronikos,_Cyprus|Agios Andronikos]] and [[Agia_Trias,_Cyprus|Agia Triada]]) chose to stay in their villages.<ref>[http://famagusta-gazette.com/weekly-unficyp-trip-to-enclaved-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your caution

You said "I think you may have misunderstood Chipmunkdavis just a little." You are right. Someone took the draft to my namespace. Thanks for your caution.Alexyflemming (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Reason for the deletion of the templates

Lfdder provided a reasoning for the deletion of the templates here. Do you have any reason other than that of Lfdder to delete the Templates from the article? If so, what?Alexyflemming (talk) 09:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Copied to and answered on article TP. --T*U (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Moved from user page

Hi!

You say:

PLEASE READ BEFORE EDITING! WHEN YOU UPDATE A COUNTRY'S POPULATION - PLEASE ALSO UPDATE THE EXPRESSION NEXT TO IT (column "% of world population") WITH THE SAME NUMBER EXCLUDING COMMAS (the #expr: equation). --> I have done the second update for your last Sweden entry. Regards! --T*U (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

My reply:

I am not sure what you mean. I thought that the column % would be automatic updatet as well as the ranking number. Like population clocks are updated according to pre-programmed formulas...

Best regards

Sokndal

I think I`ve got it now

Today I have done two updates on the list of countries by population. You may check it. Best regards Sokndal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sokndal (talk • contribs) 15:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

About Wusun

Hello. Please read the "language" section in the article before you unrevert. This is nothing about the "source reliablity" this is about he WP:FRINGE. Mainstream opinions of altaic theories about Turkic. not Mongolic or etc. Your insist is a totally pointless.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Thnx too

No need to apologize. Thanks for the intervention in the topic. Unfortunately it seems that a wide variety of similar articles have been the target of persistent wp:OWN, such as in Epirus.Alexikoua (talk) 11:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Your post was answered

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alexyflemming#Northern_Cyprus_edits Alexyflemming (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Cypriot place names

Hi TU-nor. There's something like a discussion about changing the names of a number of village articles in Cyprus you might be interested in commenting on here. Just thought I'd let you know. Thanks. 31.153.72.171 (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

NC places opening paragraph

Hi TU-nor, I'm wondering if you think the wording I've been using in the opening para of places in Northern Cyprus is all right (see e.g. Prastio, Famagusta). I'm asking mainly 'cause some seem to want to distinguish between the state and the island, which might be seen as more 'neutral'. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 12:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I had not noticed that the editor in question linked "Cyprus" to the "Geography of Cyprus" article. That is wierd. In some instances I have used the formula "the island of Cyprus" for clarification, but the link should nevertheless go to "Cyprus", not to "Geography". I think that your wording is fine, but there may be people objecting, so to avoid unnecessary quibble, you could say "in the island of Cyprus" while linking to "Cyprus". --T*U (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but wouldn't saying 'island' and then pointing readers to the country article be a tad confusing? 213.7.147.34 (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Not in my opinion, since the "Cyprus" article is about "the island country of Cyprus", that is island and country. There is no other article to link to, since the "Geography of Cyprus" mainly concerns itself with natural geography, not with human activity. --T*U (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks again. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, TU-nor, it's me again. I've been editing the pages of some mahalleler in Northern Cyprus that appear to have been demarcated in recent years (i.e. after the division of the island), and I've hit a snag. It seems wrong to say that -- for example -- Ersin Paşa is part of Cyprus, since the RoC wouldn't recognise any such administrative division, so I've resorted to stating that the town to which they belong is de jure part of Cyprus. However, I think it might still be inappropriate to remove Cyprus and its district from the infobox. Do you have any ideas? P.S. Thanks for your support on ANI. P.P.S. I really kind of doubt mahalleler even deserve their own articles. Also pinging User:Dr.K. in case he's got any ideas. 83.168.23.138 (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

As usual, you seem to have found a good solution by using the town name. I think there is no problem keeping Cyprus and the district in the infobox. The place is, after all, in that district even if the adm.div. is not acknowlegded. I see no harm in keeping a separate article for the small mahalleler. As far as I can see, there are even smaller places with separate articles in many other countries. --T*U (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@IP editor: I agree with your approach, and I also agree with TU-nor's evaluation. Thanks for the ping. Take care guys. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks both. I'll keep it the way it is then, 83.168.23.138 (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/TU-nor

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TU-nor. Thank you. Nosophobia (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Socks giving sock warnings and opening (spurious) SPIs. What is the world coming to? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed! --T*U (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi T*U. As you may have noticed, CU deleted the SPI of the sock. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Btw, Nosophobia is a sock of Hadgimarvi. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alexyflemming. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! So it was that one, not the other! Well, they seem to be soulmates. So what next, I wonder. Take care! --T*U (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

They may have been coordinating behind the scenes and they divided their labour accordingly. One sock to restore the master's article work, the other to get even by opening an SPI against their perceived "opponents". But they broke the cardinal rule of SPIs: Socking to open a reverse SPI on legitimate editors is frowned upon to say the least. What can I say? As far as what's next, if past behaviour is any indication, these are some committed and prolific sockpuppeteers. I can almost see them weaving the next sock in their sock factory. I just don't know if it's going to be wool or cotton, or when it will appear. :) Too bad, with Christmas approaching, socks are supposed to be used for presents, not for covert activities. But c'est la vie. All the best. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Given this latest revelation, that the author of the spurious SPI is Hadgimarvi, I don't see how there can be any doubt that Hadgimarvi and Alexyflemming are one the same. And if this person is indeed User:Justice Forever (which it seems to me that they are), then we should not be surprised in the least. 213.7.22.7 (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not quite convinced that they are one and the same. There is something in their styles that do not ring the same bells for me. But they for sure have the same agenda, and they obviously co-operate. And I am afraid there are more of them out there. Better be prepared for the next attack! Take care! --T*U (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think Hadji and Alexy have different mo, so it is more probable that they coordinate off-wiki rather than being the same person. I also think Alexy is Justice Forever. The problem was that Justice Forever got stale due to inactivity and could not be traced by CU. The last SPI I opened in January 2014 for JFE was very ducky but Alexy got lucky. And yes, like TU-nor says, the new sock is being woven as we speak. Take care guys. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it's more likely that whoever's behind these socks has created two personas, if you will, in an attempt to mislead us. Hadgimarvi's report was way too similar to Alexy's rants on his talk page before he had his talk page access revoked. But yes, we better brace ourselves for some Christmas-time socking. 213.7.22.7 (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is certain in the murky world of socking, but if Hadgi were Alexy the CU would have found the connection. I guess they attempted diversionary tactics on two fronts but that didn't work quite the way they had hoped. Thanks to your early warning and the help from the CU and the blocking admin the disruption ended soon enough. In any case, hopefully the only Christmas socks will be the ones hanging full of presents. Best of the Season to both of you. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The same to you. 213.7.22.7 (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

And I also add my greetings to both of you! --T*U (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you T*U. Take care. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I suspect you are also using wiki accounts in names Dolescum and Future Perfect at Sunrise, and a couple more at least, so as to sabotage pages on Greece and Greek related subjects. Chip on the shoulder or just another mindless vandal who resents other peoples' constructive contributions? A Gounaris

May I verify that T*U is a "back-up" to protect a pro-albanian and anti-hellenic POV in articles related to Albanian national myths. Here is assisting in naming Ivan Castrioti "Gjon" and only "Gjon", although he is known with other names in non-albanian secondary and tertiary sources (there are no primary albanian sources). This doesn't necessarily mean that he/she is the same physical persons with FP and the others who patrol the same group articles.--Skylax30 (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Skylax30 Personal attacks like the one above will not be tolerated. Consider this a warning. Although I suppose getting mistaken for editors as different as Fut Perf, a "pro-Albanian", Alexikoua and Dr.K. by different users is a sort of unintended compliment. ---- Calthinus (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Corrected link to editor, Skylax is not involved in this, Skylax30 is! --T*U (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Flag icons

Hi TU-nor. You might be interested to weigh in here. IJBall sought clarification after a disagreement at Louroujina. If I recall correctly, you restored the flag icons after they were removed from some of these articles. 213.7.22.7 (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, discussion is going on at the MOS:ICONS Talk page... --IJBall (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That's what I linked to. 213.7.22.7 (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so you did - I missed it. --IJBall (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Linben9

See from my FWiW Bzuk's talk page: Hi!

I guess this edit (including the edit summary) was just some strange mistake? Anyway, I have reverted it. --T*U (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Administrator Anthony Bradbury has recently blocked User:Linben9 who was a vandal with an extensive edit history and, for the most part, operated undetected. After a few hours, I have revised all the articles in which User:Linben9 made discrete edits, sometimes as minor as simply changing a date by one year, just enough to create misinformation. Although numerous other editors corrected the edits that were made, the ironic aspect of the edit history is that many editors treated the vandal's submissions as AGF. I may have messed up one of the edits as the vandal made many edits, which were sometimes corrected, sometimes not. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

List of countries and dependencies by area

I invite you to discuss about the inclusion of the Golan Heights with Israel on the talk page of List of countries and dependencies by area. I would like to show that the consensus is for the status quo of not including it except as a note. XFEM Skier (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Re:Why?

Hi there TU-nor, this was a matter of miscommunication about this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population&diff=prev&oldid=648361310

Quite frankly, I am not sure how this has happened. Thank you for your notice, from now on, I would be much more careful!

Verbal.noun (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Middle East - Greece

source for your revert : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Middle_East#Turkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xelophate (talk • contribs) 13:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Kosovo serbs

Thank you for your help as I didn't know how to fix that link.Rolandi+ (talk) 09:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Muzaka family

Thank you for your recent contribution at "Muzaka family" article.In fact I hadn't seen that the reference was written in 1510!!!Rolandi+ (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Illyrians

I saw that you deleted my edits at Illyrians saying that Fine doesn't support the Illyrian origin of Albanians.He clearly says that today scholars see the Illyrians as the ancestors of Albanians.However there were other references supporting my edits there.But you deleted them!It is clear that your problem isn't Fine!In fact the Illyrian origin of Albanians is supported by many scholars and everyone knows this fact.I am going to undo your shameful act and please talk to me before deleting my edits!Rolandi+ (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Moscopole

I saw you readded the name "Voskopolis" saying that the source is a greek one.This makes no sense as this is the English Wikipedia.As you can see at the article the alternative name of Moscopolis is Voskopoja,not Voskopolis.So please don't continue adding a greek name for Moscopole.Rolandi+ (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rolandi+: The article has a long list of alterantive names in different languages in the opening sentence, among them two different Greek names. As the source says, the alternative name "Voskopolis" (as opposed to "Moschopolis") is derived from "voskos" and "polis", making the meaning "City of shepherds". Your edit resulted in a statement that "Voskopojë" means "City of shepherds". Even with my very limited knowledge of Albanian, I am quite sure that is not correct. --T*U (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

"Voskopojë" really means "City of shepherds"."Polis" is always changed to "pojë" in Albanian.For example "Nicopolis" is changed to "Nikopojë" in Albanian.Using the greek name for a place in Albania is unacceptable.Rolandi+ (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems that TU is Alexikoua

Can you be more discreet Alexikoua? :) It is so evident that this "User" is just another account of Alexikoua (Edvin (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC))

@Edvini: If you think you can substantiate that this user is run by Alexikoua, the right place to report it is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. If not, please refrain from groundless accusations. --T*U (talk) 07:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Edv.: What about you take a wiki-break instead of turning this project into a battleground?Alexikoua (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Some help

Thank you for your help in the decipherment of Resnjari's comments in Aoos. In light of Kadribistrica's latest sock activity [[2]]. It appears that Resnjari offerred some piece of advice on how to evade a new investigation [[3]], although I'm not sure which "dialect" he used in this comment. I'd be thankfull if you can offer some translation of this comment. I'm afraid that this is the case of a sock-supporting activity.Alexikoua (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: As this comment was deleted from my talk page by you with your wrong user comment, I did offer that user advice and clearly stated to him that he would have to appeal that decision with the admins according to policy. I also said to him that it is difficult to reverse that decision and cannot be of assistance to him. His IP is banned on English Wikipedia and stated that outright. I also said to him to get a new account (Note that Wikipedia policy does have WP:CLEANSTART. On Albanian Wikipedia he can use it as he wishes unless a admin bans him there if they see fit. You can lobby for it if you so wish on Albanian Wikipedia. I was contacted on Albanian Wikipedia and his account was fully functional there and is not banned there. What was done thereafter by that user is of no interest to me. Nonetheless, please do if you think there is something more to it take this before the admins. Just like with the whole canvassing matter, the admins determined it to be irrelevant. Nonetheless i am more than happy to indulge those who want to pursue that matter further.Resnjari (talk) 04:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Alexikoua: Answer on your tp. @Resnjari: You should read WP:cleanstart a bit closer: "Any user who has active bans, blocks or sanctions ... may not have a clean start. So it is really not good advice to suggest creating a new account. --T*U (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Kadribistrica is not banned on Albanian Wikipedia and i told him outright that i can not assist him with the matter very clearly or to lobby for him with the admins. It does say in clean start that a person may have a new account. Difference is they refrain from prior activities with articles they were involved in. Also if people feel that Kadribistrica should be banned on Albanian Wikipedia, they can lobby the admins there. In the end not my concern.Resnjari (talk) 03:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Resnjari: "A clean start is not permitted if there are active bans, blocks or sanctions in place against the old account." Could not be clearer. Please avoid giving similar advice again. --T*U (talk) 08:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting accusation in someone's Talk Page against me

Hello. I want to inform you that an anonymous user, 45.33.130.46, made, today 11 November 2015, an accusation against me and the User:Athenean for sockpuppetting each other, in the talk page of that same person who appears to have accused you, T*U, here on your talk page, for being sockpuppet of Alexikoua (in your talk page section titled: "It seems that TU is Alexikoua"). You will find the anonymous user's message on Edvini's talk page, in a talk page section titled "Possible". What is striking me is the coincidence of all these accidents: the accusation against me and Athenean was posted by an anonymous user on the talk page of a user who recently has accused you and Alexikoua for sockpuppeting. This is way too coincidental to be just a mere coincidence and unrelated, don't you think? This whole thing really stinks. I am gonna file the administrator with this small detail of that suspicious "coincidence", since your case seems not only very similar to my case, but related as well. You can check the developments here at the administrator's EdJohnston's Talk Page. --SilentResident (talk) 18:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings!

Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

@Iryna Harpy: Thank you so much Iryna. My best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year to you, too! --T*U (talk) 11:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Kosovo Liberation Army

Why don't you engage in talk section? Is it my job to fix somebody else faulty sources? Do not revert my changes without discussing them. I've given reasons in talk page, adress them there! Fez120 (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Warning due to unconstructive edits

You're repeatedly making unconstructive edits on the Lavdrim Muhaxheri talkpage Hello, I'm KewinRozz. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. KewinRozzKewinRozz (talk) 11:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please don't template the regulars. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Pings

Hi TU-nor, As I've commented on a good 10 of those AFDs I would ask that you don't ping me for the remaining ones, I don't mean this in a funny way but I don't need to be notified for them all, One is fine but 10 isn't (Someone pinged 20 times once and it wasn't the happiest of experiences! ), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll not ping you if I comment on more of the AfDs you have commented on. Actually I think I have been through the ones I think I need to comment on. By the way, I did only ping you on the AfDs where I had direct comments to you. Anyway, please acknowlegde that you have read this, or I will have to ping you... Regards! --T*U (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem if you do ping it's just if you're copy-pasting the same !vote on 10 AFDs then it's kinda pointless (Sorry I don't mean that in a dickish way) but anyway thanks and yep I've read them, I'll probably reply when I'm more awake , Thanks & Happy editing :) –Davey2010^Talk 23:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

ANI regarding KewinRozz

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Pomakish, your being English and Reliable Source

Pomakish as a slavic language and it is a fact that in Slavic languages, the endings -ski stands for -ish, isch and also, with -ian and -ien in Germanic ones as seen in the examples for Schlesich / Silesian language. Where have you checked this word whether it exist or not; here are some ghosty Pomakish words. Pomaks want Pomakish in the schools. Wikipedia must be updated, not to repeat what is told before. Thanks for your understanding. Manaviko (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Manaviko: Please demonstrate that 'Pomakish' is a recognised WP:COMMONNAME. I can see 'Pomakian', 'Pomak', and other convolutions as being equally as viable. You've produced one source for 'Pomakish': essentially written by someone who is not a native Anglophone. Do you have any reliable sources (English language linguists, etc.) using this nomenclature? Please read WP:NOR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You are entitled to complicate the desire of development of Wikipedia. What I wrote is not something I invented, it is some word already being used, just like its fellow Pomakisch in German and another Germanic language Swedish as Pomakiska. The rules are to simplify the life! For such small area languages there is such namings are also being for Laz language as LAZ-ISH, and also Lasich in German. I ãm not going to thank this time. I never thought that would be sth. against public interest! Manaviko (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Manaviko: To reiterate, this is English language Wikipedia and such decisions have absolutely nothing to do with 'complicating' things for you. Compare the English language nomenclature for just a few other Slavic languages against their German counterparts: Russian to Russisch; Ukrainian to Ukrainisch; Polish to Polnisch; Serbian to Serbisch; Silesian to Schlesisch; Pomeranian to Pomoranisch (oder Ostseeslawisch); Rusyn to Russinisch. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedic resource dependent on reliable sources in the English language - not German, French or Chinese nomenclature - therefore we don't create our own 'guestimates' according to what we imagine to be correct. The fact is that you are 'inventing' words. WP:NOR is policy, full stop. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: We'll have to wait a couple of years to be agreed then. Full wait. Manaviko (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Moving this discussion to Talk:Pomaks as a more proper place to discuss this. --T*U (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Need source

Before me, you would ask ask it to someone else, are there already sources maybe they also speak Greek and Albanian along with Romanian? Why is mine, and not hers/ his ? Manaviko (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Manaviko: That Bulgarian Turks speak Turkish and Bulgarian is rather self-evident. That they speak Romani needs a source. No-one has mentioned Greek, Albanian etc. Please be serious. --T*U (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It is problematic to able to say "self-evident". Because it is a fact that a considerable amount of Roms of Bulgaria declare themselves as Turks on popular census thanks to democracy in the country just like in the case of some Torbešs Republic of Macedonia, see Plasnica, a Turkish slavophone town. Do you speak or understand Turkish or Bulgarian? If yes, have look at this Usta Millet, here (Millet], and of course here too. I am sorry to spend your time, but it's so important to create a scientifical encyclopedia and I think personally I am serious enough. Manaviko (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Manaviko:If you can provide a reliable source for Bulgarian Turks speaking Roma, fine! Then add it. If not, do not add it. As for serious, I was referring to your remark about Greek, Albanian etc. --T*U (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Moving this discussion to Talk:Bulgarian Turks as a more proper place to discuss this. --T*U (talk) 08:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Consistency

I loved your summary! Thanks a lot. This is exactly what describes me as a human being! Now we need to apply this Consistency to everywhere. Regards Manaviko (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Stable version

What's wrong here? What does "Stable version" mean? I think you can study more about the subject. On wikipedia you have enough time to study Manaviko (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Manaviko: "Stable version" means that I put it back to the version that has been in the article for a long time. Please read WP:BRD. When your suggested change was reverted, your next step should be to try to create a consensus in the talk page. Until there is such consensus for change, the stable version remains. --T*U (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Help me!

The "help-me"-template was placed here on my TP by IP user @212.108.137.217:, obviously to ask me for help. I will try to explain these things to the IP, who seems to be identical to user @Shingling334:, in due time, but there will be some days before I have the time to do this. --T*U (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Hi please can you make the article oh Halil Kayikçi anti orphan and thanks for the other edits! Link for wiki page: Halil Kayıkçı Page issue : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halil_Kay%C4%B1k%C3%A7%C4%B1#/issues

For an article to be un-orphaned, it needs to be mentioned and linked at other articles such as ones where that person may be mentioned and relevant. SwisterTwister talk 21:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Halil Kayıkçı

Done. For future reference you can request deletion of those redirects by adding {{db-redirnone}} to them, and an admin will review your request and delete it for you. (I think we might actually have a bot which takes care of these eventually.) Hut 8.5 20:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Please stop removing Alyssa Soebandono from Category:Indonesian Muslims

Hello, TU-nor. I wanted to let you know your reasons for removal seem rather unconstructive and poor. Alyssa Soebandono on her Indonesian Wikipedia article mentions Islam is her religion. It say Agama- Islam. Plus it also obvious Indonesia is a Muslim majority country, and the hijab is commonly worn by Muslim women, with many wearing it always and many sometimes like she does (In Aceh, it is even mandatory regardless of religion) and we have many religions like Christians and Hindus, but the hijab is only worn by Muslim women. I know this because I was born and grew up in Indonesia and have witnessed this throughout friends and family and from people's conversations. Plus it is obvious and simple that the hijab is a Muslim women's clothing and anyone who wears is a Muslim. This fact is as simple as Obama is US president or Elvis Presley is dead. And although is religion is a personal matter many people on Wikipedia have their religion stated such as Brad Pitt o Amber Heard being atheist, Akon being Muslim, Allyson Felix being Christian, or Julia Roberts being Hindu. That is because these people have made their personal choices to state their religious views to the public at least once. And although the most of the people I have mentioned have showed those religious/non-religious views quite a lot if not a lot there many lesser known people who have their religion stated and have not been as public about it as these people and yet their religions have not been removed. Some examples include Bill Plaschke (Roman Catholic), Allyson Schwartz (Judaism), Sarah Polley (Atheist), Jill Stein (Reformed Jew), Gary Doer (Roman Catholic), Elhaida Dani (Islam), Helen Zille (Presbyterian). And none these people's Category: whatever their religion is, have been removed. If you think all my reasons still contradicts your reasons for removal I strongly recommend making a talk page where people who are administrators which neither I or you are can decide through a vote of opinions from administrators and non-administrators that say wherever in favor or against removal. You could also try contacting an administrator as neither you or I are administrators. To become an administrator you have to be granted the right by making smart and constructive edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Icarus of Jakarta (talk • contribs) 04:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Macedon

Hello, dear. It has been many months since the last time we have crossed paths and helped me on that board. I am very grateful for your assistance back then, and I have not forgotten your help. My apologies, I do not intend to flood your talk page with useless messages, just passed by to express my gratitude for your constructive stance today in the sensitive article Macedon (ancient kingdom). I am very thankful for taking note of the repetition issues plaguing the lede and tackling them yourself. The lede now is much better. I hope you are all good and wish you a good day. Regards -- SILENTRESIDENT 19:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I also want to thank you for your support at Macedonia (ancient kingdom). I'm not going to respond to SilentResident's comments because he's just blowing off steam. He doesn't seem to understand that the lead paragraph is subject to a different set of pressures than the body of an article and so his interpretation and application of WP:OR is completely wrong relevant to the first sentence. But he seems to be happy with the edits that you and I made to the lead. That's good enough and I'll ignore his pressure-releasing post. Take care. --Taivo (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Alyssa Soebandono Category:Indonesian Muslims

Your reasons for removing her from Category:Indonesian Muslims seems to me to be just your opinion. General opinion is what counts for a source not your personal opinion. As I am not a professional Wikipedian, nor are you, I would recommend taking our conflict over this to a professional Wikipedian or making a talk page. On a talk page users both Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians can debate their opinions on whether to give a support for keeping her on Category:Indonesian Muslims or in support of removing her Category:Indonesian Muslims (in support of you).Red Icarus of Jakarta (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 04:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

My reason for removing the category was not just my opinion. I quoted the Wikipedia rules in WP:BLPCAT. It is part of the Wikipedia policy for biographies of living persons. There you can read: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." That is not "my opinion". It is Wikipedia rules.

And there is no such things as "professional Wikipedians".

And would you please learn how to sign your talk page edits. --T*U (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Third opinion over Alyssa Soebandono Category:Indonesian Muslims

One third opinion is not enough to have the dispute solved. I would like more users to tell their opinions on whether to keep or remove. A full discussion over this dispute is what I requested for so I can see if most users will think that my reasons are good sources or your reasons are good sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Icarus of Jakarta (talk • contribs) 16:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Map

Hello; We discussed at length on the map. Map for 1683 is negative and insufficient alone. We will use a proper map. i think you got the wrong situation. There is a misunderstanding. This made the return very unnecessary.[4] . He did return pests without specifying reasons. I'd appreciate it if you correct this situation and misunderstanding. Have a nice day.--Gündoğdu (talk) 08:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Gündoğdu: When you changed the map and was reverted, you were asked to discuss on the talk page. Instead you inserted the map again, and was reverted by another user. Then you inserted the map another time. That is called edit war. Please read WP:Editwar and WP:BRD. I do not take part in edit wars, so I will not revert you again, but I am sure someone else will do so soon. The only way to gat your preferred map into the article, is to discuss it on the talk page and create a consensus, see WP:CONSENSUS. If you continue your edit war, you will soon get yourself blocked. My best advice is to self revert your last edit, then go to the talk page and explain why you want to change the map. And please keep the discussion at Talk:Ottoman Empire, not in my talk page or anyone else's talk page. Regards! --T*U (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

We were discussing his talk page because the person who created the map; but we discuss an important issue on the talk page. Okay I'll explain in the discussion stage the right reasons.--Gündoğdu (talk) 11:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

You are fighting for the wrong thing. Review the changes made and you can check. Please do not revert because of a faulty understanding of the wrong.--Gündoğdu (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Gündoğdu: I do not quite understand why you mean I have a faulty understanding. Please explain, but not in my talk page. The place for discussions about articles are the talk page of that article. --T*U (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The place for discussions about articles are the talk page of that article I already said it is an important condition. I already said when the specify situation on the talk page. I mention because it is unnecessary. If you look at it you will see that. I made a few additions and editing and I said that what these changes. You revert all changes. You can check them all. Please do not revert. It seems unnecessary regulations war. You can specify in my talk page if I made a mistake. When personal conflicts discussed in a personal talk page.--Gündoğdu (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I would ask you to change your correction. I may have misunderstood the return myself. I revert your change, it can lead to misunderstanding. I would really satisfied it if you correct. Thank you.--Gündoğdu (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment

Hi TU-nor, I'm wondering if I can get your opinion on a dispute that I'm having on the Talk:Osman_I page, since it's never going to go anywhere without a 3rd party's opinion. Chamboz (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, TU-nor. 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)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

People born in countries during the corresponding eras.

WP:BRD Prove Your point in talk, before You make any changes! Cambodia was occupied by Vietnam in 1979 just like the Baltic states were occupied. Articles about someone born in France 1940 don't use Deutsches Reich as birthplace.

Take a minute and read this: Occupation of the Baltic states. Especially this part: "The Baltic states, the United States and its courts of law, the European Parliament, the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Council have all stated that these three countries were invaded, occupied and illegally incorporated into the Soviet Union under provisions of the 1939 Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, first by the Soviet Union, then by Nazi Germany from 1941 to 1944, and again by the Soviet Union from 1944 to 1991. This policy of non-recognition has given rise to the principle of legal continuity, which holds that de jure, or as a matter of law, the Baltic states had remained independent states under illegal occupation throughout the period from 1940 to 1991." There are miles of discussions about this [5], [6], [7]. etc.

Per Template:Infobox person Place of birth: city, administrative region, sovereign state. Vietnam had occupied Cambodia during the period between 1979 and 1989. See Cambodian–Vietnamese War. People born in France 1940–1944 are not listed as born in German Reich – Claude Miller, Christian Boltanski, Catherine Deneuve, Bérangère Vattier, Frank Alamo, Jean-Claude Dassier... --Wrestlingring (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Wrestlingring: You insist on linking Cambodia in 1990 to Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea and not to Cambodia because Cambodia was occupied by Vietnam. At the same time you insist on linking Latvia in 1980 to Latvia because Latvia was occupied. Please explain the logic. --T*U (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• • If you look at the List of sovereign states in the 1980s, people must be born in their respective eras. For example, people born in the Philippines must use History of the Philippines (1946–65) link and the same in Ethiopia must use the Derg link. Wrestlingring (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Wrestlingring: 1) And where would that leave Latvia? 2) And do you really mean to link people to be born in a "History of..." article??? --T*U (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year

	Happy New Year
	Hey man, despite the crazy edits I had, I want to say a big happy new year to you and your family from Canada. Enjoy 2017 my friend! Wrestlingring (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Wrestlingring: Thank you, and Happy New Year 2U2! --T*U (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Nigeria

It would appear User:Jamie Tubers reverted my edit since this edit is more appropriate. The article name is the lead per WP:COMMONNAME. What do you think? We might discuss this in the Talk:Nigeria page. Wrestlingring (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• WP:COMMONNAME applies to choosing article titles, there's no policy guiding the arrangement of the official and commonname in the lead, in this context. Do you have a specific valid reason why you find the previous arrangement unacceptable?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@Wrestlingring: I do not have any preference for the order of the two names. Both formulae are used elsewhere. The proper place for discussing this is at Talk:Nigeria. --T*U (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonia

Hi. Have you read the talk page before undoing my edit? It seems there was a consensus reached since 2014. Macedonian (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Macedonian: Answered in article TP. --T*U (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Also added to Europe's list of mosques

For your attention, I have added it here too, in the list of Europe's mosques, which in my surprise, was missing it.

List: [8]

-- SILENTRESIDENT 19:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

İzmit

Thank you for objective edit on article of İzmit. 88.246.28.4 (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Russian population

According to the <ref name="gksru.xls">ОЦЕНКА ЧИСЛЕННОСТИ НАСЕЛЕНИЯ на 1 января 2016 года и в среднем за 2015 год [Population estimates as of January 1, 2016 and the average for 2015] (XLS). Федеральная служба государственной статистики (Federal State Statistics Service) (in Russian language). Retrieved October 20, 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link), The population of Russia in 2017 rise to 146,839,000. KaplanAL (User talk:KaplanAL) 11 February 2017, 13:25 (UTC)

@KaplanAL: I do not understand why you come to my talk page with this. Anyway, the source for the Russian population in List of countries and dependencies by population was already updated to 1 Jan 2017: This source gives the number as 146,838,993, which is more exact than your rounded number 146,839,000. --T*U (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Tzatziki

First let me commend you for wasting my vitality after reading the source. I was not able to determine any coherence with the statement that the Turkish cacıg was a loan word from any Armenian word that was on the source "Now" you may say well it's affirmed with a likely. Well if you have a source that does not show clarification then sir its not ideal to concluded with a misleading intrusion. One other thing I would like to state is that. I been monitoring some Turkish articles and somehow it keeps getting changed from Turkish to Armenian. There is lots of animosity towards the Truks with their neighbors but, that does not give the right to anyone obscuring knowledge. --User:Janissarywiki (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Janissarywiki: My talk page is hardly the best place for such discussions. It would have been better to raise your concerns on the talk page of the article. All the same: There are two sources given for the claim that cacık is a loanword from the Armenian word cacıg, currently numbered 6 and 7. I do not read Turkish, but even then it is quite easy in source 6 to find

cacık<Er. cacıg

in the list of loan words into Turkish. I assume "Er." means "Ermenice"="Armenian"? Source 7 is not linked online, but is easy to find on the web. There I find a similar list of loan words, among these

cacık (from Armenian cacıg)

So the question really is whether we need to qualify the claim with the word "likely" at all in the sentence "is likely a loanword". --T*U (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@TU-nor: Well first of all that's not a question that's a suggestion. I see the sources but, it is not a published one regarding completion so, It is very hard to give it 99% credit in affirmation. I tried going to universities site to get the part 1 and 2 of the document 1 Eski Anadolu Turkcesi 2 Osmanlı Devri Turkcesi the one at source is 3 Gunumuzun Turkiye Turkcesi. The others are 404n That is why I told you it was not a good source. The Armenian word [cacıg] does not seem Armenian as it dose not fit into yogurt, drink or cucumber in their dialect. I searched the net and did not find any correlation with cacıg tying it to Armenian. The Armenians could have used old Turkic and adopted to their influence maybe made it up because, they got drunk on goat urine? but, again the article is incomplete and even if it was complete we don't know if it will brush up on other Ural-Altaic linguistic as Turkish is based on. Okay so, your probably thinking well idiot that's why I put "likely" and my argument with that is we do have confirmation from credible sources like google that it is Turkish in origin so, why are you adding something of a 3rd origin that we can't "likely" prove? (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Janissarywiki: If you do not believe or accept the Balikesir source, you might take a look at the next one:

Razuvajeva, Olga (2009). "Slang in the Turkish Language as a Social, Linguistic, and Semiotic Phenomenon". University of Gaziantep Journal of Social Sciences. 8 (1): 299–316.

This is an article printed in an academic journal from a Turkish university. You can read it online here. --T*U (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@TU-nor: Yes but, I still don't see any Armenian sources regarding this because, I don't think this is Armenian. I called and talked to my friend who is a teacher in Azerbaijan but, she is a Turk and she told me that the word could have old Turkic routes and perhaps even Persian. I asked her if there is anyway to ascertain some sources she told me she will look. She did manage to tell me once the new Turkish language was getting written that they removed some words and tried to adapted to the Latin alphabet there was not any records at that time it is highly likely that cacıg was a word derived from Ottoman Turkic. Since there was not much records at the time or no one put energy into finding them they just put what they had and left most of it out to add later which they might have gathered from there neighbors most of whom adapted some words from old Turkic. I can give you an example of this with boza but, I want to keep this short so, here is one more thing to consider. The Kazakh word сусын which means Drink is very similar to the Turkish word çecek plus the i. look familiar thought so, that also means Drink but, the Kazaka word is closer to old Turkic and somewhat to Ottoman Turkic then Turkish so, I can guarantee you the so, called Armenian word is actually old Turkic the only problem is that no one Kept any records. I mean come on man we pioneered this stuff but, I still understand that we need to find a source. I will try to look and call my friend. SN I hope you had Cacik its like a drink you can sip it. (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Janissarywiki: Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, see WP:RS. What you or I or a teacher in Azerbaijan know or think we know, is not of interest to Wikipedia. It is absolutely possible that the word is of Turkic origin, but to write that in the article, we need a reliable source. If you find one, you can add it, but you cannot remove the info that already is there and has a reliable source.

By the way: You do not need to ping me when you write on my talk page. I get notification anyway.

And yes, I do like cacık, but prefer the creamier Greek tzatziki. In Turkey I usually go for haydari. --T*U (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

This Barnstar is for you!

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		This barnstar is given to you for your useful suggestions on Thessaloniki's collage! (link) I admit, the new collage looks much better than the previous one! Thank you! --SILENTRESIDENT 01:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion invite

Hello. I invite you to join a centralized discussion about naming issues related to China and Taiwan. Szqecs (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

How far do you think is Thessalonica from becoming GA?

Dear editor TU-nor, may I tell you something?

Remember in that Talk of Thessalonica where you have suggested that, even though there appeared to be a minimal consensus on making a comprehensive collage for the city, that more time should have be given before any progress is made towards consensus building before taking steps towards any direction (including making that collage)? What you said is absolutely correct and indeed more time should have been given.

As for the GA nomination of the article, may I ask, do you think there are any serious problems of a particular nature in the article Thessalonica in its current revisions? Pardon me if you are busy these days, just I was wondering for the general image of the article and how far it is from GA through experienced eyes such as yours. Hence why I am asking to get the first opinion of people such as you and PericlesOfAthens, who may spot things that can escape my attention, before the actual pre-nomination work and fixing. Of course will open the relevant discussion in the Talk, just was wondering if any issues caught your eye on that city article thus far. Thank you in advance for any responses, hope you have a good day. --SILENTRESIDENT 18:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Jalepeños

I respectfully disagree. Jalepeños are a condiment by the definition of a food, "that is added to some foods to impart a particular flavor, enhance its flavor,[1] or in some cultures, to complement the dish". Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

{{thanks}}

(un-Wikified misplaced template)

Hi TU-nor I have seen your Wikipedia editing skills they are very good in my opinion, if you don't mind me asking what is your nationality and ethnicity ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.108.137.162 (talk)

Completely irrelevant, especially since I almost never edit anything connected to my nationality or ethnicity. --T*U (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh ok it might have been your anti vandalism work that I saw, but what is your nationality? just interested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.108.137.162 (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

As I said, irrelevant. --T*U (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Gallery of flags

Hi, rather than putting it on the main page, I decided to create the flag galleries that was used over the years under the sandbox. You may check them out if you have time:

• 1965
• 1985
• December 1990
• September 1991
• January 1992

--Supreme Dragon (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Supreme Dragon: I am not sure why you come to my talk page (and only my, it seems) with this, but if you want my opinion, I would suggest that you do not waste any time on making such galleries for every year (and even every month?). The flag gallery style does not leave any room for comments and explanations, so the information level will be low. The gallery will not add anything that is not already in the Lists of sovereign states by year. Before you add any of these galleries to article space, you should make sure that you have a consensus behind you. Regards! --T*U (talk) 10:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Similar flags

Please see this edit. --2607:F1C0:84A:1000:0:0:67:1FA0 (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Here a biscuit for you!

Here a cookie for you! They are quite tasty. I kid you not! --SILENTRESIDENT 12:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Iran

Hey again, I edited Ali Khamenei because at that time, Iran's official name was the Imperial State of Iran from 1935 to 1979. So it may be relevant. Supreme Dragon (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Ali Khamenei and answered there. --T*U (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Invitation

What's up, I'm inviting you to discuss the outcome on whether Russian is the second language in Syria. Supreme Dragon (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Question

Are you an administrator or autoconfirmed user of some kind? —Ninjoust (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

No... Why? —T*U (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I somehow thought you were. Just making sure... —Ninjoust (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems like you have access to TW, though... —Ninjoust (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

NinjoustI read the question more carefully. Of course I am autoconfirmed, even extended confirmed. That does not take much effort, but comes automatically. Admin? Absolutely not. Sorry for unprecise reply. --T*U (talk) 10:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Why do you hate me so much?

Since you complained, I have already stopped per your request... I just wanted to let you know that I didn't mean any ill intention. I don't think my previous edits generated a high degree of atrocity. I've seen worse. Those edits weren't imbecilic, but from now on, I won't be altering any more Bulgarian/Greek transliterations, I promise. I conform to the rules, especially WP:NCGREEK and WP:BULGARIANNAMES (per your request). Please don't ever accuse me like some sort of iniquitous vandal again. I am not evil and don't intend to be. Always assume good faith. —Ninjoust (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Ninjoust: I do not hate you, and I am quite impressed by some of your edits. Assuming good faith, I had started to make a long, detailed answer to you after seeing this edit, but after this there is not much point, is there? I will just repeat that you should use some more time to aquaint yourself with Wikipedia rules, and you should especially make sure that you do not break the same rules again after having been adviced about them. When I say "please do not do so-and-so per rule X", I tend to get a bit annoyed when people do the same thing again, and I may have been a bit quick to WP:BITE, for which I apologize. Happy editing. --T*U (talk) 06:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Reporting Ninjoust

Please take a look at some of this user's edits.

This user added Arabic script transliteration for Buryat in this edit. Also, this user added Hangul and Katakana transcriptions, seen here. These writing systems were never used to write this language.

Tuvan language never used Arabic. He made these edits here and here.

He vandalized the National Anthem of Mongolia page with this edit.

Also, take a good look at Shatlak's Song.

He has done many more, but I feel like stopping here. Do you think he is a user that should be reported? Is it possible to contact admins to block him?

Thanks,
Чибуево Жаңшулокикомев (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Чибуево Жаңшулокикомев: I do not know enough about those other scripts to judge. It took quite some time to convince the user about following the transliteration rules for Greek, but they seem to have got it by now. The first thing to do, would be to create discussions on the relevant talk pages in order to sort it out. Another step is to take it up directly at the user talk page. (They will possibly just delete the message, but in that case you may assume they have read it.) If these methods fails, and the still continue, the next step could be reporting to WP:ANI. In that case, make sure you have a well documented case. --T*U (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Reporting a few users

This section was created by editing the section "Reporting Ninjoust" just above, so that my answer to that section stood as an answer to this section. I have reinstated the original section and copied the new section down here. The timestamp is copied from the time of the first message. --T*U (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I have a few more users to report.

user Ninjoust added Arabic script transliteration for Buryat in this edit. Also, this user added Hangul and Katakana transcriptions, seen here. These writing systems were never used to write this language. Tuvan language never used Arabic. He made these edits here and here. He vandalized the National Anthem of Mongolia page with this edit.

Andrey Sabirov is putting unsourced content online. He has gotten warning several times and is in a content dispute with another user (Ninjoust). Also who ever these guys are.Cbear12345 vandalized a page in Kuna people and RainbowSilver2ndBackup vandalized Anthem of the Republic of Buryatia (Buryat was never written in Hanzi and is nearly impossible!!). Uhj122 was adding unsourced content to Kyrgyzstan before despite being warned multiple times. How to stop them?

Thanks,
Чибуево Жаңшулокикомев (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Correct timestamp should be 15:44, 24 September 2017

Чибуево Жаңшулокикомев: As I said in answer to your earlier post, I am not able to judge these cases. I also outlined possible ways to go forward, and I do not really have much to add. You might read WP:Dispute resolution to find out more about how disputes can be handled by the Wikipedia community. As an addition to what I said about reporting to WP:ANI, you would have to make sure that the edits you report are disruptive. Also, I would be careful about what to call vandalism. From your examples, it looks like this is mostly about content disputes, which are not handled by ANI. I guess WP:Dispute resolution is your best chance forward. --T*U (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Moved from top of page

Dude what is your obsession with my edits!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgepodros (talk • contribs) 18:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Will answer on users TP. --T*U (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed changes

If you like to share your feedback TU-nor, you're more than welcome to join in since I proposed to split off some ROC stuff from it. Wrestlingring (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Politics of the Republic of China

Template:Politics of the Republic of China has been nominated for merging with Template:Politics of Taiwan. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Wrestlingring (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation involving User:Wrestlingring and User:Supreme Dragon

This message has been sent to you to inform you that a case involving Wrestlingring has been filed at SPI, and it has come to my knowledge that you may have prior history with this user. As such, your input may assist with the case. That case can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wrestlingring. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrospective

At the request of TU-Nor, the following list is to explain why I went "back and forth":

• Your statement " you are supposed to make that clear to the community by disclosing alt.acc.s in your user page or user talk page. Using alt.acc.s without telling is disruptive." is nearly close. I forgot to add the alternate account template without even bother.
• 173.230.178.125, 135.23.144.153, 135.23.144.12 were officially my IPs. I usually change the routers MAC address once in a while to improve stability. However, I do not edit Wikipedia as much since I have other things outside Wikipedia and the internet although I contribute in the Wikia projects.

--- Wrestlingring (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Example of falsehoods

Hi T*U. Thank you again for your comment at the talkpage of Turkey. As I mentioned there, here is an example of additional falsehoods from that account: Look at what s/he wrote on his/her talkpage while blocked: For example Turkish people - it is User:Dr.K. on all these articles from Hellenic languages to Turkish People and others have complained about his POV, he is constantly edit warring with people over preserving the POV in these articles.

Now look at the edit analyser for Dr.K. at Helenic Languages: exactly 0 (zero) edits, while the edit analyser for Dr.K. at Turkish People provides a grand total of 15 edits, all uncontroversial. As to the alleged "others" who allegedly "complained about [my] POV", this account provides zero diffs to support the alleged complaints. Dr. K. 08:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at this - [9] [10] from today. I've being seeing NPAs since the original RfC on Talk:Turkey which then went on to AN/I in which there were NPAs against just about everyone who commented as well as community wide remarks - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive966#RfC Closure Review Request, and more NPAs on my talke page - User talk:Icewhiz#Comment by Seraphim System, moved from user page.Icewhiz (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Dr.K., Icewhiz: I was not aware of their former history; I just reacted to the accusations of lying that was reverted, so that it was in reality a null edit, but leaving an edit summary with personal attacks. That is rather sneaky, because edits can be undone or redacted, but the edit summary can not. Your examples and what I have seen from their edit history tells me that the problem goes deeper. Edit war at WP:AN3 seems like a rather bad idea... They are now saying that they "really don't want to discuss this anymore" and "I am no longer editing", so maybe they are leaving the edit area. Time will show. --T*U (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree with you, T*U, regarding the tactics of that account which include using faux reverts in order to embed attacking edit-summaries and deceptive comments in the history of the talkpage of the article. These editing practices are sneaky and deceptive, as are his/her allegations. As far as the retirement, I have to see it to believe it. There have been prior declarations about impending retirement, and even requests for mass article CSDs pending said retirement, that were followed not by the expected immediate withdrawal from editing, but by new bouts of rigorous edit-warring and PAs. So yes, I have my doubts about their putative retirement. Dr. K. 22:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have seen similar deletions by this user on other articles[11]. -108.238.38.55 (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali Pasha

Hello, Do you see there is always claimed Mehmed Ali Pasha was Albanian. But his Ancestor was from ilic in Anatolia as you can see on the Homepage from Prince Osman Rifat Ibrahim.

www.mohamedali.eu/mohamed_ali.html

List of countries and dependencies by population

Hello... "probably fantasy numbers"... Yes, it's a small fantasy intended. In fact, I have put the first initial data correctly... but too many trolls change data in a UN. It's a mentality subjective of "putting" the year 2017 and UN. Sometimes a small improvisation intentionally save situation. Turkey for example... just because is 31 December and is not 1 January, the situation is a circus... "for a day" trolls changes the population in UN and clock :))). MIHAIL (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: Minor

Thank you for your direction. I am still not sure how to make these changes in the correct way. Does anything above a minor change need to also be justified on the talk page of the article? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Vergiotisa (talk) 07:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, TU-nor. 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)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, TU-nor. You have new messages at Gareth Griffith-Jones's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Two Keçi islands?

TU-nor, you have undone the removal of Pserimos from the list of Turkish islands even though it is not a Turkish island but a Greek. The Turks call it Keci adaci and it came into the spotlight of Turkish media these days, and appears on maps published by the Turkish newspapers and TV: [12]. Could you please explain the reason of revision? Unless we are dealing with a case of two namesake islands called Keci in the Marmaris area or near it? --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 12:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident, I have explained. As I said in the edit summary: A small island just outside Marmaris, here. By the way, Pserimos is not in the Marmaris area. --T*U (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link on Google maps, this makes sense now. --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 13:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Flag of Åland, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Capital and Triband (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) 09:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Istanbul population source

Re your update to Istanbul, when I go to http://www.turkstat.gov.tr/HbGetirHTML.do?id=27587 I just get:

Please make sure you typed the page address correctly.
If you are sure you typed the page address correctly, contact us through 'Report a problem'. Report a problem

Batternut (talk) 12:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Batternut: Fixed now, I hope. There is sometimes something strange going on with the linking to the Turkish statistics pages; I have no idea what is happening. But now the link works on my computer, at least. --T*U (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

That works for me too now. Thanks again! Batternut (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the notice about my flags and emblems. I will justify each and one of them in their file page in the next 2-5 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TakisA1 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thailand's population

Re your reversion here of my update to Thailand's population - not being speaker of the Thai language I (daringly) relied on Google translation of the source, which translated the apparently key statement "ประชากรของประเทศไทย พ.ศ.2561 (ปีที่ 27: มกราคม 2561)" to "The population of Thailand in 2018 (Year 27: January 2018)". Is this a bad conversion of the Thai solar date? Batternut (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I see it now, Google has translated "ประชากรคาดประมาณ ณ กลางปี 2561 (1 กรกฏาคม)" to "Population estimated at mid-2016 (July 1)". Bizarre! You were quite right. Batternut (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Batternut: My Thai is non-existent, but it helps a lot that the page also has an English version here ;-) It seems that January 2018 is the publication date for the official mid-year estimate. Regards! --T*U (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yeees... I might use that next time, hoho.. Thanks. Batternut (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Greek Cypriots flags

Hey, the flag that I add which is used by Greek Cypriots it's correct. Is not official but is used for decades. File:Flag of EOKA.tif You can find it anywhere in Cyprus and around the world. A. Katechis Mpourtoulis (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Aromanian language!

TU-nor: -First of all the official name of that country is FYROM, not Macedonia! -Second, there is no logic in the changes you have done regarding the text. -Third, there is no Macedo-Romanian. It is enough with the Romanian propaganda!!!!Verginia's star (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Aromanian language!

TU-nor, Don't try to give me lessons about: - Official names and UN Charter! - The history of Aromanian language and Aromanians! As I understand you have no idea about these issues. Just stick to the grammar & it's fine!Verginia's star (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Aromanian language!

1) You should be careful about how you address other editors! You started to argue, pretending the professor by explaining to me what's the definition of the official name of a country & by telling me that the term Macedo-Romanian is not Romanian propaganda!

2) regarding the vandalism: deleting 322 bytes of info & replacing it with the Macedo-Romanian paragraph ?! The page is about Aromanian language, NOT ABOUT DIALECTS OF ROMANIAN LANGUAGE!

3) regarding the logic: there are dialects, not dialect groups within a language!

- So, read some info about these issues and you will see that you have no idea!Verginia's star (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Aromanian language!

There is no Macedo-Romanian language! There is Macedo-Vlah! The repeat use of the FIRST term do harms Wikipedia! As for the sources that you are mentioning I know about them long time before you and other editors. All of them are based on << scientific studies >> done by Romanian scholars trying to promote the Romanian propaganda of the 19th century! I don't know where do you come from, but I am telling you again, that you have no idea about the history of the Balkans!Verginia's star (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:HOUND

The first two edits that you reverted me were understandable considering that the two articles were similar in topic yet when you reverted Ramón Nomar then that's when I became skeptical of your intentions and whether you were stalking my edits. Also, the IP has failed to make his/her case in the talk page for his/her edit, I'm simply returning the article back to it's original version. Your last revert being either intentional or coincidental please see WP:HOUND. (N0n3up (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC))

N0n3up: Before accusing other editors of WP:HOUNDing, you might take a look in the mirror. I will freely admit that I often take a look at the edit history of other editors. After having "met" you a week ago at Bombardment of Samsun, where you claimed that a sourced entry was "fake news", and then again yesterday at Turkish War of Independence, where you reverted the removal of unsourced material, I took a look at your edits. I noticed that the majority of your last 50 edits were reverts of one single IP editor. Taking a closer look, I found edit war between the two of you across several articles. (And I must admit that the thought of WP:HOUND crossed my mind.) I did not bother to check all those cases, but in a couple of those I checked, I saw that the IP actually had a point. One of those was Ramón Nomar. My revert of your edit, giving the edit summary "Per iafd source", was also meant as a polite reminder that WP:AGF also is valid towards IP editors.

My edit summary at Ramón Nomar said "Per iafd source". You reverted with the edit summary: "considering this is your first edit in this article". What on earth has that got to do with anything? I just have to repeat what I stated in my edit summary: The source that is used for nationality in the infobox, states explicitly that his nationality is Venezuelan, not Spanish.

My edit summary at Turkish War of Independence said "IP is right. This is unsourced". You reverted with the edit summary "considering your following my edits". Do you really mean that you reverted my edit because I have reverted you in another article? Because that is what you say. Not a good reason in my opinion. The background is this: The list of "Supported by" was added by an IP user 9 April. No edit summary. No source given. None of the countries listed are mentioned in the article, and the Turkish War of Independence is not mentioned in the linked articles. Another IP user removed it with the edit summary "Removed unsourced content", which you reverted. I found your revert faulty and removed again the unsourced list.

Unless you can present sources that support your reverts of my edits, I will ask you to self revert both of them. I will also advice you to look closer at the IP edits you have reverted. As an example, I do not see much wrong in this addition. Not sourced, admittedly, but the map shows that the addition is quite correct.

I see you are stating that you are really reluctant on IP's and think there should be a rule that registration should be required to edit articles. Well, you are of course entitled to mean that, but that is not the current view of the Wikipedia community. On the contrary, it is clearly stated that it is considered completely acceptable to edit without an account. I agree that IPs sometimes are a pain in the ass, but at other times they do great work. Just like registered editors... --T*U (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

You make a good point, and honestly I would like to apologize for judging you too quickly. Apart that I agree with you regarding two articles regarding wars in Turkey, even though you made a good point regarding the article for Ramón Nomar and your case for IPs, this particular IP is very difficult to get around. If you look at the article for Ramón Nomar you will see that some sources mention him as Spanish thus I think such details among other things should be discussed, and the other articles made by the IP seemed unconstructive and a few might seem somewhat okay, the manner in which the IP conducts himself with other editors just doesn't justify his actions and calls into question everything he/she does along with their credibility. If you look at the talk page of the IP you will see many editors complaining the IP's edits but above all his/her conduct. It's really hard working with someone either editor or IP who does not take in consideration of his/her fellow editors who might disagree with them bu rather takes the offence and personally attacks anyone who thinks otherwise. Yes I deleted many of the IP's edits but that's because his/her behavior was so far fetched that I knew something was up. Regarding my reverts and accusations in Bombardment of Samsun and Turkish War of Independence (which I self-reverted), I'm sorry for accusing you of Hounding and calling your edits "fake news", this week has been very turbulent for me and didn't conduct myself as I normally would. Again, the way this IP had been conducting him/herself makes it hard to interact with and this goes for both IPs and registered editors. (N0n3up (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC))

N0n3up: Apology accepted! Regarding the IP editor, I would still like to see you concentrate on the edits, not the editor. As already mentioned, I can not see you giving a good reason for this revert of an addition that is geographically correct. Nor do I see anything wrong in this edit (to an article you have never edited before), which you have reverted without explanation. Remember what you accused me of... --T*U (talk) 06:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The first one seems redundant and the second one although related to the article's topic doesn't look like it belongs in the correct section. Again, I think these are things that the IP should clarify on and maybe work things out with other editors, I don't know why the IP is so stubborn to not use the talk page and very aggressive with me and other editors. (N0n3up (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC))

Although you made a good case here, this is troublesome and likening to the title of this section to say the least. (N0n3up (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC))

N0n3up: Stop throwing groundless accusations around. I did what you obviously have been doing for a while, took a closer look at some of the edits of IP101.178.163.208. Among them I found some doubtful edits and some completely sound edits. Among the sound ones, I found this one, which adds a highly relevant link to a dab page. Your revert of that edit asks for sources, but dab pages do not need sources, they need sourced info in the linked articles. Did you even bother to look at the linked article? It has somewhere around one dozen mentions of the yacht 'Nostromo' and a plethora of sources mentioning the name of the yacht. Given this is a case that has been frequently mentioned in the media, it is highly likely that people will use Wikipedia to learn more about the case. They should be able to find it by searching for the name 'Nostromo'. The yacht itself is hardly notable enough for a separate article, but the case is highly notable. So will you please self revert your totally groundless removal. After that I would again advice you to take a look through your other reverts of the IP, especially where you revert the IP's edits to articles none of you have edited before. If the edits are sound, there is no reason to revert them just because the two of you are edit-warring on a lot of other articles. It is the edits you should evaluate, not the editor. --T*U (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Although you make a good point, the fact that you were following up to what I did doesn't really suit me well. I will self-revert nevertheless for good faith. (N0n3up (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC))

N0n3up: Well, if you wish to have the right to scrutinise other editor's edits, you will have to admit the same right to others. And as I said, I was looking at the IP's edits when I found a faulty revert made by you. There are more, but I would prefer you to repair them yourself. --T*U (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

China question

Hi there, one user ( 1.218.20.2 (talk) ) seems to fix the Chinese Civil War edits while the same user (diff IP) fixed the Cross-Strait relations edits, which I revert them. You were right, consensus first. 108.162.177.213 (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

This message has been sent to you to inform you that a case involving FreshCorp619 has been filed at SPI, and it has come to my knowledge that you may have prior history with this user. As such, your input may assist with the case. That case can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreshCorp619. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

You knew he's at it again. When someone's blocked for sockpuppetry that means he's not allowed to edit Wikipedia anymore. Why did you followed his activity (again) and reverted him, when you could just report him at SPI? --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Triggerhippie4: Just lazy, I guess, and somewhat busy in real life. In general, I am more interested in edits than in editors, but I follow up a number of editors when I notice problematic patterns, and this was one of them. Wrestlingring is some time ago, and the IP range was unfamiliar. When I saw this a couple of days ago, something clicked in my mind, but I had not got around to anything more. Good catch, anyway! --T*U (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Ramon Nomar

This is not the only article of concern. Non3up has been hounding me too and had reverted my edits on a number of other articles, for example, 'Sardinia', 'Louvre Abu Dhabi', 'Bessborough Reservoir', 'Abu Dhabi police', 'Windsor, South Australia' and 'Dublin, South Australia'. Then he complains when someone hounds him. Someone should report him/her to ANI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.178.163.208 (talk) 06:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

101.178.163.208: Yes, I have noticed the edit wars between you and N0n3up. In the articles you mention, I find myself agreeing with you in some and disagreeing in some. You may have seen that I have edited Bessborough Reservoir "in your favour", so to speak, but followed by a detailed explanation in the talk page. On the other hand, I agree with the removal of your suggested picture in Sardinia. That article has already far too many pictures, and two pictures of the Bonifacio Strait is completely unnecessary. (That edit, by the way, had nothing to do with N0n3up.) For some of the other edits you mention, I tend to disagree with your version, but am open for arguments. Problem is, arguments seem to be scarce...

Regarding vandalism: Both you and N0n3up have accused the other of vandalism. I have so far not seen vandalism from any of you, so maybe you both should read WP:VANDALISM and refrain from personal attacks. What I have seen from both of you, is edit war, which is disruptive, not least because it scares other editors from participating.

Regarding talk page: N0n3up is correct in one thing, you need to start using the talk pages constructively. If you make a Bold edit and is Reverted, your next step should be to explain and argue in the talk page in order to start a Discussion per WP:BRD. That goes even if you think the revert is wrong. If you explain why you think the revert is wrong, other editors will be able to help you. If you just repeat your edit (especially while attacking your opponent), most editors will find another article to work on. Most editors are here to edit, not to quarrel. --T*U (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree about the 'Sardinia' page. The edit was reverted and there were reasons provided. As for 'Bessborough', most of the article is unsourced anyway. But he/she just picks on my edit. Thanks for your help. Atleast you have been more supportive and a better editor than Non3up. What makes Non3up so special? I've noticed in your comments, you have asked him to apply the same to himself/herself, what he does to others. 101.178.163.208 (talk) 05:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Word of advice, let the IP fix his own edits, otherwise it will never learn how to edit and will continue to edit war. (N0n3up (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC))

N0n3up: I am not really sure what you mean here. Which edit(s) of mine is it that you think I should not have done? --T*U (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

TU-nor: What I mean is that the IP should do his/her own source finding and edit fixing. You actually did an excellent job at fixing and finding/indicating sources that the IP made but I fear that in doing so, the IP will not bother in using the talk page nor putting any effort in trying to make constructive edits in the future. The IP has been edit-warring and disregardless of others' pleas which lead to him/her being blocked twice within a week which shows the IP isn't ready to edit. (N0n3up (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC))

N0n3up: It may sound strange for you, but I find it more important to examine and perhaps improve the content of articles than to punish "naughty" editors. So I will continue "fixing and finding/indicating sources" independent of who is proposing the addition. --T*U (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit war, about Eastern Romance languages!

!The edit war has started long time ago by Romanians! There is no way to find a consensus with Romanians. They are used to promoting their propaganda for years and years. They are reverting anything new that doesn't suit their theory. They are still propagandizing that Aromanians are a Romanian minority, when all Europe has recognised them as a distinct nation!!!! As for the three reverts, what can I do if Romanians are all over the place? I will try to explain my changes! Verginia's star (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Level crossing

Hi TU-nor.. One question about the Level crossing article, Gibraltar is Britain, so that is why I put it under Britain. Gibraltar is British property and not Spain's. The people are British citizens and the British armed forces protect it.101.178.163.208 (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

101.178.163.208: Gibraltar is British (in one sense of the term). But it is not Britain. Britain is either Great Britain (the island) or United Kingdom (the kingdom). Gibraltar is neither. It is a British Overseas teritory under the sovereignty of UK. --T*U (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, Abu Dhabi is UAE. Hawaii is United States. Tasmania is Australia. I feel that just because Gibraltar is not connected to the mainland, doesn't mean that we cannot use 'Britain'.101.178.163.208 (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

101.178.163.208: These are completely false analogies. Abu Dhabi is a constitutional part of UAE, one of the seven united emirates. Hawaii is a constitutional part of USA, one of the fifty united states. Tasmania is a constitutional part of Australia, one of the federal states making up the Commonwealth of Australia. As the article United Kingdom will tell you, the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland consists of four countries—England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A bit further down, it explains that not even Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey are part of the UK, being Crown dependencies with the British Government responsible for defence and international representation, so not even those are part of Britain (island) or Britain (UK). Gibraltar, Bermuda, Falkland Islands, Cayman Islands, Pitcarn and others are even less part of Britain. They are under the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the United Kingdom, so they can be said to be British, but they are not part of Britain by any definition. Just like Greenland is Danish, but not part of Denmark. And like Puerto Rico is not part of USA, but an unincorporated territory which is an area controlled by the United States government which is not part of (i.e., "incorporated" in) the United States.

This is what the reliable sources tell us. What you feel, is not a reliable source. So now please leave the poor horse alone. If you still want to discuss this, please raise the question in the relevant article talk page, ask for third opinion, start a request for commons, do whatever, but do not bother me with more arguments without proper sourcing. --T*U (talk) 13:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation and for showing me more Wikipedia terms. Sorry for troubling you, I just wanted to express my thoughts and clear these doubts.101.178.163.208 (talk) 08:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

ANI

Can you take this case to WP:ANI about this one? I may think I've abused the terms of use imposed. If you don't like it, leave Wikimedia.. 108.162.179.236 (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: I also got ousted from Commons for too much accounts. Think about it, file a WP:LTA report if you dare insult my intelligence. No threat harm. 108.162.179.236 (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Photo resolution

It is disappointing that instead of reporting to me the problem you found with the photo's poor resolution, you chose to revert my edits alltogether. Disappointing. At least the resolution has been fixed now. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 22:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident: Yes, I could have, probably should have. The quality was really lousy, so that is an explanation, but not an excuse. I am sorry! Interesting, though, to see how Resjnari jumped at the occasion (and fell spectacularly on their face). The technical quality now is fine. One suggestion: The former picture in the infobox was good and in my opinion more suitable (in that position) than the panorama, which has very small details. Perhaps the panorama would make better sense down in the article, as a full width panorama? Just a thought. --T*U (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The previous photo was dominated by trees and water... Sure, Ioannina is noted for their famous castle and lake, but still... don't get me wrong, but it is not the infobox of a small town or castle, it is the infobox of a big city, the largest city in the entire region, and administrative center of Northwestern Greece. This was not reflected appropriaely with that choice of photo. Quite a big city like that, should have more than just some trees and water in its infobox. But as I am writing this to you, I am recalling in my memory our Thessalonica collage, and I realized that there is an excellent workaround to all the issues: make a collage that could include both photos. Also, your proposal for a panorama, I like it and I think it can be done too. However I really could like the uncropped photo as panorama and the cropped version of it as part of the collage... Is it ok if the same photo is used twice in an article?--👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 11:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident: You may also remember from the same discussion that I am not especially fond of collages;-) In case you want to go further with this, I would suggest that you start with a RfC about whether there should be a collage or one picture. If the tendency of the RfC goes towards "yes", it would be time to discuss in talk page what the collage should look like. That way we would avoid that the article is swopped back and forth between various versions while the discussion goes. As for your other question, I am not happy with the idea of using the same picture twice. The difference between the uncropped and cropped version would be small enough for people to notice that it is the same picture and possibly ask: "Didn't they have any more pictures so they had to use the same twice?" --T*U (talk) 12:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The collage is ready, and contains the previous photo with the castle and the lake, but not the new, cropped panoramic photo (I think the new panoramic photo should better be off infobox, and on the article itself). I will just upload the collage as normally, but if you think a RfC is necessary, feel free to do so yourself. From my part, I will focuse my attention on the article's photos, which have been neglected similar to Metsovo's and Igoumenitsa's. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 12:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

SilentResident: In any case, RfC or not, I would very much prefer to see the collage presented and discussed in the talk page before adding it to the article. That was the procedure in Thessaloniki, and as you may remember, there was quite some discussions before the final version was agreed and inserted. --T*U (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Here: [13] --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 15:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

You might be interested

In this ANI section - LouisAragon (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thought this might be helpful

Help:Archiving a talk page FYI - ^theWOLFchild 18:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Titan ciment company and propaganda

Please stop the bullying and the edits. You have no any right to force the company of Titan (and Greece) to name the this country as you like (or your Slavic propaganda). The official website of the company says F.Y.R. Macedonia (check it here : http://www.titan.gr/en/titan-group/global-map/south-eastern-europe/fyrom/) so respect at least this, respect the company who owns this factory. If not, respect the official name that this country is recognized in United Nations which is FYROM. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peloponnisios (talk • contribs) 19:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Dear TU-nor you can change it as you want, i understand what you mean. I also have no intention to create problems, i didnt know that there is a consensus about the naming issue. I disagree but ok i understand that these are the rules so you can change as you like. I will continue to contribute to wikipedia and i hope that there are fewer problems like this in the future. Have a nice day, greets from Greece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peloponnisios (talk • contribs) 19:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Terminology precision on sensitive topics

Sorry, I partially reverted your edit. Yad Vashem does not use "the Serbian Genocide" (implying that such would be the official name of the events in the way that the Armenian Genocide is -- using the definite not the indefinite) [they use "a Serb genocide"]. Neither does McCormick actually [[14]]. Here are Google results for "Serbian Genocide" [[15]] where the term appears to have limited usage by activist groups (not Serb nationalist ones, anti-genocide activist ones, which is better obviously). Google Scholar results I found are disappointing -- [[16]] -- indeed the term seems to have been used (ironically) for events in Bosnia, where Bosniaks were the victims, in the 90s. I thought maybe I could find it in Google Scholar Law -- nope, not really, the only source it found [was about a trial of Karadzic, 1995]. The combatgenocide source (seemingly an activist page?) is the only one on the page that seems confirmed to the term. I know this sounds pedantic. But on sensitive issues I really don't think Wikipedia editors should be deciding what terminology is good-- scholars should. Could you do me a favor and inspect the remaining two sources cited for it? I'm still looking around on Google when I get moments. Indeed the terminology "Serbian Genocide" was surprising to me because the term I've been more familiar with is ["Ustasha Genocide"]. This one has a bit more scholarly support, as you can see on Google Scholar, with papers by Hoare and others explicitly using the term [[17]]-- Calthinus (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Didn't realize you decapped. Srv-d. =-- Calthinus (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Gjon Kastrioti move request

You previously participated in discussions of the title of the Gjon Kastrioti article. The issue is again under discussion here if you care to participate. —  AjaxSmack  17:22, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

user's talk page

Consering this, how can you support the claim in the edit-summury? Is it in the policy? As far as I understand, talk pages are not owned by users. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Τζερόνυμο: See WP:OWNTALK: users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Users may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. --T*U (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Τζερόνυμο (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Ahmet Kaya Article

Hello friend,

I have replied to your comment on my comment towards you. Check it out! I look forward to reading your reply. Also, can you write it on my talk page please? I just want to keep this on there.

Regards,

Heval7884(talk) 20:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heval7884 (talk • contribs)

96.55.23.253

It seems you used 2 accounts to edit.You smell of sock.You are also under sockpuppet investigations.Maxim3377 (talk) 17:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

More you act more you are indicted.Maxim3377 (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Some guy forgot to leave you a message that you're at ANI

Thread is here. Although I glanced at it and figured it wasn't even worth commenting on, so you can probably ignore this anyways. --Calthinus (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Stop leaving messages on my talk page

If you message me one more time I'm going to consider this harassment and take this to ANI. I've already said my opinion at the talk page for the article. In my 12 years at wikipedia I've never had someone so incessantly bug me for my thoughts on something. Your behavior is inappropriate. There are no deadlines for these kinds of things and it is unnecessary to leave so many messages. Please stop leaving messages on my talm page and don't ping me. Thanks. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 21:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup

Thank you for helping to clean up all those page moves by Shingling334's latest sockpuppet. —DoRD (talk)​ 15:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

DoRD: No problem! It seems they never tire... --T*U (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

CIA uses national census data and CIA is most updated

Stop leaving messages on my talk page[edit source] If you message me one more time I'm going to consider this harassment and take this to ANI. I've already said my opinion at the talk page for the article. In my 12 years at wikipedia I've never had someone so incessantly bug me for my thoughts on something. Your behavior is inappropriate. There are no deadlines for these kinds of things and it is unnecessary to leave so many messages. Please stop leaving messages on my talm page and don't ping me. Thanks. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 21:16, 8 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noramiao (talk • contribs)

Above message by newbie made by copying another entry (including signature). Their point is actually in the heading. --T*U (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

This applies to you. Dude, you need to stop wasting people's time. Stop harrassing and leaving messages. Cut it out.

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

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noramiao (talk • contribs) 15:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Dude !!!

1. Stop wasting my time.

2. Stop interrupting anyone.

3. The oldest information should be updated.

4. Rank doesn't mean sovereignty is taken away.

5. Look the CIA standard for ranking.

6. Look the Spanish version, the French, the Russian, etc.

99% of the versions are using the ranks and all entities are

NUMBERRED.

7. You need to STOP.

You can not tell people in England that they should drive on

the roads the same way as Americans in USA drive. Everyone

works different.

Read 100 times again #2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noramiao (talk • contribs) 16:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

And more cleanup...

Hi TU-nor, thanks for helping deal with Shingling334. Fyi, my approach with him these days is basically WP:RBI, just revert and ignore. It seems that engaging with him by making comments, explanations, or arguments about the value of his edits, in terms of content policies etc., just provokes him to escalate. If the slot machine even hints that it might pay off, he'll be hooked and keep coming back. I'm hoping that if we revert everything without comment (or simply "rv sock"), he might eventually get tired of it (though he does seem quite tireless). If I understand correctly, WP:BMB applies, so there's never a need to justify reverting his edits, and if I misidentify someone else once in a blue moon, they can always complain to me about it. What do you think? --IamNotU (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

IamNotU: Sorry for not responding earlier; I have been out of Wiki-circulation for some days. It is good to know that other editors are on the lookout for more disruptions from Shingling socks. As for your "no comments" approach, that is just fine. My approach is not quite as consistent. When the edits are obviously Shingling, I often do the same as you. If I am in doubt, I tend to explain why I make the edit, mostly for the benefit of other users. After two year's of experience with Shingling and socks, I do not think that the form of the reverts makes any difference. They have their bursts of activity where nothing seems to stop them, regardless of how and by whom they are reverted. Anyway, keep up your watch. I'll do the same! --T*U (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Oeselians & Norsemen

Hi, could you chip on the topic of Oeselians? There are a couple editors who claim the Oeselians were either Norsemen or from an unknown ethnicity. They have deleted several sources that claim the Oeselians were Estonian. Interested in your opinion. Thanks. Blomsterhagens (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Blomsterhagens: I am not especially interested in the topic area, nor do I have any knowledge about it. I might add that I resent edit warring... --T*U (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Stonewalling

Where exactly in Wikipedia:Reverting does it say it's ok to "revert out of principle"? You did not address what you think is wrong with the content. "Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits." How does Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling differ from what you did?. Why not go to the talk page and say what you think is wrong with the edit instead of blanket reverting "just because"? Blomsterhagens (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Blomsterhagens: The guideline defines stonewalling as "repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree" (italics in the original, not mine). So the answer to your question is that my edit differ from stonewalling in that: 1) it has not been repeated; 2) it has not been done against any clear consensus. I will not repeat the revert, but I would advice you to secure a consensus before you make the same edit again. My suggestion is that you open a WP:RFC in order to get input from more people. I might even be tempted to participate. --T*U (talk) 05:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. How do you define a consensus? Stonewalling clearly states it's not the same as unanimity. On the talk page, there are three active editors who are discussing. Both Minnekon and I agree on the changes. So two out of three. Also, none of these are about rephrasing anything on the page. It's a single sourced claim + a citation-needed tag. Did you look into the matter before reverting? I feel like you have not read through the talk page thread. Blomsterhagens (talk) 09:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Oeselians

Hi again. My edit got reverted by Thomas.W again. He claims I have misrepresented a source, but what I did was a direct quote from the source. There's also another editor agreeing with me on the talk page. Could you please let me know if I'm crazy or what is happening? I'm not edit warring and I'm not "misrepresenting sources". Thank you. Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Blomsterhagens (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited American Jews, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Central (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, TU-nor. 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)

My thanks and comment

Thank you T*U for the thankless task of trying to reason with that editor. I appreciate your eloquent and reasoned comments which have met with yet more responses filled with uncorroborated attacks and accusations The latest wall of text in reply to your reasoned request for a supply of diffs, includes no diffs, but scattered comments without context as well as walls of sources and assorted apologias. However, for the record, this person, in his/her latest reply to you, added the following comment as being mine:

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)

I hate to disappoint that person but that comment was added by Serial Number 54129, not me. The time stamp is correct, but this user removed Serial Number 54129's name and substituted mine. Anyway, thank you again for at least trying, against all odds, to make that person understand that the multitude of his false accusations, assumptions of bad faith, PAs, and other attacks against me should stop. I really appreciate your support, and, even more, your wiki spirit. Dr. K. 03:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Dr.K.: No problem at all! I have now made still another attempt on their talk page, but that will probably be the last try. I am patient, but there are limits... I had, by the way, noticed the Serial Number mix-up, and it is included in my "last attempt". On the other hand, I do not quite understand how that comment can be construed as offending. I actually found it amusing and to the point. Anyway, thanks for good words, and take care. --T*U (talk) 13:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I am impressed that among all that chaos of that reply by that editor, you caught the misinformation attributing Serial Number's reply to me. Yes, I agree, Serial Number's reply was fair and accurate. But, by attributing it to me, this user found yet another chance to start more polemics against me on their talk. I just wanted to note that these polemics did not even have any basis because their raison d'être, regarding their origin, was demonstrably false. Your policy-based replies, astute observations, and suggestions to that user were exemplary and demonstrated great fairness, and a deep understanding of wiki policies. That you took the time to do that, in an effort to make that user understand and follow basic wiki policies and stop and retract their attacks toward me, is deeply appreciated. I have only words to show you my esteem and appreciation for you. I hope I succeeded. Take care T*U. Dr. K. 19:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Not that it seems to help much... But thanks again for your kind comments; the warmth of your "only words" make me blush. --T*U (talk) 09:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)