User talk:WikiCorrection0283
| This is WikiCorrection0283's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Welcome
|
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Beshogur (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
November 2020
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --GGT (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Talk page comments
Hello, WikiCorrection0283,
Do not ever BOLD or italicize your talk page comments or put them in all caps. It's disruptive editing and annoys other editors trying to have a discussion with you. Use proper indenting and respond calmly to other editor's comments and questions. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!
|
- I too recommend you visit the Teahouse, as it's a very helpful place for newer users to learn how to productively contribute here on Wikipedia. —valereee (talk) 11:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Walls of text
Hey, WikiCorrection0238! Multiple long paragraphs tend not to be persuasive on talk pages. People need to easily understand your point, which means a skill you need to develop here on Wikipedia is writing short. It takes time to write short; it's much easier to just keep making point after point. You not only don't need to do that, it's counterproductive to being persuasive, and it also can be disruptive.
Choose your one most important point and state it. Back it up with you most reliable source, including if possible a short direct quote from that source. If you've got more than a few sentences, it's probably longer than it needs to be. Go back over it, checking for anything that isn't really important, and whittle it down.
Here's an example of something you posted:
You haven't replied to a single one of my points and seem to struggle with the simple definition of what a 'massacre' is. Whoever said anything about generic civilian deaths? I'm talking about systematic murder of multiple non-combatants - have you even read the extensive study? I'm not sure exactly what your 'warning' is a reference to but I suggest you actually read the comments and understand the deep flaws in your arguments. Have you even read the reference? I doubt it. The only laughable issue is the fact that you hinge your entire argument on whether each reference explicitely uses the word 'massacre'. Multiple mass-murder of non-combatants and burial in mass-graves sounds a lot like massacre to me, unsurprisingly, it sounds the same to Hitchens, who has provided in depth analysis of this ... which I suggest you read. I suspect you haven't, given your refusal to answer the question. Given you have failed to actually respond to anything sensible, I revert to my original question: Mr.User20 are you happy to include the 1974 'massacres in northern Cyprus', given all of the discussion above? I also note that I have replied to all of Beshogur's queries. WikiCorrection0283 (talk) 12:19 pm, 14 November 2020, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC−5) (reply) Given your insistence that intentional mass-murder of 1500-2000 non-combatants (including women and children) "does not equal massacre[s]" - please kindly share what exactly your definition of massacare is. Despite your fundamental inability to grasp semantics, I'm sure we would all appreciate what you would consider a valid definition. Also, quite concerning is that you have repeatedly avoided commenting on anything to do with the vastly detailed study performed by Hitchens - do you think you have more authority on this topic than an acclaimed life-time researcher? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCorrection0283 (talk • contribs) 12:24 pm, 14 November 2020, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC−5) (reply) Further, why not focus on the actual topic at hand, and the extensive study - rather than relying on the status of my account? You mention long-standing consensus - actually, you had agreed with Mr.User to delete a portion of text based on your own false interpretation of the killings that you presented to Mr.User, the references I mention present facts to the contrary, hence I suspect Mr.User will wish to reconsider the inclusion based on this information - rather than focusing on my account, please actually respond to a) any of my reasoning, or b) the extensive study one of many extracts from the latest referenced study: "(...) what the turkish army did in Cyprus in August 1974. The record is a clear one, complied for the most part by neutral outside jurists, and it shows that Turkey employed deliberate means of terror and indiscriminate cruelty. (...) To understand the success, one need only examine the report, adopted on 10 July 1976 of the European Commission of Human Rights. The eighteen distinguished lawyers of the commission(...) It finds that the Turkish engaged in the killing of civilians, in the execution of non-combatants, in the torture and ill-treatment of detainees, revolting offences against women. (..) The shootings of unarmed civilians (..) 2,000 Greek Cypriots taken as prisoners to mainland Turkey, organised sadistic mistreatment (...) execution. I understand GGT has a long-standing Wikipedia account, and he can comment on the status of my account all he likes, but if you actually assess the points of reason, it's clear that the article should be based on facts not 'wikipedia-status — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCorrection0283 (talk • contribs) 12:38 pm, 14 November 2020, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC−5) (reply) I now add a FURTHER reference, from the European Court of Human Rights Judgement stating, which pre-dates the DNA confirmation of the massacres: """"""""""""""""""""""""""" In the said Turkish occupied areas the following atrocities and crimes were committed by way of systematic conduct by Turkeys state organs in flagrant violation of the obligation of Turkey under the European Convention on Human Rights during the period from 19 September 1974 until the filing of the present Application: (a) MURDERS IN COLD BLOOD of civilians including women and old men. Also about 3000 persons (many of them (~2000)civilians) who were in the Turkish occupied areas are still missing feared MURDERED by the Turkish army. (b) Wholesale and repeated rapes. Even women of ages up to 80 "were savagely raped by members of the Turkish forces. In some areas forced prostitution of Greek Cypriot girls continues to be practised. .... (...) (further atrocities omitted from reference) Greek Cypriot detainees and inhabitants of the Turkish occupied areas, including children, women and elderly people continue to be the victims ofsystematic torture s and of other inhuman and degrading treatment e.g. wounding, beating, electric shocks, lack of food and medical treatment etc. [..] death resultant All the above atrocities were ENTIRELY UNCONNECTED with any military operations. They were all committed at a time when NO military operations or ANY FIGHTING WHATSOEVER was taking place. 5. The aforementioned atrocities and criminal acts wore directed against Greek Cypriots because of their ethnic origin, race and religion. We conclude, the object was to destroy and ERADICATE the Greek population. """""""""""""""""""""" (end quote) All of the above is from the European Court of Human Rights, so in addition to the extensive hitchens study, which GGT still fails to comment on, we now have the European Court confirming 'eradication' and mass murder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCorrection0283 (talk • contribs) 12:47 pm, 14 November 2020, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC−5) (reply) In summary, it is clear that the balance of probability overwhelmingly supports the systematic massacre of approximately 2000 non-combatants. Supported by DNA evidence (referenced), extensive long-term study (Hitchens reference), and judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiCorrection0283 (talk • contribs) 1:09 pm, 14 November 2020, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC−5) (reply)
No one is going to read that. You are just ranting at the wind with posts like that. If you have to say "In summary," you're writing way way way too long. One of your complaints is that no one is responding to you. That's why.
Also, immediately stop casting aspersions on other editors/their motivations. Basically your first paragraph is one long personal attack, which is not allowed here. —valereee (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Valereee: Thanks for the advice on the large blocks of text, I will avoid that. As for the 'personal attack' I'd have to say if you read the thread that was a specific response to a personal attack made by the previous user on me. This was confirmed later in the thread by an experienced user who indicated that the previous user should not have behaved in that way towards me. Either way, I won't be commenting further on that page - I have provided detailed references and will leave it to the experienced editors to edit as they see fit. Many thanks.WikiCorrection0283 (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)