Wrong. Find me the part I said "I was worried about the bad image this site was giving to foreigners".

What I said before does not contradict with what I say now at all, because I said before that when very delicate topics are discussed, then foreigners who are not well informed and not familiar about the subject, can say easily offending and chaos creating things.

According to my moderating believes, such a strong claim cannot stay without any source, so I deleted it the moment I saw it, though I did not delete it permanently, so that it could be undeleted, then I private messaged you asking for the source. Here is all the process.

About your last paragraph, I do not find it worth answering.

Belive that it comes last in my wishes.

The world already sees Turkey as it wishes. They see the good side when it suits their benefits.

And the main concern is to protect our values from defamations.

 Though I suggest refering to WarTrain about Angelina and Brad... She is a more reliable source about this subject.

 My last post will explain you a lot, so please REread it.

And not seeing wikipedia a very reliable source is being a snob? Wow, you sound like you are so certain about your judgement! But these words do not look good on you because it´s like the words coming from "intellectuel, educated people" enemies, because they feel some kind inferiority complex towards them, because they know that they can never get there, and they choose to deface them, but I believe that you are not one of them and you are "just" using these people´s words now. Nice try to label me.

And I do not disbelieve someone because he/she is not turkish. It´s just I do not believe everyone, everything I read, especially when I hear a claim about someone very known just from ONE person and without any real PROOF.

 Look handsom,

I´ll discuss here as a member who uses her freedom of speech, so listen to it like this.

I never associated Ataturk with religions, that´s why I got especially angry, so you agree with me. In your dear views then, what vineyards did was insulting, though I just asked him for the source so that we would know who claimed it.

Indeed that claim has been made by Grace Ellison who we learn that is a british journalist. That claim belongs to her and just to her, though it is not like saying just her view, she claims that it is his exact words, though just one journalist, and she is british, at that time in 1920s british and ottomans had what kind of relations? , no record, nothing that would support this claim other than it is in her book. She has NO PROOF while we have so many reliable sources that are proof about what Ataturk said about religion.

But the important thing is not that. Ataturk might have whatever religion, he can be muslim, jew, atheist, or deist, that religion part does not interest anyone. Why Ataturk is so important to Turkish people is not because of his religion but because of what he has done for the republic of Turkey. Bringing here one person´s claim that has no proof serves to whom? Apart from seperating people about Ataturk, creating chaos. For freedom of speech ok, but here I am not trying to ban his right to say this, I am now discussing as a forum member here who has the freedom of speech.

Apart from my personal opiinon, as a mod here now, such a claim should have had a source under. Everyone should have known that it was GRACE ELLISON´S, a british journalist´s claim in her book.

Who claims that wikipedia is a trustworthy site must be so far away from scientific research. For that person the most important thing that he/she has ever researched in his/her entire life must be the number of kids Angelina and Brad Pitt have adopted.

Inwikipedia while reading some important thing about a certain chemical reaction, you may be finding yourself reading something about how nice the weather is or a cookies recipe of someone´s grandma. Once whilst reading something I did not like, I just wished to change it, and I wrote what I wanted.

Let´s look at handsom´s source in this "reliable source":

"From Quotes about Atatürk:

Our life here is truly hellish. Fortunately, my soldiers are very brave and tougher than the enemy. What is more, their private beliefs make it easier to carry out orders which send them to their death. They see only two supernatural outcomes: victory for the faith or martyrdom. Do you know what the second means? It is to go straight to heaven. There, the houris, God´s most beautiful women, will meet them and will satisfy their desires for all eternity. What great happiness! "

And to see how trustworthy it is, let´s look at this page once again to see at the bottom of the page a new brand edition

As quoted from wikipedia:

"Quotes about Atatürk

• handsom visited here (23 septembre) to copy paste a quote from wikipedia which is his great source. Since he found wikipedia, he lives very happyly. J´AIME TOUS LE MONDE!!! BISOUS!""

 We are still waiting for the vineyard´s source.

Yes, lately I look much more fanatic than I ever used to be. It becomes inevitable when the owners of a turkish language and culture site are not Turk or/and enough turkish patriotic (I´m sorry if it offends but that is the truth). Otherwise we would see more sensitivity about Ataturk and PKK issue.

 The wrong thing is you handsom you know

I like playing games as much as you do. I am as stubborn as you can ever imagine.

I´m interested in psychology and my ability of empathy is quite good. I know the things that you enjoy, I know your tactics. I am not going to give up and leave the site being defeated by your games under the cover of "freedom of speech". To your L O L s I have my L O L s, and in the future to your links I will have my links. I know my subjects.

OK, then I´ll try to find the ones which handsom will love the most.