User talk:Netpari/Archive 1

Are you?
Where should I reply? PassionInfinity 05:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Response: Right here.

Hey
nice new nick...netpari. By the way where are you from, India or Pakistan. Its always good to add a category to your country, was-salam. Farhansher 20:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW your picture wasent that bad, why did you removed it. Farhansher 20:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Response: I took my picture out and changed my user name for the same reason -- anonymity. I'm from Hyderabad (Deccan), which explains why my contributions are all associated with this city.

Who art thou ?!
I have the same question as PassionInfinity. Tintin 17:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Response: I'm still the same person but I just adopted a new nickname.

Help
Please vote to merge and redirect Islamofascism to Neofascism and religion...

... which is where it belongs. Vote here: BrandonYusufToropov 21:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Urdu Wikipedia
Asalam-o-Alikum

I request you to please contribute to Urdu wikipedia. We are trying hard to build this wiki. Current article count is 617. Your help in any way would be appreciated.Wisesabre 06:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Response: I speak Dakhani Urdu which is full of slang. My contributions would be akin to Snoop Dog's songs.

2006 bin Laden video
I recently started 2006 bin Laden video. Please improve it in any way you see fit. Thanks. KI 14:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Response: How would I "improve" the video? Please explain. Keep in mind that I think Bin Laden is a !@# of a $%^&* for a variety of reasons.

SM Hadi in the Olympics
I found two mentions of a Subimal Hadi who represented India in tennis dobules in the 1924 Olympics and lost in the quarter finals - in this link and in 'The Complete Book of the Olympics' by David Wallechinsky. Do you know if this was your grandfather, because Subimal sounds like a Bengali name ? Tintin (talk) 07:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Response: I have no idea. Subimal could be a mispronounciation of S.M.; or not!

Wikiethics
Hi,We started a proposal Wikiethics to state the existing policies coherently and make suggestions on improving the editorial standards in Wiki. I thought you might be interested in contributing to that proposal. Unfortunately, a pro-porn and pro-offense lobby is trying to make this proposal a failure. They unilaterally started an approval poll although almost no one including me believe that it is time for a vote, simply because the policy is not ready. It is not even written completely. Editors who thinks that the policy needs to be improved rather than killed by an unfair poll at the beginning of the proposal, started another poll ('Do we really need a poll at this stage?') at the same time. The poll is vandalized for a while but it is stable now. A NO vote on this ('Do we really need a poll now?') poll will strengthen the position of the editors who are willing to improve the ethics policy further. If you have concerns about the ethics and editorial standards in Wiki, please visit the page Wikiethics with your suggestions on the policy. We have two subpages: Arguments and Sections. You might want to consider reviewing these pages as well...  Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem 22:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Response: It is hard to determine what is right and wrong in this age of globalization when everyone's perspective is different if not diametrically opposed. In laying down a code of ethics on Wikipedia you will restrict the rights of human beings to freely express themselves. I suggest letting authors write as they please but their work could be password protected or restrictively accessed by those whom Wikipedia allows. Netpari 23:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Netpari, thanks for the note. The important think I believe is, to set all the differences you mentioned aside and do something good together. There are common values of humanity: universal values. We can and should be able to write an ensyklopedia which is from very definition open to the public, based on these values. I am not trying to restrict anybody's right, but just trying to formulate or write some standards to which everybody can commit or already committed himself/herself. I simply cannot think of an ensyklopedia without ethical considerations and standards. Resid Gulerdem 04:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Response..Hello there. You must be a utopian to think ethical relativism can be effaced by setting global standards. Okay, I'm for it if *everyone* who logs in agrees to these values and there is a provision for any disagreement to be worked out. If people have already committed themselves to certain ideals that you claim are universal, there should not be any discord.Netpari 02:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Good. You might consider reading the proposal Wikiethics and see if there are parts you think need to be improved then. You can use subpages Sections for discussion or you can drop couple of lines to my talk page. That is how we can eliminate disagreements if there is any. I think some people considering the case at the personal level which is causing some trouble. It is hard to expect the same level of maturity from everyone. I am pretty sure that people who really like the philosophy behind Wiki and trying to do something good here will support that idea sooner or later. It requires some time... Resid Gulerdem 03:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello! I was just reading your archives and could'nt help but notice that you seem to have gotten yourself into a tiff on quite a few occasions with the admins. Your responses have been very civil and polite and you expect the same from others. These are emotions and behavior Rgulerdem; They cannot be quantified and measured to be administered exactly in the same amount. Some people are more insensitive than others as a result of nature or nurture. Your policy of "Treat others as you would like to be treated" would not hold good. BTW this would be a good start for your philosophy of mathematics article. Man realized that sensory perceptions are relative so he wanted to set a uniform standard of measurement. Voila! Mathematics was born. Just kidding! I was also curious as to how you chanced upon my page. I try to keep a low profile since I do not wish to get entangled in any controversies at this point in time. Yawn! G'bye. Netpari 04:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the nice words and I understand your concerns in terms of keeping up with lower profile. How I found you: I checked the categories, Christian and Muslim Wikipedians. I couldn't do it with other religious groups and other groups who might be sensitive in regard to the ethical issues because I am blocked and there is an ongoing discussion about it. If you could list some concerns, if any, about the policy to my talk page that would be very beneficial too. Thanks anyways... Resid Gulerdem 04:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Still Reading
I'm still in the process reading the policy..its a bit vague sometimes but the idea behind it makes sense. I took a break to read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_bad_faith Ha! Its funny. Netpari 02:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I know my talkpage looks like a battlefield and scary... But I would still appreciate if you could list your concerns here, when you finish reviewing the proposal. Best... Resid Gulerdem 05:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Rgulerdem blocked
Response: Someone blocked Rgulerdem's page. Now where do I post my response?

I have referred this matter to the arbitration committee at Requests_for_arbitration. Johntex\talk 20:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, it is my pleasure to try to help him. I don't agree with everything he has done, or all the ways he has gone about doing them - but I do think the indef blocking is a little too extreme, and I do think he has not had a chance to tell about his positive contributions. You may want to post a very short note to the ArbCom link above, if you have not already done so. If the ArbCom does give Resid a chance to respons, he is not going to help himself if he slings any mud. If you are in contact with him then please help him understand that. Thanks, Johntex\talk 20:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Rgulerdem has managed to make so many enemies; he must have set a record! I feel so guilty that I did not read his proposal before he got blocked and now its so hard to bail him out and get him back. Netpari 00:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As clerk to the Arbitration Committee, I have removed some threaded discussion from the application. If I inadvertently removed something you wished to raise in your statement, please feel free to add it back as part of your statement.  Please keep the application clear by refraining from threaded discussion of other editors' statements. --Tony Sidaway 01:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Netpari - may I ask why you removed your statement from the ArbCom case on Resid? If it was due to Tony's comment above, I think he is referring to replies you and I made to someone else's comment.  That is what he means by "threaded discussion".  Your statement you made in your own section should be fine, although I think it is supposed to be labeled "Statement by Outside Party - Netpari".  The ArbCom page has stricter rules than most pages.  Anyway, there is a new WP:ANI section where there is discussion about unblocking Resid.  NLSE is OK with it under very tight conditions.  You can post there if you like. Johntex\talk 02:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey Salma, Should I say Netpari? Thanks for your support and warm expressions on ArbCom page. I think you tried to leave a message on my Turkish talk page too, am I right? I unfortunately cannot express my feelings how debt-ful I am for your comments and support. It was very valuable for me. I wish I was able to give you a rose for it... Still could not explain my appreciation. Thanks a ton...



Resid Gulerdem 03:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Response: Aww! That's so sweet! But honestly, I just felt that everyone was being so hard on you in spite of the fact that you were so civil; that just struck me as unfair. I've seen many instances of contributors who have quit Wikipedia (User: BrandonYusufToropov for example) and the fact that you just stuck it out is very admirable. I wish you good luck and smooth sailing from now on. Netpari 14:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Netpari, thanks again. I do not want to get into the reasons that those kids are so hard on me. I should probably start a new article like ideological intolerance as a positive response to their actions. Yes, it is hard for me to say 'gave up!' when I am right. Thanks for the tiger on my page, you almost hit my zodiac sign: leo. I wish good luck to you too. Best... Resid Gulerdem 22:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Resid Gulerdem was very frequently not civil with other good faith editors particularly when he called them vandals and referred to their good faith edits as vandalism, as well he very frequently disrespectfully addressed uninvolved editors and admins who made efforts to intercede and stop his frequent edit warring when they became aware of conflicts regarding him. If Resid does not follow the advice given by his mentor User:Johntex and continues to edit on the Wikiethics policy while it is in its rejected status (whereby he can be a defacto owner and likely not experience the outside influence of other editors on it) he will likely encounter further future resistance that will again incline him to return to his edit warring ways and see him once and for all permanently blocked. If you're following this Resid, you would do well to do like you said you would previously and follow the suggestions given to you by your mentor. Netscott 08:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)