User talk:SEY01

Welcome!

Hello, SEY01, 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:

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 ask your question there. Again, welcome! --AW 18:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Sorry, I put the wrong welcome message before. Now there's a normal one. --AW 18:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Although I noticed one thing - when you are leaving messages, make sure to sign your name using four tildes (~~~~). That way it will show your name and date like so AW 19:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaziantep

Thanks, I see what you're saying now. Khoi khoi 10:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :-) BTW, do you mind if I change "The city has a predominantly Kurdish population" to "The city has a large Kurdish population"? I couldn't find any source for the first one. Khoi khoi 10:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ASALA

No I did not change my mind I did agree to have ASALA in the see also section, but I at that time when we agreed to place it in the see also section, there was no section in the article about the ASALA activities, but now there is and the article is now linked to the ASALA page from that section. ROOB323 20:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Öcalan

I'm not sure. What I do know is that the Kurds are highly thought of in Greece - look at this picture:

http://www.geocities.com/pontos10/pontianlobby_otsalankalenderidis.jpg

It's Abdullah Öcalan sitting (smiling) in between the vice president of the Greek Parliament (Panayotis Sgouridis) and the major of the Hellenic National Intelligence Service, also known as the "Greek Secret Police" in Turkey (Savas Kalenderidis). Both Pontians of course. ;-) Khoi khoi 09:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you try posting a comment at Wikipedia talk:Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board? Khoi khoi 10:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article 301 & Article 66

Hi. I have removed the external link to the text of Article 66 of the Constitution of Turkey you added after the word "Turkishness" in Article 301 (Turkish penal code). It is not clear to me what your aim was in adding this link, but in any case, without further context and explanation this is more confusing than clarifying. If you want to clarify the notion of "Turkishness" (Türklük), that is a laudable goal, but I think this is not the way to achieve it. It is not clear that the question "What is Türklük?" can be reduced to the question "Who is a Turk?".[1][2] It would be nice to have a short subsection entitled "What is Turkishness?" in the text of the article, but in that case we must make sure that what is stated there fits the requirement of attributibility. --Lambiam ^Talk 15:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adana

I wasn't objecting to the date, but the use of the word "liberation" itself. It stikes me as a POV term. I know that all Turks would agree that it was indeed a liberation, but I doubt that the non-Turkish inhabitants of the city (such as the Armenians) saw it that way. Same with the French. Therefore, I propose that a more neutral word be used. As for your second comment, you can find many sources available on the subject at Google Books and Google Scholar. You don't only have to use the normal Google search. Khoi khoi 07:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Relations of TR

The reason might be that it affects our relationship with other countries. I don't remember making an edit about that, but I might have made. deniz^T_C 12:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To add on: Armenia and Turkey share a border, and are both well-known to have not-so-good relations with each other. Khoi khoi 03:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, but on this article it's very relevant. Khoi khoi 07:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Van

Maybe you could try leaving a message on his talk page instead. As for now, I've commented-out the info from the article. That means it's there, but you just can't see it. Khoi khoi 04:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish disambiguation page

The recent edits to Turkish do not reflect any disagreement over substance, but rather a concern over what type of content is appropriate on a disambiguation page. A disambiguation page is not an article; it should only have the minimal information needed to assist a reader who searched for the term "Turk", "Turkish", or "Turkic" (or clicked on a link) to find the most appropriate article for the context in which they are interested. --Russ (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

No, by original research I mean you "figured it out" on your own--you didn't read it elsewhere--which makes it inappropriate for Wikipedia. I removed it when I found it the first time, and I will continue to remove it. Lexicon (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I removed it the first time. And as I also said, it is original research and therefore is not allowed on Wikipedia. No, I do not think I own articles. However, I do know policy, and when I see something that violates policy, and something as fundamental as original research, I will remove it.

I have explained to you what original research is. I have told you that it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. And I have directed you to a page to learn more about why we do not allow original research on Wikipedia. Please do not re-add original research to Wikipedia articles. Lexicon (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where the image came from. The problem is that it is the product of original research by the creator of the image. And the Legends section should be removed, if it can't be sourced—so why would you add the original research back instead of removing that unsourced information? Do you think the article's faults can be helped by adding more faults to it? Please revert yourself. Lexicon (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it's how reflections work. Let me explain. This is the image as it is presented:

And this is how a reflection actually works:

Do you see how the moon and star have been reversed in the first image to make it look like the flag? It is an inaccurate depiction of the sky. As for your removals of the fact tags, Wikipedia should be sourced, and removing such tags is considered vandalism. Further removal will get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. Lexicon (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Lexicon. It's clearly original research (read WP:OR for details), and as such your additions to this article will continue to be reverted indefinitely by other editors; it could even lead to you being blocked, so simply stop it. Okay? —Nightstallion 12:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, SEY01, you now have had two administrators tell you that this is original research, and I've shown above why this isn't even accurate OR, and we've asked you nicely not to keep adding it. You've also made what is kind of a prejudicial comment regarding my not being Turkish, as if being Turkish has anything to do with ability to follow Wikipedia policy (or even understand Turkey, as I'm sure there are plenty of non-Turks who know far more about Turkish history than you). This is now getting to the point where action may have to be taken against you if you continue to disregard Wikipedia policy. Lexicon (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, SEY01, I'm an idiot and don't know that flags looks different from the opposite side if they're not symmetrical "like my flag" (as though the only flag in the world I know is the Canadian flag—that's a laughable statement, why don't you check out the flags I've drawn). The fact still remains that the design is opposite from that which you would see in the puddle (the flag was designed with a main front side), and even if not, it's STILL ORIGINAL RESEARCH! Lexicon (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]