User talk:Dominator1453

Welcome

Hello, Dominator1453, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 13:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Islamberg, New York

Your edits to Islamberg, New York have been reverted as blatant POV and OR. Please re-read the following before continuing to edit: CONTRIBUTING, FIVE PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA and EDITING. Yours, Quis separabit? 11:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dominator1453. You have new messages at Talk:Turkish general election, 2015#Am I Not Suprised.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ak Şemsettin

Hi, In WP most editors write proper names and the titles following the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (See WP:Titles) . For example Hans Christian Ørsted is preferred instead of Orsted . Thus Ak Şemsettin can be a much better title than the awkward title Akshamsaddin. Thanks. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I thought about this and looked the name up in the internet. Akshamsaddin is a more established reference than Ak Şemsettin. In addition, he is referred to as tr:Akşemseddin in Turkish. -Dominator1453 (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Established usage is widespread usage like Napeleon, Churchilll or Renoir. But except for Ottoman history specialists almost no English speaker knows anything about Ak Şemsettin. I don't think Akshamsaddin is a good choice for a title. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing citation requests

Removing citation requests is usually a bad idea. In this case the main article for Bilal doesn't back the statement that he was from Abyssinia, so I've removed it entirely. Note that our policy states " The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material - the bold print is in the policy, not my addition .09:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

You are absolutely right Doug Weller, but in this case it is a well-known fact, as stated in my comments, that Bilal is Abyssinian. If by "not being Abyssinian" you mean that he actually did not arrive from there, please note that he is of Abyssinian origin, as stated in the main article. I should not be explaining this to an experienced administrator. For all I care, you can remove the whole article. You have interpreted the rule according to how it fits your position at that moment. You are not serving Wikipedia this way though. If anything, Wikipedia is missing information readily available elsewhere on the internet or in documents. So instead of deleting info, you could try and support it by finding references. :) -Dominator1453 (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The material I removed said that he "was from Abyssinia" which is not stated at Bilal Ibn Rabah's article. If it really was a well known fact I'd expect it to be there. You should have found a reference, not removed the citation request, if it's that easy. Of course, if he had an Abyssinian mother he was part Abyssinian as you say, but that doesn't make him "from Abyssinia". Of course as as he's half Abyssinian I can easily understand people calling him Abyssinian and then others, reading that, jumping to the assumption that he was actually from there. Are you disputing that he was born in Mecca? If you really want his half-Abyssinian origin mentioned, then the appropriate way would have been to mention his mother, not say he was of Abyssinian origin (and again, certainly not that he came from there). Doug Weller (talk) 11:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not recall writing the original sentence my friend. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to explain yourself. Take care. -Dominator1453 (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hateful rhetoric of Jason Kenney

Hello, I'm Patar knight. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Jason Kenney seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Patar knight. What are we to do with people who do not have a neutral point of view in life then? If Hitler had a hateful rhetoric of non-Germans, should we not include that in Wikipedia and claim that we are neutral. Please reconsider your decision or edit it to make it sound more neutral. I only add information with references, as you will have noticed. Thank you for your kind attention. -Dominator1453 (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier for historical figures because there's a wealth of literature on them (e.g. Hitler and anti-semitism is well documented by reliable sources). It's harder for living people, because Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people is quite strict about potential libel. Unless there are numerous, reputable organizations that are calling people such as Kenney an "Islamophobe", it's not okay to present Kenney being Islamophobic in the article as an outright fact. Even if it's just one person or group making the statement, adding that to the article probably gives that statement undue weight.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, yet that begs the question: how do you determine if an organization is reputable? Who determines it? Were the newspapers I listed unreliable? Even a wealth of literature is not necessarily a source of reliable information. Do you see where I am getting at? You have a tough job. Take care,-Dominator1453 (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a general definition of what constitutes a reliable source in that page's overview section. The Ottawa Citizen is definitely a reliable source, but the Electronic Intifada, an unabashedly pro-Palestinian, anti-Israeli website, is not, especially since this is an article about Islam. However, even if both of them were reliable sources, they can't be used to source the claim you made in your edit, in which you claim "[Jason Kenney] is seen as a hate-mongering Islamophobe by many in Canada." If you look at the Ottawa Citizen, nowhere is such a claim stated. The entire article is spent debunking the specific pictures purporting to be of ISIS slaves. Even in the Electronic Intifada article, which is naturally biased against a cabinet minister in the unabashedly pro-Israel Harper government, says that "So far, there has been relatively little outcry in Canada." and says nothing about how Canadians perceive Kenney. So even if both sources say that Kenney is Islamophobic, which only the heavily biased Electronic Intifada says, neither would be a suitable reference for many Canadians seeing him in that light. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there was a misunderstanding as I was talking in general terms. One can always find a media outlet supporting a certain point of view. That would not be fair though. I simply searched for results in Google and added them. You can find anything if you search long enough. -Dominator1453 (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving pages

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Diyanet Center of America a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Hut 8.5 21:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hut 8.5, thank you for explaining a move in a clear manner. I will do as you suggest if there is a need next time. Stay smart, -Dominator1453 (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits at Turkey

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Étienne Dolet. Noted. -Dominator1453 (talk) 08:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

s.a.

Kardeş benim ingilizcem kötü, wikipediadan da pek anlamıyorum. Sen türk müsün? Benim alevilerle olan mesajımı düzenleyeyim mi demişsin heralde, düzenleyebilirsin. Benim yapmam gereken bir şey varsa söyle. Birileri ülkemizdeki alevileri fazla göstermeye çalışıyor. İslam alemindeki bize olan teveccüh kırılır böyle olursa. Kösem sultan dizisinde alevi gibi gösterilmiş yeniçeriler. Oysa biz selçuklu zamanında bile şiilerden halifeyi kurtarıp, sünni halifeye saygı gösteren bir toplumuz. Osmanlı iran anlaşmalarında Ebu bekir ve Ömere hakaret edilmeyecek, caferiliğin 5. mezhep olma ısrarından vazgeçilecek gibi maddeler var, algı yönetimi yapılıyor olabilir. 15. yüzyıla kadar iran zaten sünniydi heralde. Şiiliği islam düşmanları islamı bölmek için kullanıyor. Belki sayıları şiilerin islam alemine oranla %10 bile değildir ama belki abartıyorlar ve güçlendirmeye çalışıyorlar. Coriff (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC) Coriff (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AS Kardeş, evet Türk-Amerikalıyım. Dediklerine 100% katılıyorum ve destekliyorum. Biz de faaliyetlerimize iş birliği içinde devam edelim. Email ile iletişim kuralım lütfen: ----------@gmail.com. Saygılar, sevgiler, -Dominator1453 (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Size mail yolladım Coriff (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

From this point forward you are topic banned from anything to do with the Armenian genocide as well as other ethnic conflicts related to Turkey anywhere on Wikipedia. You are clearly biased as evidenced by your change to the link to reflect that the title of that link is Armenian massacres rather than genocide. You will not be able to represent this argument due to your personal biases which is not neutral. If you violate this ban you will be blocked indefinitely.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hold your horses cowboy! You need to issue a warning first. Plus, you cannot judge me on my convictions on the lie called the "Armenian Genocide" and that they were only massacres. You don't see me vandalising articles, do you? If you ask me, you are the partial and biased one who interferes in matters concerning scholars and historians. You need to remove the ban immediately. -Dominator1453 (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely. You have just proven everything that I was concerned about.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 06:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. I will keep providing facts with evidence, nothing else. -Dominator1453 (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you blocked me from Wikipedia all together because I did not know I was not supposed to EVEN reply to your accusations. Is this what has become of good old Wikipedia? -Dominator1453 (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dominator a topic ban means you cannot even mention the topic anywhere on Wikipedia. The very first thing you did was not only mention it but espouse the same biased point of view that was at issue to begin with. I think your best bet is to read the wording of topic ban and once you realize what is expected of you to ask Berean to reconsider. I would advise you to include a list of completely unrelated topics that you may wish to contribute too. HighInBC 06:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thank you HighInBC. -Dominator1453 (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will defer to the community wishes at AN. I have placed this issue there and feel it is proper to let them resolve. I will clarify that it is now also a block review.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 06:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Berean Hunter, Thank you for your understanding and support. Please note that I have been a member since 22 April 2015 and made numerous contributions. :) -Dominator1453 (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed the review at AN in this thread and will let others review as I'm headed to bed.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 06:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dom. If you are really interested to contribute here you have to realise some important facts. First, don't call well-established historical facts "lies". This is a sure indicator of a POV that is so strong it can easily get you banned and it already got you indeffed. Second, once topic-banned, don't address the admin who placed the ban as "cowboy". It is a personal attack and a breach of the civility policy. If you combine two-in-one breaches of policies like that, it forms yet another ominous sign of your unacceptable behaviour.

On a more practical note, do you really think this the most effective way to address an admin who just placed a topic ban on you? Especially if you would like them to lift it? I'll say no more. Third, no more mentions of the ethnicity of other editors as part of an attempt to belittle their contributions. Once you understand and accept these facts that I just told you you can place an unblock request indicating that you understand the points I mentioned and that you accept your topic ban. If you need any further advice just ask. If my advice annoys you, needless to say, just ask and I'll disappear from your talkpage. Best of luck. Dr. K. 02:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access removed

Since you are using your talk page for continuing to violate your topic ban I have reverted your most recent post and removed your talk page access. If you wish to dispute this you can go to WP:UTRS. HighInBC 14:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Dominator1453 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #16661 was submitted on Oct 05, 2016 08:38:54. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 08:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dominator1453. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]