User talk:Fightingagainstlies

Welcome!
Hello, Fightingagainstlies, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Oktay Sinanoğlu. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! benzband ( talk ) 11:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Your editing work on Oktay Sinanoğlu
Hi, I notice you've made significant changes to this article and it's sorely needed it for some time now! If you're open to it, I'd like to discuss with you some specific things I think would help this, while remembering that we must adhere to WP:BLP standards. I'm going to start as section on the Article talk page, and would appreciate your comments as well. Thank you! Vertium  (talk to me)  17:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please don't remove the maintenance tags from this article. This article is not written from a neutral tone and is not currently encyclopedic.  I know you're working hard on it, but it needs substantive reorganization and revision still.  As I mentioned above (and on the talk page)  I'm happy to help, but if you choose not to reply, I can't help you any more.  In the meantime, please leave the tags in place.  Thank you.   Vertium   (talk to me)  16:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012
Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Oktay Sinanoğlu, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 17:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Oktay Sinanoğlu. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 17:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

your vandalism
Every sentences on the text depends on the documents that had been showed on references. All of them is true. And the trueness = the neutrality. Blocking of such a documented article is vandalism.

fightingagainstlies

06 July 2012

Your email to me
Keep Wikipedia business on Wikipedia. I will not respond to your email except here on this talk page.

You should learn what actions have been taken and by whom, before you throw accusations around. All I did was block you for edit warring. The block is deserved, because you were edit warring. I do not know who Sinanoglu is, and I did not place a tag on the article you were editing.

Furthermore, your statements suchas "you can not REWRITE this article" and "NO BODY CAN REWRITE MY ARTICLE" and telling other editors what they can and cannot do, reveals a gross misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. See WP:OWN. '''It is not YOUR article. You do not own ANY article on Wikipedia.''' Nobody does.

Also, read WP:BRD. If you make contentious edits that others disagree with, you will not get the version you want by edit-warring. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. So start collaborating when your block expires.

See also WP:NOTTRUTH. In other words, verifiability is what matters, not truth.

Finally, read WP:BATTLEGROUND. Wikipedia has no tolerance for editors who conduct themselves as if this is a battleground.

Until you have read and understood those links, as well as WP:NPOV, please don't bother responding. If you think this block is unfair, you have instructions above on how to make a proper unblock request. If you continue to attack others and continue to fail to understand the reasons for your block, you can expect your block to be extended. It is your choice. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Z.B.K.1
Hi. Thanks for your work on the article Oktay Sinanoğlu, and thanks for leaving me a message.

No one wishes to slight you or bash the article on Mr Sinanoğlu: we're all just here to build an encyclopedia, i.e. to improve articles following Wikipedia's guidelines, rather than battling over them to get one's own way.

The maintenance tags were placed so as to draw attention to specific issues/problems, and get them fixed. If you wish the tags to be removed, then fix the problems or let others fix them.

And if you get involved in a dispute, the best thing to do is raise the issue on the talkpage. It's so much better than starting a revert-war, because the latter will probably from get you blocked it surely won't make the article any better.

Hope this helps, feel free to leave a reply. benzband ( talk ) 10:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Dear Amatulic, Thank you for replying to me. English language is not my mother language. I'm writing by looking the dictionaries. Now, I translated the rules of wikipedia which you mentioned in your replying. I read and unterstood them. I will edit the article in accordance with this rules. Please move the blockage. Thank you again. Yours sincerely. Fightingagainstlies (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The block only lasts 24 hours, so it should be over today at 17:46 UTC. benzband  ( talk ) 16:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, a 24-hour block is standard for a first time edit warring. Just let it expire.
 * Try to remember, if someone reverts your edits, do not simply re-instate them. Instead, use the article talk pages to explain your changes. In this way, everyone including you can discuss the quality of the sources and find an acceptable compromise, and then come to a consensus about what should be in the article. That is how we collaborate on Wikipedia.
 * Thank you for taking the time to read and understand the guidelines I pointed out. There are many more, and it is difficult for a new editor to learn it all at once &mdash; especially someone who has difficulty with English. And I must say, your English is better than that of many of my fellow Americans. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much
I am an old man. I am working to be carryfull. Please excuse me. Thank you again and again. --Fightingagainstlies (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 Vertium '' When all is said and done 22:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Please continue editing
I know you had a recent episode where you got blocked, primarily because you didn't fully understand the policies about articles here at Wikipedia. Please don't be discouraged by that event. As I mentioned before, I know you're passionate about the Oktay Sinanoğlu article, it just needs to be balanced and restructured. Are you willing to continue your editing and work with someone on it? Please let me know (either by responding here or on my talk page). Thank you. Vertium '' When all is said and done 11:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

 Vertium '' When all is said and done

Please stop
Hi,
 * Self-published content, like this and this, is not a reliable source, and certainly should not be used for controversial claims about a living person. Please stop. There is a discussion at the BLP Noticeboard about this article; please join the discussion.
 * Also, labelling good-faith edits as vandalism is a Bad Thing. Don't do that. bobrayner (talk) 09:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Revert warring
You're revert warring. You're revert warring on a biography that's listed in the biographies of living persons noticeboard. You're revert warring on a truly terrible biography. And you don't seem to be interested in discussion, or indeed any other article on the entire project. I'm tempted to take your editing privileges away entirely and delete the article and its whole edit history. I'm giving you this one opportunity to make the case for that not happening. Explain yourself. Uncle G (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Three revert rule
 * Biographies of living persons


 * I agree, explain yourself. You were already blocked once for failing to collaborate. Edit warring will NOT result in the changes you want. You must discuss your differences on the article talk page. If you can not or will not collaborate, you should not be editing the English Wikipedia. Collaborate now, or be blocked. Your choice. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Uncle G has in fact edited the article to a stub. He asked me to look in (I frequently work with academic bios, including those subject to disputes). To be frank, I find your editing here to be wholly unconstructive and devoted primarily to the harassment of a living person. To the extent the article had content that could not be verified, it will be dealt with fairly, but this will be best done by others than you. If there are any further problems, I will carry out the second part of what he warned you about, and   block you   from Wikipedia, as I shall   block anyone making similar edits.
 * But I want to strongly encourage you to stay at Wikipedia and work on other subjects. If you are interested in him, you are probably interested in science, and there are lots of scientists who need articles--such as all the members of National Academy of Sciences.   DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I had edited the article by using over 200 references which consist verifiable documents.
Dear Sirs, You stated that: "The article had content that could not be verified". But, in fact, every word, every sentence and every paragraph of my editing is verifiable with secure documents which are shown in over 200 references. Please show me that which of them "could not be verified". Thank you from now. Yours sincerely. --Fightingagainstlies (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * First, I have not yet edited substantially yet, but when I do, you are very welcome indeed to compare my work with yours. Anything I write in WP can be used elsewhere, if proper attribution is given. Second, when I wrote "To the extent the article had content that could not be verified," I was referring not to your errors but to the many places where you pointed out discrepancies between the subject's autobio and what you found in other sources. I can deal with this fairly, but your apparent animus against him prevents you from editing the page in an appropriate manner.  I knew nothing about him until I looked at the article, so I have a neutral point of view. I shall go by what the sources say, not by trying to bring minor matters of wording and author sequence into a major case by extrapolation and original research, nor by speculating upon his  motives and the motives of   others.  DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have seen a small amount of your work. It makes me think you are putting a great effort into one very small topic or article.  Perhaps you should read other articles about topics you know, and try to make smaller improvements in each.  Experience can help you to understand how Wikipedia works, before you try to make big changes.  It won't help you in fighting, however.  Fighting is not what Wikipedia is about.  Better to learn how to encourage other editors to help you.  Jim.henderson (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Only Warning
All of the other editors and admins have been extremely nice to you. It hasn't been working, because you've gone from edit warring to personal attacks, which are strictly forbidden per WP:NPA. This is your final warning: either edit Wikipedia according to our rules (which means being WP:CIVIL, not edit warring, not trying to promote original research, not trying to slant Wikipedia to your particular viewpoint, among others--ultimately, it means collaborating with other people, not trying to fight them), or I will block you. So far you've shown no willingness to abide by WP policies or treat others with any sort of respect, and that damages the encyclopedia. I strongly recommend that you take some time away from the Sinanoglu article, read some of the policies I've linked to, and get a feel for how WP works. If not, you're welcome to write the book you talked about elsewhere; you can even copy word for word what other editors said, as long as you follow the licensing rules (give them credit, and allow others the same right to copy). But you cannot act like this here. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You have placed a link to  gossip about him on my talk page.   You are in my opinion too involved in this to make contributions about the subject anywhere on wikipedia, but I will let someone other than myself enforce this.    DGG ( talk ) 21:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Stop
You need to stop this. A user's behaviour on other wikis does not concern us here. All that matters is their behaviour here. If he's abusing multiple accounts, then you should take it through the proper channels. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The user is making edits on a certain article, (and as far as I can see it is the only article that interests them) without any consideration to WP's policy and principles. I invited them to discussion on the article's TP and all I received in turn was what got them blocked for 4 days. To keep my good name clean, and to satisfy their unrelated curiosity, I would like to state that I have not made any sock puppetting, ever, here or in any other WP. The rest they can explore themselves. --E4024 (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

User talk:E4024
The editor has asked you stop posting to their talk page, and you keep adding material, to the point that it is harassment. Stop it. I don't care what happens on tr.wikipedia.org, this is en.wikipedia.org Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I take that back, now that I see you've already been warned but continued afterwards, I've blocked you for 96 hours. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Concerning Oktay Sinanoğlu
Just a fair warning: your recent edits to the aforementioned article have (again) tried to slant the article content to a certain side, without keeping to the neutral point of view. You know this is not allowed, having been told so before. So, if you insist on continuing this behaviour, it may well end in a block for you. Lectonar (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 16:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)