User talk:Sezgin

Re: Some questions about Wikipedia[edit]

Hi, and welcome. Thanks for your question. The amount of time it takes for an article varies, although I'd say it's typically within a few minutes. Wikipedia users watch the recent changes to articles and examine the edits (that's how I found your vandalism, by the way, assuming you were the one vandalising Brad Pitt). Obvious vandalism like yours will be reverted very quickly. Sneaky vandalism, like you did at [1], might lurk for longer. Registered users can also set a watch on specific articles to watch for changes; for major articles it is likely that many people will be watching them and that bad edits will be quickly reversed. For smaller, less commonly edited articles, it may take longer to fix, although somehow Wikipedia stays remarkably free of vandalism. I hope you like Wikipedia and decide to stay, but please don't "test" Wikipedia's response by performing any more vandalism. I'd be happy to answer further questions. Oh, and when you are leaving comments, you can sign your name using four tildes: ~~~~. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

i liked idea of wikipedia. However it does not seem so trusrtworty, i mean there must be millions of vandals like me...But still impressed that you could detect the last sneaky vandalism. How should I ask questions to you? Is it OK from here?

Traditionally, one leaves comments for someone on their talk page, not on one's own. This way the user sees the "You have new messages" box and other users also gain a sense of how the community interacts with the user. However, this fragments the discussion, so some prefer to keep both sides at the same talk page. I set a watch on your talk page, so you may feel free to reply here.

It is up to you to decide the trustworthiness of Wikipedia. It certainly is not as reliable as a source backed by an authority, such as the Encyclopædia Britannica. However, it also offers considerable advantages, such as being free of cost, up-to-date, and more comprehensive. You are correct in that there many vandals; however, with all the eyes watching the articles, the bad edits get picked up quickly. In addition, since they tend to come from the same users, those users can be blocked (incidentally, you were one edit away from being blocked, yourself). In my experience, Wikipedia has remained extremely accurate and is increasingly being used as a source for the press and other media. If you have concerns about the Wiki style of editing, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Replies to common objections. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you are interested in the mechanics of and procedures behind Wikipedia, please do feel free to ask questions or experiment all you like in the Sandbox, but please do not perform test alterations or deletions on other pages just to see how the systems work; this is classed as Wikipedia:vandalism, and recieves quite a harsh treatment if it is prolonged.

Yes there are millions of vandals, but Wikipedia as a whole is a creature that does not eat, does not sleep, and has countless pages in its collective watchlists. It will catch them ALL, sometimes it takes a long time, sometimes it's lightning-quick. Either way, please do so no further.

...other than that, I hope you enjoy your stay with us. Have a nice day. Master Thief Garrett 12:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Welcome[edit]

And to help you get started: Welcome!

Hello, Sezgin, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! — Knowledge Seeker দ 11:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help...Firstly I will look through information for beginners on the wikipedia pages, before taking more of your time... But I want to ask one more question, Why did you change my alternation on antisemitism page? It was not a vandalism. Besides i still think that title of that article is misleading.

thanks

Sezgin 11:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to ask me what you don't understand. With regards to the Islam and anti-Semitism change, I reverted it because it seemed out of sync with the title of the article and contents of the paragraph. And because of your history of vandalism—edits by new anonymous users or by newly-registered users will usually be viewed with more suspicion, but as you make constructive edits people will trust you more. All contributors are valued, of course, but this is one way we keep our encyclopedia clean. You are free to change the section title back; I will not revert again. Someone else may, though. If you do so, you may wish to explain on the article's talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: Kalenderhane[edit]

Am I correct in assuming that you were able to solve the problem? It looks like you've been able to continue your work on Kalenderhane. If not, let me know and I will help you find the problem. Incidentally, may I make two suggestions? One is, to sign your name, please use four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This inserts the time and date as well as your username. You can also customize it later if you wish (for instance, a link to your talk page or something like that). Also, when you ask someone about an article, it's nice to link to it by putting brackets around the title (e.g. [[Kalenderhane]] = Kalenderhane) as a courtesy. That way, those reading your comment can simply follow the link to the article. Make sense? — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]