User talk:WilliamCrash: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:34, 13 February 2014

File:Galatasaray Sports Club Logo.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Galatasaray Sports Club Logo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what? how did I vandalize that Fernando Muslera article? I just deleted a line that did not make any sense (I deleted: " noone understands why he moved to galatasaray as they are most definitely the word club in the world") please double check my contribution for that article before giving me a warning — Preceding unsigned comment added by Methedemon (talk • contribs) 16:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Türk Telekom Arena, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Champions League (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Galatasaray Daikin

Hey, you have been modifying the Team Roster Season 2012-2013 section from the Galatasaray Daikin article. Are you sure that Madelaynne Montaño among others made the roster for the season mentioned? This is missleading information. Osplace 19:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Galatasaray Teams 1930–31 season

Category:Galatasaray Teams 1930–31 season, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've also nominated the other 19 similar categories, which were all created by you. You are welcome to participate in the discussion. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Galatasaray S.K. 9–2 Beşiktaş J.K. for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Galatasaray S.K. 9–2 Beşiktaş J.K. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galatasaray S.K. 9–2 Beşiktaş J.K. 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. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Gözde Dal

The article Gözde Dal has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Blethering Scot 17:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Türk Telekom Arena.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Türk Telekom Arena.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Malpass⁹₃! (what I've been ^up to/_drop me a ^___) 14:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Turkish sports corruption scandal article

Hi, thanks for contacting me about this article. I have some questions though and I don't want to look ofensive but I am really curious about some parts of this article so, sorry in advance if I sound a bit offensive.

First of all, how can you say my edits are vandalism even though I gave reasons for all my edits? The paragraph that starts with "Fenerbahce fans reacted to..." is showing Fenerbahce fans as, for the lack of better word; maniacs who are just attacking everybody. I know that you watched everything about this scandal really close because it is really obvious in your other edits, so thanks for those. Anyway, if you watched this scandal closely you know that the reason Fenerbahce fans are attacking the press is since the first day of the scandal press was obviously attacking Aziz Yıldırım and Fenerbahce without the persemption of innocence. I know, nothing justify what Fenerbahce fans did that day but not knowing these parts will clearly show that Fenerbahce fans are maniacs. Since wikipedia wants to show a natural point of view, I think you may want to edit that part of the article.

My second edit was to the part "before the intervention of political power", you have no proof to that and it is just your comment and it is a bit offensive don't you think?

My third edit was TFF "hesitating", do you have proof that they were hesitating? Again, no. It's just your idea and again you have no references to that.

My fourth edit was to Infantino's speech, I just edited out to part that has nothing to do with this scandal because as you can see this article is tagged as over-detailed.

My fifth edit was to the "as expected" part. Expected by whom? You?

My sixth edit was to the part "a match fixing scandal..." In the article it is clearly obvious and stated more than once that this scandal is really huge, do you have to state it over and over again?

My ninth edit was to Platini's speech because in the article you have already stated Platini's point of view to the events, again, more than once, so I thought another one was not needed.

My tenth edit was to Mehmet Berk's speech, it is obvious that you wanted to show Mehmet Berk as a Fenerbahce fan which again is both accusatory and an over-detail.

Finally, my last edits was to items seized in police raids and basketball invastigation. "Police raids" part has no connection with this article, who does these weapons belong to? Where were they found? You have no information about these and again it is just there to make Fenerbahce look bad. That was the reason for my edit.

"Basketball investigation part", what happened in the end of this investigation? You didn't write anything about that, again it is just there to make Fenerbahce look bad.

To sum up, I can say that this article compeletly lacks a natural point of view and if you look at the last paragraph (which I put in there) there are names that were in the investigation since the begining of this scandal but they are just mentioned in the last paragraph. Don't you think this is a bit biased? Hope this clarifies something about my edits and also I hope that you will respect the time that I have spent explaning my edits to you and write back. Again, sorry for sounding a bit offensive and thanks in advance for your time.Rivaner (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]