User talk:Editchi/Archive 1

Junk2711, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Junk2711! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

March 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Greek genocide. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Dr. K. 03:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Dr. K. 03:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Khirurg (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Khirurg: You make it incredibly hard to assume good faith. You are the one making repeat reverts with no justification, while I have justified my edit. And then 'luckily', there is someone else to make the revert for the 3rd time instead of you. Go ahead and please state in the NPOV section on the article's talk page why you disagree when there is a consensus and the criteria for removal are met. --Junk2711 (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Removed Konsensus poll?

Hey. I noticed that while making an edit on the Turkish polling article, you recently removed a Konsensus poll from both the party and alliance tables. I'm sure you had a good reason for it, I'm just curious as to what it was. Μαρκος Δ 21:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Μαρκος Δ. I removed it from the alliance table because the poll did not contain a question on Cumhur vs. Millet - the CHP was not included in the opposition alliance. And for the party table, I moved it down to the correct date of 24-25 April and added the second scenario, which is why I deleted the duplicate in the table. -Junk2711 (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi again. Alright, thanks, in that case I understand your move. But remember that for future polls, the alliance table is not only for polls in which they ask for Cumhur v. Millet; that table is meant to show the sum of those two blocks in all polls, including multi-scenario ones and ones without explicit questions about alliances. So technically, that poll should actually still be listed in the alliance table, but at a different date and with all the non-Cumhur parties only listed as "others". Μαρκος Δ 15:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Μαρκος Δ: I understand, but what about the BBP now that they have joined the alliance? Their vote is most likely negligible but they would be listed as 'other' in those polls. And should we put back the Konsensus poll there then? -Junk2711 (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the Konsensus poll should be put back in the alliance table. When it comes to BBP, they will – as far as I know – be running on the AKP list, as opposed to as an independent party within Cumhur. And even before the joint list was announced, most pollsters did not provide data for BBP, since they have only marginal support. Therefore, there's no need to go back and try to decipher how many per mille the BBP have gotten in previous polls, but if they are included in polls in the future, they ought to be included in the Cumhur alliance's column. Μαρκος Δ 12:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Please stop changing the content of other users' contributions, as you did to my additions with this edit. This is a serious issue, don't repeat it. Akocsg (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Akocsg: Are you joking? Everyone can edit content, this is Wikipedia. I made a completely acceptable edit to an article, it is honestly silly that you are taking this personally. I will keep making proper edits as I wish.

@Junk2711: Read again carefully. I wasn't talking about just editing in general, it's about falsifying the edit of another user, which shouldn't be done. Akocsg (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Akocsg: What you are saying is still not true - I did no such thing. This is effectively slander and I don't appreciate it at all. If you don't have anything of substance to say then please do not write on my talk page. Junk2711 (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Advisory note

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Akocsg (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Akocsg:You're ridiculous. You revert my change before we can discuss that edit on the talk page, and then when I undo your revert to my work you post this here? What a joke. Junk2711 (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:St Paul's School Shield.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:St Paul's School Shield.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Istanbul New Airport

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia. I understand that we have a content dispute as regards to certain edits to Istanbul New Airport. You believe that certain statements are supported by the source, whereas I believe it is not. Given the triviality of the content that is disputed, and time limitations of the content (it will be irrelevant within three months), I have chosen not to pursue the dispute in order to avoid an edit war.

However, in the edit summary of this diff, you have implicated that I have not assumed good faith. I consider such an accusation to be a serious one, and in the interest of mutual understanding and obtaining feedback, I would like to understand what aspect about my behaviour has been considered to have not assumed good faith. Please note that in the same edit summary you have also called me "ridiculous", "acting condescendingly", and "destructive", which are not terms one would typically associate with assuming good faith.

In the interest of transparency, I have replicated the entire back-and-forth of edit summaries below for easy reference, with the earliest being on top and the latest being on the bottom, with the edit summary containing the accusation in question in bold:

Junk2711 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,544 bytes) (+325)‎ . . (You could try looking for the information instead of making unconstructive edits over the smallest issues. The tense is also correct again after this edit. The fact that the other airport will close and all airlines will move here is mentioned throughout this article and even right in the intro - that information is clearly cited too. Try to at least skim an article before removing information from it.)

Madrenergic (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,533 bytes) (-11)‎ . . (→‎Airlines and destinations: claim that all other airlines will move on 31st dec and that new flights are additional to existing services are not in new source either, source purely discusses Turkish Airlines; please ensure all additions are attributable and avoid WP:OR; please be reminded that it falls upon the editor who adds content to provide refs to WP:PROVEIT, and not upon other editors; it is also not appropriate to expect non-Turkish speakers to find Turkish language sources)

Madrenergic (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,547 bytes) (+14)‎ . . (Undid revision 863430060 by Junk2711 (talk) - saying it will be the IATA code is not the same as saying that it is the IATA code right now - the infobox must reflect current information, not future claims; once 29 Oct comes and the airport does change its code to ISL, it may be edited to reflect that)

Junk2711 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,743 bytes) (+169)‎ . . (Your edits and behaviour are ridiculous. I just told you the information is cited in the article and you're acting condescendingly explaining WP:OR. Do not make further destructive edits and go by WP:AGF)

Junk2711 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,071 bytes) (+328)‎ . . (added english source for move date since your point about non-English sources is actually understandable. You could have easily googled this in English instead of deleting the information from here not once, but twice.)

I look forward to your reply, thank you. —Madrenergic^talk 10:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Madrenergic: I can say the same about being accused of adding OR. "The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist."

1-The sources are in the article and could easily be found for something like the move date - clearly indicated in the intro. If you looked at that source and it being in a foreign language was an issue, you could have tried searching for the claim online, or maybe even translated the article.

2-If you still were not satisfied, you could have discussed it on the article talk page instead of just deleting it. Or, you could also have inserted a 'citation needed' tag at the place you believed needed verification.

Essentially, you keep deleting information instead of just checking the other mentions of it even within the same article! You could have just searched the IATA database to see that the code has already been assigned instead of just deleting it and writing "none", claiming no code has been assigned yet. This is just ridiculous, which is why I used that word.

In the future, if you could refrain from deleting things in a way that can seem destructive (basically removing something that can easily be verified, etc.) I don't think people will doubt any good faith. Junk2711 (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Junk2711: I have no interest in digging up the same content dispute, for the reasons I have mentioned above. Please be aware that mentioning something as original research is not an assumption of bad faith. Original research refers to a judgement of the material that is added, whether or not you consider said judgement to be correct. A person who wrongly judges material to be original research is not automatically guilty of assuming bad faith, and a person who removes said material does not necessarily assume bad faith either. Most people who add original research act in good faith, but as editors it is our responsibility to remove original research where we find it as it runs against Wikipedia's core content policy. It is not always necessary to discuss it on the talk page or tagging it if one considers it uncontroversial, unless another user objects, as you did. However, I am still interested in asking how my actions have been considered to be assuming bad faith. —Madrenergic^talk 12:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Madrenergic: I never said understanding something as OR is bad faith. Try reading the last sentence of my message where I said, deleting easily verifiable things repeatedly can come across as bad faith:

"In the future, if you could refrain from deleting things in a way that can seem destructive (basically removing something that can easily be verified, etc.) I don't think people will doubt any good faith." Junk2711 (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Junk2711: Thank you for your reply. I have a better understanding of your perspective now. In that case, to avoid future conflict with other editors, it would bear reminding that deleting content (especially minor edits that do not remove sources) is considered is one of the acceptable methods of dealing with content perceived to in violation of Wikipedia's core content policies, and deletion is not an assumption of bad faith, as it does not connote any judgement of your intentions (a.k.a. 'faith'), as opposed to personal attacks and calling others names (see WP:AGF).

At the same time, it is incorrect to insist that other editors search for sources for something an editor has added rather than delete it — whether or not it is "easily verifiable" — because it is both Wikipedia policy as well as common epistemological consensus that the burden of proof lies upon the editor who adds the content to prove that said content is supported in the sources that he has given. It is not the responsibility of other editors to find and add sources on his behalf, and certainly not bad faith for them to remove the content because they perceive it to be unsupported. Furthermore, the content is not lost as it is still preserved within the history page for the editor to restore it when he finds a better source to verify the content.

Finally, I note from your talk page that you have had other conflicts with other editors in the past, and to ensure a more pleasant and friendlier environment for both yourself and other editors in the future, I would encourage you to actively reach out to establish a mutual understanding, avoid accusations of bad faith, and assume the assumption of good faith. —Madrenergic^talk 07:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)