Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) sayfasının geçmişine göz atmanızı rica ediyorum, yunanlılar sürekli olarak yanlı yazılarında ısrar etmekteler. Tüm kaynaklarımı sunmuş ve mümkün olduğunca (fazlaca) tarafsız olarak gerçekleri ortaya koymuş olmama rağmen sayfa sürekli saldırıya uğruyor, bir yerden sonra tek başıma yapabileceğim fazla birşey de kalmıyor. Zaman ayırıp yunanlıların ve destekçilerinin yanlı yazısının sayfadan kaldırılmasında yardımcı olabilirseniz çok sevinirim. Kertenkelebek^Ⓣ 10:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• apple.ie.admtmraahecj:LIVINTERROR::702tR7416139: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:183F:CD50:7408:61E1:9FB5:9A90 (talk) 07:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Filanca, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Bertilvidet 09:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed on the Turkish Wikipedia you moved Burgazada to Burgaz Adası, with the explanation, Diğer Prens Adalarının aksine, Burgaz, "ada" ismiyle birlikte yazılmamalı. Ayrıntılı açıklamayı tartışma sayfasında yapıyorum. I don't speak Turkish, so I'm not quite sure what you meant, but do you think the Burgazada article here should be moved as well? If so, why? Khoikhoi 21:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Other large islands in the Princes' Archipelago are consisted of one adverb plus name "ada" (island). Büyükada (Grand Island), Kınalıada (Island-dyed-with-henna), Heybeliada (Island-with-saddlebag). Burgaz is an exception, it is not an adverb so according to Turkish grammar it should not form a combined word like "Burgazada" (but it is a common mistake to do so). It should be written as Burgaz Adası, last "sı" meaning "of" like in "Island of Burgaz". Or, rather, like in French, you should write "Île d'If" not "Île If" nor "If Île", "de" is necessary as "sı" is necssary in Turkish. This is consistent with Murat Belge in his Istanbul Guide Book (İstanbul Gezi Rehberi).

I think the article could be moved to "Burgaz" or "Burgaz (Island)". In the English Wikipedia we should not name the article "Burgaz Adası" Filanca 21:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I think Burgaz Adası is fine, however. If we wanted to apply the "use English" rule to this island, shouldn't we do it for the rest? For example, we should move Büyükada to Büyük Island or something like that, I'm not sure. Also we have the page about Sedef at Sedef Adası.

Anyways, thanks again. Khoikhoi 00:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. By the way, Mustafa Akalp moved Kızıl River to Kızılırmak yesterday with an explanation on the talk page. I replied, and then moved the page back, because I'm pretty sure "Kızıl River" is the most common name in English. I don't think the average English speaker is going to care about the difference between "ırmak" and "nehir", and they're not going to know Turkish either. The point is that the Kızıl is a river, and therefore the most appropriate title is Kızıl River. What do you think? Khoikhoi 20:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my concern is this will confuse people who don't know Turkish into calling it the "Kızılırmak River", which is redundant (it's like calling Uzungöl - "Lake Uzungöl"). Khoikhoi 20:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would sound weird to a Turkish speaker, but I don't think it matters at all to the average English speaker. BTW, can you please explain to me the exact difference between "ırmak" and "nehri"? Thanks, Khoikhoi 20:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Khoikhoi 21:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take alook Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. regards Must^TC 20:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A new (and overdue) Greek and Turkish cooperation and notification board has been launched here. Stop by, have a look and sound off! Cheers! Baristarim 07:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VikiProje Türkiye'ye davet / Invitation to join WikiProject Turkey

Merhaba, sizin VikiProje Türkiye'ye katılabileceğinizi düşündük. Ayrıca yalnız başınıza ya da diğer kullanıcılarla birlikte Türkiye ile ilgili maddeleri düzenleyip geliştirebilirsiniz. Eğer projemize katılmak istiyorsanız lütfen katılımcılar sayfasını ziyaret edin ve adınızı yazın ya da projenin tartışma sayfasına tıklayın. Eğer herhangi bir sorunuz varsa benimle ya da bir başka VikiProje Türkiye üyesi ile bağlantı kurabilirsiniz. Hi, I was thinking that maybe you would like to join the WikiProject Turkey. There you can also find and contact users who are trying to improve Turkey-related articles. If you would like to get involved, just visit the participants page and/or inquire at the project's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other member of the WikiProject Turkey.

Cheers! Baristarim 13:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "other cities give alt names at start"... This is the first sentence of the Thessaloniki article:

"Thessaloniki (Greek: Θεσσαλονίκη, IPA: [θesaloˈniki]), Thessalonica, or Salonica is the second-largest city in Greece and the capital of Macedonia, the nation's largest region"...

I think it is clearer to do the same for Edirne. With regards to English, the English name for Edirne is 'Adrianople' (or more infrequently 'Hadrianopolis') - many English speakers who are probably more familiar with ancient history (e.g. Hadrian) than modern Turkey might only know it as such [e.g. Google books returns 4510, 2554 and 975 books for Adrianople, Edirne and Hadrianopolis respectively]. Therefore, considering this is the English language version of the article, the English (albeit somewhat 'old-fashioned'/traditional) names ought to be noted for clarity [without having to scroll down?], so that readers may easily know it is the same place, and learn about Edirne. I think this is consistent with the principles behind Wikipedia:Naming conventions, although I am no expert wikipedian. Pob1984 (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "'No. Ehglish name for modern city of Edirne is not "Adrianopole" or "Hadrianopolis". The city's English name, as is in all English Wikipedia articles, is written in the title of the article, ie, "Edirne". If you still claim the name of the city is not Edirne, you should try and change the name of the article. Besides, my objection was to indicating the Greek name in the beginning sentence, so your reply is irrelevant. What I said was, if we indicate Greek names to Turkish cities, we must also indicate Turkish names to Greek cities. For example, in Thessaloniki article, we must also indicate "Turkish: Selanik" in brackets right in the beginning sentece. Or else, we must delete "Greek Adrianòpolis, Αδριανουπολις" from Edirne article. Current situation is inconsistent.'"

Dear Filanca,

Of course, the name of the city that exists today is 'Edirne', and this should be reflected in the article title as the most important and relevant name for the contemporary city: but it stands that this is a Turkish name; the English name is Adrianople. Just as the English name for Wien is Vienna or Αθήνα is Athens or Warszawa is Warsaw. However, it is increasingly the case that modern English adopts/adapts to local usages (but remains very inconsistent in doing so e.g. Bombay to Mumbai but Kolkata remains Calcutta). For this reason, I think that the Article should remain as Edirne, I just respectfully disagree with your reasoning.

Furthermore, vis-à-vis your 'objection', I see your argument for reciprocity between Turkish and Greek equivalents of city names in English articles as more politically rather than academically persuasive. But is Wikipedia a place for such politicking, bearing in mind its NPOV ethos? It is important to note, emotions aside, that Edirne was a Greek city for a very long time, and its Romano-Greek origins are very notable in England, simply for the fact that Hadrian ruled over much of present-day Britain, and is a well known historical figure here (and built many structures that still exist here today e.g. Hadrian's wall). This is why Roman and Greek city names can be very important bits of information and should feature prominently where appropriate, in my opinion. Of course, I do not wish to diminish the importance of Turkish history, but I think the Greek names of Turkish cities that were established by Greeks and inhabited by Greeks for millenia could be more relevant to English wikipedia readers in identifying certain prominent places than citing the Turkish names for all of the non-Turkish cities that were once Ottoman territories such as Greece. IMHO, the Turkish names of cities outside of Turkey are very interesting and ought to feature in the History/Etymology of those cities' articles where relevant, but I doubt they would often be useful in identifying them to English speakers in most cases (except perhaps for Selânik as Ataturk's birthplace), and so wouldn't need to be at the beginning of those articles. That said, it might be more helpful to take every city/article into consideration on its own merits.

Regards, Pob1984 (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Filanca I saw that you added a new Turkish name (actually a translation of the Italian one) for Meis. Where did it come from? I am spending my vacation in Kas since 7 years, I know there a lot of Turks, and everybody call the island just Meis. Can you please give the source of it? Regards, Alex2006 (talk) 05:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you'll be interested in the discussion on page Talk:Tenedos Happy editting. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Filanca. Could you control Talk:Crimean Tatars ? I detected attempts to de-neutralize of several sides. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop writing that L-3 document is rejected during Nürnberg Trial. This is really way too much wrong in all aspects. Ali55te (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reading through the discussion, what is clear is that the old name is still in regular use. While there is a drift to the proposed name, it is far from clear that this has become the common name. The point that the current name is still in widespread use is a strong argument to not change. So based on all of the comments it is clear that consensus did not exist to move this. When a change is proposed, the burden of providing proof that there is a consensus to move is on the proponents. In this case, my opinion is that they failed to do so. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Honestly, I can not see how the popularity of such a name could be proved except from how the person who proposed this name change has done. He demonstrated another name was more than two times more common by using a google books search.Filanca (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

On my last edit I wrote that only L-3 document contains the Armenian quote and I added the reference to documents 1014-PS, 789-Ps. You somehow read that wrongly and reverted the edit so now it writes that 3 documents include the armenian quote and you removed all the references to the 1014 and 789. Just read my last edit carefully and try to recover that part. I said 3 documents include the Hitler's speech on that day not the Armenian quote. Ali55te (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This was an inadvertent mistake of mine. Sorry. It seems you have already corrected the damage and I'll check the article thoroughly when I have time, in order not to leave anything missing. Meanwhile I saw that you moved the information about the source of the article from its dedicated section to discussions section. Since most of the discussions center on the source, I suggest to have a dedicated section for the source - what is it, where it was found, who found it, etc. apart from the section about discussions. Filanca (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that you add a sentence to the origin of the document with referencing Arnold Reisman, but he is not a historian and he is not recognized as a genocide scholar. If his sentences can be written as a fact like that than the we can clearly write that the quote is from the Hitler's speech with referencing the genocide scholars. I think you should move that statement to the contesting interpretations and change the title of the subsection to Origin of the document according to Louis P. Lochner 23:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali55te (talk • contribs)

Let me have a look, which sentence exactly you are speaking about? Filanca (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selam, Filanca. O maddedeki User:Ali55te'nin katkılarını silebilir misiniz ? Belki de faydalı bilgileri de eklemiş olabilir. Fakat biraz acımasızca temizlememiz gerekir ki, kukla olarak tekrar girip propaganda yapmasına izin verileceğini sanmasın. Takabeg (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I've noticed you've embarked on an editing campaign to try polish Turkey's image as much as possible [1], while simultaneously trying to tarnish that of Greece as much as possible [2]. This is called POV-pushing. It is also called hypocrisy. I find this odious, and will not accept it. As you say on your user page, ""His edits, not his user page, speak for a user.", so I wonder, what do your edits say about you? I have reverted you in Minorities in Greece per WP:UNDUE. Each section of an article should be proportional to the others, i.e. the Turkish section shouldn't be three times longer than others, nor should it list every stone thrown and every single broken gravestone. Now, if you plan to continue with this game, I should tell you that it can't end well, for everyone involved, but you especially. See, because Turkey has treated its minorities far worse than Greece has, if this process is continued, it is obvious who will end up looking worse. But if you insist on playing this game, there are plenty of users out there who would be happy to play it too, and they play very well. Athenean (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Greeks in Turkey article, you may find this sentence: "A later outrage was the vandalism of the Greek cemetery on Imbros on October 29, 2010". If this event is worth mentioning in Wikipedia it is worth mentioning for the Turkish minority in Greece, too. In fact the attacks are probably linked, too, if you follow the news. Therefore my edits were meant to complete this series of events in to achieve neutrality. Minorities in Greece is also problematic in terms of how its headings organized: Turkish minority in Greece are not a "religious" minority, it is an ethnic minority like Greeks in Turkey or Albanians in Greece. The rest of your comments are completely missing the point: Wikipedia is not the place where we are discussing if Greeks or Turks treated minorities worse or a make nation look better or worse than another. As long as the encyclopedia is developed with correct information we are on the right track. About WP:UNDUE, it is meant to balance viewpoints, I do not think it is a reason to delete encyclopedic information with references. I suggest to speak about the article in its talk page, not here. Your personal comments about me belong nowhere. About users "playing games very well" in Wikipedia, will you tell us their names? Filanca (talk) 09:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most horrible thing is the sentence that Takebag wrote on top of Athenean's paragraph. It seems like he wrote the sentence in Turkish so that administrators will not understand it. Ali55te (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Alite55: Which sentence is horrible for you ? My neutral approach can always be "horrible" for ethnocentric editors and propaganda-oriented editors. Takabeg (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This [3] is not "achieving neutrality". Rather, it is the exact opposite. One sentence in Greeks in Turkey about a desecrated cemetery, and you retaliate with a wall of text? No way. You also added the same information in Minorities in Greece, even though it is beyond the scope of the article. Out of the question. Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory of "atrocities" by evil Greeks against innocent Turks. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and additions such as that are not encyclopedic. An encyclopedia article is not meant to read "In August 2010 Greeks did this, In January 2011 they did that..". You may also want to brush up on the definition of the word "atrocity". Desecrating cemeteries, as bad as it is, is not an atrocity. This, this, and this on the other hand, are atrocities. As for the Turks of Western Thrace, they are listed under the Religious Minorities section, because that is how they are recognized in the Treaty of Lausanne, and because of that, in the literature as well. I'm not going to have any Gökalpian POV in the article. The ethnic and linguistic minorities (Arvanites, Aromanians) aren't minorities anyway, they are communities, because they identify as Greeks and do not consider themselves minorities. The Turks of Western Thrace obviously don't. So you can't put them in the same category. By the way, I don't give out names, and who is "we", anyway? Why do you want "their names", and who do you think you are to ask for "names"? Athenean (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You (we) had better Talk:Minorities in Greece, Talk:Greeks in Turkey etc. If Filanca wants, these message can be removed. Takabeg (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already have. I don't care if he removes them, my message will get across anyway. Athenean (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Athanean, you said you knew users who play in Wikipedia, that implies that they are editing Wikipedia in improper ways, in which case they may need to be warned. That is why I asked you to provide us (ie, the users of Wikipedia) their names. Asking this is not an issue of authority, all users have the right to fight against misuse. Please tell us their names (usernames). And YES folks, let us discuss about the articles in their talk pages, not mine. But NO, I will not delete this discussion here :) Filanca (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy note:

Re. the disagreement listed on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Minorities in Greece.

I hope I can help resolve this; I want to mediate this dispute.

I would appreciate it if you could check on that page regularly over the coming days. I will be adding comments there very soon; you do not need to respond to them, but I hope you will.

Please try to keep your responses as short as possible, and to-the-point; let's not create pages of pointless waffle.

We all want to make Wikipedia a better "source of all knowledge", so please let us try to remember that that is the primary objective.

Thank you for your kind attention.  Chzz  ►  11:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

In relation to the dispute, I think it might be helpful if we could break down the specific changes you'd like to be made.

If we can separate the changes into sections which each made a statement saying e.g. "We should move XXX header to above YYY header", "We should add THIS SPECIFIC TEXT (or, with a diff of some removed text), and so forth ... then, perhaps, we could deal with each suggestion in turn? I know we cannot ignore the bigger picture, but I think that it might help if we had clear, specific, smaller proposed edits, which we could then discuss. At the moment, it is not entirely clear what exactly you believe should change.

I am asking about this on your user talk page because, I think it is best if we discuss the idea here; if you think the idea is reasonable, please could you work on the proposed edits, and post them here. If you don't think it's a good idea, or if it need clarification, then also please just let me know here - I'll check back.

I will leave some similar note for Athenean (talk · contribs) although I think that most of the dispute is regarding things that you'd like changed (from the current version), rather than the other party.

I'll add an example of the type of thing I mean, below.

Thanks very much,  Chzz  ►  04:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposal: We should change the text example 1 to example one

• Reason: In accord with WP:MOSNUM

Support

• Example user (talk · contribs) 04:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Oppose, because this is not neutral.  Chzz  ►  04:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Hi Chzz. Many thanks for your offer of help.

• Proposal: Change the organisation of headers in the article by removing the three top level headers: 1.Religious minorities, "2. Other minorities" and 3.Linguistic and cultural communities

• Reason: All of these minorities are ethnic in origin and there is no point justifying a distinction such as "religious minorities" versus "other minorities" or a distinction such as "minority" versus "community". It may make sense to make a distinction between Christian Slavs and Muslim Slavs (Pomaks).

Filanca (talk) 11:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a reasonable starting point; thanks. I know you had about several things you felt should be changed, in the discussion - can you possibly similarly summarize the others? It might be a good idea to focus on one of the simpler/less disputed issues first? Thanks again,  Chzz  ►  12:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've been checking back here, but I notice you have not been active since 30 October. Therefore, for now, I am going to assume that this dispute is 'resolved' (nothing decisive, and it could be re-opened later; it's just that I'll stop checking back here). If you need any assistance with the matter in the future, please post something to WP:DRN, mentioning the previous discussions. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  20:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Filanca, added a reply to your Table comment. I just want to clear the air here: the table initially constructed seemed pretty nice and tight. But it grew gradually and the result was that when I saw it, I started having a lot of just visualization problems with it. I'm not opposed to a table and think one could be highly useful and important. But, as I say on the Tenedos Talk page, I think maybe the one table as it was should be broken up into two tables (1. overall population trends, 2. ethnic population trends) for aesthetic and coherence to sources. Let me know what you think there and I'm sure you, I, and the other editors can find a good end point for everyone! AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Suleiman Pasha (Al Fransawi), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://english.turkcebilgi.com/Suleiman+Pasha.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 08:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore the previous message, as that page clearly states that the material is copied from Wikipedia. However, please note that cutting and pasting is not the preferred way to move a page. If you would like to move the page, please use a move request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. For the time being, I am restoring the page and recreating your disambiguation page at Suleiman Pasha (disambiguation). Thank you! Dekimasuよ! 04:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reverted per Wikipedia:ninja in Minorities in Greece. It would be the best for all of us to create a new version, as a common product, per wp:brd.Alexikoua (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Minorities in Greece shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. Athenean (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Athenean, I am not involved in an edit war. Will you be willing to discuss in the talk page of Minorities in Greece why you are deleting resourced material? Filanca (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to learn what edit-warring means. Because you are edit warring. And if you revert again, you will find out that wikipedia admins agree with me. Athenean (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Athenean, you deleted my properly sourced edits without giving a reason and resisted to provide your reasons even after I asked you to please explain yourself. Under such a situation, rewriting the deleted edits is justified. Filanca (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you are not edit-warring, that is your problem, not mine. I leave you to your own devices. Athenean (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kussara, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kızılırmak (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) 14:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Theodore Makridi, he was identified as Greek-Ottoman-Turkish. I think Ottoman is OK, but Greek-Turkish adjectives are redundant (unless a section on his origin is included.) Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:58, 4 March 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.

İkiztepe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Hittite and Kızılırmak

Telipinu Proclamation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hittite

Theodore Makridi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Hittite

Zalpuwa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kızılırmak

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For writing Tegarama; a well-referenced article on a fantastic topic! Keep up the good work :). Ironholds (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]