This user may have left Wikipedia. Adoniscik has not edited Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
A, do you suppose there's anything to that claim that Luv 1960 is used to define correlated color temp? Here is a source that says it's 1976 L'u'v'. You got anything better?
Thank you, too. The articles are rapidly improving. I added a reference to the article. If you doubt its veracity, you can find the same thing in Schanda's Understanding the CIE System, pg. 67 which contains this quotation from the CIE definition (pg.67):
The correlated color temperature is the temperature of a Planckian radiator having the
chromaticity nearest the chromaticity associated with the given spectral distribution on
a diagram where the (CIE 1931 standard observer based) u’, 2/3v’ coordinates of the
Planckian locus and the test stimulus are depicted.
Now if you look at the definition of the CIE 1960 color space, you'll see that u' = u
and 2v' = 3v, so they are effectively referring to Yuv (not to be confused with the video YUV!). So really, there is not that much difference between the chromaticities of Luv and L*u'v'. Both sources are correct, in a sense, but it is more accurate to refer to Luv (CIE UCS, 1960) because it came first (CIELUV is from 1976).--Adoniscik (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that sounds pretty believable. I have refs that say closest in xy space, too, but that's obviously not believable. I was a bit surprised to find the one that said closest in u'v'; I presume it's just wrong, as opposed to an update. Dicklyon (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted more or less from the book (which I'm staring at now, pg. 748). Given that I was merely trying to understand the concept myself, you are a physicist, and the book's author isn't, I'll take your word for it.--Adoniscik (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I see. These terms get confused a lot and usages differ between fields. It's probable that in photography and/or color science the terms are used the way the author says. The radiometry article at present introduces the terms using the optics definitions. It could be broadened to explain other usages, but that would require someone who knows more about it than I do.--Srleffler (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, the terms couldn't possibly be used that way in another field, since it wouldn't make even dimensional sense. Two statements in Peres were simply misinterpreted and mangled together into one that made no sense. The 3rd edition statement is more explicitly clear, and I found that first, so I used it to fix the article. Then I found the 4th on Amazon. It says "measurement of light in narrow bands", which makes sense, and implies radiometric measurement. Then, a bit later, it says "the most common quantities measured are luminance..."; this latter really refers to a calculation more than a measurement. That is, by measuring radiometric quantities in many bands, the instrument gets the data needed to compute those photometric quantities (by combining the measurements, not on a per-wavelength basis). Sometimes one has to have a bit of understanding to interpret the sources. Dicklyon (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case you really want to know the answer is to be found here. They're all abbreviations used in the biographical entries for Fellows of the Royal Society in its Sackler Archive. A previous editor (who i shall not name but you can track down through the diffs if you really want) had copy&pasted these from Karl Pearson's entry into the Wikipedia article for no apparent reason. I deleted the lot in my recent edit. Qwfp (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, guv. That article does need some formatting polish, but it's not in my field of interest so I'll leave it to someone else. --Adoniscik (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WikiThanks Thanks for changing your mind and revisting it despite that! I agree it needs in-line citations though they can be difficult to find unless you wrote that bit of text. It is in my field of interest and so I hope to revisit it one day but I'm a bit busy elsewhere just now. Qwfp (talk) 10:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're trying to ask. If you want to know why I didn't move/delete one of those pages, it's because the request was made on the talk page and there's no reason to move the talk page and not the article. Stifle (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does not refer to Encyclopedia ISBN0028656938, but to an "Encyclopedia of Russian History, by the Gale Group, Inc." whoever it is.
Wikipedia is not a repository of links to whatever is here on web. Wikipedia needs article text (referenced from valid sources), not just links to the whole wide world.
All the more why would wikipedia promote a business which makes money on delivering information which it did not create. You have to provide direct links to the sources.
Thanks for your fixes on Omar Khadr, much appreciated. (70 centimetres? did I really type that...lol). If you've got a chance, I'd appreciate if you'd pop around to the talk page of the article where there are some ongoing disputes about what is/isn't appropriate to include in the article. Cheers, Sherurcij(Speaker for the Dead) 17:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I have a very obsessive personality - something can capture my interest for months and it'll be pretty much all I work on. Transcribing his letters to his parents, getting permission from the family to license photos of him, even phoning US Naval officers to clarify details that weren't clear in press releases - to quote, "It's not stalking, it's journalism!". I actually asked about the framed reference list on the IRC channel, because I couldn't find it on any other "large articles" (George W. Bush for example) where I assumed they'd use it. For now, I'll keep my fingers crossed that nobody complains, and if they do I'll just pull out an old "If we limited our actions so as not to outpace technology, we would only stunt our development. We must move beyond the limits of technology, forcing technology to catch up to us" speech. ;) Sherurcij(Speaker for the Dead) 19:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, I measured my wish to see it featured on the front page with my wish for it to contain all information, and decided the latter was more important - so chose not to cut out large sections and remove detail from it - I must admit it's my most-worked-on article on WP in years of editing :) Sherurcij(Speaker for the Dead) 02:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's all the same to me. I thought that would throw readers off, who are probably accustomed to seeing it the other way (I've never seen one go blue to red). I'll upload another one, this time with the brightness smoothened, and we can choose. --Adoniscik(t, c)21:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are those “further reading” books and all those external links actually not useful/relevant? I think it’s okay to have links to simpler high-level explanations, but I haven’t really looked at all of these links specifically. I just don’t think they should be removed without being checked out. I trust you if you say they really don’t add anything.
Ideally, the article would have some section with the most important papers, or the best overviews of the topic, separate from the footnotes, so that readers who want a deeper explanation than the Wikipedia article gives, can know where to look, without looking through the whole list of footnotes. Maybe the current books in the “further reading” section aren’t really appropriate for that purpose. If that is the case, they should be replaced with something else, I think. —jacobolus(t)04:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have a deep interest in PJG - I can't help being curious why? (I met him once or twice in Bangkok and Phnom Penh, he was a charming man, and very kind. I recall him saying that the present moment is a wonderful one to be a photojournalist, with the events in Iraq and Afghanistan). PiCo (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is a friendly note to thank you for your edits to Kruithof curve and to suggest it would be helpful to other editors if you could try to use edit summaries for all edits. Also, I'd like to ask why did you remove all mention of the Purkinje effect, leaving only a link to the article in a See also section? - Neparis (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph had not been backed with a reference since last July, so I axed it. The Purkinje article already explains what it is, and has a similar 'see also' link back to this one. --Adoniscik(t, c)01:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Perhaps you could use an edit summary like "rm text unsourced since July 2007", so other editors can understand your reason at a glance? I have a citation for the paragraph, which is notable and relevant enough to include directly in the Kruithof curve article. You're probably already aware of WP:MOS: See also links are to be avoided as much as possible, and should be moved into the text itself. - Neparis (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the inconvenience. I have a rule of thumb not to spend more time writing summaries than I do editing, so I reserve them for major edits. I also militantly delete redundant See Also links, as you will see from my edit history. Thanks for co-operating! --Adoniscik(t, c)16:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A, you've obviously got a lot of knowledge and sources, but I'm also often surprised by some of your off-the-wall suggestions and edits, like your latest merge proposal. If I knew more about you, I might have a better way to think about these things. So where are you coming from? What's your background? etc.; if you don't mind, I'd like to know. Dicklyon (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I realize the spectral sensitivity article is new and flaky, but I've long felt a need for such a thing; I don't think the responsivity fulfills it, since that's basically an output-orient concept that includes the system gain, whereas the spectral sensitivity is usually more normalized, or with unknown gain, or a quantum efficiency; in a system such as a cone cell, where the response is very nonlinear, but the spectral sensitivity is perfectly linear, you really need to separate these concepts. I think I goofed in using the term "responsivity" with respect to the cone cell plots a while back, since the curves are really about sensitivity, or how the first reaction of the opsins to light works, and not much to do with the response of the rest of the cell. Dicklyon (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, "spectral sensitivity" does not apply just to biology, does it? Once you've generalized it, how different is the article going to look from responsivity? Or do you propose to use one for biology, and the other for machines? --Adoniscik(t, c)18:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I agree with your take on the lede in Fethullah Gülen. I tried to shorten and neutralise the current one; trying to respect as much of the ideas put forward as possible (to prevent edit wars etc.). I am interested in your view on my effort. Cheers. Arnoutf (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's an improvement, of course, but I fear that this article needs constant supervision if it is not to degrade to its former state. I tweaked your edit. --Adoniscik(t, c)17:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem about the tweak, some more copy-edit is probably needed too. And yes I think this article will need constant supervision as some strong supporters who cannot take distance from thier POV seem to be the main editors. Arnoutf (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created the template and am using it. Would it be better if I moved it to another name that is less likely to be needed, like {{revision link}} or something? It's useful for linking to specific revisions but without including the entire URL to save space on long pages. GaryKing (talk)22:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I might have misunderstood the mediation process on this page, as it does not seem to go anywhere. In response to your post, I have mentioned again the verifiable sources that I have (aside for the Chronicle):
- North Cypriot Newspaper, CyprusTuday, on May 31, 2008 (page 11),
- and [The same] June 21, 2008 (page 3).
But at this point the argument seemed to have been deserted and I didn't hear again from either you or mcyp.
In addition, I am disappointed with mcyp's continuous attempts to make the argument personal, and to initiate irrelevant discussions. I do not think that he realizes fully, that just because he has the best interest of his native university in mind (he presents himself as an ex-student), that all that is written about it must be praise. It must, however, be true, relevant and verifiable, which is everything that I've offered so far.
So what's going on? Is the mediation over? Are you involved in it (in what capacity)? Or should I go elsewhere?
I am not the mediator, so it has not even begun. I am merely an observer familiar with the university. Unfortunately I do not presently have access to newspapers from Cyprus, and they are not online, so I can not verify the references. I will take your word for it, but I advise you to use a full reference, including the name of the article and the name of the journalist behind it, in order to make it easier for people to verify the claims.
Sorry to shock you on the tense change. Thought is was just a language problem with someone whose original language wasn't English!
Anyway, it sounded like he was still president which (I believe) is a misapprehension.
Also, I have found that a high percentage of problems arise when articles are written in the present tense (in general). Wikpedia best reports the past and often has trouble with that! I try to reword all articles to past tense. I suppose I can find justification for it somewhere since there is a Wikipolicy for and against nearly everything. But in this case, "is" was definitely ambiguous. Sorry to annoy you. Student7 (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great job on Gladio! May I just suggest you two things, so that your work doesn't disappear in edit-wars: if use of "ref name=..." is very good to decrease number of notes at the end of page, it might be a good caution to repeat each time the full reference (my experience with that article being that if one delete the first reference, all the other disappear, which makes it difficult to trace them back). The second one is: very good job for having found, again, the Statewatch document! I suspect, however, that Statewatch themselves asked the previous site to remove the copyrighted material. So I don't know if it will not happen again. Just make a personal copy (or a Google cache) for your use, and then, the copyright copy is still accessible, against some pounds of course! Cheers ! Tazmaniacs (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just forgot, adding multiple references to one statement, if you can, is a very good way to protect the article. Surely you understand that initial reaction of most reader is total disbelief (one actually put a "hoax" template on it once!) Tazmaniacs (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; it took me all day! I noticed your good work on related articles today. After all that writing, I peered at the talk page and saw the hoax/Statewatch fuss. I hope the direct citations will help. I'm no expert on Gladio but I'm pretty good at tracking down information.
Yes, precisely, per the naming conventions. You may go ahead and do it yourself. I used Twinkle and it did not ask me to enter the reason. --Adoniscik(t, c)21:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hovhannes Katchaznouni. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. TigerShark (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no sources. I ask for sources. That's it. You haven't got the appropiate sources for, you need a source that proves that the book is real. You haven't got it. And that book is allegedly written by him, but knowing that you don't have that source, I can say that it's written by what you call racist propagandists, but on the side of Turkey. --Vitilsky (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, vandalizer number one, You haven't got the appropiate sources for, you need a source that proves that the book is real. THAT PROVES that the book is real. I repeat for you, THAT PROVES that the book is real. --Vitilsky (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, it smells revisionism from 1 km. It's the same as I put a link to StormFront.org in a Nazi Germany related article. It is called revisionism. --Vitilsky (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for working on this article. Would it be possible for you to hit the save button less often? You are flooding my watchlist :) -- Catchi? 01:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, mate; I've lost my work too often that way, when I accidentally closed the window or the browser crashed. I'm almost done, as poor as the article is. --Adoniscik(t, c)01:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i have read what you put about Dursun Karatas. it is sickening what you put or what kind of resources you used. please, be little bit objective. bet you are not representing turkish police, but you could be little bit neutral. you did not even put his birthday correctly. would not blame you if you use zaman, hurriyet or other pro-state publications as reliable sources. by the way his birtday is 25.03.1952, not 1953. thought wikipedia is an ansiclopedia, should not be a place where "yellow journalism" used as reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.151.76 (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what his birth date is. It makes no difference to me. I am just trying to find out, and reporting it. You should always name sources. I already said that one source claims his birth day is 25.03.1952; refresh the page. Calling it "party-written" is not an insult; it is to help the reader judge the claim's reliability. --Adoniscik(t, c)01:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you supposed to put accurate infos to your articles, not what you wanted to beleive. For example, if you want to put some facts about Dursun Karatas, you cannot not use neo-fascist sources, such as Zaman or Hurriyet newspapers, or well-known Turkish murderers. Veli Kucuk has never involved in escaping DK. There is not such prove, just claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.152.89 (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know what is accurate? IF you know a more authoritative source, please share it. I am not at all allied to either newspaper, but I need something to cite (see WP:RS and WP:CITE). --Adoniscik(t, c)05:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fethullah Gülen . Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Toddst1 (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course this is not the official name. "The Patriarchate" does not have an official name in English. It is the translation of its official Turkish name Bağımsız Türk Ortodoks Patrikhanesi. Dig it? Ciao! Behemoth (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that I can only accept your latest changes to the article, "Eastern Mediterranean University," in part.
First, you are right that the fact that the university does not employ Jewish faculty members was mentioned twice. But for some reason you deleted both instances… I reentered the statement in the beginning of the paragraph and left the second statement deleted. Perhaps this is what you intended to do in the first place.
Second, I changed again "Israeli" to Jewish. The fact is that these faculty members were persecuted because they were Jewish and not because they were Israeli. The second faculty member, teaching at the Architecture faculty suffered anti-Semitic remarks from his Dean, who came up to this faculty member's friends, saying "why do you hang out with this Jew"? What went on in EMU was anti-Semitism. Not that discriminating on other grounds is in any way better. But I rather call things what they are.
Third, I changed "used to be employed" to "were employed," since the expression you use bares the connotation of "no longer employed" which is euphemism for someone being fired. This is not the case here. Both faculty members resigned.
Finally, the documentation of departing faculty was already discussed by mcyp and myself at the mediation for this article. See point number 5 at part 7.3 [1].
I created a new section and removed the unsourced paragraph. Please populate it with information on the faculty's composition in order not to give undue weight to the two measly members who happened to be Jewish. --Adoniscik(t, c)14:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left your change as is as to not to engage in an edit war. I am not happy about the change, and I resent your reference to the two "measly Jews" but I don't want to fight (however,please don't edit the section further). 2knowledgeable (talk)
I made no anti-semitic remarks, you did. I said "two measly [members of faculty]". Their being Jewish is incidental; it's the statistical insignificance that struck me. --Adoniscik(t, c)05:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As required, I am informing you that I am taking the recent discussion of EMU to arbitration. I am sorry that you are not forthcoming towards any resolution on this issue. --2knowledgeable (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How am I not forthcoming? I thought I was doing all the dispute resolution :) P.S. You might not have noticed that your inquiry was dismissed because I already reported Guliz, yesterday. If you want to be helpful, you can provide more sources. And maybe reveal your identity (you can send me an email, if you wish). --Adoniscik(t, c)05:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm… interesting. Why should I reveal my identity? And who are you exactly? What exactly is going on here.? I reported Gulizshadur for vandalism, not suckpuppetry. Since this user will vandal again, they will be blocked eventually. But why are you in the same boat with this person? Are you, by any chance, also a ? --2knowledgeable (talk) 05:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because your behavior makes me think you are closely involved with the incident. If Guliz manages to stay out of trouble for a while longer, she may provide some invaluable information. --Adoniscik(t, c)06:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SHE?? You know HER personally? Ooops. I think we are beginning to know a little more about YOU. Now who is in violation…. ? Are you NOT personally involved in this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2knowledgeable (talk • contribs) 06:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disappointed that you reverted my changes (although it was your own statement that Gulizcik will produce "invaluable" materials that encouraged me). I was disappointed that you did not revert the user's changes when Gulizcik simply deleted the section, as well as the user's language ("bullshit") and recent views about "the Jews." There is a great deal of hypocrisy here, as well as in your attempt to explore my identity, whereas the other user is admittedly an involved party with a personal agenda (which, by the way, the user is doing his best to sabotage). I understand that you have your own agenda and views, but I think that some fair play is essential in order to keep the debate civilized. Something to think about?--2knowledgeable (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of you have produced any reliable sources. I don't have an agenda other than making sure hearsay does not get into the entry. --Adoniscik(t, c)13:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true. There has been an agreement about some of the sources. Now that the gulizcik person went on and deleted the entire section you condone her vandalism and pretend that the sources are not valid. It’s a wonderful collaboration between a vandal and Turkish nationalist administrator. Tell me that I am wrong about thisand that you are about to demonstrate some good faith. --2knowledgeable (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask you very nicely to stop encouraging Gulizcik (talk)? She is not a competent discussant, and she does not even have a hold on "the truth" as she keeps saying. Much of what she says are outright lies, and the rest is drivel. The truth, in this case, is actually with the newspaper (this also happens sometime). I don't even think that it's in the interest of Gulizcik (talk) herself to pursue this. --2knowledgeable (talk) 04:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still unhappy with the article from a BLP perspective. If you could prompty withdraw the claims (even temporarily) or improve the sourcing that would be appreciated. Thanks, Andjam (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went a step further and extracted a vector version from their brochure. Please download it immediately in case it gets deleted. If that happens we can try again with a better fair use rationale. Do you know if the school has released the logo into the public domain? That would help a lot if you could get explicit permission for Wikipedia. --Adoniscik(t, c)23:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The navigational templates links a "series of articles" that are linked to each other by presenting "links". The article in question is not part of links of the template in question. The article also contains two navigational templates which "conceptually" and "physically (in the form of link)" links the article in question to other articles. --MarchSp (talk) 14:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed correct (you should provide links to articles relevant to the context, but you should also not repeat links that are mentioned in the article itself, per WP:SEEALSO. In plain English, the goal is to work into the text all the relevant links. The SA section is mostly for linking to relevant articles that are not mentioned in the text (a common situation if the article is a stub). Also note that the SA section usually comes before the References. --Adoniscik(t, c)21:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-edited my version of the section, please add your comments on the Talk Page, whether you are in favor of my revision (hopefully), or the other after reviewing it, Thanks! Mohsin (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much time for this right now. Besides, it looks like there are enough editors working on it. If anyone in the debate is reading this, my input is: we can describe the controversy without taking sides. I think we all agree there is a controversy. The revised version at the bottom of the talk page looked acceptable, judging by a very quick look. --Adoniscik(t, c)22:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please vote at the Religion (2) section of Talk Page of the article Turkey, viewing Version 1 (my re-edited version for a neutral prospective) and Version 2, and decide which is the preferred version for the Religion section of Turkey at the below of the page, Agree or Disagree for Version 1, Thank you!!! Mohsin (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea that would be fine with me. The concept behind the template is sound, considering some of the unsourced interpretive meanderings I used to come across in literature articles, but it never quite caught on.
Thanks for uploading Image:Taraf 17TRF01RIST.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Fethullah Gülen, did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Thank you.
We can fix the concerns in the article but you need to specify it first. Do not be vague.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Fethullah Gülen, you will be blocked from editing. If you had read the article's talk pages, you would know that almost all sections of the article edited with consensus.
What is your idea behind removing my comment on Mrs. Magden's 'not arrest'. This is a verified fact. If you own some other proof, state it. I consider it quite an improper behavior on this environment. I hope you will not continue removing it without any comment. If you insist on this misbehaving I will take the necessary steps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.105.96.206 (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is already corrected.
I commented in the edit summary.
If you insist on not reading the article I will not bother to respond.
It is actually YOU who should do a better "reading" of the article.
Simply do a search of the keyword "arrest" on the page. You will find out (two subtitles still contain it). Was there an arrest? no! So you better remove them.
144.122.42.221 (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What an interesting word that exposes a state of mind: "defame"!
So, you mean correcting a "false" statement about an individual's biography is to "defame" her/him. ..That is interesting :))
[BTW: Perihan is an old and beloved friend of mine!, the last thing in my mind iwould be to "defame" her]
144.122.42.221 (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also responded to this anonymous edit on my talk page. As I stated there, there is a question on whether or not the article's subject was arrested. Since there is a question of this, I'm fine with leaving the language as is. However, this insulting and attacking attitude is not acceptable. All this started because the anonymous editor deleted and changed information without explanation or citation, leading other editors to make a good faith evaluation that this was vandalism. I'm going to warn the anonymous editor not to keep attacking people over this or he/she risks being blocked.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me a link to specific quotation about this? If the MOS is not dealing specifically with the number of references needed for use of reflist, I will consider your edits as stalking and revert them. - Darwinek (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
why are you deleting the categories and why are you removing category tags from related scientists? don't you consider discussing first? Try to fit in.
I dont know which article you are referring to, but my generic answer is that one should use the most restrictive category; if A subsumes B, use B. --Adoniscik(t, c)01:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi consider this. I tried to test the template and the results are not so bad. However there is a great amount of info that needs to be added to the list.
Standard info on such lists are:
Name
Birth date
Death date (if applicable)
Arrest date (event start date)
Release date (event end date)
Occupation
Status (what happened to the person? Is he or she in custody, released, at large etc..)
Good, but please separate the arrests into their respective "wave"s. Also clean up the stray opening section, which is now semi-redundant. I suggest you remove the Sources column for brevity and simply put the citation immediately after the name. I will not be contributing for a while, but I can offer sporadic guidance. I would appreciate if someone patrolled the Ergenekon- and Susurluk- related articles for vandalism as I will no longer be able to do so. --Adoniscik(t, c)22:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to sort them by the date of the individual arrests (once I have the complete list of dates). It is a sorted list so you can sort them in any way you like :). I unfortunately lack a lot of the info on the dates of arrests and releases as well as dates of birth. -- Catchi? 14:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a separate column for the wave, then? Also, I think rather more important than the age is the charges on which they were detained. Thanks for maintaining the articles. --Adoniscik(t, c)14:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you and Dawud for doing the housekeeping. Would that PhDs did not have to spend time on such things, but there are many people who would trample over the garden of knowledge that we have toiled to grow. Dank u, heer. --Adoniscik(t, c)20:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Milliyet 20 October 2008 (Ergenekon).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Vakit 2006-02-13 Danistay.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Hi Adoniscik – I know you’ve been active in color/color-science related articles around here. I wonder if you’d mind looking through HSL and HSV and sharing any impressions/comments/suggestions on its talk page. There was at some point a request for more input put up at the Color WikiProject, but it didn’t really get much attention. Feel free to get involved in the current talk page arguments or not, as you please. Mainly I think the article would just benefit from some more reader feedback about what in it is helpful/unhelpful, clear/confusing, etc. (And I’m sure any comments will still be welcome whenever you get back from your wikibreak – enjoy it!) Cheers, jacobolus(t)06:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet the notability guidelines for professors. There are some unsourced BLP issues that are commented out that could hold some notability if true.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Thanks for uploading File:Taraf - Front page of the 17 October 2008 issue.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:Taraf Aktutun (2008-10-16).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:Uçurtmayı Vurmasınlar (Tunç Başaran).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:6mayis1972hrryetan5.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
This is a non-article article. Virtually no content since 2008. There's nothing covered here at all, and any useful content could be provided in the decision theory article and the book can be discussed in Wald's article. Also both the "references" are primary sources.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
When two articles on the very same subject are created the usual practice in WP is to tag one of them for merging. I don't like this approach. I think it's best to call the editors for collaboration. Now Lament of Yemen and Yemen Türküsü are almost the same article save for a few words. How about merging them ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would delete or redirect the newer article and restore my sourced edits (check history); they added important information. --Adoniscik(t, c)23:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Istanbul Ekspres 1955-09-06.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (File:Istanbul Pogrom fft5 mf39796.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Istanbul Pogrom fft5 mf39796.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Istanbul Pogrom fft5 mf39796.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suspects in the Ergenekon investigation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Edison (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to CIE 15:2004 §3.1 the chromaticity coordinates of standard illuminant A is part of planckian locus. What source do you have to put illuminant A below the locus?
(I found it here too.)
Laserdiode71 (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The media file you uploaded as File:Abraham Wald in his youth.jpg appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source),
or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.
It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media
clearer.
Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).
If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: {{subst:usernameexpand|Adoniscik}} will produce an appropriate expansion, or use the {{own}} template.
Thanks for uploading File:Hurriyet 1990-11-26.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
well done adonisthick, it is unbelievable that you are still around and creating more lies from your assssss... (let me guess from "reliable" sources on internet) frucking dick read some books
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 "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!23:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hovhannes Katchaznouni. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. TigerShark (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Taraf 17TRF01RIST.svg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
){kind=link}
Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Fethullah Gülen, did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Thank you.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Template:ReqVisualTimeline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 02:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading File:Istanbul Ekspres 1955-09-06.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
Template:Split portions has been nominated for merging with Template:Split. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. – BrandonXLF (t@lk) 16:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
