User talk:Hiberniantears

Archives: 1, 2, 3.

Massachusetts Article

As a resident of Massachusetts, I take umbrage with the suggested impropriety of calling my fellow citizens "massholes". I think you'll find that the word is used widely in common parlance; in my experience, far more often than "Bay Stater". I humbly suggest the addition of "masshole" as a proper demonym in the article.

I hope corrective action is swiftly taken to correct this mistake.

Parthian Empire

Hi. I noticed you were also working on the Parthian Empire article this morning. I hope my edits didn't interfere with yours. I'll be doing various edits to the page throughout the day, do you plan on making any more edits? The reason I ask is so we can avoid editing the same sections at the same time. Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank spam

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral.

Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations.

Thank you again, VanTucky

G. David Schine

Rather than just silently reverting, why don't join the discussion on this article's Talk page? I'd be interested to hear the reasoning behind your support of your preferred version. RedSpruce (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no stake in the G David Schine article. I only reverted you to move back one version to another admin who was stabilizing the article. I took notice through this ANI post. It would appear that you are behaving in a manner that brought you a recent block, but I was called away before I finished evaluating. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. It might be best to avoid taking actions or making comments on a situation that you haven't evaluated yet, since by definition those actions and comments are uninformed. RedSpruce (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Srictly speaking, it is my responsibility here to become informed and take action. That said, please don't regard my rollback as punitive. Rather, I moved the article back to a version in line with community consensus while I evaluate the larger issue. I see that you and the Richard Arthur Norton have had a contentious relationship, but that you have both managed to discuss thing civily as well. I am reaching out to another admin who has been more informed on this apparently long standing issue. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is your responsibility as an admin to become informed and take action. I only hope that in the future you'll try to do things in that order.

Unfortunately no admin (including Scarian) has taken the time to become informed and offer a considered opinion on this long-standing dispute. If you have any ongoing interest in this dispute, I think my best articulation of my disagreement with RAN is here: User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#Discussion. As you can see, RAN has not seen fit to grace me with a response. Perhaps you will have an opinion you'd like to share. RedSpruce (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC) and 11:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hiberniantears

I left a small comment. Right now I'm a bit exhausted so that will have to suffice for now. To be honest, I think an article/topic ban would be a productive/efficient way to deal with this type of thing. It does seem like RedSpruce and another editor are constantly battling over that article. Sorry my comment wasn't any larger. Perhaps I could elaborate on it later on. Thanks for mailing me! Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 15:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bible Unearthed

Hi H. I don't want an edit war either. And I'm quite happy to see the summary shortened. It's just that I put a lot of work into that summary (misguided tho I may have been) and don't want to have to start from scratch. Wouldn't it be simpler to leave the current summary on the page and shorten it? PiCo (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redspruce

You commented at the active ANI on RedSpruce, now the deletion of quotes in the citations has moved to the article Melvin Purvis, this is now after 3 ANIs, and at least 2 RFCs, and a 24 hour block. The consensus at all being that using the quote parameter in citations is not cluttering the article, but is helpful in documenting the sometimes controversial information in the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Aleena's RfA

Hiberniantears...Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. Through it I have become aware of a great many people who can help me in my future editing endeavors. Even though I was not promoted, your support shows that I still have something to contribute to Wikipedia, even if it is minor edits to fix spelling and grammar to working in WikiProjects to help others make great articles. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 04:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: SOCKS

SOCKS is a type of internet proxy- for example, people will install a proxy server on a computer, and have a network connect to the Internet through the proxy. In some cases (like this one), the proxy can be delibrately or accidentally misconfigured to allow anybody to use it- it could be human error, a virus, etc.

Since open proxies can be used by anyone, they can cause problems. People can use an open proxy to mask their real IP address, so that they can do things without getting caught, like creating and using sockpuppets, or vandalism. And because of that, Wikipedia blocks open proxies. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One second. I had written instructions, but hit "Back" by mistake on my mouse, and wiped them out. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heres the instructions:

Open ipchicken.com, and note your IP address at the moment.
Open the Preferences window (Tools -> Options under Windows, Edit->Configuration under Linux)
Click the "Advanced" button at the top (it has an icon of a gear), and select the "Network" tab that comes up.
Click the "Settings" button under "Connection".
In the window that pops up, select "Manual proxy configuration". In the big blank, put in 202.47.69.219 and in the small blank, put in 1080
Click OK, and OK out of the other window. Reload ipchicken, and your IP address should be that of the proxy.

Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFA.

Replied. · AndonicO ^Engage. 20:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I've told Zginder that if he wants me to reopen it I can do that. · AndonicO ^Engage. 21:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:PIO & page protection

Hi Hiberniantears, many thanks for acting on my request for page protection. Much appreciated. Hopefully it'll save us a bit of aggravation at that article. Just a couple of minor queries, if I may. Would you consider raising it to two weeks to bring it into line with what Mastcell has done here [1], here [2] and here [3]. Then they'll all become unprotected the same day, and in a fortnight (as I suspect may be necessary), they can be re-protected together. Additionally, perhaps you could add here [4] that you've protected the page so other admins can ignore it? Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks :-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting an Editor Review

Hi, you opposed my last RFA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gary King a few weeks ago. I have decided to open an Editor Review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Gary King so I could receive a new assessment for my recent activity on Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate it if you could take the time to look over my recent contributions and point out areas where I could improve. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 05:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

Your mistake is evident here because IPs of user PIO were different: no 151.70.... was used by PIO. I am an informatic and I know edit war by user DIREKTOR/AlasdairGreen27 on that article. Regards.--Ciolone (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My recent RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace and talk space, so that is what I will do. I have made a list and I hope I will be able to get through it. I will go for another RfA in about three month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been about three months. I will not be checking back to this page so if you would like to comment or reply please use my talk page. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 06:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hey Hiberniantears. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. I appreciate your trust. :) Best wishes, —αἰτίας •discussion• 19:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiberniatears, I would also like to thank you for participating in my RFA. your further comments are welcome at my in-depth RFA analysis. I've also left some templated thank spam for you below. best regards, xenocidic (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

templated rfa thank-spam

Have a barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		From an old tin can sailor thanking you for protecting the integrity of Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate from sundry and annoying disruptive edits. Quartermaster (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for rollback

Hi there, I saw your name on and figured another Mason alum is just the person to ask! Having rollback ability would be helpful for the number of pages I view on my watchlist (mostly sports or university-related). Feel free to check out my contribs, and let me know if you have any questions or if you need anything specific from me to assist with this process. Thanks! - Masonpatriot (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! I've thought a little bit about RfA, so maybe it's something I'll venture a little down the road. Thanks again. - Masonpatriot (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused...

By this. The first half sounds like you disagree with me, but the second half sounds like you agree. <scratches head> Maybe I'm tired... lol --Dweller (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fyi --Dweller (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Berlinerzeitung/User:Shuppiluliuma/User:Res Gestæ Divi Augusti

I'm pretty certain User:Berlinerzeitung is User:Res Gestæ Divi Augusti aka User:Shuppiluliuma (see checkuser you initiated Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Res_Gestæ_Divi_Augusti). This account was created after User:Res Gestæ Divi Augusti's block and subsequent indefinate ban for sockpuppetry. User:Berlinerzeitung appears to make a few "dummy" edits on random pages when he first begins to edit before moving and concentrating on Turkey. Also note that he starts using detailed edit summaries with a good grasp of english when he hits the Turkey edits.--Miyokan (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving Caesar the credit that he deserves for his impeccable command of the English language :) 151.57.146.205 (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might find this an interesting read

It's kind of hidden in the mess that that discussion topic has become, so here's the diff: [5]

Hope that clears it up! Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that the structure of the BOT vote prevents you from avoiding a hypocritical position, but given the amount of discussion and heated arguments your RfA position creates (and the fact that your are probably most widely known to the community as the guy who blindly opposes self-noms), entering into the BOT process as a willing participant undermines your position. Fundamentally you are an activist voter, who is normally quite unbending in opposing people who nominate themselves entirely within the guidelines of RfA. Intellectually, upon encountering a process that either you, or others wish for you to participate in (the BOT vote), and upon discovering that the structure of this process only allows participation through the means you are fundamentally opposed to, you should next chose to advocate for change in that process so that it first allows for something beyond self-nominations. Entering a process that is prohibitive to your views without first advocating for change there, and while concurrently mounting opposition to people self-nominating at RfA does not stand up to a test of logic. I would have actually understood if you entered into the vote after previously making a WP:POINT run with someone nominating you.

If RfA did not permit self-nominations, then people would not self-nominate. That you have a problem with that rule means that you should focus your efforts on changing the rule, not on blindly voting against someone who you label as power hungry, ignorant of their true motivation. That some percentage of self-nominations are power hungry is obvious, but it takes about ten minutes of effort to sift through their contribution history and figure out who is, and who is not of such a mindset. More to the point, I would argue a much higher percentage of those who seek out admin coaching and nominators are power hungry, as they are often seeking to learn the best ways to game the system. A great number of self-nominators are generally unfamiliar with RfA, let alone the RfA factions, and are just looking for the block button to work on persistent vandalism. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the umpteenth time—I don't have a problem with allowing self-nominations. I don't know where people get the idea that I do. I have a problem with self-nominations themselves. The analogy I've often used is this: I would never vote for a leftist for public office, but I don't think leftists should be forbidden from running. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A leftist, of course, would have a platform of political positions, which taken in full will define that individual as a leftist. Thusly, a leftist is not defined by being a leftist, but by their demonstrated policy positions which make them a leftist. In judging self-nominations in the same manner you would judge a leftist, it implies that people who self-nominate have been defined by society at large as power hungry, thus a review of the contributions would logically reveal a record of positions that would define said self-nomination as power hungry. This just is not true. If anything, self-nominations afford people the individual liberty to request technical capabilities that will help them interface with the encyclopedia when they feel they are ready for them. Whether they are, or are not is the purpose of the "discussion" that follows, but to blindly ascribe to each of them an unfounded and sinister motivation is simply wrong. Hiberniantears (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Review

Hello Hiberniantears. I've noticed that you have a completed set of responses to the RfA Review question phase at User:Hiberniantears/RfA review , but they don't seem to be included on the list of responses here. If you've completed your responses, please can you head to Wikipedia:RfA Review/Question/Responses and add a link to them at the bottom of the list so that they get included in the research. We have a closing date of midnight UTC on 1st July, so please add your link before this date. Once again, thank you for taking the time to participate in the Question Phase of RfA Review.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 12:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I haven't actually answered any of the questions yet, but I'll get on it in the next day or so. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocking

Yup, just noticed it myself, sorry :S. He/She (i'm assuming he) seems to have gone away, although they've probably just taken their particular brand of everything-o-phobia somewhere else unfortunately. Ironho lds 14:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, My name is Rocksolidguitar I have a request to become a Rollback user

My name is Rocksolidguitar,You where on the list of Admins who approve Request for Rollback. I recently Join Wikipedia. I would like to help out in cleaning up vandalism. I would like to get your approval. Go to my page and leave your response.

Thank you --Rocksolidguitar (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional rfa thank you message

		Thank you for the support!
		Hiberniantears, it is my honor to report that thanks in part to your support my third request for adminship passed (80/18/2). I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me, and I will endeovour to put my newly acquired mop and bucket to work for the community as a whole. Yours sincerly and respectfuly, TomStar81 (Talk) 03:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask you

the reason for your personal crusade against me? What kind of a "pleasure" is this, when you know very well that I'm adding correct things. 151.57.146.205 (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Could you maybe help out on these page with displaying references in is own section; tidy it up a bit Kelvin Martinez (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honorific titles in popular music

Thank You Thank you Thank You for fixing up this page. The last time I made a page was List of Best Selling Remix albums. Things were diffrent a year and a half ago lol. Sorry if i made a mess for asking for a lot of help I knew the page was a dozze. Kelvin Martinez (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the support.[reply]

Thanks A lot!!

Thanks for the support!!! Check it Out it looks nice Honorific titles in popular music with any feedback Talk:Honorific titles in popular music Kelvin Martinez (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banned user User:Berlinerzeitung/User:Shuppiluliuma/User:Res Gestæ Divi Augusti and now User:Loreena McKilkenny

Looks like our old friend is back (User:Loreena McKilkenny aka User:Berlinerzeitung aka User:Res Gestæ Divi Augusti aka User:Shuppiluliuma and many others. Also see checkuser you initiated Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Res_Gestæ_Divi_Augusti).

Exact same pattern as his last sock User:Berlinerzeitung, making a few "dummy" edits then moving and concentrating on the Turkey article. Account was created 2 days after User:Berlinerzeitung's block and subsequent indefinate ban for sockpuppetry.--Miyokan (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Miyokan. I am aware of this, and looking into it. I only ask that in the mean time, you refrain from edit warring with this user. Thanks! Hiberniantears (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not exaggerate please, I'm not a serial killer or something like that. Miyokan, I've never bothered you so why don't you get a life? The fact that I keep improving Turkey-related articles tickles your Russian Armenian nerves, I know, but your efforts to get rid of a Turkish champion will be futile. I live in numerous countries by the way, so you have to ban whole geographic areas of the globe to stop me. But give it a try, it's for free :) 151.57.201.234 (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so your attitude is "stop blocking me or I'll keep socking". Wikipedia does not reward sockpuppetry/ban evasion, an indefinate ban does not get overturned because the user starts sock puppeting non-stop. You know there are rules around here and you are still violating policies.--Miyokan (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another sock of User:Shuppiluliuma - User:Fieldchesterman

Here's another sock User:Fieldchesterman, created on 20 July 2008, who I knew would revert this edit [6] as another one of his socks User:Res Gestæ Divi Augusti did [7] [8] [9] [10].--Miyokan (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Another sock User talk:Gönülçelen

Could you please view whether this user is a sock-puppet or not, same type of edits from other previous users. Thanks. M Miah (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly him. I noticed him a few days ago and was hoping he'd just take the opportunity to rejoin the project and be a constructive member of the community. Doesn't look like he's headed that way though. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please make some adjustments back on that Turkey article, it is pretty reasonable that Islam in Turkey must be shown as 'Further information', all other religions are minority religions by far most, the people are 99% Muslims, and Islam in the region is much of the rich history of the country, including the Ottoman Empire etc. which is one of the historical subjects of Turkey in the past. This user I think is trying to make people from knowing that Turks are Muslims, don't have nothing to do with religion, but in fact many do, over 60% of them are religious. Thanks a lot. M Miah (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then completely understand, but the links to these pages looks very different. Main article should be: Religion in Turkey, Secularism in Turkey and Islam in Turkey, and Further information: Christianity in Turkey and Judaism in Turkey. Thanks. M Miah (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help Me

Please help me! This user is threatening me that Image:20K Bomb.PNG is a possibly unfree image when it isn't. He's also deleted Image:Ineson.jpg, Image:MarkLamarr.jpg and Image:IainLee.jpg. What can you do? -- 20000 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi, i think User:Gönülçelen is a sockpuppet of user:Shuppiluliuma what do u think? Elmalili (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely... but your contribution history is pretty suspicious as well. The Turkey articles are pretty much just one big old box of socks. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why who do u think i am? :) Elmalili (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you just answered that for yourself. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i didnt answer anything i just wanted to know if you really thought i was somebody else... Elmalili (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody else? Who would I think you are? Hiberniantears (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey

Hi, is there any reason why Turkey has to be fully-protected instead of semi? Khoikhoi 00:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thanks! Khoikhoi 19:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which did not succeed with 41 support, 21 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate both the supports and the opposes. Thanks again and cheers! TN‑X-Man 18:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motto of the day

Hello, I notice you're using one of the {{motd}} templates, run by Wikipedia:Motto of the day. You may have noticed that some of the mottos recently have been followed by a date from 2006, or on occasion simply "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". The reason for this is that Motto of the day is in some very serious need of help. Participation in the project, which has never been especially high, has dropped considerably over this past summer, to the point we have had several days where no motto was scheduled to appear at all. Over the past several weeks, I've been the only editor scheduling mottos at all, but there aren't enough comments on some of these mottos to justify their use. If we do not get some help - and soon - your daily mottos will stop. In order for us to continue updating these templates for you, we need your help.

When you get a chance between your normal editing, could you stop by our nominations page and leave a few comments on some of the mottos there, especially those that do not have any comments yet? This works very simply; you read a motto, decide whether or not you like it, and post your opinion just below the motto. That's it - no experience required, just an idea of what you personally like and what you feel reflects Wikipedia and its community. If you do have past experience with the project, then please close some of the older nominations once they've got a decent consensus going. There are directions on the nominations page on how to do this.

If you have any questions, please let me know, or post on the project's talk page. I'm looking forward to reading your comments on the suggested mottos, and any additional suggestions you'd like to make. Until then, happy editing! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks

Hello...I know that you have blocked me because I'm Socks Multiple, well you are wrong because I'm not hackers and I work in the Bank. When I use this Wikipedia english in the my home. And I don't know who use my User. Thank you... --Angelo.1961 (alias Big Beast) 11:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But...Why? I'm not Hacker, I'm honor man, well...I'm not blocked, thanks. :-) --Angelo.1961 (alias Big Beast) 22:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey

Hi there, a bit of a edit war again would you be able to view these revisions and compare which is reasonable. There is no such significance between these edits, where I have moved much of the information of history, secularism laws into Religion in Turkey, because it should mainly be summarized on the Turkey article, plus the previous was very un-organized and cluttered (should be expanded more on the related articles) (notice less content). Ayça Leovinus (sock-puppet of Gönülçelen and Shuppiluliuma... and 35 others) reverts without any reason of my good edit, please review this, Thanks! [11] Mohsin (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop playing the innocent, your only concern is to remove Yezidism (because you consider them as heathens) and of course, to remove Kemalism, secularism, and blame solely the Turkish Army for the current secular nature of the Turkish Constitution; as if, without the Army, the Turks would rush to bring Sharia Laws. Mind you that it was not the soldiers who protested in 2007, but civilians. Ayça Leovinus (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the information of Kemalism as being an important part of the Turkish system, and added Turkish Army detail which is an important part of the religion/secularism, because that is a fact of which the army believes it is. I have removed Yezidism because the sources do not cite the religion (plus too many Christian denominations: main 1s). I have edited the article that is in the best interests of Wikipedia. Mohsin (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-edited the section with a fair and non-biased way, by adding secularism and kemalism info., adding populations of Christians and Jews with sources, and added the current situation of the role of religion and headscarf ban controversy, which is really relevant and one of the main topics. Mohsin (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mohsin. I've been away the past few weeks and have not been able to monitor this much. Hiberniantears (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Religion section of Turkey

Please add any comments or suggestions relating to the reversion of the Religion section at the talk page on Religion (2). Thanks! Mohsin (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently discussing the issue of whether my revision is neutral or not, please add any comments on the talk page, thanks! Mohsin (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]