Jump to content

Talk:Fethullah Gülen: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 66: Line 66:
: Philscirel/Mastercasper, you should stop editing this article. Your points have been addressed but you are incorrigible. --[[User:Adoniscik|Adoniscik]]<sup><small>([[User_talk:Adoniscik|t]], [[Special:Contributions/Adoniscik|c]])</small></sup> 15:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
: Philscirel/Mastercasper, you should stop editing this article. Your points have been addressed but you are incorrigible. --[[User:Adoniscik|Adoniscik]]<sup><small>([[User_talk:Adoniscik|t]], [[Special:Contributions/Adoniscik|c]])</small></sup> 15:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


AA/Various IPs/Adoniscik. I, Mastercasper, will keep editing the article. I think it is not appropriate to ask someone stop editing, not kind at all. That is why, I wont ask you quit. Read more about Wikipedia philosophy. Was your call on editing the article at the top of this page for only the ones vandalize and blank the page, like you? Or is this a new cheap tactic you are using to hail my question and for not answering it? [[Special:Contributions/71.72.81.230|71.72.81.230]] ([[User talk:71.72.81.230|talk]]) 16:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
AA/Various IPs/Adoniscik. I, Mastercasper, will keep editing the article. I think it is not appropriate to ask someone stop editing, not kind at all. That is why, I wont ask you quit. Read more about Wikipedia philosophy. Was your call on editing the article at the top of this page for only the ones vandalize and blank the page, like you? Or is this a new cheap tactic you are using to hail my question and for not answering it? [[User:Mastercasper|Mastercasper]] ([[User talk:Mastercasper|talk]]) 16:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


== Abdullah Aymaz ==
== Abdullah Aymaz ==

Revision as of 16:57, 25 November 2008

Old peer reviews

Amputate or restore?

Before we start removing unreliable sources, we should contemplate restoring an older version instead in order to save time. --Adoniscik(t, c) 14:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something does need to be done at the awfully propaganda style bias this has towards Gulen and the small number of those who refuse for a NPOV to exist on this article Jk54 (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the best version I could find. Anyone reading this article should feel free to fix it. Just be sure to cite your source (see below). --Adoniscik(t, c) 23:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resources for citations

Help yourself to these sources:

Strike off the ones you have cited. --Adoniscik(t, c) 05:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All articles has similar section for the external links. See for example Force, just one simple example. Please don not delete important informative links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.81.230 (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WP! Our policy is not to stuff articles with a length list of ELs (external links). Rather, it is desirable to use resources as citations; to back up assertions contained in the text. An article that disobeys this unwritten rule invariably attracts yet more ELs (linkcruft). For further guidance, see WP:EL, WP:RS, and WP:PERFECT.

As you can see, I have already removed a bunch of links. If you have some news article you would like cited, just do it, or post it here. --Adoniscik(t, c) 04:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That can be done too of course. But having some extra related links in the articles is a common practice. You should not create new rules, I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.81.230 (talk) 04:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making it up. I have 10,000 edits so I know the rules pretty well, thanks. --Adoniscik(t, c) 04:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate your help, though: if you know any interesting articles from reputable third party sources--not in any way related to his movement--just post them here and we can work them in. The version of the article you were restoring to relied far too heavily on Gulen's sources, so they fail a strict test of impartiality. --Adoniscik(t, c) 04:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well tell me which source is incorrect. We can work on it. Stop blanking the article. It is what called Vandalism. You are not using your experience for good. That is bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.81.230 (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of the article

I would like to contribute the revision of the article, and work on it. If someone thinks there is a problem, he or she should explain which points is of some concern. Please do not use vague statements about the whole article, as it does not help. Point out where the problem is and specify the problem. The points raised in the template are so vague to deal with. I on the other hand am not agree with those points mentioned in the template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.81.230 (talk) 04:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the archives if you want to fix the article. The version you reverted to was accepted as being whitewashed. You can help my removing all citations from Gulen-friendly sources, and replacing them with third party sources. Peer-reviewed Western academic journals and books are best. Failing that, Western newspapers. You can start by simply sharing your sources, and we can debate their reliability. --Adoniscik(t, c) 05:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not appropriate that you exclude some sources and labeling them as Gulen friendly. Even so you cannot exclude them. It is like writing an article about Christianity without mentioning from Bible. In the old discussion pages you just hid, this issue is also discussed. Other sources may be called otherwise. The fact is that all the sources are verified. If you think something is wrong let us discuss it. Many news about Gulen can be verified from different sources. Now I am asking again: Please specify and locate the problems below, so that we can discuss the issues and work together on them, sentence by sentence. When I say specify and locate, I mean something like 'this specific link is not correct', 'this specific sentence includes incorrect info' etc. apparently not vague and unclear statements like 'change Gulen friendly sources', or 'the whole article is POV', etc. Mastercasper (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philscirel/Mastercasper, you should stop editing this article. Your points have been addressed but you are incorrigible. --Adoniscik(t, c) 15:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AA/Various IPs/Adoniscik. I, Mastercasper, will keep editing the article. I think it is not appropriate to ask someone stop editing, not kind at all. That is why, I wont ask you quit. Read more about Wikipedia philosophy. Was your call on editing the article at the top of this page for only the ones vandalize and blank the page, like you? Or is this a new cheap tactic you are using to hail my question and for not answering it? Mastercasper (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Aymaz

Abdullah Aymaz is said to be the second-in-command of the Gülen Movement. Does he merit an article of his own? __meco (talk) 08:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Did he do anything notable? --Adoniscik(t, c) 14:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say: Possibly, if he did do anything notable Arnoutf (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]