User talk:Bogazicili

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: climate change Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed the Arab–Israeli conflict the Balkans or Eastern Europe articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles They should not be given alerts for those areas.

Welcome to Wikipedia, Bogazicili! Thank you for your contributions. I am Visioncurve and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• The Teahouse, our help forum for new users
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 07:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Climate change for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Femkemilene, I can come back to it end of December hopefully. Bogazicili (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great! What I really hope to get is a broader discussion (more knowledgeable people) about aspects you have brought up. These are difficult questions. I never quite know where my personal biases lie, and whether I'm overcompensating or undercompensating for biases I think I have. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Femkemilene, thanks for the amount of time you put into the article. I'm getting a bit more free time soon hopefully, so I can pitch in. I'll have to review the FA criteria etc first but then can contribute. Bogazicili (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting. I keep on saying it may be frustrating that things go slow, and that we're constantly in dialogue instead of in a conservation with a larger group. The latter is convenient for consensus building. Do know that a lot of people, like you, are passionate about that 'drivers' section, and that many conversations have been put into it. Going gradual is then the best way to consende it. A quick tip to convince more people to participate in our discussions: bolding of text on Wikipedia can come over as WP:SHOUTING; try putting emphasis with italics instead. People might not want to participate in discussions that seem to overflow with friction. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned length of those sections, since you have been making the argument that the article is too long ever since I started editing. I made a post about it in Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_criteria#What_is_the_recommended_article_length?. Barack Obama, an FA, is more than 15k words for example. So there might not be a need to condense too much. But the current ratio is definitely wrong, so parts about effects on Humans need to be expanded. All caps are shouting on internet, my bolding is just to highlight main issues when the text is longer. It says so in the link you quoted as well. Bogazicili (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Global Warming and Climate Change Barnstar
		For your quick learning and your contributions to climate change. While we often disagree, I would like to express my gratitude for all the effort you put in the article. It's definitely better because of you. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Femkemilene, thank you, I really appreciate it! I also have to admit you beat me to it. I was thinking of doing the same to you, after the FAR process lol. Yes, we disagree sometimes, but I also can see you are really dedicated and knowledgeable. You have made great contributions to climate change related articles! Bogazicili (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also realize how bad some of my earlier work was, such as putting just links into references. Thanks for the patience lol! Bogazicili (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's how we all start :). I'm sure if I go back to my first edits on the Dutch wikipedia, they are really similar. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bogazicili!

My name is Daniel, and I’m a senior at Harvard University currently writing an undergraduate thesis about Wikipedia. I’m particularly interested in how the Wikipedia community decides what facts are relevant and/or notable enough to warrant inclusion on a particular article — especially in regards to articles on contentious topics.

I noticed that you’ve been quite active editing the “Climate change” article over the past few months. So, would you mind if I send you a few questions (via email or right here) about your work editing that article, and the approach that you take? I’d really love to hear from you.

Thanks so much! --Dalorleon (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dalorleon! Feel free to email me your questions, I think you should be able to do that from my user page here.

But it's usually in Wikipedia rules: Wikipedia:Five_pillars. You might want to check especially Wikipedia:Reliable_sources and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources. So the short answer to your questions is that we look at secondary sources, especially for an article like Climate Change. Bogazicili (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bogazicili!

Thanks so much for agreeing to speak with me. Unfortunately, I'm not sure where to see your email, so I've posted my questions below; let me know if you need me to clarify any of them. If you'd prefer to respond via email, you can contact me at danielleonard@college.harvard.edu.

1) How long have you been editing Wikipedia? And how long have you been an active editor of the “Climate change” Wikipedia article?

2) When adding content to the “Climate change” Wikipedia article, how do you decide what facts are relevant / notable enough to warrant inclusion?

3) When removing content from the “Climate change” Wikipedia article, how do you decide what facts are irrelevant / non-notable enough to warrant deletion?

4) Are there any particular Wikipedia policy / guidelines pages that you rely on to guide your editing? (Like “Wikipedia:Editing policy,” “Wikipedia:Writing better articles,” etc.)

5) Do you feel that Wikipedia’s “official” editing guidelines are helpful, or do you generally ignore them? If you prefer forging your own path, do you feel that Wikipedia offers you that flexibility?

6) Has adding or deleting content from the “Climate change” Wikipedia article ever brought you into conflict with another Wikipedian? If so, how were those disputes resolved?

7) Do you identify more as an inclusionist, a deletionist, or neither / something else?

Thanks again for agreeing to help my research! Feel free to weigh in on anything I didn’t specifically ask in regards to your editing practices. I’m primarily curious to learn about what factors you consider when deciding what content ought to be added / removed from Wikipedia articles.

Finally, if I do include your responses in my thesis, would you prefer to remain completely anonymous, or can I include your username? I really appreciate it! --Dalorleon (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dalorleon, whats your email? I can send you the answers there if it's easier. Bogazicili (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Bogazicili! My email is danielleonard@college.harvard.edu --Dalorleon (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Bogazicili! If you get the chance, I'd love to hear your responses to the questions above! I'm really curious about your insights. --Dalorleon (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dalorleon. Sorry for the delay, sent you an email! Bogazicili (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

İngilizce Wikipedia'nın iyice etkin etnik propagandasına dönüştüğü şu günlerde senin gibi iki üç cidden doğru bilgi için uğraşan insanı görmek beni mutlu etti, giderayak bir baklava vermek istedim.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarik289 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teşekkürler, hala kaynak buldukça da atabilirsin talk page'lere :) İstersen Wikipedia kuralları tekrar oku, bloklanmaya itiraz et? Bogazicili (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] bunlar hobi kaynakları ama, güvenilir (Wikipedia:Reliable sources) değil. Bunların blog olmayan alternatif haynakları var mı? Yoksa silinmesi lazim. Silinse bile ama doğruysa ilerde biri mutlaka yayınlar, yani 5-10 sene geçse bile, bence merak etme yani. Bogazicili (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Azerbaijanis and Origin of the Azerbaijanis in the past couple of months. It's great to have someone who is actually knowledgable on these topics on Wikipedia!

— CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CuriousGolden, thanks for the encouragement! Still lots of inaccurate statements and poor sources though, in addition to Wikipedia:Manual of Style issues like giant quotes. There also seems to be few people with genuine interest, glad you are sticking around too! Bogazicili (talk) 10:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed a lot of issues with the article. I definitely plan on trying my hand at fixing MOS issues in the future in a possible attempt at nominating the article for GA, so your help with the sourcing and statements is a great help! — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

First national architectural movement

added a link pointing to Sultanahmet

Ottoman architecture

added a link pointing to Sultanahmet

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainable_energy&oldid=prev&diff=1015699849

As I mentioned in my edit, I did not see that information in the sources provided. Can you please specify where the source says pollution is concentrated in urban areas?

Efbrazil, because the study I added was taken out (not by you), I guess it was a mistake [2]. I re-added it [3]. It's in this one [4] Bogazicili (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bogazicili,

I see you have been improving climate change articles a lot. After I have updated it with the 2019 statistics which are due out this month I hope to have another attempt at getting the Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey English article featured. I wonder if you would be interested in getting the tr:Türkiye’de sera gazı emisyonu Turkish article to be good.

I think if we worked together there would be synergy, for example as I have already made graphs with both languages I will easily be able to add the new numbers and it should be straightforward for you as a native speaker to explain them in the Turkish text. And I would benefit from your help with finding and evaluating Turkish sources.

I realise that non-English speaking Turks can use Google Translate on the English article, but I hope you agree that a well-written Turkish article would better help Turks who are interested in finding out the background to items in the news, such as the upcoming climate summits to be attended by world leaders or how an EU carbon tariff might affect their business. With my limited Turkish I cannot achieve anything on Turkish Wikipedia without the help of native speakers. And I have not managed to interest any in the article yet. Would you have the time and interest to work in parallel? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chidgk1, thanks for the message. I think you can request it here [5], I'm mostly trying to improve the articles here. Bogazicili (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah thanks I did not know that translation group - I had only asked the "Çevre" project before with no result - now I have asked that group. As you say you prefer to concentrate on English Wikipedia would you be able to do a "source review" on the Turkish language sources for the English article? As I have only used fifteen Turkish language sources and you are a native speaker I guess it would not take too long? Whereas when I put it in as a FAC the other reviewers would find that very difficult I expect. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chidgk1, I don't really want to make a promise or a commitment. For English Wikipedia, there are higher priority articles for both Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change (eg: Sustainable energy) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Turkey. Most Turkey-related articles are actually in extremely poor shape. Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey is actually a GA, which is far better than most Turkey-related articles. But still appreciate your commitment. Maybe put the sources that needs to be reviewed in article talk page and notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Turkey? I can contribute as well when I have the time. Bogazicili (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK I asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Turkey#Are_these_reliable_sources?. By the way you are doing a great job but if you ever want to come home we need you Mr Birol! Chidgk1 (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Birol? Is that a meme? Bogazicili (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was supposed to be a jocular compliment by comparing you to Fatih Birol in that he is also promoting sustainable energy. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh lol didn't know who he was. Bogazicili (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya :). Would you mind closing your RfC now that it's run its course (just remove the top template)? That keeps Wikipedia:WikiProject_Climate_change#Article_alerts nice and clean.

Also, in terms of fairness, I'm posting the discretionary sanction notice here. You may have seen the warning Efbrazil got. Let's all move on from that with more of a [insert stereotypical polite and nice country adjective] attitude, recognizing how much effort we all put into Wikipedia. To stop getting these (slightly too aggressive) notices, you can put a template on your talk page like me. Thanks! {{Ds/talk notice|cc|long}}FemkeMilene (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'd say that was a pretty successful RFC that reached a consensus. I hadn't closed it as I prefer 3rd parties doing it, since I am the one that started it. But since there was agreement and no other comments after Dtetta's edits, I guess it's fine. For CC articles, discretionary sanctions are obvious as there is a warning when you are editing the page, but I still put the template you suggested, thanks! Bogazicili (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, some nitpicking about sourcing.

• IEA is the author, not IEA renewables (the short-cite has the author)
• If you cite the report, please provide a page number. If you wanted to cite the website summary of the report, please use 'cite web' instead
• Are three sources necessary in climate change for that sentence? For uncontroversial statements, a max of two HQRS should do to ease verification.

Thanks! FemkeMilene (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that's not the standard in the article eg: REN21 2020 for this [6]. It also just the id for linking purposes by the way, the author field in the actual sourcing information is correct. This is what it looks like in the actual source:

"IEA (2020). Renewables 2020 Analysis and forecast to 2025 (Report). Retrieved 27 April 2021"

Ok to the other 2. Bogazicili (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

REN21 is the author, FN218 is correct... Or did you mean a different short-cite? The short-cite is part of the citation, and should also conform to the standards (having the author(s) + year). In this case, I think it's even a Wikipedia-wide standard. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nah that was just a random one I saw few sentences up, seems like it's correct. You might want to check short-cite 233 though. The thing is there are 2 IEA sources from 2020. That's why I set the harv id to IEA Renewable as opposed to something like IEA_A or IEA_B. Bogazicili (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IEAa and IEAb are the correct way to deal with that, see Template:Harvard_citation_no_brackets#More_than_one_work_in_a_year :). I'll have a look at short-cite 233. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lol that's against my computer science background, the code should be more easily readable. But thanks for looking into it, will change it :) Bogazicili (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's a pain, and one of the reasons I don't like working with FAs that much (I should really refocus into more GAs). Thanks! FemkeMilene (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll fix the other one since it's related to the one I'm doing btw. Bogazicili (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Femkemilene, FYI, looks like we made a mistake, a and b should be after year, not author. Bogazicili (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah of course FemkeMilene (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i suggest you read WP:BURDEN, might be useful in the future. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I responded in your talk page, will also move the discussion into article talk page. Bogazicili (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikaviani, I see you reverted my edit in your talk page [7]. FYI, that was also an arbitration discretionary sanctions notice. Bogazicili (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first link you posted was not even a revert, i just reworded your sentence, please check carefully what people do instead of throwing baseless accusations around, the second one is warranted by WP:BURDEN, i really don't see how my "reverts do not make sense" ...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikaviani, yup, I should have said edits/reverts and I corrected that in the talk page. However, you engaged in similar behaviour in Azerbaijanis, explained here Talk:Azerbaijanis#Massive_revert [8]. And again the part you reworded in the article mentioned Azerbaijan. Bogazicili (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikaviani, also mentioned this in article talk page: Talk:Genetic_studies_on_Turkish_people#Recent_edits/reverts Bogazicili (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"you engaged in similar behaviour in Azerbaijanis, explained here Talk:Azerbaijanis#Massive_revert [9]." : Sorry, i did not know that you were the owner of that article in such a way that any single revert made by another user seems unacceptable to you ...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not the owner. If you find other reliable secondary sources, feel free to add please. Bogazicili (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you seem to ignore that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, but consensus does.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming you, as a single editor, represent consensus? Bogazicili (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, consensus means ... consensus, and editing the article like you did while you are the only editor that wants to make that edit and while another editor disagrees with you, means that you don't have achieved any consensus.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to disagree, you need to provide an adequate rationale and backing. If you claim UNDUE, please find other secondary sources. I explained more in article talk page. Bogazicili (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i disagree with the addition of content that is not explicitly supported by reliable sources and giving an undue weight to a single source, nothing less, noting more, i don't need any source for that since Wiki policies say that.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) I asked for conflicting reliable secondary source (or any other reliable secondary source really). You didn't provide any.

2) I asked if there were any whole-genome wide studies for Azerbaijan, since that was what my edit was saying. You didn't provide any.

Anyway, at this point we are stuck, we'll proceed with dispute resolution. Bogazicili (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Azerbaijanis article contains numerous genetic studies while your source says the opposite, that's my point.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I'm also copy pasting my response in article talk page: "Plus if you mean genetics section in Azerbaijanis, the only secondary source there is the one I added. Again, Wikipedia should be based mainly on secondary sources, see: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. Before we proceed to dispute resolution, is there any other secondary source you would like to present?" Bogazicili (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You got me wrong, i never said that wikipedia can be used as a source for wikipedia, i said that the Azerbaijanis article contains numerous genetic sutudies about that topic while your source claims otherwise.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikaviani, again those are primary sources, and some are still misrepresented, I didn't have time to fix. Can you also confirm you reverted this whole thing [10] because what you objected to about Azerbaijan? Bogazicili (talk) 09:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bogazicili, pursuant to the Resolving user conduct disputes section of the WP dispute Resolution page, I’m taking this initial step of asking you to stop posting comments that imply improper conduct on my part. These make it much more unpleasant for me to work to create edits to improve the page, and also take up an extensive amount of time to refute your allegations. A couple of examples:

On April 14 you made the following comment in the Request for comment: mention of Carbon dioxide removal in Climate_change#Mitigation section topic:

“I believe only one editor (Efbrazil) supported your edits (and they always seem to support your edits) while Femkemilene said they didn't have any strong opinions [12]. So you decided to go with the change anyway, ignoring the points I raised [13]. So, as I said,[14] I took a break and then came back, and started this RfC to get more input”

As I indicated in my reply, this was a misrepresentation of a previous discussion that implied ill intent on my part. Although Femke did appear to vary in her support of the edit, and did not have a strong opinion, her final post she clearly says: “I think the placement and prose of dtetta's proposal is marginally better.” That is why I stated that “Efbrazil and Femke are ok with this proposed edit” in my March 5 post on the Proposed changes in how carbon dioxide removal is described discussion.

In that same post, your statement about “ignoring the points I raised” was also a misrepresentation of the facts and implied behavior on my part that was not true. As I said in my reply: "I spent several exchanges with you, including discussions on March 4 and March 5, attempting to address your concerns, describing why I disagreed with various aspects of your position, and mentioning where I supported some of your ideas.”

On April 6 you posted in the Arbitrary Break 2 topic: “Please do not make up stuff that the sources do not say.” In my April 9 response I gave you several examples to show you where my proposed statement was supported by text from the reference.

Again, please refrain from making these types of comments. The statement the top of the talk page: “Assume good faith; Be polite and avoid personal attacks.” is good for all of us to follow.

Hi Dtetta. I agree some of the things I said were unnecessary and not polite, so I'm sorry for those. I also agree that we should all assume good faith and be more polite, including myself. So, yes, I'll be more careful about my comments in the future.

As I said several times before, I was disappointed you saw my RFC suggestion as a threat [11]. I think both RFC's improved the article ([12] [13]). So some of our interaction goes back to that. I also explained why I reverted your edit and why I thought it was a misrepresentation of the sources. [14] [15] [16]

But, at the last RFC we were able to reach a consensus. I know you put a lot of work into Climate Change article so I do not want to make that an unpleasant experience. I know I got passionate at times but making things unpleasant for you was not my aim. Once again, sorry for that, and hopefully we can move on with no hard feelings. Bogazicili (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look at the recent genetic edits about Turkish Cypriots. Another POV pushing with unverifiable and unreliable sources. Beshogur (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They were using eupedia.com. If you have time, you can direct this editor to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources and report further disruption to admins, or direct them to dispute resolution. Bogazicili (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[17] Thanks in advance. Beshogur (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry, I've been away from Wiki, does it still need to be verified? Bogazicili (talk) 09:51, 4 July 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 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (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 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You have not given an explanation to why you reverted my edit at Turkey. Thank you. Youprayteas (t • c) 11:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had left a talk page message and pinged you here [18]. Bogazicili (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I understand. I removed the genocide part not because I deny it but because it is unnecesarry information for the lead. I am unsure how to do a RfC, may you help? Youprayteas (t • c) 16:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you wait a week or 2 before we finalize the lead? And here's the link: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Creating_an_RfC Bogazicili (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We? Who? May I help? Youprayteas (t • c) 17:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had meant myself and any other editor improving/helping. For more information, you can refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Thanks Bogazicili (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Turkish philosophy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

These two pages should be seperate. Turkish philosophy should be an article of its own

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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. Benlittlewiki (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

^ Just something I am apparently supposed to do, now that we are going this route with the Climate change article. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that of all the dispute resolution venues, this one is the least functional. Usually a WP:third opinion on short and targeted questions works best. I'm mostly disengaged as I do not have the energy to read long stretches of text with my long covid brain fog. If you want to avoid a dialogue between the two of you, please write less verbosely; I'm sure more people will engage that way. An WP:RfC is the second-best option. For that to work, it's important that both of you give space to others to chip in, and not dominate the discussion. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

InformationToKnowledge, thanks I'll respond in the noticeboard. Femke, I normally prefer RfC too but this issue was a bit complicated and long with different sources, so not sure if it can be simplified enough for RfC. I'll still make a kinda summary in the talk page. Bogazicili (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Femke, here are the latest suggestions: Talk:Climate_change#Latest_suggestions. Also note that InformationToKnowledge wants to use primary sources. Bogazicili (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you and I2K: .

I'm impressed by your civilised discussion. It exceeds my expectations. Uwappa (talk) 10:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, thanks, what were you expecting though? Bogazicili (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, I was expecting that the fierce debate would just continue at the notice board with the volunteer getting totally lost in details. But no, that did not happen. So far so good! Uwappa (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the noticeboard is more structured, we'll see how it goes. Bogazicili (talk) 05:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes, and I hope it can serve as an example for how to solve future discussions. Uwappa (talk) 05:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Core Contest has now begun! Evaluate your article's current state, gather sources, and have at it! You have until May 31 (23:59 UTC) to make eligible changes; although you are most welcome (and encouraged) to continue work on the article, changes after May 31 will not be considered for rankings and their prizes. Good luck and happy editing! Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

I just thought that it gave a good sample of how Turks look like, with both men and women. Shoshin000 (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You also seem to use weird and non-WP:RS sources like YouTube and promacedonia.org [19] Bogazicili (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I copypasted the reference from the Thessaloniki article, where it had been since 2007 or something. Shoshin000 (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Core Contest participants, we've officially hit the halfway mark! With just over three weeks remaining until the May 31 deadline (23:59 UTC), it's time to ramp up our efforts. Remember, Wikipedia wants to be edited!

Now is a good time to set goals for your article: What section needs the most improvement? Which sources remain unused? How can you best spend your time? Good luck and happy editing! Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Hi there, could you walk me through your reasoning for reverting more in-depth? I would like to know your thoughts. KREOH (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I believe IHDI is useful, but I found your "maximum" and "real" notes a bit too simplistic and not immediately supported by the sources cited in the infobox. IHDI is a statistical adjustment. It will have limitations, just like HDI has limitations. Those should be explained at length in their own articles, not by "maximum" and "real" notes in the infobox. [20] Just say HDI and IHDI instead of "maximum" and "real" Bogazicili (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is simplistic on purpose, as it is an infobox and there is no room for maneuver. HDI and IHDI left as is are too technical for most people and explain little on their own. Just like how people have difficulty with PPP, nominal and real GDP even with sources explaining. I am trying to be as efficient so that even people that only know GDP can have a better grasp as fast as possible. KREOH (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The most efficient would be saying HDI and IHDI, so people can click on those links to learn more. Bogazicili (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Glad you appreciate the significance of the indicators. KREOH (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you restart the climate change RFC? It was correctly stopped automatically by the bot. What do you mean by it wasn't properly closed? Please answer on my talk page (not on this talk page). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answered [21] Bogazicili (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Core Contest has now ended! Thank you for your interest and efforts. Make sure that you include both a "start" and "improvement diff" on the entries page. The judges will begin delibertaing shortly and annouce the winners within the next few weeks. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24. – Aza24 (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

I see the article history; you made changes to the map description after the map was wrongly changed by this user [22] despite the RfC NOT having consensus for the map change, the RfC isn’t even formally closed. I had restored the stable map version and in the process of restoring, there were 2 sources removed in my earlier edit. If you had a problem with the sources, you should’ve just re-added the sources and not did a blank revert because again, there is no consensus in the RfC for a map change and you should now that since you particiated in it. I’ve now restored the stable map without removing sources; any edits to the map when the RfC has no consensus for a change and isn’t formally closed yet would be violations of rules. Vanezi (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier for you to just change the map. You are making other changes. Bogazicili (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I changed the map, and started a topic in the talk page and in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard Bogazicili (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite already being told multiple times to stop commenting on others, you just carry on. Yesterday you claimed I am "confused", today that I "don't understand", and so on. NPA applies to you as well. Even if you would be correct that I don’t understand, making that comment still violates NPA. Comment on content, not on other users. It is also the fourth time you fail to understand what I write, and then write a comment based on your own misunderstanding. If your English skills are not good enough, there's nothing wrong in that, but then English Wikipedia might not be the right wiki to edit. If you're intentionally misrepresenting my posts (and after four cases in less than a week, I start to wonder) that is further abuse of NPA. Jeppiz (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out and your comments about my English. My IELTS results were pretty good actually.

Can you give diffs of these personal attacks please?

If you consider not understanding a personal attack, you have said exact same thing to me: you either fail to understand my point (which I assume is the case, assuming good faith) or intentionally misrepresent it [23]. "fail to understand" is a stronger wording than what I said. Accusing me of "intentionally misrepresent" ing could be considered WP:Aspersions. Prior to that, I had just said you might be confused about my proposal or WP:OR. [24] in response to your but you are suggesting brazen WP:OR violations comment [25]. There is no OR in my proposed wording.

I specifically asked Do you think Wikipedia should settle on one definition of "indigenous"? [26] and you have have confirmed this yourself: and yes, I think Wikipedia should coherent in how we use concepts and terminology. [27] Using one definition in text would be ignoring sources in the article, when there are multiple definitions per reliable sources. Can you tell me how this misrepresents your position?

In any case, I think we should focus on content in the article talk page. Bogazicili (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merhaba Bogaziçili,

Ben Türkiye sayfasını son 10 yıldır, 20 farklı dilde düzenliyorum. Son 1 yılda daha az aktif olsam da yıllar içerisinde pek çok anlamda sayfayı düzenledim ve en çok editleyen yazarlardan birisiyim. Bu sayfada bir fotoğraf eklerken genelde pek çok kriteri göz önünde bulunduruyorum.

Son bir kaç ayda pek çok değişiklik oldu sayfada ancak bunların çoğu eskisiden daha zayıf. Eğer istersen bazı kriterleri seninle paylaşabilirim. Bu yaptığım değişiklerin daha iyi olduğunu düşünüyorum. Tartışmak istersen sevinirim. Metuboy (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merhaba Metuboy. Ben bu sayfayı editlemeye başlamadan önce açıkçası kalitesi çok düşüktü. Aşırı uzunluk, düşük kalite kaynak kullanma, önemli olayları atlama, vs gibi bir sürü sorunu vardı. Bir çok bilgi eskimişti. Şubattan beri Turkey'i Good article yapmaya uğraşıyorum. İlerde de Featured Article için çalışacağım. Önemli olan bu tarz Wikipedia kriterleri. Kişisel kriterler değil.

Fotoğraflara gelince, ben editlemeye başlamadan önce resimlerin çoğu İstanbul'dandı. Türkiye'de İstanbul dışında şehir yok mu? Hep İstanbul'dan foto eklemek hem saçma hem de MOS:IMAGES'e uymuyor. Daha fazla çeşitlilik olması lazım.

MOS:IMAGES: Strive for variety. For example, in an article with numerous images of persons (e.g. Running), seek to depict a variety of ages, genders, and ethnicities. If an article on a military officer already shows its subject in uniform, then two more formal in-uniform portraits would add little interest or information, but a map of an important battle and an image of its aftermath would be more informative. Resist the temptation to overwhelm an article with images of marginal value simply because many images are available.

Şimdi sen gene bir sürü İstanbul fotoğrafı varken, gene Ankara fotoğrafını İstanbul'la değiştirmişsin [28]. Bir de Kartal'daki adalet sarayının yazıda yazanlarla ne alakası var? Biraz MOS:PERTINENCE'a da dikkat etmen lazım. Butterfly Valley, Fethiye fotosunu koyuyorsun ama yukarıda zaten Ölüdeniz var.

Senin kriterlerin nedir? Bogazicili (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sayfanın şu anki halini ideal bulmasam da aldığım zamandan kat kat daha ileri. Bu sayfaki ve benzeri İstanbul vs gibi sayfalarda kullanılan pek çok fotoğrafı da ben çektim. Eskiden bu yapıların wiki'de fotoğrafları bile yoktu. Pek çok fotoğrafın çözünürlüğü ise aşırı düşüktü. Sayfada tarih kısmına gelince pek çok farklı yapı ve pek çok farklı şehirden görsel var sadece İstanbula odaklanmadım. Ancak kültürel ve ekonomik olarak ülkenin büyük bir kısmını İstanbul oluşturduğu için buna ağırlık verilmesi çok doğal.

Sultan Ahmet Cami, Ortaköy Cami gibi mimari açıdan en iyi örnekler varken bunların kaldırılıp mimari anlamda hiç bir değeri olmayan başarısız bir Ottoman Revival örneği Camlıca Cami'ni koymak anlamsız geliyor bana.

Yine Hevsel Bahçelerine ait eklediğin fotoğraf dünyanın herhangi bir yerinden olabilecek bir fotoğraf. Buna benzer fotoğraflar asıl sınırlı sayıda görsel sunulacak iken kesinlikle kaçınılması gerekiyor diye düşünüyorum. Türkiye'nin farklı coğrafyalarından örnekler koymak ve çeşitliliği arttırmak anlamında sana katılıyorum. Ama realist olmak gerekirse Türkiye'de mimari anlamda İstanbul dışında fazla başarılı örnek yok. Pek çok mimari akıma ait örnekler sadece İstanbul'da bulunuyor diğer hiçbir şehirde bu örnekleri bulmak mümkün değil.

Kartal'daki adalet sarayı 'Law' ve Main Article: 'Justice System in Turkey' ile ilgili bir yapı. O metin'de dikkat edersen zaten Anayasa Mahkemesi de geçmiyor. Aynı derecede alakasız diyebiliriz diğer fotoğraf için de. Ama benim bu görseli diğerine tercih etme sebebim ise birinci olarak diğer fotoğrafın çözünürlüğünün fazla düşük olması. İkinci olarak da mimari olarak çok çirkin bir yapı olması. Kartal'daki adalet sarayı çok daha monumental ve ikonik bir yapı. Sadece estetik anlamda bakıyorum. İki fotoğraf'ta metin ile aynı derece yakın bana sorarsan. Ama estetik anlamda aralarında bir uçurum var. Bu yapıda aynı zamanda Institutional Power ve Architecture ilişkisi daha net görülüyor. Soft Power olarak da nitelendirebilir.

Bu article'ı Featured Article yapmak çok isterim. Emin ol kişisel kriterler değil asıl sorunum ama şuna da dikkat etmek gerek. Türkiye dünyada en çok ziyaret edilen 4. ülke aynı zamanda Wikipedia Türkiyenin en büyük reklam alanı. Bunu yaparken Türkiye'yi iyi tanıtmak ve başarılı görsellerle sunmak gerekli. Görseller daha az çekici olmamalı. Dikkat edersen Turizmde başarılı diğer ülkelere Fransa, İtalya gibi (Türkiye'den de başarılı turizm örnekleri) bu sayfalar da Featured Article kriterlerine sahip değil ancak tüm görselleri turizm'e ve ülke tanıtımına odaklı. Kanada ise FA kriterine sahip ve turizm anlamında sıfır etkileyici. Sayfa inanılmaz derece başarısız görsellerle dolu.

Türkiye turizm'de en hızılı büyüyen ülkelerden birisi ve Fransa gibi ülkeler 80 Milyar dolar gibi bir kazanç sağlıyor bundan. Ben bu sayfayı editlemeye başladığımda Türkiye bu listede 40. sıradaydı Şu anda ise 12. sırada. Dikkat edersen FA ile çok büyük bir korelasyon yok okunurluk oranında.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries/Popular_pages

Umarım wikipedia standartlarına yaklaşırken sana bahsettiğim bazı kriterleri de göz önünde bulundurursun. Ben de 10 yıl önce çok büyük bir istekle bu işe girdim ve seni çok iyi anlıyorum ama gerçekten o kadar çok kriter var ki artık bu sayfayı editlerken. Gerçekten bazılarını söylemek ve seninle tartışmak isterim. Eğer bir iletişim adresi verirsen severek bunu başka bir ortamda yapmayı tercih ederim. Email, Telegram vs. olabilir bu.

Eminim kriterler konusunda ortak bir noktada uzlaşabiliriz. Hem FA almak hem de benim bahsedeceğim kriterleri tutturmak mümkün.

Metuboy (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merhaba Metuboy. Herşeyden önce çektiğin ve Wikipedia'ya eklediğin fotolar için teşekkürler.

İkinci olarak, Wikipedia bir ansiklopedi. Burası bir tanıtım yeri veya turizm websitesi değil.

Pageview'lere gelince öncelikle bunun Türkiye'ye olan ilginin artmasından olduğunu düşünüyorum. Senin katkılarının da etkisi olmuş olabilir. Ama bakarsan en fazla pageview Şubat 2023'de olmuş [29]. Bunun nedeni depremden dolayı, önceki ay konan resimlerden değil. Ayrıca 2023 pageview'lerine bakarsan India ve Canada gibi Featured Article'lar daha yüksek [30].

Ama tabii ki de yüksek kaliteli fotoğraflar olması gerek. Bu iyi birşey.

Ben Şubatta editlemeye başladığımda aşırı İstanbul fotoğrafı vardı, doğudan hiç resim yoktu [31]. Mesela Architecture'da hepsi İstanbul'dandı. Senin dediğin "mimari akıma ait örnekler sadece İstanbul'da bulunuyor diğer hiçbir şehirde bu örnekleri bulmak mümkün değil" açıklamayı kabul etmiyorum açıkçası. Şu an 3 farklı şehirden ve 3 farklı farklı mimari stilden örnek var.

Sanırım mimari ile ilgilenen birisin ama Turkey makalesi Architecture of Turkey makalesi değil. Herşeye mimari açıdan bakamayız.

Resimlerin konuyla alakalı ve çeşitli olması lazım. Çeşitlilik farklı şehirler, farklı coğrafi bölgeler, farklı formatlar (sadece bina/mimari resmi değil, aynı zamanda insanlar, haritalar, grafikler vs), farklı mimari stiller gibi.

Fotoğraflara tek tek gelince:

• Çamlıcayi Şakirin Mosque yerine koydum. Sanırım onu kadın dizayn etti diye koymuşsun ama sadece iç dizaynı öyle. Çamlıcanın iki mimarı da kadın. Ayrıca 21. yydan örnek.
• Hevsel doğudan bir örnek. Başka daha iyi bir örnek varsa koyabilirsin. Ama 3 bin yıl tarihi var ve UNESCO listesinde.
• Koyduğun bu resim [32] Muğla'dan. Muğla bazen Ege Bölgesinde tamamen. Ayrıca resmin altında yazan Akdeniz plajlarıyla ilgili. Bu çok [33] daha büyük bir plaj gösteriyor
• Adalet sarayına gelince, zaten o bölgede çok fotoğraf var. Şunu [34] aşağıya indireceğim.

Bence de umarım fotoğraflar konusunda uzlaşırız. Bu arada makale hala 11.655 kelime. Bunun 10 binin altına inmesi lazım. Ondan sonra bir iki daha fotoğraf çıkarılacak şimdiden söyleyim. Bogazicili (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMF WEO October 2024'e göre Türkiye, dünya nominal GDP sıralamasında tekrar 17.'liğe yükseldi (Hollanda'yı geride bırakarak). Lütfen Türkiye (Turkey) makalesindeki infobox kısmında, giriş paragrafında ve sayfanın Economy bölümünde gerekli güncellemeyi yapmayı unutmayın. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.67.163.176 (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there how are you 77.77.219.127 (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings @Bogazicili

Hi, I am User:Bookku, On Wikipedia I engage in, finding information and knowledge gap areas in Wikipedia and promoting expansion of related drafts and articles. Recently you seem to have attempted to update article Turkey. (this info was ascertained from related changes)

Requesting your visit to Draft:Re-mosqueing of Hagia Sophia and help expand, if you find topic interesting.

Wish you very happy Wikipedia editing. Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 06:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bookku. Thanks for reaching out!

As you can see from my editor page, I'm more interested in Wikipedia:Vital articles. As you said, I'm currently focused on Turkey, which is a Level 3 article. My current focus is to bring this article to Wikipedia:Good article nominations Bogazicili (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the Turkey article, the GDP numbers in the infobox have been updated, but the ranks have not been updated. In terms of nominal GDP, Turkey currently ranks 17th according to the IMF WEO of October 2024. In the infobox, opening paragraph, and Economy section, the former ranking of 18th has to be replaced by 17th. Also, the GDP per capita and the GDP (PPP) per capita ranks in the infobox need to be updated. 178.247.129.108 (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You can also do a Wikipedia:Edit requests in Talk:Turkey Bogazicili (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey ranks 11th in the world in terms of GDP (PPP) with $3.457 trillion. Mexico ranks 12th with $3.303 trillion (both of these figures are according to the IMF WEO of October 2024). The figures for Mexico are available at this link. Please correct Turkey's ranking as 11th for GDP (PPP) in the infobox and within the opening paragraph and the Economy section of the Turkey article. Thank you. 31.143.53.110 (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italy is 11th with 3.598 trillion. Bogazicili (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]