User talk:Akocsg

Hello, Akocsg! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Grandmaster 05:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

@Akocsg: It is great to see another user who can see through LardoBalsamico's propaganda and POV As you can from the article's edit history I engaged in an edit war with the user because of the same situation and was blocked for 48 hours because of that. The reason I am sending you this message is, you've said that the user's actions needs attention. I would like to let you know that I have been trying to achive exactly that since February because of the same reason. I made my case to both NPOV board (about a diffrent article) and also to the administrators noticeboard.You can read my cases from those pages. Both my requests are clear summaries of my situation with the mentioned user. (Most summarized version is in admins noticeboard, it also covers more ground.) I am not going to copy paste them here to keep your talk page clean. If you take your time and read through them, you will see what I mean. Also, any input about both my requests would be really welcome. Thanks for the time that you've spent reading my message.Rivaner (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Resilient Barnstar
	You deserve it after what happened today. Peter Sam Fan 15:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the "176.41.78.40" guy. 1886kusagi (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Akocsg. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who is adding content to the honours section of the page that clearly does not belong there. You cannot seriously be telling me that memorial games, invitational tournaments and matches played between cup runners up are official professional honours. They may have existed, but that doesn't mean they should be included here. The pages you edited these into were long standing edits that did not need to be tampered with. You did not cite any sources in making the changes either, and a quick search of the clubs themselves shows they do not recognise the stuff you added either. (http://galatasarayli.weebly.com/domestic-competitions.html). Looking at pages of similar rivalries, and the point is only emphasised. No club includes these equivalent awards. Arsenal-Chelsea rivalry page doesn't list their south east asia trophies or London Senior Cup trophies for example. So please stop doing so. Davefelmer (talk) 06:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of your claims and arguments are baseless, to say the least. First of all, the Turkish National Division Championship and Turkish Football Championship were the national league championships of Turkey, the forerunner of the current Super League. The Chancellor Cup is the forerunner of the contemporary Turkish Cup. They are official and national. And telling me that your point is emphasised after looking at similar rivalries, you must be trying to push POV.

Real Madrid - Barcelona rivalry

They have the Copa Eva Duerte and Copa de la Liga. Both defunct and one of them invitational and memorial.

AC Milan - Inter rivalry

There are the First championships (beginning in 1898!) and the Campionato Alta Italia.

The website which you are presenting as source is a private, amateur site. Not official and therefore irrelevant. Here, please look at the offical pages of the clubs and see if they recognize those official titles or not:

Fenerbahçe honours

Galatasaray honours (only the former national championships are missing here)

So please do stop deleting those titles and championships. Akocsg (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how you say I am pushing POV when that is literally all you just did. The Turkish Football Championship, as its own description says, was an intercity championship. That does not sound national to me. The National Division Championship, yes it was supplanted officially by the Turkish League so I wouldnt object to that one's inclusion. But the rest is absurd. The Chancellor Cup is not the forerunner to anything, not least the Turkish Cup, which began in 1962 and was played alongside it until the Chancellor Cup was ended in 1998. It was more like a supercup (between the winner of the amateur and national league which if you read the description you'd know) before becoming a consolation game between the runners up of the Turkish League and Cup. A match between runners up isnt an official honour. And you can go through the rest too. The Ataturk Cup was played five times in 50 years on an invitational basis, the Spor Toto Cup is played for teams that finished 9-18th in the league and the TSYD Cup is played regionally and not nationally. The main leg has 3 bloody teams in it! So they arent official and national, as you say. They are regional, invitational (friendly) and consolation prizes.

Your point about the Spanish article is far-fetched as well. The Copa de la Liga was the Spanish League Cup, open to all the teams and contested like the League Cup in England. The Copa Eva Duarte is the official precursor to the Spanish Super Cup. It is not about them being defunct but that they were competitive national titles, not runner up prizes and regional games between 3 teams. You look at any derby article, including the Milan Derby and Clasico ones you listed, and they only have top flight national titles on them. Same for any article of its nature.

Your edits of these awards into the Fenerbahce-Besiktas and Galatasaray-Fenerbahce articles were reverted before but you keep adding them in. The site I presented was Galatasaray's official English website, so please dont pretend its some amateur site. The ones you presented look fine as well so clearly they disagree with one another but that doesnt change the fact that these are not official, national titles and can't be compared between the teams. Websites can choose to list youth team honours for all we know but that doesnt mean they should be included in first team trophy tables! So if you understand now why what you added is not suitable for these articles, please stop reverting them back in. If not, since we are clearly in disagreement over their inclusion, then we should take it to the Football project page and let the consensus there decide.Davefelmer (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edits were all reverted by nameless IP accounts, only for the purpose of deleting these official titles for the sake of pushing POV. I already presented you the one and only official pages of the respective clubs, and I am doing so again:

Fenerbahçe honours

Galatasaray honours (only the former national championships are missing here)

The website which you presented is definitely not the official page, the two above posted by me are the only official ones. No offence intended but you clearly seem to be clueless about what you are claiming.

All the titles listed in the rivalry pages are also found in those official club websites. So all your arguments describing these past cups and torunaments don't change anything about the fact that they are a part of the rivalry of these two clubs and a part of the past of the mentioned clubs. As even the names of the two pages are Fenerbahçe-Galatasaray rivalry and Besiktas-Fenerbahçe rivalry, it is only most natural and logical that all official torunaments and organizations where those clubs competed and played against each other should be included in the respective rivalry articles.

And what youth team honours are you even talking about? Please state which of those titles is that of a youth team! All the titles which I included are official and both clubs in question were part of it, so of course they will also be included in the article. You don't really seem to understand the purpose of the articles in question and don't have the necessary insight into the various Turkish titles and history of the clubs. Please refrain from taking forejudged actions. Akocsg (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you are getting so offended, particularly just coming off a long block, but you keep saying others are trying to force a POV when that is literally all you yourself are doing. It doesnt matter that these clubs competed against each other in these games, the awards themselves are unsuitable for pro honours, because as explained before they are regional and invitational games. You are being deliberately obtuse. Man Utd and Liverpool's rivalry page doesnt include the Lancashire Senior Cup in it despite it being a tournament both teams played in. Arsenal and Chelsea dont include the London Challenge Cup in theirs despite it being a tournament they both played in. Liverpool list the Lancashire League on their website but it isnt in the rivalry page. The page isnt for literally anything that the clubs both took part in. Does the International Champions Cup affect the Man Utd-Liverpool rivalry since both took part? You don't need an intricate knowledge of Turkish football to be able to read the page descriptions for each award, and the ones you included are obviously not on par with official national honours. Regional games between 3 teams, cup games between runners up and invitational tournaments played 5 times in 50 years are not honours, whether the clubs list them on their website or not. Liverpool list their youth cup wins on their website in the same place they list their Premier League titles and FA Cups, so are they pro honours now? Davefelmer (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seriously considering whether I'm dealing with a troll account at the moment or not. Look, the Fenerbahçe-Galatasaray rivalry article is about the rivalry of these two clubs and its history and where and why it started and so on. Please, do look up when this rivalry between these two archrivals was born. I'll tell you: it was in the early years of the Istanbul Football League. Istanbul League, so it was a regional one as the name says, because back then there was no national one, let alone a professional one... That's where this long and one of the most intense derbies of the world started, where it was born. It is part of the history of the rivalry. How can you not include it when the league was where it all started? And the other ones are mostly professional and national too. Don't repeat your irrelevant arguments over and over please.

Concerning your London Challenge Cup and Lancashire Senior Cup and whatnot, please do include them for all I care, because they do seem to be part of those rivalries/derbies. So it is only natural and logical to be included in those articles. Only because they weren't so far doesn't mean that they shouldn't be included, right? And according to your logic the UEFA Cup and UEFA SUper Cup shouldn't be included in that list either, because both clubs never played against each other there. Does this make any sense? I don't think so. I hope this should be enough to make it clear. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I already said I accept the argument for the early league titles. I am talking about the rest of them. You just keep calling them national and professional when time after time I have shown you they arent (which you can infer from reading their own pages yourself). Its not my argument, its just facts.

And it isnt about including regional and invitational games in other articles. They are not included in all the other rivalry pages for a reason. Since we are clearly in disagreement, the dispute should be settled by looking at the consensus for other articles of its nature, to establish the trend for how the project works. The other articles all show that these types of games arent included. But since we arent getting anywhere and you seem to be getting more confrontational ("dealing with a troll...", etc), I will take it to the football project page to resolve it there.Davefelmer (talk) 19:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glorifying is when you manipulate data to make something seem more grand than it is. Adding a ton of invitational and city-wide games to make it seem a rivalry between a team with 50 and 30 trophies is one between two teams of 80 and 70 trophies makes that rivalry seem much bigger than it is. And stop saying this is where the rivalry began. All these cups began in the 50s and 60s, the clubs were decades and decades old by then! The older league titles I accepted the case for and left, but if you tell me 3 team regional games and invitational tournaments first played between the clubs in question in 1964 is where the rivalry began, that is just silly. There is no case there, the sources you posted were the clubs themselves, who are not neutral and third party on the subject, and often include friendlies and the like which arent official trophies on their sites to glorify their counts (i.e. Liverpool listing their youth titles). No third party source corroborates these. I listed two above and can list more. You can take it to arbitration if you like, but you changed long standing edits without consensus to be reverted multiple times by multiple editors, you didnt use neutral sources and went against article consensus across wiki. I've tried to reason and find a compromise (I left the older league titles) while you keep saying I am making "pointless" arguments by saying you need neutral sources and should look at the consensus for literally all the other rivalry pages on wiki...

I've given you compromise after compromise. First I left the older titles, then I suggested including the other games in the 'matches played' sections and/or prose if you really wanted to keep them. You've done nothing constructive in the debate at all, constantly calling people trolls for asking for neutral sources and adhering to consensus on like-minded articles and then making stuff up like saying invitational games played 60 years after the clubs started playing one another "started" the rivalry. Davefelmer (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You just keep arguing without admitting and cooperating at all. Now you claim that it is "glorifying" by just adding important and relevant titles that are an essential part of the rivalry. And pleass stop with your blatant lies. We both know who accused me of adding junior titles and imaginary cups where the "9th to 18th" ranked play. The invitational ones are gone now, which is a concession on my part. While you keep pushing your POV relentlessly. User Koncorde (talk · contribs) confirmed by point abpve, while you have no support but simply keep deleting content. If you don't stop and start edit-warring you will be reported. Please read Wikipedia rules first and understand Wiki standards in these kind of situations. I used official sources by both sides which confirm the content I insert, while you have no sources at all. The only one who tried to reason and find a compromise was me, while you simply keep accusing and distorting facts! I'm acting according to the consensus for the other rivalries too, the Italian championshsip for example starts in the 1890s.... That's what I'm doing with the Turkish ones, adding those past titles and championships too, which are especially relevant and important for these respective rivalries. This was already discussed and confirmed above, once again...

IN the Turkish Wiki there are further reliable sources btw: tr:İstanbul Futbol Ligi and tr:İstanbul Futbol Ligi (1923-1951). See the "kaynakca" section. Akocsg (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you added youth titles, show me one place I did. And ok, I was mistaken with the 9-18 ranking cup, but that literally changes nothing. What invitational games did you remove? I see absolutely nothing different, beyond you adding city-wide games to the table. What did you take out there? One editor being impartial, who said himself invitational games should be removed whether the club lists them or not, is not a consensus. You used nothing but the clubs themselves which are not neutral third party sources. As I referenced with other club articles, these are not reliably neutral on the subject and often add tons of stuff to their counts that would otherwise never be used like with Liverpool. When better sources are available, we use those. In this case, here is rivalry page complete with trophy tally on Soccerway which is one of the most frequently used sources on here (^[1]), Eurosport which is one of the most frequently used sources on the here (http://www.eurosport.com/football/teams/galatasaray/teamcenter.shtml), worldfootball.net which is often quoted especially for honours (^[2]) and one more I previously listed (^[3]). Not one lists the stuff you keep inserting, and these are more reliabe and neutral than the ones you use. The Soccerway one lists the Istanbul League which I personally don't agree with but since its there then its there, so you could use that one. But nothing else you added is corroborated. You arent acting to any consensus. Yes, Milan clubs list their old Italian Championships, as I agreed to leave on here. But they dont list the Milan County Cup (if there was one) which would be the equivalent. In England, the equivalents to the Chancellor Cup, Ataturk Cup etc would not be the Old First Division but stuff like the Lancashire Senior Cup and the Manchester Senior Cup and Manchester Senior Shield (matching the Istanbul ones) yet these arent listed anywhere. Hence there is no consensus for any of these. The early league titles being important to the rivalry I accepted before, but regional cups and invitational games began in the 40s, 50s and 60s when the clubs were 50 years old are not. And finally, you cant use wikipedia as a source for itself.Davefelmer (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite true Dave. As with the Bulgarian league and others, many formal professional leagues often have roots in local football championships that later became rolled into national competitions (or were precursors of). Comparing Turkish football, or Bulgarian, or whoever, to English standards is a bit misleading. Lets get down to brass tacks anyway. These are questions that should be answered:

1. What is the list for? If it is for showing what the two teams have won then it doesn't need to be in a table. By putting it into a table it seems to be there as some means of comparing those two teams. If those both teams have existed and competed in those competitions listed then there seems no particular issue listing them. Now clearly some trophies were listed that I would consider unnecessary (the 9-18 cup for one), but ancient and historic trophies are fine.

2. What content should such lists contain? This should depend on the teams, obviously. Comparing Millwall F.C.–West Ham United F.C. rivalry for instance (who have won minimal things in their history) is of less significance to listing Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry. However it makes a lot of sense to list both teams games from the moment they first played each other regardless of the competition, although it would not necessarily be particularly notable to mention the competition result unless it is formative in the foundation of the rivalry. That is not to say we couldn't list all competitions, but is it relevant to the rivalry? Is there a sense of significance to the competition? Is it ever used as a basis of comparison on any list of rivalries? The inclusion of the Football League Super Cup for instance, a one off invitational cup, is one of those judgement calls that needs to be made (as it would seem its competitiveness is of some question) but it is nonetheless notable and is often listed on competition sites.

3. What is the source of the information? Primary sources are fine for facts. However what should be taken into consideration is that Primary sources are not the only source, are not infallible, and can be both comprehensive, or lacking in detail. This is particularly true with websites, which are often very condensed or restricted to recent events in some fashion.

In the end, please calm down. Discuss the rationale, look at the format being used (which is currently quite poor), and consider the relevance of the competition to the rivalry. If things are just being listed so as to create a points total then that is probably the worst reason to do it and a new approach should be considered. Koncorde (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so addressing your points back to front starting with 3, I did mention above that primary sources were ok but had to be substantiated. And as I posted here and on the football page, this is not the case. Soccerway, the most frequently used site for honours here, has a rivalry page with trophy hauls for the derby and doesnt include any of the trophies he added bar the older regional title that I already compromised to keep (http://uk.soccerway.com/teams/comparison/?competition_ids%5B0%5D=19&competition_ids%5B1%5D=19&team_ids%5B0%5D=2217&team_ids%5B1%5D=2212). Another rivalry article with honours sections for each only listed the trophies that were included before he made his edits (http://www.footballderbies.com/honours/index.php?id=42). Other reliable and often used sites like Eurosport and Worldsoccer.net that I listed above did not have pages on the rivaly itself but had individual club profiles which didnt include the honours he proposed. Hence, in the absence of any reliable sources backing up the info on the club website, it shouldnt be seen as the sole authoritative source on the matter and it shouldnt be implemented over all the other sources. There is no recentism in any of these, the competitions he brought in all take place during the time period covered in each source.

2. You mention that cups should be formative in the rivalry foundation and having historical significance, but on top of not being in any other sources, they clearly are not. The Chancellor Cup started being played regularly in 1966, well after all the competitions regularly listed had got underway. It is also a game between the loser of the Turkish league and loser of the Turkish cup. How is a game between two runners up even an honour to begin with? The Ataturk Cup was played four times, in 1955, 64, 98 and 2000. It was played as an anniversary game once, had no clear qualification criteria and took place totally irregularly. The Istanbul Cup was a war time competition only during WWII. In England I know war time records are unofficial to begin with, not sure about Turkey but again hardly a bedrock of the rivalry. The Istanbul Shield existed for 10 years in the 30s, it did not take place several times during this period, saw a team simply awarded the trophy on another occasion and had a final cancelled mid-match on another occasion! All of these stats are on the relevant pages. None of these contributed to the rivalry, are dubious in their official nature and are not corroborated by any outside sources. The Football League Super Cup in England was somewhat different, it was organised for English teams by the FA when the European ban hit, there was an actual qualification criteria with the teams that would have qualified for Europe qualifying for this instead. It wasnt a group of clubs randomly selected.

1. Ultimately it should not be, as you say, a list of a points total. It should be what actual serious competitive competitions the clubs took part in that influenced the rivalry. The sources show what these are, pretty consistently in my opinion. The Soccerway source includes the old regional leagues on top of the ones the rest include so I suggested previously to use that one. But to include some of the ones I listed above is just silly. Their status and competitiveness is seriously in question, and they arent corroborated by any of the neutral sources on the subject out there which consider games in the same period they took place, which rules out the recentism problem. Davefelmer (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the TSYD Cup, Fleet Cup and Spor Toto Cup from the Besiktas-Fenerbahce rivalry, and would have done the same in the Fenerbahce-Galatasaray rivalry, if not another user did it before me. You clearly don't even kno what changes are done to the pages yet you firmly keep listing your accusations without even being aware of what I'm doing and what not. The Istanbul Leagues were the major competitions of early Turkish football and where the rivalries of the 3 "big Istanbul clubs" started. As the rivalry pages are about these 3 Istanbul clubs and their rivalries, they can't be left out and treated as if they never existed. Galatasaray legend Metin Oktay and Fenerbahce legend Zeki Rıza Sporel scored most of their goals in that league and became legends because of their performance in that league! Look at their personal honours section.... And that 3rd source ([1]) which you present here is funny at best. Once again, that webpage is a personal, unreliable and biased website. It doesn't prove anything. On the contrary, it distorts facts. You should really look what reliable sources fitting Wiki standards are.Akocsg (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of what you just said makes any difference. We are an encyclopedia, not a site based on personal research and opinion. Now, I cannot validate your claims about the importance of the Istanbul League, but none of the neutral sources we have available to us ever list it so I dont have to. And we only stick to the sources on here. You linking me to two former players means nothing. Those honours sections are unsourced anyways. And even if you ignore the third source, there are three other, widely used and considered reliable ones, to quote from, none of which share your opinion of the facts.

Once again, the Soccerway source does list the regional league you keep claiming is important so feel free to use that one as the main source, but the minor cups around it are unsubstantiated by any sources, and are doutbful in legitimacy to begin with (i.e. the Istanbul Shield running for 10 years and not being held often, simply awarded without a match other times and canceled mid-match once!).Davefelmer (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again you claim that your sources should be taken as neutral and reliable sources while you ignore or don't accept mine. Well, I already pointed out how that "galatasarayli.weebly" site does not meet Wiki standards and is not reliable at all. Then there is the (http://www.footballderbies.com/honours/index.php?id=42) website, whose "honours" section was not updated since 2009! You didn't even check that out, did you? It is really interesting how you keep pushing your POV while your sources are clearly unreliable and/or unqualified and/or even contradicting yourself! Plus there is no rule that the titles which I added shouldn't be listed. You are acting solely on your own convictions and want to force them on others/me. And the uk.soccerway.com website is listing the Emirates Cup, which is an invitational and pre-season friendly tournament! Weren't you firmly againt these kinds of cups listed in the honours section!? Plus they also list the Istanbul League (as regional leagues). Your own sources contradict you. And it is also leaving others like the Turkish Football Championship and the Balkans Cup out. So please, just accept that these titles are part of the Turkish Top 3 rivalries and leave it be. Akocsg (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one that pushes POV, pretending there is no legitimate source out there since you only have one that supports your claim. The point isn't when the source was last updated but what it includes as trophies. Soccerway is the most widely used source on here for honours, they list a rivalry page for the clubs with a trophy count that does not count what you do. They don't list any friendlies on the page, so their information as it pertains to this is reliable. That they include friendlies elsewhere is irrelevant entirely to this debate, that pertains to a different debate that was had on wiki football where it was established that friendlies are not honours, which tons of other sources support. You only have this one website, which isn't neutral or third party, and no others that support the claim for those trophies. As are Eurosport and Worldsoccer.net, two other frequently referenced sources, which list individual club trophy hauls that don't include the ones you talk about for either club. These are again, neutral and third party and more reliable for the relevant sections than the ones you listed. So no, the sources don't contradict me at all. I took your word for the first one you said was unreliable, if you question another since it hasn't been updated in a while then fine, but there are still numerous other sources I have shown you that are more reliable for this article that do not list the trophies you included. Your point about leaving out the Turkish amateur championship and balkans cup is insignificant. It isn't about what you deem important but the sources. That is the point of an encyclopaedia. And in the face of numerous reliable, third party sources versus one not neutral and not third party source, we go with the former. Davefelmer (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Made the changes on the pages. Ultimately, I did not take out much, just the small comps I brought up opposition to and gave reasons and sources against. Soccerway is the main source, with the others like Eurosport, Worldfootball etc all listed, and I kept the Balkans Cup after you said it was very important (which it's page indicates as well). Davefelmer (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, those sources look good to me and I am happy to leave the Turkish rivalry articles as you have them. Davefelmer (talk) 03:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!--Kostas20142 (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"GoguryeoHistorian" is possibly another sockpuppet of the Austria-IP pro-Austronesian anti-Turan anti-Altaic nationalist.

GoguryeoHistorian suddenly appeared on South Korea-Turkey relations with the same motivation as 212.95.8.185

These are some of his suspected accounts [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

And there are many more one-time use IPs such as 212.95.8.* and other accounts. I don't think diffs are necessary because his posting style and preoccupations are so focused and obvious that scanning his post history makes it obvious. Just taking a look at the post histories will show really obvious QUACKING.

-Posts from Austria, sometimes from neighboring countries. Will frequently use Austria T-mobile to phonepost.

-Extreme preoccupation and bias of Austronesian/Dravidian.

-Extreme preoccupation and animosity of Turanism, Turkey, and Altaic.

-Extreme preoccupation with distancing Japanese and Korean language and race away from Altaics and toward Austronesian.

-Usually makes edits to languages and history.

-Claims to be Japanese or Korean or both but is actually neither. [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.36.56 (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is all I know from wikipedia itself. Sources would remain valid in any case, even if the source itself was to disappear if from a printed document (change the source to reflect the print details). If it is a web only source, then that's a little more awkward. Koncorde (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Turkish name is correct, most leagues are presented in their local name - a redirect from Turkish Football Championship already exists. This means that within an article you can use Turkish Football Championship as a wiki link and this should go to the main article. Koncorde (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask an Admin at the main wikipedia talk page then. I think it's a common convention to use the proper name and redirect, just as at Süper Lig. Koncorde (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any pictures of the former Süper Lig trophies? I think since 1959 there have been 4-5 different designs. We have the current design since 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2014%E2%80%9315_S%C3%BCper_Lig_Cup.jpg ...2006-2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kupalar.JPG .......the one from 1999-2006 (?) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%C5%9Eampiyonluk_kupas%C4%B1.JPG ...70s-90s https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Trabzonspor%27un_1983-84_sezonundaki_lig_kupas%C4%B1.JPG 1886kusagi (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@1886kusagi: No, unfortunately not. But there is this: 2010-11 trophy Akocsg (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever find any informations about the trophie? Weihht, height etc. 1886kusagi (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No unfortunately I have no idea about those data. What do you need them for? Akocsg (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I know this one. But we need a picture from the FB museum :)

1886kusagi (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly i've just tried it and imo it looks better. No so complicated and shows that all missing and paralel seasons 1886kusagi (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an area I participate in, I'm afraid - have you tried posting at WT:FOOTY? GiantSnowman 14:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will do that. Thanks. Akocsg (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone, which I think a Galatasaray fan, came and ruiend the page. You have more experience than me in this website. That's why I encourage you to take a look at the page and please make it look like before. He/she deleted all the championships years of Fenerbahce. I have tried to get it back but could do it partialy. Omerlaziale (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Omerlaziale: Thank you Ömer for informing me. But I see you and another user thankfully already undid the vandalism, so all is fine. By the way, would you give your opinion concerning the article here? I would really appreciate it. Thank you in advance. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akocsg. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Courcelles (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: Thank you. Akocsg (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Akocsg. FLCs are required to be active for a minimum of 10 days, but almost all of them go longer than that (including yours). There is no official number of supports that will guarantee a promotion, as unresolved issues can be deemed significant enough to outweigh support, depending on the situation; three supports usually means a lists is nearing promotion, but again it's not a hard-and-fast guideline for the closers. Your nom has been active for over a month and a half and has three supports (including one from me), but I see an unresolved verifiability issue, which I'd suggest you fix as that is something the closers don't want to see in a candidate for promotion. In your case, I'd consider adding a Ref column and citing the individual season pages on the RSSSF site, which will provide adequate verification for the runners-up and third-place finishers. One other thing you should be aware of is that I'm not going to close the FLC as I've already supported; one of the two delegates will have to do the honors when necessary. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the late response and for forgetting the nomination. I have no major issues apart from any outstanding ones listed by The Rambling Man, once those are addressed I'll be happy to support. Kosack (talk) 10:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: The issues addressed by TheRamblingMan have been solved. He closed his section of comments. Isn't the nomination process finished now? Akocsg (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, the national supercups are not counted, since they occur after the season. So the triple is for in-season, which is the national league, national cup, European-wide league. But there can also be a quadruple crown, and a quintuple crown. If a team wins the European league they play in, their national league, their national cup, and their national supercup (if there is one), then that it is considered a quadruple crown, and is a separate thing. So you can win a quadruple crown, but you can't substitute a supercup for a national cup in the triple crown, also because most leagues don't have a supercup. The quintuple crown is also something a team could win - national league, regional league (some teams play in national and regional leagues), national cup, national supercup, and European league. In that case, the team wins a quintuple. But also you can't sub the regional league for a national cup, to make a triple crown. Hopefully I explained that well enough. If you have more questions just ask.Bluesangrel (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluesangrel: Ok then everything is clear. Thanks for the explanation. Akocsg (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Akocsg. I'm just posting to let you know that List of Turkish football champions – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for September 28. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 01:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I wanted to let you know I filed a dispute resolution notice about our dispute regarding the 2017-18 Turkish Cup page.

I disengaged and took an editing break for a few months, but after seeing it again I still disagree. Junk2711 (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Akocsg. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Akocsg. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you replace all uses of the redundant template to the replacement one please. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:S%C3%BCper_Lig_champions /wangi (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wangi: Done. Akocsg (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly heads up on List of Turkish volleyball transfers 2008–09. I declined your speedy deletion request because it didn't meet the speedy criteria, and instead listed it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkish volleyball transfers 2008–09. ----Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are the only people that have been named a EuroLeague Legend ---> "Mizrahi's accomplishments marks the eighth time the Euroleague Basketball Legend distinction has been awarded. Mizrahi joins legendary former coach Dusan Ivkovic and former superstar players Dimitris Diamantidis, Sarunas Jasikevicius, Juan Carlos Navarro, Theodoros Papaloukas, Ramunas Siskauskas and Mirsad Turkcan on the exclusive list of Euroleague Basketball Legends."Bluesangrel (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This Legend: Ibrahim Kutluay, Fenerbahce Beko Istanbul refers to the EuroLeague writing an article about Fenerbahce before the EuroLeague Final Four, in which they call Kutluay a legend of Fenerbahce. In fact, every season, each team at the final four gets a new team legend named in an article. It's completely different from the EuroLeague Legend award. So actually, three other players werre named club legends at the same time as that article, for each team of the final four. Being named a EuroLeague legend is a completely separate thing, it is an actual award, with an award ceremony and with the EuroLeague CEO giving an award to the player.Bluesangrel (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Invasion" is a not negative/derogatory word. Invasion means invasion, and it isn't exactly the same as "campaign/expedition". --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Next time you want to move an article like [11], i would suggest you to follow the standard process and dsicuss it on the article's talk. This is not the first time you try to falsify history, be aware that the community's patience has its own limits. Consider this message as a final warning.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikaviani: First of all, I don't see any "falsifying history" in my edit. Secondly, you don't speak on behalf of any community here. Make one such threat again and I will report this. 19:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead and report me. As an editor who has been blocked so many times, you are, indeed, trying the community's patience, especially when you make controversial moves like the one i pointed out above without any dsicussion. Xinjiang was not a native Turkic area and has been Turkicized. From now on, i would suggest you to discuss before moving articles in a way that pleases you. As i said, go ahead and report me if you really want to.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Galatasaray S.K. 0–7 Güneş S.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. 0–7 Güneş S.K. until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Koncorde (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who thinks something should be done about this editor? All he ever does is engage in edit wars regarding the trophies and championships ignoring the consensus in the talk pages. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 13:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:1932 Turkish champions Istanbulspor.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:1927 Turkish champions Muhafızgücü.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:1924 Turkish champions Harbiye.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:VakıfBank SK logo.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Son Posta 9 September 1935.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Son Posta 9 September 1935.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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]