User talk:Malizengin

WikiProject Piracy

Hello, You are invited to join WikiProject Piracy! We are an established project that has recently become inactive and needs to overhaul its activities. The focus of this WikiProject considerably covers a large historical period and specific topics, so please feel free to contribute within your own area of interest. If you would like to take a look at the project, please click the link above. If you find you would be interested in joining the project, then feel free to sign up here.

Metabaronic (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Piracy worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting articles

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Piracy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --McGeddon (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Ahmet Ali.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Ahmet Ali.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Ahmet Ali.gif

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.

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 22:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Thank you for experimenting with the page Armenian_Genocide on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Please go to Talk: Armenian_Genocide before getting into another "edit war". Bearian (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Armenian Genocide shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Please note that all topics covering the Armenian Genocide have been placed under WP:1RR. Please see the relevant Arbcom decision WP:ARBAA2. Any user violating the 1RR rule will be blocked or placed under a topic ban. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice for WP:3RRN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Soghomon Tehlirian shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Armenian Genocide. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins: Just in case there is any doubt if the above notice about the ArbCom case is sufficient, I am not claiming AE rules on this block, but I will issue a warning now so that future blocks may be issued under AE. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Constant posting

As Heimsten Laufer posted on your talk page about the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2, you can't just add what you want to add something put it in the talk page and start a discussion. You were recently banned for your disruptive editing, you will be banned again if you continue under the above case. Ninetoyadome (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why you constantly remove the facts, reference to official documents with verifiable/reliable sources ? I also posted on your talk page asking about details of basis why you are removing the contents from official documents related to subject. I also edited some sections with your feedback, but you shouldn't remove some facts constantly.

You have been reported

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

For information, I have basically made reference to two documents which are related to article and complying with all the rules. These references are to official documents of British government of that time , published in book with ISBN number and page number is given, reference and date is given to original official documents of British government and they are not conflicting with any of the facts, insulting anyone but giving more information to readers. But these entries, constantly removed by different users, with different but not justified reasons such as excessive material, horrible English (this comment is made to British diplomat's report which I have written exactly as in original) etc. I have further written on respective users' talk page, asking for explanation and edited some other contribution of mines to not to cause conflict. But I don't find it right that some users show act of vandalism by removing entire content (which are official documents related to article) without any further explanation and cooperation. Here is the talk page of Armenian genocide where I was seeking for consensus and cease this edit conflict where I haven't received any reply but respective user raise this issue without seeking for consensus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Armenian_Genocide#Consensus_about_article Malizengin (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision,

you have been blocked from editing for two weeks. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 08:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

You are adding information that is controversial and not widely accepted amongst many of the users and the general consensus of Wikipedia. However, you are surprised that it gets deleted. The information you add may or may not be credible, but that's not important. Even if the additions you add were "favorable" towards the article, I would still would have reported you due to your conduct. Let me emphasis that the issue is the WAY you add the information and the tenacious editing that follows. You add the information first, then you go to the TP and say "lets discuss it". Then before any sort of consensus is reached at the TP, you continue to edit-war over the very same information that you seek to gain consensus for without actually gaining the consensus in the first place. Clearly, you are not being genuine in your intentions when it comes to open discussion and this has already led to your 24 hour ban and now your newly imposed 2 week ban. Your edit summaries are also a big issue. Using caps lock makes you sound like a bully and that is never good. Proudbolsahye (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked what is controversial about the 2 information I added. It is an official report of British government and totally relevant to article. Of course, I will add this information to article, then as it was removed, I went to individual TPs of users and opened a topic on article's TP. But none of the users, even yourself in this explanation here, didn't give any justifiable reason why it was controversial. The reasons given while removing the information I entered, was variable, such as horrible English, excessive material, no reason at all etc. So I have made all efforts to come to common sense and reason. But others, including yourself, have removed the information (which is again official documents and facts) without further explanation. So how come I can make consensus if others removing the content without any explanation. Consensus means parties explains their reasons and come to common sense. Please check your talk page. Apologize about Caps lock. Malizengin (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about whether your additions are reliable, official, notable and etc. This is about the way you have added those additions in the first place. You claim that no one appeared at the TP of Armenian Genocide to discuss the additions. Meanwhile, you added the information before you even went to the TP. Even when disagreements in the article became apparent, you still edit-warred over them. You did not give even a second to have anybody disagree with you at the TP nor while editing over the article. But besides the point, this isn't about your additions per se, it is about your conduct. If you were to use "common sense and reason" as you claim to have used, you would've directly gone to the TP and not have reverted after your block was over.

And regarding the grammar...

There is something called minor edit on wikipedia, for correction of grammar mistakes. If your point was to correct grammar mistakes, anybody could have just corrected these mistakes. About my conduct, I have entered more reliable information than some of the other information on this article. There are many references to websites which are open to speculation and not reliable as the reports I have entered.

I believe there was a consensus in place, if the references to webpages and reports and books of people who were not in the area during the Armenian Genocide and with no reliable reference have a place on this article, a report which was written by British diplomats who were in the area in person has more rightful place in this article. But some users constantly removed these content with some subjective view as no reason yet has been given. Malizengin (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed the contents again your comment is "hese additions shall be removed until a consensus has been reached at the TP. Simple as that.". So what is the next step to reach to consensus ? or is it just you remove some contents with no justification and keep quiet so no consensus can be reached and the information is never show up on the article ? It doesn't sound right at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=556557130&oldid=556547154 Malizengin (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mustafa Sarıgül, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SHP (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) 09:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

I have had to revert your edit today adding Turkey to the list of countries which designate ISIS as a terrorist group, as I could find no reference to this in your citation. The designation of a country as a terrorist organization is a formal government ruling, and when a government does this it adds the name of the group to an official list. Can you provide a list like this from the Turkish government or any other citation that shows the Turkish government has made such a designation? A source simply reporting that the Turkish government call them terrorists would not be enough, I'm afraid. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you provide a citation in English to add to the new citation you have given for your edit, please? --P123ct1 (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English citation provided from different source. Turkish government doesn't publicize the subject list but foreign minister & prime minister of Turkey stated that ISIS was officially designated as terrorist organization by 30th September 2013, the decision was taken during ministers meeting held that day. Malizengin (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, but can you provide a citation in English, please? --P123ct1 (talk) 06:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as well for your efforts on providing clear and reliable information. I have edited the article on Wikipedia with English citation referencing the English daily published in Turkey. The link for your reference as follows, http://www.dailysabah.com/columns/hilal_kaplan/2014/09/03/charging-turkey-for-isis Malizengin (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! That is a good source. --P123ct1 (talk) 07:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]