User talk:Aloisnebegn

May 2022[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Pan-Turkism, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't deleting paragraphs that cites false sources, makes unfounded and biased claims more constructive than keeping them in the article? Obviously those paragraphs had zero encyclopedic value but simply propaganda texts coming from implicit hostility carried by authors against pan-turkist ideology. You do not see such paragraphs in other articles about different nationalist ideologies. Aloisnebegn (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022[edit]

Hi Aloisnebegn! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Turkish people several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Turkish people, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Turkish people shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Chip3004 (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aloisnebegn, you are edit warring, and I will block you if you continue. User:Beshogur, the solution is simple: simply add "according to historian Peter Benjamin Golden" to that sentence, which is the proper thing to do. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is my incomprehensible while other side is using phrases like 'manipulating sentences', etc.? I am not the one edit warring here. I said exactly what you have said in my edit summary, you cannot present a disputed view as absolute truth in an encyclopedia. Aloisnebegn (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sigh* no you cannot, but your version was no improvement, and your summary, like I said, didn't make a lot of sense. Sorry, but I happen to know a bit about that. Anyway, you didn't revert, so I'm glad--and now we need to see if User:Beshogur follows up on my suggestion. If they don't, they're silly. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: changed according to the book (from what I've understood), was too complicated. Hope it's ok. Beshogur (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring is the continual removal of items from an article here. It would be best if you can find an alternate source for information rather than simply removing what you don't like in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. nothing was removed. Aloisnebegn (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have phrased the argument in a different way, then the other user kept reverting my phrasing and tried to keep the old version. With interference of another author, sentence was rephrased. Aloisnebegn (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Wikipelli. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to White Turks—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Wikipelli ^Talk 23:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was an accident, I was going to revert it also. thanks Aloisnebegn (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Always try to present facts using a neutral point of view. The hallmark of Wikipedia is that we present all sides of an argument, without judgement. You can disagree with something in the article, but deleting it doesn't help. You can always try to present sources that show an alternate viewpoint or that refute the position that you disagree with; that's what makes a good encyclopedia. Edit wars are not constructive and actually harm what Wikipedia is. We have to work together here, for the betterment of the the project as a whole. Oaktree b (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one created an edit war. Aloisnebegn (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a forum. Aloisnebegn (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Pan-Turkism, you may be blocked from editing. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pan-Turkism. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep posting such warnings just because you agree with the other editor. It simply wont work.

I am writing this explanation not for you, but in case any admin would see this: directly and repeatedly reverting a tag edit you disagree is the action that starts an edit war. There are justified complaints in the article's talk page and my tag edit reflects that. Article is not written in a language that belongs to an encyclopedia. Aloisnebegn (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Armenian genocide, you may be blocked from editing. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice[edit]

Hi, I see you've been here for 2 years, but that you did not yet make 100 edits, so I say welcome because you are in some ways new here.

I see you are bumping into people here. I hope it is OK to offer you some advice. This is nothing more than informal, friendly advice from an editor:

Don't delete thing just because you do not like the topic. Wikipedia has article on many things that many people dislike. It is not a list of nice things, it is factual information. Aim to improve rather than delete.
If you want to improve the encyclopedia, start with easy topics. Avoid editing only about one topic. See WP:SPA.
If you find that you are too emotionally invested in a topic to edit it without emotion, avoid that area. Or make suggestions to improve on the talk page.

The article White Turks is badly written. It needs improvement, not deletion. I hope this is helpful. I wish you the best. CT55555 (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you change the sevres syndrome article also, by removing its deletion nomination but keep the tags please. I think they are very similar in terms of language. I dont know how to do it. Aloisnebegn (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you! Aloisnebegn (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to stop the deletion nomination, make a comment that you withdraw the nomination and then an admin will probably close the discussion. I am not skilled to do that. CT55555 (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just did it and it was my 100th edit :) Aloisnebegn (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you![edit]

Congratulations on your 100th edit. I wish you success. CT55555 (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please proceed as I have said. I do not take your accusations seriously. I did not do anything with nationalist motivations. Instead tried to fix the articles written with nationalist motivations. Since I am new I do not exactly know which ways should be used while doing that and learning. All I see is a bunch of editors getting angry with nationalist motivations. Aloisnebegn (talk) 10:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —C.Fred (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The neutrality of article is disputed in its talk page, and biased, even fanatic language is so obvious to anyone who has a smallest idea about the topic; except editors who are blinded with nationalism. Since I made the first tagging, it was always reverted by same group of editors with nonsensible and repetitive explanations, so I reverted back. Then they came together and reported me by specifically picking the mistakes I have made, including ones I have apologized from people related, throughout learning which function of wiki should be used for what. My edits are concentrated on topics related with turkey and I got into unsolvable disputes with same group of editors since I have started to use my account. Unsolvable because they failed to provide any sensible explanation for their constant revertings. The reason for concentration of my edits is not because I am a fanatic turk trying to disrupt wiki articles (which was the impression they tried to give about me on reporting section), but simply some of the english wikipedia articles about turkey is horribly biased, always citing same circle of authors who share the same view, written/protected by same group of editors and does not even represent the cited sources correctly. This is not an appeal for your blocking decision. I already experienced that I cannot do much for changing such articles into actual encyclopedic ones because of such editors, and I don't think I will come back. I am only trying to inform you about what actually happened with this message, I would send it from private if I knew how to do it. Of course you can only decide what to do by amount of editors who reach to a consensus together, since you do not know much about the article topic that causes the conflict. But keep in mind that such way of decision making usually helps editors who have the majority to promote their biased views. Aloisnebegn (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We welcome your contributions when positive, constantly deleting new information doesn't help. There are no biased views, so long as we can present both sides of the argument. Happy to discuss with you when the block expires. We should always aim for a neutral point of view in an article. Oaktree b (talk) 02:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]