User talk:2A1ZA/Archive 1

Archive 1

2A1ZA, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi 2A1ZA! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Samwalton9 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

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.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

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)

June 2016

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)

This "Historic Background" section I made in the Human Rights in Rojava article was copy & paste from the (longstanding) former version of the "Modern History" section in the Rojava article (which I did neither write nor ever edit), which I then made much briefer. In the "Historic Background" section I made in the Human Rights in Rojava article, I did only write the first sentence new. Please look at the history of the articles concerned and at the talk pages. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I see now. Thank you for responding and clarifying the situation. GAB^gab 15:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Rojava

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:

1. Creating disturbances on featured article candidate pages, e.g. objecting just to object
2. Continuously listing articles at Articles for deletion as an attempt to insult those who have worked on or contributed to the pieces
3. Calling users names or referring to articles that the user has worked on in a derogatory manner
4. Posting rumors or lies about other Wikipedia users, such as false accusations of vandalism
5. 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)

Indeed I am angry about what you did to that article, as I had put quite some effort into contributing to make that fragmented place of warfare between various political agendas and various ethnic or religious supremacist attitudes a meanwhile pretty good article. Please focus on the discussion on the talk page of the article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

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)

Please focus on the discussion on that talk page. It is not about personal attacks but about arguments for a good article. And I would very much appreciate if you follow the arguments and revert deletions/edits you made in that article if you find from the discussion that it would be appropriate to do so. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I did not use this v-word, after asked not to, to describe your deleting the substantial content of an entire section without discernable reason, arbitrarily changing elementary terminology in some places of the article but not in others, thus creating confusion about central issues. Dear Ogress, there is no reason not to focus on the arguments and on the article. If you are so not happy with things I had written about your edits there, I will happily go through it and consider removing, when this is an article without internal contradictions again. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

It's super convenient that you can insult me and then say "stop focusing on the things I said and work on the article". Repeatedly. Ogress 22:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I did not and do not "insult" you, I am arguing for a good article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

You have called me a vandal repeatedly. Ogress 22:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I never said anything about your person, even less did I call you names, what I did and do talk about are your devastating edits to that article. Please learn the difference. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

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)

Syrian People

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)

Category Rojava is a big scam. Most of the cities/villages under Kurdish YPG military occupation are inhabited by Arabs, therefore your rojava category does not even apply. The control of thoise areas changes from day to another as a result of the ongoing civil war. More important is the fact that this rojava thing does not have ay reccognition, by syrian government, opposition, or international community. Therefore, no communities should be added to that category, and this would be classified as Wikipedia:OR. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Please take a look at the list of populations centers under Rojava control at the Rojava article, control over none of these has been lost after having been won. And Rojava is a polyethnic polity, it does not matter how the distribution of ethnicities in those cities/towns is. If you wish to perceive Rojava as, "Kurdish YPG military occupation", you are free to do so, but then at least accept that "Kurdish YPG military occupation" is a fact where it is a fact and stop that deleting of the respective category in the respective articles. By the way, the text of each and every of these articles on the locations concerned explicitly states that they are under Rojava administration. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

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)

Tel Abyad

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)

I really tried to avoid this headache. you seems not to understand that you dont decide what is neutral, what is suitable, what is supremacist...etc

I have enough evidence to prove you are ferakp. I just didnt want to get you blocked, yet you insist on this behavior. who told you you can delete all this material and decide to keep the 45% calling it neutrality ?? Tel abyad is back to the way it was before you butchered it. You will go against the consensus that we have in the talk page if you reverted since Ermanarich also agree that your deletions are not justified.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Please stop this nonsense. I am not interested in your quest for Arab supremacism, and I am not interested in your petty fights with whomever about them. If you continue slander on this page, I will take care that your stint at Wikipedia is over. If you want to talk to me, talk about how to improve articles on the talk pages of the respective articles. Discussion here is over for me. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

"I will take care that your stint at Wikipedia is over" oh wow. lets see.

Tell then, stop acting as if you own any page and use the talk pages before removing contents and decide what is neutral and what it not.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10

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)

Reference errors on 25 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Jazira Canton page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

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)

Democratic Union Party (Syria)

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)

Hello (Redacted), please show proof of your accusations or keep silent, for good. -78.171.140.252 (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Democratic Union Party (Syria)

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)

I apprectiate that in spite of your self-declared affiliation with the totalitarian political ideology of Islamism you only harass me on Wikipedia rather than outright seeking my beheading as a secular person. However, discussions on articles should be done on the talk pages of the articles, so that everyone can follow them. Anyway, I do not think that a tweet by Mr Salih Muslim is appropriate to figure with an own sentence in the article on that political party. You might wish to try the article on Salih Muslim, if at all. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

You and the likes of you racist xenophobes are the ones who support such terrorist organisations found by your Obama administration and his puppets in Europe. Even the clown Trump said it. Yes I am a proud Muslim who belongs to the most merciful religion on earth, since the rest are bankrupt ideologies and isms that have not been able to provide peace and justice, but have only made slaves of people with a wild capitalist New World Order. Thank you for clarifying to an uninformed user about where a sentence belongs' even though I disagree with you because the person in question is the head of that terror organisation! You are still liable for your wrong action. -78.171.140.252 (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not care about your personal religion, that is your business, and I kindly ask you to no longer speculate in article pages about mine. The reference here was to a totalitarian political ideology, Islamism. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Imputations about users and their motivations

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)

Oh, and the first sentence of this was not OK either, and provoked the expected response. Do you see what I mean? MPS1992 (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not usually talk like this to other users, this anonymous account edit-warring to the extreme, insulting everybody (including me) and proclaiming on the talk page that "Shariah law is the only valid law in the sight of God" (which is the definition of Islamism) was a case where I wanted to make obvious to other editors that this is a disruptive user. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

General sanctions notice

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)

I protest your neutrality in this topic

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)

I do indeed agree with the wish that this article should have some neutral authority editing it, for exactly the reasons I state in that "neutrality disputed" notice and the aggressive edit-warring behind it. However, let's hope the best, the article is protected until tomorrow, and on the talk page at least the maker of the map has not yet explicitly ruled out correcting its labeling in a NPOV manner. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Rojava

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)

No, actually it won't, and any further personal attacks of this nature are likely to end in increasing difficulties for you ( 78.171.140.252 ) editing Wikipedia. MPS1992 (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course it would not, considering you might be another member of the club who gets paid from the Wikipedia Foundation. Any personal attacks on my contributions will be met with an equal personal attack. -78.171.140.252 (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks are bad, whether in retaliation or otherwise, and I am trying to assist you ( the person who posted the above comment from 78.171.140.252 ) in continuing to edit Wikipedia. Sadly, I don't receive any pay from the Wikimedia Foundation, and I am about 100% sure that 2A1ZA does not either. MPS1992 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

If I would receive a cheque from the Mossad every time I am accused to be paid by it, I would own a generous estate in Saint-Tropez by now. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

But why are Mossad interested in Rojava? As those of us from "the subcontinent" learn to say, "I don't get it!" MPS1992 (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Eh, I imagine that most every intelligence service worldwide is probably interested in Rojava right about now. GAB^gab 14:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank You

		The Barnstar of Kurdish Merit
		For your efforts to improve Rojava-related articles of Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! Vekoler (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to {{subst:PAGENAME}} by ~~~ on ~~~~~

Jarabulus

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)

Can we discuss this on the article talk page? There are many people involved in the discussion, it makes much more sense to do it there. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

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)

Reported

You have been reported here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Long_term_abuse.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Yay, for the record, here is my response:

Everything in this stuff is definitely nonsense, as far as my person and my account is concerned. I do not know any of the other accounts mentioned, and I wish that User:Attar-Aram syria would stop accusing anyone who disagrees with him being a "sockpuppet" of everyone else who might ever have disagreed with him. Or at least leave me out of these silly games. And if he does not, I would find some form of sanctioning of the account User:Attar-Aram syria warranted, because these silly games seriously disrupt article-oriented discussions on talk pages of several articles. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I got the pages on my watchlist, you dont need to ping me.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26

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.

Foreign relations of Rojava

added a link pointing to Democratic Union Party

Free Syrian Army

added a link pointing to Southern Front

Shahba region

added a link pointing to Dabiq

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)

October 2016

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)

Dear Editor abcdef, what exactly are you talking about? Do you mean my contribution (together with other editors) in the removal of abusive flags (see talk page of the article)? My personal contribution to these reverts (even sanctioned by a Wikipedia admin, who got involved upon my request, follow the link on the talk page) according to the page history are three such edits, of 7 October, 5 October, 26 September. And more than anyoneone else I tried to discuss the issue with the user who persistently puts up these abusive flags. I would very much appreciate if you would get involved in solving the problem of this abusive flagging, rather than leaving such a nonsense message on my talk page. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the template tags had been inserted without the required reasoning to support their insertion and without the required talk page platform to enable their eventual removal - so it was correct that they were removed. But there are pov problems with the article and the tags could easily have been properly justified if the user who had inserted them had bothered. The article reads too much like an advertisement, containing "mission statement"-type claims that are worded and presented as if they were actual facts. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely appreciate discussions about improvement of articles. I almost pleaded with that person to start a sincere discussion. But all that I saw and got from that person was what came across as a desire to taint the article and its topic with a flag and fine for him/her. Anyway, I do not think that article is as flawed as you describe it, but I would absolutely appreciate it if you would start a sincere discussion on how to improve the article on its talk page, and/or just start improving. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't kid yourself 2A1ZA (talk). Your bias can be seen from a mile away. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about the personal biases of its editors, but about contribution to qualitiy NPOV articles. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

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)

I have reverted to the sincere version, without removing the fantasy template. However, I would appreciate it very much if you would try to justify the existence of the fantasy template on the talk page of the article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Al-Qamishli

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)

A Google search for the combination of "Rojava" and "Qamishli" earns no less than 210.000 results. And there are explicit references for major international media calling Qamishli the (de facto) capital of (de facto) Rojava in the article. Deleting the category because it does not suit your political activist agenda obviously would be intentional abuse. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Still, a Google search means nothing, as may 90% of the results would be mirrors of the articles you are faking on Wikipedia. And, you didn't answer my previpous request to show "international unbiased media" talking about al-Qamishli as capital of the Kurdish proclaimed entity. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit requests

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)

Sorry, I should have thought about that with respect to the not obviously uncontroversial one, where I had even with the request explicitly asked for discussion and consensus-building myself. My bad. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Your (mis)behaviour on FSA

Colleague, please read: Talk:Free Syrian Army#2A1ZA (and perhaps others?): stop corrupting this Wiki article. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Corriebertus, when I went over the structure of said article back in September to make it a presentation which actually is of value for the reader, I had to re-arrange an article which diverse editors (as far as I can see, you included) created and upheld as a piece to present "Free Syrian Army" as a fictional coherent organisation, which it probably never was, and if it ever was then definitely is not any more since 2013. I made it a history article by re-arranging the content according to an annual timeline. I would ask you not to corrupt the article by pretending against reality that "Free Syrian Army" were a coherent organisation. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Admins

You were reported Here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I posted the same reply as last time:

Any of these allegations are false as far as my person/account is concerned, and I would really wish that this editor would leave me out of these silly games with which he poisons article-oriented discussions. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:46, 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)

As I edit in Middle East politics articles where I have an interest in the topic and transparent documentation of facts, and which are highly charged with political emotions, I get quite some stuff on my talk page, and I wish to have readers of this talk page see my reply to stuff here. I hope you do not mind. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:59, 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)

Edit warring on Rojava#International Relations

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)

Please engage in the talk page discussion instead of edit warring and then posting such messages on my talk page. Thanks. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

2A1ZA (talk), How about you stop edit warring? I see that you are reverting referenced info by other users. You need to get reported. -78.171.190.249 (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

After you are done with "reporting me" (to whomever for whatever), you might want to engage in a sincere good faith discussion about the article on its talk page. I would appreciate that. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

User 2A1ZA (talk), you are engaging in an edit war. This is pretty obvious. 4world2read (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I feel flattered by the fact that you created a Wikipedia account just to tell me this. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You have been reported

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)

November 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Rojava. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{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)

Edit warring

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)

However, do not take this message to mean that I suddenly have a change of mind. I still believe the statement you added violates the NPOV rules. Along with your history of edit wars and , you can probably understand my reasoning behind this. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I do not think that I have "a history of edit wars", even less so "of non-NPOV contributions", and I find it pretty audacious of you to claim so, as we do not know each other at all. If you have an issue with the most accurate NPOV presentation of Mr Erdogan's policies concerning the Mosul offensive, I recommend discussing it on the talk page of the articles concerned, not here. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear UNSC Luke 1021 (talk), I started a discussion on the article talk page concerned, here. I would appreciate it if you would engage in an article-oriented good faith discussion there, not abandon communication after leaving some insult on my talk page. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@2A1ZA: I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just saying you had been banned for edit warring before and you were asked once to remove non-NPOV content. Should I bring up your two warnings about edit warring on different pages, your removal of a template on a page without reasoning on one of those pages, a general sanction about a less serious edit warring issue, reference errors on a page, copyrighting issues on another page as well as a personal attack on another editor that you persistently accused of vandalism on a page that you hosted both an edit war and copyright infringement. Shall we bring these things up, or should we just end this argument. Regards, UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary, but I can read this talk page as well. I may humbly suggest that not every accusation some other editor in those Middle East policy articles highly charged with political emotions makes in here must be true. Anyway, I regret that you appear to be interested in this ad hominem discussion here, but not in the substantive discussion on the edit concerned which I started on the respective article talk page. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's just end this stupid argument. It basically started over two words. I'm just going to stop replying. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Turkish involvement

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)

Dear 59.96.133.198, better discuss this on the article talk page? I agree that the Turkey section should probably better be after the timeline than before the timeline. Feel free to move it down. The area before the timeline is mostly cleaned up now, the area after the timeline is still quite a mess anyway (one editor loaded tons of unorganized, unsourced material down there). -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Reported

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)

Closing our page

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, I would very much appreciate it if this bitter atmosphere around the Human rights in Rojava article would end. I happily reiterate that I do not think that you actually know about me and/or my personal opinions on stuff, and I certainly do not have the concrete opinions you use(d) to associate me with on talk pages. Anyway, after many years of dealing with Middle East stuff as a German, I am aware that my perspective on things, quite mainstream here, appears "extreme" from the viewpoint of Middle East discourses (and trust me, Israel/Palestine or Turkey/Kurds is even way more brutal in this respect than the mostly Syria or Iraq centered stuff we deal with here). Should you have some spare time, I would recommend that you somewhat read through the LSE and Chatham House papers I referenced this morning, they might be bridges to understanding. If you actually go away from "Rojava" related articles, I wish you the best of luck both at Wikipedia and in life. However, I would very much appreciate it if we meet again for cooperation on Wikipedia, maybe near future political developments will even be an invitation to do so here. Anyway, I will not delete anything on this talk page, I do not regret I met you. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I said I will go away if we discussed the most fundamental problems with your editing that drive me to stay. Reading your answer made me realize that nothing can change since you will never tone down (Im friendly now, this isnt an insult). I guess this nightmare will continue, hope it will be less severe now that a consensus must be reached for new controversial edits. Note: Ive never seen a middle easterner care so much about Europe and its problem, you are so involved in our region...weird. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

This fundamental different perspective of you and me on the stuff concerned certainly will not change, I think it is a necessary consequence of looking at the same mountain from very different places. So for a personal remark, my connection with the Middle East was pretty personal at times in my life, academic/professional all along, and I have recently come to appreciate the Wikipedia project as a place which at the core of its own mission fits perfectly with what Middle East discourses need to move forward, a mirror that does not accept taboos of social marker otherness, alleged illegitimacy, and all the other sociopolitical taboos which keep the Middle East from evolving into open societies. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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)

Tourism in Turkey

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)

I disagree with your assessment, and I find your approach destructive in procedure. Still, I will take the time to rework the article. I expect you to approach further work on that article with a more constructive attitude. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. I contacted you about the situation, we agree on the problems and solutions, and I'd already apologized for not having time to do the work myself. Sorry. --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

All fine. I agree with you that the article as such is heavily unbalanced towards recent issues (and has the respective flag up), I just felt it had to be updated. There is a somewhat not optimal situation where some editors passionately care for the "Tourism" section of the Turkey article, keep it perfectly advertisement-like and delete any mention of recent issues, while the Tourism in Turkey article mostly is about recent issues. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:03, 22 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)

Dear FPP, while your account is blocked for a day (IPs continuing the edit warring at the Chaldean Christians article on its behalf instead), let me say again here what I said numerous times on the article talk page: Wikipedia is not about your personal opinion on stuff. It is about sources and an encyclopedic presentation of topics, giving different viewpoints and theories due weight. Your fringe theory, that the adherents of the Chaldean Catholic Church were distinct as "the same people" as those of ancient Chaldea mentioned in the bible, is not supported by any serious source. Rather, the name "Chaldean" was deliberately chosen for a newly established Catholic Church within the ethnic Assyrian and Syriac Christian community in early modernity, a fact which is well sourced. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Stop Edit Warring Please

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)

I just had to restore the NPOV version of the article once again. If you think that this article should have a lengthy paragraph narrating invented Turkish government propaganda slander against Salih Muslim, please explain on talk page instead of edit warring. There is clearly no consensus for it now. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

"Invented"? If you think you can get away by calling facts "inventions" of a government you dislike, you have a serious problem and you should not be contributing to Wikipedia. Instead you should get some help in Germany. I believe you meant officially unrecognized PYD/YPG terrorist militia propaganda against the Republic of Turkey. There is clearly no consensus for your removal of information that is referenced. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 05:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

You need a consensus to include controversial material into an article, not the other way round. And this is even stricter in articles concerning living persons, see WP:BLP. In substance, the politically motivated slander and slanderous insinuations against Salih Muslim which you try to insert into his article is treated as the rubbish it is by pretty much all media outside of Turkey and its immediate proxies. No way, my friend. By the way, it appears that after you edit warring there with diverse editors, the article is now protected against IP edits anyway. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Banned sockmaster's new "actions"

Dear 2A1ZA, the ip-jumping Grey Wolf has complained about you on Beshogur's talk page. Cathexis1349 (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at Turkey

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, I did read it here here already. While I actually disagree with that idea to "deal equally" with on the one hand a user who edits in good faith, seeks to discuss and violates no rule, and on the other hand a user who bulk deletes with insincere edit summaries, refuses to discuss and violates 3RR, I am fine with the idea that the decentralization issue paragraph now in the article needs talk page consensus for a change. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:45, 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)

Editing other editors edits

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)

I really appreciate you linking to Wikipedia:Etiquette, which gives me hope that future talk page discussions with you might be good faith discussion on substance, and no longer mainly ad hominem attacks from your side. On your point here, I did not "edit another editor's signed talk page comments" (and never ever did so in Wikipedia), I simply changed the headline on that talk page section from an unspecified polemic to the actual topic of the discussion, so that other editors can see what topic is discussed there. I appreciate that you participate in that discussion, and I would wish that you would do it in a good faith manner, instead of ad hominem attacks and distractions. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

OMG I specifically told you that this isnt a matter for discussion and that you are not allowed to change what others write for the sake of not being allowed, yet you couldnt not tell me why you changed the title which is not relevant at all. The title of that section is part of the signed comment of IP 109, you are not allowed to change it no matter what you think. This isnt etiquette, it a thing you must not do. You are reported here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I just read it and found that after you did not believe me, now other editors/admins told you that it is fine to change polemicist/insulting talk page headlines. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Vandalising Rojava

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)

Just for the record, I do neither "vandalize" articles nor do I engage in "disruptive editing". You might wish to critically review your own conduct with respect to these criteria. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Info

[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)

I just stumbled over the complaint on the ANI by several Users against 213.74.186.109 (who apparently declared that he now started account Human like you) and added a brief contribution about my experience with that User. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

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)

Dear Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, I welcome you to Wikipedia as well. My only activity on the article mentioned was to twice revert a disruptive edit that inserted propaganda meterial unrelated to the lemma/topic of this article, but apparently only sought to taint it with implicit insinuations. There is even a talk page subsection on the issue concerned, which the inserting editor simply ignores. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: If I am to be blocked from editing I expect the same to be done to this user since his contributions are merely propaganda and POV pushing for so-called Rojava and the murdering organisation in short known as the YPG. Enough is enough. -Human like you (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I respect the fact that you have your own personal opinions on Kurdish politics; but please remember that Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and that edit-warring is not the way to achieve the changes you wish to see. Cheers, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 11:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

2A1ZA, I wanted to leave another edit-warring warning, but I see your page is already full of those, with another one received just after you came back from your last block. It seems you have not learned any lesson from your many blocks. I am confident you will be blocked indefinitely pretty soon. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Deine Edits im Artikel zur König Fahd-Akademie in Bonn

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)

Hallo, ich verstehe die Quellen so, dass es noch Lehrbetrieb gibt, aber keine Schüler mehr für das kommende Schuljahr aufgenommen werden, der Lehrbetrieb also in Abwicklung ist. Es ist also mehr als nur Schließung angekündigt und weniger als bereits komplett dichtgemacht und Heizung abgestellt. In Abwicklung. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

So kann man das zusammenfassen. Dann solltest Du das aber auch so im Artikel darstellen, finde ich. Gruß --Sir James (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Continued edit warring at Turkey

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{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)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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.

Dear JamesBWatson, sorry for the late reply, I was on holiday. (2) A consensus proposal was discussed on that talk page for four days, with all previously involved editors as well as others participating, and no single objection was raised against the final proposal (slightly modified in the process, taking up every suggestion); it is not "decreeing consensus" to state the obvious fact that a proposal simply met no objections. (3) The reasoning for the block expressly said "In any case, reverting to enforce an apparent consensus is not listed as an exception to the edit warring rules in WP:3RRNO," thus implicitly making the false claim that I had violated 3RR, which I had not. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I accept that the mention of WP:3RRNO implied that the so-called "three revert rule" was part of the reason for the block. Thank you for explaining that, as it answers my comment that "I don't know why you mentioned" the "three revert rule". However, that does not detract from the fact that a block for edit-warring is equally valid whether that "rule" has been breached or not, provided that there has been edit-warring. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This block can be lifted if you will agree to make no edits at Turkey for one month. I was hoping you would understand what a talk page consensus consists of but I was disappointed to find you declaring your own consensus. One of the parties in the dispute does not have the right to do this. EdJohnston (talk) 14:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston, the disappointment is all mine. Sorry for the late reply, I was on holiday. I am indeed very, very disappointed to see you once again attacking me with the accusation that I would have "decared my own consensus", while what I in fact did was work for a broad and educated consensus on the talk page, with many hours of research, proposals and contributions to the discussion, and finally after four days, with all previously involved editors as well as others participating, and no single objection was raised against the final proposal (slightly modified in the process, taking up every suggestion), I stated this obvious fact. Yes, I am very, very disappointed about your dealing with that matter, about treating best efforts for an edit progress in line with the rules and policies of Wikipedia the same as another editor's conduct that was a frivolous violation of a range of rules and policies of Wikipedia. Anyway, I would indeed appreciate it if you would remove that block log entry from my account history. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston, as the previous ping might have missed your attention, this is just to notify you that I still hope for a reply from you. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello 2A1ZA. The idea that you would declare your own consensus simply did not occur to me! In future I will try to issue more bulletproof warnings, where the person can't decide on their own that they have fulfilled the condition. A third party needs to be involved. EdJohnston (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank for the reply, dear EdJohnston, I very much appreciate that. However, this one question of mine is still open, if I can come back to your offer to remove this block entry from my account log if I do not edit the Turkey article for a month. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

You are not currently blocked. Old blocks are almost never removed from the logs. Since the block was imposed per policy and was upheld on appeal, there would not be much reason to have doubts about it. I did not make an offer to remove your block from the logs, I gave you a condition under which you could avoid a block for your past warring ("you should pursue your case on the talk page and you should not edit again unless you get prior consensus on talk"). That issue is now in the past and there is no need to revisit it. EdJohnston (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear EdJohnston, I was referring to your offer that "this block can be lifted if you will agree to make no edits at Turkey for one month" above, which you made ob 14:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC) after "the block was imposed per policy and was upheld on appeal". I do not know about the usual handling of such cases, but "almost never" is not "never", and I would really be much interested in finding this block (which I personally still perceive as deeply unfair and unfairly tainting my account) removed from my account block log. As you can easily I see, I did not edit the Turkey article since. The reason why to take this maybe somewhat unusual measure would be that the event happened immediately before the holiday season, and I like many others was AFK for two weeks. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion I've given an adequate answer and don't plan to continue this. I am declining your request to remove the block from the log. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

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)

Ich habe eine Untersuchung eröffnet.

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)

Great work dear User:KazekageTR, I just took note that the account User:Balki Chalkidiki has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I am just saying

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)

Content dispute

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)

Hassan Rebell/Lrednuas Senoroc

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)

Update 'Human like you' / 213.74.186.109

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)

Hello, and thanks for the information. Due to both personal circumstances and the fact that sincerity and secularism are on a winning run in the Middle East for now, I am not as busy on Wikipedia as I used to be last year. Looking forward to 16 April, after which quite some material will have to be re-written in any case. PS: Have to go back to the business of creating artificial earthquakes now. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 02:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Dawronoye: Tendentious edits

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)

I not only replied, but also wrote on his talk page today. Actually I would very much appreciate it if there were a transparent, sincere, NPOV presentation of political issues within the Assyrian community (beyond the stuff on invented sectarian identities) on Wikipedia. But simply trying to silence and slander views one does not like is a no-go, Wikipedia is not Erdogan country. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

1 RR

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)

April 2017

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)

Welcome to Wikipedia, dear Meters, I do out of principle seek to avoid discussions with editors who post standardized messages on my talk page. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm well aware of our policies and guidelines (I've been here much longer than you have). I leave templates for new editor such as you. And I also left you a comment with the template. What else would you have me do? Discuss the edit or or leave it out. Meters (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a nice compliment to call me "a new editor", your excellency Meters. I feel honoured that you take some of your precious time to talk to an "editor such as me". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:14, 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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)

Thanks, Ronz, I returned the greetings. Please use the article talk page, as I had suggested, instead of the edit warring you chose until now. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

So you again emphasize that I not edit war like you have done, and that I use the talk page even further than I already have, while you did not. Do you understand that this is problematic? --Ronz (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Lrednuas Senoroc

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)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

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)

Wikileaks, Berat Albayrak and block of Wikipedia

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)

Aleppo

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)

Apparently we are in disagreement as to whether my edits to that article constitute an improvement, because I strongly believe they do, see the respective talk page. And if you breach the 1RR again, instead of using the talk page to discuss issues you might have with edits (or simply modify the edits accordingly, instead of bulk undoing), I will certainly report it. By the way, I noted that you deleted the appropriate edit warring warning from your own talk page. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I did not "breach 1RR" once or "again". So report whatever you want. You're the one who restored text which 1) had no consensus and 2) did not improve the article because 2a) part of it was redundant and 2b) part of it misrepresented a source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

What you did was a most obvious breach of 1RR. And you are aware that I addressed all issues you mentioned (regrettably as edit summaries for bulk deletions instead of talk page discussion or modification), right? Still hopeful for improving that article in a good faith spirit of cooperation. See also its talk page, where I'd prefer to continue discussion, as this is about the article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

No, it was not. No, you did not. For the first part, show me the two reverts which breach 1RR (you might want to read WP:REVERT). For the second part see talk page. But we can do it here. The stuff from New York Times - you're attributing to New York Times but it's actually some guy they interviewed. So that's misrepresenting a source. The stuff about shelling - the same info is in the paragraph right above it. So that's redundant. If you addressed these two issues, then I missed it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Did you actually read my recent edits and the article as it stands? It explicitly attributes one quote to the NYT and two quotes to "some guy they interviewed", perfectly correct. And "the stuff about shelling" Sheikh Maqsood is one integer paragraph now, no redundancy whatsoever. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that's better but the part with the NY Times is still problematic. For one thing the author of that piece had to go around the town with a government handler/minder.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

And if you are genuinely interested in "improving that article in a good faith spirit of cooperation" then calling somebody an "edit warrior" (without basis) in an edit summary is probably not a good way to go about it. Just saying.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Verifiability

[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)

I have since added some of the sources from the Syrians article. And in any case, I would sincerely wish you would address that section concerned with sensitivity in formulation, not with brute deletions. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Redundant internal links

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)

Causing problems

I may be causing problems, but there is an IP user (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

Recentism

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)

Human like you

I think this one is new sock of banned Human like you [10]. 198.217.116.13 (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Move of Rojava/DFNS Cantons to Regions

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)

Thanks for the hint. I added a "Put on hold" opinion on the respective talk pages. Appreciate that you took the initiative for a discussion on that topic that needs to be discussed. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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)

Ways to improve Conspiracy theories in Turkey

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)

If you do not elaborate on the article talk page, I will remove the tag without further discussion. See WP Help:Maintenance template removal#When to remove. -- 07:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Just let you know

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)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

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.

Take the survey now!

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!

WMF Surveys, 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

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)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

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!

WMF Surveys, 01:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

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.

WMF Surveys, 00:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 24

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)

Nomination attempt

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)

Dear 331dot, doing this for the first time, and I do not find any place to post other than this "Suggestions" on Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates, the instructions I read appear to me to tell me to post exactly there. Would you be kind enough to link the page I would rather be supposed to post at? -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You are posting on the correct page, but (I believe) using the incorrect edit link, which puts your edit on the Current Events portal template instead of on the ITNC page. Click the "edit" next to the date itself and not the one in the collapsed current events section.

FYI links to other Wikipedia pages should simply be put in double brackets like this [[Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates]]. The whole web address is not necessary. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it worked. The particular way of linking here was just meant to underline. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Please don't copy material you find elsewhere online

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)

Dear Diannaa, I made three comments on some RfA today, 1, 2, 3, you might or might not want to read them. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

close paraphrasing

'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)

Your rephrasing is fine with me. What is not fine with me is deleting sentences instead of rephrasing them, so I restored and rephrased sentences you deleted. By the way, I think it would be more helpful to have this discussion on the article talk page. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Content that violates copyright law has to be removed. The person who discovers a copyright violation is under no obligation to re-word it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record, as you refer not to Wikipedia policies but to "copyright law", in my legal opinion there is no violation of copyright law of any jurisdiction in the case concerned. And irrespective of that, I do not think that any Wikipedian is under an obligation to edit, I was making a remark on cooperation among editors in improving articles. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)