User talk:Podiaebba

Podiaebba, you are invited to the Teahouse

Teahouse logo

Hi Podiaebba! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Podiaebba! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Demirören Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page LPG (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Kuğulu Park

The article Kuğulu Park has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

fails WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Uberaccount (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for biographies

Regarding this edit, it would appear to me that it is you who does not know what "notability" means here on Wikipedia (which is something very different than in "real life"). To see what makes a person notable, please have a look at WP:BIO and WP:GNG (and the specialized guidelines linked from those two guidelines). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use some common sense: do you really think someone who has been a CEO of a billion-dollar company for six years isn't going to have enough media coverage to merit a WP entry? There's plenty of media mentions. It doesn't amount to a lot of biographical detail, but it's easily enough to justify an entry. Podiaebba (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then why, if it is so easy, do you wait with adding adequate sources until somebody tags the article for missing sources? Doing so from the start will save you (and other editors) a lot of trouble. --Randykitty (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I thought it was enough, and Berat isn't a priority. I mostly at this point just wanted to record my finding out who his father is, showing that it's not the founder of the Albayrak Group but the journalist, but was hindered by there not being an entry yet. Podiaebba (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Halk Tv

History section of Halk Tv article is entirely citing to a single source which is Today's Zaman, and you are still removing the single source tag. [1] Please do not remove the tag again. --84.211.119.140 (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it has two sources - two different Today's Zaman articles. And if you want people to respect your tagging, try getting an account. Podiaebba (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't see any second or third party source so it has a single source. Also I suggest you to read this essay. I've never heard that users should have an account to see respect. --84.211.119.140 (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you're now actively vandalising the page (removing sources, claiming "one source" when there's three), yeah, well done for proving the point that people who can't be bothered to make an account are "human too". Podiaebba (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did simply ask you to add second or third party resources to the section. Now I can see you did add them. Thank you for your efforts. But I do suggest you to be civil as it is a wikipedia policy and one of the five pillars.--84.211.119.140 (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You were using the wrong tag, and wrongly saying it was a "single source", and... never mind, I guess we got there? Now why don't you show some civility by giving yourself a pseudonym? It's a bit rude to insist on talking to people without giving yourself any sort of label, I think. Podiaebba (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for all your excellent articles on Turkey. You've been editing here for less than two weeks, but have already created dozens of well-written, referenced articles. Well done! Captain Conundrum (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I keep seeing "who or what is that?" situations arising from the Gezi protests, and when I figure it out, I want to write it down. Podiaebba (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Albayrak Holding (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Conglomerate
Berat Albayrak (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Conglomerate
Doğan Media Group (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Star TV
Kalyon Group (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Conglomerate
Media of Turkey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Conglomerates
Uzan Group (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to ICSID

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ciner Media Group

The article Ciner Media Group has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No independent refs. No refs in Turkish wiki to steal. No claim of notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:2013_protests_in_Turkey#Hagia_Sophias_as_Mosques

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2013_protests_in_Turkey#Hagia_Sophias_as_Mosques. Alex2006 (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC) Alex2006 (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Günlük, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IFEX (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 protests in Turkey

I kindly ask you to discuss large changes (including restructuring and forks (sub articles)) on the talk page first. This way other people can weight into the decision. Thanks. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 00:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. Podiaebba (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of solidarity rallies with the 2013 protests in Turkey for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of solidarity rallies with the 2013 protests in Turkey 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/List of solidarity rallies with the 2013 protests in Turkey until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. →AzaToth 20:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Susurluk car crash

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Susurluk car crash. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Susurluk scandal. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Susurluk scandal – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. noq (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable medical sources and Treatment/Counter-measures for Tear gas

Hello Podiaebba,

I fully appreciate the point you make in the edit summary [2]. But there is a real problem here. I don't know whether or not you're familiar with our requirements for use of reliable medical sources for any therapeutic claims. Since this content clearly falls into that category, I feel it can't really remain in the Treatment section. However, as I've argued on the talk page, I do feel it can reasonably be retained under "Counter-measures".

Please note that by reverting I don't wish to show any disrespect for editing (or spark an unwanted edit war). Regards, 81.157.7.7 (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your courteous message. I see your point about reliability of sources - but I don't see that putting the text in a different section makes any difference there - people are just as likely to try and rely on that info in that other section. The text should make clear the reliability of the sources, and then people have to make up their own minds. Or else we should remove it altogether. Podiaebba (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for for the thoughtful replies. I'm really not sure. You might like to raise the question here: Wikipedia_talk:MED#Vinegar_and_tear_gas. Best, 81.157.7.7 (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with opinionated IPs

Hi, just a friendly note. You may find it more productive to just ignore the IPs that rain down weird accusations. I know it is tempting to confront such blatant lies by them but that ends up derailing the discussion which ends up being unhelpful to the people trying to improve the article like you and me. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 15:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

A page you started (Nejat Tümer) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Nejat Tümer, Podiaebba!

Wikipedia editor SPat just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

thanks for adding the article! I found several references about him through a google book search - it would be cool if you could get any more content from them

To reply, leave a comment on SPat's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Yes, there are references there, but I haven't found any biographical detail from them - or even anything useful about his role in the coup. These things must exist, but I haven't been able to find them online. Podiaebba (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Engin Alan) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Engin Alan, Podiaebba!

Wikipedia editor Narvekar ameya just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Topic is reviewed

To reply, leave a comment on Narvekar ameya's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A brownie for you!

Thank yoU! Kadzi (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm about to have lunch though so I'll leave it for later... :) Podiaebba (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mehmet Baransu

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Hello. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_Arab_Spring Should we provide a short summary of Gezi Park protests (protests in Turkey in 2013) to the Impact of the Arab Spring article. I think we should since Turkish protests which are also called Turkish summer, despite having different aims, seems to be compared to the Arab Spring. Besides, protests in the scope of Impact of the Arab Spring article have different aims (Occupy Wall Street is also not about toppling an Arab dictator.) Kavas (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say where to draw the line with such things... many of the things in that article seem pretty tenuous. You could make a case too that the Gezi protests should be part of Impact of the French Revolution... I think I'd rather not get involved with that debate, thanks. Podiaebba (talk) 13:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was added by an IP editor, and wasn't debated. Cheers. Kavas (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. I'm just a bit skeptical of the whole thing. Podiaebba (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reyhanlı in the Context of Gezi

I don't know whether you checked the talk page or not, but I found a reference where Erdogan's connecting Reyhanlı to Gezi. I think it's more appropriate to add it on the article text than the reference of May 18. See http://wap.milliyet.com.tr/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=1735943 Kavas (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, OK. Feel free to add it, there's no harm in having both. Podiaebba (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Gambling in Turkey) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Gambling in Turkey, Podiaebba!

Wikipedia editor Matty.007 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Looks good.

To reply, leave a comment on Matty.007's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

List of governments

Hello, Podiaebba. You have new messages at Talk:List of Governments of Turkey.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bayar's government

Hi, The start and dates of the 9th government in the List of Governments of Turkey seems to be reversed. (I was warned by E4024) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes, of course. (The list came from another WP article, I didn't check the details.) Fixed 9th government dates, though they should really all be properly sourced. Podiaebba (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Mint Press News) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Mint Press News, Podiaebba!

Wikipedia editor Matty.007 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Looks like a good new article

To reply, leave a comment on Matty.007's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Syrian civil war sanctions notice

As a result of a community discussion, long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Syrian civil war, broadly construed, have been acknowledged. The community has therefore enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

  • Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
  • The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor shall be given a warning with a link to this decision and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
  • Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the decision. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is effective only if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so... if he breaches 1RR again, what should I do? You've given him this info message as well... Podiaebba (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

The local variety that grow where I live are delicious. Anyways, I just wanted to assure you that I meant the sarcasm callout lightly - I do indeed agree that it seems a little pedantic at this point. Kind regards! VQuakr (talk) 07:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yummy, thanks. :) Podiaebba (talk) 07:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mint Press News article and "Shia advocacy"

Please see the thread in Talk:Mint Press News. One user is insisting on citing an article's misleading title, which erroneously implies that Mint Press News does "Shia advocacy journalism." Mint Press News indicates it does advocacy journalism on "social justice and human rights," and no evidence is cited that this in any way involves Shia Islam beyond the report that the editor-in-chief is a Shia Muslim. This is a blatant attempt to undermine the website's credibility for illegitimate reasons. It's true that my account is brand new, but I have not removed any criticism of Mint Press News that is legitimate - just check the entry's edit history. Philip Stained Glass (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Ghouta chemical attacks, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. You know you are better than this. But in any case, please review WP:POINT. VQuakr (talk) 04:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Sorry. 5am editing with no sleep due to little one and growing frustration. :( Podiaebba (talk) 11:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's the usual thing to do when an editor is obviously too impassioned about the issue to remain completely objective? Do you want to take a voluntary break from editing the Syrian articles for a while, if your judgement is impaired? If not, what is the usual remedy for this situation? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was a month ago, in specific circumstances, and more generally I've become somewhat disillusioned and reduced my involvement in the subject, particularly editing rather than commenting, and giving up on WP:NPOV being achieved on certain articles. This is partly due to people like you being so insistent on censoring or downplaying clearly relevant and significant information from mainstream people. What is the "usual remedy" for tackling such bias, one might ask? Well we can only try to achieve compromise through discussion, and generally more information, even if leading to more and larger articles, makes compromise easier to achieve. Think about that. Podiaebba (talk) 12:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I'm sorry to hear that I'm somehow to blame for your vandalism. Since we can't see eye-to-eye, we'll let the admins decide if there's a solution. On the plus side, whether the admins take action or not, you'll no longer have this incident hanging over your head and can hopefully clear your head and resume editing with a clean slate. As far as WP:NPOV, I'm a big fan of bringing in uninvolved 3rd parties to help resolve disputes. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took the rather unusual step of closing this section at ANI. If I hadn't, someone else would have. Rolf, dredging up a month-old mistake and bringing it to ANI is the complete opposite of what is needed here. If this is a symptom of something else at play, maybe a content dispute on another Syria-related article, may I suggest mediation? I would be a poor choice of mediator given my level of involvement on Syria articles, but I could ask around for an uninvolved experienced editor if you are both interested. Either way, best of luck to both of you, and let's bring this particular chapter to a close, ok? VQuakr (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation sounds good to me; I've suggested it before to Podiaebba. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeni Safak

You could not remove all section. If the expression is not ok, just modify it and avoid blanking. Because your part is misleading and lacks context. Egeymi (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you are are aware of 3R rule in the WP and of not being partisan rule.Egeymi (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hope you are aware of WP:AGF. NB I added the interview issue to the article in the first place. (And feel free to check my contributions on Gezi protests article if you still think I'm a fan of Yeni Safak.) Podiaebba (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removing an unnecessary heading you added is not removing a section. Your version declaring the interview "fake" is misleading. As for "context" - what context? You didn't provide any, and I've no idea what you mean. Podiaebba (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your part just focuses on excuse of the daily without mentioning the incident. Egeymi (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The heading shows the incident, not unnecessary. Egeymi (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Controversy" sections are generally bad. As a heading for 1 or 2 sentence single incident, it's just silly. Podiaebba (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What excuse? There is none. It mentions the apology, and what was apologised for. More detail could be given, but you've not tried to do that - only to convey the misleading impression that the entire interview was invented or faked, rather than some key sentences attributed to Chomsky that he didn't say. Podiaebba (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should read carefully WP:AGF after your last edit summary. Egeymi (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
""Controversy" sections are generally bad."" What???? If there is any controversy then it is called "controversy" and it was 100% controversial incident whether or not you accept. Egeymi (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Controversy sections are generally bad, yes; see Wikipedia:Controversy sections. "Controversy" is a fairly meaningless tabloidy word anyway, but "controversial" incidents should normally be integrated into the article, eg in a history section. In this case, the article is so short it really doesn't need any additional headings whatsoever. Feel free to add enough material that headings start becoming useful. Podiaebba (talk) 08:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You could not say "just silly". Saying it is generally bad. You are very rude.Egeymi (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, your English is fairly good but it's clearly not your first language: calling a thing "silly" is a whole lot less rude than claiming that a person is "very rude". Now if you want to continue discussing the Yeni Safak interview, I suggest you take it to the article talk page. Podiaebba (talk) 08:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ghouta hat note question

Is there any particular reason you undid my collapse of the spam section on the Ghouta article? VQuakr (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, firstly, because I was talking to the person. Secondly, it wasn't spam, it was an attempt to engage and further the quality of the article by raising some issues, which can be looked out for from usable sources. Thirdly, collapsing was unnecessary and appears rude. Podiaebba (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a single-purpose account promoting their own blog. If you want to talk about similar changes using valid sources, you can start a new section with an appropriate heading. If you want to "talk to the person", they have a user talk page. Collapsing is SOP for "distraction" threads like that one. VQuakr (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative to refactoring those comments of yours which are soapboxing or pointy is to seek sanctions against you. If that is your preference I can do that, but I would prefer if you would instead just start editing Wikipedia in a manner consistent with policy. I re-removed your talk page post since it is clearly a violation of WP:POINT. VQuakr (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't acknowledged that WP:SPAM doesn't cover it, that your hatting was entirely unnecessary and rude. Your repeated deletion of my comment explaining this is the icing on the cake. Please do flag down a passing policeman - I wouldn't want to turn an unnecessary drama into an unnecessary crisis, but it's up to you if you'd like to continue creating new problems where none exist. I question though whether you really don't have anything better to do. Podiaebba (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When a SPA comes to an article talk page promoting their own blog, it is spam. I can change the hat note to "WP:SPAM/WP:IAR" if it makes you happy. Your meta-argument in the talk page violates WP:TPG and is itself rude. You have repeatedly gotten upset editing this article and violated WP:POINT, including your recent talk page edit that I reverted, where you take over the spamming for the SPA to make some point (not quite sure what, but I am sure you had something in your mind that you hoped to accomplish). Obviously, you would not have objected if the POV of the blog did not happen to match the POV that you are attempting to push. I am tired of the silly tantrums you throw when you find out that we actually are going to follow policy instead of doing whatever you want and frustrated that you can't simmer down and actually contribute. At your best you add a lot of value to the editing team on that article, but in the last couple of days you have seldom been at your best. VQuakr (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit that you need to reach for WP:IAR in order to slap down someone who gives every appearance of coming in good faith to help improve the article? But I'm the one at fault when I reject your attempt to abuse policy to do so. Sure. And then you have the audacity of coming to my talk page and telling me Obviously, you would not have objected if the POV of the blog did not happen to match the POV that you are attempting to push.? Accusing me of both hypocrisy and POV-pushing in one sentence? Very nice. I seriously thought you were one of the reasonable ones. NB In an attempt to write a neutral article about X, a neutral person working with a bunch of people desperately pushing position A may appear to be pushing position B in a genuine effort to defend neutrality. That is the position I feel I'm in, and I'm not happy about it. Podiaebba (talk) 06:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, your reply on the article talk page only quoted the first sentence of WP:SPAM there was no "abuse of policy." Someone who names their account after the blog they are promoting is not here to edit in good faith. If you want to quit feeling like an unfortunate victim, you could start by easing up on the diva attitude and the pointy edits. VQuakr (talk) 06:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You abused WP:SPAM by claiming it justified your view and action on that section. It did not and does not. Someone who names their account after the blog they are promoting is not here to edit in good faith. - you're making generic statements which sound reasonable in isolation but do not fit the situation. The blog is specific to that page's topic; there was no attempt to push the blog into the article; and the editor only edited one single talk page, talking about deficiencies in the article. WP:AGF should apply, and (to spin your allegation of hypocrisy round at you) I rather think you'd be more willing to apply it if the blog were favourable to the mainstream position. Podiaebba (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It did and does. See? My unsupported assertions are just as valid as yours, only less silly. I find it difficult to believe that you read the guideline and came away with the impression that the one-sentence lede was the most applicable part of the document to this situation. The article is semi-protected. They were not technically capable of editing the article, so their not doing so is not a show of their good faith. If any author came to any article and attempted to promote their own writing, I would rightly be annoyed. That behavior is asinine in any context, not just on Wikipedia. If you would have been ok with a "pro-western" blogger doing the exact same thing, than I agree that that implies good things for your POV but bad things for your judgement as to what is acceptable behavior.
As an aside, notice how we are not on an article talk page and I am willing to discuss meta-content like this? Maybe you could ponder that for a moment and consider if it is a clue as to why I object to your repeated injection of meta-discussion into the article talk page? VQuakr (talk) 07:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted from WP:SPAM, and you've yet to suggest which part of WP:SPAM supports your views and actions. I'm mystified why you are so unwilling to extend WP:AGF to someone engaging in constructive discussion, or why you think it's acceptable to repeatedly delete my comments from the article talk page. I'm even more mystified why we've wasted such a large amount of time and effort talking about this. I'm sure we both have better things to do. The situation is unlikely to recur so it's not like we need to agree on how to handle it if it does. Podiaebba (talk) 11:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AUSA?

Hi. I see you added Assistant United States Attorney‎ to Category:Assistant United States Attorneys. This seems wrong — the category is a list of people who are AUSA's. And the AUSA page is not a person (in fact, it's also not really a page). Do I misinterpret your intention? Thanks. jhawkinson (talk) 03:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've seen it done before that the defining page is part of the category it defines. And it was meant as a sort of reminder that it really needs its own definition. If you still want to remove it from the category, I don't mind. Podiaebba (talk) 06:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Axpo Holding, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Laufenburg and Linthal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opting in to VisualEditor

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 50 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Margarida Marante

Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. Podiaebba, thanks for creating Margarida Marante!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. .

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Scientist and wind direction

If you think the New Scientist wind direction is demonstrably wrong (and you could be right for all I know; as I said, unlike you I regard this as WP:OR and thus am not personally interested in examining the claim in depth), have you thought about also writing to New Scientist and/or Guthrie? If your case is strong, it's possible NS will print your letter, or retract the claim, or at least think twice about using Guthrie as an expert quote next time. And, of course, you could raise the issue by contacting other media sources as well. Also, if you're relying on wunderground, you might want to make sure the page is web-archived in case wunderground ever decides to stop bothering to provide historical data. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I sent an email to NS, though I can't imagine anything coming of it. Wunderground's data is apparently from NOAA anyway. Podiaebba (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Their United States (and polar and oceanic) data is. To my knowledge NOAA does not operate stations within other nations' borders. I agree that New Scientist issuing a clarification or retraction would be ideal in terms of coming to an agreement here; thanks for taking the initiative Podiaebba. VQuakr (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Adams Award

Hi. This discussion seems to have languished. Last week, in response to one of my comments, we ended up getting side tracked about my motives and what to do with statements that might not be supported by reliable sources. Now that that's resolved, do you have a response to the arguments on reliability I included in the same comment? If so perhaps we get things started again and move closer to resolution? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know what you want to happen next. As far as I'm concerned, the sources are quite adequate for their very limited purpose, and leaving the list unsourced is unambiguously worse than using these sources. Podiaebba (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I just wanted to check before taking it to RSN. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Email?

Would you be willing to shoot me an email using the "email this user" feature visible when you are on my talk page (or alternatively, enable email for your account)? I would like to communicate with you offline. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I enabled email. Podiaebba (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. I sent you a message. VQuakr (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Richard J. Brenneke) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Richard J. Brenneke, Podiaebba!

Wikipedia editor Tritario just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice job with this!

To reply, leave a comment on Tritario's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For your endless creation of wonderful articles - keep it up :). Ironholds (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assistant United States Attorneys

Category:Assistant United States Attorneys, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Courts in Turkey

Category:Courts in Turkey, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source for Bob Woodward (para. in Early Life and Career section)

Hi. I have added a source for the paragraph you were wondering about in the early life and career section of the article on Bob Woodward. The stuff about his early work in the newspaper business and being discharged from the Navy, etc.. 132.198.151.177 (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of WhoWhatWhy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WhoWhatWhy 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/WhoWhatWhy until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2014 (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) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Podiaebba. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of tear gas manufacturers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of tear gas manufacturers 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/List of tear gas manufacturers until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Podiaebba. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Vedat Aydın

Notice

The article Vedat Aydın has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one.  » Shadowowl | talk 11:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ahmet Yesevi University

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Ahmet Yesevi University, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

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. 182.58.220.123 (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 13 § Road accidents and incidents

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 13 § Road accidents and incidents on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]