User talk:Tedblack

Welcome!

Hello, Tedblack, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Seraphimblade 12:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Great Fire of Smyrna. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Seraphimblade 12:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Great Fire of Smyrna. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Seraphimblade 12:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three-revert warning

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Great Fire of Smyrna. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Seraphimblade 13:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your comments

I'm not at all interested in keeping the article unmodified. However, generally, major changes should be discussed at the article's talk page. We have the three-revert rule to ensure that controversial changes are discussed, and to discourage anyone from engaging in edit warring. I would encourage you to take up discussion of the rationale for your changes to Talk:Great Fire of Smyrna, and to discuss the matter with other editors there. Seraphimblade 13:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there might be some kind of conspiracy here, but to speak for myself, I'm actually a computer programmer and student in Seattle, and have nothing to do with the Turkish government. :) Why don't you try having a discussion? Really, we generally do try to be reasonable people-and I haven't so far met anyone I suspect of being a government agent. Seraphimblade 13:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 13:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page Comments

You recent comments on User talk:AzaToth come very close to violating WP:LEGAL. In the future, please refrain from making these sorts of comments. Besides being against Wikipedia policy, they are generally not very persuasive.--Isotope23 14:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --AW 18:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Also, please do not sign your contributions to articles. You should only sign your contributions to Talk pages. Thanks, Gwernol 13:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of your addition was cited and indeed amounts to personal opinion. If there is evidence that "The Turkish government has been pressured to recognise the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus" then please cite reliable sources that show it. Similarly with your claim that "The issue of occupied North Cyprus remains a major stumbling block in Turkeys long road to EU membership." Phrases like "long road" are clearly a point of view and are inappropriate for a neutrally worded encyclopedia article.

I also take offense at your statement that "all articles that touch on Turkish crimes only represent the Turkish view and admins like you negate all attempts to make them more objective". First how is "The Turkish government has been pressured to recognise the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus" a "Turkish crime" exactly? Secondly I do not attempt to negate all attempts to make article more objective. My record of maintaining a WP:NPOV on Wikipedia is open for all to view, as is yours. I suggest you consider the proverb that "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" before making outlandish accusations against editors like myself an Guinnog. Gwernol 13:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible! Guinnog deleted my article on options theory (that has been read by a variety of students and bankers in the City by coincidence immediately after I started posting on articles related to Turkish crimes). You say phrases like "long road" are a point of view. Perhaps this Google search using "long road"+turkey+EU can help you see reality [1]. You also say that the phrase The Turkish government has been pressured to recognise the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus" is unsubstantiated !! Obviously the extensive press coverage on customs deal and its implications for the Turkish EU entry has passed you by (look at Google search [2]). I could go on and on but is it really neccessary for me to convince someone who lives in NY about these facts? Tedblack 13:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to User_talk:Guinnog

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this.

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! - CobaltBlueTony 14:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I'm afraid I know nothing of this situation, but I don't believe your comments at User talk:Guinnog were probably very constructive to resolving the issue. If the essay has been used so thoroughly, however, it certainly may well be possible to use it as a source. Can you point me to a copy of the essay and where it has been reviewed? Please do note-I am happy to help you if I can do so, but we do have procedures in place for collaboration. While all of us here certainly understand that newer users may not understand those procedures immediately, choosing to ignore them after they have been brought to your attention will not end well for anyone. If you can verify the information through reliable sources, however, I am happy to help you introduce it properly. Seraphimblade 14:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Θοδωρή

Καλωσήρθες και στα Ελληνικά (τώρα που ξεκαθαρίσαμε οτι είμαι Έλληνας κι εγώ) :-)

Από ότι κατάλαβες, μπήκες στα βαθιά με τη μία. Κοίτα, το άθρο αυτό είναι τα χάλια του εδώ και καιρό και θέλει πολύ φτιάξιμο. Θα σε βοηθήσω όσο μπορώ τεχνικά, αλλά δεν ξέρω γαμώτο μου καλή ιστορία. Ο Yannismarou θα σε βοηθήσει σίγουρα πολύ περισσότερο. Προσπάθησε γενικά να είσαι ήρεμος, και όλα γίνονται (στο χρόνο τους). Ρίξε μια ματιά στα λίνκς απάνω στο Welcome message για αρχή... Niko Silver 22:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three-Revert Rule

Hi, you've been reported for violations of the Three-Revert Rule and I could or maybe ought to have blocked you now. Apparently you've been reverting both on the Cyprus and on the Smyrna article. Since you're new, I'm letting you off without a block, but I very much hope you'll heed Niko's good advice above. Please do continue contributing, but I'll ask you to please refrain from any further reverts on these articles for the next 24 hours. After that, please make sure to make an effort to establish consensus about changes you want to make. Καλώς όρισες, Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is Wikipedia doing about those other articles on Smyrna 1922 (Destruction of Smyrna, Burning of Smyrna etc) that automatically revert to the ridiculous "Great Fire of Smyrna". Is this a turkish website or can alternative postings be accessed? THIS ISSUE MUST BE RESOLVED.--Tedblack 12:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. The phrases you mention, like Destruction of Smyrna, are so-called redirects to the page where the real article is, at Great Fire of Smyrna. It was determined at some point that that's where the article should be. I don't know the how's and when's and why's, but I suppose there was some discussion. Probably because the other phrases all imply the burning was intentionally done by someone, which is a point of contention, so it's better in the interest of the "neutral point of view" if the article title doesn't take sides on that issue where it can be avoided. - If you want to change this status quo, you'd need to initiate a discussion and garner consensus for a move. Please don't try to move the article unilaterally, this will only result in disruption and isn't likely to achieve what you want. Wikipedia is not a Turkish website, but it is a website where all views need to be negotiated and weighed against each other to achieve neutrality, and where Turkish and Greek users just like all others will have their say and all need to take each other's opinions seriously. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. To answer your question "can alternative postings be accessed": Click on Destruction of Smyrna, then when you have been redirected to Great Fire of Smyrna you'll find a small note immediately below the title, "redirected from...". Click on that and it will take you back to the redirect. Then click on the "history" tab on top and you'll see what was on that page earlier. In fact, somebody once tried to create a page under that title that covered the whole fate of the Anatolian Greeks ([3]). It was then redirected to the already existing article, because it is Wikipedia policy that you can't have several alternative articles on the same topic, they are considered so-called POV Forks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

That article is not a newscast. It is a featured article and one of the best country articles in Wikipedia. There is no justification to add such info in a whole paragraph based on weird analysis to a section that talks about a millenia of Turkish culture. I also left a note at user talk:Yandman about this [4]. Wikipedia is not a simple forum or a newscast, please keep that in mind. The recent Picasso exhibit in Istanbul drew 1m visitors, therefore such piecemeal analysis is not correct. By the way, that edition of Mein Kempf was the first edition in Turkish in the history of Turkey. It is not like the book had been on sale since the 40s and suddenly people rushed to buy the book. Please make sure that additions are consistent with the Featured status of the article. A lot of time was spent cleaning up that article to make it FA. Cheers! Baristarim 16:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, please be careful about not breaking the three revert rule. Thanks. Baristarim 16:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we will see how many wikipedians will support that addition in the long run. Baristarim 16:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not the references. First the addition has to fit in with the rest of the article and make sense, then it becomes referenced - not the other way around. As I said, that article went through many processes to become a Featured Article, and its current layout is not the simple creation of one person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newscast. I also noticed your POV edits to some other articles, so I really would not like to spend any more time explaining these to you. You will see that most users will revert that addition. Baristarim 16:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inflation figures are given in the economy section - DO NOT add blatantly wrong figures and stop your blatant disruption of the article. Thanks Baristarim 18:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What part of this is hard to understand: " the inflation has dropped to 8.2% in 2005, and the unemployment rate to 10.3%" reffed by an accessible World Bank release [5]???? Please cease your blatant disruption of that article and go do something more useful. Thanks. Baristarim 18:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Γενικά...

Προσπάθησε να δείχνεις λίγο πιο ήρεμος για να πείθεις περισσότερο (και μή ΦΩΝΑΖΕΙΣ)! Ξέρω οτι είναι δύσκολο οταν "σε πνίγει το δίκιο σου", και το πάθαινα κι εγώ στην αρχή (χειρότερα από σένα μπορώ να πω). Πίστεψέ με, αντί να σε βοηθάει, κάνει τους άλλους να μη σε παίρνουν στα σοβαρά (το διαπίστωσα πριν από σένα επίσης). Μαζί σου για ότι χρειαστείς. Niko Silver 12:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the personal attacks please

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Turkishsoldiers.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Turkishsoldiers.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[6] made on February 19 2007 to Great Fire of Smyrna

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 12 hours. Alex Bakharev 20:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to edit a page

Tedblack, Wikipedia has a great number of policies, code of conducts, guidelines, manuals of styles and other instruction. This is because we want to have some uniform approach to quite different problems. No wording of rules are set in stone, they are just wikitexts that anybody can edit, but the spirit of many rules is indeed non-negotiable. I think the good start may be Wikipedia:Five pillars and all the references to it. Happy editing Alex Bakharev 10:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Mavro8odwre!

Ti exeis pa8ei me thn parth mou? Sou'katse oti 8elw nte kai kala na se polemhsw? ANTI8ETA! 8elw na BOH8HSW! Bale tis phges ekei pou sou lew, kai 8a tis kotsaroume mia xara gia na mh mas th leei kanena lamogio! Alliws 8a trws reverts synexeia kai DEN 8a mporw na se boh8hsw giati to 8ema edw den lynetai me polemo. MONO me phges! Gkegke? Niko Silver 23:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Can you please explain this and this? Khoi khoi 01:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with limited IQ should be able to understand ... --Tedblack 16:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Do you understand that? - CobaltBlueTony 17:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CobaltBlueTony you are a legend in your own mind. --Tedblack 09:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Considering the bold-faced and counterproductive discussions you have been having (referencing the section below), it seems you are the one who thinks migh more highly of his stand. My warning has nothing to do with power: I am not an administrator, and thus have no power over you. I noted above that you lacked appreciation for Khoikhoi's efforts to unofficially bring to your attention the fact that you were introducing bigotry and slander to this encyclopedia, which is in itself enough to bring about a ban/block, so I noted it officially. A ban or a block is a preventative measure intended to keep you from persisting in a disruptive course which violates the spirit and principles of Wikipedia (that of unbiased and neutral reporting of facts, not the conjecturing and insulting to which your opinion-based editing lends itself); it is not some form of punishment. So let me again warn you that the idssemination or promulgation of bias and bigotry are not acceptable forms of editing here. Opinions are not facts. If you perceive similar attitudes from other editors, Wikipedia has tools and means for addressing these. Insulting people -- whether editors and administrators here, or ethnic groups for whom you hold grudges -- is a guaranteed way to completely usurp any validity to any of your arguments, and such behavior is rightly banned or blocked from Wikipedia. This is an educated and intellectual exercise, and antisocial bahavior gravely harms the collaborative efforts by this global and diverse collection of those who value the clear presentation of truth and facts over the expression of hate and bigotry. Please, do you understand where I am coming from now, and will you tone yourself down and check yourself, or will you persist in your present course and invalidate the value of your IQ and the many potential contributions you could still bring to this project? - CobaltBlueTony 13:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not diseminate opinions bud. I document crimes perpetrated by Turkey. If you think documenting crimes committed by various nations is opinion-based editing then I agree there is no place for me in this domain. And I suggest you start editing the article on the Holocaust which portrays Germans in a very bad light. --Tedblack 18:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first problem you have encountered here is due to your attitude. You cannot make racial slurs about who you believe to be making inappropriate changes to this encyclopedia, even if you are absolutely right. A confrontational and derrogatory attitude is strictly forbidden, as it completely disrupts other editors' freedom work within the confines of this project without reprisal. There are procedures in place here for you to protest truly biased and unbalanced edits. I will help you to document these, if this is your wish, or find you an advocate.

The second problem that you may be having may be related to how you are trying to communicate your information. You may very well be editing in a manner which infringes on Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view policy, in which case you are probably meeting warranted or unwarranted opposition based on this alone. A cool, calm, factual, and preferrably impersonal tone in your editing, sticking to the facts, and an accurate representation thereof, will greatly increase your chances of finding support for your edits, or your problems with the contradictory edits. Again, an advocate may be able to help you with this as well. - CobaltBlueTony 19:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for personal attacks and disruption

Tedblack, I see you have developed a consistent pattern of personal attacks and ethnic slurs in your communication with Turkish fellow editors ("Turkish bastards", "pack of turks", "your civilisation grey wolf") as well as persistent insinuations of bad faith ([7], [8]). You have also been engaging in some downright vandalism with the purpose of ethnic and political attacks. ([9], [10], [11]).

Your whole activity since you came here seems to have been about treating Wikipedia as an ethnic battleground, which it is NOT. You have repeatedly been warned to play nice and behave in a cooperative manner. If you are not willing to do this, you really have no place on Wikipedia.

I'm blocking you for 3 days to give the other editors the time to sort out things on the Great Fire of Smyrna page without your disruptive presence. You are welcome to come back afterwards and make constructive contributions. Should you persist in your aggressive behaviour, however, I see more and longer blocks ahead. Any more vandalism incidents like the above will result in an immediate indefinite block with no further warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion notice

Option on the product of two asset prices

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Option on the product of two asset prices, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. John 14:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Tbeatty 17:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. It appears you have not followed this policy at Great Fire of Smyrna. Please always observe our core policies. Thank you. Kudret abi 22:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Great Fire of Smyrna. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Kudret abi^Talk 01:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]