User talk:とある白い猫/Archive/2013/07

Taksim Gezi parkı protestoları İngilizce tartışma sayfasındaki "How this article may be made objective" başlığı altında geçen yorumlar ile ilgili
Sayın "Bilinen Beyaz Bir Kedi",

Yorumlarınız yaşanan protestolar ile ilgili hem Türkçe hem İngilizce tartışma sayfalarından uzun zamandır takip ediliyor.

Özellikle 2 Temmuz günü kayıtlı olmayan bir kullanıcı çeşitli iddialarla ilgili vikipedi sayfasının taraflı olduğu yolunda daha önce varolan başlıklar altına yorumlarını/endişelerini yazmış ve kendi de başlıklar açmış.

Olaylar tazeliğini korumaya devam ettiği için hangi kaynakların (ki en çok haber siteleri ve gazetelerin sitelerinden alıntılar yapılıyor; şimdilik en makul yollardan biri olarak kabul edilebilir) taraflı ve hangi kaynakların propagandist yayınlar yaptığı ile ilgili kesin yargıda bulunmak o kadar kolay değil. Gazeteler için konuşulacak olursa; bunların sahibi olan şirketlerin veya gazeteler bir şirkete bağımlı değilse bizzat yayın kurulunun iktidar ile ters düşmemek için tarafsız yayın ilkelerinden taviz verdiği bilinen bir gerçek. Tek tek isim saymaya gerek yok. Ve tekrar: Olaylar "taze" olduğu için tansiyonun yüksek olması gayet normal.

Kayıtsız kullanıcının yazdığı yorumlar ile ilgili ona en azından bu vikipedi sayfasında gösterilen çabanın bir görüşü savunmak ve bunu kabul ettirmek üzerine kurulu olmadığını anlatabilmek için tarihten örnekler verilmeye çalışıldı. Ve bunlar oldukça uzun yazıldı.

Pentagon dosyalarından, Hitler'e, Traudl Junge'dan Kennedy suikastı komplolarına...

Obama ile başlayan bölümün devamı okunursa, konuyla tamamıyla ilişkili olan [genellikle] ulusalcı kanadın "muhafazakar değerlerin dayatılmasını istemiyoruz" protestolarını ve muhafazakar kanadın da bu porotestoları "faiz lobisi", "Otpor!" gibi konulara bağladığı görülecektir.

Şu halde her iki kanada söyledikleri ile ilgili somut delillerin var olup olmadığı sorulsa göstermekte zorlanırlar. [Genellikle] Ulusalcı kanat AKP'nin yaptığı açıklamaları öne sürerek (basın demeçleri, grup toplantıları, açılış törenlerinde yapılan konuşmaların videoları vs.) haklılıklarını bir nebze olsun ispatlayabilirler ama tam manasıyla haklı olmadıklarını kendileri de bilir. Aynı durum muhafazakar kanadın iddiaları için de geçerli. Birçoğu kendi iddiasına inanmaz fakat inanıyorumuş gibi yapmak zorundadır çünkü mevzi kaybetmek istemez!

Yukarıda okuduklarınızı tartışma sayfasına hiç değiştirmeden yazmak tabi ki mümkün ve bunu yapmaktan hiç çekinilmez. Fakat bunu yapmakla "bireysel tartışma" haline girileceği bilindiği için şimdilik (hem Türkçe hem İngilizce) tartışma sayfasında yazılmıyor.

Son olarak "Obama, Putin, Castro ve Erdoğan suikastı" örneği "muhafazakar değerleri dayatma", "faiz lobisi" ve "Otpor!" gibi muğlak iddialara yanıt vermek amacıyla yazıldı; bu nedenle konuyla ve bahsi geçen tartışma ile ilişkisi vardır.

Saygılarımla, --Toksoz (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The point is the discussion should focus exclusively on how to improve the article. I would suggest focusing your attention on that. Lengthy posts only serve as a distraction from that goal. You do not need to convince that IP. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 23:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Larry Sanger ile ilgili YORUMU kaldırma hakkınız yok. Tartışma sayfası içinde konuyla ilişkili ve konuyu geliştirici her tür bilgi paylaşılabilir.
Sayın Bilinen Beyaz Bir Kedi,

Larry Sanger'ın wikipedia ile ilgili ilişiğinin 2004'de değil 2002'de kesildiği biliniyor.

Referans verilen kişi/kişiler Hitler gibi dünyanın en tartışmalı ilk üç bireyinden biri bile olsa "talk/discussion" sayfasına yazılabilir.

Şahsınızın, benim veya bir başkasının Larry Sanger veya bir başkasının karakteri ve/veya yaptığı iş hakkında ne kadar tartışmalı olduğunu/olmadığını ispatlayacak ölçüm aleti yoktur. Sonuç olarak kullanıcı sayfama yazılan mesajda belirtilen Larry Sanger'ın tartışmalı bir karakter olduğu ile ilgili iddianız şimdilik sadece sizi bağlar.

Sanger'ın 'Vikipedi dünyası' tarafından (teşbihte hata olmaz) "Topa tutulduğu" ve vikipediyi temsil etmediği ile ilgili yorumlar tabii ki biliniyor.

Tartışma sayfasına Larry Sanger'ın metni yazılmadan evvel, şahsımın hem Sanger hem Jimmy Wales'in sıkı destekçesi olmadığı belirtilmiştir; bu durum gözden kaçmamalıdır.

Ayrıca 'Vikipedi dünyası', 'Michael Jackson'ın dünyası', 'Victor Jara fan kulübü', 'Beşiktaş Çarşı taraftar grubu' gibi çeşitli oluşumlar bir şahsı benimsemiyor, onu topa tutuyor diye özellikle vikipedi gibi devasa bir mecrada 'örnek olarak gösterilemez!' uyarısı yapmak kimsenin haddi değildir.

Son olarak, Larry Sanger'ın mesajı tartışma sayfasının 2. maddesi olacak şekilde, fakat bu kez bold değil, yeniden kaydedildi.

Ve bu başlığın + yorumun ADI ÜZERİNDE "Tartışma Sayfası"ndan kaldırılması, silinmesi vikipedinin kendisinden öte etik kurallara aykırıdır. Bilginize...

Saygılarımla, --Toksoz (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually no. Talk pages of articles exclusively exist for on-topic discussions to improve the article. What you are doing is ONLY serving as a distraction to an important topic. Unless Larry Sagner has made a remark on "2013 protests in Turkey" that posting has no place on the article's talk page and violates the very core of WP:NOTFORUM. Your copy-paste also violates copyrights unless the source is freely licensed. Larry Sagner's remark could however be discussed on the general policy on neutrality at which you may feel free to link the text (do not copy paste). Also, please use English. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 21:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Better source request for File:International Strategic Research Organization.png
Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia: You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
 * File:International Strategic Research Organization.png

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

hey
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_protests_in_Turkey#Move Kavas (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Better source request for File:International Strategic Research Organization.png
Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia: You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
 * File:International Strategic Research Organization.png

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are reliable sources. My twitter account isn't of course. But US presidents twitter account certainly is. Please see SELFSOURCE. Also you have removed sources from my commented out section which I find very odd when I also complain about the sourcing. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, they are only reliable sources under certain circumstances, in fact, only when they are referencing themselves or their own activities. This means a tweet from the president confirming his birthday is okay, but a tweet from the president about his opponent is not okay as a source for that fact about his opponent. The way that they are used in this article is the latter. Also, most of the twitter and facebook sources listed are not confirmed by either twitter or facebook as official accounts, and so cannot be used in any way, shape or form. Jeancey (talk) 20:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is from the page you linked. "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". The sources in this article are being used as sources of information about the protests, not the posters of said information. Also they need to be official accounts, which means confirmed by twitter or facebook, which these are not. I ask you to remove this information as I feel that if I removed it, this would turn into an edit war. I am also going to ask two editors to take a look at the article and weigh in. One of these editors has often been on my side of debates in the past and the other has often been opposed to me in the past. I feel they will both be able to comment on the article in a professional and neutral manner. Would this be okay with you? Jeancey (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The Twitter, Facebook and YouTube links I care about are used as sources to document the opinions of the relevant people. The video of Noam Chomsky on youtube for instance would be fine as a source. If any one of the are not the official accounts for the individuals feel free to remove them but this really should be handled on a case by case basis.
 * -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I had originally removed that section entirely. Everything outside of the prominent people section (especially the use of facebook pictures as sources) needs to be removed, as none of the accounts are confirmed accounts. I checked. Jeancey (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That is fine. I just wasn't sure if you were trying to remove all of them. Other sources (aside from 1) were commented out too. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * One big issue is that even while commented out, the information still has to be loaded. At the current size of the article, it takes a significant time to load on many older computers and on mobile devices. You can read more on the at the article size page. There are generally two rules to follow: Readable prose size (which commenting it out covers) and browser-page size, which is the total size of the article that needs to be loaded. In this case, I believe that both are excessively long. In terms of readable prose size, the article is well over the recommended limit of 100k. At its current size, the article would take around two hours to read at an average rate. In general, when an article gets to 50k, it should start replacing sections with brief summaries of the topic. In this case, I was intending to remove sections which weren't really needed at all in order to reduce the overall size of the article.
 * The browser-page size is the size seen on the history page in terms of bytes, currently around 210k. The general rule of thumb is that no article should really be above 200k, if at all possible. Like I said before, I believe this article only needs to be around 100k browser-page size. Most of the information here, while interesting, serves no encyclopedic purpose. Wikipedia is not an exhaustive source for anything, nor is it meant to be. It is supposed to give the reader an overview of the topic. Currently the article goes well beyond an overview. Thus, while the information might be good in an exhaustive research paper on the topic, it is not fit for wikipedia. Jeancey (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * After commenting out of those sections, the readable prose size is more manageable, but still over 50k. We also should still deal with the browser-page size issue. Jeancey (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that size is an issue but breakaway articles is the way to go. That is the only way we can reduce size without compromising on content. Commented out content aren't loaded. Check the HTML source of the article and you will see that the commented out part isn't part of the html output. Therefore I cannot see how article size applies. I did not add the list of forums, I however converted it to a table so that it wasn't a long list. Notability-wise the forums were hailed as more important than the standing man protests. That is one source and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball of course but given the potential we shouldn't just eliminate the information. What we need is reliable sources to establish the table and this isn't easy.
 * On a side note, I sincerely hope my actions aren't discouraging you from making further edits to the article. I fundamentally agree with you but disagree with the execution. I am very pleased that more people like you are showing interest in the article.
 * -- A Certain White Cat chi? 06:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Turkish Gendarmerie.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Turkish Gendarmerie.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Observer Effect (ENT episode).jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Observer Effect (ENT episode).jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Similitude (ENT episode).jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Similitude (ENT episode).jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Storm Front (Part I).jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Storm Front (Part I).jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Storm Front (Part II).jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Storm Front (Part II).jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Stratagem (ENT episode).jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Stratagem (ENT episode).jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

File:The Aenar (ENT episode).jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Aenar (ENT episode).jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

File:The Augments (ENT episode).jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Augments (ENT episode).jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)