User talk:88.254.133.114

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not erase the twin city section of Istanbul. Every city with twin cities has a section about twin cities.[edit]

Please do not erase the twin city section of Istanbul. Every city (even small towns) with twin cities has a section about twin cities.

This is not helpful for readers if any reference (even a wiki link) about twin cities is completely removed.

This is definately not about the manual of style. If a section in an article becomes too long, a separate article has been already created as a result, in this case for all the twin cities of Turkey, including Istanbul, because there are many and a section in the Istanbul article would be too long.

And importantly to save space in the Istanbul article, the twin city section has been reduced as an internal wiki link to direct. So please do not erase it. Readers will not automatically assume that there is an article about twin cities of Istanbul and may not realize it.

I urge that you keep the "Twin towns and sister cities of Istanbul", but reedit it in such a way that it is compatible with the "manual of style" and importantly that the readers will be informed that a such a topic and article exists and that the readers can also be redirected to the separate article "List of twin towns and sister cities of Istanbul". But completely erasing it is definately not the solution.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.254.133.114 (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fine. Just leave it. I really don't care. But when I put this article up for a peer review or featured article candidacy and the reviewers inevitably say to get rid of that section, please keep your opinion to yourself and don't re-add it. It is 100% against Wikipedia Manual of Style to have a section of the body of an article with just a single link under it. No prose, nothing. Find me a single featured article promoted in the last year (or, frankly, ever) that includes such a junk section, and I'll concede that point. But, you won't, and I shouldn't even have to point you to the Manual of Style to tell you that is not acceptable. If this fact is not common sense to you, you have a lot to learn before editing articles, especially high-quality ones like Istanbul.
And it is not true at all that every major city has Sister cities links. The trend now is to omit them from articles where nothing but a list can be provided. For example, San Francisco, a featured article, does not mention its twin cities (among them Haifa). Kent, Ohio has a section, but it provides a paragraph on its relationship. Cities like New York, Paris, and Rome (none of which are featured articles, by the way) keep them, but they are officially listed and have significance.
But, as I said, I have more important things to do that go back and forth with you about this. When I get down to the end of that article, and that section, I will delete it without blinking an eye. So, you have a couple options: write some well-referenced prose about Istanbul's sister cities, move the link to a fledgling "See also" section, or delete the section as I already did. Or, you can just hold your position, and I'll clean up your mess sometime in January, when I decide it's worth my time. -- tariqabjotu 19:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
While communicating with other people you have to be polite and diplomatic. I wrote to you about my request in a civil manner. Your tone is not only tactless but the language you are using is rude and offensive. You should anwser diplomatically with others users when they write to you in a civil manner, even if you do no agree with them and state your points and cases (unless they are attacking you or insulting you). My request and the language I used was absolutley not rude or written in a way to offend you. I would expect the same as I am sure you would too from other users.
You suggested to put the internal wiki link in the "See also" section of the Istanbul city article. This is a very good suggestion as completely I forgot about the See also section.
If I relocate it there for the other readers to see it and thus safeguard the quality of the Istanbul article will you finally accept this?
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.254.133.114 (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I write to match the initial comment. Upon receiving a message from someone who so brazenly thinks the aforementioned junk section is in line with our Manual of Style, that is the kind of response I will give. Always. If you thought that was "rude" or "offensive" or not "civil", you need to grow some skin. Again, further evidence that you're not ready to participate in articles, especially in the revert first, ask questions later manner you have expressed so far.
I have said all I need to say. I'm focused on improving the article, not arguing about points that are easily verifiable and altogether unimportant. What you do with that link is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic—little to no consequence. -- tariqabjotu 20:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)