Edits on Volkan Demirel Page
First of all, here is the link for the article that has "given" the nickname. As you can see it is from daily mirror a "tabloid" newspaper which even has a part in wikipedia for it's errors. They are also making fun of the country's name (Turkey) in the article. Nobody is going to put that into the Turkey article and that's why, I reverted your edit on Volkan Demirel's page. Hope this clairifes things. Thanks for taking the time to read my message.Rivaner (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC) As it was pointed out to me by another user, even in the link you provided, if you scroll down you will see that they are saying that it is not his nickname, so your edits are both wrong and defamatory, please join the discussion if you think I made a mistake by reverting your edits. Thanks.Rivaner (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 26 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary with every edit. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.
The edit summary appears in:
- User contributions
- Recent changes
- Revision differences
- IRC channels
- Related changes
- New pages list and
- Article editing history
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.Rivaner (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Tabloid source still does not support claim of nickname...
Since they come right out and say (at the bottom of the article): "We have since learnt 'The Bear' isn't actually his nickname but can be considered an insult in Turkey... Erm, sorry about that Turkey." So, in the future be sure and remember that sensational newspapers such as the Mirror are considered tabloids and are not to be used to source facts...and you need to read the entire story to be sure the title actually contains content that supports the headline which this did not. Even without the added disclaimer the article simply did not support the claim. The editor who reverted you has kindly removed their ANI report, but you could well be guilty of violating edit warring anyway for adding back contentious material about a living person that you were warned was a violation. For this reason I am contacting an administrator to request they take a look to be sure there were no actual violations needing intervention. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Ugurcanur, I am an administrator, and that means that I have a job to do here: enforce our WP:BLP policy. In this case, your reference is terrible: the Daily Mail is not accepted as a reliable source, and though this nickname is trivial enough to not require books or journal articles, we need something more than the Daily Mail. In addition, you were indeed edit warring on that article (WP:EW), and you can get blocked for it. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- And again, on Volkan Demirel: another unacceptable edit. First of all, it's in barely intelligible English. Second, it appears to be a completely trivial factoid, devoid of anything that can make it "controversial" (please see WP:FART). If you're going to continue editing such biographies, you should be really read WP:BLP and WP:RS, or I will consider blocking you, perhaps permanently, since you appear to be incapable of editing according to our policies. Drmies (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)