![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
![]() |
Hi 2A1ZA! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC) |
Hello 2A1ZA, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to
Rojava has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without
permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa ( talk) 21:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Your addition to
Human rights in Rojava has been removed, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without
permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be
blocked from editing.
GAB
gab
14:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Please stop accusing me of vandalism. I am not vandalising the page Rojava. There is a content dispute and you seem very, very angry about it based on your reaction to the dispute but falsely accusing people of vandalism can get you in trouble, see Wikipedia:Disruptive user:
The following items are some examples which would make someone a disruptive user:
- Creating disturbances on featured article candidate pages, e.g. objecting just to object
- Continuously listing articles at Articles for deletion as an attempt to insult those who have worked on or contributed to the pieces
- Calling users names or referring to articles that the user has worked on in a derogatory manner
- Posting rumors or lies about other Wikipedia users, such as false accusations of vandalism
- Leaving hostile messages on a user's talk page, or attacking a user for items discussed with a third party on their talk page
Ogress 17:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you make
personal attacks on other people again, as you did at
Talk:Rojava, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. After I laid out here that our issue was a content dispute and that calling valid editing you disagree with "vandalism" could have serious repercussions, you immediately again referred to my edits as "vandalism".
Ogress
20:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HDP. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Read here. Understand what a consensus is. When you want to make a controversial edit, its you who should go to talk first. Not make your edit then defend it asking others to use the talk page.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 02:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AKP. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Acting like you own a page isnt the way to go dear ferakp (not waiting for you to deny, I just dont have the will or time to do a suck puppet investigation) You removed whatever you want and kept what you find suitable... this cant happen. Either restore the page to what it was or go to the talk page.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 12:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Foreign relations of Rojava, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democratic Union Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello 2A1ZA,
could you maybe take a look at the PYD's Wikipedia page? It's being vandalized by the same IP as the Rojava page and I have currently not enough time to act against it further. I'll revert these edits there now, but I can't look if he reverts it again. Maybe, a block request for this IP would be the right way to deal with it.
Kind regards, Ermanarich ( talk) 19:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, by undoing the referenced info on this terrorist, at best militant, organisation you have also removed a whole sentence on Salih Muslim's Twitter message that is all over the internet, and which I had referenced from three different reliable sources. I do not believe this was done negligently as I believe you act partially in this regard. Yes, this article needs to be protected from biased editors, whomever they may be. This would also entitle it to include correct reliable information that reflects the whole truth about the subject. Thank you. - 78.171.140.252 ( talk) 18:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I have a request which is related to some of the above arguments. When reverting an editor, or in fact in any edit, please could you avoid using wording like "Dear islamist user with the Istanbul IP address 78.171.130.160, please stop the edit warring". The part to which I object is identifying the other editor as an "Islamist". This is an incitement for opposing editors to then start commenting on your supposed views or affiliations, which of course they proceeded to do. All of this falls into personal attacks territory. Mentioning their location and IP address was also unhelpful, but that is not the main problem here.
I am prepared to intervene when personal attacks are disruptive, but I would hope to see a constructive approach on both sides. MPS1992 ( talk) 22:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Katie talk 23:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Dear 2A1ZA, your detailed description of your personal opinions on a sensitive topic labeled " Neutrality Disputed - This Article has biased pro-Turkish-Government labelling" reflects your biases and impartial views on the subject matter. I protest you and ask that other neutral administrators warn you about your neutrality and they edit the article instead. - 78.171.140.252 ( talk) 11:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Dear Incompetent Wikipedian, Your claim for undoing my revision that "the referenced sources do not support the bold factual claim" is only an excuse. It is a lie. Why would anybody add unsupportive references? Just because you do not want to see some facts does not make them nonexistent. You and the likes of you Islamophobes have turned Wikipedia into your playground. Wikipedia is dead because of you. This will remain a blot on your record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.140.252 ( talk) 18:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Kurdish Merit | |
For your efforts to improve Rojava-related articles of Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! | ||
this WikiAward was given to {{subst:PAGENAME}} by ~~~ on ~~~~~ |
Hi,
Since the allegation was made after the events took place by a respected Columbia university professor as some sort of analysis, I do think it deserves its own separate section. Inserting it inside the capture section makes it look like a part of news/events which is clearly misleading. Thanks. Vekoler ( talk)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Syriac Union Party (Syria), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democratic Union Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
You have been reported here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Long_term_abuse.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 16:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Syrian Democratic Forces shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Editor abcdef ( talk) 11:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Syrian Arab Coalition, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been
reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the
sandbox for that. Thank you.
Dl2000 (
talk)
21:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Al Qamishli is a city in al-Hasakah Governorate, whether it's occupied by Kurdish militia or not does not change that fact. What you call rojva is not recognized by any country or anything in the world. Can you give the names for all the English media you are talking about that consider Al Qamishli capital of the entity you're talking about? Until then, I'll remove that category. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 23:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I have disabled your edit requests on Talk:Human rights in Rojava because there were not yet supported by consensus. Please leave proposals for a few days before using the template, to allow other editors to comment. If there is support for a change (or if no one comments after a few days) please feel free to reactivate. Regards — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Colleague, please read: Talk:Free Syrian Army#2A1ZA (and perhaps others?): stop corrupting this Wiki article. -- Corriebertus ( talk) 14:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
You were reported Here.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 11:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
You dont really need to reply here, its just a rule to notify you when you are being reported.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 11:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The report was misplaced and should go to another portal. So you need to put your answer here.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 15:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 85.109.220.31 ( talk) 20:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
4world2read (
talk)
17:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert what you added more than once, so I don't run the risk of edit warring. If someone else sees a problem with it, they'll do it on their own. However, as of November 8 2016, 17:23, this edit stands. UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk) 17:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
A lot of the stuff about Turkish involvement in Mosul is after the battle began. Don't you think it is wrong to place it under "Background" section which is only actually for events before beginning of a conflict? I think it should be shifted to a separate section. 59.96.133.198 ( talk) 22:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Here.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 12:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Im gonna be nice now. You dont need to bother yourself with that ISIL edit, you are stressing your self for nothing. The paragraph already exist with a different wording. Go to the ISIL section and you will read this (I think it was written by Ferakp):
"In June 2014, after the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) captured the border city of Tell Abyad, ISIL fighters made an announcement from the minarets of the local mosques that all Kurds had to leave Tell Abyad on or else be killed. Thousands of civilians, including Turkmen and Arab families fled on 21 July.[28][29] Its fighters systematically looted and destroyed the property of Kurds, and in some cases, resettled displaced Arab Sunni families from the Qalamoun area (Rif Damascus), Dayr Az-Zawr and Ar-Raqqah in abandoned Kurdish homes.[28]".
Feel free to revert this if you dont want to see me in your talk page.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 12:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Look, Im losing my interest to be honest. More honestly, I've never had any interest. I gave Ferakp a summary of why I became so aggressive. I wasnt like this at the beginning and you practically shaped the article as you wish. You added the "historical background" and I didnt even bother to say a thing.
Now, I want to remove those pages from my watch list based on the advice of a friend Read here. I do not have your passion tbh. But, also, it is hard for me to see what you do here because it has a purpose. since I have saw your Reddit comments. I know what kind of extreme opinions you have and no matter how much you proclaimed that you will be neutral, well, come on, I dont think you believe it yourself.
To be short, we need a gentleman agreement that will allow me to remove the articles from my watch list and never have to deal with you again (We dont like each other to say the least)
If you are interested, tell me so we can agree. If not, revert this edit.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 13:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, 2A1ZA. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I've reverted your expansion of the introduction of the article. A slight update in the introduction seems appropriate, but the additional details do not. The lede should introduce and summarize. If sources demonstrate that more details is WP:DUE about the decline in tourism and the reasons behind the decline, that belongs in the article body and should be presented from a historical perspective rather than solely based upon recent events. Sorry that I don't have time to do all the work myself, but I'm happy to help and review. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
who are you to teach me what I do, Chaldeans are not nationalist theory, as your claim, but they are recognized nation according the Iraqi constitution and national documents of the United Nations and the European Union, so the user violator here is you, not me, so stop from your assyrianazation fake theory -- FPP ( talk) 22:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
you who began editing not me, so when you add false edits, my duty is to undo that -- FPP ( talk) 22:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Salih Muslim Muhammad shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please stop deleting clearly referenced info claiming POV in the section titled "Relations with Turkey". -
213.74.186.109 (
talk)
06:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Dear 2A1ZA, the ip-jumping Grey Wolf has complained about you on Beshogur's talk page. Cathexis1349 ( talk) 14:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
You've been warned for edit warrring at Turkey per a complaint at WP:AN3. Either of you may be blocked if you edit again about decentralization before you have got a clear consensus for your version on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 17:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Dear EdJohnston, as the result of a lengthy process, I had just implemented the unanimous final consensus version (see talk page) of the decentralization paragraph into the article. Hoping that no Admin help against further disruptive edits on it will be necessary, and hoping that if became necessary, the help would be there. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 00:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
You have this habit. One time you shoved your answer in the middle of my comment, and now you changed the title of the section in Rojava talk page even though the section wasnt started by you. You can not do that. Please read this, specially the last paragraph: "Editing another editor's signed talk page comments is generally frowned upon, even if the edit merely corrects spelling or grammar."
Please dont tell me why you thought your edit of the title is better, it is not acceptable in Wikipedia for the sake of not being acceptable, no argument is needed.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 09:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, you may be
blocked from editing. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
213.74.186.109 (
talk)
08:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
[1] (whom you know very well) has recently been active as [2]. Maybe it would be good if somebody keeps an eye on his edits to Rojava-related articles - many of these are protected now because of earlier edit warring of 213.74.186.109. Did you have a look at his recent edits at [3], [4]? 2003:77:4F2E:1426:516A:3E3:643D:D2DA ( talk) 17:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly
reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at
People's Protection Units. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "
edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a blockage. Thank you. O Fortuna! ...Imperatrix mundi. 16:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Hallo! Nach meinen Informationen soll die Akademie geschlossen werden; derzeit ist sie aber noch geöffnet. Hast Du andere Informationen? Ich finde keinen Beleg darüber, dass sie bereits geschlossen wurde. Danke & Gruß -- Sir James ( talk) 15:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.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.
You are continuing to revert in support of the material about decentralization that was originally reported at WP:AN3 on 13 December. The result of the new complaint is at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston ( talk) 06:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
2A1ZA ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The Admnin blocking me here had in 14 December ruled me (as well as another User) not to make edits to the decentralization paragraph of the Turkey article without prior talk page consensus. I did spend a significant amount of time and effort in presentation and research to obtain such talk page consensus for restoring a proper version of the paragraph. I did neither violate this ruling of his nor any other Wikipedia rule. The claim that I would have violated 3RR is clearly incorrect, please check edits/time I made at that article. The last thing I did there, however, was creating a third attempt on the article talk page to engage that other User concerned in a good faith discussion. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 08:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
(1) You repeatedly reverted to your preferred version. To think that because you believe you were right to do so it therefore somehow doesn't count as edit-warring shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's edit-warring policy. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced that you are right". Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to have an edit warring policy which exempted any editor who was convinced that he or she was right, as in most edit wars everybody involved thinks they are right. (2) You appear to have declared that what you wrote on the talk page constitutes a "consensus version", but I don't see any evidence of a consensus, and at least a couple of editors have expressed the view that the "consensus" is nothing more than what you have decreed to be such. (3) I don't know why you mentioned the so-called "three revert rule", since neither the block log reason nor the block message on this page gives that as a reason for the block. You were edit-warring, and that is the reason given for the block. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 17:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Just for the record, I take note that the account User:Balki Chalkidiki has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 10:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Hallo und guten Tag.
I've noticed that Balki has some similiarities with previous socks like User:Lord of Rivendell and User: Heimdallr of Æsir. Could you take a look at it please.
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shuppiluliuma. Thanks. kazekagetr 14:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Dude i think user:Denarivs is a sockpuppet. See his/her edits in Rojava, SDF and so on. 79.137.80.211 ( talk) 05:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
By the way, is that user active in German Wikipedia? I think, s/he is. 79.137.76.41 ( talk) 09:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
User Denarivs keep deleting this info about Syriac Military Council from the lead for no reason. It's dubious. 79.137.80.210 ( talk) 03:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi 2A1ZA,
It seems that there is a content dispute regarding this removal 1. Maybe you want to solve it on the talk page. Bests, 46.221.217.91 ( talk) 02:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lrednuas Senoroc. The long-term vandal who accused @ JzG: as "anti-Turkish", has also made similar accusations about you. Check the 09 January 2017 case. 46.221.181.166 ( talk) 21:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Dear 2A1ZA, good to see you back at work after your wikibreak. In the meantime Human like you, who attacked you several times, got blocked indefinitely. This user has used multiple sock puppets (also the IP's 213.74.186.109 and 176.33.80.23) recently. In particular, via the recently discovered sock puppet 4world2read some months ago this user was reporting you while at the same time discussing and edit warring against you as IP 213.74.186.109. Take care and watch out for further socks! 217.83.254.224 ( talk) 14:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I remember how this guy was spamming wikipedia with conspiracy theories from Turkish propaganda (apparently really believing in them) - did this provide some inspiration for your work about Erdogan's Mastermind conspiracy theory? 217.83.254.224 ( talk) 14:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
An user called "TheodorLewin" started a discussion on the article [5]. His edits seem tendentious and dubious to me. I thought you would like to participate the discussion, as the creator of the article. 89.33.246.107 ( talk) 19:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Shmayo:@ Editor abcdef: 89.33.246.107 ( talk) 19:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi 2A1ZA. Saw your name on the edit warring noticeboard. In the effort to avoid and discourage edit waring I would like to know how to request a 1RR for an article with a lot of slow-mo edit warring, always outside the 24 hour limit. Can't seem to find where to make a request. Does the 3RR have to be broken before the 1RR is considered? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.147.23 ( talk) 02:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan , did not appear constructive and has 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
the 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. If you really thing that linking this article to
Adolph Hitler is a constructive edit then I suggest that you take this edit to the talk page for discussion.
Meters (
talk)
22:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Tourism in Turkey. 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.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. -- Ronz ( talk) 14:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
The notorious vandal targeted refugee-related articles many times in the past. It would be nice if you watch and check those articles. Because some of his "sources" are in German and thus, it is hard to check whether the vandal falsified them, as he did many times. 46.221.187.65 ( talk) 19:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rojava, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Afrin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
According to this info [6] written by an editor (Mavrikant), one of the reason of the block is Wikileaks source about Berat Albayrak. 176.126.71.119 ( talk) 00:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Re [7]. Please refrain from calling other editor names in your edit summaries. Please do not refer to other editors as "edit warriors" - you got reverted once, because your edits to the article were not an improvement. One piece of text blatantly misrepresented a source. Another piece of text was redundant with what's already in the article. Please stop adding content which has been challenged unless you can get consensus on talk. Please don't edit war yourself. Thank you. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
[8] If you're looking for a "discernible reason", see the edit summary. The text was tagged as needing a reliable, secondary source. You're welcome to add one, but to say there was no discernible reason for removing it is disingenuous. See
WP:Verifiability for more information.
czar
18:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
This new(?) user is acting strange [9] and make it hard to assume good faith. 78.47.241.7 ( talk) 16:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I may be causing problems, but there is an IP user ( /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/2602:306:31B4:1C10:FDD8:D71B:A0BB:984E) making edits to a number of articles, including Chaldean Christians, that I find to be suspicious and that you in the past have undone. I don't have enough expertise in this field to know how to call these plays. So, I flagged the articles and thought to bring the edits to your attn. 2601:401:502:320A:44E6:16AF:15FF:6799 ( talk) 03:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, what I saw appears to be corrected by other users already. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 13:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your contributions. I had to remove the paragraph here that you added to the lead in the article on Education in Turkey and place it in the history section per WP:RECENTISM. Since I had encountered similar problems regarding your additions to the article on Tourism in Turkey in the past, I would be grateful if you could edit with the idea of avoiding recentism in mind. -- GGT ( talk) 16:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I think this one is new sock of banned Human like you [10]. 198.217.116.13 ( talk) 04:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I'm proposing that the pages for the cantons of Rojava/DFNS be moved as they have been renamed into regions by the administration of the DFNS. Since you've been active in editing DFNS-related pages I thought you'd be interested in taking part in the votes on the talk pages; Talk:Cantons of Rojava, Talk:Jazira Canton, Talk:Kobanî Canton and Talk:Afrin Canton. AntonSamuel ( talk) 23:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, 2A1ZA. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Xevus11. 2A1ZA, thanks for creating Conspiracy theories in Turkey!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. I dont necessarily think this article does not maintain a neutral POV, however i do feel that the language could use a second look.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Xevus11 ( talk) 04:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
A tendentious and apparently SPA account who has been warned by you, showed up with similar tendentious edits again [11]. His edits should be checked by other editors and admins, coz as things stand, it is hard to believe that the account is here to contribute. 73.70.174.150 ( talk) 19:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.
Thank you!
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Media of Turkey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.
If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Turkish currency and debt crisis, 2018, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
If you wish to make a nomination to ITNC, please post it directly to the appropriate section of the ITNC page, and not the current events portal, so it displays properly. Thanks 331dot ( talk) 10:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Prose you find online is almost always copyright, and cannot be copied here; it's against the law and the copyright policy of this website to do so. All prose must be written in your own words. There's more information about copyrights and how it applies to Wikipedia at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. Copyright law and its application are complex matters, and you should not edit any more until you have taken the time to read and understand our copyright policy. Further copyright violations will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 19:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
'when asked who is most responsible for the depreciation of the lira, only 36 percent of respondents said it was the AKP " - is coming a bit close to a close paraphrase from this source [12]. It is usually not recommended for everything to be in the same order that it is in the source, especially where it was possible to reword it without changing the meaning of the content. In this case, I've reworded this as "During a July 2018 survey, 36 percent of survey respondents said the AKP government was "most responsible" for the depreciation of the Turkish lira". By itself, it's not a big deal, but since there was a most significant verbatim copy of creative language in the same paragraph from another source, I thought I should mention it. (Thanks for fixing the previous one). Seraphim System ( talk) 15:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I rephrased some of the content but a large amount of content in the article was directly copied and pasted, so even the removal took a lot of time. I've already asked Diannaa to take a look at it and won't be making any edits to the article until I hear back regarding the revdel because I don't want to make the cleanup more difficult right now. Seraphim System ( talk) 19:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
![]() |
Hi 2A1ZA! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC) |
Hello 2A1ZA, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to
Rojava has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without
permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa ( talk) 21:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Your addition to
Human rights in Rojava has been removed, as it appears to have added
copyrighted material to Wikipedia without
permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read
Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be
blocked from editing.
GAB
gab
14:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Please stop accusing me of vandalism. I am not vandalising the page Rojava. There is a content dispute and you seem very, very angry about it based on your reaction to the dispute but falsely accusing people of vandalism can get you in trouble, see Wikipedia:Disruptive user:
The following items are some examples which would make someone a disruptive user:
- Creating disturbances on featured article candidate pages, e.g. objecting just to object
- Continuously listing articles at Articles for deletion as an attempt to insult those who have worked on or contributed to the pieces
- Calling users names or referring to articles that the user has worked on in a derogatory manner
- Posting rumors or lies about other Wikipedia users, such as false accusations of vandalism
- Leaving hostile messages on a user's talk page, or attacking a user for items discussed with a third party on their talk page
Ogress 17:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you make
personal attacks on other people again, as you did at
Talk:Rojava, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. After I laid out here that our issue was a content dispute and that calling valid editing you disagree with "vandalism" could have serious repercussions, you immediately again referred to my edits as "vandalism".
Ogress
20:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HDP. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Read here. Understand what a consensus is. When you want to make a controversial edit, its you who should go to talk first. Not make your edit then defend it asking others to use the talk page.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 02:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AKP. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Acting like you own a page isnt the way to go dear ferakp (not waiting for you to deny, I just dont have the will or time to do a suck puppet investigation) You removed whatever you want and kept what you find suitable... this cant happen. Either restore the page to what it was or go to the talk page.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 12:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Foreign relations of Rojava, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democratic Union Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello 2A1ZA,
could you maybe take a look at the PYD's Wikipedia page? It's being vandalized by the same IP as the Rojava page and I have currently not enough time to act against it further. I'll revert these edits there now, but I can't look if he reverts it again. Maybe, a block request for this IP would be the right way to deal with it.
Kind regards, Ermanarich ( talk) 19:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi, by undoing the referenced info on this terrorist, at best militant, organisation you have also removed a whole sentence on Salih Muslim's Twitter message that is all over the internet, and which I had referenced from three different reliable sources. I do not believe this was done negligently as I believe you act partially in this regard. Yes, this article needs to be protected from biased editors, whomever they may be. This would also entitle it to include correct reliable information that reflects the whole truth about the subject. Thank you. - 78.171.140.252 ( talk) 18:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I have a request which is related to some of the above arguments. When reverting an editor, or in fact in any edit, please could you avoid using wording like "Dear islamist user with the Istanbul IP address 78.171.130.160, please stop the edit warring". The part to which I object is identifying the other editor as an "Islamist". This is an incitement for opposing editors to then start commenting on your supposed views or affiliations, which of course they proceeded to do. All of this falls into personal attacks territory. Mentioning their location and IP address was also unhelpful, but that is not the main problem here.
I am prepared to intervene when personal attacks are disruptive, but I would hope to see a constructive approach on both sides. MPS1992 ( talk) 22:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Katie talk 23:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Dear 2A1ZA, your detailed description of your personal opinions on a sensitive topic labeled " Neutrality Disputed - This Article has biased pro-Turkish-Government labelling" reflects your biases and impartial views on the subject matter. I protest you and ask that other neutral administrators warn you about your neutrality and they edit the article instead. - 78.171.140.252 ( talk) 11:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Dear Incompetent Wikipedian, Your claim for undoing my revision that "the referenced sources do not support the bold factual claim" is only an excuse. It is a lie. Why would anybody add unsupportive references? Just because you do not want to see some facts does not make them nonexistent. You and the likes of you Islamophobes have turned Wikipedia into your playground. Wikipedia is dead because of you. This will remain a blot on your record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.140.252 ( talk) 18:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Kurdish Merit | |
For your efforts to improve Rojava-related articles of Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! | ||
this WikiAward was given to {{subst:PAGENAME}} by ~~~ on ~~~~~ |
Hi,
Since the allegation was made after the events took place by a respected Columbia university professor as some sort of analysis, I do think it deserves its own separate section. Inserting it inside the capture section makes it look like a part of news/events which is clearly misleading. Thanks. Vekoler ( talk)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Syriac Union Party (Syria), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democratic Union Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
You have been reported here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Long_term_abuse.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 16:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Syrian Democratic Forces shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Editor abcdef ( talk) 11:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Syrian Arab Coalition, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been
reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the
sandbox for that. Thank you.
Dl2000 (
talk)
21:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Al Qamishli is a city in al-Hasakah Governorate, whether it's occupied by Kurdish militia or not does not change that fact. What you call rojva is not recognized by any country or anything in the world. Can you give the names for all the English media you are talking about that consider Al Qamishli capital of the entity you're talking about? Until then, I'll remove that category. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 23:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I have disabled your edit requests on Talk:Human rights in Rojava because there were not yet supported by consensus. Please leave proposals for a few days before using the template, to allow other editors to comment. If there is support for a change (or if no one comments after a few days) please feel free to reactivate. Regards — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Colleague, please read: Talk:Free Syrian Army#2A1ZA (and perhaps others?): stop corrupting this Wiki article. -- Corriebertus ( talk) 14:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
You were reported Here.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 11:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
You dont really need to reply here, its just a rule to notify you when you are being reported.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 11:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The report was misplaced and should go to another portal. So you need to put your answer here.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 15:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 85.109.220.31 ( talk) 20:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
4world2read (
talk)
17:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert what you added more than once, so I don't run the risk of edit warring. If someone else sees a problem with it, they'll do it on their own. However, as of November 8 2016, 17:23, this edit stands. UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk) 17:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
A lot of the stuff about Turkish involvement in Mosul is after the battle began. Don't you think it is wrong to place it under "Background" section which is only actually for events before beginning of a conflict? I think it should be shifted to a separate section. 59.96.133.198 ( talk) 22:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Here.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 12:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Im gonna be nice now. You dont need to bother yourself with that ISIL edit, you are stressing your self for nothing. The paragraph already exist with a different wording. Go to the ISIL section and you will read this (I think it was written by Ferakp):
"In June 2014, after the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) captured the border city of Tell Abyad, ISIL fighters made an announcement from the minarets of the local mosques that all Kurds had to leave Tell Abyad on or else be killed. Thousands of civilians, including Turkmen and Arab families fled on 21 July.[28][29] Its fighters systematically looted and destroyed the property of Kurds, and in some cases, resettled displaced Arab Sunni families from the Qalamoun area (Rif Damascus), Dayr Az-Zawr and Ar-Raqqah in abandoned Kurdish homes.[28]".
Feel free to revert this if you dont want to see me in your talk page.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 12:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Look, Im losing my interest to be honest. More honestly, I've never had any interest. I gave Ferakp a summary of why I became so aggressive. I wasnt like this at the beginning and you practically shaped the article as you wish. You added the "historical background" and I didnt even bother to say a thing.
Now, I want to remove those pages from my watch list based on the advice of a friend Read here. I do not have your passion tbh. But, also, it is hard for me to see what you do here because it has a purpose. since I have saw your Reddit comments. I know what kind of extreme opinions you have and no matter how much you proclaimed that you will be neutral, well, come on, I dont think you believe it yourself.
To be short, we need a gentleman agreement that will allow me to remove the articles from my watch list and never have to deal with you again (We dont like each other to say the least)
If you are interested, tell me so we can agree. If not, revert this edit.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 13:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, 2A1ZA. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I've reverted your expansion of the introduction of the article. A slight update in the introduction seems appropriate, but the additional details do not. The lede should introduce and summarize. If sources demonstrate that more details is WP:DUE about the decline in tourism and the reasons behind the decline, that belongs in the article body and should be presented from a historical perspective rather than solely based upon recent events. Sorry that I don't have time to do all the work myself, but I'm happy to help and review. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
who are you to teach me what I do, Chaldeans are not nationalist theory, as your claim, but they are recognized nation according the Iraqi constitution and national documents of the United Nations and the European Union, so the user violator here is you, not me, so stop from your assyrianazation fake theory -- FPP ( talk) 22:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
you who began editing not me, so when you add false edits, my duty is to undo that -- FPP ( talk) 22:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Salih Muslim Muhammad shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please stop deleting clearly referenced info claiming POV in the section titled "Relations with Turkey". -
213.74.186.109 (
talk)
06:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Dear 2A1ZA, the ip-jumping Grey Wolf has complained about you on Beshogur's talk page. Cathexis1349 ( talk) 14:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
You've been warned for edit warrring at Turkey per a complaint at WP:AN3. Either of you may be blocked if you edit again about decentralization before you have got a clear consensus for your version on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 17:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Dear EdJohnston, as the result of a lengthy process, I had just implemented the unanimous final consensus version (see talk page) of the decentralization paragraph into the article. Hoping that no Admin help against further disruptive edits on it will be necessary, and hoping that if became necessary, the help would be there. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 00:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
You have this habit. One time you shoved your answer in the middle of my comment, and now you changed the title of the section in Rojava talk page even though the section wasnt started by you. You can not do that. Please read this, specially the last paragraph: "Editing another editor's signed talk page comments is generally frowned upon, even if the edit merely corrects spelling or grammar."
Please dont tell me why you thought your edit of the title is better, it is not acceptable in Wikipedia for the sake of not being acceptable, no argument is needed.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 09:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, you may be
blocked from editing. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
213.74.186.109 (
talk)
08:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
[1] (whom you know very well) has recently been active as [2]. Maybe it would be good if somebody keeps an eye on his edits to Rojava-related articles - many of these are protected now because of earlier edit warring of 213.74.186.109. Did you have a look at his recent edits at [3], [4]? 2003:77:4F2E:1426:516A:3E3:643D:D2DA ( talk) 17:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, and
welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly
reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at
People's Protection Units. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "
edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the
normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a
consensus on the
talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a blockage. Thank you. O Fortuna! ...Imperatrix mundi. 16:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Hallo! Nach meinen Informationen soll die Akademie geschlossen werden; derzeit ist sie aber noch geöffnet. Hast Du andere Informationen? Ich finde keinen Beleg darüber, dass sie bereits geschlossen wurde. Danke & Gruß -- Sir James ( talk) 15:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.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.
You are continuing to revert in support of the material about decentralization that was originally reported at WP:AN3 on 13 December. The result of the new complaint is at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston ( talk) 06:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
2A1ZA ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The Admnin blocking me here had in 14 December ruled me (as well as another User) not to make edits to the decentralization paragraph of the Turkey article without prior talk page consensus. I did spend a significant amount of time and effort in presentation and research to obtain such talk page consensus for restoring a proper version of the paragraph. I did neither violate this ruling of his nor any other Wikipedia rule. The claim that I would have violated 3RR is clearly incorrect, please check edits/time I made at that article. The last thing I did there, however, was creating a third attempt on the article talk page to engage that other User concerned in a good faith discussion. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 08:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
(1) You repeatedly reverted to your preferred version. To think that because you believe you were right to do so it therefore somehow doesn't count as edit-warring shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia's edit-warring policy. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced that you are right". Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to have an edit warring policy which exempted any editor who was convinced that he or she was right, as in most edit wars everybody involved thinks they are right. (2) You appear to have declared that what you wrote on the talk page constitutes a "consensus version", but I don't see any evidence of a consensus, and at least a couple of editors have expressed the view that the "consensus" is nothing more than what you have decreed to be such. (3) I don't know why you mentioned the so-called "three revert rule", since neither the block log reason nor the block message on this page gives that as a reason for the block. You were edit-warring, and that is the reason given for the block. The editor who uses the pseudonym " JamesBWatson" ( talk) 17:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Just for the record, I take note that the account User:Balki Chalkidiki has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 10:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Hallo und guten Tag.
I've noticed that Balki has some similiarities with previous socks like User:Lord of Rivendell and User: Heimdallr of Æsir. Could you take a look at it please.
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shuppiluliuma. Thanks. kazekagetr 14:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Dude i think user:Denarivs is a sockpuppet. See his/her edits in Rojava, SDF and so on. 79.137.80.211 ( talk) 05:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
By the way, is that user active in German Wikipedia? I think, s/he is. 79.137.76.41 ( talk) 09:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
User Denarivs keep deleting this info about Syriac Military Council from the lead for no reason. It's dubious. 79.137.80.210 ( talk) 03:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi 2A1ZA,
It seems that there is a content dispute regarding this removal 1. Maybe you want to solve it on the talk page. Bests, 46.221.217.91 ( talk) 02:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lrednuas Senoroc. The long-term vandal who accused @ JzG: as "anti-Turkish", has also made similar accusations about you. Check the 09 January 2017 case. 46.221.181.166 ( talk) 21:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Dear 2A1ZA, good to see you back at work after your wikibreak. In the meantime Human like you, who attacked you several times, got blocked indefinitely. This user has used multiple sock puppets (also the IP's 213.74.186.109 and 176.33.80.23) recently. In particular, via the recently discovered sock puppet 4world2read some months ago this user was reporting you while at the same time discussing and edit warring against you as IP 213.74.186.109. Take care and watch out for further socks! 217.83.254.224 ( talk) 14:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I remember how this guy was spamming wikipedia with conspiracy theories from Turkish propaganda (apparently really believing in them) - did this provide some inspiration for your work about Erdogan's Mastermind conspiracy theory? 217.83.254.224 ( talk) 14:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
An user called "TheodorLewin" started a discussion on the article [5]. His edits seem tendentious and dubious to me. I thought you would like to participate the discussion, as the creator of the article. 89.33.246.107 ( talk) 19:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Shmayo:@ Editor abcdef: 89.33.246.107 ( talk) 19:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi 2A1ZA. Saw your name on the edit warring noticeboard. In the effort to avoid and discourage edit waring I would like to know how to request a 1RR for an article with a lot of slow-mo edit warring, always outside the 24 hour limit. Can't seem to find where to make a request. Does the 3RR have to be broken before the 1RR is considered? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.147.23 ( talk) 02:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan , did not appear constructive and has 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
the 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. If you really thing that linking this article to
Adolph Hitler is a constructive edit then I suggest that you take this edit to the talk page for discussion.
Meters (
talk)
22:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Tourism in Turkey. 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.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. -- Ronz ( talk) 14:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
The notorious vandal targeted refugee-related articles many times in the past. It would be nice if you watch and check those articles. Because some of his "sources" are in German and thus, it is hard to check whether the vandal falsified them, as he did many times. 46.221.187.65 ( talk) 19:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rojava, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Afrin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
According to this info [6] written by an editor (Mavrikant), one of the reason of the block is Wikileaks source about Berat Albayrak. 176.126.71.119 ( talk) 00:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Re [7]. Please refrain from calling other editor names in your edit summaries. Please do not refer to other editors as "edit warriors" - you got reverted once, because your edits to the article were not an improvement. One piece of text blatantly misrepresented a source. Another piece of text was redundant with what's already in the article. Please stop adding content which has been challenged unless you can get consensus on talk. Please don't edit war yourself. Thank you. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
[8] If you're looking for a "discernible reason", see the edit summary. The text was tagged as needing a reliable, secondary source. You're welcome to add one, but to say there was no discernible reason for removing it is disingenuous. See
WP:Verifiability for more information.
czar
18:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
This new(?) user is acting strange [9] and make it hard to assume good faith. 78.47.241.7 ( talk) 16:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I may be causing problems, but there is an IP user ( /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/2602:306:31B4:1C10:FDD8:D71B:A0BB:984E) making edits to a number of articles, including Chaldean Christians, that I find to be suspicious and that you in the past have undone. I don't have enough expertise in this field to know how to call these plays. So, I flagged the articles and thought to bring the edits to your attn. 2601:401:502:320A:44E6:16AF:15FF:6799 ( talk) 03:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, what I saw appears to be corrected by other users already. -- 2A1ZA ( talk) 13:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for your contributions. I had to remove the paragraph here that you added to the lead in the article on Education in Turkey and place it in the history section per WP:RECENTISM. Since I had encountered similar problems regarding your additions to the article on Tourism in Turkey in the past, I would be grateful if you could edit with the idea of avoiding recentism in mind. -- GGT ( talk) 16:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I think this one is new sock of banned Human like you [10]. 198.217.116.13 ( talk) 04:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I'm proposing that the pages for the cantons of Rojava/DFNS be moved as they have been renamed into regions by the administration of the DFNS. Since you've been active in editing DFNS-related pages I thought you'd be interested in taking part in the votes on the talk pages; Talk:Cantons of Rojava, Talk:Jazira Canton, Talk:Kobanî Canton and Talk:Afrin Canton. AntonSamuel ( talk) 23:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello, 2A1ZA. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Xevus11. 2A1ZA, thanks for creating Conspiracy theories in Turkey!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. I dont necessarily think this article does not maintain a neutral POV, however i do feel that the language could use a second look.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Xevus11 ( talk) 04:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
A tendentious and apparently SPA account who has been warned by you, showed up with similar tendentious edits again [11]. His edits should be checked by other editors and admins, coz as things stand, it is hard to believe that the account is here to contribute. 73.70.174.150 ( talk) 19:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.
Thank you!
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Media of Turkey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.
If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Turkish currency and debt crisis, 2018, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
If you wish to make a nomination to ITNC, please post it directly to the appropriate section of the ITNC page, and not the current events portal, so it displays properly. Thanks 331dot ( talk) 10:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Prose you find online is almost always copyright, and cannot be copied here; it's against the law and the copyright policy of this website to do so. All prose must be written in your own words. There's more information about copyrights and how it applies to Wikipedia at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. Copyright law and its application are complex matters, and you should not edit any more until you have taken the time to read and understand our copyright policy. Further copyright violations will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 ( talk) 19:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
'when asked who is most responsible for the depreciation of the lira, only 36 percent of respondents said it was the AKP " - is coming a bit close to a close paraphrase from this source [12]. It is usually not recommended for everything to be in the same order that it is in the source, especially where it was possible to reword it without changing the meaning of the content. In this case, I've reworded this as "During a July 2018 survey, 36 percent of survey respondents said the AKP government was "most responsible" for the depreciation of the Turkish lira". By itself, it's not a big deal, but since there was a most significant verbatim copy of creative language in the same paragraph from another source, I thought I should mention it. (Thanks for fixing the previous one). Seraphim System ( talk) 15:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
I rephrased some of the content but a large amount of content in the article was directly copied and pasted, so even the removal took a lot of time. I've already asked Diannaa to take a look at it and won't be making any edits to the article until I hear back regarding the revdel because I don't want to make the cleanup more difficult right now. Seraphim System ( talk) 19:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)