User talk:Metuboy

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and

• Copying text from other sources
• Policy on copyright
• Frequently asked questions on Wikipedia's copyright policy
• Policy and guideline on non-free content

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

• Overview
• Help pages

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please

Bull-leaping (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hittite

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Turkey into Transport in Turkey. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Madrasa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Çifte Minareli Medrese

Ottoman Empire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Selimiye Mosque

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Madrasa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Çifte Minareli Medrese

İzmir (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bet Israel Synagogue

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Aphrodisias has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. MER-C 18:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you that you did not edit war about the Galleries. Your images are very welcome. In architecture, artists, or art related articles the are very welcome and an enrichment (in the proportions to the article) to the topic.Paradise Chronicle (talk)

Translation: "Check out the History section of the

Anatolian Shepherd article. They dare to call it "American dog breed" for Kangal / Anatolian. Support me. I have no doubt that you are patriotic, I would like to express that I like your contributions.--!!!!" 88.244.93.177 (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)--Quisqualis (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Ottoman Empire

added links pointing to Blue Mosque and Selimiye Mosque

Judicial system of Turkey

added a link pointing to Sinop

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. On December 27, 2020, you edited

{{cite book|last=Fromm|first=Ali Çarkoğlu, Binnaz Toprak; translated from Turkish by Çiğdem Aksoy|title=Religion, Society and Politics in a Changing Turkey|year=2007|publisher=TESEV publications|location=Karaköy, İstanbul|isbn=978-975-8112-90-6|page=64|url=http://www.tesev.org.tr/Upload/Publication/b1d06f12-4c13-4e18-a3b3-8c1555d915d7/RSP%20-%20Turkey%2011%202006.pdf}} : Fromm, Ali Çarkoğlu, Binnaz Toprak; translated from Turkish by Çiğdem Aksoy (2007). Religion, Society and Politics in a Changing Turkey (PDF). Karaköy, İstanbul: TESEV publications. p. 64.

ISBN 978-975-8112-90-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link

)

I can't find the book by title; the ISBN 11 digits, but ISBNs are defined for 10 and 13 digits; and the URL doesn't work. Please fix this reference. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm new at Wikipedia, how can I create a community in Wikipedia software? Kiraz Çiçeği Sakura (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Kiraz Çiçeği Sakura[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Third Mithridatic War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sinope.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

Requesting your visit to

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In general, when working with images:

DO: Review the image style guide and use policy. alt text . Try to find at least one image for each article. create and upload your own. Clean up images: crop, color-correct, etc. Use the best file format for each image. Use objects for scale where helpful. section to which they are related

DON'T: Don't upload non-free images. Don't use images in place of tables or charts. galleries excessively. Don't add images that are not relevant. Don't flip faces, text, or works of art. Don't set fixed image sizes. Don't sandwich text between two images. Don't refer to images by their placement.

Mul­ti­ple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left. How­ever, a­void sand­wich­ing text be­tween two im­ages that face each oth­er; or be­tween an im­age and in­fo­box, nav­i­ga­tion tem­plate, or sim­i­lar. . A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved or

moved to Wikimedia Commons.--Moxy- 04:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Turkey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anaximenes.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Turkey. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Balıkesir

added a link pointing to Edremit

Kocaeli Province

added a link pointing to Kocaeli

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ottoman cuisine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Manti.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In general, when working with images:

DO: Review the image style guide and use policy. alt text . Try to find at least one image for each article. create and upload your own. Clean up images: crop, color-correct, etc. Use the best file format for each image. Use objects for scale where helpful. section to which they are related

DON'T: Don't upload non-free images. Don't use images in place of tables or charts. galleries excessively. Don't add images that are not relevant. Don't flip faces, text, or works of art. Don't set fixed image sizes. Don't sandwich text between two images. Don't refer to images by their placement.

'Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. |thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width measured in pixels, disregarding the user's image size preference setting.

Hello, I'm Kadı. I noticed that you recently removed content from 1915 Çanakkale Bridge without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Kadı Message 16:55, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kadı. The reason for thaat was that the video quality was very low. It was hard to obtain any information from the content. It is very poor quality image. Very shaky camera and interior of the truck occupies too much space. I think rather a good quality image of the bridge would look much nicer than that. I am also willing to take better quality video myself and replace it later but I am not sure how soon I can do it. I hope my explanationg is enough. Best regards.

It is still up to you if you still wanna keep the video. I think it is very poor quality and also article looks bad with that video. Metuboy (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Marshelec. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Electricity sector in Turkey have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you wish to make significant changes to an article, please discuss first on the Talk page of an article, and always leave a reason in the edit summary when you do make changes. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Marshelec (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marshelec, I found the image way too large for the article. If you check the size you would agree I think much smaller image can be chosen or even no image is better since the image is not informative at all while we are missing some other important information in the box due to the size of the box. Metuboy (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. This article was recognised as reaching GA - Good article standard in March this year, meaning it has already undergone extensive peeer review. Particularly in the case of a GA or FA class article, it is good practice to suggest changes via the Talk page first. Other editors may have a different perspective, and the differences can (hopefully) be discussed and worked out in the talk page. The image of the large double circuit transmission tower in such a prominent position in a well-known location has significant visual impact, and is appropriate for the article topic. You may have a point that it could be slightly smaller. It is not correct to say that the size of the image leads to information missing in the infobox. The only effect of the image is to move other infobox content down the screen. If you think other details are required in the Infobox, or you wish to suggest changes, but please do so on the article talk page first, and allow reasonable time for other editors to respond, before proceeding. ---Marshelec (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Metuboy, I'm making this comment here in the hope that you will take this as constructive advice. I sympathize with your desire to improve the images of articles, but as I've stated in many of my edit summaries that followed or reverted your edits, please make changes based on their pertinence to the article and its content, as recommended by

You often make arbitrary changes to images that don't make enough sense with the accompanying text and don't add to (or sometimes substract from) the informativeness of the images themselves or the galleries. When I have reverted (either fully or partially) your edits in the past, it is with these guidelines in mind, especially in cases where the images were already carefully selected to illustrate various points in the text (as is the case at Ottoman architecture for example, where every image in every gallery has already been selected with the text in mind). However, it's getting tedious to review and sometimes revert your edits because of this and I feel that you can show more restraint in your edits in order to avoid this. Please also consider that adding more images in general is not necessarily a positive improvement for an article, especially when that article already has a lot of images. In those cases (like at the Ottoman Empire article for example), a more helpful improvement would be to find images that are more relevant to a specific section, or more informative, than the existing ones, rather than simply adding more and more. Finding images of higher quality (i.e. either clearer or better resolution) is a good thing, but it's also important that the content of the image actually illustrates the topic well. I reverted your edit here, for example, because the images you added have a very narrow or partial view of the topics they're illustrating, whereas the previous images had a wider view that shows readers the structure and layout of the space in question; the fact that the other images are newer or that you believe them to be prettier doesn't help their encyclopedic purpose. I hope you'll find this comment useful and understandable, and consider these factors in the future. Thanks R Prazeres (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I was writing the comment above you asked some questions on my talk page ([1]), so I will make a brief answer to those here, but I think my comment above is still more important. In short, I disagree with your opinion there and it's also incorrect to say that a restoration necessarily makes a building resemble its "original state" more (in fact it's often the opposite). In this case, the restoration is superficial so there's very little difference between pictures from 10 years ago versus today, which makes other factors more important in choosing images. Your comment that this example image is not useful because all you see is "simply pre restoration dirt and rust" doesn't make much sense to me, since I can see the stonework just fine; this is also not the picture you tried to replace anyways in your edit. I've seen hundreds of images of this or less quality in scholarly books and articles and they work just fine; what distinguishes their selection is the fact that they illustrate an aspect of the text or topic that isn't illustrated by other images. R Prazeres (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I will take your advice. I agree that the images that I uploaded are not wider angles. But still, clearly the stone color is closer to the original and also I dont agree at all that 'the restoration does not resemble the original work in fact it is the other way around'. I am aware of that restoration work first in hand. My edits are not aimed at making them prettier but to give more details on the structure. I cannot care less about if the structure is pretty in fact I dont find most of the structures that I edit pretty at all but simply I focus on giving more information on the structures.

Well 'Ottoman architecture' page is full of mistakes. Interior of the structures are presented but in fact they dont reflect the period but they have many later additions. Simply having images of these structures is not more informative. But they are quite missleading. I sometimes remove those and replace some with exteriors of the buildings cos it is more loyal to the article. It is not about reducing the variety but simply expressing the period that is discussed in the topic. This is especially more important when the article is segmented for different timelines.

I will try to take wider angle images next time I visit the site. Still I dont agree with you at all about 'not very focused images' and the importance of the details. clearly higher resolution gives more information. In many articles the image quality is so low that I have no idea what I am looking at.

I think it is what the wikipedia should aim for having a minimum quality of images for its articles and it has been something that has happened since wiipedia started. I mean technology has advanced in time, and so does the resolution of images in wiki articles. I dont think what I am trying to do is simply reductant as you try to put it. But I take your argument in a constructive way.

Thank you for your time and help.

Best regards Metuboy (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your constructive reply. However I'd like to briefly reply to one part of your comment about the Ottoman architecture article: that article very closely follows the information of the cited scholars and it also follows examples of images in those scholarly sources, which in turn follows the purpose of Wikipedia. I find it bizarre that you claim your edits are aimed at being more period-appropriate, because your edits don't seem to do that. At no point in your edits did you explain any alleged error. Images of the exterior are not more authentic than images of the inside, and you yourself have added as many interior images as exterior ones. All of this exemplifies again why your edits often look arbitrary. Some of the images you have placed in the past were of buildings that were either originally built much later than the period discussed in the section or that were even completely reconstructed in modern times (e.g. see my edit here about an image you added). Of course there are always elements that are not original (e.g. most of the painted decoration in Ottoman mosques is not original, walls and domes have been reconstructed, etc). That is literally true of any preserved historic building anywhere. Unless you're suggesting to completely avoid any images of such buildings, I don't see what you're getting at. If you believe there are errors in the content of an article, I suggest you bring them up on the article's talk page clearly and we can examine them in reference to the sources. R Prazeres (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. The addition that I did there is not out of place simply the same image that was already there but this time from a wider angle and it is from that period indeed.

And the one that I removed. In that image I cannot see a detail from 15th century almost. Paintings on the walls probably from 19th century. A chandelier also probably from 19th century. An Ottoman flag from 1990s. Also the green metal cage from maybe from 70s. Big part of the image is the floor. But instead of the orginal stone, I see a carpet from 1980s. Only significant part is the dome which the image is not focused at. It is 1/10th of the image is significant to the period maybe. I mean putting this image and telling that look this is the Ottoman architecture from 1500s is not accurate. I think this image distorts the idea. Better to not have it at all there. Maybe the exterior of the structure is much more loyal to the period. or another image that is focusing on the dome. But like I said 90% of the image is random objects that fills the building. I mean things that we put inside 400 years later.

And I dont get why you find reconstructions as a problem. If they represent the architectural style of that period it is ok that some parts of the structures are reconstructed. I dont mind to see a reconstructed parts in the article as long as it represents the period. Much better than an image full of stuff filled centuries later.

Metuboy (talk) 22:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, you're complaining about what you would already find in scholarly books on Ottoman architecture. If this practice is good enough for the most reliable published references in existence, it's certainly good enough for Wikipedia. The whole point of having both text and images is so that the two are seen together. Anyone reading a text about the layout of a building and then looking at the images is not going to focus on the carpets and chandeliers, just as they also won't focus on human beings in the image or on other less relevant objects, so it's silly to get worked up over that (unless, for example, it's literally obscuring the stuff that is relevant). In the particular example we're discussing here, there actually are other available images for that specific topic which would be reasonable alternatives, but you replaced the image with that of entirely different tombs, from later periods, unrelated to the one discussed in text except for being in the same cemetery (as is clear from any reliable references). So again this was an example of making images less relevant rather than improving the existing ones, and it's not the only one.

But at this point I'm not going to break down every single example from the past here with you, and that's not a good use of your time either. At the end of the day, it's not really a big problem if you try out new combinations of images, as long as you also accept that this may be reverted if it's not judged to be an improvement by other editors. That's how

WP:BRD works. I made my comments above because I thought I could give you feedback that would help you avoid being reverted so often in the future. Beyond that, neither myself nor other editors will apologize for reverting edits that do not look like improvements. Another suggestion I could make is to pay attention to previous edit summaries or talk page discussions (to the extent that is reasonable, of course). In any case, I wish you happy further editing in the future. Cheers, R Prazeres (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Metuboy. In the Turkey article they updated the Nominal GDP but not the GDP-PPP. The current figure is $3.32 trillion, not $3.21 trillion. Can you please update it as $3.32 trillion? Thank you very much, and thanks for all the great work. I made the necessary updates in the Economy of Turkey article. Mercresis (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merceresis. Ofc I can. Let me do it for you asap. Metuboy (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, and keep up the great work. Also, the "Sebasteion" of Aphrodisias is mistakenly written as "Sebastian" in the image caption. Mercresis (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also on it. I really appriciate your reviews! Metuboy (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, thank you very much, once again :) Mercresis (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Float the Vierbund image (monarchs of the Central Powers) to the left, the Armenian genocide image to the right (replace the existing file with "File:Column of deportees walking through Harput vilayet during the Armenian genocide.jpg" and give it the width value of "upright", float it to "right"). The existing image is too dark, as if it has been burned.

2. Add the Çanakkale Bridge image as the third picture to the "Infrastructure" section:

3. Perhaps this can be added to the Language section:

Mercresis (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I replied to you on your page. Please check it there Metuboy (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article LC Waikiki is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LC Waikiki until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would do necessary edits to improve the article. This is the largest fashion company in Turkey. With more than 50.000 workers and highest number of stores of fashion in Turkey. I think it is relevant to keep the article. Metuboy (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added 2 more references to the article from independent sources. Forbes is one of them since the CEO is a billionare. The page discusses the company. Do you think it is enough. Could you help me to understand what else I can do in order to avoid its deletion? Metuboy (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can also find other references and sources. If you think that it is still needed. Thank you for you time again. Metuboy (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Metuboy. I haven't had a chance to review the sources you added, but I highly recommend mentioning them and your reasons for keeping the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LC Waikiki. I'll tell you I'm definitely considering withdrawing the deletion nomination, so it would help to see what independent sources you've found. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Metuboy, I was just reading through the article Miletus and came to the galley which you placed there of pottery artifacts. But the names on the galley seem confusing. You twice repeat the sentence "The name Fikellura derives from a site on the island of Rhodes to which this fabric has been attributed. It is now established that the center of production was Miletus" on two different pottery vessels, but as far as I can see, this explanation has nothing to do with the items in questions.

Check this edit where you added all of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miletus&diff=next&oldid=959478252

I didn't want to try editing it, because this seems like valuable information that should be in the article, but it seems lost or inappropriate in that location in a gallery image. I'm guessing that you meant to place that sentence somewhere else in the article. So if you could please clean this up, that would be great. I thought I would ask you since you are the originator of the text and should know how to fix it (I'm unclear on how to do it). Thanks. Hibernian (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thank you for showing me this. Indeed the information is maybe a little missleading. Let me fix the issue. Metuboy (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Samsun, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kızılırmak.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I see a while ago you updated some data for Turkey here in English Wikipedia - for example at List of countries by renewable electricity production you added 2019 data.

If you are thinking of loading any 2022 data for Turkey could you load it in Wikidata? For example I started loading some 2022 generation data for individual power plants and it shows up in infoboxes like at 18 Mart Çan power station and also on :tr: Türkiye'deki kömür yakıtlı enerji santralleri listesi Chidgk1 (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

Hello, Metuboy. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Liz. I think this page is indeed very important it is the largest finance center in Turkey and all the Turkish banks headquarters moved to this campus. So this page should exist on Wikipedia. I already did the request for undeletion as you described.

Thank you for your time. Best regards Metuboy (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mr. Metuboy. I have a edit request from you. Someone insistently writes "Armenian, Greek and Assyrian genocides were carried out by the Republic of Turkey" under the photo in the article "persecution of Christians" and is committing a kind of historical revisionism. Even though I deleted these contents many times, the changes I made were always reverted without explanation. Holding Republic of Turkey responsible for the alleged atrocities that took place before the Republic of Turkey was established is ulterior motives and historical revisionism. Could you please delete that part with an explanation? You have been a Wikipedia user for many years and you know the rules better than I do. Thanks. 176.220.241.11 (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the text and added a comment there. I think the issue should be discussed in the Talk page if the writer keeps vandalising the page. but since the page is not protected. It would be hard to keep tracking this. Metuboy (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing to the author who reverts this edit in the Talk page. Metuboy (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Geography of Turkey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blue Mosque.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, many thanks for your efforts to improve this article. I'm not sure if you're aware that it is currently undergoing a Good Article review. We do rather need to have it in a stable condition to allow the review to complete, so it'll probably be best if you can hold off with any further changes until the review is completed. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasnt aware of the review. I will stop editing the page for a while as you asked. Thanks for informing me Metuboy (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Başka kullanıcılar tarafından geri alınmasına rağmen, ısrarla bu değişikliği yapmanızda ki amaç ney onu çok merak ediyorum. Lionel Cristiano^? 20:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merbaha,

Resimlerin sayfanın sadece sağ tarafında bulununca resim konu ile ilgisi olmayan bir alt başlığa kayıyor. Buna örnek olarak İznik Çinisi fotoğrafı görülebilir. Eğer diğer ülke sayfalarına bakarsan burada da resimlerin hem sayfanın sağ hem de solunda homojen olarak kullanıldığını görürsün. Uzun metinlerde bunun yapılması da teşvik ediliyor.

Lüften bunu dikkate almamız gerektiğini anlamalısın:

Bu sayfada Wikipedia DO: Place images in the section to which they are related

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_dos_and_don%27ts

Burada örnek olarak metnin hem sol hem de sağında resim kullanımı. Şu anda bütün ülke sayfalarında sanırım bir tek Türkiyede bütün resimler Türkiyededir. Bir kaç kullanıcı hatalı değişiklikler yapıyor diye benim durmam gerekmiyor. Yukarıda Wikipedia'nın standardını seninle paylaştım.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy Metuboy (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benim için sorun yok, ama başka kullanıcılar sürekli geri aldığı için, sizde sürekli aynı değişikliği yaptığınız için sormak istedim. İyi çalışmalar dilerim. Lionel Cristiano^? 22:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]