User talk:Arnoutf/Archive09 1

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Historical graph for the Dutch parliament

I was just admiring your graph (File:Dutchparlseats2.png), it is really very cool. However, unfortunately, you misspelled parliament in the heading. Perhaps you could change this? Thanks! --KarlFrei (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Horse

Additional question

What's the horse name? Amerigo or Laura Financinga? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sinterklaas&curid=520006&diff=270406815&oldid=270375571

Sinterklaas traditionally rides a white horse. In the Netherlands this horse goes by the name Amerigo (or Laura Financinga), while in Belgium the horse is either nameless or is called "Slecht weer vandaag," literally "bad weather today."

Do you have an answer?

Cheers Warrington (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

From my youth I cannot recall a name, which aligns with the Belgium nameless horse.

More recently the Dutch television broadcast has adopted the name "Amerigo" whenever the white horse (which is traditionally the horse of Sinterklaas). The naming of the horse Amerigo has been taken over by all networks in the last few decennia.

I have never heard of the name Laura Financinga, and cannot find it on Google either, so I think that is a non-notable hoax or it may have been a replacement horse in one of the televised programs (sometimes these shows report on problems with the Sinterklaas logistics. The illness of the horse might require a replacement horse which may be called Laura Financinga.)

I have also never heard of "Slecht weer vandaag", but that maybe a Belgium thing.

My opinion here is:

• Traditioally the horse was an unnamed white horse
• Dutch media have introduced the name Amerigo more recently
• Other names seem to be irrelevant. Arnoutf (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Turkish communities

I understand your thoughts and take them on board. But I’m sure you see that I have only placed this category into articles which states a Turkish community. I do not think it is necessary to have a certain percentage point as even 1% is quite a high percentage for certain cities. Also please note that the category is not about ‘major’ populations, just Turkish communities… Turco85 (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That is not what the category page states. And 1% is not a big proportion (unless that 1% is very visible). For example in my hometown Utrecht the 5% Turkish population is not very visible at all.

Alternative do you imagine this implies that I could go out and label each area in the world with a single Dutch expat (our ego is big enough for a single person to matter) as a Dutch community..... We need criteria to prevent this; and those go all ways. Arnoutf (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I do understand your concerns, maybe we can change the name of the category as the other users has suggested. But honestly Arnoutf, is 5% not a strong presence for a community of 300,000? I personally believe that to be quite ludicrous. If there was 5% Dutch in Istanbul or another Turkish city/town wouldn’t you see that to be a strong presence? Turco85 (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Really depends. It's only 15,000 in the whole of the city (which is about the size of a village). If they were all in the same neighbourhood; then yes they might be notable, but a large proportion of the Turkish people in Utrecht are living in many different neighbourhoods, which makes it not as much a community. Arnoutf (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Village Pump

Hey...I just wanted to thank you for taking time to answer a question I posted on the Village Pump. You helped a lot. Tiderolls 02:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Unilever

Noticed some of your comments on the Unilever talk page. I just did some edits to the page, including adding this graph on global employment at Unilever, you might be interested in adding the graph to the Dutch page (the caption needs translation).--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, it seems he's losing his composure as much with me as I am with him... TastyCakes (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi!I want to say hallo to the two friends.!Have a good day!UEonly (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm he is a very odd character. I'm not sure he understands that sock puppetry isn't allowed. TastyCakes (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

F-35

I reverted your good faith reversion of my edit at F-35... also in good faith. My thinking is that the individuals who I removed are essentially offering their opinions, and it only appears that one of them is actually expert enough to approach that type of expert review. I don't want to be seen as watering down the criticism section, but just making it as legitimate as possible. In that vein, the RAND study stays because RAND actually conducted an expert review of the plane's performance using extensive performance data. I won't revert you again if you see fit to remove my change, but I just wanted you to know where I was coming from. Cheers! Hiberniantears (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. My reason for reverting is that the overall tone of the article is generally very positive while in reality the development of the plane is delayed, way over budget and not delivering what was promised originally (neither in flight capacity, nor in orders to foreign partner industry). Or to put it otherwise The Dutch were promised a cheap (about 50 M US$ max), top of the line plane (with good payload and range, good environmental quality, highly stealthy) to enter service in about 2010 with at least (but likely much more) 1 billion dollars of counterorders to Dutch industry. None [sic] of these promises are met and yet the article is positive. The Australians feel the same, yet the US/boytoy dominated editing of the site wants better references for this (which is their right to ask for). Sadly enough the references of the pro arguments are not that strong either; but they have majority backing. Arnoutf (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to illustrate: Volkskrant this morning: The Dutch will buy F35 for 49.5 Million US$ each. Arnoutf (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, and feel relatively the same. I'll make a note to cast about for some reliable sources that speak to this which we can include in the article. It strikes me that what your saying is the realistic view of the program, and certainly in line with everything I read in the press about the plane. An analysis of cost-per-unit increases is probably a good place to start. I'm sure there must be some credible numbers on this, whether out of RAND type organizations, or government oversight agencies... Let me know if you find anything good, and I'll be happy to help you overhaul the tone of the article. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Netherlands "See also"

Granted, the Outline of the Netherlands article right now needs a lot of work, but it will eventually be better. All the red links in that article also help guide editors to articles that perhaps need to be made for the Netherlands. The portal is also useful as a navigational page for Netherlands topics. I don't see how it's not helpful, even if its helpfulness is limited at the present time, how does it detract from the article? LonelyMarble (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The current outline (in its current version) does not give information that is not already in the Netherlands article itself; hence it is redundant and therefore not helpful (at this moment). But I have no very strong feeling about it Arnoutf (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really mind either whether it is there or not, the one thing is maybe someone passionate about Netherlands-related topics will help make the outline article better after stumbling upon it, because I think outline articles of countries can be a useful resource once they are sufficiently fleshed out and organized. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And don't contain blatant misinformation (it pointed to a non-existent president of the Netherlands as head of state - sorry we are no republic so we don't have a president; we have a Queen). But I agree a good outline article may not be a problem. Arnoutf (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly, I didn't really look over the outline at all except to see that it is pretty bare at the moment. But my adding it to the main Netherlands article has already made the outline better by you correcting mistakes in it, so one of the intentions did indeed work. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I have tagged is for the project Netherlands. Let's hope it keeps improving. Arnoutf (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

re

No problem :), glad to have helped - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

uniopedia.eu

it is not easy to start a project, and I think uniopedia.eu is a great idea. The article about EU in wikipedia are too hard to read for average citizen, and all other sources like europa.eu have the same problem. I wonder why are you so much against to have a link to uniopedia.eu on the European Union wikipedia page. please write the reason why you removed the link to suggestions@uniopedia.eu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.211.210 (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not remove it, User:Hayden120 did it 2 edits before mine. Please discuss with that editor as I don't know his/her motivation for removal. Arnoutf (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Alitalia, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --StuporesMundi (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It was not a test, neither was it vandalism. Arnoutf (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

EU

Hey, the entire EU superpower going on in the EU page, I'm a member of Power in International Relations wikiproject, which deals with subjects like Great Power, Superpower, Potential superpowers, etc. Anyway, these are really POV sensative pages that can turn into nationalistic pushing most of the time. The entire thing of EU is a superpower is just the next thing. As we have added EU as a potential superpower, as we have many reliable sources calling EU an emerging superpower, and superpower. However, we also have sources stating that EU cannot be a superpower. While many users in the project believe the EU is a superpower, we cannot add it as there is still no consensus within the academic community, as we have plenty of academics calling an EU a superpower, and saying it is not a superpower. While there are some academics who will say U.S will say that US is not a superpower, there seems to be a consensus within the academic community that the US is still a superpower. The problem is, I tried explaining this on the superpower page to another IP who was in the discussion, but, they won't listen to me as "I'm an American under propaganda". Just giving you some background if you don't mind. Deavenger (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I think the whole superpower idea maybe outdated anyway. The anon IP seems to be a paranoid anti-US supporter of the EU; probably a sock of EU100%. Arnoutf (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. I think there are superpowers in the world, but it's ruled by US and EU, which are both good allies, so it's not like the cold war. However, even if CNN says that EU is a superpower, Fox news I'm pretty sure says that US is the only superpower, New York Times claimed Russia was a superpower, several places claim that China is a superpower, IHT claimed that India was an apsiring superpower, and Iran even claims that they're a superpower. Thing is, the IP will probably use sources like [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6] and claim these represent a consensus, and that other sources are US propaganda (though he seems to be under some propaganda himself) even though there are sources like [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] which clearly show that there is no consensus on whether the EU is actually a superpower, as the ones that I posted that say EU is not a superpower believe that it's either not a superpower, or will be a superpower in the future, or that the US is the sole superpower, and several of these sources are from European think tanks and authors.

As for the sock puppet, I never met EU100%, and the IP should be checked to make sure he isn't a sockpuppet. I figured out that the IP is probably a sockpuppet of a new user named WorldPower (you can find him on the superpower talk page), as he was posting in an IP first, and the original IP's writing is similar to WorldPower, though WorldPower hasn't made any new contributions yet. But, they both have very similar IP addresses, geolocate reveals they're from the same place in Italy, and they're pushing for the same thing, so this might be a very serious sockpuppet case. Also, the IP mentioned that the US was made into a superpower with only two sources saying that it's an emerging superpower, despite the fact that there are multiple sources stating that US is a superpower, and I can post a lot more saying the US is a superpower. I'm hoping this entire episode will end soon. Deavenger (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Some other say the whole superpower concept is outdated with mutual dependencies. I don't know, I don't care. There is no consensus EU is one. CNN is not sufficiently reliable to overrule an ongoing scientific debate. In any case we don't need it on the EU page in my view.

Re EU 100%. Italian user, similar points of view as the anon IP, same type of language. Blocked for sockpuppeterring. You can have a look here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EU 100%/Archive. Good chance he is sockpuppeteer for you worldpower account. Right now, I have no time to make report or find evidence. Arnoutf (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I added my comments on the sockpuppet investigation. Hopefully this will end quick, as I'm much more interested in getting the articles to FA status then arguing. Deavenger (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Fethullah Gulen

I checked the sources and they are reliable. I think it is not a good practice to delete the verified information. Please follow the rules established for wikipedia. By the way, if you can tell me which source is unreliable and your criteria saying that?.. Thank you. Nurefsan (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Many sources are published by Gulen, his movement or companies he has influence over.

The use of sources is highly speculative, even of those that are reliable

Many minor issues are taken out of perspective

The whole long version reads like a highly pro-Gulen argument

All of this has been discussed extensively on the Gulen talk page

Consensus is that the long version is not acceptable. We follow that consensus as it is the core Wikipedia rule. Arnoutf (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop making nonsense comments here and there. Deleting verified, sourced information is vandalism, not in my opinion, in Wikipedia standards. You cannot delete sourced information. Modify if necessary. Thanks. Nurefsan (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I really hoped it wasn't you this time Philscirel. Arnoutf (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I consider your edits as vandalism. Your points does not deserve an answer. You should consider and answer this: Do not make big and fuzzy comments. Give specific examples on the article and we can work from there sentence by sentence, reference by reference, argument by argument. You cannot do this, can you? It is very easy to say 'the article is bad'. Show me where and why? I am sorry but I am highly sceptical about your sincerity. Please stop reverting the page. Thanks. Nurefsan (talk) 06:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If you are to lazy to read and answer a balanced, well thought through argument that is your problem, not mine. If yo donot feel you have to answer, your problem again, but in that case do not revert the page either. Arnoutf (talk) 06:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. .

Yo have been reported for edit warring for your 3th revert today. This is the 19th revert on this topic over all. You can respond here. Nurefsan (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Not my 19th though. Arnoutf (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yo have been reported for edit warring for your 4th revert today. You can respond here. Nurefsan (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Really, I am being trolled, harrassed and tricked into edit warring..... At least have the decency to prepare the claim before you canvas my talkpage. Arnoutf (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Please re-evaluate

I could sure use your help. I've been fighting opposition to these pages since 2005, and it's starting to wear me out.

Would you please look over the whole OOK system? Once you get a feel for it, maybe you'll see what we're trying to accomplish. Here are some good places to start:

• Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge
• Wikipedia:Lists
  • WP:CLN
  • Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists
    • Wikipedia:Outlines
      • Why do we have outlines in addition to...?
      • Comparison of Wikipedia's and Britannica's outlines of knowledge
• WP:WPOOK
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Projected outline
• Discussions:
  • User talk:The Transhumanist/Archive 21#Question copied from Juliancolton's page
  • Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Drafts/Outline of British Columbia
  • Talk:Switzerland#Orphaned article: Outline of Switzerland
  • Outline of science converted to redirect by Dbachmann
  • Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 64#"Outlines"
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive193#Shadow Wikipedia

The Main Page is the front of the book as you said. A link there would help, but most people don't access Wikipedia through its Main Page. They access it through the search results at Google - which takes them to the article of the name of their search term. To them, it's the front of the "book" they are interested in at the moment. And nobody is going to search for "Outline of X".

I've answered the rest of your concerns over at Wikipedia talk:Outlines.

The Transhumanist 23:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, after some initial worries I can see the OoK's can add quick and structured pointers to additional reading on a topic. As such I think the project has a lot of value; but we should not make it more then that, unless we can guarantee a quality level (which we can't as this is Wikipedia).

For example in filling out the content of country outlines; I think you need to be a bit more flexible. The example of the Glaciers: None could be easily amended with Polders (essential in my country so it should be part of its outline) where all country articles would say none. Or Monarch: None. Etc. If you want a completely fixed outline you need a major community consensus (or at least of all country projects) what is in, what is out, and in what order. If you do it otherwise you will without any doubt introduce biases. Most likely these biases will not be intentionally, but just because you can't imagine that other people/countries are so completely different from you own perspective that you never imagined their way of thinking (something I am starting to realise in my real life work where we (the Dutch) work with Americans, other European, Ghanese, Indian, Thai, Chinese and Japanese colleagues).

In brief, I will re-iterate my points in this discussion

• Outlines can have a role in Wikipedia
• Outlines (in their current form) are worthwhile additional reading material and have a good place in the "See Also" type sections
• For Outlines to become a and high visibility element of Wikipedia; broad community consensus is needed about their structure and status
• For Outlines to become a and high visibility element of Wikipedia; redundancies, contradictions between article and its outline, and quality of outlines must be thoroughly solved. Once this quality level is reached this must be rigorously maintained (and thus regularly checked).
• Personally, I see neither the need/want nor the capacity for construction/maintenance to lift the outlines to a high level of centrality to the project. I think it creates more problems that it provides readers with information. For that reason I am happy with Outlines as they are, Wikilinked from See Also sections. An inobtrusive icon in the TOC or somewhere else near the top, or a line at the bottom of an infobox would also be acceptable; but I think the hatnote is overdoing it. Arnoutf (talk) 08:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into it. Now I have another favor to ask. It's a little bigger. Please track down a copy of the Propaedia, and look over the Outline of Knowledge in there, and read the introduction (especially the part about how it benefits readers). The Propaedia is one of the volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Its Outline of Knowledge is not presented in Britannica online.

Once you are done with the introduction, look over the the whole outline and then critique it.

I believe you will have an "aha" experience.

The Transhumanist 18:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but that is a bit of an unreasonable request, as Dutch libraries do not usually have Britannica on the shelves.

Please note a big difference between Britannica and Wikipedia. Britannica has a limited body of named editors; and at one stage in time freezes its contents (the time of going to print). Wikipedia has neither. That is a huge benefit (as it allows much more editors to contribute; and it allows almost real time updating of knowledge to the latest information) but is also sometimes problematic (quality control is one, but also the problems with maintenance created by the immediate updating). Therefore I think we should be extremely careful to copy Britannica in all things. We should capitalise on our strengths, while acknowledging our weaknesses. (to use some jargon from the SWOT analysis). Arnoutf (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You missed the point entirely, and you've made a gross misassumption. Wikipedia's Outline of knowledge is quite a different animal. It was not copied in any shape, fashion, or form from any other source. The "topic lists" on Wikipedia were developed indepently of Britannica's outline, and we didn't even recognize they were outlines until earlier this year. Wikipedia's Outline of knowledge is designed to be wiki-optimized. See Wikipedia:Comparison of Wikipedia's and Britannica's outlines of knowledge.

The one thing that bothers me is that you keep making misassumptions about the approach and the reasoning behind the outlines' design. Regarding the country outlines, you stated "just because you can't imaging that other people/countries are so completely different from your own perspective that you never imagined their way of thinking..." You've completely jumped to conclusions here. That is not why the various entries are included. They are included becaused the country outlines are being designed as a set (the design isn't completed yet), and one of the features of the set's design is comparability between countries and the elimination of ambiguity.

One problem with a work in progress, is that if a piece of information is missing, the reader can't tell if the info isn't there because the country doesn't have any, or if it just hasn't been added yet! But, if an entry that is intended to have something or "none", but it isn't filled in yet, then it's obvious that the item is incomplete. There is no implication that the page is finished - it plainly indicates where it is incomplete. The readers (any of whom may also be editors at the slightest whim) will know exactly what needs to be done to the page.

And when the entries are completed, the reader may use the standard format to easily compare countries. At a glance, he or she will be able to see which countries have glaciers, and which do not. Or militaries. If an article doesn't say that a country doesn't have such and such, then how will the reader know?

And while some points might be obvious to some, keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for all ages.

Now I would like to address attitude. In the beginning, somebody probably told Jimbo that he was "aiming for an unrealistic level of ambition" (quoting you, from WP:Outlines). But now Wikipedia has almost three million articles. We might need 2000 outlines, at the most (we have about 500 already). And you say we're being unrealistic? That's sheer pessimism.

If there's people you can believe in, their Wikipedians. We'll achieve the goal. "That is written. Here." (guess which movie that quote is from?)  :)

Thank you for your feedback.

The Transhumanist 19:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Consider that it is the arrogance of the type exhibited above in comparing the rather trivial outlines with the whole of the Wikipedia project that creates much of the controversy. I have never asked to disband the outlines, only for some modesty until the system has proven its value and stability beyond doubt. Arnoutf (talk) 21:28, 8 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 ^talk 23:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

To Tiptoety; I noticed that you are active on sockpuppet cases. Can you tell me why this case (reported on June 9) has not been handled? In over 13,000 edits in over 3 years time I have not had a single block before. And I know for sure that if this sockpuppetry case of a repeated offender (Phiscirel) would have been handled in a reasonable time there would not have been an edit war at all as it is clear to me Nurefsan is indeed Philscirel. No clerk has even commented on that sockpuppetry investigation yet. I am not quick to report a user, but if I do I see it as an emergency call, like to 911. A 17 day+ response time on 911 sounds a bit likely to create problems, doesn't it. Arnoutf (talk) 10:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This 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).

Arnoutf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

If you look at the talk page of Fethullah Gülen and the edit history of that same article you will notice that I have done everything humanly possible to try to come to a compromise. Nurefsan changed the article on May 27 to an old proven non neutral version [20], in spite of the request on the talk page to discuss any changes as it is indeed a controvesial topic. Several editors have since reverted Nurefsans edits (and except Nurefsan never mine). Nurefsan has been reported on 9 june as a likely sockpuppet of Philscirel (who was blocked for exactly the same POV pushing on Fethullah Gulen and has since been operating sockpuppets to continue disrupting the article) he has not denied this but has continued pushing his personal, highly pro-Gulen point of view. Several editors have supported the sockpuppetry claim, but sockpuppetry handling is very slow at the moment.
I agree I have reverted frequently, but what else can I do if the procedures to stop sockpuppets taking over the project take more than 18 days. Perhaps I should have gone to arbitration a week ago, as I tried all other dispute resolution steps to no avail.
While I have violated the letter of the policy, this has been caused by a user created only to push a proven non-neutral point of view of an article (check his edit history with the note that he created some mist by making some irrelevant edits to other articles like adding enters in the text etc.). The utter lack of speed in the sockpuppetry procedure and the utter unwillingless of Nurefsan to find a workable solution in spite of many offers from my side has made it impossible to proceed keeping at least some kind of balance in the article without going into repeated reverts. Arnoutf (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please see WP:NOTTHEM. Even if your suspicions regarding sockpuppetry are correct, edit-warring is never a solution.  Sandstein  11:22, 27 June 2009 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'll sit it out, but my confidence in the procedures defending the quality of Wikipedia against editors with ill-intent is severely compromised. In this case most notably sockpuppetry reporting which should have been finalised within a reasonable time span.

Thus I have 2 questions:

1. The block message states I should be more careful to discuss controversial changes. Look at the bloody talk page of Fethullah Gulen and notice the length of careful discussion created by me (and none other) to discuss reversal of controversial edits. How much more discussion can be reasonable asked for?
2. If the rules to prevent edit war by blocking sockpuppets are not applied, allowing sockpuppeteers to take over articles. What alternative is there besides feeding the Wikipedia project to sockpuppeteers or getting blocked for edit warring? Arnoutf (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Gulen compromise proposal - for later

I am willing to work towards a compromise as suggested by BlackKite under a number of conditions to warrant fair conduct (I think we need those). The list below is, excepting some trivialities, an essential list of rules from my point of view (the lack of agreement has taken all these forms). The rules I have put down have as much potential to be used against me as in favour of me so I think it is relatively fair.

Procedure

1. Building the compromise. The compromise version is built from scratch. Inserting sections from either alternative version is acceptable only if all editors agree. A simple "I do not agree" without further given reason suffices to remove a large section insertion once and for all.
2. In principle every addition to the text has to be accepted by all editors. The default option is not to add it. Any ongoing discussions will result in the removal of the complete section in question. (this may indeed result in a stub size article, but that is preferable to how it is now).

Sources

1. Reliability of sources. Sources with any dependancy to Gulen or his opponents can not be used for analysis and interpretations (as secondary source), but only to report fact that are not controversial (i.e. as primary sources. A single protest that this is no fact should count as making it controversial). This includes sources with ties to e.g. Ergenekon not being used for anti Gulen arguments but also includes sources with Gulen not to be used for pro Gulen argument (most notably this includes his own website, and media he owns - Zaman newspaper et al)
2. Use of sources. Sources are used to support the claim they make. In BlackKites B-version for example a Foreign policy references is added to "Fethullah Gülen (born 27 April 1941) is a Turkish philosopher, " however the article neither names birth date, or uses the word philopsopher together with Gulen. If challenged it is the responsibility of the editor adding the reference to make clear how the reference links to the claim if no satisfactory answer is given, the reference is removed without further discussion.

Neutral point of view

1. Style: The prose will be encyclopedic. The tone of argument will be business like, and even positive things about Gulen are mentioned briefly and without overly praising him. The same goes for critisism (but the other way around without overly deprecating Gulen). Supporters and opponents of Gulen will, if mentioned, be treated neutrally (even if they are nasty organisations like Ergenekon).
2. Arguments: Neutral facts are essential. If support or critisism of Gulen beyond mere facts are reported the opposite view is taken seriously, considered fairly and if deemed comparably important receives similar amount of space. If no agreement is reached, both supporting and critising argument is completely deleted (and will not be reinserted without general consensus).
3. Balance of arguments: Even neutral facts, if accumulated in a certain way, can make up for a skewed positive or negative image. Neutral facts that have some relevance to an issue can be added if both agree. If there is disagreement the whole section goes. Example: Gulen Interfaith Dialogue mentions meeting other monotheist leaders. Gulen thinks Atheists go to hell (Talking to atheism is part of interfaith dialogue). Omitting either fact can completely reverse the tone of the section. Both are facts.
4. Frame of reference: Words needing a particular reference frame are to be avoided (e.g. conservative/progressive). If essential it is made clear in what context the word is used (e.g. Gulen view on feminism may be progressive in the Islamic discourse, it is (extremely) conservative in the Western view). In the unlikely situation contexualisation is impossible, but the use of such a word is essential, this being English Wikipedia, the Western reference frame is leading.
5. Due attention: Minor facts, either in support or in opposition will receive little attention. This goes both for accusations of his schools trying to undermine local structures and top thinker elections and the like. If there is disagreement whether something is minor or more important, the default option is to consider the issue minor.
6. Relevancy: Context not immediately related to Gulen is omitted. For example, while it is relevant to know the Ergenekon is ultra nationalist, the trial of the organisation on issues not immediately related to Gulen has no place in this article and can not be included. Again, the default option is not to include, and it requires agreement of all parties to include such additional context.

If Nurefsan agrees to this list, and shows in practice that he honours all 10 rules, I am willing to try to come to a compromise. Without these rules (or a list of rules extremely close to this) I will not even try; as it will inevitably lead to conflict again. Arnoutf (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No need for this; compromise with vandals, and you'll compromise the encyclopedia. I suggest you take the weekend off; you've worked hard. I hope you can take the block in your stride. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 18:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)