User talk:Siğilli Kurbağa

Arkadaşım, Dbachmann doesn't hate Turks, and neither do I. May we discuss the changes you'd like to see? Kafka Liz (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about who hates what. You can feel free to hate anything you want. First, stop chain reverting and vandalism, it is not going anywhere. There are 106 changes committed from dozens of different people, and the article is dramatically improved over the past one year since I start to contribute. You cannot simply ignore all this and start a chain reverting. There are 73 watchers on this single article, and yet one guy came and vandalising everything back to a year ago. There is a talk page. If you believe sth. went wrong, use the page there. Let's discuss. This was the first thing. Second thing, I don't believe Dbachmann is good-willed. I went ahead and reviewed his changes to that article since 2011, and he has a pretty good pattern. His first duty is remove any mention of Turkic people from the article claiming references and sources are missing. When someone reverting his change and adding sources and references he's becoming silent. And after 3-6 months period he is attacking again, and removing the content. The same pattern actually happened in my case as well. But he waited 1 year, because my changes improved the quality of the article and accepted by community over a year. Again, please stop chain reverting, the thing you are doing is vandalism. If you don't believe the content is good, mark the parts for improvement. Apparently you have a lot of experience in Wikipedia editing then me, so let all the community benefit from your experience. Siğilli Kurbağa (talk) 13:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015[edit]

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Thomas.W ^talk 14:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thomas.W, thanks for your input. But I want to give you further insight on the article. A year ago, I started to contribute this article by adding a section dedicated to Turkic peoples. I didn't removed anything in the article, instead I went ahead and try to improve the quality of the article in all parts. There are 73 watchers of this article, it received feedbacks and improvements, over a year 103 different changes committed by dozens of different editors. And suddenly user named Dbachmann reverted the article exactly the version one year ago. Please do not treat me like I added something yesterday without references. Me and the dozens of others users are victim of a vandalism here. Again, this section was there for a year with dozens of contributors acknowledged that. It was a content with citations, references, examples. I think, if you going to revert something to a year ago version, and remove a referenced quality section you need to go through the talk page not me. I'm deeply saddened and I don't feel like I'm receiving a fair treatment. Siğilli Kurbağa (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know very well that it has been added a little at a time over a long period of time, and wasn't all added at once, but even if you add a little at a time there will come a day when you have added too much. The material you're edit-warring over puts too much emphasis on Turkish/Turkic use of the star and crescent, so discuss it on the talk page of the article and get support for it there. If there are 73 page watchers I'm sure you'll get a discussion going there. Thomas.W ^talk 15:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are still biased in your approach towards me. Actually everything was added by once by me last year on December 2014. My first change was on 25-12-2014, I reorganised the article structure to have a more neutral approach. On 26-12-2014 user Dbachmann deleted some of my entries because it does not including references. It was my one of first days on Wikipedia, although deletion of a newly created content was kinda little bit harsh, I accepted the fact, and improved the article with references, and re-added only content I organised with the references. Then I also improved Hellenistic and Roman part on 29-12-2014. This was my last content change, and I didn't do anything to article over a year except, watching and reverting some spam changes or correcting image link paths. And the community builded over it. It is not what you claimed, my changes were fair and not happened over a long period of time. I still think if the article should be reverted the version on year ago, it should go through the talk page. Siğilli Kurbağa (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]