User talk:Netpari

Archives

Archive 1

Restart

Hi, Can you please add a detailed process of going through proper channel under Conflict Resolution on the Wikiethics page so that the [situation] that was created in the past may not be repeated again. Netpari 23:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Netpari, would you like to participate in this effort? Resid Gulerdem 05:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Netpari, I agree with what you said. I am really open to any and primarily your positive and constructive ideas, not necessarily agrees with mine. I couldn't quite see what you mean when you say 'set of rules apply to every user'. Could you please make it a bit clearer? Thanks... Resid Gulerdem 03:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Resid, At the risk of generalizing here is what I feel: (And I'm very very very sorry if this may distress anyone even a little bit.) Our previous generation did away with a lot of ideas that have been an integral part of indigenous culture. This was done in the name of modernity and a notion that progress could be made if an overarching uniform ideology was embraced. I (and this is just me, sorry again) feel that it was an experiment that veered in a wrong direction...if you examine the world closely today many third world nations are making progress and "modernizing" themselves without losing their ideologies that they have carried with them for centuries. Even genetics has proven that certain populations are more susceptible to diseases than others are and the medication that applies to one does not apply to the other. What I am getting at is that modern philosophy and its branches like ethics (as defined in English) are primarily a product of Westen thinking. (Again, I am not condemning the West...I promise) If you examine other cultures, you will find that your rules will be taken with a pinch of salt. Since the language utilized in writing these rules is English, incomprehensible in its subtleties to many, the ethics page will be dismissed as an attempt to impose rules that will not be followed by many. I don't know if I make any sense but at least you now know where I'm coming from. Netpari 15:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Netpari, if I understand you correctly, I can say that I am not trying to impose my values to others. I would not like it even if possible. The reason I am inviting many people is that they may help me to put into a form that might be accepted by many. I was not so realistic by thinking that I will have many people try to help me with it. The bottom line is, I want Wikiethics be based on universal values not based on any specific tradition. I would appreciate anyone who help me in this regard. Does this address your concern?

Edit wars

Resid, I don't like the sound of this. Why don't we put Wikipedia:Wikiethics on the back burner and work on something else. I have a tendency to run away from conflicts, which is bad I guess but is fine in this case. Netpari 18:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Netpari you should worry about Netscott as he was one of the main trouble maker. Can you think a person who still following my steps? I really cannot see his motivation. On the other hand if we disregard his way of saying, and assume good faith, he says that I should be careful. I understand your concerns too. I have a plan below, pelase let me know what you think.

User:Rgulerdem labeling me a trouble maker is not a good sign and inclines me to think very seriouisly that he'll be banned before too long. Netscott 00:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Like User:Johntex I too advised User:Rgulerdem months ago to create in his user space a development version of Wikiethics so that he could exercise the kind of control on it that he wanted to do in the main project space, he failed to adopt my advice and saw himself further involved in conflicts which led to his further repeated blocking which now finds him in a very precarious position of being under threat to be permanently blocked. As far as my motivation, from having seen Resid Gulerdem in action, it is my belief that this is the sole reason that User:Rgulerdem has created/developed the whole Wikiethics proposal which I 100% disagree with (relative to general consensus on such issues). Netscott 00:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, please try to assume good faith about the editors, maybe including me?!... That is actually a rule here... (Netpari, excuse me for using your talk page for correspondence with another person)

olive branch = peace offering to Netscott

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.248.123.82 (talk • contribs)

• Resid, while I appreciate the peace offering it is difficult for me to assume good faith when you are editing outside the watchful eyes of your mentor and are making such edits as these, which totally run counter to WP:BOLD. Your behavior in this regard is virtually identical to that exhibited when you repeatedly demonstrated ownership on Wikiethics. As well, I strongly suggest that you cease editing via IP addresses as this tends to have a negative appearance considering the fact that you are under mentorship and such editing will tend to fall outside the awareness of your mentor. Netscott 08:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It is nothing to do with WP:OWN. I do not say 'nobody can edit it', just saying that the standard here is that you better discuss before editing. They do not have to follow my suggestion, of course. Regarding using an IP, I do not think that it is wrong. But I will be careful about it, just because you are so curious about my IP's. Are you a detective in real life? My peace offering will remain valid... (My apologies again go to Netpari for using her page for an irrelevant correspondence.) Resid Gulerdem 21:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Resid did not mean anything negative by 'troublemaker'. It was just something used for the lack of a better/more appropriate word like "initiator of this dialogue". I am sure he appreciates your valuable input and is joking about you being a detective. Also please consider that he offered you an olive branch so he's not trying to get into an argument. Netpari 21:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Netpari but I do not tend to share your view regarding Resid's use of the term troublemaker, and I'm sure that he was not joking relative to his detective comment. Resid, you must absolutely wash from your mind the extremely false notion that editors must discuss their edits prior to making them. This is generally not "standard" Wikipedia practice. This runs very counter to the general spirit of Wikipedia and in particular WP:BOLD. If you continue to edit and revert others' work primarily based upon this false notion I will be very inclined to document such behavior and expose it to see that your permanent ban is reinstated. You should know as well that your negative commentary relative to myself strongly motivates me towards such ends. Netscott 21:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

That is your interpretation and apperantly not so true. I have never, ever said anyone that they must edit after they discuss. I suggested them that it would be better if they discuss before edit. Clearly Netpari reads what I write by assuming good faith and so understand better. I am sure that 'assuming good faith' is a rule here, isn't it? It was pretty nice to know you... Resid Gulerdem 23:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

One last symbolic present to Netscott and a last message

.

Future Plan

• Let us not touch WP:ETH page. Leave it as archived for a while.
• Using the two version User talk:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics1 and User talk:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics2, we can quickly finilize a new version: User talk:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics. Wikiethics 1 is an old version, Wikiethics 2 is the current version.
• In the new version, your rewording and contribution will be critical as I have put almost all I believe should be in. It is hard for me to see my mistakes and typos. You can see and modify on the other hand. We can discuss any inclusion or exclusion...
• Then we post what we have to WP:ETH page and start a poll. During the poll since noone will edit it, there will be no danger of edit wars. I think the duration of the poll shout at least be 4 months.
• If it goes well, fine...
• If it gets rejected, we can collect the objections to revise the text.

Could you please let me know if this sounds like a plan? Resid Gulerdem 22:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC) Best, Resid Gulerdem 22:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Response: Sounds perfect. I was only fearing for you after reading what Netscott wrote. Its interesting how your English is so eloquent on the Wikiethics page and so colloquial on mine. I have plenty of time to help until Memorial Day weekend after which I will be out of town for three weeks. Netpari 23:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry about my English on your page. I need to think what I am saying for a better wording. When I write very quickly the results are not that good. I am glad that you liked the plan. I can see your attitude regarding Netscott phenomena: Do not worry that much, I can handle him :) Returning evil with good may change the hearts. He may even become a friend in the development of the policy and a supporter later on, who knows... Because I know my steps are watched, it is my responsibility to show that I am not as bad as someone may assume. I hope we can finish the new version by Memorial Day, can we? It would be great if the poll is started before you go. Needless to say, in any case, we are expecting you come back after that 3 weeks. Resid Gulerdem 06:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Netpari, did you start your revision on this page or the proposal itself WP:ETH? It is not important for me except it would be good to fix one. Both are the same version at this point. Resid Gulerdem 06:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Response: Resid, if you have anything to say about anyone please email me. Do not post your opinion on the talk page.Netpari 21:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

All done

I am done spell checking The Wikiethics Draft page and changing it as I saw suitable. Netpari 19:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Netpari. I asked Johntex if he can review the proposal before starting a poll. I will also make some minor modifications on it. We may go over quickly once again before the poll starts. Best. Resid Gulerdem 22:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi again Netpari, could you please review the draft again quickly when you have time? I am done with modifications of the proposal too. Thanks. Resid Gulerdem 00:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)