| Revision as of 06:29, 27 June 2009 editNurefsan (talk | contribs)172 edits →Blocked← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:31, 27 June 2009 edit undoNurefsan (talk | contribs)172 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| You have been ''']''' for a period of '''24 hours''' for ] on ]. It is essential that you are more careful to '''] controversial changes''' with the user in question, rather than simply ]: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{tlx|unblock|your reason here}} below. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC) | You have been ''']''' for a period of '''24 hours''' for ] on ]. It is essential that you are more careful to '''] controversial changes''' with the user in question, rather than simply ]: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{tlx|unblock|your reason here}} below. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| {{unblock|1=I have been working on ] article for a while. ] is vandalizing the page by blanking verified , deleting more than 50 reliable sources and references, s/he is adding incorrect falsified information to the article deliberately. An can be found in logs. The islamineurope link is added completely out of context. S/he do not accept my continuous requests for a discussion . See the discussion page too: although we worked on portion of the article for neutralization, s/he stopped collaboration and started an edit war. As far as I know, reverting a vandalism does not violate 3rr. Thanks. ] (]) 06:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)}} | {{unblock|1=I have been working on ] article for a while. ] (]) is vandalizing the page by blanking verified , deleting more than 50 reliable sources and references, s/he is adding incorrect falsified information to the article deliberately. An can be found in logs. The islamineurope link is added completely out of context. S/he do not accept my continuous requests for a discussion . See the discussion page too: although we worked on portion of the article for neutralization, s/he stopped collaboration and started an edit war. As far as I know, reverting a vandalism does not violate 3rr. Thanks. ] (]) 06:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)}} | ||
Revision as of 06:31, 27 June 2009
A clean nice but empty user talk page :(
Fetullah Gulen
Please do not reinstate the old, sourced, but unreliable sourced highly positive point of view version of Fetullah Gulen. This has been discussed before (frequently) and the consensus is that the longer version is no good. Change of that opinion has to be achieved on the talk page before it can be implemented. Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Please do not replace the Gulen page again. On the Gulen talk page there is a list of 5 reasons why that version is not acceptable, and an argument why your edit summary is unreasonable. I will consider any further replacements of the current texts before agreement has been reached on ALL 5 points on the talk page as vandalism. Arnoutf (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry report
By your mode of operation it is now clear to me you are a sockpuppet of Philscirel. Being a strong believer in assuming good faith I really hoped this was not the case.
I have filed a report here, you can give your point of view (defense) if you want to.
- The sockpuppetry case is still open. I noticed that you have not denied that you are the same person as Philscirel. Does that mean you admit that you are actually Philscirel? Arnoutf (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly..
Yo have been reported for edit warring for your 4th revert today. This is the 18th revert on this topic over all. You can respond here. Arnoutf (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Blocked
You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on Fethullah Gülen. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia. To contest this block please place {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tiptoety 23:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Nurefsan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been working on Fethullah Gülen article for a while. Arnoutf (talk) is vandalizing the page by blanking verified information, deleting more than 50 reliable sources and references, s/he is adding incorrect falsified information to the article deliberately. An example can be found in these logs. The islamineurope link is added completely out of context. S/he do not accept my continuous requests for a discussion . See the discussion page too: although we worked on portion of the article for neutralization, s/he stopped collaboration and started an edit war. As far as I know, reverting a vandalism does not violate 3rr. Thanks. Nurefsan (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I have been working on ] article for a while. ] (]) is vandalizing the page by blanking verified , deleting more than 50 reliable sources and references, s/he is adding incorrect falsified information to the article deliberately. An can be found in logs. The islamineurope link is added completely out of context. S/he do not accept my continuous requests for a discussion . See the discussion page too: although we worked on portion of the article for neutralization, s/he stopped collaboration and started an edit war. As far as I know, reverting a vandalism does not violate 3rr. Thanks. ] (]) 06:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=I have been working on ] article for a while. ] (]) is vandalizing the page by blanking verified , deleting more than 50 reliable sources and references, s/he is adding incorrect falsified information to the article deliberately. An can be found in logs. The islamineurope link is added completely out of context. S/he do not accept my continuous requests for a discussion . See the discussion page too: although we worked on portion of the article for neutralization, s/he stopped collaboration and started an edit war. As far as I know, reverting a vandalism does not violate 3rr. Thanks. ] (]) 06:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=I have been working on ] article for a while. ] (]) is vandalizing the page by blanking verified , deleting more than 50 reliable sources and references, s/he is adding incorrect falsified information to the article deliberately. An can be found in logs. The islamineurope link is added completely out of context. S/he do not accept my continuous requests for a discussion . See the discussion page too: although we worked on portion of the article for neutralization, s/he stopped collaboration and started an edit war. As far as I know, reverting a vandalism does not violate 3rr. Thanks. ] (]) 06:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}