User talk:Hittit

Hello, Hittit! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! --Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Fan (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Aramgar (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of Turkish names for cities, towns, villages and geographical locations in Bulgaria, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkish names for cities, towns, villages and geographical locations in Bulgaria. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Flewis^(talk) 13:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Turks in Bulgaria. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Laveol ^T 20:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Turks in Bulgaria. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. tedder (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Bulgarians in Turkey. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Todor→Bozhinov 16:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol that article should have been deleted as previously in 2009 so keep your 3RRs to your self, it would not have been a problem if you made an article for the actual 300 Bulgarians in Turkey now you de fact have an article of the 300 000 Bulgarian Turks in Turkey

Hittit, could you give one single piece of evidence that that article refers in any to the Bulgarian Turks who emigrated in 1989. And please no original research arguments like "the Bulgarian Turks speak Bulgarian".

Yes I have many facts, which we cannot say about the bogus article Bulgarians in Turkey. The article Bulgarians in Turkey states: “Bulgarians including a number of Christian Bulgarians as well as Pomaks, or Muslims of ethnic Bulgarian origin. According to Ethnologue, 300,000 people in European Turkey speak Bulgarian, though as most are Pomaks their classification as Bulgarians is disputed. According to the Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Bulgarian Orthodox Christian community in Turkey stands at 500 members.” Now what is fact here is that there are only 500 confirmed ethnic Christian Bulgarians in Turkey (official Bulgarian Foreign Ministry data), regarding the figure of Pomaks 300 000 it is based on some kind of a Christian Missionary source vague estimate. Now the article goes as far as calling a Pomak to be same as ethnic Bulgarian, which is highly dubious not to mention actively and intensively contested. Official Turkish census from the State Institute of Statistics in 2000 shows there were 480,817 Bulgarian-born residents (alive today) now these stretch as back as 1925. To claim that this figure includes 300 000 Bulgarian speaking Pomaks is absurd since only in 1989 some 300 000 Bulgarian Turks left Bulgaria for Turkey in the great Exodus. There is no official statistics showing 300 000 Bulgarians in Turkey or a separate figure of Bulgarian speaking population. This figure 300 000 could only mean Bulgarian Turks and some Pomaks (we can assume most can speak some level of Buglarian) for which exacts statistics are provided by the State Institute of Statistics. Now do you belive the official census of the Turkish State Institute of Statistics or Johnstone and Mandryk and their estimates of white Christians around the world? Hittit (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hittit, I remember you from your participation in the discussion in the Bulgarization article and your calm and constructive efforts there. I came across The Destruction of Thracian Bulgarians in 1913 article and I found it somewhat single-parted written and with possible exaggerated figures (like the 200,000 victims of the Turk persecutions - I never heard of it-). I don't have the necessary sources for double check the events, but I think a second opinion is needed there to make it possibly a more neutral article, so I thought to inform you about. Thanks again for your participation in our common discussion. Let me know if I can be of any help in any other article (I have a limited speciality in the area of the 20th century's Balkan history). Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Factuarius,

Regarding the article The Destruction of Thracian Bulgarians in 1913 I have presented my objections to the content and sources. This article is in a way in the same league as the Bulgarians in Turkey. My viewpoints 1) During the first Balkan War Bulgaria was the aggressor against Turkey, capturing vast amount Turkish territory in Bulgaria with significant Turkish population. During the first Balkan War hundreds of thousands of Turks and Muslims had fled to Turkey 2) in 1913 there was a population exchange between Turkey and Bulgaria (the Treaty of Adreanopoli and Treaty of Constantinople). Sources indicate that in 1913 46,786 Bulgarians left Eastern Thrace for Bulgaria and 48,578 Moslems emigrated from Western Thrace to Turkey (Refugees in the age of total war pp.17) + (The unwanted: European refugees from the First World War through the Cold War pp.46). The figures in the article The Destruction of Thracian Bulgarians in 1913 are absurd and based mostly on Lyubomir Miletich a Bulgaria linguist nationalist who claims to have conducted a census study in Ottoman Turkish territory (just the thought of this being possible is crazy) presenting astronomical figures of 300 000 Bulgarians in Turkish Thrace…I have tagged the article it really needs a neutral view point since in its current form is just a plane absurd.Hittit (talk) 12:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selam! Turks in Bulgaria makalesine ilgini gördüm, kostja adlı kullanıcı yanlış bilgi eklemeye devam ediyor, Filibe'deki camii hakkında. İlgilenirsen sevinirim. Sevgiler. Filibeli (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Değerli Arkadaşım, Filibe Imaret Camiisinin vandallar tarfindan tahrip edildiğini ekledim.Hittit (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Hittite, although after your edit, what I said here was, off course, not for you. Just to avoid misunderstandings. Keep up the good work, --Factuarius (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing vital maps is good work? Kostja (talk) 08:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kostja Eastern Rumelia is a product of the Berlin Congress and not related to the never implemented San Stefano, importance of San Stefano? How could this map be important for Eastern Rumelia if San Stefano was never realised and Eastern Rumlia was not the product of San Stefano? The map is also flawed since it suggests and misleads that Eastern Rumelia to be associated with San Stefano. If you look at the map it clearly states Bulgaria after the Treaty of San Stefano, which is wrong since these were suggested borders of the Principality of Bulgaria as an autonomous territory (one gets an illusion of independent Bulgarian state) second in the same map you can see Principality of Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia, which are not part of San Stefano.

See my response at Talk:Eastern Rumelia Kostja (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Removing vital maps"??? Kostja do me a favour, stop making me laugh. Hittit has a reputation of a mild, serious and always honouring his commitments user, unlike you who always use the discussions only as a pretext in pushing your POV. In one article declaring "Having just one ethnographic map may imply that this is the "correct one". Different views must be represented"[3] and at the same time removing every non-pro-Bulgarian map in other articles[4][5][6]. Be serious for a day just for a change. --Factuarius (talk) 11:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factuarius, see my comment on Talk:Treaty of San Stefano. I don't understand how removing one map is equal to removing every non pro-Bulgarian map. But you also seem to consider 18 to be bigger than 35 so it's not that surprising. Kostja (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is The Destruction of Thracian Bulgarians in 1913. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Destruction of Thracian Bulgarians in 1913. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note of this. Sardur (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NPOV and WP:TERRORIST, please do not use the term "terrorist" when describing groups or individuals. Please regard this as an official level3 warning. Thank you, LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be currently engaged in a canvassing campaign which I believe is actionable as per WP:CANVAS. Please desist. Evidence:123 Good idea using the word Seferberlik (mobilization) btw.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC) lol and you are not?...yes and I wrote "Seferberlik" it in Big Letters, easy to notice. Clearly more participants are needed to achieve NPOV. Hittit (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related conflicts if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Final decision. NW (Talk) 18:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hittit, as you have already been noted on talkpage of the Armenian Genocide (see the exact location) [7] and as a proof to your similar continuous behavior noted in the context of [8] not only by 1 editor, I'd like to call your attention to 2 regulations you are currently failing to apply: WP:TE and WP:DE.

I'd also kindly suggest you to differentiate personal attacks from based (in the context) and correctly formulated comments of disruptive or tendentious editing. Aregakn (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you removed the additions I made to Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims article. You may have been a bit hasty. I am not opposed in principle to a summary-style article on this general subject (with a less controversial title) although I am very skeptical about whether it can avoid getting into forks. The changes I made added a summary of relevant content from related articles that give detail on specific aspects, which is common practice, and illustrated a technique that could possibly reduce the forking risk. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, since there wasn’t anything on the talk page I didn’t know what to make of it. Are you still interested in proceeding with your suggestion to improve the article? As I have stated I have no objections on the title change. You would like to have a short discussion on the structure on the talk page? There is however currently the danger of deletion since a certain group of people would like to see the whole thing dissapeare, and they are not interested in discussions and factualities, I hope the work will not be for nothing Hittit (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what happens with the AfD. If the article survives, perhaps with a better name, I might try to expand and balance it out. If not, I am willing to accept the decision. I don't really see much connection between what happened in the Caucusus, Crimea and Balkans, or between the experiences of the Albanians, Turks and other Muslims in the Balkan region. Possibly something like "19th century Turkic migrations" could be coherent enough for an article. I can't get enthusiastic about it. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since currently your position is delete, would there be a room for consideration on your behalf to opt for “procedural keep” since there is the agreed alternative to change the article name and balance it out. This will at least allow further work on the article. Regards,

I have nothing more to add to the AfD discussion. You have to accept that Wikipedia does not aim to tell the truth. It just reflects what independent sources have said. With no good sources that use the term "genocide", there should not be an article with that name, perhaps not even a redirect with that name, whatever the truth of the matter. Assuming there are sources that discuss the forcible inward migrations to Turkey from the Caucusus, Crimea and Balkans, an article on that subject would be warranted. Where aspects are discussed in detail in other articles such as Muhajir (Caucasus), the broader article should just provide a summary of the detailed article. Personally, I tend to avoid working on articles about subjects on which I feel strongly (this is not one), and tend to avoid subject areas that are highly controversial, as this clearly is. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to tell, that this is the 2nd time you try to imitate and duplicate me. I and all others would find it neither creative nor productive and nor efficient.

The truth is, that if ONE sees the other did something, and they find it so much not in accordance to rules, that they place a warning and then receive a justification from the second and after that start making the same things, there is a very polite & civilised way to either ask for an excuse for the mistake (and maybe thank for the idea) and do it yourself, or to "stay in the same position" and prove it was wrong. I am sure that you could do both/either if you were willing to contribute to the truth. If you want one to see "your tuth" see "his" as well.

I also want to tell you, that, I'd say, neither of us will keep the same stance or opinion after death. We will probably find out more about the past and the present, and maybe the future and that will make us either to be sorry for our dids or ..... probably there is no "or" for anybody.

PS. I'm almost sure you shall oppose to what I stated above, or will leave it as it is, just not to have done what I predicted :)

Aregakn (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose that the polite and civilised manner would be that we allow for the contextual changes in the article Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims and we take the discussions off the AfD and do it on the article’s talk page. There you and all interested contributors can present their arguments on the events in a productive manner and we can work for a consensus. Do I understand that you are now prepared to do this and would opt for “procedural keep”? regards Hittit (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I thought, you wouldn't comment what I wrote :).

Dear Hittit, you have to understand, that there is no procedural keep" for disruptive edits. Have a look at Signs of disruptive editing at WP:DE. I can note minimum 5 points (inclusive the refusal to get to the point) your behavior on Wikipedia can be marked as and I am sure I can prove them. Also I see patterns of WP:Vandalism (according to "Types of vandalism - Page creation") in your newly created page, but as it is the first time I cannot be sure for 100%. More over, you are trying to involve editors in participating in the creation of this and especially with their participation and contribution to the article that will even a bit "ballance" it and you'd present it more objective, based on "imaginary consensus" and as dismissal of votes (at least some). This kind of articles are also described in wiki, and I just cannot approve or justify this behavior.

This is not productive for you or anybody else and especially the readers and the Wiki community. One might have "understood" it if they knew you were working directly to push a bias, but there is no other way to "understand" it. Articles that try to influence the opinions of readers on some issues, those that are based on OR, synth, rephrasing to strong wording or changing what the context in the menioned sources was told, etc etc are not to be in an Encyclopedia. You do understand that you are making an article that has no "body", no "idea" (if we disregard the title), and that it is a collection of some events that might have been taking place but are surely not directly connected to one-other, don't you? It is like an Armenian thinking, that all their neighbors during history wanted to destroy the people, take the land, there's or was a big conspiracy etc. etc. Of course if an Armenian wrote an article with all the historic events in the manner you did it would seem that there's a big conspiracy against armenia and armenians... But it is obviously not so. Even if that type of an emotional Armenian would feel it is true because of those events being so much real and so much "killing" for all they see they have had, it does't mean it is a correct idea (and would make an article on Wiki).

Why would you continue to defend this? I think your trust in logic (as i saw the banner on your page) can help you and the Wiki community alike. I assure you, that if I had noticed some, in my opinion, silly article like "the conspiracy against armenians by it's neighbors" or any other nation that describe killings or other attrocities not connected to each other or proved by reliable sources but only their national or those tracked as unreliable, I'd similarly vote for it's deletion if not nominate it myself. Aregakn (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm.. Once again, I just love seeing how you imitate the way I comment :). I think you'd like to join my school, wouldn't you? I am sure the next duplication will be on separating the arguments into "points" (1, 2, 3) as I did this time :). Aregakn (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been kept. I don't think I'll be involved with it in the future. I'd certainly suggest renaming to "Persecution of...". As for the content, in cases such as this one: well, it's better to say too little than to say too much. GregorB (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming options will be presented in the talk page and after giving some time for opinions it will be executed.Hittit (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dont warn your opponents in this. They could equally well warn you, and things will deteriorate further. My decision was not a keep, but an urgent request for an attempt at improvement followed by a more rational debate. 10:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice, the purpose of the warning was that once AfD resolution was apparent there was an immediate move to use “article merge” as another way to completely delete the article. This was even called by the “instigator” “next best move”. Working on improving the article becomes quite challenging if it is under constant attacks with the pure aim of deletion (no aim of contribution). I am trying to initiate a debate on how to jointly work on the article starting with the title, which I hope will result in some sort of co-operation and we can take it from there. I really encourage debate. Hittit (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate you reply my comments..., why did you ignore it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zpaven (talk • contribs) 15:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't describe edits as vandalism only because you disagree with them. Stifle (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would you call it? where can you now find the article contents Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922? how can you edit or contribute to the article? What happens if every one that just does not like a topic goes around merging and redirecting? Can you estimate how many articles one can redirect towards e.g., Persecution of Christians or Anti-Armenianism? I am struggling to understand your comments. --Hittit (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hittit, you can find the contents very easily, in fact. First, go to the History section of the article; next, find a previous version prior to the redirect; click "edit" and then simply paste or rewrite which every piece of content you want to add to the appropriate article, whether it is Persecution of Muslims, Anti-Turkism, the Greek Rebellion, etc. C'est tout!--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would call it, at worst, editing against consensus, and more likely I would call it the first stage of WP:BRD. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle, I read WP:BRD the actions against the article are everything but what WP:BRD is about, or did you mean only the Bold part?:

BRD is not a justification for imposing one's own view, or tendentious editing without consensus...

BRD is not a substitute for prior research which would support the initial edit or a reversion of it...

BRD is not a process that you can require other editors to follow...

BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes...

BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once...--Hittit (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a joke. I made only one revert, based on the consensus reached on the talk page, the one you can't accept. Sardur (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't a consensus, additionally I suggest you read WP:MERGE before you go about Wikipedia redirecting articles you do not like. If all Wikipedia editors behaved like you and your “clique” articles would be created based solely on the number of votes, what you are unable to vote-out you revert or redirect taking turns until you have completely destroyed the contribution of others. I doubt your actions go unnoticed... --Hittit (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note of this. Sardur (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did, there is nothing to see --Hittit (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the power vested in me by the Arbitration Committee under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement, I hereby issue the following sanctions:

• For the next year, you are restricted from referring to others' edits as vandalism (including "possible vandalism", "potential vandalism", etc.), including but not limited to in edit summaries and talk page posts, except where reverting the edit would qualify for exemption from the three-revert rule.
• You are placed on edit summary parole until the end of July. Should you make an edit using a misleading edit summary, you may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator for an appropriate time. (Guidance as to what will be considered "misleading", which should not be considered exhaustive, may be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Hittit.)
• You are limited for one year to one revert per article per week in the area of conflict, construed widely. You are required to post an explanation for any revert you do make on the talk page of the article in question, to be at least 50 words, in English, within 30 minutes of making the revert. For the avoidance of doubt, this will run concurrently to any existing revert restriction to which you may be subject.
• Failure to comply with the above restrictions will result in your account being blocked for an appropriate time.

Should you wish to appeal these sanctions, or any of them, you may do so at my talk page, at WP:AE, or to the ArbCom. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not agree with the decision will present my arguments on your talk page for further consideration --Hittit (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hittit. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Hittit. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Hittit. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have nominated Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Pcap ping 02:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link Hittit, I wrote my thoughts on the discussion page twice... I am willing to help improve the article and hope that it does not merge with the other article, my main strengths are to do with the discrimination and prosecution of Turks in Bulgaria, Cyprus and Georgia.Turco85 (Talk) 23:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But maybe an article called 'Turkish Genocide' should be created because there has been masses of cleaning of Turkish people in the last century as well.Turco85 (Talk) 23:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, The article Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims was nominated for deletion by a group of editors, almost immediately, as the article was created. The AfD outcome did not support deletion and the same people immediately voted among them selves to remove it from Wikipedia main space by placing a merge tag the on the same day of the AfD result I renamed the article to Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922 due to admin proposal and as a matter of courtesy for those who what issues with the article name. You are vey much welcome to participate in improving the article Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922, however first we need to seek the removal of the merge tag. Your discussion at the article talk page is valuable, thank you. --Hittit (talk) 03:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your response. --NovaSkola (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, new opinions are always welcome! regards --Hittit (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would really appreciate your contribution to the Armenian Genocide talk page. I have new discussions.

I am deeply sorry for the Genocide of the Turks and Muslims page, but the persecution of muslims is a very good article too.

I see that you dislike PKK and DTP(well done) today DTP is closed and their partisans made the BDP(Barış ve Demokrasi Partisi-like PKK has anything to do with peace), you would maybe like to change that template.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I will have a look. You can still participate in the discussion on the Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922 if the article should be merged or work can continue on the separate article. --Hittit (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for inviting me. I'll definitely be involved in the discussions. DenizCc (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! A while ago, you requested some feedback for an article at Feedback forum. Because it has been up there a while, and you've received some at least useful responses, I have now archived the replies in Wikipedia:Requests for feedback/Archive/27. Please do not edit that page though; if you require further feedback, add a new request on WP:FEED.

If you want help with anything whilst using Wikipedia, you can either:

• Use a {{helpme}} - please create a new section at the end of your own talk page, put {{helpme}}, and ask your question - remember to 'sign' your name by putting ~~~~ at the end; OR

• Talk to other users who will be happy to help live, using this.

Chevymontecarlo 06:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read your discussions on the talk page of Bulgarians arguing against using that absurd "personal estimate" as a source for driving the number of Bulgarians to 10 million. First of all, it seems that neither Todor or the other users are accounting for the fact that in many international censuses "Bulgarians" refers to the "Bulgarian nation" - not necessarily ETHNIC Bulgarians, which is what Bulgarians is about. Therefore, many of this supposed gigantic "international diaspora" could include Turks, Jews, Vlachs, Greeks, and any other peoples that once lived in the nebulous territory of Bulgaria. If they continue to argue with you, I recommend you open up an RFC. 72.144.150.102 (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Turkish refugees 1877 sumla.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Distribution Clothing Turkish Refugees 1877.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Turks in Bulgaria .jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Martin H. (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood. The sentence says that Roma settled in the town during Ottoman time, not that they were settled by Ottomans. Read it again. And it's kinda common sense that they settled at the time, do you really need a ref? Roma appeared on the Balkans at the time they were chased out of most of Western Europe. --Laveol ^T 21:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laveol, first please note the article contains no refernces or citations. The current state of the text gives the impression that the Roma settled with the Ottoman Turks to the town as if the Roma were part of the Ottoman Turk colonisation of the Balkans? Common sense, is to provide a reference for such a claim. I have never seen any text claiming Anatolian colonialists included Roma. If you want to state that today Asenovgrad is home to many Roma I belive you could chose a better sentecing not to create historical confusion, perhaps in a different paragraph.

Hittit (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I thought you'd be interested in improving history section of this article and join the discussion on the talk page about how the article will discuss the Armenian issue. Kavas (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Qal'at Ja'bar.--Zoeperkoe (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Turks in Bulgaria". Thank you. --Ceco31 (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hittit. Read the notes located under the button Save page when you edit, here I am showing them if you accidentally do not find them -
"Please note: 1. When you click Save page, your changes will immediately become visible to everyone. If you wish to run a test, please edit the Sandbox instead.
2. Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources. Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view.
3. Please do not copy and paste from copyrighted websites – only public domain resources can be copied without permission."

As you read, Kemal Karpat's claims or whether claims by Turkish authors have to be verified by external(чуждестранни) sources to have them in the article. So you should provide such author which support his claims, until you don't they should go from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceco31 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific as most of your above points make hardly any sense, your last edits have been sporadic inserts without any sourcing or with no relevance towards the Turks in Bulgaria (the article in question). If you are interested in editing articles on Bulgarian migration or hardship I am sure there are many articles out there to accommodate your needs, you will also note that most sources in those articles are from Bulgarian authors with few or no international publications. Refer to Kemal Karpat for his credentials; you can start with the LLB from the University of Istanbul, his MA from the University of Washington and his PhD from New York University so I would say he has enough publications out there to be quoted as a source. Also refrain from deleting sourced text on ad hoc basis as you have done until now and of course Welcome to Wikipedia!Hittit (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am specific - provide something not Turkish in defense for the claims of Kemal Karpat. I think that Wikipedia is clear about such cases - "Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources. Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view." As you do not provide external sources then this should be removed from the article. The inclusion of the Bulgarian refugees in the article I made for that how was changing the ethnic composition in Bulgaria in the periods before 1878, so this would be useful for the article. I don't care for the Bulgarian authors in the articles for which you are talking, Wikipedia is clear if any domestic author has arguable points as Kemal Karpat has - he should be verified. So please provide something verifying if you can and to end with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceco31 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your own opinions, Karpat is credible and with international stature worth using as one of the sources, not to mention that he gets a 108 000 hits in Google Books...Hittit (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer what I have asked you okay? Although you ignored to answer to what I have written and at the same time the deletion of unsupported Turkish claims for domestic questions is supported by the rules of Wikipedia I have shown above, I will labor to write to you once again and will not step forward to editing. Here for last time - are you able to show a not Turkish source that support the Turk's claims, if no I will delete this according to rules of Wikipedia, I have shown above? It is simple, yes or no? If these claims of Karpat have international worth it is normally to find at least one international support for it, if you can't then the international worth of this is only your opinion. As seems until now there are not anything in support of this, if so this is only the opinion of the Turkish historians and here is not hub for their desperate propaganda after Wikipedia herself forbids the using of such parasitic information. It becomes а little bit impudently, I do not place Bulgarian authors in the article, neither I am insisting for the removal of McCarthy and Hupchick's biased information who are recorded to have pro-Turkish bias: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/195930?searchUrl=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Fq0%3Dimber%26f0%3Dall%26c0%3DAND%26q1%3Djustin%2Bmccarthy%26f1%3Dall%26c1%3DAND%26q2%3D%26f2%3Dall%26c2%3DAND%26q3%3D%26f3%3Dall%26wc%3Don%26Search%3DSearch%26re%3Don%26sd%3D%26ed%3D%26la%3D%26jo%3D&Search=yes&uid=2&uid=4&sid=47698727183527 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceco31 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is also misleading information in the table for example, first to the number of 130,000, 1 million is added on a way claiming that there were further 1 million refugees not that this 1 million is other estimate, second, the tittle of the table is clearly written as "Migration and Expulsion of Turks from Bulgaria to Turkey" and this estimate for 1 million is not for Turks that immigrated from the Bulgarian state at that time and neither even for the current borders of Bulgaria, this estimate includes Serbia, European Turkey and others, so this will be deleted from the table because it makes the wrong impression that is claimed for 1,000,000 and more 130,000 Turks to left the state Bulgaria in 1878, i.e. only the Danubian plane; there is also misleading information from the map of the 1892 census, where the pink color denotes areas populated by Bulgarians and Turks, but in the page is written "(Pink denotes regions with Turkish population)" so this lie have to be deleted too. --Ceco31 (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the article discussion page, all given sources are found in the article. The fact you do not like the sources or you think Karpat, McCarty, Hupchick, Levene, Crampton, Mann, The New York Times, the Carnigie Endowment etc. are bias is no reason to go about deleting. Regarding the table of Turkish refugees you are free to provide sources if you have more exact numbers.

Hi. When you recently edited April Uprising, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russo-Turkish War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 18:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not delete anything here, but merely inserted a more fitting opening sentence. Pay more attention. --Mttll (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice this now, disregard my edit. Hittit (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hittit, the procedure for nominating an article for deletion for a second time is a bit confusing. It involves creating a new deletion discussion page and I have done this for you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Kurdistan (2nd nomination). I have also added the deletion nomination to today's listing, which you can see it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 2. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the assistance Malcomx15 Hittit (talk) 05:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hittit, I'm contacting you because we need some Turkish translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on tr.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Turkish Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

koga e suzdadena turcia i ot kogo?

ako turcia e po-mlada durjava ot siria, togava zashto ma turci v siria

a niama siriici v turcia?

ne e li turcia mlada durjava? ne e li turcia suzdadena sled razpada na

osmanskata imperia? togava bi sledvalo da ima siriici v turcia a ne turci.

neka da ne burkame poniatiata anadola i turcia.

turcia zapochva imenno s kemal koito e bashtata na turcia, predi tova turcia ne e imalo. sledovatelno cial sviat se smee na turskite gluposti za velichie i za sobstvenost vurdu siria.

vsichki istorici po sveta se smeiat i se podigravat na erdogan, za izmishliotinite, koito se opitva da suchini.

dori i siria da izchezne kato durjava, dori i rusia da izchezne, dori i germania na izchezne, dori i francia da izchezne, to shtatite i kanada i avstralia niama da izcheznat. i mnogo predi turcia da vladee siria i germania i francia, mnogo predi tova kitai shte zavladee turcia, taka che e smeshno i smehotvorno da se pishe za turcia a ne za osmanskata durjava v koiato turci niama i ne sa sushtestvuvali a imenno kiurdi,gurci,evrei,armenci i siriici.

ne moje turcia da e stara durjava, pri polojenie, che kemal e bashtata da turcia. turcia e edna mlada durjava sledovatelno ne moje da ima siriiski turci a moje da ima samo osmanski siriici i osmanski kiurdi i osmanski armenci.

za posmesishte ste v celiat sviat s tupotia i nevejestvo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.251.91 (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kude e vuprosa? smeshna e vasheta purvobitna logika, javno infantil bez registracija v Wikipedia. Zapoznaite se Turkish people Hittit (talk)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Greek genocide. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, 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 lose editing privileges. 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 loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dr. K. 06:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello you seem to be involved in deleting sourced information relating to the article. You are more than welcome to discuss on the article talk page, please refrain from blunt deleting before discussion. thank you Hittit (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit-warring to add WP:UNDUE information against two other editors. You are welcome to discuss your edit on the talkpage of the article where I have opened a discussion. But please do not attempt to impose your view by edit-warring further against two other editors until such time as you gather consensus. Imposing one's view by edit-warring against consensus is frowned upon on Wikipedia. Thank you. Dr. K. 16:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You restarted the edit-warring on Greek genocide with edit-summary "no arguments for removal". Please stop the misleading edit-summaries and your WP:NINJA tactics. The talkpage of Greek genocide is full of arguments as to why your proposed addition is WP:UNDUE and lacks consensus. Trying to ignore these arguments will not make them go away. If you feel emboldened by the support of Judist, I have news for you. This editor is following my edits around trying to stir trouble. But he is currently blocked for edit-warring. Becoming a ninja based on his support is a very bad idea. Best. Dr. K. 14:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Refrain from addressing me on my talk page, as clearly your intention is to label other users with edit-warnings. There is a specific article talk page, where as you can see other users disagree with your way of one sided editing. Hittit (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

other users disagree with your way of one sided editing:That user is blocked and followed me to the talkpage for the sole purpose of stirring trouble. I provided this useful piece of information to you so that you don't set your hopes too high and start edit-warring. Dr. K. 15:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 07:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your are implying, as clearly seen I have updated the article with the proper sources and referencing. Could you specify the exact reason you are claiming copy right violation...or was this once again a brainless revert due to contrary evidence. And the sources here: ^{[1] [2]} Hittit (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Copyvio material keeps on being added by this user. Thank you. Blackmane (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see another Hittit, because I am myself a member of ancient people of the Asia Minor, approved in 2012 by DNA test. Manaviko (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at April Uprising 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 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. Kostja (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was wondering if you'd be interested in setting up Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Turkey), based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). Now it's not a contest in itself, it's designed to motivate people to inspire others to improve content and build something which demonstrates the hard work going into the country which is visible. The focus is more on quality improvements but new articles are welcome too. Eventually a Turkish National Contest could be created to fuel it, like Wikipedia:Awaken the Dragon, in which contestants can choose to keep the Amazon vouchers themselves to buy their own books for more articles or put them into book fund to help editors further improve Turkish-related topics by giving them the books they want. It will begin though as purely an improvement drive. If interested, or you think anybody else might be interested, alert them and sign up on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey talk page at the bottom. Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hittit. 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)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Turks in Bulgaria .svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jon Kolbert (talk) 07:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]