User talk:Utku Öziz

Hello, Utku Öziz, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages 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, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Please don't restore new contested information you added without consensus, see WP:ONUS. I did explain my revert in detail. You haven't used any independent reliable sources for your edits, not even one. Surely for such big expansion there should be at least one. We aren't going to add an entire expansion and change dates without a single independent WP:RS to support it. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And this is a fringe borderline primary source from 1937 which makes the exceptional claim of blaming the burning to ARF. Majority of modern and reliable sources clearly attest the burning to Turkish soldiers [1], see WP:AGEMATTERS, WP:FRINGE. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this a warning regarding WP:TEND. You might be reported next time for this kind of editing. You've added a complete WP:OR description the image using the book itself as citation, nowhere it says the accusation you've added. This kind of editing is unacceptable. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not WP:OR it is in the book pages 146-147. This image is also used in The Armenian Genocide Institute Museum. Moreover you yourself seem to be WP:TEND going after my edits despite they are factually correct. You can help me for such edits rather than reverting them all the time and using the 3 Revert rule for this. I really want us to have a constructive dialogue. For the picture please check this link. It is also in the academic review. It has also been published in Haberturk Newspaper on the 7th page on 13th of January 2010. I believe viewers should be informed. Using a fake image in a historical book is unethical we should not delete such information.

The image description as "fake" is your own WP:OR and we aren't going to use a genocide denier's "review" for WP:RS, see detailed comment specifically to you [2]. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAP. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia indeed is not a WP:SOAP Zani do not engage in such ways yourself. The article written bey Abraham D. Krikorian and Eugene L. Taylor and Haberturk Newspaper on the 7th page on 13th of January 2010 are not genocide deniers. Please stop blocking accurate information. Utku Öziz (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia indeed is not a WP:SOAP Zani do not engage in such ways yourself - Next time won't be a warning about personal attacks so be careful. You linked again the "academic review" of Güçlü, a genocide denier, which I already addressed can't be used in the article per obvious reasons [3]. As in regard to this, how exactly does adding that picture description improve the article? This is an entire academic book which is much more complex than a single picture from it. I don't see how your edit is an improvement. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first time a fake picture is used in a book that talks about the Armenian Genocide. This fake image is even used in the The Armenian Genocide Institute Museum. Such topics are serious topics and it is a shame to its victims to use fake images. There was also a crucifixion photo: 'Crucified' photo is not of actual Armenian event - Australian Associated Press (aap.com.au) where they accused Turks of crucifying Armenian women naked. Lying is unethical and it damages the credibility of Genocide. This should not be permitted. Then we can have people using Star Wars, Harry Potter Lord of the Rings images to make accusations. The picture used in the book is a fake image it is already evident to an unexperienced eye as the length of the arm of the boy reaching for bread or the fake Ottoman Officials clothing etc. This than turns into Anti-Turkish Discrimination and thus a hate crime. It was Donald Bloxham's responsibility to make sure of the accuracies which he have much more than this image as we both know. I know you are censoring sources because they are criticized with Genocide denial or you think they are deniers which is a fallacy but those sources are still accurate. Also it was in newspapers too jeremy+salt+HABERTURK+13OCAK2010.jpg (1120×1600) (bp.blogspot.com) Utku Öziz (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat a single picture from an entire academic book isn't the reason the book is noteworthy or academic. Highlighting it in its entire article isn't an improvement and is quite literally extreme WP:cherry-picking from an academic book and WP:RS. And a review of a genocide denier like Güçlü is not WP:RS for the topic in hand.

I know you are censoring sources because they are criticized with Genocide denial or you think they are deniers which is a fallacy but those sources are still accurate. - This is the last warning regarding personal attacks, if you're not capable of speaking without baseless accusations and personal attacks, then I'm afraid Wikipedia isn't the place for you. I've explained that Wikipedia article related to the Armenian genocide isn't a place to post a genocide denier's "review", which you've been shown to why in detail numerous times at this point. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have made not one single attack to your personality I only described the actions you have done. I am sorry if you are offended. For some reason the other reviewers of the book did not mention the fake illustration in their reviews nor did not mention other typographic or categoric mistakes and are only positive comments. This would then mean that either their review holds low academic value or they have deliberately avoided mentioning this. So keeping them and disregarding other views is a WP:BIASED which should be avoided. I believe there is no reason to disregard the HaberTurk article nor the article written bey Abraham D. Krikorian and Eugene L. Taylor. If I am not mistaken this image in commons was used in other articles before and deleted later on after other users realising that it was fake. Utku Öziz (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HaberTurk is a screenshot from a blog link you provided which isn't WP:RS. And I repeat for the last time, WP:cherry-picking a single picture isn't improving the article about an academic publication/book that is defined the least by that picture. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DS alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reversals of your edits

Utku, please note the following sentence on WP:CONS : "Explanations are especially important when reverting another editor's good-faith work." and also the following: "Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under edit warring, ..." which actually mean that if your edits are reverted without an accompanying discussion (not a simple edit summary), you can claim edit-warring on the reverter's part. Finally, there is this as well: "Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." Just wanted to share with you that claims and threats of edit-warring by some editors are one-sided if they do not discuss their edits properly, and are simply a means to act first to influence people in charge and to intimidate other editors. From now on, if someone reverts my edits and does not properly discuss the reason for the reversal, I expect to file for edit-warring before I give anyone the opportunity.70.164.212.36 (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! 70.164.212.36 I also have some editors at my neck in my contributions. I will try to remember that. I also would like to advice you to perhaps have a name and a Wikipedia User page like mine! You can use mine and many other editors pages as a reference when creating. I look forward to your contributions as well!

Kind regards,

Utku Utku Öziz (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

You have recently made edits related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe. This is a standard message to inform you that the Balkans or Eastern Europe is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Khirurg (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improper editorial synthesis

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. I am referring to certain edits you made to Vlachogianni, Livadi, and Anthotopos, Kozani. I am assuming good faith; however, this is not the first time you are being warned about improper editorial synthesis. Demetrios1993 (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For Anthotopos, I do not understand your point there is a source in Greek that is reliable. I do not know how else than good faith can you assume when a user adds the existence of an ethnic group in a settlement especially for Livadi where the municipality of Elassona states that it is founded by Aromanians and where there is a known Klepth / Armatalos hails from Livadi that has participated in 1821; Georgakis Olympios. The settlement name is also known as Vlaholivado (Λιβάδι (elassona.com.gr)) which denotes Vlachs just as in Vlachogianni. I also added a reference. Although I have to assume good faith from you so that you do not use it against me I cannot stop thinking that if you had good faith you could have researched and added yourself assuming you speak Greek too. You cited the WP:MOS for Livadi, the existence of Aromanians or any other people groups should not be hidden just because there is a group of admins who do not want it. I do not understand how admins should be the decision makers of the existence of an ethnic group in a settlement. This looks very very convenient for users who have friends and users who have lobbied Wikipedia. Moreover, in all these articles and many many more you are working with @Alexikoua. Interestingly in Anthotopos only Alexikoua has reverted my edits and somehow you are getting involved. Is this allowed in Wikipedia where an admin deletes the edit of one and after edit warring we bring editors who conveniently do the same thing? This looks like collaboration or like lobbying. Is this allowed or is this an extreme coincidence? Utku Öziz (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. Utku, you have been informed about improper editorial synthesis multiple times already, yet here you are trying to justify yourself. Your response even indicates that you still haven't read, or at the very least, understood the aforementioned policy.

You don't understand the issue with your edit in Anthotopos? First of all, nobody criticized the reference you added, but the claim. Specifically, you added the claim that the village "was [in]habited by Muslim Turks during the Ottoman Era" (diff). The reference says no such thing. The only mentions about Anthotopos are on pages 291 and 386, saying that the settlement had a mosque during the Ottoman era, and that after the population exchange it was converted into a Christian church; it remained as such up until 1950, when it was eventually demolished. Where exactly does it say that Anthotopos was inhabited by Turks during the Ottoman era?

Let's move to Livadi. You added the claim that the village is Aromanian. One could assume that it would be supported by the new reference you added; but no. The new reference you added simply says "Livadi k., Alasonya n., Alasonya kz., Tırhala l.: TD 101/20" (p. 409; i corrected the page). One could also assume that the claim would be supported by one of the other references in the article; but no. The article on www.elassona.com.gr (here), simply says that the village was founded by Aromanian-speakers, prior of the 17th century; nothing else. Furthermore, just because an alternative name for the village is Βλαχολίβαδο, or just because a famous Aromanian such as Giorgakis Olympios was born in the village in 1772, it doesn't mean that the settlement is Aromanian today, or that that it was Aromanian at the time of Olympios' birth (his father was not even from there), or that it was exclusively Aromanian after the foundation of the village sometime prior of 1521 (earliest attestation of the settlement). This is the definition of improper editorial synthesis. Where exactly does any of the references in the article claim that the village is today inhabited by Aromanians? You still don't understand the problem with your edit? Even your claim that Βλαχολίβαδο and Βλαχογιάννι are supposedly traced back to Vlachs etymologically, is original research. You claim to understand Greek, but you don't seem to know that vláchos has numerous meanings in Greek, and is not even how Aromanians call themselves in their own language.

I could have researched and added a supporting reference myself, since i speak Greek? No Utku, my time is limited as it is; it's not my job to search, evaluate, and then add references for claims added by other users. Sometimes i do, but i don't have to. By the way, you don't need to speak Greek in order to find reliable sources. You also added another reference? I am assuming you refer to Vlachogianni, where you added a reference to Koukoudis (2001). Once again, improper editorial synthesis. I am not going to expand though; read my edit summary (diff).

I "cited the WP:MOS"? Alexikoua brought up WP:MOS (diff). On the other hand, i wrote that there "must also be consensus among editors; it's not only about WP:MOS." (diff). Nobody tried to hide "the existence of Aromanians", as you claim. Again, read what i wrote above, and in my edit summaries. You cannot be adding claims that aren't explicitly supported by reliable sources. Last, i monitor some 850 pages; this includes Vlachogianni and Livadi. I wasn't aware of your problematic edit in Anthotopos up until i checked your contributions, and noticed that Alexikoua had corrected you. Also, just because i happen to edit some of the same articles as Alexikoua, it doesn't mean we are in cahoots against you. Demetrios1993 (talk) 06:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks in edit-summaries

Don't attack users in your edit-summaries like you did here [4] (and have done many times before). Read WP:EDITSUMMARY. If you're angry, open a talkpage thread. But if you keep making attacks in the edit-summaries, I will bring it to admin attention. Khirurg (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

You have recently made edits related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe. This is a standard message to inform you that the Balkans or Eastern Europe is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Khirurg (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Bagramyan’s replies to you and to others. The thread is http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Highly_inappropriate_language_and_attitude. The discussion is about the topic [5]. Thank you.70.164.212.36 (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. // Timothy :: talk 00:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]