User talk:ToZero

In response to your feedback
Only at first sight; try our tutorial.

Lectonar (talk) 08:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

Re: Email
Hello, please note that although you are free to use the Wikipedia "Email user" option to contact me, I strongly prefer communicating with other users via our respective user talk pages, and only respond via email if you are contacting me with a private matter. I do not consider your issue with the Northern Cyprus article to be a private matter.

Now that that's out of the way, in response to the comments in your email, I did look at the edit request you placed on Talk:Northern Cyprus and responded there. It looks like the consensus was that your proposed wording gave undue weight to the subject of your edit request. One user did indicate that s/he is somewhat familiar with the situation you described and was open to adding the proposed subject matter if it was trimmed to an appropriate size. You might want to touch base with that user. If you have a specific question regarding anything I or any of the other users who responded to your edit request said on that talk page, please ask there. Thanks! &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 00:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

RE: Your Reply
Hello. KuyaBriBri, this is very helpful, thank you, and hopefully I am now communicating with you through the correct Methods. I too thought my addition to the page would be too long, and I would be happy to make it far shorter and to the point, giving the public readers a chance to understand the point without getting bogged down.

However, I am at a loss as to how I contact the "user". I shall try to look at the page notes, and talk pages, to see if I can identify this person, and contact her through the talk page.

If you can help me further with this, I would appreciate, although in the meantime I will try to research further as to who the user is.

Kind regards, and thank you again.

ToZero ToZero (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Every user that responded to your request at Talk:Northern Cyprus has a "signature" at the end of their comment. Click on the "Talk" link in that user's signature to be navigated to that user's user talk page. There should be a "+" or "new section" link at the top of that page (which one it is will depend on your browser and user settings). Click that link to leave that user a message. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 19:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus: Construction boom and subsequent collapse (2003-2006)
Thanks for the note on my talk page. My take on this issue is that the amount of detail you propose for what is really a small part of events in this area is WP:UNDUE, which is to say it gives excessive weight to the issues involved. Add this to the idea that most people reading it will think you have an axe to grind in a controversial area, whether you actually have or not. They will see a lot ot intricate work involved in attracting a load of potential criticism for very little reward in a controversial area with a history of trouble. If you have not succeeded in garnering help in three months, this should tell you something, although I'm afraid it may not be what you want to hear. Britmax (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the [ reviewer's talk page] . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the [ reviewer's talk page] . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Mike (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the [ reviewer's talk page] . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Alexrexpvt (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
You should try to address each reason for denial every time you re-submit... or you could just put the ignore the AFC process, publish it anyway and see if it survives. either way, good luck!

Ryan shell (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

&#160;

re:Kulaksiz Court Cases - North Cyprus
Hello again. I've taken a look at your AFC and it seems to be in ok shape. Have you re-submitted it for evaluation after you added references to each line? If you haven't, try that. If you have done that, you might consider creatign the article on your own to see if it sinks or floats as is. either way, good luck.Ryan shell (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the [ reviewer's talk page] . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 23:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Kulaksiz Court Cases - North Cyprus Page
Dear Excirial,

Thank you for your recent review of my short article on North Cyprus Page.

May I say that I am pleased that an editor/reviewer has left slightly more telling clues than before. Thank you for your comment.

In reply to your comment, I would have written more about situation, and given more background, but unfortunately, I was knocked back for not having provided evidence/sources to substantiate my version of events.

Therefore, I put together a small number of articles and videos and other sources, and took a sentence from each of them and quoted it in the article, in such a way as to start the article in some form. However, it has obviously not worked as it has this time been knocked back for reading like a news article.

It would be a shame for me to give up, considering, it is a compelling story which affects 3000 lives directly in a serious (life threatening way) and if you include their families and children (mainly back in the UK)the events are having a secondary affect on them.

Please, could you simply drop, one, or mabye 2 more subtle, clues, hints, indications, for me to continue improving the article.

Kind regards,

ToZero62.197.212.212 (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi there ToZero,


 * Reading the article once over i cannot help but notice that the "The Kulaksiz Court Cases" page seems to be written a writing style that is similar to a newspaper; The article is specifically focused on a single event without having to much background context. Additionally, a large share of the article is dedicated to quoting people's responses to the case itself. Encyclopedic article's tend to differ in their format - Have a look at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article for example. The article starts with a short lead (summary) of the subject, followed by background information and a neutral description of the event it describes.


 * Having stated that, i feel the article would have difficulty passing the "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" criteria. The court cases as they stand are an extension of a large problem caused Greece's debt right now. There have been multiple media reports regarding this case, but the coverage seems to be very limited to a specific time period. It is quite likely that several newspapers jumped on the case, and will never report on them again. In that case the event would have little lasting notability, which would in turn means it wouldn't pass the mentioned criteria for inclusion. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 22:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Akfinans Manager Ertu Kader, breaking and entering an occupied Kulaksiz Home.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Akfinans Manager Ertu Kader, breaking and entering an occupied Kulaksiz Home.jpg, which you've sourced to Kibris Newspaper TRNC and Cyprus Today Newspaper TRNC. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Kulaksiz Court Cases - North Cyprus Page
Dear Excirial,

Thank you for your recent review of my short article on North Cyprus Page.

May I say that I am pleased that an editor/reviewer has left slightly more telling clues than before. Thank you for your comment.

In reply to your comment, I would have written more about situation, and given more background, but unfortunately, I was knocked back for not having provided evidence/sources to substantiate my version of events.

Therefore, I put together a small number of articles and videos and other sources, and took a sentence from each of them and quoted it in the article, in such a way as to start the article in some form. However, it has obviously not worked as it has this time been knocked back for reading like a news article.

It would be a shame for me to give up, considering, it is a compelling story which affects 3000 lives directly in a serious (life threatening way) and if you include their families and children (mainly back in the UK)the events are having a secondary affect on them.

Please, could you simply drop, one, or mabye 2 more subtle, clues, hints, indications, for me to continue improving the article.

Kind regards,

ToZero62.197.212.212 (talk) 11:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi there ToZero,


 * Reading the article once over i cannot help but notice that the "The Kulaksiz Court Cases" page seems to be written a writing style that is similar to a newspaper; The article is specifically focused on a single event without having to much background context. Additionally, a large share of the article is dedicated to quoting people's responses to the case itself. Encyclopedic article's tend to differ in their format - Have a look at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article for example. The article starts with a short lead (summary) of the subject, followed by background information and a neutral description of the event it describes.


 * Having stated that, i feel the article would have difficulty passing the "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" criteria. The court cases as they stand are an extension of a large problem caused Greece's debt right now. There have been multiple media reports regarding this case, but the coverage seems to be very limited to a specific time period. It is quite likely that several newspapers jumped on the case, and will never report on them again. In that case the event would have little lasting notability, which would in turn means it wouldn't pass the mentioned criteria for inclusion. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 22:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Excirial,


 * You are right about it reading like a newspaper, born out of an inability to put any form of background without it being rejected on the grounds of insufficient evidence or insufficient sources. I'm sure I can do something about this.


 * However, where I have to disagree with you is on your observation that this has been of notability, for a specific period of time. This is not substantiated by the evidence as a variety of newspapers both in the north and the south and mainland turkey have covered the story continuously between early 2010, and today. In fact, the Kulaksiz Case took time to become established in the minds of the Turkish Cypriot community, until the public auction, when the president himself turned up. (on this point, I have literally in my possession, a number of letters sent back and forth to various parties regarding Kulaksiz, by founding President Rauf Denktas - can I use these to highlight the cases) and slowly but surely, as many other cases emerged on the island, it became apparant to the newspapers, public, and government that Kulaksiz case had become a metaphor for the abuses taking place towards elderly expats who had attempted to retire there.


 * The kulaksiz has grown definitely, linearly, but more probably exponentially in notariety since Asil Nadir himself ordered his newspaper Kibris, to run front news on it before the auction.


 * Lastly, although it has taken a long time, the Turkish Cypriot community, has slowly woken up to the realisation that there unbelievable transformation in wealth came about it as a result of over 1 billion in investment, and that slowly, as result of blackmail across builders, lawyers, government (yes government are withholding transfer of deeds until expats pay for their builders/landowners taxes who now refuse to pay them), landowners, and banks. Each one of the aforementioned has blackmailed an entire community of foreign home buyers, expats and visitors alike. Kulaksiz is without a doubt the worse case as the fraud is so apparant, and clear, with evidence of Fraud being available for anyone to see.


 * Kulaksiz is now a nationally recognised name, and the community are aware that a turn around in the Kulaksiz case, will represent a landmark in the turn around of injustice towards their visitors, which will in turn represent the start of the long road to economic recovery. Whilst everyone is aware that less foreigners including UK citizens can afford to buy abroad in the current climate, many understand that the economic disaster would have taken place anyway as a result of the abuses, simply on a milder scale.


 * All of this is totally true, all of it I can back up time an time again. The newspapers have written more about the case as it goes along, I have primary evidence of the fraud, and a number of letters between officials regarding the case.


 * What I suspect is that it is of no interest to anyone who doesn't live in North Cyprus. However, if I went to any single one of the many country pages, and read what was notable and recent in that country it would be news to me. Therefore, I still hold that this case is of immense notability in North Cyprus, linked metaphorically to the economic armageddon there, and should be discussed in the article, or at least in a seperate article.


 * I just can't find any editor who thinks it's notable, simply because they haven't personally heard of it.


 * ToZero (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Just a very quick note that i haven't forgotten this one. Problem right now is that t don't have the time to dive into the subject matter and write a decent reply - and i don't want to settle for some half-decent response either. (I hope to have time during the weekend though). Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 20:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, seems this one has been waiting for a decent reply quite a bit longer than by best "estimated time to response" calculated, not even mentioning my preferred "within a few days" response time. Either way, time to write something actually related to the page in question.


 * I read the entire article, checked each of the supplied references and did a search for more myself but even after doing so i am still fairly pessimistic as to the notability of the event. My own search mainly seems to yield a mountain of links from the "northcyprusfreepress.com", while yielding little to no links created by other news sources. In fact, if i do a search specifically excluding "northcyprusfreepress.com" i almost immediately land in the "Forum and blogs" area, which tends to be a dead-end as far as reliable sourcing goes.


 * Now, if i analyze the added sourcing:
 * http://northcyprusfreepress.com/law/breaking-news-brs-calls-for-kulaksiz-5-support/ - This source seems to be call for action to support the people in the court cases, which is far from neutral wording. As far as neutral and reliable sourcing goes this is not the best possible example to base an article on.
 * http://www.kkg2011.com/index.php?cID=52 - Same issue as the last source really. The websites home page explicitly identifies itself as a rights group intended to aid property owners. Even i discount the possible conflict of interest in this source the group itself seems to be a very minor join effort, which would pass the size and "importance" requirement for a reliable source.
 * https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=229f30d9a4dcbec2&id=229F30D9A4DCBEC2!514 - Only details the electricity usage of the buildings, and barely covers the case at all. This is - at most - some slightly related information in tabloid format (This sort of coverage often surrounds events - a war starts, you receive top level coverage, but after a while the coverage seems to change to eyewitness reports and interviews simply because there is nothing new to report.)
 * The three remaining sources are somewhat more decent since they actually cover the case and offer some background information..


 * Even so fear the subject would have a hard time meeting the inclusion criteria for events. If we look at the notability policy for events it would only meet 1 criteria: Duration of coverage. There is no lasting effect that i could trace (If this court case were to be the basis of some landmark ruling things would be quite different); the geographic scope is limited to a very specific area (Norther Cyprus); the depth of coverage seems limited to "regular" news articles at most and the diversity of sources seems to be quite limited at 1 or 2 local newspapers.


 * Now, can the article subject be notable for inclusion? To be honest, i fear it won't meet the criteria no matter what changes are made simply due to the event being minor at best (Based on what i could find that is). Of course i can be wrong and i have been wrong in the past, but in those cases editors often came around with multiple sources that cannot be easily traced online without a specific search (Scientific journals, magazines, print-only newspaper article's and the like). Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the [ reviewer's talk page] . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Hers fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 19:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Afkinans Bank


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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 removed 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, you can place a request here. Stefan2 (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kulaksiz 5 Court Cases concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kulaksiz 5 Court Cases, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Your article submission Kulaksiz 5 Court Cases


Hello ToZero. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Kulaksiz 5 Court Cases.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

November 2021
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Elon Musk. 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 lose their editing privileges on that page. 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 result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I have not reverted my contribution has been repeatedly reverted. I have given the reasons on the Talk page and supplied evidence. I have not reverted one time. Please remove this warning As you have given it on the grounds that I have either reverted or I’m done. I repeat I have not undergone anything and I haven’t reverted anything. ToZero (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2021 (UTC)