Archives

2007 (Jan-Dec) 2008 (Jan-Jun) 2008 (Jul-Dec) 2009 (Jan-Jun) 2009 (Jul-Dec) 2010 (Jan-Dec)

Hello, Yilloslime, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

When you remove content and references from articles, please provide your reasons for doing so otherwise your updates will get reversed.

Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are referring to. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

talk:endosulfan

Since you mentioned "some ok stuff" request to specify and introduce back on the endosulfan page. the intention here shoould be to present fact based information. Request to support reverts with source links or edit information which may be of concern than reverting the entire edits. there is a lot of blatant POV posted on the page currently from PAN/EJF which are biased due to the nature of their organization. Please check. Also, "quote-mining" is unclear, as many irrelevant quotes are present from unkown parties ex. comparison to Bhopal gas tragedy.Request to please post on talk before rv. Let's be democratic. Webbandit (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have shared my concerns regarding the recent reverts made on the talk page. pls share a suitable explanation for your revert. In lieu of no response, I would consider that the edits I had made are acceptable and revert back to the information shared by me. thanks.Webbandit (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry, I've been away from my computer until now. I don't see where on the talkpage you've shared your concerns about the reverts--the last edit there was 10 months ago. But to address your comments here: Nothing on the page is cited to PAN other than the brief mention of the fact they sued EPA over the pesticide. And the only EJF thing on there is an external link to one their reports, (which I didn't even realize was there until now--I'd be fine removing that, though I don't necessarily think it needs to go.) As for quote mining, see Quote mining. My use of the term refers to your insertion of text about EPA's conclusion that endosulfan doesn't pose a dietary risk and the quote from APMVA. These additions gave the impression that EPA and APVMA have concluded that endosulfan is safe, when in actuality you are quoting decisions to ban/phaseout endosulfan. If a report/article/document concludes one thing, you can't present a quote from within the document that appears to argue for the opposite unless you put that quote in the proper context. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have restored both refs that you removed from the article sic. While you're right that the sources did not discuss those subjects, I believe what happened was that the fact cited and their sources were decoupled through the on-going edits made by various editors. It's not uncommon for people reorganize a paragraph or section to make it read better without bothering to check the sources. In short, please, if in the future you encounter that a ref that doesn't seem to contain a particular fact, try to find another place to put the ref before removing it. Thanks :) —CodeHydro 16:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You put the Fat Head (documentary) article up for AFD back in 2009. I recently remade the article however. I read through the objections on the AFD debate and I feel the the factors that resulted in delete votes have changed so that it would pass an AFD that was held today. In the debate it was mentioned that at some future time, the article might pass the notability threshold even though it did not back then. I welcome your input however and, if you feel that I am wrong, feel free to submit it to AFD again. I wanted to give you notice that the article is back, just as a courtesy, since you were the one that originated the AFD last time. Qaz (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A very weird situation was it. Last Lost (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Could you please properly format the fist line in the disambig page HHO? After this adventure I would not touch the subject with the long pole. Last Lost (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this article/diff[1] may interest you. Shootbamboo (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Lot's of loonies out there.... Yilloslime ^T_C 18:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Thanks for the edit summary, too. HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm due to be out of town for a week and an editor has decided to tag the asinine criticisms of Silent Spring as POV. Keep a watch for me while I'm gone.

Tks Cronos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cronos1 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added you to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. It will needed to be deleted if you return. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt my talk page is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

A tag has been placed on Template:Uw-v1-h requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Eyesnore (PC) 19:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm attempting to improve the article and hopefully bring it to FA status at one point. Any help is appreciated. I have recently taken a lot of material from the Rachel Carson article and inserted it into the Silent Spring article to use as a starting point. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8 to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. This notification is provided to you per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification, because you have previously participated in a discussion on this subject. Cheers! bd2412 T 10:28, 1 April 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) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you deleted the simple, valid, cited articles and positions I just added. Did you check them in the minute between when I added them and when you deleted them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfulbright (talk • contribs) 23:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don’t understand... this reversion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:F100:11A8:CC38:140C:AAA6:7190 (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you recently had edits reverted at Pesticides in the United States by Kingofaces43. I agree with you that (1)WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE are not policies, and have pointed this out to Koa several times when he has conflated them with policy, and (2)WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE are not directly relevant to the information you added, which is based on independent RS coverage, as long as you avoid explicit health claims. In my personal experience, it is best to limit your engagement with Kingofaces43 as much as possible with articles in this area, as he is likely to try to get you blocked for edit warring / violating the agricultural chemicals section of the GMO arbcom case. Rather than argue with him further, I suggest opening a request for comment about your proposed content on the article talk page, to get feedback from other editors.Dialectric (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm a bit confused about your rationale for reverting my edits to Michael Gira. Could you elaborate further? WP:BLPCRIME shouldn't apply, because Gira is a public figure. Also, the consensus on the talk page was that the allegations should be discussed - the section was removed in opposition to this and WP:WELLKNOWN ("If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.") --Martey (talk) 01:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I not would say there was any sort of consensus on the talk page. All there is one editor asking if the allegations could be mentioned, and another editor saying "As long as you have good sourcing and follow guidelines, I don't see why not." That's not much of a consensus. Then the seection in question was removed without objection, and it remained out for more than year during which time more than a dozen unique editors worked on the page, so I would argue that the current consensus is to keep that section out.

Having said all that, I am not catagorically opposed to mentioning the allegations, so long as they are not given undue weight. The section in question gave way more attention to the allegations than they deserved and featured the controversy in its own subsection. Also, one citation was to Facebook, which is a no no, especially for BLP sensitve material. I'm not sure that stereogum and pitchfork are appropriate sources for this type of material either. Yilloslime (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Nicole Maines shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Please conclude the discussion regarding the use of the term activist before reverting to your preferred version of the text. As you added the information regarding the inclusion of the term from the on 3 August 2018, the text should remain at the previous stable version of the article until discussions are concluded. The previous stable version had its last edit made on 29 July 2018 91.110.126.179 (talk) 08:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For your information I have requested the reverting/edit war report you made be re-opened as you are continuing to edit war and are not acting in good faith by imposing your preferred version and are not trying to constructively discuss. I would like to additionally point out silence is not acceptance. 91.110.126.179 (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yilloslime. Since the closure of the AN3 both you and one other editor are continuing to revert the lead, regarding the 'activist' term. It seems that a discussion is now running on the talk page. If you or the other party makes any further reverts before the discussion reaches a conclusion, blocks are likely. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just would like to thank you for removing all the opinions in the article and leaving to facts only. Wikipedia should not be used to affect decisions on an upcoming election, but should provide just facts for research.

Thanks again, hopefully the page stays this way.

--CRTGAMER (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)CRTGAMER[reply]

Please do not make unilateral changes which are controversial and opposed. This is not being bold. Please allow discussions to conclude before making changes. Do not impose your own version on the article, it is not constructive and is disruptive. it also goes against trying to build a consensus. 91.110.126.22 (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, right now this just me and you--we really need a third or moreth opinion here. I will say: I have already met you more than half way on this page--you've gotten your way on the use of the word "activist" and the associated category, you've gotten your way with the name of the court case, and while I agree with JDDJS about [2], I' haven't reverted your revert. It's not that I agree with you on those things--it's that I comprised, in the hope that you might to the same. So far, you haven't. You don't WP:OWN the page; you need to comprise, too, and this would be a good place to start. Sooner or later, someone will notice our dispute and they will see a register user with 10+ years of history on this site, who has already compromised on this page, making arguments based in policy and guidelines and an anonymous IP with a refactored talkpage saying, basically, "I don't like it." Whose arguments do you think will prevail? Yilloslime (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All I want is for you to discuss and engage on the issues. I don't want an edit war. I don't want personal barbs of you are devoid of X, Y, Z. You need to understand this is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Which is how you are behaving. Work with other users. read what they have written and engage on the issues. I have consistently taken what you have said including your selective policy dumps. You I feel do not do anything but provide no arguments or rebuttals. I feel you attempt to shout down and act with a battleground mentality. If you continue you will not build a consensus or move forward constructively on Wikipedia. please also do not make up warnings for non-existent violations of rules. 91.110.126.22 (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interested users can check out the article history and talkpage and decide for themselves who was being reasonable and who, if anyone, wasn't. I invite anyone watching my talk page to tell me if they think I'm in the wrong here. Having said that, I'm glad we could reach a compromise that we can both live with. Yilloslime (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to take issue with a serious factual error you have made. You have claimed I have "reverted three times in 24 hours". You have failed to notice the difference between general editing and actual reverting. Changes made to different sections or parts of an article. The Revert of JDDJS was pointing out the removal of notable and sourced information. This in wholly unrelated to your unconstructive dump edit. This is almost a carbon copy of you dumping in the word activist and behaving in an incidental manner which was poor then and is poor again. When you know an edit is contentiousness make an edit an an imposition. Allow the discussion to conclude before going on imposition mode you did it regarding branding the article with the word activist and tried to do exactly the same on this latest saga. 91.110.126.22 (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 91.110.126.22 (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you insists on a slow burn edit war on the Nicole Maines article. The "compromise" you prefer is not agreed upon and is not discussed. You just like imposing your revision. Please self revert or I will simply report you for the same edit warring behaviour you cannot resist engaging in. 91.110.126.37 (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot simply wait a period of time, and not engage in any discussion and hope that you can sneak your version of the article past everyone without anyone noticing. 91.110.126.37 (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

82.165.86.117 (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Media Matters for America shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 82.165.86.117 (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yilloslime committed vandalism by deleting a significant article update without any possible justification. Yilloslime is in cahoots with the previous marked vandals such as the previous vandal user "Biruitorul".

A proper and only logical argument motivation structure to contribute to wikipedia consists of a particular premise correlated with an universal premise such as a law, and a logical inference, in other words a syllogism, which is verifiable and true according to wikipedia regulations. Since user Yilloslime is clearly a wikipedia vandal, he must be banned

The articles Yilloslime vandalized are https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Court_of_Romania and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_Romania

It is entirely possible these users are agents of the organized crime exposed in these articles, making no sense otherwise that someone would waste his time vandalizing wikipedia articles, unless illicitly interested — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tudor.raneti (talk • contribs) 00:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

wumbolo ^^^ 19:36, 17 April 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) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Per your edit here, claiming the source 21st Century Science and Technology is banned, can you point me to consensus on this? Is the website blacklisted? I'm not necessarily opposed to the removal, but in some cases citing the magazine may be acceptable per WP:SELFSOURCE. Please strive to ensure that any content removals don't leave gaping holes in articles: it's better to be a wrench than an axe, and the best way to improve questionable content is to find better sources. Thanks, --Animalparty! (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche#Remedies #1. I haven't been super active around here lately, but years ago 21st Century citations were routine scrubbed based on this. I believe it is still in effect. Yilloslime (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I think an absolute site ban or all out scrubbing is unwarranted: it depends on the nature of the claim being cited. Citing a biased source need not equal advocacy or propaganda, as the arbitration decision seem to imply. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the evidence provided which demonstrates inclusion is the current consensus. Removal is the changing of consensus. I suggest if you or anyone else want to remove, they need to make their case. I have set out my position please continue the discussion. Sparkle1 (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re [3]. Here's the whole quote from [4], a secondary source, article from a peer-reviewed journal and I believe it can be used to support the paragraph:

A truly extraordinary variety of alternatives to the chemical control of insects is available. Some are already in use and have achieved brilliant success. Others are in the stage of laboratory testing. Still others are little more than ideas in the minds of imaginative scientists, waiting for the opportunity to put them to the test. All have this in common: they are biological solutions, based on understanding of the living organisms they seek to control, and of the whole fabric of life to which these organisms belong. Specialists representing various areas of the vast field of biology are contributing—entomologists, pathologists, geneticists, physiologists, biochemists, ecologists all pouring their knowledge and their creative inspirations into the formation of a new science of biotic controls

Cloud200 (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think that what Carson was talking about in that passage is akin to modern biotechnology. Traditional selective breeding, sure; agroecology, probably; but biotechnology--or at least what the term commonly is understood to mean today (i.e. GMOs)--I doubt it. The very fact that we can even debate this means it[5] is WP:OR, unless of course there are sources that actually say Carson advocated for "biotechnology". Yilloslime (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the linked article [6] says precisely that, so it's our debate on whether Carson meant this or not that is really OR :) Cloud200 (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's what the article is arguing. Yilloslime (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for responding there. Bloom6132 wasn't very happy his preferred wording wasn't supported and is now insisting on an even longer version. Any further thoughts? --84.64.236.222 (talk) 06:52, 8 August 2020 (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) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-t1-h has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Did Q28 make a mess today? 04:52, 18 November 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) 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect '~' and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 7#'~' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I haven't seen you around for a while. I guess it's because the non notable bilateral relations articles creation has really quietened. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thanks. Ya I'm not active on wikipedia too much these day. Lately I just use it to procrastinate--like check the watchlist a few times a day for anything interesting. But I'm not actively seeking to contribute nor do have the time to do any heavy lifting, like article creation or expansion. Yilloslime (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking up the fake references, I suspect this over a range of articles by this article creator (who is permanently banned) that dubious book references are used in bilateral articles. LibStar (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I spot checked a few other articles created by the user, and they all contained similarly bogus refs, in which, for example, an apparently real book is cited, but it was published long before the copyright date listed in the citation and long before the event occurred that it's being cited to support. Yilloslime (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I almost think that user was an AI bot--the account created so many articles so quickly. I don't think a human--even an expert on the international relations of Turkey--could have worked so fast. And an expert wouldn't have effed up the citations so badly. Except I don't think was advanced enough to do this in 2020, but what do I know? Yilloslime (talk) 06:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these articles came up book reading lists like in Namibia–Turkey relations. LibStar (talk) 08:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one. Comoros–Turkey relations. LibStar (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and another one Malawi–Turkey relations. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]