User:OttomanReference

2/2006: Just a devoted wikifier;

I fix format problems and add links..

Thanks visiting my page :-)

3/2006:

I recently noticed that it is very hard to add information, if it does not conform to ADMINISTRATORS. I used to think it was part of the social life in Wikipedia, and you have to deal with it. I did not know the full extent of it. A friend pointed that it could reach where a world view of an administrator could shape the article beyond simple facts. I guess life is “live and learn”. This man made place is not free of human problems, and it is nice to know that we can also communicate with each other using other means.

10/2006:

You are looking for a socially engineered culture towards an issue, check this page. One issue, one hatred, wipes out 400 years of history; unlike forgetting a single day from one's life 400 years clears everything that one can be proud of. Missing 400 years turns all the colors to black. In supporting one issue the engineered generation begins to believe to a form of history that does not fit to the realities of its time period. One's future will be in danger, without its true past and recently proven en up eliminating the “freedom of speech”. Life is a funny place and also very sad.

12/2006: Wikipedia can distort facts; How? check this page discussion thread. People vote to get rid of a substantial information based on "I do not like it." The chart they were deleting is on the right. You decide by yourself.

A method to get rid of content you do not like: Do not argue if the subject matter is correct or wrong. Just propose it to be be "deleted". This way you do not have to defend anything. You have 50% chance to get rid of the content. You can improve this chance by using comrades or well crafted puppets. At the end, the process of voting (so called democracy of wikipedia) is not a binding activity. People can say DELETE; and they do not have to validate anything. Check the discussion; the person who proposed deletion does not involve any argument. He knows this process. May be, he used it for other content. It is for the curious to check that claim.

1/2007

A highly charged group can change the information: a) first put a neutrality template, then go into massive edit and than ask for deletion, all within 20 minutes. Example for this process is the article that covers the legal and executive issues regarding April 24 circular. The logic of removing an article is "there is a 24 April, but there is no document or its consequences of 24 April". It is like having 4 of July and an Independence Day (genocide memorial day) but not having its Declaration document (April 24 circular). You will not going to see the document but at least you can read how "defenders" get rid of a milestone document and its analysis from these pages, see check this page. That is the way to keep "strong factual background". The logic is the page for the April 24 circular is an original research, I guess United States Declaration of Independence is also an original reseach. I believe people should ask this question; why someone does not want to understand the details of most important events in their life? Doesn't it deserve a page that covers all the details? Doesn't it deserve more than a page, may be a book?

It is really an interesting question, an order (circular) which one group claims beginning of their darkest day is also claimed that it is not important to have its own page. They do not want (a) see what was included in the document (c) tell the story of it is executed (d) how it is linked to other events. One paragraph with highly charged discourse under a page that explains many issues like April 24 is the preferred way to this group to explain horrible events. It feels like the circular is under a close up. the question is, who is doing it?

4/2007

I have known that admins have the power to influence the content, but punishing users was a nice touch. You may say it is normal when you deal with very touchy subjects. At the end admins have feelings too. Some pages are like that. They are hard to edit. Being blocked is normal even if you are trying the stop a user which removes cited content and has only claim is "s/he thinks it is propaganda". It also does not matter if you left a message explaining that the a page of "denial" has to explain what he does not like. However, do not leave a message to 3RR board, because then you find yourself being blocked. A friend told "it happanes, they do not look at the content, just sheer count, move on" This last event is more funny. This is about the same page and same user. S/he deleted the single paragraph that I recently added; First I asked to give more details for why s/he deleted and first R, At the second, I informed that deletion of text without any reason is a vandalism and second R. Without the third revert, (remember the previous experience) I find myself 48 hours blocked. No notice or information (just the message that I'm blocked). You may say "get a life, it happens". But I remind you that same admin did not block the user who deleted the paragraph. What a justice. I guess, there is no word justice in the word punishment. Limited Rules for admins are not even real rules. I believe a decent admin should not even read or involve with content that falls into his/her interest.

Category:WikiProject Turkey Wikipedians