User talk:Erdenvox

I had to revert some of your edits because you were not following the correct format for citations per WP:CITE. Do not use [ ], that is not professional. If you want the figures changed, please tell me; I completely rewrote the economy section and have access to many figures. If not, follow the correct format. Take a look at other citations if you want to have an idea. Baristarim 04:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I am not reverting because of GDP/PPP, I practically rewrote the article, I know the problem and the difference. I am reverting per

WP:CITE. That article has reached very high quality standards, and please take a look at other citations before making any edits. You cannot simply dump in a link with [ ]. It has to follow correct WP:CITE format. Fix that, and I won't revert. The problem is format and style, not content. [ ] links look very ugly... Baristarim 04:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, I am sorry if I sounded a bit harsh on you. Just give me the link and I will do it pretty quickly, no probs. It is just that I spent so much time fixing the citations that i kinda overreact :)) Baristarim 04:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, don't worry. I found the link and I will do it right away. Cheers! Baristarim 05:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Well, CIA Factbook is generally a reference of last resort. Most of its figures are not very reliable, simply because, contrary to what its name implies, there are serious doubts as to the quality of research behind it. I added the LE figures for last year because they were confirmed numbers. For example, the literacy figures are quoted in the CIA factbook as 94.3 for men 78.7 for women, when they are clear not per the latest figures from the Turkish govt which put them at 95.3 and 79.6. That's the other problem, CIA factbook is not regularly updated. These figures came out 10 months ago, but they are still not in it. As a general rule, we should avoid the CIA factbook if there are other more confirmed references. The LE figures were released only two months ago by the Turkish govt as confirmed for 2005, however the CIA figures are 2006 estimates. I can take the IMF estimates at face value for 2007 GDP PPP since they do a good research before their publications, however it is not the same for the CIA book. So I don't know... I am more inclined not to include them, since it also contradicts other info in the article like literacy figures, and a specific report should always take precedence over an overview like the one that CIA does.

I am sorry that I am a bit picky about this, but the article is going to enter a Featured Article review in a couple of days, and I spent tens of hours making sure that everything was perfect :)) Just the correct citation format took me three hours! As for WP:CITE, you generally wouldn't have someone like me shouting about it since the rules are not as strictly applied in other articles. But since this article is going to enter a FA review, they should all be spotless. Btw, there was another problem: Make sure that the references that you erase do not link to another citation. That citation linked to two other places, and when you replaced with another one, it also deleted the base reference for the other two as well. Welcome to Wikipedia by the way!! If I can help out with something, feel free to drop me a note anytime! Cheers!Baristarim 05:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that I didn't intimidate you from editing or something :) Editing in most articles is much easier since there won't be someone looking over your shoulder! Again, I apologize... Baristarim 05:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]