Talk:Armenian Cypriots

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

In Greek

The Melkonian Educational Institute WAS the largest boarding school for Armenians in the diaspora. It was built by two brothers, Krikor and Garabed Melkonian. The project started in 1924 and was finished in 1926. Of the two brothers, only Garabed Melkonian was fortunate enough to witness the completion.

In the beginning, it was an orphanage for Armenians who had survived the 1915-1923 genocide. Gradually, it turned into a world renowned secondary school. The school and its property of 16 buildings, football and basketball fields, a small forest and a large plot of land, belongs to the AGBU, which also subsidises the running of the school.

More than 1500 Armenians have graduated from the Melkonian over the years. Currently, 32 teachers instruct some 200 students from over 20 countries, ranging from the Middle East to North and South America

The Melkonian used to play a crucial role in the cultural, educational and athletic life of the Armenian Cypriots. In 2001, the school celebrated its 75th anniversary amid great pomp and celebrations, both in Cyprus and abroad.?In 2005 it was closed for good?, ith the decision of the AGBU CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS. --81.21.46.80 (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General touch-up

Hello. I am Alexander-Michael Hadjilyra and I am the author of the book "The Armenians of Cyprus". Within the next few days I will be making general corrections/additions/expansions to this article.

Neo ^ 06:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neo ^ (talk • contribs)

General touch-up going on

Over two years later, the touch up and expansion continue! Neo ^ 17:27, 01 July 2012 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neo ^ (talk • contribs)

Neo ^ (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Size of the article

First of all I just wanted to say nice work to Neo, you really have improved and increased the size of the article. But for some time now I have began to think that this page is too long. I took a look at Wikipedia:Article size. I found an average word count of the article to be around 30,000 words. Based on Wikipedia:Article size, 10,000 words = 50kB. That would make the article around 150kB. Going back to Wikipedia:Article size, '> 100kB Almost certainly should be divided'. If no one has any objections I was thinking how to decrease the size of the article, without losing any of the contents. The best way in my opinion is to create separate dedicated Wikipedia pages for the various topics, mainly Social life, Places of worship, Monuments and maybe Cemeteries and History sections. Once a dedicated page is created, the long sections can be reduced in size. The result, a shorter page that meets with Wikipedia:Article size, without losing any of the useful information added. What do you all think, should the length be decreased, and my solution? Seric2 (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion, but as you will see in the list of long articlesWikipedia:Special:Longpages, it is not even the 100th longest article. My aim is to make it as long as possible, by enriching its contents. All the information should be present there. When people look for the Armenians in Cyprus I want them to have all available info there, not scattered. Therefore, the page will remain as it has. (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I'm not saying we remove the suggested sections, (Social life, Places of worship, Monuments (posably Cemeteries and History)) but to simply relocate them to a dedicated page, then simplify here to decrease the length of the article, in accordance with Wikipedia:Article size. Not unlike, for example, Cyprus has a history section that is relatively shorter and a longer dedicated history page. Going back to Special:Longpages, Armenians in Cyprus is 101st (When I took a look at the list) on the list out of 4,009,971 English language Wikipedia articles, with still more additions to come. I know it's a going to add more work, and you want to make more additions before you even consider any way to make the page shorter. Here's the thing, you have been making additions for 2 year now, since then the size of the article has exploded, and I think its great that you have added so much. In the process the article has become too big, even by Wikipedia standers. Once more I know its an inconvenience, but cant you compromise even a little? Seric2 (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My aim is to make it as comprehensive as possible. I expect that all the additions would be complete within the summer, maybe even September. It shouldn't become much bigger, just under 100th. I would rather the article remains un-disected. (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split - The article ranks Top 50 for size, for which reason I vote to split out politics, monnuments, education, religion/places of worship, and other separable sections.--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article should remain as it is, as it needs to be comprehensive Neo ^ (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On another matter, it is very easy to nagivate it, given the fact that it has a comprehensive contents column Neo ^ (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

First of all sorry for the late reply, been busy with work. Since the original discussion, the page has moved from the top 100 to the top 50 for size, at 39th place. Neo would you even consider creating a main page, at the very least some of the topics? It's used thought Wikipedia. All you need to is to notify readers that what there reading is an shortened down version, and the link will take them to the full thing. Apart from your preference 'to keep the page comprehensive', do you have some kind of Wikipedia policy to back up your position? Seric2 (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really matter what rank the article is? At any rate, a main page would be a good idea for the shortened version. Please tell me how to do it.Neo ^ (talk) 06:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its not so much the rank of the article, but the size. Rank is a good indicator of size, using
WP:SIZERULE, we can see its over the limit. Moving on, the first step I would think is to create a separate main page, History of Armenians in Cyprus for example. Then using the the current section for the main page, the process would of reducing the size, paraphrase by removing the ares the are historically less significant, I would assume. Hopeful this will create a shorter history section, without losing any of the information readers can access. Something else that can be done is not to include Armenian, Greek and Turkish in this page, but only in the main pages only. To be honest I'm not exactly an expert. What do you think could be done to reduce the size of the article? Seric2 (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

It sounds like a good idea, only I need to find time to gradually do it. How do I instert the link on top of the page (saying that it will be a truncated version)? Also, I assume this new page will cover all subjects covered in the current page, only in a smaller length. I am looking for a better title, perhaps Armenians in Cyprus in a nutshell? Any better titles? And, once I start doing that, can we remove the too long header? Neo ^ (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that this will take a long time to shorten down, time has been an issue for me too. As long as progress is being made. To answer your questions, as long as we indicated above each topic that there is a main page (and a link to that page), there will be no need to include any message at the top. All topics will remain, only in a smaller length. The title, I don't think there's a point in changing the title to Armenians in Cyprus in a nutshell. Changing it to Armenian Cypriots I can understand, but that's a different discussion altogether. Finally the header, I think it should stay as long as the page is above the recommended
size. Mainly to inform other users users who could lend a hand. I think a good example to help us with size is the Armenians page, not too long, not too short. What do you think? let me know. Seric2 (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Can we work it the other way round? Meaning, have "Armenians in Cyprus" be the long page it is now and a main page for the shorter version?Neo ^ (talk) 09:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. The only way to decrease the size of the article is to decrease the length of each topic, or remove topics. Unless you want to delete information, the only way to keep the information and decreases the size of the article is to create a main page that contains more information. Why do we need to decrease the size of the article? Because of
WP:SIZERULE Seric2 (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

It is unacceptable to remove entire parts/chapters of the article, until a summary has been made. Patience will need to be exercised on behalf of the "interested" parties.Neo ^ (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The split-apart tag was on the article for more than one week, and the vote was two to one to reduce the size of the article. I recommend taking Armenian religion in Cyprus to AfD to engage others in the discussion on whether or not this should be split out.--Jax 0677 (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

Comment - Once most of the sections are broken out, we will see if too much was readded to the "Religion" section in terms of size.--Jax 0677 (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to get the size of the article to at the very least to 100 kB. At least the article is moving down the list in terms of size at 246th place. I was thinking about moving Monuments and Cemeteries into Armenian religion in Cyprus, or should two different pages be created? Seric2 (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Separate - I think that keeping them separated makes more sense, since monuments are not necessarily religious, but Monuments and Cemeteries are both geographical.--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point, that defiantly makes sense. when I have some free time I will get to work on Armenian monuments in Cyprus and Armenian cemeteries in Cyprus, assuming anyone else hasn't made the change themselves. Seric2 (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How interesting, all you people getting involved without me, the author... Give me some time and the size will be done properly.Neo ^ (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neo, I think it's great how much information you have added, simultaneously you might want to consider
WP:OWN 'All Wikipedia content is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article.' So far I think I've been patient, given that this discussion first started in July. Seric2 (talk) 09:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
One more thing, if your dissatisfied by the shortened down version you can always change it down the line. Food for thought maybe? Seric2 (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you are right. Maybe you should proceed with Armenian monuments in Cyprus and then I will inspect them. The other sections are not very long.Neo ^ (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what the problem is with the emblems that Seric2 keeps removing?Neo ^ (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Filling in the space from the introduction to the start of the history section with pictures just for the sake of having pictures seems pointless. There not being used to illustrate something mentioned in a piece of nearby text. It's not the pictures, the only problem I have is the location. Put them in the relevant sections, or in a gallery for example. If I'm the only with this problem, then put them back. But I would really prefer if they were put in a location that made sense. Seric2 (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They do have a point there, but anyway how do I create a gallery?Neo ^ (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Take a look at
Jesse_Dupree#Photos for an example.--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Religion section

I believe the summaries left should suffice. Something needed to be done because the 2 copies of the same material had started to diverge. Also, I don't think we need the vast bibliography at the end of the article, especially since most of the titles are in Greek any way. Op47 (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The summaries shall suffice. I will need only some time to go through them and make sure they are the one and the same. So, by the end of this process (hopefully by the beginning of June), the main article will only contain the summaries and the secondary article (Armenian religion in Cyprus, I think), will contain the enlarged versions. I only need some time.

The "vast" bibliography will remain. Just because some people can't read Greek or Armenian, doesn't mean we should not include them. Neo ^ (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The language doesn't matter, but that bibliography section needs serious culling. I've already started, unpublished articles has no place in an encyclopaedia. Canterbury Tail talk 13:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

tone problem

You've said I really should respect your tone, as you've put a lot of work into the article. You've obviously done a lot of research, but the terms I took out don't belong in an encyclopedic article. I hope you will read

WP:MOS to see why. I can cite chapter and verse if you like, but you _can't_ use those words. I respect the work, the tone has got to go.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

You appeared out of the blue, imposing yourself on the article. However, be that as it may, explain to me two things:

a) why can't I say "Unfortunately, the church or the monastery was taken over by the Turks"? or "unfortunately, the monument became a victim to the Turks"? b) when I speak about people who are dead and alive, at the same time, why can't I distinguish between "the late xxx yyy and zzz aaa" ? Neo ^ (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to match your snotty tone, but since you've chosen to maintain it, here goes.
I'm surprised, or perhaps not so surprised given your tone problems, that you are completely unaware of Wikipedia's core value that anyone can edit any article. I've actually been here several months before you got here, but you've been here long enough to know better. Shame on you. I direct your attention to
Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
.
Your naive question a) can be answered at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view if you're not too lazy to look there.
Puffery aside, b) can be answered at [Wikipedia is not a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site] as well as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch.
I chose to clean up your mess rather than give it over to the admins to clean out, and they would be far less kind than I. I would be happy to let someone higher up have a look at this interesting topic which you've covered in crap, should you persist. Lay off, this is not your article, you need to understand that.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should simmer down with our tones. Thank you for your pointers, I will have them in mind.Neo ^ (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Education and places of worship

Within the next few days, I will be selectively adding some information from the main articels into the general "Armenians in Cyprus" section. Neo ^ (talk) 14:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selective needs to be the operative word here. The article is unruly enough, and all the information I have removed exists in other places already. Blurbs are okay, but full-scale duplication is not. Ishdarian 14:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. And the same will be done for the monuments... Neo ^ (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

I really cannot understand why we can't have a bibliography. Can someone explain this to me? Neo ^ (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, to answer that, can you explain to me what purpose that list serves in the article? Ishdarian 14:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose is, naturally, to give pointers to anyone wishing to explore the matter in depth. I can understand removing the unpublished sources, but not the published ones. Even so, what is the problem in keeping this bibliography? Or, perhaps, if there is a problem with its length, why not create a new section of bibliography? Neo ^ (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The autobiographies/biographies serve no purpose as they do not directly relate to the topic (Armenians in Cyprus), even though they may relate to Armenians currently or historically in/from Cyprus. Some, SOME, of the material should be reintroduced in a Further Reading section, but again, it needs to be selective. Ishdarian 15:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Therefore, I will remove them and add the others. Thank you.Neo ^ (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bold

In the timeline and some other sections, I had bold for better appearance. Why did you remove it? It is purely for visual reasons...Neo ^ (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You answered your own question-it does not follow Wikipedia guidelines, it is purely for visual reasons. Bolding is for the lead paragraph only, and rarely for other uses.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement

We said a smaller bibliography, so we added back only books and published articles.

We said not to expand on the topics already covered by the three other articles, okay, we added back only small paragraphs about each school, monument and church.

But now, others are deleting even this! Help, we need to contact an administrator!Neo ^ (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The vast majority of images in this article add nothing to the page. It is not encyclopaedic to have photos of every single possible organization or meeting of Armenians in Cyprus. I would like to remove almost every single image of people standing around outside buildings and images showing groups going on excursions and group photos as they have no encyclopaedic value. Also the number of photos of family and organization emblems is completely over the top and most of them should also be culled. Disagreements? Canterbury Tail talk 11:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fair to say that the only person who would disagree, is Neo. If you have the time and energy to do it, go for it. Seric2 12:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, but just for clarification, you're not removing ALL the photos, correct? Ishdarian 15:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't remove them all. Just the majority. Don't know which ones I'd leave at this point, haven't given it enough thought. Canterbury Tail talk 17:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How nice, you all get together and decide on your own what to do... How nice.Neo ^ (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neo ^ this isn't a personal slight at you, it's about Wikipedia styles and standards. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a collection of photos and random information. The majority of the images on the page have no encyclopaedic value and add nothing to the article. Having details of every organization that Armenians are part of in Cyprus, and photos of members of those organizations, is not what we're here for. There are plenty of places on the web where this sort of thing may be relevant, but to a reader of this article having over 50 images of people standing around, sometimes in front of buildings, does nothing. And neither does having the photograph of every prominent Armenian Cypriot in the article, especially when they have their own articles if they're notable. Wikipedia is not a collection of images, it is not a memorial, directory or list of census information. Neither is it here to promote communities or cultures. It's simply an encyclopaedia. Also you don't have control over the page, it's not your article it belongs to the community. I know you've put a lot of hard work into it, and no one is putting that down, but it needs a lot of changes to bring it to Wikipedia standards. Please read
WP:OWN. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 11:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Every single photo is in front of a building that has to do with the community or it shows people having to do with the community. In the same way is not my article, it is not yours either. Also, we use the metric system. Finally, the last info I added - which was regarding some clarification and minor addition - has nothing to do with the dispute and should not be deleted. Neo ^ (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopaedia not a community support website. We don't have articles on towns showing every single building in a town (that's what Google Street View is for.) Similar no other article on a community shows photos of seemingly every single member of the community and every single building related to them. The English language metric uses , as the thousands delimiter per
WP:MOSNUM. Canterbury Tail talk 20:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I'd support a measured removal. The amount of photos is ridiculous; they go on longer than the text of the article. As per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images only those specifically relevant should be used, and they should be placed next to the relevant section of text. So the ones of "Notable personalities" next to the "Notable personalities" -brilliant. The one of "The Armenian Prelature of Cyprus emblem" hovering next to the TOC, no where near the prelature section - not so good.
There is also a huge amount of text sandwiching (pictures both sides of the page), which is also a violation of the MOS policies.
Certain sections, such as History, have it pretty much right with the pictures. The sections that have it wrong have it so wrong and violate so many of the MOS rules, it would probably be easy to remove all the photos from that section and gradually add back only those which are relevant to the specific piece of text. --Rushton2010 (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking into some of the photos and it looks like there is a lot of copyright violations in the photos. The majority of them were uploaded by a single user claiming self made when several were corporate and magazine logos, and there is a lot of photographs that look like they've been scanned from original photos and likely not the uploader's copyright. I'll have to go through them, several have already been deleted for obviously copyright infringement but I'd imagine there are a lot more on there. If a user is uploading some violations then the chances of more of them being violations is very high. Canterbury Tail talk 21:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just tagged about another 7/8 images as blatant copyright violations. So it seems the image situation may sort itself out. Dozens of images have been uploaded to commons by Neo ^/NeoCy (same actual names listed on their respective user pages) and they're all listed as Own Work however some have been found taken from UN websites, scans from newspapers and magazines, taken from promotional company websites, all rights reserved Flickr accounts and many other sources etc, which calls into question every image uploaded by the editor. Often if an editor is found to have continuously uploaded copyrighted images they all end up being removed as dubious licensing. Canterbury Tail talk 21:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Metric system in numbers

Can someone point me to an official page on Wikipedia stating that instead of using the format 12.256,82 (metric system), we should use the format 12,256.82 (non-metric system)? Thank you.Neo ^ (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSNUM. This is the English language Wikipedia, and in the English language metric is delimited by a , for thousands not a decimal point. Canterbury Tail talk 16:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I see, however I am fairly certain (in fact, absolutely certain) that the metric system used in Europe delimits thousands with a full stop, while a comma is used for anything less than 1. For example, pi=3,14159265358979, while Cyprus has an area of 9.251 Km². Can we please clarify that?Neo ^ (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being British I can tell you the metric system in English is definitely , delimited for thousands and . for decimal. Other languages use it in different manners, French and Greek use it the other way around, but the English language version is as described in WP:MOSNUM. Canterbury Tail talk 20:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of metric vs. imperial systems. As the user above says, in Britain we use the metric system and delimit with a comma. Infact, only the USA, Lybia and Myanmar DON'T use the metric system.
The Comma vs. Fullstop is very much down to national/linguistic preference. This is the English Language Wikipedia, and in the English Language numbers are delimited with a comma.

It is actually one of Wikipedia's rules that they must be delimited with commas.--Rushton2010 (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Churches, monasteries, schools

Following the dispute, I want to state this. It is absurd to have only 2-3 lines for each of these topics, just because there is a main article. I added very little information, then others reverted it. How can we arrange this? I want to add something on each of these items and then, if anyone is interested, they can go to the main articles... Ideas?Neo ^ (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is absurd to bloat this article when there are main articles on each of the topics. Two or three lines on each will be a really nice goal, and make this a manageable article. The problem is, you want all information in one article; the whole purpose of hyperlinking is so that readers can go to more in-depth articles if they so choose, not have to wade through trivia to get to the good stuff.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that I want all the information in an article. I still believe something more should be added... Neo ^ (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be added at those target articles, and not this one. This one is full to the gills.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Social Clubs/Scouting

I cut a large portion out of the social clubs section. @Neo ^ (talk · contribs): For the past/defunct organizations, can you dig up some refs we an add in to the article? Ishdarian 14:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the logic behind what you cut... for clarity... Neo ^ (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. There is a whole bunch of unsourced information presently in the article. For the listed social clubs, they need to be sourced per
WP:NOTDIR. Ishdarian 13:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I am talking about what you deleted. Neo ^ (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As am I. That was my reasoning. Ishdarian 13:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied the Scouting stuff to the talkpage at

Scouting in Cyprus, once I've weeded through it, spoons of it can be added to that article.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Other issues

  • Populatiom distribution maps have no key

—

Lfdder (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Reliable sources and issues

An additional issue I just noticed is that there are several references pointing to a book [1]. Okay, it's an external reference. However looking into it more closely the references were added by Neo ^ to this book and the book was written by an author called Alexander-Michael Hadjilyra. Looking at the user page for Neo ^ I notice that the user's real name is Alexander-Michael Hadjilyra. Now reading through the book (more of a booklet) this isn't a fully published and reviewed scholarly work, while I'm sure the research in it is fine, I'm not sure about it's validity as a reliable source, especially when it's been added to the article to support edits by the same editor that wrote the work being used as a reference. A massive COI on a possible unreliable source. Every time I look closer at this article, and related articles, I find more and more issues. Dodgy references, mass usage of improperly licensed images and copyrighted material, personal opinion and basically using Wikipedia as a personal webpage on the subject matter and not as an encyclopaedia. And this has been going on for years without any real notice. This is going to take a lot of effort to get tidied up. Canterbury Tail talk 02:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you guys showed up, I tackled what I immediately saw when I found this article a few weeks ago, but there's so much...--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same guy, but if you're concerned, you can run a checkuser on him.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it's obviously the same guy, no doubts there. There's just so many issues. I'm just looking at tackling the over linking and numeric formatting at the moment. I've culled about 30 images that have no value in the article and no relevance to the sections they're in, they're just random images. At some point we need to tackle the notability issues once the general tidying is done. I'm going to start an issues list below. Canterbury Tail talk 02:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Neo's edits here and on Commons, ownership issues aside, it looks like there is a real feeling of persecution for him. Nobody really is, but to shoehorn him into compliance is going to take a lot of work, and be very painful for him. I just had a look at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Armenians_in_Cyprus and just with renames and the fact that most images are clearly not his work (though they may well be in his collection), this is going to be a long process.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neo ^ is obviously very knowledgable in this area, and he shouldn't be punished for wanting to put this knowledge out there. What is needed is not a persecution of the use but a supportive hand to put the knowledge he obviously has into a format that is acceptable to Wikipedia. I think this really needs to be more of a mentoring thing than a Wikipedia versus Neo ^ thing that is seems to have turned into. I'll see if I can talk to him and maybe see if I can get the block lifted if he agrees to discuss items on the talk page and get consensus for edits. Canterbury Tail talk 14:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, though it may feel like that to him, nobody is really versus Neo. It's that attention has been drawn to an article very badly in need of intervention, and it should have been triaged earlier, so it's coming all at once, which as I said must feel daunting. From my end, though, nobody's out to get him. I have many questions, but they'll come with time.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at his latest unblock, ahem, demand, I am certain of it now. Everyone has a pet article, I have been guilty of this myself, but I learned that if everyone is against me, maybe I'm the problem. What do we do about the images? I don't want to mass-delete, there may be some useful material in there, is it okay if I challenge them one-by-one?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Challenge away. I feel many may be legal to use, but the licensing is obviously incorrect for a lot of them. Some I feel he has taken himself so they are perfectly fine, it's the older images and the obviously staged photographs that are more questionable. Canterbury Tail talk 14:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm gonna start changing "own work" to "collection of Alexander-Michael Hadjilyra" and see if that seems more honest in the short run.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Items to clean up on article

A list of action items needed on the article. Feel free to add or scratch out once they're completed.

  • Appropriate use of images, non relevant images should be removed
  • Overlinking
  • Numeric formatting
  • Remove non-notable people (all people, even in lists, must meet the
    WP:Notable people
    requirements
  • Provide references for much of the article
  • Remove potentially non-reliable and COI related references
  • Provide neutrality to language
  • Improve tone of wording
  • Remove excessive detail (for instance what percentage people won votes by)
  • Remove non-notable items, not every action or organization involving Armenians in Cyprus is encyclopaedic
  • Remove items not about the article topic specifically on Armenians in Cyprus

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Canterbury Tail (talk • contribs) 03:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been demonised

Somehow, even when I correct factual mistakes, a "smart" person comes to undo all my edits. Have I been demonized? Have you lost your objectivity and can't you see beyond your personal opinions?Neo ^ (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user Ishdarian has reverted the changes I made for no apparent reason. This is absurd. Neo ^ (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ishdarian was right to revert you. You were blocked because you can't abide the single condition of the unblock, which is stay off this article. I've read your whining on your homepage about "third party meddling". You just don't get it, and no one needs to coddle you or be sympathetic to you any longer.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like for all limitations on my editing the article to be lifted.

This is my first request (hopefully, not of many) on this matter. I believe I should be allowed to edit this article, as I am allowed to edit all others. The fact that I am currently one of the very few experts on the field (Alexander-Michael Hadjilyra)( only makes this more imperative... Neo ^ (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please confine any further discussion of

Armenians in Cyprus article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Very briefly, because I won't go into many details now. After May 2014, Archbishop Varoujan will no longer be the Prelate. Major additions need to be made in the organisations section, as this is not representative of the community as it is now. Also, slightly more information (about 2-3 lines more) needs to be added to the places of worship and education sections and, perhaps (but a few more lines) in the monuments section. Major additions need to made in the personalities section, as this list is very, very limited and there are many (mostly dead) people who are not included. Also, I need to add something to the timeline. As you understand, I will not explain every single addition here. Once you say the OK, I plan on starting to gradually make the changes. Neo ^ (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do some people keep removing pictures?

I really wonder why... Neo ^ (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on

Armenians in Cyprus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ
for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenian_Cypriots&oldid=1205339671"