Jump to content

User talk:BozokluAdam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, BozokluAdam, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Look, try here. That explains why the sources you used can't be used as primary/secondary sources and you need to find something other than another encyclopedia to use. Gorgak25 (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cited from Wikipedia:V#Reliable_resources:
What counts as a reliable source
The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press). All three can affect reliability. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria.
In this concept of Wikipedia, I add reliable sources, which are of academic books, and the publishers of the works are such as Oxford University Press and University of California Press etc. In the meantime, my resources are all published on the Internet, so you can check them on the Google books. Please don't remove the resource, otherwise I see your behaviour like a kind of vandalism. BozokluAdam (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Babur shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Sitush (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, you are also about to involve in an edit war because you performed several reverts on the page Babur within a 24-hour period. While warning others, you should also pay attention to your own manners. I didn't know that rule, but I'll care about it from now on, but the same for you I hope. BozokluAdam (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, 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. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were edit-warring against several other editors, and when several people dispute your version of an article, you must stop, discuss it on the article's talk page, and wait to see if you can get a consensus in support of your version - and do not revert again until you achieve such a consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

[edit]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BozokluAdam (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm sorry, but I didn't know the rules about edit-warring before the third edit because I'm new in Wikipedia. And I think I didn't undo three times, instead I might have edited it with three times.

Decline reason:

You've been warned. Ignoring the warning or failure to actually read the mentioned 3RR policy (as evident from this request) is not a reason to unblock. Max Semenik (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

BozokluAdam (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can still be seen as edit-warring even if you do not revert 3 times, especially if others have tried to explain it to you that you should discuss contested changes on the talk page. But if you have a read of WP:EW, and then agree to stop edit-warring and seek consensus on the talk page, I'll be happy to unblock you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The contributor continued to reinstate the content after 3RR was explained to them. There have been at least six reverts in total, one of which was after the warning placed above and after some explanation both at my talk page and at Talk:Babur. There have also been numerous other issues of a failure to understand policy etc and I really do think that this contributor needs some time to properly read up on things before being unblocked. 24 hours, at least. - Sitush (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, on second thought, I agree - the rushing headlong into escalating disputes rather than calmly discussing disagreements does not indicate a collegial approach. BozokluAdam - spend some of the next 24 hours reading about edit warring, consensus, and battlefield behaviour, and have a good read about Wikipedia's 5 pillars. And if, after that, you can satisfy me (or another reviewing admin) that you are going to follow our standards of collegial cooperation, then you can be unblocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion noticeboard

[edit]

I have again reverted your report at WP:3O. The introduction to that noticeboard says, "Third opinion is a means to request an outside opinion in a dispute between two editors. When two editors do not agree, either editor may list a discussion here to seek a third opinion." In this instance, there was way more than one editor who expressed concern regarding your contributions to Babur and therefore 3O is inappropriate.

Your best recourse would probably be WP:DRN. However, I strongly suggest that instead of rushing there when your block expires, you instead continue to discuss at Talk:Babur. This is because your understanding of policies is pretty fatally flawed and because dashing round various dispute resolution noticeboards within 24 hours or so of finding yourself in a dispute is not usually a sign of a collegial style of editing.

I hope that you can spend some of the next 48 hours reading up on the various policies etc that have been pointed out to you. Yes, you do now seem to have taken a look at them but you have done so in a very selective manner. It would be best to read the entirety of those articles and appreciate that they are not intended to be used in a cherry-picking manner. Feel free to query anything that you do not understand when you return, but please do not head straight back in there and reinstate the disputed content again. - Sitush (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was warned after I changed the third revert, and soon after I've been banned. Anyway you also reverted the article three times within 24 hours. So you should also be banned: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Babur&action=history
So what do you think about this issue? BozokluAdam (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read WP:3RR? The word "revert" has a meaning different from that which you imagine, and you had added the disputed content on five occasions prior to the warning being issued. As for me, even if I had "reverted" three times in 24 hours, it would not be a breach of the rule; and the circumstances of my reverts were somewhat different from yours. BTW, you have not been banned: a block is not the same as a ban. - Sitush (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Anyway, make a research on the ethnicity of Babur till I come back to Wikipedia (possibly 48 hours later). You'll see that all reliable resources describe him as a Chagatai Turk (Uzbek in modern concept, of Turkic). And it's nonsense that you object to this fact even though you don't have any resource for that. We should agree on this fact before I focus on the other parts of that article. BozokluAdam (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not discussing content here. Such discussions should occur at Talk:Babur, where they will be seen by any interested parties. - Sitush (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, save to say that at no point have I said that your information was incorrect. You are making another false accusation there. What I have said is that the sources etc are not great and the issue was bound to be contentious and therefore should have been discussed before you made the edit. It might be helpful if you spend some of your time reading the past threads at the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't write to discuss it here, but I have just made a warm advice to you on this talk page of mine. As I'm blocked, I can't write there at the moment, but I hope you decide for your idea about this matter. OK, some people assert controversial opinions about something, but they don't provide any resource. And I or any historian can provide hundreds of resources for the fact. Anyway, the editors who don't have any resource for their claims are supported to be right by some other editors. In fact, it would be nonsense to delete my contribution as far as someone couldn't provide a disserting source. I read the past debates of the article, but I saw that they don't provide any resource, but they just express their own personal opinions. Is there any time limit for such a discussion or just continue till one of the sides gives up completely? If so, it's difficult for me to give up as far as I'm not convinced with reliable resources. And I know that it consumes my valuable time. It should be ended up that it wouldn't be problem giving his ethnic origin because most of the encyclopedias and research papers call him as Turkic. In the meantime, consensus is a bit nonsense because I provide realible resources in the concept of Wikipedia source criteria. If we couldn't provide any resource, we might have agreed on consensus. But here we have many resources. So for that kind of consensus, should I call my friends from the college to register in Wikipedia and share their opinions by supporting me? That would be also nonsense. That's not a poll or questionnaire. BozokluAdam (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of the key aspects of consensus is that it is not a "vote". That is, sheer quantity of numbers does not affect the outcome. Consensus here on Wikipedia is based on discussion that complies with our policies etc and just getting a load of people to turn up and say "we are right" will achieve nothing. You need to understand the issues related to tertiary sources (as I have told you time and again). I am perfectly content for you to provide suitable secondary sources that provide verifiability of your statements. So far, it seems that you have not done that.

You need to realise also that it is not the responsibility of other people to "prove you wrong": it is your responsibility to justify the statements that you make. Now, if you want to argue that the sources in the article for the statements that are currently shown are not, for example, reliable, then that is fine. Do so, with your reasons for believing that to be the case. If needs be, the issue can be raised in due course at forums that are intended to provide a wider input regarding issues such as this. The most likely one in this instance would be our reliable sources noticeboard. However, I would again urge you to attempt a more rounded understanding of our policies etc than you currently possess. And, by the way, I have just reverted someone who was "opposing" you at Babur. I have no particular opinion on the subject matter other than to ensure the values of the wider Wikipedia community, which are expressed in the umpteen policies. Those policies have been and still are subject to debate, and they too are subject to consensus. I do understand that this can be confusing to a newcomer but, honestly, if you work with people rather than fight them then you will find the entire learning process much easier. - Sitush (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

[edit]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darkness Shines, I'm not sockpuppet of anyone. And it's the first time that I signed Wikipedia. If I was an older member, I wouldn't have been in an edit-war, and neglected the three undo rule recently, which caused me to be blocked for 48 hours. I have only one account, and it's this one. Also I have never had a Wikipedia account before. So,I'm trying to learn Wiki and its rules as well as contributing to it. BozokluAdam (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-Warring

[edit]

Your recent editing history at Khwarazmian dynasty shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

Hi,Well come to Wikipedia. Wouldn't it be better if we move the name Eshrefoglu Rumi to Eşrefoğlu Rumi ? After all, this name is not a world-wide known name and it is better to follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (See Foreign names). Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Öyle gerekiyorsa yazının adını değiştirebilirsiniz. Burada kalıcı değilim. Yazarlar taraflı davranıyorlar. O yüzden ilgili yazıya isterseniz siz katkıda bulunabilirsiniz. İyi çalışmalar. BozokluAdam (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

You have been reported to admins: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#PA_by_BozokluAdam. --Lysozym (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On what planet is this comment even remotely appropriate? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This one was pretty bad too. You are blocked for two weeks for your disruptive editing, at Talk:Seljuq dynasty and elsewhere. The next block will be indefinite if upon your return you do not make a good-faith effort to comply with our policies. Moreschi (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, my all resources have online editions; and they are true. Everyone can check them. You should check the edits of both Kansas Bear and Lysozym. Their edits display that they're just vandals on the same purpose. Check the malediction of Kansas Bear on his user page, so many people complaning his actions. Are all these people wrong? I think Wikipedian bureaucrats should check their old edits and read their previous discussions in Wikipedia. They influence the content and reflect their zealous biased views on the articles. As I compare Wikipedia with Britannica, I realize that several articles are so different than the articles of Britannica and other encyclopedias. Free encyclopedia doesn't mean that they can write everything in an article as they wish, just under the so-called consensus with their peers. They can be different people, but they work for the same purpose and settle on a consensus by a majority, and also unknown IPs support them for the same purpose as needed. Anyway you don't see nastiness of Kansas Bear and Lysozym (view my comments on other talk pages), who caused this nastiness with their provocative acts, by accusing me of unfair denigration. You blocked my account for 2 weeks. However, I'll be in doubt about your fairness if you do not block the others who cause this nastiness with their provocative manners and actions. Otherwise block me forever.
Fake scholars go on editing as you wish. It's free for you! BozokluAdam (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BozokluAdam (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'll be in doubt about your fairness if you do not block Kansas Bear and Lysozym, for several days, who caused this nastiness with their provocative manners and actions. I know that repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks. In this respect, you should see their personal attacks against me as well. I see their personal attacks on me in many pages on Wikipedia. Their accusations and personal attacks caused this.

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but discussing other users or their actions will not help you be unblocked. You must discuss your behavior and how you will avoid the issues that led to this block. TNXMan 19:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You'll want to read WP:NOTTHEM, WP:EBUR, and of course WP:GAB before typing another word. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BozokluAdam&oldid=1077323286"