09:0109:01, 14 December 2022diffhist−817
Urfa
Undid revision 1127366951 by ZaniGiovanni (talk)You're the one adding so much useless irrelevant info to build your propaganda case against Turks, no wonder we banned this site when it's full of racismTags: UndoReverted
08:2708:27, 14 December 2022diffhist−817
Urfa
→Demographics: This should be kept on the main page of the city it actually took place in, has nothing to do with Urfa whatsoever. Even the modern boundaries are every differentTag: Reverted
20:2420:24, 13 December 2022diffhist−167
Samsat
Source is from 1998 and unreliable, you can't just use a survey from 25 years ago and try pass it as the city's current demographics.Tag: Reverted
20:1020:10, 13 December 2022diffhist−2,229
Urfa
Undid revision 1127267851 by Semsûrî (talk) You are the one unwilling to explain why it deserves to be there when I clearly and concisely explain why it doesn't, you take it to the talk page.Tags: UndoReverted
20:0720:07, 13 December 2022diffhist−2,229
Urfa
Undid revision 1127267110 by Semsûrî (talk) I just explained what is wrong with it. The first source was by someone who referred to the area as Kurdistan even after 1923, and second was by someone was dozens of papers with the sole purpose of bashing Turkey. Sources are meant to be reliable and content is supposed to be relevant.Tags: UndoReverted
19:5719:57, 13 December 2022diffhist−2,229
Urfa
→Demographics: For concision. Was completely irrelevant to the city, more relevant to Edessa if anything. On top of that, both sources were extremely unreliable and biased. Since when do city pages contain "demographic history" of their predecessors anyway? Keep it on their main page.Tag: Reverted
16:3016:30, 13 December 2022diffhist+65
Turkesterone
Undid revision 1127231426 by Zefr (talk) It's name is literally the root of the word, plus of the major plant its found in which is native to Turkic areas. There's no source for etymology yet, it's simply common sense. Not every self-evident thing requires a source.Tags: UndoReverted
01:3701:37, 30 November 2022diffhist−20
Aegean dispute
Undid revision 1124694911 by Khirurg (talk) It is literally supposed to be Türkiye's viewpoint and you're clearly trying to justify Greece's position. You have a history of vandalism on Greek pages, removing anything outside of Greek culture. The whole section is an attempt to discredit Türkiye and make it seem like they are bound by laws in treaties they did not even sign. The source given does not provide a source of every state's viewTags: UndoReverted
00:0200:02, 30 November 2022diffhist−15
Aegean dispute
→Turkey's view: Removed wording of "interpretation" which implies they signed the treaty but interpret it differently. As the 168 parties to UNCLOS are mentioned, I mentioned the 15 non-parties in the UN. Still feels extremely one-sided and should be re-written as the whole thing makes it seem like Türkiye is bound by a treaty they did not sign, heavily narrated with biasTag: Reverted
19:1019:10, 29 November 2022diffhist−43 m
Turquoise
→Names: Put alternative names below its current one so they don't interfere with compressed search results on etymology which would otherwise be hidden
18:4618:46, 29 November 2022diffhist−233
Turquoise
The linguistic history of its alternative names is not relevant at all to the etymology of the word itself, nor does it make sense to put it above its actual etymology, let alone near the top of the pageTags: Manual revertReverted
01:2201:22, 29 November 2022diffhist−3,421
Aegean dispute
→Turkey's view: The sources mentioned are mostly state propaganda and do not mention anything about the views of "most states." This page is currently very one-sided and should be made equal. Countries sharing Turkey's view, at least in action, was also missing