Hayrettin Van Aken

Leave a message and I'll get back to you if I feel like it ;)

Hayrettin Van Aken, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Hayrettin Van Aken! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Bihar School of Yoga

Hi, I have had to change a lot of what you did with these edits. You used a source that didn't support a word of the content in one section, another source that was just a copy of our article, and yet another that barely supported the very basics of another section.

It's good that you are trying to find sources but you do need to take care. It is obvious from the style of your edits that you are not new to Wikipedia but, whether you edit as a registered account or anonymously, the basics remain the same. - Sitush (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, sorry for the inconvenience, might have gone too fast on the first source. However, using your official website to justify your content isn't recommended on Wikipedia since it doesn't come from third party sources and might therefore be subjective rather than objective. That pretty much is the reason why I added sources the way I did. I guess finding some extra ones would be a good asset for your page to gain credibility. Wishing you a very good day, best regards. Hayrettin Van Aken (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Self-published sources

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more references (external links) you added to the page Mudra, because they seemed to be self-published and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Respected publishing houses have a professional structure in place for checking the expertise of authors, analyzing facts, evidence, and arguments.

Google Books (preview) or Google Scholar may help you to identify reliable sources. See also: Identifying reliable sources, WP:SPAM. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey JimRenge, my bad. Tried my best to get trustworthy sources when I made updates. It's actually really hard to know which ones are self-made ones and which aren't when searching for Yoga sources. Will try my best to double check in the future. Wishing you a very good evening Hayrettin Van Aken (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Hayrettin Van Aken. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sander1453 (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Hayrettin. Three revert rule prohibits me from carrying on, so I'm out. Hopefully some admin will respond. Regards, Sander1453 (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Poor sources in BLPs

First, please do not link websites as publishers. Just the name of the site itself.

Second, I see that others have been concerned about the quality of sources you have been using. When it comes to BLPs, it is very important that we use reliable sources. Please be much more careful. [1] --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ronz, I get your point of view and I understand what you mean. However, it seems really hard to find proper sources in Yoga related topics since everybody is creating platforms to promote their products. I might sometime make mistakes but at least I am trying. Hayrettin Van Aken (talk) 08:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. I wish there were easy solutions. You're correct that they're promoting products rather than furthering the knowledge and practice of yoga (as far as we can tell from what sources are available at least). --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)