This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: climate change Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed the Arab–Israeli conflict the Balkans or Eastern Europe articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles They should not be given alerts for those areas.

Welcome to Wikipedia, Bogazicili! Thank you for your contributions. I am Visioncurve and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{ help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• The Teahouse, our help forum for new users
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Visioncurve ^{Timendi causa est nescire} 07:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I have nominated Climate change for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 11:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Femkemilene, I can come back to it end of December hopefully. Bogazicili ( talk) 08:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Great! What I really hope to get is a broader discussion (more knowledgeable people) about aspects you have brought up. These are difficult questions. I never quite know where my personal biases lie, and whether I'm overcompensating or undercompensating for biases I think I have. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 10:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Femkemilene, thanks for the amount of time you put into the article. I'm getting a bit more free time soon hopefully, so I can pitch in. I'll have to review the FA criteria etc first but then can contribute. Bogazicili ( talk) 23:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks for commenting. I keep on saying it may be frustrating that things go slow, and that we're constantly in dialogue instead of in a conservation with a larger group. The latter is convenient for consensus building. Do know that a lot of people, like you, are passionate about that 'drivers' section, and that many conversations have been put into it. Going gradual is then the best way to consende it. A quick tip to convince more people to participate in our discussions: bolding of text on Wikipedia can come over as WP:SHOUTING; try putting emphasis with italics instead. People might not want to participate in discussions that seem to overflow with friction. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 08:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply

I mentioned length of those sections, since you have been making the argument that the article is too long ever since I started editing. I made a post about it in Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_criteria#What_is_the_recommended_article_length?. Barack Obama, an FA, is more than 15k words for example. So there might not be a need to condense too much. But the current ratio is definitely wrong, so parts about effects on Humans need to be expanded. All caps are shouting on internet, my bolding is just to highlight main issues when the text is longer. It says so in the link you quoted as well. Bogazicili ( talk) 14:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC) reply

		Global Warming and Climate Change Barnstar
		For your quick learning and your contributions to climate change. While we often disagree, I would like to express my gratitude for all the effort you put in the article. It's definitely better because of you. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 09:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Femkemilene, thank you, I really appreciate it! I also have to admit you beat me to it. I was thinking of doing the same to you, after the FAR process lol. Yes, we disagree sometimes, but I also can see you are really dedicated and knowledgeable. You have made great contributions to climate change related articles! Bogazicili ( talk) 14:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC) reply

I also realize how bad some of my earlier work was, such as putting just links into references. Thanks for the patience lol! Bogazicili ( talk) 14:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC) reply

That's how we all start :). I'm sure if I go back to my first edits on the Dutch wikipedia, they are really similar. Femke Nijsse ( talk) 14:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello, Bogazicili!

My name is Daniel, and I’m a senior at Harvard University currently writing an undergraduate thesis about Wikipedia. I’m particularly interested in how the Wikipedia community decides what facts are relevant and/or notable enough to warrant inclusion on a particular article — especially in regards to articles on contentious topics.

I noticed that you’ve been quite active editing the “Climate change” article over the past few months. So, would you mind if I send you a few questions (via email or right here) about your work editing that article, and the approach that you take? I’d really love to hear from you.

Thanks so much! -- Dalorleon ( talk) 16:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi, Dalorleon! Feel free to email me your questions, I think you should be able to do that from my user page here.

But it's usually in Wikipedia rules: Wikipedia:Five_pillars. You might want to check especially Wikipedia:Reliable_sources and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources. So the short answer to your questions is that we look at secondary sources, especially for an article like Climate Change. Bogazicili ( talk) 17:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello, Bogazicili!

Thanks so much for agreeing to speak with me. Unfortunately, I'm not sure where to see your email, so I've posted my questions below; let me know if you need me to clarify any of them. If you'd prefer to respond via email, you can contact me at danielleonard@college.harvard.edu.

1) How long have you been editing Wikipedia? And how long have you been an active editor of the “Climate change” Wikipedia article?

2) When adding content to the “Climate change” Wikipedia article, how do you decide what facts are relevant / notable enough to warrant inclusion?

3) When removing content from the “Climate change” Wikipedia article, how do you decide what facts are irrelevant / non-notable enough to warrant deletion?

4) Are there any particular Wikipedia policy / guidelines pages that you rely on to guide your editing? (Like “Wikipedia:Editing policy,” “Wikipedia:Writing better articles,” etc.)

5) Do you feel that Wikipedia’s “official” editing guidelines are helpful, or do you generally ignore them? If you prefer forging your own path, do you feel that Wikipedia offers you that flexibility?

6) Has adding or deleting content from the “Climate change” Wikipedia article ever brought you into conflict with another Wikipedian? If so, how were those disputes resolved?

7) Do you identify more as an inclusionist, a deletionist, or neither / something else?

Thanks again for agreeing to help my research! Feel free to weigh in on anything I didn’t specifically ask in regards to your editing practices. I’m primarily curious to learn about what factors you consider when deciding what content ought to be added / removed from Wikipedia articles.

Finally, if I do include your responses in my thesis, would you prefer to remain completely anonymous, or can I include your username? I really appreciate it! -- Dalorleon ( talk) 22:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi Dalorleon, whats your email? I can send you the answers there if it's easier. Bogazicili ( talk) 04:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Sure, Bogazicili! My email is danielleonard@college.harvard.edu -- Dalorleon ( talk) 13:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello again, Bogazicili! If you get the chance, I'd love to hear your responses to the questions above! I'm really curious about your insights. -- Dalorleon ( talk) 16:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi Dalorleon. Sorry for the delay, sent you an email! Bogazicili ( talk) 16:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC) reply

İngilizce Wikipedia'nın iyice etkin etnik propagandasına dönüştüğü şu günlerde senin gibi iki üç cidden doğru bilgi için uğraşan insanı görmek beni mutlu etti, giderayak bir baklava vermek istedim.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarik289 ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Teşekkürler, hala kaynak buldukça da atabilirsin talk page'lere :) İstersen Wikipedia kuralları tekrar oku, bloklanmaya itiraz et? Bogazicili ( talk) 12:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC) reply

[1] bunlar hobi kaynakları ama, güvenilir ( Wikipedia:Reliable sources) değil. Bunların blog olmayan alternatif haynakları var mı? Yoksa silinmesi lazim. Silinse bile ama doğruysa ilerde biri mutlaka yayınlar, yani 5-10 sene geçse bile, bence merak etme yani. Bogazicili ( talk) 12:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your contributions to Azerbaijanis and Origin of the Azerbaijanis in the past couple of months. It's great to have someone who is actually knowledgable on these topics on Wikipedia!

— CuriousGolden (T· C) 09:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

CuriousGolden, thanks for the encouragement! Still lots of inaccurate statements and poor sources though, in addition to Wikipedia:Manual of Style issues like giant quotes. There also seems to be few people with genuine interest, glad you are sticking around too! Bogazicili ( talk) 10:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

There is indeed a lot of issues with the article. I definitely plan on trying my hand at fixing MOS issues in the future in a possible attempt at nominating the article for GA, so your help with the sourcing and statements is a great help! — CuriousGolden (T· C) 10:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

First national architectural movement

added a link pointing to Sultanahmet

Ottoman architecture

added a link pointing to Sultanahmet

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Regarding this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sustainable_energy&oldid=prev&diff=1015699849

As I mentioned in my edit, I did not see that information in the sources provided. Can you please specify where the source says pollution is concentrated in urban areas?

Efbrazil, because the study I added was taken out (not by you), I guess it was a mistake [2]. I re-added it [3]. It's in this one [4] Bogazicili ( talk) 20:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello Bogazicili,

I see you have been improving climate change articles a lot. After I have updated it with the 2019 statistics which are due out this month I hope to have another attempt at getting the Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey English article featured. I wonder if you would be interested in getting the tr:Türkiye’de sera gazı emisyonu Turkish article to be good.

I think if we worked together there would be synergy, for example as I have already made graphs with both languages I will easily be able to add the new numbers and it should be straightforward for you as a native speaker to explain them in the Turkish text. And I would benefit from your help with finding and evaluating Turkish sources.

I realise that non-English speaking Turks can use Google Translate on the English article, but I hope you agree that a well-written Turkish article would better help Turks who are interested in finding out the background to items in the news, such as the upcoming climate summits to be attended by world leaders or how an EU carbon tariff might affect their business. With my limited Turkish I cannot achieve anything on Turkish Wikipedia without the help of native speakers. And I have not managed to interest any in the article yet. Would you have the time and interest to work in parallel? Chidgk1 ( talk) 17:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi Chidgk1, thanks for the message. I think you can request it here [5], I'm mostly trying to improve the articles here. Bogazicili ( talk) 20:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Ah thanks I did not know that translation group - I had only asked the "Çevre" project before with no result - now I have asked that group. As you say you prefer to concentrate on English Wikipedia would you be able to do a "source review" on the Turkish language sources for the English article? As I have only used fifteen Turkish language sources and you are a native speaker I guess it would not take too long? Whereas when I put it in as a FAC the other reviewers would find that very difficult I expect. Chidgk1 ( talk) 05:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Chidgk1, I don't really want to make a promise or a commitment. For English Wikipedia, there are higher priority articles for both Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change (eg: Sustainable energy) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Turkey. Most Turkey-related articles are actually in extremely poor shape. Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey is actually a GA, which is far better than most Turkey-related articles. But still appreciate your commitment. Maybe put the sources that needs to be reviewed in article talk page and notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Turkey? I can contribute as well when I have the time. Bogazicili ( talk) 20:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply

OK I asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Turkey#Are_these_reliable_sources?. By the way you are doing a great job but if you ever want to come home we need you Mr Birol! Chidgk1 ( talk) 16:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Mr Birol? Is that a meme? Bogazicili ( talk) 17:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply

It was supposed to be a jocular compliment by comparing you to Fatih Birol in that he is also promoting sustainable energy. Chidgk1 ( talk) 15:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Oh lol didn't know who he was. Bogazicili ( talk) 00:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Hiya :). Would you mind closing your RfC now that it's run its course (just remove the top template)? That keeps Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change#Article_alerts nice and clean.

Also, in terms of fairness, I'm posting the discretionary sanction notice here. You may have seen the warning Efbrazil got. Let's all move on from that with more of a [insert stereotypical polite and nice country adjective] attitude, recognizing how much effort we all put into Wikipedia. To stop getting these (slightly too aggressive) notices, you can put a template on your talk page like me. Thanks! {{Ds/talk notice|cc|long}} FemkeMilene ( talk) 18:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Hey, I'd say that was a pretty successful RFC that reached a consensus. I hadn't closed it as I prefer 3rd parties doing it, since I am the one that started it. But since there was agreement and no other comments after Dtetta's edits, I guess it's fine. For CC articles, discretionary sanctions are obvious as there is a warning when you are editing the page, but I still put the template you suggested, thanks! Bogazicili ( talk) 09:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello, some nitpicking about sourcing.

• IEA is the author, not IEA renewables (the short-cite has the author)
• If you cite the report, please provide a page number. If you wanted to cite the website summary of the report, please use 'cite web' instead
• Are three sources necessary in climate change for that sentence? For uncontroversial statements, a max of two HQRS should do to ease verification.

Thanks! FemkeMilene ( talk) 16:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Hm, that's not the standard in the article eg: REN21 2020 for this [6]. It also just the id for linking purposes by the way, the author field in the actual sourcing information is correct. This is what it looks like in the actual source:

"IEA (2020). Renewables 2020 Analysis and forecast to 2025 (Report). Retrieved 27 April 2021"

Ok to the other 2. Bogazicili ( talk) 16:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC) reply

REN21 is the author, FN218 is correct... Or did you mean a different short-cite? The short-cite is part of the citation, and should also conform to the standards (having the author(s) + year). In this case, I think it's even a Wikipedia-wide standard. FemkeMilene ( talk) 16:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Nah that was just a random one I saw few sentences up, seems like it's correct. You might want to check short-cite 233 though. The thing is there are 2 IEA sources from 2020. That's why I set the harv id to IEA Renewable as opposed to something like IEA_A or IEA_B. Bogazicili ( talk) 16:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC) reply

IEAa and IEAb are the correct way to deal with that, see Template:Harvard_citation_no_brackets#More_than_one_work_in_a_year :). I'll have a look at short-cite 233. FemkeMilene ( talk) 16:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Lol that's against my computer science background, the code should be more easily readable. But thanks for looking into it, will change it :) Bogazicili ( talk) 16:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC) reply

I know it's a pain, and one of the reasons I don't like working with FAs that much (I should really refocus into more GAs). Thanks! FemkeMilene ( talk) 16:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC) reply

I'll fix the other one since it's related to the one I'm doing btw. Bogazicili ( talk) 17:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Femkemilene, FYI, looks like we made a mistake, a and b should be after year, not author. Bogazicili ( talk) 16:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Ah of course FemkeMilene ( talk) 17:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi, i suggest you read WP:BURDEN, might be useful in the future. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi, I responded in your talk page, will also move the discussion into article talk page. Bogazicili ( talk) 21:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Wikaviani, I see you reverted my edit in your talk page [7]. FYI, that was also an arbitration discretionary sanctions notice. Bogazicili ( talk) 21:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

The first link you posted was not even a revert, i just reworded your sentence, please check carefully what people do instead of throwing baseless accusations around, the second one is warranted by WP:BURDEN, i really don't see how my "reverts do not make sense" ...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Wikaviani, yup, I should have said edits/reverts and I corrected that in the talk page. However, you engaged in similar behaviour in Azerbaijanis, explained here Talk:Azerbaijanis#Massive_revert [8]. And again the part you reworded in the article mentioned Azerbaijan. Bogazicili ( talk) 21:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Wikaviani, also mentioned this in article talk page: Talk:Genetic_studies_on_Turkish_people#Recent_edits/reverts Bogazicili ( talk) 21:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

"you engaged in similar behaviour in Azerbaijanis, explained here Talk:Azerbaijanis#Massive_revert [9]." : Sorry, i did not know that you were the owner of that article in such a way that any single revert made by another user seems unacceptable to you ...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

No, I'm not the owner. If you find other reliable secondary sources, feel free to add please. Bogazicili ( talk) 22:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, but you seem to ignore that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, but consensus does.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Are you claiming you, as a single editor, represent consensus? Bogazicili ( talk) 22:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

No, consensus means ... consensus, and editing the article like you did while you are the only editor that wants to make that edit and while another editor disagrees with you, means that you don't have achieved any consensus.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

If you are going to disagree, you need to provide an adequate rationale and backing. If you claim UNDUE, please find other secondary sources. I explained more in article talk page. Bogazicili ( talk) 22:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Well, i disagree with the addition of content that is not explicitly supported by reliable sources and giving an undue weight to a single source, nothing less, noting more, i don't need any source for that since Wiki policies say that.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

1) I asked for conflicting reliable secondary source (or any other reliable secondary source really). You didn't provide any.

2) I asked if there were any whole-genome wide studies for Azerbaijan, since that was what my edit was saying. You didn't provide any.

Anyway, at this point we are stuck, we'll proceed with dispute resolution. Bogazicili ( talk) 22:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

The Azerbaijanis article contains numerous genetic studies while your source says the opposite, that's my point.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I'm also copy pasting my response in article talk page: "Plus if you mean genetics section in Azerbaijanis, the only secondary source there is the one I added. Again, Wikipedia should be based mainly on secondary sources, see: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. Before we proceed to dispute resolution, is there any other secondary source you would like to present?" Bogazicili ( talk) 22:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

You got me wrong, i never said that wikipedia can be used as a source for wikipedia, i said that the Azerbaijanis article contains numerous genetic sutudies about that topic while your source claims otherwise.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Wikaviani, again those are primary sources, and some are still misrepresented, I didn't have time to fix. Can you also confirm you reverted this whole thing [10] because what you objected to about Azerbaijan? Bogazicili ( talk) 09:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Bogazicili, pursuant to the Resolving user conduct disputes section of the WP dispute Resolution page, I’m taking this initial step of asking you to stop posting comments that imply improper conduct on my part. These make it much more unpleasant for me to work to create edits to improve the page, and also take up an extensive amount of time to refute your allegations. A couple of examples:

On April 14 you made the following comment in the Request for comment: mention of Carbon dioxide removal in Climate_change#Mitigation section topic:

“I believe only one editor (Efbrazil) supported your edits (and they always seem to support your edits) while Femkemilene said they didn't have any strong opinions [12]. So you decided to go with the change anyway, ignoring the points I raised [13]. So, as I said,[14] I took a break and then came back, and started this RfC to get more input”

As I indicated in my reply, this was a misrepresentation of a previous discussion that implied ill intent on my part. Although Femke did appear to vary in her support of the edit, and did not have a strong opinion, her final post she clearly says: “I think the placement and prose of dtetta's proposal is marginally better.” That is why I stated that “Efbrazil and Femke are ok with this proposed edit” in my March 5 post on the Proposed changes in how carbon dioxide removal is described discussion.

In that same post, your statement about “ignoring the points I raised” was also a misrepresentation of the facts and implied behavior on my part that was not true. As I said in my reply: "I spent several exchanges with you, including discussions on March 4 and March 5, attempting to address your concerns, describing why I disagreed with various aspects of your position, and mentioning where I supported some of your ideas.”

On April 6 you posted in the Arbitrary Break 2 topic: “Please do not make up stuff that the sources do not say.” In my April 9 response I gave you several examples to show you where my proposed statement was supported by text from the reference.

Again, please refrain from making these types of comments. The statement the top of the talk page: “Assume good faith; Be polite and avoid personal attacks.” is good for all of us to follow.

Hi Dtetta. I agree some of the things I said were unnecessary and not polite, so I'm sorry for those. I also agree that we should all assume good faith and be more polite, including myself. So, yes, I'll be more careful about my comments in the future.

As I said several times before, I was disappointed you saw my RFC suggestion as a threat [11]. I think both RFC's improved the article ( [12] [13]). So some of our interaction goes back to that. I also explained why I reverted your edit and why I thought it was a misrepresentation of the sources. [14] [15] [16]

But, at the last RFC we were able to reach a consensus. I know you put a lot of work into Climate Change article so I do not want to make that an unpleasant experience. I know I got passionate at times but making things unpleasant for you was not my aim. Once again, sorry for that, and hopefully we can move on with no hard feelings. Bogazicili ( talk) 19:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC) reply

Could you look at the recent genetic edits about Turkish Cypriots. Another POV pushing with unverifiable and unreliable sources. Beshogur ( talk) 16:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC) reply

They were using eupedia.com. If you have time, you can direct this editor to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources and report further disruption to admins, or direct them to dispute resolution. Bogazicili ( talk) 21:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC) reply

[17] Thanks in advance. Beshogur ( talk) 11:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Hey, sorry, I've been away from Wiki, does it still need to be verified? Bogazicili ( talk) 09:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC) reply

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi, You have not given an explanation to why you reverted my edit at Turkey. Thank you. Youprayteas ( t • c) 11:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi, I had left a talk page message and pinged you here [18]. Bogazicili ( talk) 16:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Alright, I understand. I removed the genocide part not because I deny it but because it is unnecesarry information for the lead. I am unsure how to do a RfC, may you help? Youprayteas ( t • c) 16:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Can you wait a week or 2 before we finalize the lead? And here's the link: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Creating_an_RfC Bogazicili ( talk) 16:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply

We? Who? May I help? Youprayteas ( t • c) 17:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I had meant myself and any other editor improving/helping. For more information, you can refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Thanks Bogazicili ( talk) 17:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Turkish philosophy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

These two pages should be seperate. Turkish philosophy should be an article of its own

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Benlittlewiki ( talk) 19:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

^ Just something I am apparently supposed to do, now that we are going this route with the Climate change article. InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 12:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Just noting that of all the dispute resolution venues, this one is the least functional. Usually a WP:third opinion on short and targeted questions works best. I'm mostly disengaged as I do not have the energy to read long stretches of text with my long covid brain fog. If you want to avoid a dialogue between the two of you, please write less verbosely; I'm sure more people will engage that way. An WP:RfC is the second-best option. For that to work, it's important that both of you give space to others to chip in, and not dominate the discussion. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 12:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

InformationToKnowledge, thanks I'll respond in the noticeboard. Femke, I normally prefer RfC too but this issue was a bit complicated and long with different sources, so not sure if it can be simplified enough for RfC. I'll still make a kinda summary in the talk page. Bogazicili ( talk) 19:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Femke, here are the latest suggestions: Talk:Climate_change#Latest_suggestions. Also note that InformationToKnowledge wants to use primary sources. Bogazicili ( talk) 20:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Some baklava for you and I2K: .

I'm impressed by your civilised discussion. It exceeds my expectations. Uwappa ( talk) 10:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Lol, thanks, what were you expecting though? Bogazicili ( talk) 05:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Ha ha, I was expecting that the fierce debate would just continue at the notice board with the volunteer getting totally lost in details. But no, that did not happen. So far so good! Uwappa ( talk) 05:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

No, the noticeboard is more structured, we'll see how it goes. Bogazicili ( talk) 05:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

yes, and I hope it can serve as an example for how to solve future discussions. Uwappa ( talk) 05:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The Core Contest has now begun! Evaluate your article's current state, gather sources, and have at it! You have until May 31 (23:59 UTC) to make eligible changes; although you are most welcome (and encouraged) to continue work on the article, changes after May 31 will not be considered for rankings and their prizes. Good luck and happy editing! Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.