User talk:Georgepodros

Turkey - ECP - explanation
Howdy - responding to a question you asked on the Turkey talk page. The Turkey article is currently WP:ECP - which means that only editors who have 500 edits and 30 days of tenure can edit it. This level of protection is applied to a small proportion of articles in Wikipedia to protect them from vandalism (and is usually there after vandalism in the article of the subject area). You can make edit requests on ECP pages - and with a few more edits you'll be able to edit ECP pages too.Icewhiz (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Minor
I see that you mark virtually all your edits as minor. Please read WP:MINOR to learn when to use the "Minor" marking m and when not. --T*U (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia
Wikipedia needs enthusiastic editors. It is, however, important to have some common rules, so that all editors work towards the same goal. One central point is that Wikipedia is a community project, where editors are supposed to work together and create consensus through discussions, even if they disagree about things. You can read about this here. The talk pages of the articles are important tools for such discussions. One way of doing things is the Bold, revert, discuss cycle. If you make an edit that is reverted, you are supposed to start a discussion on the talk page. You are not supposed to make the same edit again. That is called Edit war and will eventually lead to you being blocked from editing.

Another central point is that all edits have to be verifiable by reliable sources, which you can read about here and here. What you or I know or think we know is not allowed unless it is sourced; see here about original research.

Perhaps you should take a break in your edits and read some of the guidelines of Wikipedia, starting with the ones I have linked above. Then you can come back and edit in the true spirit of Wikipedia. Regards! --T*U (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Obsession
To answer your question, I have no obsession with your edits. I do, however, admit to a certain degree of obsession about Wikipedia and Wikipedia rules. Thus it may happen that I "pester" new editors with hints about the need to learn how Wikipedia works. In the section above this one, I did advise you to make yourself familiar with the rules of Wikipedia. I see from your edits that you have not yet grasped the principle of verifiability and the need for reliable sources (see WP:V and WP:RS). If you add unsourced text, or if you remove sourced text just because you disagree, your edits will be reverted sooner or later.

Also, you would be well advised to start using the talk pages. If you have a suggestion for a change in an article, you can start a discussion in the talk page of the article in order to get consensus for your suggestion (see WP:CONSENSUS). But again, in order to get support, you will always need to have sources backing your view.

As for your edit summary at Flag of Turkey, "us flag has same large image. so why cant TC flag have the same size", it does not matter much for me. But I know that many editors are irritated about large images, especially in infoboxes, since they tend to clutter up the page presentation in narrow windows. There is a reason for not making the default size to big, and the large majority of "Flag of ..." articles use the default size, US being one of few exceptions. You could, of course, discuss it in the talk page... Regards! --T*U (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Alternative account?
Just a question: Is an alternative account of yours? I notice that it was created just a couple of days after you took a long pause with this account, that the JimPody account has often edited the same pages as you, and that it has not been active since you started editing from this account again. There is nothing wrong in having alternative accounts as long as they follow the rules of Wikipedia, see WP:VALIDALT, especially the part at the bottom of the section about declaring the accounts in your user page. Regards! --T*U (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about this as well. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 14:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please answer this question. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 13:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Firstly I dont have to answer. Secondly this is a ridiculous claim. Thirdly I will not bow down to you both while you blacken the image of the Turkish State.

July 2018
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Vassal and tributary states of the Ottoman Empire, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
Your edit summary in this edit does not conform to Wikipedia standards, since it contains a personal attack on another editor. One of the guidelines regarding editor behaviour is WP:No personal attacks. Please make yourself acquainted with it. Personal attacks in edit summaries are especially disruptive, since they cannot be retracted. Therefore the same point is made in the Wikipedia policy WP:CIVILITY, see WP:ESDONTS, and in the information page HELP:Edit summary, see WP:SUMMARYNO. --T*U (talk) 13:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018 – another thing
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button Signature icon april 2018.png located above the edit window.

Thank you! --T*U (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit summary on Killing of Jamal Khashoggi
Please do not make personal attacks in your edit summaries(or anywhere). Unless you have hard evidence of what you claim, don't assign motives you cannot prove. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC) Wheres the freaking proof it was an arranged marriage. just muslim haters trying to make Turkey look bad
 * There are ways to question what proof someone has without making personal attacks or accusing others of things you haven't proven yet. You need to assume good faith absent hard evidence to the contrary. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And as another editor has shown, it was a simple wording error; the intention was to indicate that they were getting married at a later date, not that their marriage had been arranged by their families. Nothing anti-Muslim about it. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure if that is the case. Very interesting how it was unintentional however. Whatever, sorry for what its worth

Edit warring at Turkey
Please be aware of the WP:Edit warring policy. See uw-3rr for details. You are risking a block if you revert again, before getting a consensus in your favor on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You have continued to revert at Turkey after my warning. Can you explain why you should not be blocked for edit warring? There may still be time for you to undo your last edit. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I only see 2 reverts within 24 hours. If the POV editing on the article continues then the article is going to lose its GA status. Reverting the removal of the state department designation of PKK per WP:TERRORIST on a GA article is not something an editor should be sanctioned for, especially when they haven't actually gone over 3RR. I would have reverted it myself if I hadn't taken the page off my watchlist because of bullshit like this. Seraphim System ( talk ) 16:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Turkey. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Robynthehode (talk) 11:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Signing
People might possibly listen more to your arguments if you took some time to try to learn how Wikipedia works. As an example, you have repeatedly been asked to learn how to sign your talk page entries, but you have so far never signed anything properly. How to do it has been explained in detail here on your user talk page twice. More info can be found at WP:SIGN. Please also note that in the section WP:SIGPROB it says: Persistent failure to sign after being reminded may become disruptive and be subject to sanctions. Please show other editors respect by following the Wikipedia rules that you are explained about. --T*U (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. appreciate it

Your edit on List of oldest universities in continuous operation
Hello, I have reverted your edit since we go by when a school became a university, not by when a school was founded as something other than a university (since that in many European universities that were originally founded as cathedral schools would push the year of founding back to several hundred years before there were any universities...). - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 15:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

How to sign your comments
Hi I noticed your comment in Egypt talk and I saw that you were trying to sign your comment by writing your name and the UTC time. Well there is an easy way to sign your comment: you just need to put these four tildes ~ at the end of your comment and when you publish your edits they will magically turn into your signture that contains your username, your talk page and the time when you wrote the comment. It is so easy you can test it in your sandbox click here and write anything then at the end put ~ and see how it will change into your signture, I hope that would help you. Have a nice day.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:18, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Map
Hi. I saw your edit in Turkey article and actually I think you did the right thing because the editor didn't explain why he changed the map and after I did some research about the map you put I found that there is a discussion here File_talk:OttomanEmpireIn1683.png and a dispute issue and most of people there agree that the map is false so you might need to revert your revert. If you need any help about anything don't hesitate and ask any editor you want. We try to be friends here --SharabSalam (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok thank you I appreciate it GeorgePodros ( talk ) 15:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

POV, commentary, personal attacks, edit summaries
Georgepodros, I am concerned with edits such as this--Turkish Kurdistan is what the article is called; if you don't like it, try to change it but don't drop wild accusations of "pro kurdish propaganda" in edit summaries. I'm happy that you are leaving edit summaries, but they should be summaries of the edit, not essays or wild accusations or rhetorical questions. The Kurdistan thing alone is cause for concern about POV, as is the edit/attack you placed on User talk:LouisAragon. It is fine to be passionate about something, but not at the cost of violating AGF, NPA, NPOV, etc.--that's three pretty serious acronyms. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Really if anyone calls the conglomeration of provinces of the Republic of Turkey that are inhabited by an Ethnic Kurdish majority or in some cases plurality “Northern Kurdistan” then they are without a doubt a supporter of some wild ethno nationalist irredentist pan Kurdish and possibly racist state. Anyone who calls it kurdistan also has similar but less extreme beliefs or is undoubtedly pro Kurdish and to an extent anti Turkish. Who calls Northwest Territories “Nunatsiaq”? Who calls Greenland “kalaallit nunaat”? But when it comes to Turkey which has proper names for the provinces in the southeast, you all call it kurdistan, which is also a very distaseftul name that is not even Kurdish but Iranian. You see, you have fallen into this spiral. People who call it kurdistan instead of Wan or Dersim which are the Kurdish names for the poprovinces of southeast Turkey, are just proponents of separatism. If people support Kurds it’s likely because they hate Turkey, why else really? If Kurdish Turkish equality is what you’re after then you wouldn’t want an independent pan nationalist Kurdish racist ethno state carved from different independent countries. georgepodros (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is silly. What I'm after is that we edit according to guidelines. You can propose a name change on Talk:Turkish Kurdistan, where you can start a discussion or an RfC. What you can not do is vent and make personal attacks in edit summaries and elsewhere. It's really that simple. And trying to make this personal by pinning this on me will not help you--"you have fallen into this spiral" is BS, and "people support Kurds because they hate Turkey" is likewise BS. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are to tell me no one in Europe has a kind of Turcophobia that results in their support for separatist Kurds? Why else would Greece or Armenia ever support the PKK lol. We really cannot say that anyone who calls it Kurdistan has no kind of pro Kurdish ethno racist thing going on. Kurdistan as a name sounds like crap too. The whole stan thing just makes it sound as backward as it really is. The Turkish government is at fault really for being such a joke and denying rights to ordinary kurds. The people have been betrayed and left uneducated and uncivilised by western Turkish and European standards. Its the governments fault for being an ethno turkist racist joke. the backward ottomans with all the nationalistic problems of the 19th century gave better rights to kurds. Point is though it is not kurdistan, sounds like some silly underdeveloped country in asia. there is Wan, Dersim, Amed... I blame the bs administrative system of Turkey of the last 200 years that has resulted in this mess. GeorgePodros  ( talk ) 17:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)