User talk:Nanahuatl

Take a look at the latest edition of "Allegations of the US involvement."
Thanks to your one more finding, I have updated the section on "Allegations of the US involvement in the Turkish coup d'etat 1980." That is the way I propose how it should look like in compliance with the sources.

You have found the interview of Henze in which he denied he has told "Our boys did it." That is added to wikipedia and in return I added the report that was published after Birand broadcasted the interview. You should take a look at the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruhubelent (talk • contribs) 08:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Anna Chapman

 * https://lenta.ru/lib/14206093/
 * https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%BD,_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%92%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0

--Krupski Oleg (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, looks like Google is really bad at translating Turkish.
I apologize for this. I have edited Evanescence for a very long time now, and suddenly noticed that the Turkish version which I had seen with a featured article star was now missing. I was just informing the editors that the English good article process was successful, because someone noticed it in the removal process, and it actually passed before the Turkish version had been demoted.

What I actually meant was: "'I cannot actually speak Turkish; so if this language is poor, forgive me. (If you choose to speak to me in English, do not hesitate to reach me at Wikipedia-en.) I've done a lot to improve the English version of the page. I realized this page kept the star (implying the featured star) for a long time. During the removal process, a user showed that this page (in English) was nominated for a good article. I am happy to report that this is a success. I strongly recommend using this version as a model for the Turkish version. I wish good luck to anyone who wants to fix the project.'"

Sorry about that.  danny music editor  oops 21:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . I understand your concern, but i don't think any user is interested about expanding the article right know. If there would be one, I am pretty sure he/she would also be aware of the English article. Plus, in Turkish Wikipedia, we don't add any content that doesn't have anything about improving the article (saying "you can expend it" is not really helping to improve the article). Have a nice day.--Rapsar (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ziynet Sali
Template:Ziynet Sali has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Use a talk page rather than be argumentative (there is guidance available)
You have your edits removed more than once, by more than one person. So please take it to the talk page, and not keep adding it. You have been around long enough to know better, and to know the process. It looked like you are just being argumentative. FWIW cnfmag.com is not a reliable source, truly. — billinghurst  sDrewth  04:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The thing is, the content has reliable and independent sources. The doctor's article is the main source, and I have added additional independent sources. There is literally no reason to remove the content. And if you check the article's history, no reason has given. There are another sources I can add, it is not a problem. I just can^t understand why that part is keep being removed.--Nanahuatl (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , and no, not six users. This user has been blocked for being a vandal. This revert was made by, saying that "which you two should discuss on the talk page". I tried to discuss with the "vandal", and it didn't work. And the paragraph was removed by MrOllie again by saying "this whole section is WP:UNDUE". I asked for an explaination, nothing came. And finally you. I can't see six users as you said...--Nanahuatl (talk) 06:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say that the general consensus was that people do not agree with your assessment. They do not think that the reference used is reliable, so don't use it, get a better one. The site used is problematic and black hat SEO, again, see the the link about reliable sources. — billinghurst  sDrewth  08:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Medical content has special sourcing requirements, so no, it does not have reliable sources. Either way, you have been reverted by a number of people at this point so you must gain consensus for this change at Talk:Rhinoplasty - MrOllie (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring warning
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , reverting vandalisms wouldn't be considered as a violation of three-revert rule. I am pretty well informed about the rule :)--Nanahuatl (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a content dispute, not vandalism. You are blanking sourced content; no admin will consider this a WP:3RRNO if you are reported at WP:3RN.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you take a look at the talk page, the content isn't sourced according to WP:MEDRS. The content I had added before also wasn't sourced like that, and we removed that content too. According to WP:MEDRS, we should remove such contents.--Nanahuatl (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a content dispute, not vandalism. Figure it out on the talk page and take advantage of the tools at WP:DR.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , the fact is Nanahuatl doesn't understand the rules of Wikipedia. I think an autopatrolled user should ban him. It's not his first time, and he always says that others are 'spamming' or 'doing vandalism'. As his advertising is not accepted, he wants to delete all the encyclopedic content of the article. We shouldn't see that on Wikipedia. --185.175.33.158 (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.''I do not see consensus on Talk:Rhinoplasty for you to remove and then re-remove content, as you did with this edit. Your edit summary to see talk page is invalid. Therefore you appear to be edit warring. If you remove content one more time without a clearly-stated consensus on the talk page, you may have your editing privileges withdrawn in order to stop continued disruption to the page.'' Nick Moyes (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * , see the article's talk page please. I am just making edits according to the Wikipedia policies. Cheers.--Nanahuatl (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Look, I don't feel from the recent edit history that you are "making edits according to the Wikipedia policies.". I took the trouble to look at the talk page before I came here to issue this warning, though I admit to no medical knowledge. I also see what seem like good, independent sources such as this, and this from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons that suggest to me this section seems appropriate. I see no overall consensus at this time on the talk page for you to make those edits and I have advised you, above, that I could withdraw editing privileges from the article if you persist in trying to delete that section without a CLEAR consensus being present first. It is obvious to me (as a stranger to that discussion) that other editors disagree with your actions, though I do recognise some are very new IP editors. I do not see a consensus quite emerging yet that supports your point of view at this time. I suggest you go back to that page and ensure there is consensus before you remove content again. If there a clear consensus, feel free to ping me, and I will gladly withdraw my concerns over your editing, and will revert or strike this warning from your page. Equally, if I have misunderstood the situation, and you were in the right, I will also apologise to you. How does that sound - and remember - gaining consensus takes time. Does that make sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

March 2020
Your recent editing history at List of visitors to Tsitsernakaberd shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --T*U (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2012 Istanbul suicide bombing
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2012 Istanbul suicide bombing you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Editoneer -- Editoneer (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2012 Istanbul suicide bombing
The article 2012 Istanbul suicide bombing you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2012 Istanbul suicide bombing for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Editoneer -- Editoneer (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

2012 Istanbul bombing
Hey. Just wanted to acknowledge the fact that I got mentioned by you on the page set up for reviewing this article. However, I must apologize for the lack of response because I was already engaged in a couple of heated debates concerning another article. I just checked the page today and saw that you have already made a noticeable progress. It's true that I translated it, but it's good to see that it's being turned into a good article at your hands since you are the original creator anyway. Let me know if I can help with anything. I'm busy with a few exams but I should be able to find some free time in between. Cheers. :) Keivan.f  Talk 00:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . Just go ahead and involve into the process. Thanks for the article :)--Nanahuatl (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2012 Istanbul suicide bombing
The article 2012 Istanbul suicide bombing you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:2012 Istanbul suicide bombing for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Editoneer -- Editoneer (talk) 08:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

GA Barnstar!

 * Thank you . Actually I contribute to the Turkish Wikipedia and have written around 90 featured/good content, including this one😅 Since I saw that the article has translated completely to the English Wikipedia, I just wanted to nominate it in here as well. I did some corrections and fixes but I couldn't really concentrate that much since I was working on other articles over there. Thanks for your help and support! Cheers!--Nanahuatl (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

DVD Talk
Hi, dvd talk has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Los Angeles Times so it passes WP:GNG. Its also considered a reliable source for wikipedia and is a mjor critic on Rotten Tomatoes, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi . The thing is, most of the article contains non-encyclopedic content and the sources don't seem enough to me. Being a reliable source doesn't make any article notable also :) Better to nominate it for deletion and see the responds. Regards. Nanahuatl (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The Oregonian and Star Tribune are significant content and were added by an admin who would probably dispute an afd as I would so it would probably be a waste of time in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

For your amusement about flerovium
August 2022, predicted semiconductor.

September 2022, experimentally seems to be metal again.

I admit I didn't expect a confirmation so quickly when you said Now I understand that it's really difficult to have "perfect" articles about them :D on my talk, but here you go! :D Double sharp (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)