Talk:UNESCO

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject International relations / United Nations (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.
 

Incorporation request[edit]

could someone please incorporate this news item [1] into this article? :) Kingturtle 19:19 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on UNESCO. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on UNESCO. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Ataturk section[edit]

I removed this section for several reasons:

  • Irrelevant to the section "Controversy": there is no controversy
  • It is original research: there is no ref cited which comments about why Ataturk was not honored.
  • The rest is talk about Turkish genocides, which have to relation to UNESCO.

And of course is is very funny that it was commented as "vandalism of Turkish user" :-) by a Bello5Packo (talk · contribs), who is 100% same as Green Table 1025 (talk · contribs) and who is strongly advised to learn our policy about WP:Sock puppetry. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

  • You are wrong. Consensus exists more than two weeks. Thousands of users are agree so long (ordinary users, moderators, administrators, and so on). The sudden whim of one user, who created the provocative situation (several people were involved), should not be something important in this context. Or he thinks that a large number of users and administrators are zero ..... (which are agree with new topic for a long time). Bello5Packo (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Obviously you are not familiar how wikipedia works. Nobody "agreed" on anything just because nobody edited the page. Suppose a vandal inserts "assholes" in the middle of this very large article and nobody sees it for 3 months, so what? the consensus is that UNESCO is assholes? No. WP:CONSENSUS is always subject to change during discussions of disagreements. And once again, please avoid disparaging tone towards other wikipedians. I don't really care much, but you can make yourself blocked for good, if you don't follow our rules about civility. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Staszek Lem, the text was not appropriate for this article. Nev1 (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • You both tell tales (silent consensus has the great meaning: more than two weeks administrators and other users saw this important article). I suppose you think that you are more clever than they. Blind admins? No (of course). Bello5Packo (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
    No comments on insults. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • If you seek consensus, not bad idea to display all details (with links). We are talking about this topic. Not about something else. Bello5Packo (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC).
  • We will use this rule a little bit (common sense). We are not robots: sometimes logical mind can be used. Exist such things which are axiom (something like this). For example, UNESCO can not be an admirer of man, when knows about his terrible crimes, via closest tool to combat genocide, including (madness think something other). And the UN knows this (Adama Dieng). - Bello5Packo (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC).
    • This is not a "rule"; this is an essay by a wikipedian, i.e., a wikipedian's opinion. Yes, we are not robots, but before you start playing with wikipedia rules, you have to gain experience in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Because you have "gain experience in wikipedia", you can "playing with wikipedia rules" to use common sense for the section (like any user with such experience). Bello5Packo (talk) 02:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I changed the text (code). New text does not contain any my personal conclusions (only facts). Any user who gained experience in wikipedia, may add more logical meaning if is need (see the original (clicking the link some above). Bello5Packo (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Please do not reinsert contested statements without providing references to reliable source which support these statements and which directly connect these statements with the subject of the article. "Ignore all rules" is not allowed when contested. You did not provide any references which discuss controversy related to Unesco and Ataturk. Verifiability from published reliable sources is the most fundamental rule for wikipedia article content and cannot be ignored. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Your task is to use the common sense and not be more clever than even administrator and other users (during new big period). Bello5Packo (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Please follow wikipedia rules, which is my task as well. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)