User talk:Owerthise

November 2021

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Ebrar Karakurt. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Organ (biology), you may be blocked from editing. clpo13_(talk) 22:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bro just stop being obsessed with saying "human is animal lol" all the time. You can think like that, but you can't impose that. This is an encyclopedia; everbody from each ideology, culture and belief reading it. Owerthise (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FALSEBALANCE. You appear to be pushing a particular point of view, so please stop. Additionally, your redirect creations, as noted below, could be seen as vandalism. clpo13_(talk) 23:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing neutral, not you. If you make Wikipedia say "human is animal", which is not accepted by everyone, so you are not neutral at all. Owerthise (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is this? Humans, objevtively, are animals. Wikipedias goal is to provide the truth, not list every crackpot opinion some nutcase can imagine. Googleguy007 (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Organ (biology) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You need to discuss your changes on the article talk page, since they’ve been disputed by multiple editors (see WP:BRD). Further reverts may result in a block. clpo13_(talk) 06:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for Ebrar Karakurt. clpo13_(talk) 06:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I revert your edits constantly because you guys are goddamn idiots. You must've your brain made out of stone. Do you really think that denying a religious teaching or insulting people for their thoughts and beliefs is neutral, is not biased? Owerthise (talk) 06:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever your reasons, it's still edit warring. Personal attacks on other editors will only make things worse. Again, you should read WP:FALSEBALANCE. Not all viewpoints deserve equal footing on Wikipedia. clpo13_(talk) 06:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that a teaching of religous beliefs does not deserve an equal validity? No matter what reason you do it for, if you deny religion, this is an opinion. So on, it is not neutral to write it down as if it was the non-negotiatable truth. Owerthise (talk) 07:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 17:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yanlış kişiye mesaj attın. Benim kullanıcı adım "Kendir" değil, Owerthise. Sen ise sanırım Müslümanlığı, sadece kendine yakışacak bir isim zannettiğin için sayfana yazdın.

Eşcinselliği, materyalizmi, natüralizmi, darvinizmi ve laikliği savunup bunu tarafsızlık adı altında okurlarına dayatan insanlara karşı durmaya çalıştığımda kendisine Müslüman diyen bir kişi gelip beni durduruyor ya işte ona anlam veremiyorum. Beynim eriyor resmen.

Yahu sen dinini "eskilerin inancı" diye gösterenlere hizmet etmekten utanmıyor musun? Kardeşim adam peygamber efendimize haşa İslam'ı uydurmuş muamelesi yapıyor, diğer peygamberler haşa bizim peygamberimiz ile aynı dini tebliğ etmemiş gibi imâda bulunuyor. Tamam bunları kendi fikirleri ve inancı olarak anlatırsa anlatsın, aklı başında bir Müslüman inanmaz. Ama bunları tarafsız gerçeklermiş gibi anlattıklarında işte senin gibi cahil Müslümanları kendilerine hizmet dahi ettiriyorlar.

Sen İslam'a ters bilgiler ekleyip "bunlar tarafsız hakikatlerdir" dediklerinde niye çıkıp tek bir laf etmiyorsun? Niye "hayır bunlar ideolojidir, taraflıdır" demiyorsun? Sen inananlardan değil misin? Owerthise (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Styyx. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. bonadea contributions talk 19:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Man with funny mustache

A tag has been placed on Man with funny mustache requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. EDM fan 2 (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Owerthise, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Owerthise,

These warning messages on your talk page which seem to irritate you are actually editors who are trying to get you to stop editing behavior that could result in a block, a loss of editing privileges. When other people are saying there is a problem, please pay attention to what they are saying and adjust your behavior. If you have questions about editing on Wikipedia or policies, please bring them to the Teahouse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammed FAQ page

Hi, your edits here are not appropriate. That page is an FAQ for for the Muhammed page, not a place for soapboxing. For example, you added this text: "But the word "founder" is used to emphasise that Muhammad was the person who ensured the conditions for Islam to spread...", this is not true, and it also implies that Islam was always a thing even before the prophet Muhammed, which is not a viewpoint supported by scholars on the relevant topics. The previous info you deleted said as much as well. Overall, your edit smuggles in Islamic appropriation of other previous religions, e.g Jesus, Moses, etc as simply being earlier prophets of Islam, etc, and it's not appropriate. All that aside, your edits are a complete rewrite of a part of a page that deals with heavily contested issues of an already controversial/contested page, so in any case, the way forward would be to discuss your changes and achieve a consensus before making big changes like this. Eik Corell (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, do you try to say that word founder is used to emphasise that Jesus and Moses did not introduced the same things Muhammad introced? This is purely non-muslim POV. But I was not trying to say that it implies vica versa, trust me. I was just saying that it does not implies neither of those points of view. I assumed word founder was put there to emphasise he ensured the conditions for Islam to spread, because I myself, as a Muslim, I'd agree this and an irreligious person would agree too. Not only assumed, but also was sure that it was; because it is literally written the same thing aswell in the revision I'm trying to change. I didn't tried to change it to add this, because it was already written there, in an unnecessarily ruder manner; which is the reason I'm trying to change it. Owerthise (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that Wikipedia's approach to history is based on historical and scholarly sources, and these do not support Islam being a thing before Muhammed, even though the Muslim viewpoint is that it was. In light of that, if we then start sanitizing or white-washing words, like saying that "founder" does not imply one way or the other, that introduces a false balance. We can't have an entire article built around X being Y, and then say that Y doesn't mean anything one way or another, or as the specific case is here, saying that Muhammed was the founder of Islam, and then saying founder doesn't mean anything. That's what false balance is about. Eik Corell (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that we should follow scholars or historical sources, themselves? And even for two hundred years ago, we could disagree on historical claims, so how you can feel free to say Islam wasn't a thing before prophet Muhammad? Or can you say Shia claims of first four caliphs are true? ? Even if you have "historical" proofs, how do you know they are not tampered and changed? Owerthise (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that in this case the problem isn't so much that historians and scholars could be wrong, but that they don't have anything to work with before the time of Muhammed that supports the Muslim viewpoint of Islam being a thing before Muhammed, hence why they cling to the idea of Muhammed being the founder -- That's what they have evidence for and what they can document. If there's evidence to the contrary, it's yet to be discovered. Eik Corell (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After all, no need to that answer imply Muhammad was a liar. It is much more neutral and polite what I wrote. Owerthise (talk) 18:35, 23 November 2021 (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:Owerthise reported by User:Bonadea (Result: ). Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 21:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. As you can see in my contributions, I made alot of useful contributions and still working on them. You would lose a constructive contributer. Owerthise (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then demonstrate to us that you are willing to be constructive and follow the rules by not violating 3RR, at Ebrar Karakurt or at any other article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I can try to. Owerthise (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're now making a series of unhelpful edits to various articles which I've had to clean up, and you're edit warring at Moon. This is not constructive. Wikignome Wintergreen^talk 21:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, stranger. I seek 3RR. Owerthise (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "seeking" 3RR? There is no entitlement to make three reverts without sanction. —C.Fred (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use article talk pages

When you have an edit reverted, you should start a discussion on the article's talk page to get consensus with other editors. You should not just keep reverting back to the edit that other editors object to. Schazjmd (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say. Owerthise (talk) 21:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]