User talk:Aee1980

Turkey

Twice you have added "only" to the CIA's report that Turkey is developed. If you have a point to make, please discuss it on the discussion page and then make a case for Turkey not being developed. Most footnotes are "only." This would be the most overused word in Wikipedia if we "correctly" labeled everything. But this is "only" my opinion! Student7 (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I understood what you were trying to say. But it is too subtle just adding the word only. And it sounds POV. I suggest that you copy what you have written onto the Turkey discussion page if you haven't already. Then make a sub-subsectionm (multiple equal signs) under Economy (I guess) and call it (I'm winging it as I go along) "Economic classification." For the first sentence say "Turkey has an economy in transition." It will likely all be changed anyway. Put FIRST the developed comment without the only the CIA classification sentence. Under it put the others classification. Then stand back and watch the fireworks! And let's face it, without tourism, Turkey is a bit lost. The hinterland is still in some previous century. If the economy back there were really robust, the Kurds wouldn't be trying to break away from it, they would be trying to join it! Student7 (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But first, you might want to check out Krawndawg's comment on my page. Student7 (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Komotini

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Komotini. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Aramgar (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Komotini. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Aramgar (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Komotini, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Please don't removed reliably sourced information from articles. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Komotini, you will be blocked from editing. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Komotini. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

3RR on Komotini, per a report at WP:AN/3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aee1980, I would like to echo the above concerns. There appears to be a clear consensus at Talk:Komotini. If you disagree with it, please do continue to engage in discussion. However, you must cease edit-warring about it. Simply trying to force your desired change into an article is never effective. Better is to build consensus at the talkpage, and try to find a compromise position with other editors. You may also wish to try one of the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --El on ka 05:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

The owner of this account is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts.

(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets)

I have restarted the 3-day block on User:Aee1980 due to the evasion via 70.167.99.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that 70.168.0.178 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) is his as well. Aee1980, this is disruptive, please stop. --El on ka 03:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The block on User:Aee1980 is extended to three weeks due to the additional sockpuppetry to evade his block. EdJohnston (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]