If a fellow user asks for a citation, the process is search for a reliable source, add it and remove the template. Each other action is consider disruptive. The expression "well known" is POV: in this case something can be well known for a Turk, but not for others. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Turkification, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turks. 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.
Your recent editing history at Article shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. Also you are vandalising articles. I'm adding extra sources and please don't remove them or you will be reported in ANI. Thank you!
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
You are removing Turkish Hezbollah from other forces of Turkey because it is in Turkey's terrorist list. Turkey added Turkish Hezbollah to its terrorist list much later. Also, PKK's other forces section includes groups that it is fighting now, for example Kurdish Hezbollah. There is not sense in your changes. Also, I told you HIK doesn't include sources or texts that could proof that they have worked with PKK.
Please use talk page. Ferakp (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. According to your logic, we should add ISIS in the list as well. Hezbollah is and remains a terror group and do not belong in the list. Because they fought for a time in their own for the government doesn't mean that they are a force of the turkish government. And once again, this whole Turkey-pkk conflict article is not only about the pkk but many other kurdish groups as well hence they also call it a turkish-kurdish or Turkey-kurdish conflict. Please, read the articles better and do some more research. Thanks.
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. Dat GuyTalkContribs16:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great to know that there is a discussion. You can now stop spamming me with this and read the articles better by yourself
Very interesting. According to your logic, we should add ISIS in the list as well. Hezbollah is and remains a terror group and do not belong in the list. Because they fought for a time in their own for the government doesn't mean that they are a force of the turkish government. And once again, this whole Turkey-pkk conflict article is not only about the pkk but many other kurdish groups as well hence they also call it a turkish-kurdish or Turkey-kurdish conflict. Please, read the articles better and do some more research. Thanks.
ISIS has nothing to do with Turkey-PKK conflict. Hezbollah was working with Turkey and it should be in the list, because it is also in the PKK's list. Why did you add it to PKK's other forces list? Also, remember that it is Turkish Hezbollah not Kurdish Hezbollah even it is called so. Official name in books and publications is Turkish Hezbullah and majority of its members are ethnic Turks.
"...mean that they are a force of the turkish government.." If you think that it should be a force of the Turkey, then shouldn't all other forces of PKK be also "forces" of PKK? Your logic...
".. only about the pkk but many other kurdish groups as well hence they also..." Yeah it is also called Turkish-Kurdish conflict so all Turkish organizations that have fought against the PKK should be included.
Why did you delete my citation needed tags? You have said continuously read the main article and nothing else? Why don't you read the main article and bring source from it to the article. I have tried to tell you 5 times that there is no source and that is why citation needed should be there until you or someone else have found a source for it. It looks like you have involved in too many edit wars... Ferakp (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that you understand me at all. The reason why I added the Turkish(kurdish) hezbollah has to do with the fact that this article includes most, if not all kurdish insurgent groups who are fighting against the government. The reason of why adding the hezbollah group on the turkish side is wrong has to do with the fact that they never had full co operation with the government nor did they fought that long with them. They more had the function of the enemy of my enemy is my friend thing. And about the citation thing, if you for just once would do some research you would have known the the MKP and many other communist/leftist groups have strong ties with each other including the pkk. Thats domethingd almost everyone knows in Turkey. And again about the other forces section, they are not a part of the government nor the country, so it makes no sense to add them at all.
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Your recent editing history at Siege of Plevna shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.Philppioi (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have closed this report without action. However, some of your edits might be viewed as POV-pushing to make the Turkish side look better. The definition of victories and defeats is quite subjective and is often the subject of nationalist edit warring. It will be in your interest to be more careful. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but since when is editing something with a strong fact/given source on the article, vandalizing? Stop being Pro-PKK with your comments every time something gets edit.
I notice you're having a disagreement with another user regarding the article on Operation Hammer. Disagreements are unfortunate, but they do happen. That said, I have to ask you to be careful with your use of the word "vandal". Both you and the other user have been calling each other 'vandals', but neither of you is actually committing vandalism. As long as it's conceivable that someone else meant well, you should not call it vandalism. If someone were to (for instance) replace the entire text of the article with the word "toilet", that would be vandalism. Disagreeing with you, requesting citations for statements you made, challenging the merits of the sources you supply — none of those are vandalism. When you call those things vandalism, you make the argument more heated, and heated arguments are more difficult to resolve.
Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. Stop Wiki-StalkingFerakp and reverting all of his edits. This will lead to you being blocked.Dat GuyTalkContribs17:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have reversed my details, you've said "Wounded casualties has no place in this list as it is impossible to know how many pkk militants were wounded. Only killed and captured are and should be mentiont.) updated since my last visi.."
I want you know that this is not a good reason to delete details. If number of wounded PKK militants are unknown then it doesn't mean you can delete number of wounded Turkish soldiers. Please stop, your behavior is against WP rules. Ferakp (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, discuss this on the talk page of the article.
I added two newer sources (both from March 2016) in contrast to the two older sources (from December/January 2015/2016). One of the two clearly says 290 Turkish security forces dead, while the other, citing the Turkish military itself, says 1,250 PKK dead since July 2015. WP policy is to take into account newer sources over older ones, but I took into account both for the sake of neutrality and different POVs. So please, do not remove sourced information. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the map can remain there. But I want to say here one thing, Morocco was a part of the Ottoman empire. During the great Ottoman-Portugese war, Sultan Selim conquered that region. So please correct that if possible.Arman ad60 (talk) 03:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it would be nice to have that on the map. Can't sadly find any detailed map with morocco on it. Will try to find one or edit one if possible.
Gala19000 (talk) 9:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Syrian–Turkish border clashes during the Syrian Civil War shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. Jim1138 (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Your recent editing history at Turkish–Armenian War shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. Cahk (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Notice you are under discretionary sanctions which prevents you from editing any article related to "conflicts involving Turkey and anything to do with Armenia." That includes Turkish-Armenian War. That's why I have reverted your edits and restored the article to a stable version. If you continue editing in these topics you may be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. I advise caution, if you believe you were unjustly topic banned you may appeal it on Arbitration Enforcement page, or directly ask to the sanctioning admin for advise. Darwinian Ape talk06:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Oatitonimly It's not about support or endorsement, it's about gathering a third party for someone who has a better understanding on the subject. I didn't know about Gala19000's topic ban until now. Though now it's unnecessary since we now have FPSTurkey as that third party. (N0n3up (talk) 04:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]
I would ask you to revert all your recent edits, including the talk page edits and your post on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. You have violated your topic ban and judging from EdJohnston statement could be blocked for up to 1 year. Your actions(ie. violations of your topic ban) have nothing to do with user:Oatitonimly and I would strongly suggest you focus on your own actions. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that on ethnicity. He keeps reverting back articles with mainly includes Armenians. I asked a dozens of time for help and still got nothing as it got deleted. I got blocked for a week because of edit warring while the other user doesn't get even a warning. He keeps teverting back the edits that were there before he even came there. Gala19000 (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please tell me why the talk page edits should be reverted back? The other user refuses to use the talk page so I made a new topic to discuss it to wich he doesn't react to it. Gala19000 (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The edits I made were versions wich were all edited before the edit war. He doesn't use thhe talk page and reverts everything back to his own will to wich I reacted. Gala19000 (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you DID comment on another editor's ethnicity, here & here. That is battleground behavior. Also, your topic ban has nothing to do with Oatitonimly, but with your actions. If you refuse to understand that, then you will most likely end up blocked like EdJohnston mentioned. Your choice. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't refuse anything to understand. I clearly asked the other user a dozen of times to use the talk page wich he refuses and he keeps editing the article on wich I made a complaint about it. My actions have a lot to do with the other user as that was the one I had a edit war with. Don't think you even understood that. If there wouldn't have been a edit war I wouldn't get a ban. The other user on the other hand keeps reverting and editing all articles to his own will without getting a warning. I asked why he doesn't get a ban and I got no answer for that. Sad to see what Wikipedia has come to. Gala19000 (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To enforce an arbitration decision and for Non-stop violation of your topic ban from Turkish wars, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
Hello, Gala19000. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
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).
Hi. I have been blocked now for several months from Wikipedia because of edit warring with a user that took a long time. I didn't know by then that if you kept undoing something that looked like vandalism (atleast for me), could result in you getting blocked. So, my whole Ip adress has been blocked now for many months. I know now what I did wrong and would like it if I could start editing again, this time carefully without edit warring and makiing sock accounts. I didn't know that making more accounts was a violation against the rules so I thought that it was right so that I still could keep editing and talk with them at the talk page as it was not possible to do so due to the block. I would like to know if it is possible that I can start editing again as I know my faults of which I didn't know all the rules first. Thanks.
Please include a decline or accept reason.
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.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, User talk:46.197.219.168, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Turkish Naval Forces, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Caution for unsourced inflation of numbers and unexplained removal of content, with a deliberately misleading edit summary. Thomas.W talk 10:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferakp (talk • contribs) 15:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. Stop Wiki-Stalking Ferakp and reverting all of his edits. This will lead to you being blocked. Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BilCat. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Boeing 737 AEW&C, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - BilCat (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
