Jump to content

User talk:Adem: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
DPL bot (talk | contribs)
dablink notification message (see the FAQ)
Warning: new section
Line 494: Line 494:


It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these [[User:DPL bot|opt-out instructions]]. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 11:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these [[User:DPL bot|opt-out instructions]]. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 11:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

== Warning ==

{{Ivmbox
| image = yes
| The [[WP:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] has permitted [[WP:Administrators|administrators]] to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions]]) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to [[Armenia]]-[[Azerbaijan]] and related conflicts. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], satisfy any [[Wikipedia:Etiquette|standard of behavior]], or follow any [[Wikipedia:List of policies|normal editorial process]]. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Final decision|Final decision]]" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions]], with the appropriate sections of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures]], and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and&nbsp;will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.<!-- Template:uw-sanctions - {{{topic|{{{t}}}}}} -->
| valign = center
| [[Image:Ambox warning pn.svg|35px|alt=|link=]]
}} -- [[User:DeltaQuad|<font color="green">DQ</font>]] [[User_Talk:DeltaQuad|<font color="blue">(ʞlɐʇ)</font>]] 02:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:10, 16 January 2013

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Maurice07! Thank you for your contributions. I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Marek.69 talk 16:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited 1999 İzmit earthquake, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kocaeli, Sakarya and Gölcük (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - June 2012

Note: the Newsletter is "collapsed" for convenience. To see the full letter, click on the "show" button at the right end of the blue bar.

This Newsletter was delivered by WesleyMouse 13:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC). If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list. [reply]

Project Eurovision RFC discussion reminder

WikiProject Eurovision: This is a reminder to all members of Project Eurovision, that there is still an ongoing RfC discussion taking place at the project talk page. It is vital that everyone participates in this discussion, as it concerns the future manual of style and article layout in regards to Eurovision Song Contest by Year and Junior Eurovision Song Contest by Year articles. This is your ideal opportunity to contribute suggestions and ideas on a major issue, which will reflect on the way these articles will be written in future. Thank You! EdwardsBot (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

Hi. Seems like I have found a fellow citizen of mine :) Regarding your edits in the article of Northern Cyprus, I want to note something. Contributing to English Wikipedia means adopting to the place and using names which are well-established or considered by third-party users as neutral or on which we have a consensus. These are the cases in invasion, Apostolos Andreas and so forth. Even if one personally disagrees, they have to use that name. Insisting on changing them would be considered disruptive. So I would advise you to edit in this context. --Seksen (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


KKTC

Selamlar. Daha önce de belirttiğim gibi özellikle İngilizce Vikipedi'ye katkıda bulunmak için belirli şeyleri kabullenmek gerekiyor. Elbette ki kişisel olarak kabul ettiğimiz doğrular olduğumuz için, olayın taraflarından birine mensup olduğumuz için alışmak kolay değil. İtiraf etmeliyim ki benim için de kolay olmadı. Bu bağlamda Vikipedi'de bir şeyleri bu gereklilikten dolayı kabullenmek ile kişisel olarak kabullenmek arasında fark olduğunu belirtmek isterim. Kişisel olarak 74 harekatına "işgal" demezsiniz, ben de demem; ama buradayken kabullenmek zorundayım denilmesini. Nedenlerini bu uzuunca yazıda açıklayacağım :)

Vikipedi'de tarafsız bakış açısı dediğimiz bir kural var. Maddeleri buna uygun yazmak zorundayız. Bunu aşağıda açıklayacağım. Ayrıca madde adlarında ve içlerinde İngilizcedeki yaygın kullanımlar kullanılıyor. Zafer Burnu örneğinde İngilizcede yaygın olarak "Cape Apostolos Andreas" kullanıyor (Google Books aramaları bir fikir verebilir). Bu nedenle bu kullanılmak zorunda. Bu değiştirilebilecek bir durum değil. Bunu kabul etmemek bir şey getirmeyecektir.

Adlara fazla takılınmaması gerektiğini düşünüyorum ben. Kullanıcılara da. Karşımızdaki ister Rum olsun, ister üçüncü ülkeden biri, sunduğu argümanlara odaklanılmalı. Aksi halde üretken bir ortam oluşmaz, sonuç getirmeyen, kısır tartışmalara sürüklenilir. Eğer katılmadığımız bir fikirleri varsa bunu "sen Rumsun, onun için böyle yapıyorsun!" şeklinde değil, onun bakış açısını anlamaya çalışıp, olayın bir diğer tarafı daha olduğunu ve bu tarafın da görüşlerinin böyle olduğunu kabul edip ve bu görüşlere saygı gösterip, bunun ardından katılmadığımız noktaları kibarca dile getirerek ifade etmeliyiz. Değişikliğiniz geri alınırsa çok çok sebebini açıklayarak (ünlemlerden mümkün olduğunca kaçının) bir veya iki defa geri alın (dördüncüde değişiklik yapmanız engellenebilir), daha sonra tartışma sayfasına taşıyın. Vikipedi'de kişiler üzerine yorum yapmak hoş karşılanmaz. Bir önceki paragrafta tarafsız bakış açısından bahsetmiştim. Tabii sahip olduğunuz bakış açısına göre bunun yorumlanışı değişiyor. Yunanlı bir kullanıcı KKTC'deki bir yeri anlatırken uluslararası toplum tarafından işgal altında kabul edildiğine vurgu yapmak isteyebilir; ama Türk bir kullanıcı bu vurguya gerek olmadığını söyleyecektir. Bu durumlarda işte az önce söylediklerim çok önemli. Her iki tarafın da argümanlarının sunulduğu tartışmalarda genelde üçüncü parti kullanıcılar iki tarafın görüşlerini değerlendirerek tarafsız, tercihen herkes için kabul edilebilir bir çözüm bulmaya çalışıyor. "İşgal" olayında üçüncü parti kullanıcılar da tarafsız kullanıcılar bunun doğru kullanım olduğunu düşünüyor, bu daha önce tartışıldığı için defa defa gündeme getirilmesi hoş karşılanmıyor. Eğer üçüncü parti kullanıcılar yoksa kullanıcılar arasında (geçici de olsa) bir anlaşmaya varılarak (ki bu anlaşmaya varılamazsa genelde tartışmalı değişiklikten önceki sürüm oluyor, standart uygulama böyle) sorun çözülüyor.

Uzun lafın kısası, burada esas olan Vikipedi'nin savaş alanı olmadığını unutmamak, olayların diğer bakış açılarına saygı gösterip kibarca tartışabilmek ve yeri geldiğinde kişisel görüşlerimize uygun düşmese de bazı şeyleri kabul edebilmek. Bunlar unutulmadığında verim doğuyor, kazanan maddeler oluyor, kazanan Vikipedi oluyor.

Yardımcı olabildiysem ne mutlu bana. İleride de danışmaktan çekinmeyin lütfen. Eyi çalışmalar :)

--Seksen (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The message above in English:

Hi. As I have said before, one need to accept things especially in order to be able to contribute to English Wikipedia. Of course as we all have our own truths, and as we belong to one of the sides of the dispute, it is not easy to adapt. To be honest, it was not easy for me either. In this context, I want to note that accepting something on Wikipedia and accepting something personally are different things. Personally, you might not call the operation in 1974 an "invasion", neither I do, but here you must accept it to be called an "invasion". I am going to explain why in this long, long message :)

There is a rule we call the neutral point of view in Wikipedia. We need to write articles in accordance to this. I will explain it further below. Furthermore, common names are used in article names or inside articles. In the case of Cape Victory, the common English usage is "Cape Apostolos Andreas" (Google Books search results might provide you with an idea). This means that this name has to be used. This is not something that can be changed. Not accepting this would not produce anything.

I think that one must not stick to names in Wikipedia. And neither to users. We can be talking to a Greek or a person from another country and descent, we need to focus on their arguments. If this is not done, a productive environment is not formed and this results in unproductive discussions. If they have an idea you disagree with, don't say, "oh, you are a Greek, that's why you are doing this!". Instead of this, try to understand his/her viewpoint, accept that there is another side to that discussion and that side thinks like that, and respect those views, and then express the points you do not agree with in a polite manner. If your edit is reverted, you may bring it back one of two times adequately explaining it reason (preferably without explanation marks), and then start a discussion in the talk page. Commenting on users is discouraged in Wikipedia. I have mentioned the neutral point of view in the previous paragraph. Of course, the way you perceive this depends on your viewpoint. A Greek user may like to stress the fact that it is considered to be occupied by the international community in an article about, say, a place in the TRNC, whereas a Turkish user would say that this emphasis is unnecessary. In these cases, what I have said is very important. In discussion where arguments of both sides are presented, third-party users are often involved in finding a neutral solution which would preferably satisfy everyone. In the case of "invasion", third-party users think that this is the correct use and as this issue has been discussed before, new attempts to discuss this naming are often not welcomed.

So, in short, what it important is not to forget that Wikipedia is not a battleground, to respect other points of view, to discuss in a polite manner and to be able to accept things even if we do not accept them in person. If these are remembered, the result is often productivity, and it is the articles and Wikipedia that wins.

I am glad if I have been helpful. Do not hesitate to ask should you have any questions. Have a nice night :)

--Seksen (talk) 19:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Piri Reis Map

See Talk:History of the Falkland Islands, please note I disagree with the comments there. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - July 2012

Your monthly WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter has arrived. To open click "show".
EUROISION
• WikiProject News •

Issue #20 • July 2012
HomeTalkPortalNewsdeskArchives
Message from the Editorial Team

Bienvenue! Willkommen! Welcome!

Please be warm-hearted in encouraging everyone to do their best to contribute to all Eurovision-related Wikipedia articles, and welcome our new members to the project. It is easy for editors to get into conflict with each other, and things can get very nasty on the most trivial of issues, whether that be on the language of songs, the names of certain countries, or how we deal with incidents at the contest. In such circumstances it is worth remembering one thing: we are all here to build an encyclopedia, and the contribution of Eurovision to human knowledge can only be given justice if we work together and make articles, not drama!

  • If you would like something to appear in the August 2012 Edition of the newsletter, then please inform us at the Project Newsdesk.
  • If there is an article you think we should have? Request it here.

Happy editing!


Project News
  • When creating new articles about a performer or song, please remember to add sources either from Eurovision.tv, ESCToday or other reliable sources. If you're not sure a source is reliable enough, then ask the project for an opinion.
  • Remember to only add content to articles that is relevant to the article's main subject. Anything not in relation to the article may be questioned and/or subject to redirection to an article that would benefit it's inclusion. Again if in doubt, ask on the article or project talk pages for an opinion - communication is an important tool.
  • On the subject of communication, please make use of the article talk pages. They are a vital tool in conducting consensus talks of additions of proposed new sections and/or removal of unnecessary section. If you don't use these pages to put across your views, then you only have yourself to blame if actions are taken that you disagree with and you end up wandering into edit warring territory.
  • The 2012 season of Eurovision has drawn to a close, and we now start preparations for the 2013 edition. While things will be slow to start of with, now is the ideal opportunity to do a clean-up exercise across articles relating to the project. There's over 4,500 articles associated with the project. If you happen to see a Eurovision related article without the {{EurovisionNotice}} template on the article's talk page, please add it. You can also read Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment if you would like to help assess or reassess articles in our project if you see that they have outgrown their current assessment. There is currently one unassessed article.
  • And finally... a massive thank you to all members of the project for your constant hard work on collaborating and contributing to Eurovision related articles. Keep up the good work team!

Project Alerts
Headlines
Project Gossip
  • The RfC discussion in regards to article layout, is still taking place on the project talk page. Could all members please ensure that they participate in the discussion so that we can all agree on important article structure issues. If you don't take part, then you only have yourselves to blame if a consensus is passed that you disagree with.

Page Milestones

Eurovision Song Contest -  Sweden 2013

Junior Eurovision Song Contest -  Netherlands 2012
  • The tenth edition of the Junior Eurovision Song Contest is scheduled to take place on the 1 December 2012, in Amsterdam, Netherlands. Details about confirmed participation are slowly filtering out into the world wide web. Please cite reliable sources when including new information.
  • The EBU extended the submission deadline to 29 June 2012. So far only 8 countries confirmed participations, and the contest needs a minimum of eleven in order for the show to continue. Bulgaria have withdrawn.

Asiavision Song Contest -  South Korea 2012
  • After several postponements, the first contest is now scheduled to take place in the South Korean capital of Seoul; on 14 October 2012.
  • Could all members please find any reliable sources on participants etc, so that we can consider creating an article for this event.

Eurovision Young Musicians -  Austria 2012

Eurovision Young Dancers -  Norway 2011
  • The next contest is scheduled to take place in 2013 - the host city is expected to be announced towards the end of 2012.

Eurovision Dance Contest -  United Kingdom 2008
Members
The project had 90 members, with eighty-six active, and four inactive members at the time of publication. If you are no longer interested in WikiProject Eurovision then please remove your name from this list
Have you encountered an editor who is interested in Eurovision? Then why not place our invitation template on their talk page and welcome them to the project.
.
New Recruits

We would like to welcome the following new members who joined since our June publication. (in alphabetical order)

Adieu! Auf Wiedersehen! Farewell!

We would like to bid farewell and show our appreciation to the following members who have decided to depart the project for personal reasons since our June publication. (in alphabetical order)

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Talkback

Hello, Adem. You have new messages at Jac16888's talk page.
Message added 16:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Jac16888 Talk 16:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - August 2012

This newsletter was delivered on 19:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Eurovision: Recent changes

Hello,

Please note that there have been some changes to operations surrounding Eurovision articles, these being that:

  • Template names have now been modernised and/or megred into super-templates, for example Countries in the Eurovision Song Contest has now been merged into Template:Eurovision Song Contest making it even easier to find everything under one template. If you are planning to create a new template, please keep the standardised titles in mind. Other templates have been modernised and a full list of them can be found here.
  • The Eurovision Song Contest and Junior Eurovision Song Contest articles have now been standardised to keep a consitancy throughout the project and to the genral reader too. Skeleton article drafts can be found for Eurovision Song Contest by Year and Junior Eurovision Song Contest by Year.

If you have any questions, please ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision.

You are receiving this message since you are listed as a member of WikiProject Eurovision. If you are no longer interested in contributing to Eurovision articles, please remove your username from this page.

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC) on behalf of Project Eurovision[reply]

WP:Eurovision Newsletter (September 2012)

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 03:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Project Memorandum

Eurovision Mini Memorandum
16 September 2012

To discontinue receiving Eurovision newsletters and mini memorandums, please remove your name from here.

This mini memorandum has been delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey's Location Issue

Hello, I ask you to please set politics and culture aside and please look at a map. You will see that Turkey has more land mass in Asia rather than in Europe. Although Turkey is a candidate of the European Union; Turkey is also a member of numerous Asian regional bodies. You are correct to state that Armenia is stated in some articles as being Europe. Armenia is located in Asia, including Cyprus even though it is a member of the European Union. Please take to mind that just because a country joins a regional body, does not mean that its geography has changed. Germany, for example is a member of the Mediterranean Union. Germany obviously does not border the Mediterranean. Spain has territory in Africa. Spain is not in Africa. Egypt has the Sinai peninsula in Asia. However, people do not regard Egypt as an Asian country. There are many examples to give, however the facts are simple to see.

The references you gave were two. However, you seemed to overlook the part where it says "South eastern Europe and south western Asia." The CIA website states the same as well as the Turkish government sponsored website of goTurkey [1]. This website states that the Marmara region is only 8% of Turkey. Istanbul is in this region and that is what makes Turkey only partially within the European continent. Why overlook the other 92% of the country which is within Asia?

I have been an editing member in Wikipeida for five years, and you are not the first to bring up the question of whether or not Turkey is part of Asia or Europe. The general consensus has been that Turkey is within Asia, that is why almost all of the articles (minus the ones you just changed) place Turkey in Asia. Please refer to the numerous talk pages. Aquintero (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Please see Runaway edit-warring by Maurice07. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - October 2012

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - November 2012

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Istanbul

Hi there; napan? Please indicate your choice of pics at the discussion page of Istanbul article. Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - December 2012

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan

Hello Maurice. Are you interested to share your two cents at Talk:Taiwan#Split? (Interestingly, contributors in both Talk:Taiwan#Split and Talk:Cyprus#Split the article made use of arguments such as "insignificant", "people won't understand", and "people who aren't familiar will be confused".) 14.0.208.68 (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

Your recent editing history at Turkey shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Turkey, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Template:Countries and territories of the Mediterranean Sea shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. I told you before but I am telling you again: Please read the message on top of the template: PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS TEMPLATE IS ONLY MEANT TO INCLUDE THOSE COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES RECOGNISED BY A MAJORITY OF UNITED NATIONS MEMBERS). Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Eurovision Newsletter - January 2013

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice for WP:3RRN

It is here. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

Your recent editing history at Languages of Europe shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Xanthi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring a 3RR complaint which still needs a closure

Hello Maurice07. I recently restored Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Maurice07 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). This report had been archived by the bot with no formal closure.

It looks to me that you have engaged in long-term edit warring at List of diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom. You had already been blocked last September for a previous episode of the same war, per: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive770#Runaway edit-warring by Maurice07. Whether Turkey is in Europe or not is a familiar issue for admins who watch these articles, and it is not a surprise to see people reverting this back and forth. You are expected to seek consensus for your views in a dispute like that. Can you point to any discussion where your position is supported?

You may be able to avoid sanctions for long-term edit warring if you will agree to wait for consensus before making any further edits which assume that Turkey is in Europe. If you accept this offer, please respond at the noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Languages of Europe shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Languages of Europe shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice for WP:AE

The report is filed at Maurice07. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Adem. You have new messages at Talk:Turkey.
Message added 10:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban for Greek-Turkish relations

Following a thread at Arbitration Enforcement, you are topic banned from editing in the Greek-Turkish relations area, broadly interpreted. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at my talkpage. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mediterranean Sea, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Split and Hatay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related conflicts. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]