User talk:Kutlumus

Response
Listen Kutlumus. I understand where you are coming from. However, you need to provide sources (and not interpretations of sources) in order to validate your arguments. I am more than happy to help you, but you need to gather reliable sources and provide adequate citations so that verifiability is maintained. If you can do this and prove your case, then all users (including Future Perfect) will have to acknowledge your standpoint (NPOV). Anyway, bring me reliable sources and provide complete citations (page numbers and some content) so that we can both solve this dilemma. Just so you know, I understand Greek very well and am writing to you in English because I am using a keyboard with English letters. I wish you the best of luck in all of your endeavors. If you need any advice adelphe, then feel free to drop by. Deucalionite 17:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply
I really appreciate your answer, brother. I don't know if the infamous Greek-speaking administrator (whom I shan't name) left intact my message to you so I will repeat some of the arguments I was putting forward. First of all, I just wanted to draw your (and everybody's) attention to the section Mustafa Kemal. There is not a single paragraph in it that it is not in praise of this highly controversial figure! This is mere propaganda and I wonder why Wikipedia condones it and why it has given carte blanche to the turkish editors to write according to their taste and -perhaps- hidden agenda! I protested for this fact again and again in the discussion and to the infamous Greek-speaking administrator, I called for a dialogue for a commonly accepted "controversy" section to be included, yet only I got mockery and indefinite block "for edit wars"! Why? I begin to feel that the Greek media's negative reports about Wikipedia do have some firm basis. Since I did not get an answer from the turks or from the infamous Greek-speaking administrator, please tell me:

1.The paragraph "controversy" sites well founded kai accepted Wikipedia articles, eg. Great Fire of Smyrna, Chrysostomos of Smyrna etc. Aren't these valid as reliable sources?

2.If they are not "reliable sources", how can I find on the Internet relevent sources? I mean that in Greece, most sources are not converted for Internet use and obviously I cannot scan and upload Greek books and use them as sources in the English speaking Wikipedia!

3.It is my firm aim to conduct dialogue with the turkish editors about Ataturk. I only erupted into slurs AFTER they rejected my call and mocked me. I have notified the infamous Greek-speaking administrator about it, I asked him for arbitration and he offered none. Therefore I strongly suspect that turkish editors such as Deliogul, Kudret Abi, Laertes b etc. have a nationalistic agenda and the infamous Greek-speaking administrator knows about it but refrains from doing something just because they are a powerful and organised lobby that can unseat him. So my question to you is: how am I to force the turkish editors into conducting a dialogue about a commonly accepted "controversy" paragraph about Mustafa Kemal? Kutlumus 09:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Advice
Listen to me Kutlumus (or Cleander if you prefer). There is not much I can do to help you now since you have been permanently banned from Wikipedia. However, I would be more than happy to continue this conversation via email. My email address is my name (deucalionite) plus the number thirty-three (33) at yahoo.com. Leave me a message if you need any advice. The only thing I ask in return is the truth about your intentions. No lies, no gimmicks. This request is only meant to ensure that you value my advice and my trust. If you can do that, then my services will be of good use to you. If not, then I recommend that you leave me be since I have a lot of work to do and too many experimental parameters to fulfill. Take it easy. Deucalionite 00:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)