Mywayyy

Retribution revert-wars?

(Copied from User talk:Telex:)

Mywayyy, don't. First, these edit wars are harmful no matter what the merits of the case are, and if you persist I'm going to press to get you indef-blocked. (Your block evasion through anon IPs should by rights have gotten you at least a week by now anyway.) And as for content, you should have noticed by now that with Istanbul/Constantinople we have the naming issue not merely in the intro sentence but actually in as many as two separate articles of their own, and the section structure of the main article. It's already there, dammit. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your threats. Would you accept this? —Khoikhoi 17:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually have fought to keep the historical names (Greek, Armenian, etc.) at the top of the page in Turkish geography articles. Many of the pages that I've mentioned to you have the historical names because I've reverted people trying to remove them. You're being very unreasonable, Mywayyy—you're fixated on one city when I already explained to you that the world does not revolve around it. Historical names are helpful, take a look at Braşov for example. No one's fighting over having the Hungarian name up there.

Check the statistics at User:Telex/Ethnic identity in Greece. There is an actual (and large) Turkish minority in Western Thrace, and the Greek government agreed to preserve it (under the Treaty of Lausanne) in return for Turkey keeping Greek minorities in Istanbul, Gökçeada and Bozcaada. That's why your can use Turkish when communicating with public services and in certain state schools the medium of education is Turkish in that part of Greece. —Khoikhoi 21:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree! :) I've been accused of being a "Greek chauvinist" many times so I don't mind being a Turkish one. ;) Anyways, how many articles are you planning to do this? I don't think it's fair to have the Greek, Armenian and Kurdish names at the very top of Turkish city articles and for Greek articles just hiding the Turkish names near the bottom. I wouldn't mind if you only do it for a few articles, however. —Khoikhoi 03:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so you're saying we can stil have it in the 1st paragraph, but just not at the top? I agree to that! We could prhase it like, "Alexandroupoli has a sizeable Turkish population, which they refer to as Dedeağaç". How's that? Well, I don't think you can consider people that have lived in Trabzon, for example (and still do) as "foreigners". That's why I think the Greek names are appropriate at the top—also because they're useful. For example, look at the Hrodna artice:

Hrodna (or Horodnia; also Grodna) (Belarusian: Гро́дна, Го́радня, Гаро́дня; Russian: Гро́дно, Grodno; Polish: Grodno, German: Garten) -- in Belarus

However, you won't find many Poles there (at least that's what I think). —Khoikhoi 03:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

But Mywayyy, the Kurds aren't recognized as an offical minority group in Turkey, so should we delete the Kurds in Turkey article? Who says we should write articles based on what your or my government says? I think we should accept other sources as well. I like your suggestion—I've already added Κωνσταντινουπολη in the 3rd paragraph, is that ok? The problem is I have a feeling a lot of people might not accept

King Mywayyy

O Great Mywayyy, you still rule. The German pencilneck is still awed -- he sees ghosts of your Majesty everywhere. Hasta la Mañana. 79.130.250.8 (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)