User talk:TheBirdsShedTears/Archives/2025/January

Happy holidays!

Hello there, 'tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! A big thank you for all of your contributions to Wikipedia in 2024! Wishing you a Very happy and productive 2025!  ♦ Maliner (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

NPP Reviews

Hi, TheBirdsShedTears, and thank you for all your help thus far with the 2025 NPP Backlog Drive! Even if only for the first couple of days, being in the top ten reviewers is an incredible feat!

I wanted to reach out because I was double-checking a few of your reviews and noticed IWF International Solidarity Championships, which you had marked as reviewed. At the time of the review, the article had two sources, one of which is primary and doesn't provide significant coverage of the event and the other of which appears to be a dead link. Given this, it would make sense to check if sources are available to establish notability. If so, you should tag the article as needing more sources. I have unmarked the article as reviewed for the moment.

As you continue reviewing for the backlog, make sure to keep the handy dandy flowchart in mind. Thanks again for all your hard work, and let me know if you have any further questions, comments, and/or concerns. Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up. I believe it might have occurred accidentally. I usually address such articles with the necessary tags. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 04:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good! As another quick question, I noticed you tagged a few pages for notability and marked them as reviewed (e.g., Goonew). Could you clarify your rationale for this? Generally, when there are unresolved notability issues, it's best to hold off on marking the article as reviewed until those concerns are addressed. This ensures that problematic articles don’t slip through without proper vetting. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade: The article has been unreviewed since 5 February 2024. I am currently reviewing older articles, tagging non-notable ones with a notability tag, and marking them as reviewed to help reduce the NPP backlog. I believe leaving them unreviewed does not contribute to reducing the backlog. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response! I completely understand the desire to help clear out older unreviewed articles. That said, marking an article as reviewed while tagging it for notability can create confusion as the "reviewed" status signals that the article meets Wikipedia's minimum notability standards. If the notability of an article is in question, it should remain unreviewed until either the issue is resolved or the article is redirected, merged, or sent to AfD. I understand the backlog can feel daunting, but accurate reviews are critical to maintaining the integrity of the patrol process. Thanks again for your work, and let me know if you have any follow-up questions, comments, and/or concerns. Take care, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Significa liberdade, FWIW I don't entirely agree with this advice. I think it's fine to add {{notability}} and mark as reviewed new articles which are borderline for notability but have a low risk for harm (e.g. topics without promotional potential or contentious material) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade:, For clarity, I haven't marked BLPs—particularly those with contentious material or potential COI—as reviewed. I've also taken several such articles to AfD and draftified many created within the last 90 days. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill:, Thank you! I have marked only non-promotional articles with no potential COI as reviewed, using the notability tag, to help reduce the backlog as much as possible. Also, I perform a WP:BEFORE search before taking action on such articles. I have also added sources to notable article (in my opinion) before reviewing them. Please see Jetullah Qarri. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Its only Presidency of Religious Affairs not Republic of Turkey Presidency of Religious Affairs

Is it? Do you see the official logo of DIB on wikipedia page?

Look again closely: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diyanet_%C4%B0%C5%9Fleri_Ba%C5%9Fkanl%C4%B1%C4%9F%C4%B1_yeni_logo.svg

It says "Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Cumhurbaşkanlığı Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı"

And more, Türkiye officially changed its international name:

https://turkiye.un.org/tr/184798-t%C3%BCrkiyenin-ad%C4%B1-bmde-yabanc%C4%B1-dillerde-de-art%C4%B1k-t%C3%BCrkiye

Now would you revert your changes?

I hope you find this reliable enough and regard them as "reliable sources"

Umarım öyle olur. 178.241.156.97 (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Instead of focusing on the entire text of the logo, which appears a description rather than the actual title, pay attention to the bold text that reads Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı (Presidency of Religious Affairs). For future reference, please visit the official website of DIB. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Really? Let's check diyabet's website: www.diyanet.gov.tr

It says:

"T.C. Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı Resmi İnternet Sitesi"

If you make a mistake it is wise to accept it and move forward. Insisting on a mistake is really....pointless.

I hope you actually use official and "reliable sources" in the future for future references and claims.

Have a nice and reliable day with "reliable sources".

Cheers kanka! 178.246.223.0 (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Read paragraph number 5 here. It reads; By the Law 5634, published on 29.04.1950, “Diyanet İşleri Reisliği” (Directorate of Religious Affairs) was changed as “Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı” (Presidency of Religious Affairs) the staff of mosques and smaller mosques and people in charge of them that were assigned to the General Directorate of Charitable Foundations, were given to the Presidency of Religious Affairs again. Read this carefully than making less useful statements. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

now read it carefully:

https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/21.5.2646.pdf

RESMÎ YAZIŞMALARDA UYGULANACAK USUL VE ESASLAR HAKKINDA YÖNETMELİK Cumhurbaşkanı Kararının Tarihi : 9/6/2020 Sayısı : 2646 Yayımlandığı Resmî Gazetenin Tarihi : 10/6/2020 Sayısı : 31151

Başlık MADDE 10- (1) Başlık (antet), belgeyi gönderen idarenin adının belirtildiği bölümdür.

(2) Başlık, belgenin yazı alanının üst kısmına ortalanarak yazılır. İlk satıra “T.C.” kısaltması, ikinci satıra idarenin adı büyük harflerle, üçüncü satıra birimin adı ilk harfleri büyük diğerleri küçük harflerle ortalanarak yazılır. Ancak bağlı veya ilgili idarelerde ilk satıra “T.C.” kısaltması, ikinci satıra bağlı veya ilgili olunan idarenin adı büyük harflerle, üçüncü satıra idarenin adı ilk harfleri büyük diğerleri küçük harflerle ve dördüncü satıra da birimin adı ilk harfleri büyük diğerleri küçük harflerle ortalanarak yazılabilir (Örnek 2).

Then take a look at this official document (especially the header the name of the institution) given in the article:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Religious_Affairs#/media/File%3ANahit_Serbes_Diyanet_%C4%B0%C5%9Fleri_Ba%C5%9Fkanl%C4%B1%C4%9F%C4%B1_Cami_A%C3%A7%C4%B1l%C4%B1%C5%9F_Belgesi.jpg

What did you write:

"Read this carefully than making less useful statements."

Indeed! I have made useful contributions, not claims with "reliable sources"

Don't forget to revert your changes.

Have a nice day with "reliable sources"

Cheers mate! 178.246.223.0 (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)