User talk:Urgup-tur

September 2015
Hello, I'm Flyer22. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to RT (TV network)— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Flyer22 (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I confess I made ridiculous statements there, since there are being made ridiculous reverts. (Not yours of course). Urgup-tur (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Your edits to Apartheid
Some of your edits are, using your words, ridiculous:
 * Non-citizens (Latvia)
 * Non-citizens (Estonia)


 * Please explain me the connection between Non-citizens (Latvia) and the Apartheid.
 * There is obviously no article :ru:Non-citoyens d'Estonie. Please don't misinform. Xx236 (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right in what concerns that to compare these situations is an exageration, though they're comparable with the Jim Crow laws. Concernung tio the link, there was a mistake, since there are articles in Russian and French about it. Greetings. Urgup-tur (talk) 10:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about racial problesm in Latvia or Estonia. Many Russian people are ciitizens of the two countries.
 * Many Russian immigrants were eager Communists and participated in Soviet crimes and forced Sovietisation/Russification. The number of European Pied-Noirs who fled Algeria totaled more than 900,000 between 1962 and 1964, the same Soviet people should have fled around 1990.Xx236 (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually the non-citizens in Latvia include not only ethnic Russians, but also Belarusians, Ukrainians, Poles and Lithuanians (among others). Anyway, though the laws may be written with other intentions, they assume an ethnic attitude, which favours the Latvians as opposed to other groups, so in that sense it's comparable to the Jim Crow laws. And we can't assume that all the other ethnic groups that went to live in Latvia during the Soviet Union went there with evil intentions, let alone their descendants, who though being born in Latvia, don't have any citizenship rights. I'll add also the case of the Rohingya people in Burma. Greetings.
 * I'm Polish and I don't know anything about any discrmination of Poles in Latvia. There are problems in Lithuania. Some of the Poles in Latvia can get Polish citisenship, they don't want.Xx236 (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alentejo - NUTSII, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santarém. 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) 12:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Done! Urgup-tur (talk) 05:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to RT (TV network). While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure! I, myself, didn't take my own edition seriously, it was satire. Urgup-tur (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you think anyone gives a toss about why your editing practices manifest as troll-like behaviour? Do you think you're doing something original, insightful and incredibly radical? All you accomplish is being disruptive (more specifically WP:POINTy behaviour), wasting other editors' time in having to revert your 'more of the same WP:NOTHERE behaviour'. Stop it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right, I'm sorry. The right place for joking and satire in Uncyclopedia, not here. By the way, if I can, I might add what I wrote in Uncyclopedia. It's a wonderful site. Greetings! Urgup-tur (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Potential Superpowers
I'm not too sure about adding economic unions but I request that you also add SAARC when you get the time. Thanks.Filpro (talk) 03:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I've confirmed and corrected. Greetings! Urgup-tur (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Filpro (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Continental Portugal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Estremadura. 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) 15:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
Hello, I'm Subtropical-man. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! You changes break some rules of Wikipedia, including Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:CYCLE, Wikipedia:Consensus. Your new changes may not break any rules of Wikipedia and also, must to be consensus for new changes. It also relates to image of File:Potential Superpowers.svg. You can have your own opinion, but you have no right to override graphic according to their own opinion, without consensus. This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time (if you don't stop pushing that changes), you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Fine
Fine, both of us will get blocked. Fine, per WP:CONSENSUS you can't force changes upon a page and then say it should be discussed.. As any rationale person would understand, if you meet opposition you discuss first and then change, not force change and then discuss.. Easy. --TIAYN (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine for me, as long as you can't edit rubbish! I don't edit only in English. Urgup-tur (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Dude, I'm the main reason why the General Secretary article is FL .... --TIAYN (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ... GS FL GS FL etc... Could you translate to any Earthling language? ¿Podrías traducir eso a cualquier idioma terrícola? Pouvez-vous traduire dans une langue de terre? 你能翻译成地球的语言？ आप पृथ्वी की एक भाषा में अनुवाद कर सकते हैं? etc Urgup-tur (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Its a featured list because of me. --TIAYN (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Eurasian Economic Union page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=682266850 your edit] caused an unsupported parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F682266850%7CEurasian Economic Union%5D%5D Ask for help])

Portuguese legislative election, 2015
Please, stop removing opinion polls from Portuguese legislative election, 2015. Portugal is in electoral campaign now, so it's all but normal that pollsters conduct many more opinion polls than before. But even if it wasn't an electoral campaign, we are here to report what it's published, not to decide which opinion polls are included and which not just because we may not like the results. Impru20 (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, stop removing opinion polls from Portuguese legislative election, 2015. Those are daily trackings; that's the reason they are so close to each other. But they are still opinion polls, and that's why they are added, just as done in other countries (check Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2015). You are potentially breaking WP:NPOV by removing a given set of polls and pretending to establish rules on which polls are to be shown and which ones are to be not. That's partial and not neutral, and we are not who to judge what polls say or when they are conducted. In election campaigns it's common to have such a quick conducting of opinion polls. So, it may not seem to "make sense" to you, but that's not how things work here. Please, stop it. Impru20 (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. I've also corrected it in Canada. Greetings! Urgup-tur (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You are adding no arguments here, and you seem to put no interest on what others say to you on the issue (even now going as far as to extend the issue to other articles). Stop this now or I'll have to consider that your editing is intentionally disruptive, and will have to report you for vandalism. That's it. Impru20 (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Would just like to support Impru20 on this. These polls may mostly be junk polls, but there isn't any reason to omit them. If we are to sort polls by quality we enter into highly problematic territory, since there isn't any consensus on this. Short intervals are not in itself a problem. If you can find a source criticizing their quality you could place it above the polls - if you feel the need to tell they are not on par with Eurosondagem etc. - or maybe just a note describing their methodology, so users know what they are.--Batmacumba (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * What part of "discuss your changes first" don't you understand? Your edits do not have support from other users. You are saying that you are explaining them but you aren't. You are pushing your edits forward and pretending us to just accept them because you feel like it. You are making no attempt at forming a consensus, and you want to give a different treatment to some opinion polls just because you want it, without any rational or sourced justification, potentially violating article's neutrality. And you are ignoring the repeated warnings (from two users now) and my own comments made to you. How am I supposed to explain this to you so that you do understand that, right now, you are blatantly violating consensus and neutrality through disruptive editing and vandalism just for the sake of it? DO-DISCUSS-YOUR-CHANGES-FIRST. Provide sources that support your view! For God's sake. Impru20 (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2015, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Either in Portugal or in Canada, what's the point of displaying polls that clearly are repetitive and are done with the same people? If a poll is done, e.g., from 16-20 September and a following one from 21-25 September, I find it justifiable to display both. But what's the point of displaying a poll from 20-24 September and another from 21-25 September, since 80% of the people polled, at least, are exactly the same? It doesn't reflect any national reality, it just reflects the vote intentions of those few people. This is valid for Portugal and for Canada. Urgup-tur (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't justifiable. You are not who to judge which polls are to be present and which not. If you find a valid source saying that these polls are invalid, then please go and share it with us. But as long as you can't provide any source that invalidates those polls, those are legitimate and considered as opinion polls, and the fact that you don't like them will be irrelevant. I've issued a level 3 warning to you for your repeated blanking of content and disruptive editing, on this and other pages, and next time I'll have to report you for outright vandalism. Impru20 (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm keeping a watch on the Canada article and won't hesitate to issue you a level four warning, if it happens again. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Portuguese legislative election, 2015, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Impru20 (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll manage to frame those repetitive polls in an acceptable way, then. Urgup-tur (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you are not doing it without discussing it first, because you are not who to unilaterally impose your will to others. If you find a valid source validating your view that those polls should not be considered or should be considered separate to others, then please go and share it with us. But as long as you are not able to justify it with a valid source, you can't give those polls an special or specific treatment or anything like that, under WP:NPOV. Impru20 (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And I'm a Canadian who relies on the Canada poll article to remain informed about a crucial election, as I know others do, too. If you think I'm going to let you fuck with this article on this basis of your whims, you are very, very mistaken. I would take pleasure in getting you blocked if you keep on messing up my country's election poll article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll just add that these polls are daily barometers. Greetings to Montreal, Quebec and Canada! Urgup-tur (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we know. They're "National Nightly Tracking" polls, you idiot. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I was glad for your response but your name-calling destroyed everything, you son of a bitch (this is offensive for prostitutes, since I have consideration for them). Urgup-tur (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Guys, calm down the tone, it's not necessary to insult each other. Impru20 (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Portuguese legislative election, 2015. RA 0808 talkcontribs 20:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long-term inability to work collaboratively with other editors, on many articles. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC) "Indefinitely" doesn't mean "forever", but it does mean "until you can convince an admin that you're going to change the way you act". --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)