Welcome to my User Talk page...

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, Superfluous man, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

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 click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! satusuro 01:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Alex2006 (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree but.

why remove the only picture with high quality, and the only image who provides close-up of the construction of the bridge (all other images show the bridge in the distance). The anonymous user removed 2 high quality images and replace it with 2 images from another user. I moved one photo back, but the anonymous user removed it and i tried a compromise.--ArildV (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "quality" (pixels) of the image is irrelevant in the article, especially if it repeats the same information (shows the same detail with another image, in this case the Galata Bridge area in the background) then it is superfluous. People who want to see more detailed images (close-up shots) of the bridge (like your photo) can always click on the Wikimedia Commons link at the bottom of the article. Superfluous man (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quality is not only about pixels, its about exposure and information in the images. And a good article have both details and overview images. Also the second photo have low quality, and you will not see the bridge in the background. The picture that was removed provides the reader with much more information about the construction work even for those who only see the thumbnail in the article.--ArildV (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A month ago the article was in a state of mess, both in terms of writing/grammar mistakes, and in terms of the placement of the pictures. It looks much better and orderly now. Superfluous man (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good improvement, but a high quality close-up add more value to the article.--ArildV (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think a view of the western side of the Golden Horn (with the Atatürk Bridge) is also needed, as the Golden Horn Metro Bridge is constructed between the Atatürk Bridge (to its west) and Galata Bridge (to its east). Your close-up shot doesn't provide any additional information regarding the construction technique that's used (we can see the cranes also in the photo with the Atatürk Bridge in the background, which additionally shows the method that was used in the construction of the pylons (towers) of the bridge.) People can always see your close-up photo by clicking on the Wikimedia Commons link at the bottom of the article. Superfluous man (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It adds value because it is very difficult to see any detail in the second image (you have to enlarge the images to understand if you do not know what to a look at). And by the way five images are not extreme for an article about a bridge (especially not for a controversial bridge over one of the world's most famous waterways). And please, I know about Wikipedia and Commons and how people can click.--ArildV (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The average Wikipedia user knows that an image can be enlarged by clicking on the thumbnail. More correctly, the average "internet user" knows this. You don't need to presume that people are computer-illiterate, especially in the year 2015. Superfluous man (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a big gap between knowing and doing, especially as the reader only see another anonymous remote view.--ArildV (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring advisory

Your recent editing history at Turkey shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. See BRD for 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 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. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Tehcir Law deportations took place between 1915 and 1916. From a legal point of view, the Armenian civilians who died during the Tehcir Law deportations can count as "genocide victims" (or "ethnic cleansing" victims.) The Armenian soldiers of the Armenian volunteer units in the Russian Army, and the French Armenian Legion in the French Army, or the armed local Armenian militia who died while fighting the Ottoman Army during WWI don't count as "genocide" victims, but as "war" victims. Superfluous man (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia must also cite the opposing view in Turkey (so that the readers can understand what's the dispute) and estimates by neutral historians regarding the casualties during the Tehcir Law deportations of 1915-1916. Superfluous man (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

Kuru (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lord of Rivendell, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Superfluous_man reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

Kuru (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of Lord of Rivendell (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this is a sock puppet account, and your original account is blocked, please also note that banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; and all edits made under this account may be reverted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]