User talk:Erim Turukku

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Xiongnu[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

This includes the IP sock,94.123.98.229, you have used to edit war on this article since, 17 October 2013. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Attila[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

Hello, Erim Turukku, and welcome to Wikipedia!

An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox.

Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mongol Empire. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Babur‎. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Please stop doing these mass changes to categories. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You are calling edits you disagree with vandalism - these are content disputes, not vandalism by our definition, and if you continue to call people vandals you are likely to be blocked Dougweller (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

They are particularly the same did not say anything (besides even though they are unfair)! Think about it a little bit! Erim Turukku (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

As you have seen at least half a dozen editors have been reverting you. The way you are adding categories is problematic. You appear to be adding every possible category related to being of Turkish ethnicity to the articles - Wikipedia guidelines favor minimizing categories. You have also moved being of Turkish ancestry to the front of the list of categories, putting it ahead of things like being ruler of a major country. In some cases you have claimed individuals are of Turkish ancestry when nothing in the article supports the category. In other cases you have removed categories that indicate other ethnicities, replacing them with unsupported claims the individuals are of Turkish ethnicity. You have shown a similar pattern in your edits about nations and people groups, labeling all groups that rose to power or expanded out of Asian as being Turkish, even though the articles do not support the claims and you provide no reliable sources to support your opinion. In no case have you provide reasons for your edits and you have assumed bad faith by repeatedly accusing editors of vandalism when they have merely returned articles to the status quo. I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia guidelines on sources and categories. Edward321 (talk) 13:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm know Wikipedia rules, but your do wrong. For example Babur Shah was a Turkic ruler, Turkic general, Turkic poet of Turkic descent. Or Magnificent Suleiman the same. What's wrong adding category to this peoples? Erim Turukku (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

You have changed the categories on Babur to put him being Mughal emperor 6th on the list behind 5 different categories about being Turkish. Further, you have added the category Turkish peoples to him, Suleiman, and others. They are not people groups, they are individuals. You also persist in bad faith calling other editors vandals. I strongly suggest you stop doing so and read Wikipedia guidelines on sources and categories. Edward321 (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The order is not important categories. If such a rule show. Also people word isn't only stand for people groups, at the same time stand for more than one person. Erim Turukku (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

If the order is not important why do you keep moving multiple categories about being Turkish to the front? The category yiou keep adding incorrectly is 'Turkic peoples', not 'Turkic people' - I suggest you learn the difference. And again, I strongly caution you to stop calling other editors good faith edits vandalism. Edward321 (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I only add. But This is not a good enough reason for undo the changes. Erim Turukku (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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.  Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Erim Turukku (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

I was added supported by article. But some users was undo. They do vandalizm. But nevertheless I rather then they obstruct. I wasn't even broken The three-revert rule. So I denied is wrong. Erim Turukku (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

They're not vandalizing; you're simply having a difference of opinion. You need to stop and discuss your changes. You do appear to have broken the 3RR, for exampel at Abdul Hamid II. Even if you had not, you are edit warring over your additions. Kuru (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

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.

POV, category spamming[edit]

I have mentioned before that the Mahmud II article does not state or reference that he was a poet or general. Yet you have continued to edit war into this article categories: Turkish poet and Turkish general.[1] These categories are unsourced and unmentioned in the article. You have also editwarred to include the category:Turkish poet, in the Mehmed VI article which makes NO mention of him being a poet.

Also, your over-categorization of the Mahmud II and other articles can be proven here.[2]
Which lists:

  • 14th-century Ottoman sultans‎ (4 P)
  • 15th-century Ottoman sultans‎ (1 C, 5 P)
  • 16th-century Ottoman sultans‎ (6 P)
  • 17th-century Ottoman sultans‎ (10 P)
  • 18th-century Ottoman sultans‎ (7 P)
  • 19th-century Ottoman sultans‎

This list would indicate you are category spamming to push a POV, since Ottoman sultans are already listed under Turkic rulers. I have started a discussion on the talk page of the Mahmud II article and would seriously suggest you participate.


In addition, it would be wise to mention if you have previously edited under another name. I believe you used to edit under the name user:EMr KnG.[3] --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Attila article[edit]

Per the Attila talk page;
"Warning: this article is subject to a 1RR limitation.

Per the discretionary sanctions authorized in the Eastern Europe case, this article is subject to 1RR. Reverting more than one time in a 24-hour period may result in a block or a ban from this article and its talk page. All reverts should be discussed on the talk page. This is a bright line, not an entitlement, and reverting exactly once per day is considered disruption, and users doing so are subject to being blocked. Please see this notice about recent edit warring. Editors wishing to make controversial edits are strongly advised to discuss them first."

Since you have reverted this article 3 times, consider this your only warning. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Atilla. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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.  Dougweller (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Straight after your block ended you returned to edit warring, this time on a page where everyone is restricted to 1RR and that not on a daily basis, and required to discuss any reverts on the talk page. It is impossible to edit that page without seeing the notice so you must have known what you were doing. In any case, even without the 1RR restriction you would have been blocked as 3RR is not an entitlement. I am also placing the formal warning on your page below this so that there can be no misunderstanding. Any editing that looks like edit warring in the future will undoubtedly result in longer blocks, and hint of edit warring on Atilla will lead to a ban from the article and talk page. Dougweller (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Ambox warning blue.svg The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to . Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to conduct yourself as you have at Atilla, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "[[{{{t}}}#Final decision|Final decision]]" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.