User talk:ToZero

Only at first sight; try our

Lectonar (talk) 08:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please note that although you are free to use the Wikipedia "Email user" option to contact me, I strongly prefer communicating with other users via our respective user talk pages, and only respond via email if you are contacting me with a private matter. I do not consider your issue with the Northern Cyprus article to be a private matter.

Now that that's out of the way, in response to the comments in your email, I did look at the edit request you placed on

ToZero ToZero (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every user that responded to your request at Talk:Northern Cyprus has a "signature" at the end of their comment. Click on the "Talk" link in that user's signature to be navigated to that user's user talk page. There should be a "+" or "new section" link at the top of that page (which one it is will depend on your browser and user settings). Click that link to leave that user a message. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ToZero. You have new messages at C.Fred's talk page.
Message added 01:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Thanks for the note on my talk page. My take on this issue is that the amount of detail you propose for what is really a small part of events in this area is

Hello, ToZero. You have new messages at RudolfRed's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You should try to address each reason for denial every time you re-submit... or you could just put the ignore the AFC process, publish it anyway and see if it survives. either way, good luck!

Ryan shell (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I've taken a look at your AFC and it seems to be in ok shape. Have you re-submitted it for evaluation after you added references to each line? If you haven't, try that. If you have done that, you might consider creatign the article on your own to see if it sinks or floats as is. either way, good luck.Ryan shell (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Excirial,

Thank you for your recent review of my short article on North Cyprus Page.

May I say that I am pleased that an editor/reviewer has left slightly more telling clues than before. Thank you for your comment.

In reply to your comment, I would have written more about situation, and given more background, but unfortunately, I was knocked back for not having provided evidence/sources to substantiate my version of events.

Therefore, I put together a small number of articles and videos and other sources, and took a sentence from each of them and quoted it in the article, in such a way as to start the article in some form. However, it has obviously not worked as it has this time been knocked back for reading like a news article.

It would be a shame for me to give up, considering, it is a compelling story which affects 3000 lives directly in a serious (life threatening way) and if you include their families and children (mainly back in the UK)the events are having a secondary affect on them.

Please, could you simply drop, one, or mabye 2 more subtle, clues, hints, indications, for me to continue improving the article.

Kind regards,

ToZero62.197.212.212 (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there ToZero,

Reading the article once over i cannot help but notice that the "The Kulaksiz Court Cases" page seems to be written a writing style that is similar to a newspaper; The article is specifically focused on a single event without having to much background context. Additionally, a large share of the article is dedicated to quoting people's responses to the case itself. Encyclopedic article's tend to differ in their format - Have a look at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article for example. The article starts with a short lead (summary) of the subject, followed by background information and a neutral description of the event it describes.

Having stated that, i feel the article would have difficulty passing the

"Wikipedia is not a newspaper" criteria. The court cases as they stand are an extension of a large problem caused Greece's debt right now. There have been multiple media reports regarding this case, but the coverage seems to be very limited to a specific time period. It is quite likely that several newspapers jumped on the case, and will never report on them again. In that case the event would have little lasting notability, which would in turn means it wouldn't pass the mentioned criteria for inclusion. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

File permission problem with File:Akfinans Manager Ertu Kader, breaking and entering an occupied Kulaksiz Home.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Akfinans Manager Ertu Kader, breaking and entering an occupied Kulaksiz Home.jpg, which you've sourced to Kibris Newspaper TRNC and Cyprus Today Newspaper TRNC. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the
  CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list
  ) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
  OTRS pending
  }} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on

Dear Excirial,

Thank you for your recent review of my short article on North Cyprus Page.

May I say that I am pleased that an editor/reviewer has left slightly more telling clues than before. Thank you for your comment.

In reply to your comment, I would have written more about situation, and given more background, but unfortunately, I was knocked back for not having provided evidence/sources to substantiate my version of events.

Therefore, I put together a small number of articles and videos and other sources, and took a sentence from each of them and quoted it in the article, in such a way as to start the article in some form. However, it has obviously not worked as it has this time been knocked back for reading like a news article.

It would be a shame for me to give up, considering, it is a compelling story which affects 3000 lives directly in a serious (life threatening way) and if you include their families and children (mainly back in the UK)the events are having a secondary affect on them.

Please, could you simply drop, one, or mabye 2 more subtle, clues, hints, indications, for me to continue improving the article.

Kind regards,

ToZero62.197.212.212 (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there ToZero,

Reading the article once over i cannot help but notice that the "The Kulaksiz Court Cases" page seems to be written a writing style that is similar to a newspaper; The article is specifically focused on a single event without having to much background context. Additionally, a large share of the article is dedicated to quoting people's responses to the case itself. Encyclopedic article's tend to differ in their format - Have a look at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article for example. The article starts with a short lead (summary) of the subject, followed by background information and a neutral description of the event it describes.

Having stated that, i feel the article would have difficulty passing the

"Wikipedia is not a newspaper" criteria. The court cases as they stand are an extension of a large problem caused Greece's debt right now. There have been multiple media reports regarding this case, but the coverage seems to be very limited to a specific time period. It is quite likely that several newspapers jumped on the case, and will never report on them again. In that case the event would have little lasting notability, which would in turn means it wouldn't pass the mentioned criteria for inclusion. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

ToZero (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a very quick note that i haven't forgotten this one. Problem right now is that t don't have the time to dive into the subject matter and write a decent reply - and i don't want to settle for some half-decent response either. (I hope to have time during the weekend though). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, seems this one has been waiting for a decent reply quite a bit longer than by best "estimated time to response" calculated, not even mentioning my preferred "within a few days" response time. Either way, time to write something actually related to the page in question.

I read the entire article, checked each of the supplied references and did a search for more myself but even after doing so i am still fairly pessimistic as to the notability of the event. My own search mainly seems to yield a mountain of links from the "northcyprusfreepress.com", while yielding little to no links created by other news sources. In fact, if i do a search specifically excluding "northcyprusfreepress.com" i almost immediately land in the "Forum and blogs" area, which tends to be a dead-end as far as reliable sourcing goes.

Now, if i analyze the added sourcing:

• http://northcyprusfreepress.com/law/breaking-news-brs-calls-for-kulaksiz-5-support/ - This source seems to be call for action to support the people in the court cases, which is far from
  neutral wording
  . As far as neutral and reliable sourcing goes this is not the best possible example to base an article on.
• http://www.kkg2011.com/index.php?cID=52 - Same issue as the last source really. The websites home page explicitly identifies itself as a rights group intended to aid property owners. Even i discount the possible
  conflict of interest
  in this source the group itself seems to be a very minor join effort, which would pass the size and "importance" requirement for a reliable source.
• https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=229f30d9a4dcbec2&id=229F30D9A4DCBEC2!514 - Only details the electricity usage of the buildings, and barely covers the case at all. This is - at most - some slightly related information in tabloid format (This sort of coverage often surrounds events - a war starts, you receive top level coverage, but after a while the coverage seems to change to eyewitness reports and interviews simply because there is nothing new to report.)
• The three remaining sources are somewhat more decent since they actually cover the case and offer some background information..

Even so fear the subject would have a hard time meeting the

inclusion criteria for events

. If we look at the notability policy for events it would only meet 1 criteria: Duration of coverage. There is no lasting effect that i could trace (If this court case were to be the basis of some landmark ruling things would be quite different); the geographic scope is limited to a very specific area (Norther Cyprus); the depth of coverage seems limited to "regular" news articles at most and the diversity of sources seems to be quite limited at 1 or 2 local newspapers.

Now, can the article subject be notable for inclusion? To be honest, i fear it won't meet the criteria no matter what changes are made simply due to the event being minor at best (Based on what i could find that is). Of course i can be wrong and i have been wrong in the past, but in those cases editors often came around with multiple sources that cannot be easily traced online without a specific search (Scientific journals, magazines, print-only newspaper article's and the like). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kulaksiz 5 Court Cases, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at

Hello ToZero. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Kulaksiz 5 Court Cases.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kulaksiz 5 Court Cases}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Elon Musk. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reverted my contribution has been repeatedly reverted. I have given the reasons on the Talk page and supplied evidence. I have not reverted one time. Please remove this warning As you have given it on the grounds that I have either reverted or I’m done. I repeat I have not undergone anything and I haven’t reverted anything. ToZero (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

ToZero (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There is no grounds for blocking. I've done nothing to justify blocking. Please remove all blocks. Disagreements of editing were 2 years ago, and my edits, in terms of Covid 19 Truths applied to the edit, are now FULLY VINDICATED by science, reality and facts

Decline reason:

This account is not, and never has been, directly blocked. If you are unable to edit, please exactly follow the instructions which appear when you attempt to do so. Yamla (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.