User talk:ErbekBozok: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:14, 10 May 2020

May 2020

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, TRT World. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. ◢   Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 15:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to TRT World. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. -◊PRAHLAD^Balaji 16:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not censoring, the paragraph criticism is not justified to present such channel. This would mean that you should not censor the same for other articles on other state owned channels that are exactly doing the same and are financed or owned by their State... check RT, check France 24 articles. ErbekBozok (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have remarked by reading simple articles about Turkey / Turkish that Wikipedia authorizes and blindly accepts many sided articles without proposing different point of views. This is propaganda when it is one sided. I thought Wikipedia is meant to be a universal encyclopedia and not a place to blasphème and give ones opinion and not the other. Please be careful about such situation. ErbekBozok (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some people may not agree; discuss it on the talkpage first. -◊PRAHLAD^Balaji 16:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not agree on Wikipedia’s policy to write the truth and only the truth or at least put a bracket and don’t show it as a statement. Every information has many versions, in this one you are wrong and this is desperately ridiculous. Thanks for showing the obvious that Wikipedia is a sided website. Censoring want they want. ErbekBozok (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at TRT World, you may be blocked from editing. -◊PRAHLAD^Balaji 16:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Editing? Vandalize ? Sorry who are you working for? I am a free man and I see injustice in this article and wanted to correct it. You are just closing the subject saying I should discuss it first, what is that if not censorship? Is this serious? If you continue to deliberately accuse me, I will write to the higher management to state my point and also clarify that you block me for editing in an open source encyclopedia where I am trying to clarify that your article is ONE SIDED. ErbekBozok (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying anything. I can't even block you, because I'm not an admin. But you need to understand that you need to discuss some potentially controversial changes on the talkpage first. For example, blanking a whole section, as you did in this edit. And by the way, you are the one who's censoring information by removing a lot of content on articles without discussing it on the talkpage. So when you want to remove something from an article, make sure to discuss it first. -◊PRAHLAD^Balaji 17:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editing on Wikipedia is free I guess because I was able to do it. Then there are some people monitoring it. However, one should be blind to argue on that fact that on TRT World page the paragraph about criticism brings some explanation on the channel itself. It is open accusation and some journalists’ personal opinion. This has nothing to do with what should and encyclopedic review be... if that was applied everywhere, I don’t believe you would be so happy. Wikipedia should state fact and should not take side. When stating something, the opposite version should be mentioned for information and culture purpose. ErbekBozok (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about that; however, Wikipedia isn't criticizing anyone; it's just talking about some people criticizing something. -◊PRAHLAD^Balaji 22:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, ErbekBozok, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to France 24 does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! IamNotU (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you very much. I wanted to show that Wikipedia’s NPOV policy is not respected all the time. I understand that your bots and viewers can be very effective and active but I have realized it is done only when this is not confirm to a certain point of view.

My example was on a simple situation.

I am not taking sides and want to be an objective contributor.

However take a look at the example by yourself:

I went to edit TRT World page on the paragraph « Criticism » as it was mentioning some journalists saying it is a propaganda channel. I have have received immediate answer and reverted editing and arguments and felt like people were literally watch dogging this. I know this is a state owned media and obviously would do its own culture and advertisement on their own point of view.

I then went to France 24 which is also a State owned channel and obviously monitored by the French State. I tested editing this page and added that is was mentioned as State owned propaganda channel. Then “surprise” I have received à reverting message saying my edit is not complying with Wikipedia rules.

What I am trying to say is that you should carefully monitor and remove allegations and personal statements from an encyclopedic review.

In one case you fight to keep saying one is propaganda and on the other one you clearly fight against the mentioning of the word propaganda.

This means you are taking sides. This means you are not complying with your own NPOV.

I hope I am understood. ErbekBozok (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]