User talk:Rgulerdem/Archive 1 (Feb 14, 06)

Eddie gives Rgulerdem a hello
I thought I'd say hi to You. You seem new and eager to move up in the ranks. Unfortunately, it won't succeed right now. Keep making reasonable edits and maybe in a few months You can try again. -- Eddie 07:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right, thanks for the message.
 * I was wondering if you know how to built a bot. COuld you help me with that?
 * Thanks...


 * Please sign all your messages with four tildes (~). Bots must be Wikipedia-approved. NSL  E  ( T + C + CVU ) 01:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Rgulerdem wrote: Eddie, thanks for the message... I have a question: Do you know how to built a bot. Thanks... Resid Gulerdem
 * Nope, I know nothing about building "bots". I guess bots are automated users account programmed by editors who create and own them.  -- Eddie 05:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Three revert rule
Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- JamesTeterenko 19:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have responded on Talk:Fethullah Gülen. Welcome to Wikipedia.  I hope you enjoy your time here and continue to contribute.  You should know that the convention here is to add additional talk items to the end of the page.  I had missed your previous note on the Fethulla Gulen talk page because it was not signed, you were not logged in, and it didn't appear on the bottom of the page.  You'll probably get the hang of things soon.  -- JamesTeterenko 19:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced message
Hello. You've placed a message on my talk page about making a bot. I think you've contacted the wrong user, as my name is not Phil and I don't know how to make bots. I just wanted to tell you this so that you don't expect an answer to your question from me. Best of luck. --Merovingian 09:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Resid Gulerdem, sorry about the confusion. I imagine you got my email. I'm afraid I don't have anything exceptional to report. Here is an excellent next place to ask for direction User talk:AllyUnion --Phil Harnish (Info | Talk) 21:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Bot Request
Dear Ally, I would like to have a bot so that I can collect information regarding the world universities. Someone directed me to your page. I was wondering if you can help me with that. The free web source that I can use for collecting info is findaschool.org and there are few other. Please let me know what you think. Best, Resid Gulerdem 01:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In order to best help you for your needs, you have to tell me what kind of data do you plan to pull and where. The easiest way to describe it is, tell me what you would have to do manually, and elaborate step by step.  You'll need to elaborate the complete process from start to finish. --AllyUnion (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocking on Turkish wikipedia and becoming an admin
Hello. Sorry, I have been away for a few days, and have not paid much attention to Wikipedia.

Not being able to speak or read any Turkish, I am not familiar with the Turkish Wikipedia. However, I would just have to assume that they have similar practices and processes as here on the English wikipedia. See Resolving disputes.

If you would like to understand more about becoming an administrator, see: Guide to requests for adminship. However, I believe that the chances of you becoming an administrator any time soon is quite unlikely. You need more time and more contributions. You will also need more edits that do not result in edit wars. -- JamesTeterenko 04:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Fethullah Gülen reverts
I reverted back to your version and noted why on the talk page. While I'm not as knowledgeable about the subject as most of the folks trying to improve the article, I do still have some concerns about the balance of the article. Ohnoitsjamie 17:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I realize you and others have put a lot of sweat and toil into this article, and I don't want to step on anyone's toes. Hopefully my perspective and suggestions as an objective outsider are useful. Ohnoitsjamie 20:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not an administrator, so I can't put a lock on the article. If both sides can't agree on a compromise, there is a Request for Medation process that is available for such situations.

The comments that show up as annotations in the history are what's typed into the "Edit Summary" box when you save a revision. Cheers, Ohnoitsjamie 22:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I ran into some edit conflicts as well. It's hard to merge when you've written a lot!! I hope you hit the "back" button and saved your edits to a file you can cut-and-paste in later. Ohnoitsjamie 01:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

A "New Reader's" perception
You voiced the concern that a reader who knew nothing about Gülen might stop reading the article as soon as they got to the critical section. I don't think you should worry about that; the average English speaker who reads this article probably does so because they're interested in Turkey or Turkish politics, and thus would already assume that Gülen is a controversial figure. For example, I've talked to Greeks and Turks about Cyprus. I've heard both sides of the debate, but I still don't have a strong leaning one way or the other. I just like knowing both sides of the argument. I'd like to think that open-minded readers will always want to hear arguments for and against. Ohnoitsjamie 03:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Editing suggestions
Hi Rgulerdem; to help make the talk page more readable, I'd make the following suggestions. You can use three single quote marks to make a statement bold, for example: bold prints like this: bold

A colon can be used to indent. So this:
 * this is indented one level
 * this is indented two levels

becomes this:
 * this is indented one level
 * this is indented two levels

Also, don't forget to use the four tildes ~ to sign your posts. Regards, Ohnoitsjamie 01:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Gulen's article
Hi Rgulerdem; I don't want you to think I'm abandoning the article, but I will be really busy most of the day and won't have much time to look at it. Cheers, Ohnoitsjamie 17:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've noted on Gulen's talk page that either you or Baroqqque should intiate an request for mediation. Just a friendly caution, however; I strongly suspect that your edits will not fare well unless you are able to rephrase them in a more encylopedic manner. Good luck,  Oh  no  itsJamie  03:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

blocked
G'day Rgulerdem,

I see you and User:Baroqqque have been fighting over the content of our article on Fethullah Gülen. Friendly disagreements on Wikipedia are common, and healthy, but revert warring is considered harmful. Revert warring is where two (or more) users repeatedly switch an article to a previous version without attempting to compromise. We have a policy that allows administrators to block participants in a "war" as a sort of "time out" period; it's called the 3RR and it's the reason you're blocked now. I appreciate that sometimes it is hard to work with other users, but I'd like to encourage you to try to negotiate with Baroqqque (or, indeed, any other user with whom you have a disagreement over content) rather than simply seek to impose your preferred version of an article. I look forward to your return in twenty-four hours. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * After going away and having a bit of a think about it, I've unblocked you early, but I'm going to leave the article protected for now. Please have a read of Edit war and Three-revert rule before you do anything else.  One of the big principles of Getting On With Others on Wikipedia is that revert wars are lame (even the ones that aren't really lame), and nobody wants to be lame, do they?  I think it would be a good idea if, for the time you would normally have been blocked (that is, the next 20 hours), you don't revert anything at all.  Sound fair? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I blocked User:Baroqqque at the same time I blocked you. It's standard procedure, when people edit war, to impose 24-hour blocks &mdash; especially if they violate the 3RR.  The idea is that, basically, unless you're removing simple vandalism, repeatedly reverting is never justified.  However, you guys are both new, and it was an honest mistake, so I shortened the blocks for you both.


 * I am available to help with mediation or anything else you require (as, I'm sure, is Jamie), but I don't think arbitration is the appropriate step for you fellows just now. Arbitration is a very big deal on Wikipedia, and usually only occurs when all other avenues of conflict resolution have failed.  Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Gülen's Movement
Hello. I didn't delete the article Gülen's Movement. If you look at the deletion log, you will see that three different administrators have deleted the page. If you create an article with no meaningful content, it will be deleted very quickly. -- JamesTeterenko 19:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Muhammed Cartoons
Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Maverick 19:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding your request for help; I (or anyone else) can't remove the images without discussion. The images at Clitoris are considered offensive to some users, but the consensus was to keep them (see Pornography). I understand that images of  Muhammad are blasphemous to Muslims, but that itself does not make a clear case for deletion of an image on a public, global encyclopedia.  The topic is certainly debatable; you should make your arguments on the talk page for the article, or possibly file a WP:RfC.  OhNo  itsJamie Talk 21:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is about the pictures. It makes no sense not to have the article being talked about pictured. You are also being unecessarily confrontational. The majority of the users here want to keep the picture, and with good reason. I don't care what religion you are, one user cannot override the decisions of a large group. Some people have suggested that the picture be moved "below the fold", but we cannot even attempt a discussion at that because of people like you who waste time removing the picture against the community consensus. Furthermore, you are toying with violating 3RR, and you will be banned from editing if you continue. That has nothing to do with any picture, it is a custom that we observe to prevent edit wars. I hope you can come around and see the error in your ways. Good day. --Maverick 19:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --GunnarRene 19:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You, sir, are done. I am reporting you for violation of 3RR and vandalims. Maverick 19:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

(Moved from User_talk:GunnarRene ) Insults are against the wiki philosophy. Noone can insult to 1.3 billion people in a wiki article. This is a step towards the clush of civilization. Please be more consious about it! I am discussing my ideas in the discussioni page. Please take some action to remove these pictures from there/ We can discuss without them too. Resid Gulerdem 19:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * O RLY? Then link to the part of the wiki philosophy that says that. I'm not hell-bent on showing every muslim in the world these stupid cartoons, in fact I would never draw such tings myself, but I was giving you a friendly warning about what would happen. --GunnarRene 19:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, isn't it in the best interest of muslims who were shown or told about images of Muhammed as pig, pedophile etc. to be shown that the real caricatures weren't as bad as that? --GunnarRene 19:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Revert warring is not the way to achieve agreement
Please stop revert warring on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Discuss it on the talk page instead. Thank you. All the best, --Durin 19:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You said "see discussion" in the edit summary. To what part of the discussion were you referring? If there's no particular part of the discussion that represents you, then make your view clear in the talk page then. --GunnarRene 19:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Rgulerdem, I know that you're familiar with the WP:3RR rule as you have been warned against it in the past. This is your last warning- any further reverts to the cartoon controversy article in the next 23 hours will result in a block. --DDG 19:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to refer you to fuddlemark's comments above at User_talk:Rgulerdem. You need to take the lessons to heart; revert warring does not lead to constructive conclusions to article improvement. It leads to getting blocked. You reverted the same content on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy 4 times within an hour. This is not productive, and is a violation of WP:3RR. I'm not going to block you however, as the article's been protected and the warring stopped (for now anyways). I want you to re-read what fuddlemark said above. Please, don't engage in revert warring. Thank you. --Durin 19:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The images are offensive, and for that reason they should stay.
Hello,

just let me begin by saying that I agree with you in that the pictures of the Muhammed cartoons are highly offensive. That being said, I still think we should include the pictures in the relevant Wikipedia article.

An article about anti-Semitism makes much more sense if it includes illustrations of anti-Semitic propaganda. Doing this does not in any way endorse a specific view regarding Jews. Similarly, including the cartoons does not mean we agree that Muhammad was a terrorist, or any other derogatory remark regarding Muslims that the caricatures make. As for including depictions of Muhammad, well, Wikipedia contains content you may find objectionable. &mdash;Gabbe 19:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Violation of WP:3RR
You have now reverted the image in Muhammad Drawings (at least) three times. If you do so again, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia for 24 hours. Thanks. Babajobu 19:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As evidenced by Contributions, user is now discussing on talk page. Though technically bannable right now, I suggest letting him discuss as long as he doesn't touch the "Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy" page itself for 24 hours. --GunnarRene 20:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Please forget I said that. The article itself was protected. --GunnarRene 20:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And I'm inclined to leave it protected for at least 48 hours, for time for the poll to run. Rgulderdem, you have engaged in revert warring before. I certainly hope you have learned your lesson without us having to apply another block. Please don't make that hope in vain, ok? :) --Durin 20:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

we are in the minority but we're right never the less
I very strongly believe that the images should be removed :) Try putting up an image that implies that american soliders are murderers & people will consider that an insult and slander. On the other hand a picture of Prophet Muhammad (saw) as a terrorist is considered legitimate... I think we'll loose this edit-war but at least we've made our voice heard & done the best we could! Rajab 21:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No. :) If there's a controversy over an image that implies that american soldiers are murderers, then that image should be shown so that we know what we're discussing. --GunnarRene 22:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a bigoted Muslim theocracy
The people have a voice. That voice is free. In the West, people have died for the right to freedom of speech. We will not give that up now. EuroSong 21:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Eurosong top being so melodramatic! Rgulerdem the article is about the cartoons. Not having a picture of them is unencylopedic. Wikipedia is an encylopedia. End of story. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not your soapbox, Eurosong. --GunnarRene 22:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalizing
Removing the picture is one thing, but putting a message on the page saying that the cartoon is an insult and against the rules is vandalism and has no place in an encyclopedia article. On the talk page, yes, but not the article. You are being reported. -Maverick 22:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

test3
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation
You have violated the 3RR. You will likely be blocked shortly. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Final warning on revert war
FINAL WARNING: If you remove the contested image from Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy again you will be blocked. --Durin 22:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
Hi, I've blocked you for for 24 hours for again reverting this article, after numerous warnings. Please edit constructively when you come back. Thanks, Mark1 22:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

blocking me
+	I've got a felling that they'll block me soon. I've offered them a compromise, there's nothing else I can do. Goodbye & I'd like to say that it felt very good to have an ally in this :) They'll block me & then I'll go to bed, iA :) Rajab 22:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Go to bed anyway. Things will be calmer in the morning. I'll not block you unless you disrupt wikipedia. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Free Speech
"This is nothing but a usual Europian hypocricy. Can you say, for example, 'Holocost is nothing but a propaganda!' in your country? Where is your 'freedom of speech'? Jews were killed or not, that is a different story. My point is you cannot even say it in your countries!... "
 * Your point is very very wrong. You can say it in many countries. In fact there are extensive Wikipedia articles about the Holocaust_denial. I'm sure these offend Jews but so far no Jews has called for UN sactions or suicide bombings because of these. So your point is entirely baseless. Hitokirishinji 18:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Cartoons
In a free society nobody is immune from criticism and satire. Our political cartoons satirize our own leaders, presidents, prime ministers and the pope. Why should Islam be given special treatment? -- Vagodin  Talk 21:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Critism is different from insult! Resid Gulerdem 22:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody is immune from this kind of "insult" either. Anyway, I don't believe the cartoons were intended as the insults that Muslims have percieved them as.  It was just satire. -- Vagodin   Talk 01:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Please do not blank content against the very clear consensus of the community. Also, please be aware of the three-revert rule WP:3RR. Babajobu 23:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, be aware that "gaming" the 3RR (coming back right after your block and making 3 reverts immediately and that sort of thing) is also a blockable offense. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Prehaps you should start an islamopedia
This is wikipedia NOT islamopedia or shariapedia or muhammedopedia. If you can't deal with it go and start up and islamopedia or a shariaopedia or a muammedopedia. I won't go on it and vandalise it. This is because i know that it would be a eastern publication. You can;t take your values (eastern) and impose them on us (western) User:slamdac 23:41, 3 February 2006

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for 24 hours, for violating the three revert rule on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article. You are welcome to return when your block expires. Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Muhammed picture
Regarding your statement on the Mohammed cartoons on the talk page:


 * This is nothing but a usual Europian hypocricy. Can you say, for example, 'Holocost is nothing but a propaganda!' in your country? Where is your 'freedom of speech'? Jews were killed or not, that is a different story. My point is you cannot even say it in your countries!...:Your point is wrong. Period. Check your talk page.

There's nothing hypocritical about this. Wikipedia is actually run out of the United States where free speech is alive and well. You are allowed to doubt the Holocaust or whatever and show cartoons of Mohammed. I hope this clears that up. &mdash; Cyde Weys 2006-02-04 05:55Z 

And yes you can say the Holocaust is nothing but propoganda. People do it all the time. Mark K. Bilbo 15:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Myself, I'm the one in my family with the most ashkenazi genetic trait from my father's side, which of course, means something to me. Yet, it is ok for me to discuss about the holocaust, it's not a taboo here, even if someone says that "there was no holocaust", in my opinion, the person is quite a jerk, for how can you miss 6 million dead people, yet, I don't bitch about it and try to desperately vandalize topics about it? As for the gentlemen's comments above me, I certainly agree, this is an encyclopedia, its agenda is to provide information of anything and from a neutral point of view. I don't see why you should vandalize that page. Wikipedia provides a simple coverage for people who seek for information. There's no anti-Islamic text in it, as far as I see. I don't get offended by anything like that. You only make you and whoever you represent look bad. I still wish that you will continue contributing to wikipedia, though.--84.249.252.211 11:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, yes, I'd like to say that it was quite a stupid thing from the newspaper to do that thing, and was obviously known to insult. I don't have anything more to talk about now, I just said that vandalism won't help and isn't a good way to solve or remove the pictures, as a scandinavian, I apologize to you that this whole thing happened. =) --84.249.252.211 11:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on Talk:Rajab
Perhaps you were trying to talk to User:Rajab, and not the article on the Islamic month, Rajab. If you want to talk with the user, go to User talk:Rajab and add a discussion there. Pepsidrinka 18:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Your edits of Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy on Feb 7
Please do not remove the image from the article. You know fully well you are not supposed to to that. Thank you. Weregerbil 11:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Article structure comment
You said: Collection of cartoons is against the wiki standards
 * I disagree with this statement because I am not aware of any wiki standard prohibiting the inclusion of a collection of cartoons in an article. Please point me to that standard, and then I'll agree with you.

You said: ''Unecessary: Words would explain the case better without insult.
 * Humans are highly visual, a picture of, say, an automobile is much easier to assimilate than a description of an automobile. I'm not following the "without insult" part.

You said: ''Nonsense: An ensiclopedia article is just a fair account of the phenomena. We cannot include cartoons to let people see what they are all about. It is pointless, because:''
 * An article should include everything relevant, be it text, picture, movie clip, you name it. In this particular case, the very subject of the article is the cartoons, so it seems to me the cartoons are the most relevant piece of information.

You said: ''A Western can't see anything wrong with that. So it doesn't explain anythink about the dispute...''
 * Actually, I do agree with you that most westerners can't see anthing wrong with that, but that has nothing to do with the cartoons, it has to do with westerners' attitudes.

You said: A Muslim definitely find it highly offensive to Islam and an insult.
 * As above, I do agree with you that many (most?) Muslims find the cartoons highly offensive, but again, this is a matter of Muslims' attitudes.

Look, let me make this clear to you. Myself, I find these cartoons quite insensitive, I find the republishing of the cartoons (especially with a knowledge of the outrage they caused) even more so, and I understand why so many Muslims take offense. I also think that the obstinance of so many WP editors to keep the cartoons at the top of the article is for the wrong reasons. That being said, it is my opinion that, so far, you failed to provide valid arguments in favor of removing the cartoons. I wish you more luck from now on. Dmaftei 16:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)