User talk:THEWISEOLDTURK

I really do not care. I call it as I see it. I'd have done the same thing if I saw a Greek editor (or what I presumed to be a Greek editor) making questionable changes. Whatever biases are there now, were not written bu me, but I would not trust either a Greek nor a Turkish editor to fix it. All I do is try to prevent insertion of further bias. Quite honestly, I do not see why you guys (Greeks and Turks) cannot be content spreading your points of view on the Wikipedia pages in your own respective languages.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on second thought, perhaps I should care. I actually thought that it seemed a bit slanted towards the Greek side as written, but I have no idea when that was put in there nor who put it there. And replacing it with the opposite bias doesn't help things either. I just try to prevent further biases (two wrongs don't make a right). So far as there being a Greek source there, quite honestly, I wouldn't trust either a Greek nor a Turkish source to tell the whole story because I am well aware of the historical animosity between you Turks and the Greeks. Of course, then again, many American and western European news sources could care less about events in the Aegean sea area because they'd rather publish stories on celebrities and stupid crap like that.

If you want to revert it, fine. At least there's a source, even if it is a biased one (I would treat a Greek embassy source the same way - both have agendas). In addition, I would not object if you wish to add a "dead link" tag or simply remove the citation for the Greek source, since the link is dead/inaccessible.

Furthermore, as to you being neutral or not, Looking at your brief edit history, I really don't see anything to indicate that you were acting in bad faith. So, I apologize for my kneejerk reaction in presuming bad faith (just a general reaction on my part in editing on sensitive issues like this).--L1A1 FAL (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right; I might have added a view which to some may be biased. However, the previous version was definitely biased and citing no reliable, neutral, and available references and needed to be edited anyway. Therefore, in order to eliminate this mistake without causing further conflict, I have re-edited the whole sub-entry deleting the "who is to blame?" part; although this new version does not tell the whole story, no one can suggest it to being biased in anyway. In the meantime, I'll try to get hold of written permission/approval for the video footage I had mentioned about; if and when I can get it, I'll upload it and add a reference link to the entry accordingly. Regards. THEWISEOLDTURK (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the edit a few minutes ago. I think that for now, it was best to remove the part inferring whose fault it was. A verifiable video of said event, or a third-party source would best to verify whose F-16 caused the crash.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 11:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Faden, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

-- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 20:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there... good article. The second part of my comment was actually for the next reviewer. I have been doing more editing than reviewing lately as my time is limited this week. The next reviewer will review the article in more detail, i.e., links, etc. It will be a valuable contribution. Cheers! Stella ^BATPHONE_GROOVES 23:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cedid Atlas, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Cheers! Stella ^BATPHONE_GROOVES 02:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Turk! Please add more wikilinks to your article. thank you for your very interesting and valuable contribution. Also, please review the article one more time and take care to be 'NEUTRAL with all of the content. Cheers! Stella ^BATPHONE_GROOVES 02:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! THEWISEOLDTURK, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! SarahStierch (talk) 05:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yankee Pasha (the book), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Stanley (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) 14:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Galatasaray War Chant.ogg. However, it is currently missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Cedid Atlas Title Page.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Commons file under the same name has a reasonable licence and appears to be a higher quality portrayal of the same.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]