Waya 5

Welcome!

Hello, Waya 5, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Ugur Basak 08:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Image:Belozoglu emre nufc profile 2005.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Belozoglu emre nufc profile 2005.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Hi, it's a commonly made mistake, but photos you find on websites like this are *not* promotional photos. The {{Promotional}} tag is only for photographs that are clearly marked for use by other media outlets, and the copyright holder specifically prohibits reusing the photo for non-personal use.[1] Thanks. Ytny 09:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

World Cup Squads

Check templates for deletion. ALL World Cup squad templates have been proposed for deletion. If you disagree with it, place your vote in there. MonsterOfTheLake 19:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Tuncay sanli.jpg)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Tuncay sanli.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Ytny 03:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Rustu010.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Rustu010.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ytny 03:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ytny 03:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:10 marcelinho v 01.jpg)

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:10 marcelinho v 01.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 13:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Regarding this, please keep your comments civil when dealing with other editors. Thank you. --Chris (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A person who changes an article, already frequently encountering vandalism, to include to "penis lol" is another "editor" and should be treated with "civility"? That's interesting. I hope you tell them the same thing. -- Waya 5 (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've had a look at your recent edit summaries and you really should tone it down. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Civility as the previous editor suggested. Gamaliel 17:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok but does anybody plan on doing something about this anonymous user who repeatedly adds outdated and false information to the same group of articles. He's been blocked before and is there any way of giving this person a more permanent block?Waya 5 (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Does this user consistently use the same IP address? If so I can examine the history and see if a block of that IP address is justified. Gamaliel 17:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

He uses two IP addresses: 82.168.59.236 most of the time and 82.92.94.108 some of the time. Seriously, he has done this and has been blocked before. There is no getting through to him and it's just been hours and hours of reverting what the damage he has done. It wouldn't be a problem if he added something meaningful but it's all BS and he doesn't cite any sources. Waya 5 (talk) 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not have enough knowledge of the subject matter to be able to judge the edits of this person, but I did post a message on the administrator's noticeboard so hopefully an knowledgable admin will evaluate the situation. Gamaliel 22:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks.Waya 5 (talk) 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked

Blocked
You have been blocked for for violation of the Three Revert Rule (3RR) and uncivil comments when reverting other users for 24 hours. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

Please do not erase warnings on this page. Doing so is also considered vandalism. Konstable 11:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss the changes on your return, be mindful of WP:CIVIL and WP:3RR, and do not use "VANDALISM" in your edit summaries over content disputes.--Konstable 11:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock}} Why was I blocked when an anonymous vandal (82.168.59.236 most of the time and 82.92.94.108 sometimes, sometimes username Burak 18 but it appears he is using someone else's user name and not his own) is constantly reverting a page to false information? It is not a "content dispute". He is deliberately reverting to false information without citing sources. He seems to revel in this and makes comments such as "go to sleep and never wake up" (how about that for civility). I might add he has reverted more times than I have and I only do it to reverse his destruction of articles. It should be clear to you how he often does this anonymously and never cites sources. I also find it surpising that you have taken no steps to block this anonymous user at all when he has done nothing to contribute to Wikipedia and tries to impede the good work of others.Waya 5 (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2006 (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).

Waya 5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

{{unblock}} Why was I blocked when an anonymous vandal (82.168.59.236 most of the time and 82.92.94.108 sometimes, sometimes username Burak 18 but it appears he is using someone else's user name and not his own) is constantly reverting a page to false information? It is not a "content dispute". He is deliberately reverting to false information without citing sources. He seems to revel in this and makes comments such as "go to sleep and never wake up" (how about that for civility). I might add he has reverted more times than I have and I only do it to reverse his destruction of articles. It should be clear to you how he often does this anonymously and never cites sources. I also find it surpising that you have taken no steps to block this anonymous user at all when he has done nothing to contribute to Wikipedia and tries to impede the good work of others. Also, user Chappy84 has violated the 3 revert rule, violated the civility rule, and posted misleading information but you have not taken any action against him.

Waya 5 (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I was actually referring to tye Galatasaray article, and it does look like a content dispute to me. But I will have another look to see if the others have violated 3RR on any of the articles.--Konstable 20:08, 19 September 2006 (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.

Point noted

I have blocked 82.168.59.236 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for one full month. I will have a look at the behaviour of Johnny200 and if it's similar enough I will file a checkuser request.--Konstable 00:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Well there is no point for checkuser really. I have indefinitely blocked Johnny200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and blocked Burak18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 1 month. I have not blocked any other IPs and reduced 82.168.59.236's block to one week just to see what happens within this week, then I will extend it appropriately if needed, but it seems to me that this won't work as it is a dynamic IP.--Konstable 00:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Allah lover

That guy actually created a redirect from "Allah lover" to "Islamic Fascism", so yes very Islamophobic. When I deleted his redirect, he threw a fit and and actually filed an RfC against me because I was "abusing my admin powers", this has now been deleted. Unfortunately there are a lot of people around Wikipedia who think just because someone on their media says these things it's ok to replicate them here.--Konstable 23:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As for the new IP, appart from trying to get the article protected he hasn't been trolling like the previous guy, so I'd just leave him for the sake of avoiding paranoia of blocking everyone who edits that article in the same way for the next month. The IP is also from Netherlands, but seems like from a different internet service provider and in a different city, see: [2] and [3].--Konstable 23:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

UEFA Cup 1999-00

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I changed the format of the final result to match the standard format for results (see the talk page). As a Spurs supporter, rest assured that I would never do anything just to make Arsenal look good! ;) - Pal 23:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read the talk page but I'll leave it be if it is as you say and you seem like a good person so it's alright. I really have nothing against their club and I'm not out to make them look bad or anything. It just seems like they have such an Islamophobic mindset that they refuse to acknowledge that they lost to a Turkish team.Waya 5 05:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Warning for PersonAL Attack

In regards to this edit [4].

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, Englishrose 17:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[5] made on October 2 2006 to Football hooliganism

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 21:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for your input, I've tried to give as clear as an answer as best I can. “I can't believe you banned me but you didn't ban that English user for doing exactly that. Being from there yourself, your impartiality is questionable.”

I’m a Hartlepool United fan, during one of our players testimonial I witnessed some Leeds hooligans. To say I’m impartial is quite wrong.

“Please find a single document written by UEFA suggesting that Galatasaray club members or supporters were involved.”

UEFA did actually take action and banned Galatasaray fans from attending the Leeds match. However, UEFA also prefers to deal with matters in private.

“Also, that section is ridiculous; it is full of errors and purposely leaves out information such as Hakan Sukur being hit with a projectile in the leg at Elland Road and the racist chanting during the match. It ignores the Galatasaray team bus being stoned while going through an underpass. It ignores the attacks on British citizens of Turkish and Muslim origin during the time of the semifinal.”

Be bold: add it.

“It ignores that Emre Belozoglu was also sent off in the second leg of the semifinal near the same exact time as Harry Kewell. They are trying to make it appear as though the referee was the reason their club lost (amazing how some people can be sore about a result after 5 years) when in fact a Galatasaray player was sent off also; in any case, I have both matches on tape and Leed United (despite finishing third in England that year) were barely in the match and were surprisingly light on the ball; if they want to blame somebody for them losing the match it should be themselves as Galatasaray dominated both legs.”

What happened on the pitch has nothing to do with Football hooliganism, although I agree Leeds at the time we over-rated.

“Basically, they're trying to suggest that Turks are evil, that their clubs shouldn't play in UEFA, that the Leeds United organization is a shining example of decency (LOL); amazing, this club Leeds is the same that threatened the Busby Babes with death during their time playing. This is the same club whose players were involved in the beating of a Muslim Asian student (Lee Bowyer and Jonathan Woodgate; Lee Bowyer settled out of court: big surprise) in Leeds. Please read what I have written in the Galatasaray talk page. There is much much more.”

Finally as mentioned above, I agree that Leeds are no angles.

I’m going to sum this up as best as can. The point of the Footbal Hooliganism (or “Notable Football Hooliganism events as I’d like I to be renamed) is that it currently tries to document ALL countries that have known problems with Football hooliganism. I’m not denying that England is one of the worst for Football Hooliganism. However, I also feel that Spain, Italy, Scotland (to name just a few) have problems with hooliganism as does Turkey. To deny that Turkey has not had issues with Football Hooliganism is wrong e.g. there’s been lots of fights between Fenerbahce and Galatasaray in the same way that there’s been fights in England. The article as it stands is trying to get a broad range of examples of Football Hooliganism from as many countries that have experienced it as possible, that includes England, Spain, Italy, Scotland but it also includes Turkey. That’s why I think Turkey should be included, not necessarily because it’s as bad as England but because it has some notable events to do with hooliganism. Englishrose 23:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"UEFA did actually take action and banned Galatasaray fans from attending the Leeds match. However, UEFA also prefers to deal with matters in private."

It's very obvious that the measure was done out of safety. As I said before, UEFA had the opportunity to call off the match but chose not to, as they should have. UEFA had the opportunity but imposed no punishment monetary or otherwise and imposed no sanction on Galatasaray or Turkish clubs. This is in stark contrast to the Heysel Stadium disaster where hooliganism was punished with a lengthy suspension of English clubs from European competition.

"What happened on the pitch has nothing to do with Football hooliganism, although I agree Leeds at the time we over-rated."

Yes, I agree but they should be asked why did they mention Harry Kewell being sent off and not mention Emre Belozoglu (one of the key midfielders for Galatasaray at the time who was missed in the final against Arsenal) being sent off.

"I’m going to sum this up as best as can. The point of the Footbal Hooliganism (or “Notable Football Hooliganism events as I’d like I to be renamed) is that it currently tries to document ALL countries that have known problems with Football hooliganism. I’m not denying that England is one of the worst for Football Hooliganism. However, I also feel that Spain, Italy, Scotland (to name just a few) have problems with hooliganism as does Turkey. To deny that Turkey has not had issues with Football Hooliganism is wrong e.g. there’s been lots of fights between Fenerbahce and Galatasaray in the same way that there’s been fights in England. The article as it stands is trying to get a broad range of examples of Football Hooliganism from as many countries that have experienced it as possible, that includes England, Spain, Italy, Scotland but it also includes Turkey. That’s why I think Turkey should be included, not necessarily because it’s as bad as England but because it has some notable events to do with hooliganism."

Again, none of the sources mention Galatasaray club members or supporters being involved. Go ahead and try getting it mentioned under "Istanbul" or "homicide" and see if they want it.Waya 5 12:39 October 3 2006 (UTC)

RE: Football Hooliganism

Hi, thanks for your message. Firstly, it's good to see that you're now trying to talk instead of engaging in edit wars, so thanks for that.

Please find a single source suggesting that Galatasaray club members or supporters were involved.

My edit of the section did not state anywhere that Galatasaray as a club were involved in the incident, so why do you want me to find a source that says they were?

leaves out information such as Hakan Sukur being hit with a projectile in the leg at Elland Road and the racist chanting during the match.

I omitted those sections for two reasons. Firstly, because of the way the Football hooliganism article is laid out, the "Turkey" section should only really deal with the incident in Istanbul, while the return leg should probably be handled in the England section. Secondly, there was no source cited for those claims, whereas the rest of the section was sourced.

Basically, they're trying to suggest that Turks are evil, that their clubs shouldn't play in UEFA, that the Leeds United organization is a shining example of decency

I agree that the Leeds fans are pushing for a biassed account, and I'm trying to resist that as much as possible. I don't think anywhere they've claimed that "Turks are evil" and you really shouldn't make such claims without evidence to back them up. Please read WP:AGF and abide by it.

I'm not a fan of either club and just want a neutral representation of what happened. To be blunt, you're as guilty as they are as far as pushing for a biassed account of the incidents is concerned, and this undermines your arguments. You'll have much more sway over me, and them, if you behave reasonably and maturely. If other users are antagonising you, my advice is don't sink to their level by responding the same way, it removes all credibility from you as well as them.

Leeds is the same that threatened the Busby Babes with death during their time playing

That's a completely separate incident (or set of incidents) to the Istanbul thing, and needs a source. Trying to wedge that into the Galatasaray incident is a sure sign of bias; please don't do it.

As Wikipedians we should put our personal feelings aside and aim for a totally neutral account of what happened. Pretending that Galatasaray were completely uninvolved is silly as the match was at their ground and they were playing. The Leeds fans wouldn't have been there otherwise. Nobody is suggesting the club itself were behind the murders. Equally, it was nothing to do with Leeds United as a club; you don't see anyone putting that into every sentence. The only way to get a decent concensus is to work with the other editors.

Please read what I have written in the Galatasaray talk page. There is much much more.

I believe we established on that talk page that the incident doesn't need mentioning in that article, but belongs in the Football hooliganism article. Therefore please post any comments for improving the section on the Football hooliganism talk page.

Thanks. Waggers 08:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Warning for Personl Attack - Turkey national football team=

In regards to this edit [6]] in which you called users "animals". Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, Englishrose 17:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Milli Takım Sayfasında Vandalizm Yapma Lütfen

Standandartlaştırılmış şablonları geri almamanı rica ediyorum aksi takdirde bloklanacaksın bilgine )

Bu arada unuttuğum birşeyi daha hatırlatayım yunanistan bizim rakibimiz değil ve olamaz zaten. Eğer illaki rakibimiz diyorsan eklediğin bilgileri sadece Türk Milli takımı sayfasında değil Yunanistan Milli takımı sayfasına da eklemen gerekiyor aksi takdirde silineceklerdir. (Bence eklemeye değmez bizim rakibimiz brezilya ;)--Profesor 13:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC

Image:300806musamba14 resize.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:300806musamba14 resize.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ytny (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2007 (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) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)