User talk:Shuppiluliuma
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] License tagging for Image:Milgem.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Milgem.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Milgem_ceremony_26July2005.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Milgem_ceremony_26July2005.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problems
I've listed Image:TuAF Peace Eagle.jpg and Image:Boeing737AEW&C.jpg for deletion as I believe the copyright status is correct. You added "The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the image is used for the decent presentation of Boeing products." That does not seem to agree with the Boeing usage conditions. [1] There already are similar images on the article. A fair use argument just to show Turkish Air Force markings could be challenged. Mark83 11:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Uploading exact replicas of images that have been listed for deletion is not very responsible (Image:737MESA.jpg and Image:737 AEW&C Peace Eagle.jpg. I've listed these for deletion too. Four fair use images for one subject is excessive. You also failed to provide a detailed fair use rationale as the tag requests. I would also argue that a fair use rationale along the lines of "to show Turkish Air Force markings" would be a weak one. Mark83 17:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
BTW, only Australia and Turkey are getting the Boeing Wedgetail.
South Korea didn't even decide yet, while Italy chose the E767 a long time ago.
You should've kept the images of Wedgetail (Australia) and Peace Eagle (Turkey).
[edit] Question about the Turkish Air Force
In the Turkish Air Force article, in the list of aircraft, it says 46 "F-5 2000 (under delivery)". It appears to mean these are new aircraft that are being delivered now. However, the F-5 Freedom Fighter article says that the aircraft has been out of production since the 1970's. Are these refurbished/upgraded aircraft from another country? --rogerd 21:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
They are old Turkish F-5s which are upgraded in Israel by IAI, with the avionics of F-16 (most of them are already delivered)
This way, Turkish Air Force aims to save flight time from the F-16D trainer aircraft (the ageing F-16C/Ds are currently receiving CCIP upgrade and being brought to Block 52+ level)
The F-5 2000s will be mostly used as trainers for F-16 fighter jets, but will still have combat capabilities (they may participate in combat missions)
- Thanks for the update. --rogerd 22:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
My pleasure :)
[edit] Barbaros Hayreddin Paşa
Hey Shuppiluliuma,
I had to undo your changes of "Khair ad Din" --> "Hayreddin" becuase they were done unilaterally. Please note that the article is not at Barbaros Hayreddin Paşa, and we should therefore conform to the current title and have the spelling consistent throughout the article. You are more than welcome, however, to propose to move the page to a new title. Simply make a comment on the talk page (and later move the page yourself) or go to WP:RM. Cheers! —Khoikhoi 08:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you please do this for me? Because "Khair-ad-Din" sounds like a stranger.
It's like calling "Prince Charles" with the name "Prince Carlos".
Thank you very much. :)
- Sure, but I'm not sure where we should move the page to. The current title is bad, but then most Wikipedia articles about Pashas do not use the Turkish spelling "Paşa" in the title. Do you know what his most common name is in English? Thanks. :-) —Khoikhoi 03:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Hayreddin is the most correct form and the name that's used in most English books (Hayrettin is the post-republican Turkish form, though Hayreddin is also correct in Turkish and is still widely used (like Mehmed and Mehmet, Ahmed and Ahmet, Murad and Murat, etc.)
- Ok, so Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha or Barbaros Hayreddin Pasha? —Khoikhoi 03:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
"Barbaros Hayreddin Paşa" (or Barbaros Hayrettin Paşa) in Turkey, "Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha" in the world.
"Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha" should be the correct English form.
Thank you very much :)
But perhaps "Barbarossa" Hayreddin Pasha would be better, because that's the name with which the whole world knows him (and that's the way his name is written on history books worldwide)
- Well, I checked that, and see the results:
That's obviously because of the Turkish web sites on the internet, and the Turkish users who make the research. Throughout Europe, including the history books written in English, he is known as "Barbarossa" (i.e. Redbeard) while "Barbaros" actually means "Barbarian" in ancient Greek language. :)
But either way, it's correct (Barbaros is the Turkicized form of Barbarossa)
- Ok, I hope you're not annoyed by now—but I've changed my mind again! :p I noticed that both Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedias simply use "Barbarossa". However, since Barbarossa is a disambiguation page, I propose that we move the page to Barbarossa (Ottoman admiral). What do you say? —Khoikhoi 04:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds perfect to me. It would be much easier to find him this way, instead of writing "Barbarossa+Khair-ad-Din" or "Barbarossa+Hayreddin" or "Barbarossa+Hayrettin", etc... Just "Barbarossa" is much easier to find. Thank you very much for your kind efforts by the way. :)
- No problem. :-) BTW, here's a tip: sign your comments like this: ~~~~ or --~~~~
- Kolay gelsin. —Khoikhoi 05:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Sağol... :))) Deseydin ya ben Türküm diye... Shuppiluliuma 05:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- Bir şey değil! Remove the "nowikis" from your signature and then you're set. —Khoikhoi 05:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
OK :) Shuppiluliuma 05:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] wowturkey images
Hi, did you get permission from the photographer to state he "irrevocably released all rights" to the picture? Thanks, --A.Garnet 13:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. I'm an administrator of http://www.wowturkey.com and one of the site's rules is that you "donate" your photos for the positive representation of Turkey (because we believe Turkey is not well presented on the net)
They are free to use without copyright, taken by amateur photographers.
- The images must also be allowed for commercial purposes, has this been allowed? I only ask because a few months back all the wowturkey images were unfortunately removed from Wikipedia because its terms of use didnt allow for commercial use. I hope that we truly can use all wowturkey images here because there are some really stunning pictures there. Thanks, --A.Garnet 19:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure, Wikipedia is no problem. The primary principle of WowTurkey.Com is to "diffuse" decent images of Turkey. At the web site you can clearly read that the images are free for use, as long as they are used for "the positive representation of Turkey"; i.e. as long as you don't use these images to mock Turkey or the Turks.
[edit] Turkish Army
Hey, good work on the Turkish Army article!! On the other hand I noted that some of your edits might have been more appropriate for the Turkish Armed Forces article (for example comments about the Navy) since this article is only about the Army (Kara Kuvvetleri) and not the Turkish Armed Forces as a whole.. On the other hand your work is highly appreciated.. Kolay gelsin! Baristarim 00:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm only trying to do my best as a patriotic Turk. :) I corrected the grammar mistakes on some articles and added some information. Also check out the Ottoman Empire (photos and info), Turkish Navy (history and photos), Turkish Air Force (photos) and Istanbul (photos). Selamlar :)
- u r doing good work :)) Thanks for the effort, we really need a hand around here, many articles about Turkey have problems, some of them because of grammar, style, prose etc.. I have been working on the medals of the Turkish Armed Forces, I created three articles, but the info on Genelkurmay website is not enough at all :)) We all do the best we can, at the moment we are trying to get Turkey article to Featured Article status, but it will be very hard since the article needs a lot of references and it needs a good trimming as well.. We should also get the WikiProject Turkey running again, it has been dead for ages.. Also try to get a user page up, that way people will see who u r more easily, and dont forget to sign your name by using the four ~, otherwise we have to look at the history page to see who wrote what :).. Anyways, if I can help u in any way I can, leave me a message :)) cheers!Baristarim 00:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- If you are interested, you can also write (or move what is written in the Turkish Army section) the history section of the Turkish Armed Forces I just created, it has been lacking one for ages! If you want I can move it myself but since you have been quite interested in this I thought I would notify you before going ahead.. regards Baristarim 01:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Formal welcome
|
[edit] The images you upload
Hi, I appreciate your effort to upload images related to Turkish culture / heritage to Wikipedia, but unfortunately you're doing it wrong. All the recent images you provided for the Ataturk page lack a proper licensing tag and this will certainly cause problems in the near future and result in the article to look very bad (these will get deleted). And when you add an image, take the Image:Portrait of Ataturk.jpg as an example, it is not enough to say that it's a portrait of Ataturk, you should clearly provide at least the name of the painter and the year of the painting, since we are trying to build an encyclopedia here, not a personal hobby website. Not acting this way reduces the quality of the article using the images, and I do not want you to do this. This same thing also applies for your recent image caption reading "32 Kings and 62 Presidents". Who are these 32 kings and 62 presidents on a dinner table? You need the name of every single one of these, if you are going to use that caption, otherwise it looks like simple boasting that again reduces the quality of the article. I worked day and night to improve the textual content of the Ataturk article and put it to its current state (the last remanining part is the Legacy section), please try to keep up with the quality of the text. Another point is that for a good quality biography article, the photographs should follow the development of the character throughout his life, and you cannot simply put a photo of Ismet Inonu and Ataturk of the 1930s to the section "Early life". Also, putting a more than necessary number of images is another thing that reduces the quality of the article. I am now going to fix these issues and I hope you could show some trust to my decisions. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 09:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you add the correct tags then? ;)
Be a good Kemalist ;)
- You are doing a good job though with your devotion, keep it up, we gravely lack the time and effort to clean up a lot of articles, unfortunately. :( If I can be of help somewhere i will be happy to help out.. cheers!Baristarim 10:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- "Why don't you add the correct tags then?", because I can't! I do not know which highschool it is that Ataturk visited, I do not know who painted the portrait you put to the top, and when. And the worst thing is the dinner with "32 Kings and 62 Presidents". You should not upload these searching for Ataturk pictures on the internet and uploading them to Wikipedia like a machine. I again urge you to put a greater effort and do not upload an image and add it to the article unless you can provide at least the year and the proper name of the place. This is what I've been doing and there has been times that I spent five or six hours to find the correct year and place of one single picture, making sure that the information is correct. I believe what I ask of you is a legitimate thing, having myself re-written almost the entirety of the Ataturk article bringing it to the good shape it is in now. I spent countless nights working on the article, completing the biography and creating the reforms section. Please show some respect and trust to me. And I again want to point out that every single image of Ataturk you uploaded today lacks a proper licensing tag, and these will be deleted if you do not fix this issue. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 10:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I agree with Atilim that you're uploading too many images (most of them unsourced and for me also unneccessary). Putting too many images reduces the quality of the articles. Please, try to improve the content of the articles first. Cheers! E104421 12:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Merhaba
Benimde elimde wowturkey sitesine ait çok güzel resimler var. Fakat ben bu siteye üye değilim mail yoluyla resimler elime ulaştı. 2006Hakan etiketli çok güzel boğaz manzaralı istanbul resimleri ve Fenerbahçe stadının resimleri mevcut. Bu resimleri mümkünse ekleyebilirmisin veya bu resimleri ben ekleyip sen onlara resim etiketlerini ekleyebilirmisin. Çünkü resimleri eklersem kime ait oldukları bilinmediği için silinebilirler. Cevabını bekliyorum teşekkürler. (Bu arada eklediğin resimler mükemmel)--Profesor 12:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] (no title)
Dear Shuppiluliuma,
your enthusiasm is admirable, but please keep in mind that Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a collection of minutely detailed adventure stories, and especially not if the narrative is biased towards one or another party in a conflict. Much of the detail you continue to pour into the articles dealing with various aspects of Ottoman naval warfare is either trivial or contradicted by other historical sources or simply not documented at all. Please exercise some restraint. Look at high-quality Wiki articles about other naval battles or admirals to see how it should be done. Regards, Cosal 19:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
One more thing: please stop changing things back that have already been corrected -- such as incorrect capitalizing of words (e.g., "Admiral"), multiple links to the same article, etc. Cosal 19:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear Cosal,
Some of the "corrections" demonstrate only the ignorance of Wikipedia editors.
I for instance had to correct that Aruj died in Algeria, not Tunisia.
I for instance had to correct that it was Giannettino Doria who captured Turgut Reis, and not Giovanni Andrea Doria (Andrea Doria had several nephews, not just one.) There's also no such person as Gianetti Doria. And no such person as Lufti Pasha (it's Lutfi (more correctly Lütfi) Pasha)
As a history teacher, I'm more than qualified to "correct" some of your "corrections" on issues which you obviously don't know very well. So much for your "high quality" Wiki articles. ;)
By the way, it's "Castelnuovo" (not Castelnuova) which was the Venetian name of Herceg Novi on the Adriatic Sea, and it was taken by the Venetians, not the Spaniards (I had to correct yet another "high quality" Wiki mistake)
Not to mention the numerous grammar errors I had to correct.
P.S.: Are you by chance a Frenchman whose Sarkozyesque pride is hurt by some historic details?
My guess:
A) French B) Spanish C) Italian
Shuppiluliuma 13:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Unspecified source for Image:TuAF F16.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:TuAF F16.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 15:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Photo: Yaşar Kadıoğlu
Source: Turkish Air Force (official Turkish Air Force image)
http://www.hvkk.tsk.mil.tr/Gururumuz/Gurur.asp
Shuppiluliuma 16:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:Ataturk_hosts_32_Kings_and_62_Presidents.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ataturk_hosts_32_Kings_and_62_Presidents.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of no source tag
Regarding this edit: Please do not remove {{no source}} tag unless you can state exactly where the image came from. If it was taken from a web site, mention the address of the exact web page that shows this image. If it came from a newspaper, mention the name of the publication, date and page number. Thanks. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
OK Shuppiluliuma 01:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Admiralty_Flag_of_the_Turkish_Fleet_at_Lepanto_1571.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Admiralty_Flag_of_the_Turkish_Fleet_at_Lepanto_1571.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Barbarossa again
Hi, I know we discussed this earlier, but if you have the time, please check out the poll that's going on at Talk:Barbarossa Khair ad Din Pasha#Requested move. Thanks! —Khoikhoi 04:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:Ataturk_at_Cankaya_Library_1934.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ataturk_at_Cankaya_Library_1934.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wowturkey images
Wikipedia image policy says that the images which are uploaded must be under a free license. That means that the pictures can be used outside Wikipedia by anyone (including third-party commercial entities) for any purpose. You may ask to be credited on each usage of the image, but nothing more. Restricting the use by any way, such as only for "positive representation of Turkey" is not acceptable according to our policies.
If an image is available under a free license, it should be allowed to be use, for example, by a website about the "Armenian Genocide" or by a website which makes fun about the Turkish tourist industry.
If wowturkey disagrees with these terms, please say so and the images would have to be deleted.
Thank you, bogdan 18:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I am one of the administrators of WowTurkey.Com.
The photos at WowTurkey have no commercial purpose (we don't make money out of them) but are taken by amateur photographers to show the beautiful parts of Turkey.
Some of our images are already used in advertisements across Turkey, and nobody payed us any money. We didn't complain either.
If someone wants to use these photos for bad purposes, he/she can get them directly from our web site anyway (not necessarily from Wikipedia)
And I can't see any reason why the skyscrapers or trams or houses of Istanbul should (can) be used to mock Turkey.
Regards,
Shuppiluliuma 18:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What are you doing?
Shuppiluliuma, can you please offer some explanation why you're removing the Ottoman Turkish names from Ottoman sultan articles? This is the script that they wrote in and the one that was used throughout the empire at the time. It's very important for readers to know how their name was spelled. —Khoikhoi 00:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Because they are "Arabic" and not "Ottoman Turkish" (Turks used the Arabic alphabet but didn't speak Arabic)
It's like saying Prince Charles as "Principe Carlos" and claiming it's English.
Shuppiluliuma 00:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- The Ottoman Turkish alphabet is in the Arabic alphabet. Turkish didn't use the Latin alphabet until much later. —Khoikhoi 00:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I know. Turks wrote "Turkish" using the Arabic alphabet. But those names are written in "Arabic".
For example: Both English and Spanish are written with the Latin alphabet, but they are different languages.
I grew up in Saudi Arabia and can read Arabic very well. Those names are written in Arabic, not Ottoman Turkish.
There is an evident effort of Arabicizing the Ottomans.
Shuppiluliuma 00:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, it was Saposcat who added the names—he's pretty good in Ottoman Turkish. I'll make a deal: I'll ask him to leave a comment here, until then can you please not remove the names? (so we can come to some sort of agreement). Thanks. Also, please familiarize yourself with the three-revert rule, which states that no one can revert an article more than 3 times in 24 hours. —Khoikhoi 00:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Fine. Tell him also to rename it as the Arabic Empire.
Shuppiluliuma 00:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't get where all this hostility is coming from, I just am going for accuracy, not deletion. —Khoikhoi 00:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no "Arabicizing" of the Ottomans going on, Shuppiluliuma. Rather, there is an effort at accuracy going on. The Ottomans, quite simply, used a Perso-Arabic script, specifically a version of the Persian alphabet somewhat modified for the purposes of writing Turkish. This is a simple fact.
Let's look at an example of how writing their names in the Ottoman Turkish script is not "Arabicizing": مراد ثالث (Murād-i sālis). Here, the word ثالث (sālis) is, indeed, Arabic for "third". However, this is how "Murad III" ("Üçüncü Murad") was said (in addition to a number of other formal titles, of course, such as those enshrined in tughras). If this were an attempt at "Arabicizing", we would instead be writing الثالث (as-sālis)—as it is said in Arabic. But Ottoman Turkish did not use numbered titles this way; rather, the name was linked to the following number by means of the izâfet, a grammatical construct borrowed from Persian ezāfe, which works as something like a genitive. This fluid mix of Arabic and Persian words and constructions was one of the hallmarks of Ottoman Turkish, and so there is no "Arabicizing" going on: just the facts, just accuracy, no politics or anything similar. (Politics would be, for example, this edit, which was simply wrong and which I later corrected.)
So, please do not remove the Ottoman Turkish script from articles where it is used. Cheers. —Saposcat 04:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- I refer your attention again to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic), as well as that article's "Ottoman Turkish" section. It is, I suppose, alright to use the non-strict transliteration in the Ottoman sultans' articles' first mention of the name (the part in bold), as well as in the template box on the side ... but for the transliteration of the names in parentheses (i.e., the text immediately following the Ottoman Turkish script), strict transliteration—as per the article I've just referred you to—should be adhered to. So, again, do not change the parenthesized transliterations of the names in the Ottoman script back. Thanks in advance for not doing so. —Saposcat 04:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reverting edits to "The Ottoman Empire" without any discussion or comment
Shuppiluliuma, Wikipedia is a collaborative exercise. I appreciate the work you've been doing on the Ottoman Empire, however some of the changes you've made make the article harder to read, in my opinion. For example, I really don't understand why it's necessary to say, in the introduction to an extremely long article, exactly which countries which had not been occupied by allied forces were handed over at the end of WWI. Surely the place to do that is in the section on the dissolution of the Empire. At the moment, Yemen is mentioned in the introduction to an article covering 600 years or more, but is not mentioned in the section specifically dealing with the aftermath of WWI. This is ridiculous.
Could you explain why you reverted my changes please. And please remember to include comments when making changes, especially if you are reverting what someone else has done. If you had checked the discussion page you would have seen that I'd written briefly that I was going to rewrite the introduction. Please explain (in that section on the discussion page) why you reverted those changes, or I will take out the sentence on Yemen and Azerbaijan again.
Thanks.
--Merlinme 15:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Because your changes were full of grammar errors which caused inaccuracies in the context.
Regards.
Shuppiluliuma 20:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, the Ottoman Empire/Caliphate can be completely yours. Just make sure you keep the Arabic script away from the Republic of Turkey section.
Regards.
Shuppiluliuma 20:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm at least trying to help you guys in writing it correctly.
Shuppiluliuma 21:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Shuppiluliuma, I would be quite surprised if you could find English grammatical errors in my writing which changed the sense, but please correct them if you do. I think you may be assuming that there's only one other person apart from yourself making changes to the Ottoman Empire article, whereas in fact there are at least half a dozen. If you would take time to write on the discussion page what you are doing, or even just add comments when you revert changes, I would be very happy to have you participating in writing the Ottoman Empire article, as you clearly know a lot about it. Please don't be so hasty when editing though.
--Merlinme 09:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:Ataturk_portrait.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ataturk_portrait.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Images
Why are you so fond of uploading too many images? They are reducing the quality of the articles. Regards, E104421 14:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
That's only "your" opinion. Most people have praised them.
Regards.
Shuppiluliuma 18:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. However, i remember there is at least another user above critisizing your image uploading for the Ataturk article (see the images you upload section above). I warned you before but you never explained why you are so fond of uploading pictures? Maybe you find adding images more easier than editing articles. I do not want to remove them without your approval but if you continue adding too many images without valid reasons (if you are to put an image, this addition should be necessary, otherwise reduces the quality of the article), i may start removing some of them without your approval. E104421 19:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you have an idea on how many articles I edited or actually added?
Shuppiluliuma 19:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I never counted and will never be (if i have to, i can, of course), but this does not change "my" opinion that the images are deemed appropriate. For the articles, i confronted with your name, i can safely say that they are too many and some of them are unnecessary. E104421 19:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's again "your" opinion. I'm sure I wouldn't be fond of your work, either.
Of removing the uncessary images, you uploaded, without "your" opinion, that's right. I shan't be fond of... E104421 19:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Which one of my articles were "unnecessary" according to "you", by the way?
Shuppiluliuma 19:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Ataturk and the Turkish Navy articles are quite good examples to "your articles" having too many images. We had to make a gallery in order to make "you" happy for the Ataturk article, but that's enough, be happy and try to cool down this uploading habit. E104421 19:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I was actually going to upload an image of Galata Tower (Wikipedia doesn't have any) but I guess I'll have to wait for you to go to sleep.
Shuppiluliuma 19:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
That's not necessary all the time. Go on! However, please, do not add more than one, unless it has to be done. Cheers E104421 20:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:B Class Corvettes.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:B Class Corvettes.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.
Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nilfanion (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Suggestion
I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. —Khoikhoi 22:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, sorry :) Shuppiluliuma 22:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- No problem! It's a typical characteristic of new users. ;-) If you feel that you're going to take a long time to edit a page, simply add {{inuse}} at the top of the article. Cheers, —Khoikhoi 22:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Possibly unfree Image:B Class Corvettes.jpg
[edit] Izmir Gallery
I like those photos, thanks! --Awiseman 21:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
More coming ;)
Shuppiluliuma 21:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Turkish
Hi Shuppiluliuma. In the article List of air forces I've listed the ancestors of the Turkish Air Force. In 1925 something called Türk Hava Kurumu was founded. On the internet it's covering commercial and general aviation in Turkey today. Was the name a cover for illegal military aviation after the Versailles Treaty or what?
I've also some problems with the translations of the Turkish (and Ottoman) Air Services, and the accents on the Turkish names. Would you be so kind to iron out the worst errors for me (and the readers of Wikipedia), please? Necessary Evil 13:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
T.H.K., Türk Hava Kurumu (Turkish Aviation Institution/Society) is an institution of civil aviation which still operates today. It's not a part of the Air Force. It was established by Atatürk in 1925, 2 years after the Turkish Republic was proclaimed with the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. It also has nothing to do with the Treaty of Versailles or the Turkish War of Independence (1919-1922).
Türk Hava Kurumu web site:
Regards
Shuppiluliuma 16:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I made all the necessary corrections.
Regards,
Shuppiluliuma 17:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, I'm breathless. What a job!! Now Turkey seems to be in order, but the Turkish Civil Aviation Organization then has to be removed, since it isn't a military force. Well Done! Necessary Evil 17:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I added that one at the bottom, I think it looks fine there
Shuppiluliuma 17:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:Alsancak houses.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Alsancak houses.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] images again
Ufff, Shuppiluliuma. Please, give up adding too many images. These are really reducing the quality of the articles. What you've done to Turkish Navy page is really ridiculous, cause the article turned out to be an image gallery, rather than providing comprehensive information on Turkish Navy. Maybe you'd better to create a new article related with the images. I do not want remove them cause you should do it, but if i have to, i shall do so. E104421 10:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
What makes you think that "your style" and "your contribution" is always the best and other people's work is not?
Without me, there would be no "History of Turkish Navy", no articles on "Kemal Reis", no "Battle of Zonchio", no "Piyale Pasha", no improvements of data on Piri Reis (such as his second world map), Barbarossa and Turgut Reis, and not a single image.
You should thank me instead of complaining.
Shuppiluliuma 17:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Heh, i may be an obstinate person but take a look at Turkish Navy, it's not an article but image gallery. By the way, your edits are good, i never said anything about them but images. Ok, thank you for the articles, however, i cannot say the same for the images. Kind regards E104421 17:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
It looks much better now
Shuppiluliuma 18:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. I'm planning to add almost complete history of Turkish Navy from official sources. There may be overlapping parts with your contributions. For this reason, after finishing the compilation, i may sent it via e-mail to you before editing the article. Otherwise, there would be dublicate issues, and i do not want to erase or edit yours. Cheers! E104421 18:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeter ki "Türk donanması Emir Çaka Bey ile başladı. Çaka Bey Bizanslılara esir düşünce denizciliği öğrendi. Mongol Türkler denizcilikten anlamazlardı, Yunanlılardan öğrendiler, vs." gibi abuk subuk detaylarla bizi rezil edip komşuları keyiflendirme. Testi kırılmadan uyarayım dedim. ;)
Her detay bilinmese de olur ;)
Yoksa ben de Deniz Kuvvetleri sitesinden özetleme yapmasını bilirim.
Shuppiluliuma 19:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
As i already stated above, i'm compiling not copying. Do not worry about the details. Cheers! E104421 09:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
3 farklı Murat Reis var, üşenmeden oturup yazmak lazım, ben özetle ikisini tanıttım :)
Shuppiluliuma 09:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Alright, then i shall write the republic era. E104421 09:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Yakup Ağa
I honestly have no idea how this happened. I didn't mean to revert your edits—sorry about that! :-) Khoikhoi 03:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Edit summaries
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:
The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.
Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. -- JHunterJ 13:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't know. Thank You Shuppiluliuma 22:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lame naming reverts
Hi Shuppiluliuma, you haven't been here for that long yet, so maybe you are not fully aware how much the Greek/Turkish placenames issue is already in the realm of Lamest Edit-Wars Ever. There's unfortunately still no clear guideline, but please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek and Turkish named places) for the range of existing opinions and where they converge. I believe your edits go quite clearly against the emergent consensus that has been developing since, so please be prepared that some of your naming edits will soon be reverted by various people. I hope you won't then take it to yet another silly edit war. Thank you - Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
It's O.K. for me, I personally don't feel irritated of former names of Turkish cities in other languages. However, they should also show the same understanding for the former Turkish names of their own cities, since the Turks ruled these territories for more than 500 (in some cases more than 900) years.
Turkey is the "Rule Britannia" of this region, and if they want to play the game of "Old Names", it's fine for us. But they should have the stomach of not feeling irritated of the former Turkish names of their "formerly Turkish" cities.
Regards.
Shuppiluliuma 13:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
We didn't save these lands so easily, it took 100,000s of lives in the Turkish War of Independence.
So we also have the right to feel irritated.
Actually this was the main reason why Constantinople became Istanbul in 1930.
Shuppiluliuma 13:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, my own stance is that this whole line of argumentation - from both sides - is entirely irrelevant. We aren't including or excluding names in order to make people feel good - or bad. We are including names because they are interesting encyclopedic information. The only criterion is how to make the articles well structured and well readable. Greek or Turkish readers need not be told that "Istanbul" is "Constantinople" or that "Thessaloniki" is "Selanik". They know that already. Therefore, the information doesn't concern them. Strictly speaking, neither Greek nor Turkish readers' feelings should be taken into account here at all. I'll be blunt, in my view neither group has any right to feel offended about what facts we decide to tell or not to tell our readers, and in what order. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
So how come our cities are full of foreign "former names", and when we add the former Turkish name to a former Turkish city, it's instantly deleted? Don't you think this is double standards? I as a Turk feel offended, and I know that most Turks also feel this way.
Shuppiluliuma 14:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- I can only point you again to that page where we were discussing these things. You'll find my own position stated there too. Maybe it's time to revive that page and finally move on to a binding compromise. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Marking city name changes as minor
Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! --AW 15:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --AW 15:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't care. You people have Crusader mentality. But don't worry: Within a few centuries, we'll be back in Vienna (Never mind Greece)
So sweet dreams with the Greek names of Turkish cities.
Shuppiluliuma 15:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Stripes of a tiger don't wash away, MANOWAR is made of steel not clay ;)
Shuppiluliuma 15:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- This is Wikipedia, not-do-whatever-you-want-apedia. Please abide by the rules. --AW 15:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, as I said before, I'm not against Greek names, but WHY ARE THEY ERASING THE FORMER TURKISH NAMES OF THEIR CITIES?
WikiChristianopedia?
Shuppiluliuma 15:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Was that a religious slur?--Tekleni 15:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, Turkey doesn't belong to the Turks.
Shuppiluliuma 16:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- It belongs to everyone who lives there, including the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, and your 20% Kurdish minority.--Tekleni 16:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
For the second time Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! --AW 16:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, the Greek names are OK with me, but why are you erasing the Turkish names of your cities then?
Double standards?
Shuppiluliuma 16:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
TURKEY BELONGS TO THE TURKS. Use the ETYMOLOGY section for names in your language.
Shuppiluliuma 16:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not Greek. --AW 16:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Attacks.
Edit summaries like this one are totally unnaceptable. You will not make such statements again, or you will be blocked. JBKramer 16:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your edits to İzmir
Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to İzmir. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --AW 16:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, every joke has some truth in it, don't you think?
Shuppiluliuma 16:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not for jokes. --AW 16:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The Greek editors are a joke.
Shuppiluliuma 16:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's declare Turkey as a part of Greece to summarize it.
Shuppiluliuma 16:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Personal Attacks
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. I view your above comment regarding the greek editors to be a violation of our policies. JBKramer 16:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
SHOW ME THE CITIES OF ANOTHER COUNTRY OTHER THAN TURKEY WITH SO MANY FOREIGN NAMES.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT SOME PEOPLE STILL CAN'T STOMACH THE TREATY OF LAUSANNE.
SHOW ME.
Shuppiluliuma 16:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't care. Comment on the content, not the contibutors. JBKramer 16:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I CARE. AND I BELIEVE MOST TURKS CARE.
Shuppiluliuma 16:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you don't cease your personal attacks, you will no longer be permitted to edit the encyclopedia, regardless of what Turks and Greeks care about. JBKramer 16:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, we all know the true reason:
ZHTO MEGALI HELLAS. ZHTO KONSTANTINOUPOLIS, the Eternal Hellenic Capital.
Smyrni is Greek, so is Ankyra, so is Prusa, so is Trapezounta, so is..........
Psomi, elia, kai Kotso Vasilia!
Shuppiluliuma 16:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
And here's the Eternal Turkish Response (something which even Wiki's senior editors can't change):
HASSIKTIR GAMISOU ;)
Shuppiluliuma 16:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Translated, apparently that means fuck you, whore. I told you before that personal attacks are NEVER acceptable, even in languages I don't speak or read. Do not make them. JBKramer 17:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blocked
I have temporarily blocked you from editing for this edit summary.[2] Do not say anything like that again. Tom Harrison Talk 16:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your behaviour
Dear Shuppiluliuma, I saw that, you had been temporary blocked. I know, you are a good editor.Of course you have your oppinions on Turkey related articles and Greek editors.But the way that you choose cannot bring any added value to you and wiki. Please be calm in discuss and edits. Dont put any bad words to articles or edit summaries. I believe we can find concensus on these articles and matters. Sorry my humble oppinions/offers. I hope we will see you again wiki/Görüşmek üzere. Regards/Saygılar. Mustafa AkalpTC 17:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Sağol dostum. :)
Türkçe isim tu kaka, Yunanca isim pek ala. Neyse, pes ettim. :)
Görüşmek üzere.
Shuppiluliuma 11:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Never say Goodby.We are welcome you when you unblocked again.See User_talk:Tom harrison
Regards. Mustafa AkalpTC 17:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, keep cool. it's better to take these issues to Administrators' noticeboard or trying dispute solutions. See you soon. Regards. E104421 23:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, I almost completed the sections i mentioned before (the republic era). I can send them via e-mail for you to check, since it's rather long, we have to summarize it. I shall appreciate "your" comments. You can send me an e-mail or activate your e-mail that i can contact with you. Regards. E104421 20:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome
Welcome again. Regards MustTC 11:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Istanbul_from_above.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Istanbul_from_above.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] CalicoJackRackham (talk • contribs)
Please stick to one account. Thanks, Khoikhoi 21:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Abdulhamid II and destroying navy thing
I reverted your "comments" about the abolishment of the Ottoman Navy. Of course there are several reasons why I did so;
1-) Ottoman Navy lost its power years ago. It is not connected to the reign of Abdulhamid. Ottoman Navy came to an end when Russians burned the Turkish fleet in the port of Navarin (Mora, Greece).
2-) During the reign of Abdulhamid, great amounts of money and effort spended to form a powerful sea force and they were successful, Ottoman fleet was the third largest in the world but because of an invention, the importance of the Ottoman fleet reduced to zero. It was the destroyer class battleship. Invented by the leading sea power in the world, British Empire, these new ships were faster and stronger than any other object in the seas of the world.
3-) Ottoman Empire was in a brutal battle against the alliance of the west at that time. You need capital to keep fighting. You either take it from people (poor peasants of Anatolia didn't have much) or you cut the budget of other things. Ottoman Navy was useless for fighting but still it was the third largest in the world! So Abdulhamid decided to stop paying for it.
4-) You can still argue that the sultan was afraid of reformist people. You can say "one of the reasons why Abdulhamid stop funding his fleet was because there were reformist people in the navy" and I'm okay with it because we all know that the sultan was afraid of losing his throne but believe me there were more important reasons for his decision.
See you, Deliogul 20:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Delioğul, during the reign of Abdülaziz (the emperor right before Abdülhamid II) the Ottoman Navy was the third largest in the world after the British Navy and French Navy (the Ottoman Navy had 21 battleships and 173 other types of warships during the reign of Abdülaziz). You don't even know the difference between these two emperors. After Abdülhamid II locked the navy into the Golden Horn in the late 1880s (immediately after purchasing the two Nordenfelt submarines), the Ottoman fleet appeared so pathetic in a parade attended by Sultan Mehmed V Reşad following the Young Turk Revolution that a Naval Foundation was established and two large dreadnought battleships were ordered from England with public donation money (Sultan Osman-ı Evvel, i.e. HMS Agincourt, and Reşadiye, i.e. HMS Erin). At the outbreak of WWI the British seized these ships even though we payed the money, which was the reason why we entered WWI on Germany's side. Learn some naval history before editing/deleting other people's comments, especially on issues which you evidently don't know much. It was me who added the submarines to Abdulhamid II, just like it was me who wrote Barbarossa, Turgut Reis, Kemal Reis, Piri Reis, Piyale Pasha, Murat Reis, Battle of Preveza etc. in Wikipedia. I'm a sailor and trust me, I know the issue very well. Check out this link (the topic "The Period of the Navy Ministry" http://www.dzkk.tsk.mil.tr/English/Tarihce.asp) from the official Turkish Navy website and see for yourself Shuppiluliuma 23:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I mixed the time period where Ottoman fleet became so large but you only gave counter claim to that point in my last message. Also, you can be sure that I know more than average about the Turkish history since I read dozens of books and took lectures in university about it. Also trust me, that naval conflict was not the only reason why we entered WWI, just like the assassination of Franz Ferdinand (which wasn't the cause of the war either). You must show your sources in the talk page first so we can discuss them and then you can make changes but you directly enter some data and that automatically gives me the right to erase your entries, even if they are %100 true. We all know that Abdulhamid was afraid of many things and I mentioned it in my last message too. In my opinion, the thing you must do is to soften your claim about the connection between the situation of the navy and the mental health of the sultan. As I said before, if you don't pay for the navy, of course it will become rubbish but you must consider the other facts too. With respect, Deliogul 11:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikifications
Please do not overwikify, I cut down on wikification based on the FAC here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turkey. Cheers! Baristarim 03:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- It is 34 percent :) No worries, I will fix it myself. Baristarim 04:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Sorry about the post about the wikifications, I am a bit stressed out :) Baristarim 11:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
No problem bro :)
Sorry I couldn't reply before, I'm a bit busy and usually away from Wiki and internet in these days. Take care and have a Happy New Year. Kurban Bayramın Kutlu Olsun. :) Shuppiluliuma 08:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New article
Hey, I recently created an article on Kuştul Monastery. Feel free to add to it. :-) Khoikhoi 23:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I actually wanted to know more about its history after seeing its images on the website of the Governorship of Trabzon Province. Thank you very much for the nice effort. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year :) Shuppiluliuma 07:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Armani Cafe and Gucci on Tesvikiye Avenue in Nisantasi.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Armani Cafe and Gucci on Tesvikiye Avenue in Nisantasi.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the image description page and edit it to add
{{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 00:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Istanbul
Istanbul is in improvement stage, there is already a lot of improvements. Such as labeled map is developed, standardized climate table, standard "City" sections such as cityscape, demographics, utilities. And most important article is improved from two citations to twenty. Help us to improve the article. Thanks.--OttomanReference 14:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The panoramic picture (Şişli-Levent-Maslak-Akatlar) looks like an ordinary and characterless city in the Philippines, with a few (handful) of skyscrapers and some commie blocks scattered around the forests. Is this really "Istanbul", especially when more important historic districts don't get the credit which they deserve? Also, why did you remove the Bosphorus Bridge picture? Istanbul's municipal logo also looks awkwardly pixellized. Shuppiluliuma 19:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Constantinople
Back on 12/25/06 you deleted the image of a 15th Century map from the Constantinople page. Please do not do such actions again - if you continue such actions, I will report you to an admin and possibly have you banned. Thank you. Rarelibra 21:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
That map shows Asia Minor (Anatolia) and Thrace, and not Constantinople. It's not my fault if some people are cartography illiterate. Shuppiluliuma 19:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are offensive and deft, at best. The map shows Constantinople... LOOK in the upper left area (where Constantinople is LOCATED) and see for yourself. The map stays. You have gained my attention, and if you continue this, you will gain the attention of an administrator as well. Rarelibra 20:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm O.K. with the map but it might be confusing for Joe Average living in Kansas on how the peninsula of Constantinople looks like (because the map shows Thrace and Anatolia, i.e. "Turkey", and not European Istanbul and Asian Istanbul)
If you want to put a really interesting old map of Constantinople, try the famous Buondelmonte Map of 1420-1422 which is the oldest surviving map of Constantinople, drawn by Cristoforo Buondelmonte of Florence (Buondelmonte is a famous old Florentine family).
I studied architecture in Florence so I know ;)
http://www.newberry.org/smith/exhibits/narrativesmaps/nm.html
Shuppiluliuma 20:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- And I have a degree and proven experience with maps. There is nothing wrong with displaying this map. In fact, you are one more step from violating the 3RR rule if you revert my edit one more time today. Don't test me. Thanks. Rarelibra 21:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Good for you. :)
I'm a professor at the University of Milan, but previously studied at the University of Florence (Italy) and New York Institute of Technology (USA).
P.S.: It's a map of "Turkey", not "Constantinople" ;)
I can hardly read the name "Constantinople" written with medieval handwriting at the top left side.
Joe Average from Kansas will never find it. Shuppiluliuma 21:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
But I was born in Constantinople ;)
So please don't try to teach me my native city, its history and its geography. Shuppiluliuma 21:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't care if you're a professor on Mars and if you studied on Jupiter. I'm not comparing notes here. You're being disrespectful to my contribution. The map - legile with it's handwriting (for God's sake, it's from the 15th Century) or not, SHOWS Constantinople. And you are the only one that is attempting such changes (not "Joe Average" from Kansas). And you weren't born in Constantinople, you were born in ISTANBUL (which it has been called since the beginning of the 20th Century). Only the Greeks call it by that name. Also, I wasn't attempting to teach you about anything other than respect for other's work and recognition of a piece of history that dates back to the time when it WAS called "Constantinople" - very applicable for the article, especially to show it's placement. Now, please, stop this insanity and let's get on to positive contributions. Good day. Rarelibra 22:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandal destroying inventory figures of Turkish Armed Forces
The person with the IP 207.172.176.46 is deliberately changing the inventory list of Turkish Army and Navy with false numbers. Please block him. Shuppiluliuma 18:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Istanbul
Just to let you know, you're one revert from being in violation of 3RR and that I will report you if you do violate it. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I will report you for your ignorance and vandalism. Also, it is a TRUTH that Istanbul was the capital of 3 distinct empires. You are the one who is childish (the term jealous is perhaps more accurate) Shuppiluliuma 03:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wow ... not very pleasant. I apologize for my ignorance. Only you, I suppose, know that that the Roman Empire was a different Empire from the Roman Empire. Post a report of me on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism; I'll warn you though that since I've not done anything approaching WP:Vandalism, you might not get anywhere. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 04:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's say that I'm an archaeologist digging in Istanbul, and I found an artifact from 800 AD.
Will I say "I found an artifact from the Roman period"?
Or will I say "I found an artifact from the Byzantine period"?
I'll say "Byzantine period", wouldn't I?
Because the Byzantine Empire had a distinct language, religion, culture, art and architecture from the Roman Empire. ] Just like the Seljuk Empire and Ottoman Empire were distinct entities (despite essentially being successor Turkish states) and had a distinct culture, art and architecture, the Roman (Latin) and Byzantine (Greek) Empires were also distinct entities and distinct states, with a distinct culture.
The Republic of Turkey is legally the only successor state to the Ottoman Empire (and payed for the Ottoman debts until the late 1950s) but this doesn't mean that the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey are the same state, despite being successor states with an essentially Turkish culture.
With your logic, the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey should be considered the same state (they even have the same flag, and they were both called "Turkey" if you check out resources from the 19th century) but they are different states, I'm sorry.
So learn to live with the FACT that Istanbul is the only city in the world which served as the capital to 3 distinct empires: Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman.
And learn to live with the fact that Istanbul will forever remain Turkish. Shuppiluliuma 05:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- You are not being a very pleasant person, Shuppiluliuma. Please be nicer. And since you seem to think I am Greek, lemme tell you that I am not ... I'm Scottish, and unlike most Turks, I have no Greek blood whatsoever. Anyways, the language of the Roman Empire could be Chinese, and the culture could be Martian, it is the same "Empire". A western scholar invented the term "Byzantine" because some Westerners then were under the delusion that the Roman Empire fell in the 5th century, and that the poor, backward and peripheral western provinces still constituted the Empire's core in the 5th century, which of course was the opposite of the truth. But if I were to accept your arguments, Beijing was capital of at least 7 different Empires, e.g. State of Yan, Later Jin Dynasty, the Yuan Dynasty and Mongol Empire, became capital of the Ming Dynasty, the Qing Dynasty and the People's Republic of China. Xi'an (Chang'an) of ten. Babylon was capital of the Babylonian Empire, the neo-Babylonian Empire and became capital of the Persian Empire; as Ctesiphon-Seleucia was capital of the Parthian and Sassanid Empires, and as Baghdad capital of the Abbasid Empire. For this reason and others, claims about being only city to be capital of three Empires is false, both because it was only capital of two AND because other cities have like or greater honours. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 24 hour block for violation of 3RR
Bucketsofg 14:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Bosphorus Bridge and Levent skyline.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Bosphorus Bridge and Levent skyline.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 23:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your reversion of Turkish Air Force article
While I take no position one way or another about the infobox, I have to say that your edit summary "If you want an infobox, add your own photo. Don't use the photos I uploaded", is very inappropriate. When you uploaded those images, it became part of wikipedia, and you no longer control their use. Please see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. --rogerd 14:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for expressing your opinion. But it looks terribly ugly and useless. Shuppiluliuma 14:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Good faith
There is a big difference between adding facts (for some people it is dumping shit) and giving a balanced summary. Most of the information you try to add into Istanbul does not belong to the "city page of Istanbul". You can create a separate page and give a link to the information. Interested users can go and read. You were deleting the crime section couple days ago, and now you are adding everything you find on the internet. The page is nominated for "GOOD ARTICLE." That is the only reason I'm communicating to you, as you will drop the quality of the article for the nomination. I'm not going to spend time with your edits. A sincere reminder, if you want to prove something which your actions are very drastic, there are so many articles that needs attention about Turkey. Istanbul article has sections that do not have info. You can do much more to the article if you do not break the balance of the text by over emphasizing. Thanks Have a nice day.--OttomanReference 20:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Listen wise guy, if I won't add them, one day the Greeks/Kurds/Armenians will.
I'm only giving you a wake up call.
Look at London, Paris and Athens and check out if they have a Crime section.
Seeing that they don't, perhaps NOW you'll understand why.
Either remove the Crime section, or I'll continue to enhance it.
If I won't, I'm sure the Greeks/Armenians/Kurds will. Shuppiluliuma 20:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- There is a section devoted for your edits. [Crime]. You have to read the Wikipedia:Featured articles and try to fallow the links about editorial. There is a lot of information about how to improve documents. You are making a mistake by comparing just articles to "good articles". Your examples are not exemplary work. There is a project which defines a "good city article." see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities--OttomanReference 21:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Greeks/Armenians/Kurds have their own national page. The page you currently vandalized is a city page, it is not an ethnic page. City do not belong to any ethnic group. Please, Do not mix apples and bananas. Everyone has the right to improve that page. You can not claim the Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. If it does not belong to your ideas it should not belong to anyone is a bad policy and a Vandalism. If you continue to act this way everyone will loose. I hope I will see your positive efforts. Thanks. OttomanReference 21:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Just look under every photo in Istanbul and you'll see one of my two names in Wikipedia.
Look at Turkish Army, Air Force and Navy, you'll see me.
Look at Barbarossa, Turgut Reis, Kemal Reis, Piri Reis, Murat Reis, Battle of Preveza, Battle Of Djerba, ... and you'll see me.
I don't care about seeing your positive efforts, just don't destroy the contributions of other people. Shuppiluliuma 21:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
As for Crime in Istanbul, you also know that it's not as "innocent" as you depict it.
There are way more crimes, way more terrorist organizations, way more terror incidents, way more murders, way more kapkaç.
Someone might add them all one day, turning Istanbul into a crime city, scaring away tourists.
Being "Doğrucu Davut" is not always a good thing. Shuppiluliuma 21:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
"The History of Istanbul explains the historical development of the city which the first inhabitation of the region as a residential area was on 667 BC."
This is not correct. The first settlement was in Sarayburnu (Seraglio Point) and was called Lygos, a fishing settlement established by Thracian tribes in the 13th century BC (check out Britannica, either the Turkish edition or American). Later, another fishing village called Semistra was established in the 11th century BC next to Lygos. In 667 BC, colonists from Megara under the command of General Byzas arrived and established Byzantion on the site of Lygos. Shuppiluliuma 23:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your comments
Have you not learned, especially being blocked only a short time ago for 3RR? and with CalicoJackRackam as well? All you have to do is bring it up on the talk page when it is a contested edit, as you are proposing. See about consensus, and not just flagrantly revert (as you are doing). You are in violation of the 3RR rule... you may very well be blocked, if so use the time wisely to consider your approach. And you are calling ME stubborn? ;) Rarelibra 22:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll add the Latin Empire of Constantinople (1204-1261) and make it 4 Shuppiluliuma 22:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Why do you have to be so obstinate and not bring it up on the talk page properly? You can display your sources, and gain consensus... !! Rarelibra 22:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Bucketsofg 22:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Greek wasn't introduced one day by Heraclius as you may think. It had been the language of Church, education, and the sole vernacular language since before the foundation of Constantinople. What Heraclius did was to completely remove Latin as a language of the administration, which co-existed alongside Greek due to traditional reasons (Justinian wrote in both Latin and Greek). Latin was never a spoken language in the Eastern Roman Empire, and as the Oxford History of Byzantium verifies, by the 5th century AD the Pope would complain for not being able to find a Latin translator in Constantinople. Besides the fact that you've been wrong all this time, your behaviour was unacceptable. Miskin 23:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you telling me that the Romans called it Konstantinoupolis in 330 and not Constantinopolis? Shuppiluliuma 23:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Nope. But it depends who you mean by "Romans", for the "Romans" of the East did not speak Latin at all, except few people in the administration. But 'Constantinopolis' (as it was carved on Roman coinage) was a Latinisation of a Greek word, which changes only the accent and spelling, but doesn't make the original word Latin (as it was chosen by Saint Constantine). Similarly Megaloupolis would be called (or written) officially "Megalopolis", and Galenos would be called Galenus. Miskin 16:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest moving the conversation to Talk:Constantinople so other people can contribute. Thanks. -- Stbalbach 15:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
We'll move the discussion as soon as Shuppiluliuma is unblocked, so that he can participate. Miskin 16:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not necessary, I'm not interested anymore.
I simply made two points:
1) The name "Constantinopolis" was first "officially" coined between 330 and 337 in Latin, since Latin was the official language of the Roman Empire at that time. Of course many of the people in the streets of Constantinople spoke Greek, but the official state language was Latin, and it remained that way until the reign of Heraclius in the 7th century, when Greek became the new official language. Thus, the most archaic (and official) form is "Constantinopolis" (Latin), not "Konstantinoupolis" (Greek) which is the Hellenized form. Constantine called himself "Constantinus", not "Konstantinos", and the city was officially called "Constantinopolis" at Constantine's period, not Konstantinoupolis which is a later name.
2) Constantinople has been the capital city of the Roman Empire (330-395), the East Roman (Byzantine) Empire (395-1204 and 1261-1453), the Latin Empire (1204-1261) and the Ottoman Empire (1453-1922).
If you guys disagree, there's nothing I can do about it.
I don't have the power to educate the world or change people's minds (or heal national pride related blindness on accepting some historic facts)
And to tell the truth, I don't care. If there are people who insist to have wrong/inaccurate/incomplete information in Wikipedia, it's not my problem, as long as I know that "I myself know the truth".
Regards. Shuppiluliuma 18:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I still don't know how you cannot understand that 'Constantinopolis' is a typical Greek compound which uses 'Constantinus' and 'Polis'. 'Konstantinoupolis' is not a Hellenised form, it's a modern transliteration which follows the Greek instead of the Latin spelling of the same word. Another example would be spelling "Comnenus", instead of "Komnenos". You're still talking about the same person and the same name, the first spelling doesn't make his name Latin. Miskin 10:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I'm also in favour of adding both Greek and Latin versions of the name, I did it once myself but it was removed and archived on a specific "name" section (there was a consensus on this). However, if we are to keep one name, it has to be the Greek version, since it has been clearly more important to the history and culture of the city. I reverted your version which swapped the Greek with Latin transliteration and implied that the word had a Latin root. I personally don't mind including the Latin Empire as one of the cultures that ruled the city. Regards. Miskin 18:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] History of Istanbul
I applicate your efforts; There is an article for the History of Istanbul. Anything that is controversial (requires further analysis) should be under the main article (history of Istanbul). Just wanted to remind you that if you are interested in the history of Istanbul, it is not a good policy to resolve controversial issues on the main page. --OttomanReference 01:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The general idea of the history section is summarizing the content in the page History of Istanbul in "four short paragraphs". If you help me to summarize (like only in short four paragraphs) the history section in the Istanbul page, that would be great. I worked on summarizing the content, but needs more work. Especially the general (period) history needs to be moved out from the city page. Thanks for your help.OttomanReference 01:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I only wrote "facts", there is nothing "controversial" there.
Regards. Shuppiluliuma 01:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I checked the History of Istanbul section and noted some common errors (which are also found in most Turkish tourist web sites)
1) Fikirtepe Mound dates from 5500-3500 BC, not Lygos.
2) Lygos and Semistra date from the 13th and 11th centuries BC
3) Lygos is located in Sarayburnu, not the Anatolian side (people often confuse Fikirtepe Mound with Lygos)
Regards. Shuppiluliuma 01:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your comments on Constantinople
If you continue to violate WP:CIVIL as you did on the talk page of Constantinople, you will find yourself blocked for a longer period of time. Keep it up, and you account can even possibly be banned. Start being civil or pay the price. Your call. If you elect to go back and edit out your comments, that will be a good start (hint, hint). Rarelibra 16:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately I can't educate every single history-illiterate person on the planet, so my efforts in Wikipedia are a waste of time anyway.
Luckily no university accepts Wikipedia as a valid resource.
Regards. Shuppiluliuma 16:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- It is unfortunate that you need to be so offensive and personal. Don't you think the phrase "I can't educate every single fool on the planet" is very much STILL against WP:CIVIL? Please click on the link and READ the article on civility. Please understand that you are rather offensive and there is NEVER a need to use such words. You are educated, yes. But this doesn't give you the right to assume that others are not. And you should practice more civility if you expect to also gain consensus and not go around pissing a lot of people off, instead. Rarelibra 16:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
O.K., I edited it to a more politically correct phrase.
Regards. Shuppiluliuma 16:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- You think that "single history-illiterate" is "politically correct"? Since when is the word "illiterate" NOT offensive? Read WP:CIVIL. And do it quickly - Because I fear as you continue in your posts, the evidence against you for the RfC will grow significantly enough to prove a solid case against your actions.
- Regardless of your personal opinions of me (as you have so eloquently prescribed), professionally I would hope that you offer up the same respect that I do of you. You are intelligent and educated, yes. Let's use that in a constructive and positive manner, before you do too many rash actions that will be beyond consequence. Rarelibra 16:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me :)
But please, next time, don't delete the information that I add without checking its accuracy.
I can't spend too much time on re-adding the information that I already added.
And I apologize if my engine boils water too quickly. Nothing personal. When you write something you know is correct, but are "punished with being banned for 48 hours" for writing the truth, you get mad easily. Unfairness (and especially unfair censorship) is not something I can easily tolerate.
Best wishes. Shuppiluliuma 17:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wiki is a strange animal. See my user page under "known facts" (as opposed to what Wiki convention says they are). As far as deleting without "checking" - come on, the biggest thing here is this - if you add it and many users revert it, that means there is a consensus problem. The proper way to combat this is to bring it up on the talk page... or provide reference. By saying someone needs to research something or properly check it - that is like you asking someone for the time and they tell you to go find a clock. Wouldn't it be easiest if I simply show you my watch when I tell you? Adding reference when you add something (like the latin empire piece - or the attempted naming you got blocked for) suddenly produces validity and enables your contribution to remain based on reference (and therefore, prevent others from reverting). Do it right. I'm sorry if you were mad for being blocked - Lord knows I have run into the same grenade when having a dispute with other editors. I'm slowly learning how to massage this point correctly... and just suggesting that you do the same.
- FYI - it is widely accepted that the world of academia is one that is widely 'detached' from that of the real world (submersed in theory and proof, etc). Most wiki users are probably part of the 'real' world. This is not to say that academia is not appreciated, however, it is also not worshipped, especially when someone goes around throwing their weight in title, worth, education, or experience. It is a rather ugly difference between having the intelligence and using it wisely (and correctly), versus using it to throw insult and offense. In other words, there is a difference between "if you look at the following reference" versus "well I'm a member of Mensa, and you're an idiot because..." Rarelibra 17:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I apologize if I hurt your feelings with my over-tempered reactions against the factual unfairness which I was subjected to.
Unfortunately people from the Mediterranean basin are not known for their cool-headed attitude.
I extend my peace pipe.
Cheers. Shuppiluliuma 17:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Italian KC-767s
Your deletion of the note that Italy operates KC-135s has been reverted, and I wanted to explain why. I know you cited a Boeing press release, but evidently you didn't actually read it. Italy operates several KC-135s until their new KC-767s are delivered, which is a long way off. The news relesse you referred to is for the first flight of the KC-767, which occurred in the US. That aircraft is still in the US, being used by Boeing for the type's flight test program. The second ship is undergoing conversion in Italy, but it is a long way from being operational. Please be more careful when deleting material. Thanks. Akradecki 02:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Turkish Air Force
S'no problem. :-) - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 17:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Take care bro, and thanks for the great work. :-)
Cheers Shuppiluliuma 17:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RfC
Dear Shuppiluliuma,
I saw an RfC about you posted by User:Rarelibra.
I know both of you. Both of you are good editors especially on Turkey related articles. You can see contibutions and approaches to the events of Rarelibra. So it is hard to understand for me what is the dispute between you.
Here my message to Rarelibra and here response.
I promise to Rarelibra that you will follow more soft and civil way in your edits and relations. I, strongly, believe that you will follow this way.
At this moment, my humble offer,to apologize from Rarelibra, and to try possible ways of colloboration with this user. Regards and Kolay gelsin. Mustafa Akalp MustTC 15:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I already apologized to Rarelibra and "extended my peace pipe".
Other than that, I don't know what else I can do.
Regards. Shuppiluliuma 15:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your understanding.Now I am looking what is the correct procedure to drawback a RfC by nominator.Regards.MustTC 15:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Istanbul
Don't get mad but please ask these questions; Regarding reverts: All the 5 reverts this month is involves your edits. If you look them (analyze) they are very very very minor issues, and I'm sorry but Your edits are becoming borderline raciest. The battles you are having could easily be solved, without effecting the integrity of the article in the talk page. The word is "Burning the sheet for the flee". You have a problem in expressing the issues with words; I did not checked all the images but like the one "Image:Istanbul_from_above.jpg" is your upload. I'm sure you will grow to be a good representative of your kind, issue is, that kind is someone who is hard to work with. Basically 'you are killing other peoples efforts'. --OttomanReference 15:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I advise you to communicate with this guy (who failed the nomination) and by being cooperative with him try to bring article into a Good Article state. It will improve you personally. Have a nice day.--OttomanReference 15:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm disappointed because I do not believe article is in bad shape, but reviewer managed to find issues that defend himself. Which most of them are not major issues and do not really reflect the quality of the article --OttomanReference 15:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
OttomanReference, I don't even remember the amount of your grammar errors which I had to correct.
Regards. Shuppiluliuma 15:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- You see - this is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about. Just correct the grammar errors and move on. Don't rub a user's nose in it. It is probably the case that User:OttomanReference has English as a 2nd language. If I knew Turkish and tried to write something, I'm sure it would have grammar errors (just as I know my Polish does - and sometimes my Spanish does as well). Don't criticize someone for grammar errors... Sheesh. Rarelibra 16:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
You guys are all so great, I suck.
My contributions to Wikipedia:
Kemal Reis, Turgut Reis, Barbarossa (Ottoman admiral), Oruç Reis, Piyale Pasha, Murat Reis the Older, Battle of Preveza, Battle of Djerba, Battle of Zonchio, Battle of Modon, Turkish-Venetian Wars, Uluç Ali Reis, Turkish Navy, Turkish Air Force, Turkish Army, Turkish Armed Forces, Milgem, Kılıç class, Yıldız class, Rüzgar class, Doğan class, Kartal class, Second Cairo Conference, Princes' Islands, Galata Tower, Galata Bridge, Levent, Maslak, Taksim Square, Istiklal Avenue, Galata, Yalı (residence), Izmir, Ankara, Trabzon, Pergamon, Turkey, Erzurum, Golden Horn, History of Istanbul, Abdülhamid II, and others which I can't even remember...
Maybe I should stick to military issues. :) Shuppiluliuma 16:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Again, you take a tone of sarcasm. Look - if I was like you, I would comb through your articles and look for grammar errors in English and criticize, correct? After all - English is your second language (I remember you telling me you were born in Istanbul). I don't - and I would defend you against other users who did. Just chill out with the personal comments and continue the good work you do... including military issues. If it has to do with US military, though, I think I must say my qualifications will help prove your edits. ;) Rarelibra 16:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Please feel free to do so - I'll give you a "Wiki Star" if you manage to find a grammar/spelling error that I made in any one of those articles.
Regards. Shuppiluliuma 16:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- No One is waging war against you! Hope you will calm down and take the "positive criticism" which will help not only to you but to everyone. No One is denying your efforts. However, there are things which makes it hard to work with you. AT the end wikipedia is a cooperative space. Have a nice day.--OttomanReference 16:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I will no longer edit Istanbul/Constantinople, and stick to military/military history issues.
Regards. Shuppiluliuma 16:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your behaviour
Dear Shuppiluliama, No need to offense yourself in an aggressive way..Nobody attack to your personality. Please check your position; you are in dispute with all good editors, why? Please follow wiki rules in your edits/contacts. Many user are trying to help to you -out of respect to your edits. Your aggressive way is a shame for those people. Please be careful, be calm, be polite in your contacts.You can accept these words as warning for you. Regards MustTC 19:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Whenever I'll look at Ankara and Izmir, then compare it with Istanbul, I'll feel proud of my work. :)
That's enough for me.
For the rest, I don't care.
Istanbul will become worse and worse.
It started being bad already (Haydarpaşa hyperlinked as the terminus of the Orient Express, LOL)
From now on, I won't intervene. I'll let OttomanReference turn Istanbul into a baboon's butt :)
Cheers Shuppiluliuma 20:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Readding message that was removed
I find it incredible that you claim to be a professor at a university, yet the actions you take on wikipedia are limited, to say the least. I've never met anyone in academia to act in such a manner. If you truly are a professor, then take it to heart that you need to work on your 'people skills'. For some reason, though, I now have my doubts. Sorry, but no one that I've ever known to be a professor has been so hostile. Rarelibra 20:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your latest edits
Hi, Shuppiluliuma. Please, calm down. Your obstinate behaviour is annoying some of the users. I can safely say that you're a very good contributor, but you can try to resolve the problems you're having with by trying dispute solution or mediation. Please, do so. Otherwise, you'll be permanently blocked. Edit/revert warring does not solve anything but keeps you blocked. Fut.Per. is really a good admin., you can discuss the issues with him and i'm sure that he'll help you to solve these. Best wishes. E104421 22:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:Battle_of_Djerba_in_1560.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Battle_of_Djerba_in_1560.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Admiral_Piri_Reis.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Admiral_Piri_Reis.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:Battle_of_Preveza.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Battle_of_Preveza.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unblocking
Okay, as per the discussion at User talk:DragutBarbarossa, I'm unblocking you on this account. I'll expect you to pull yourself together in terms of your behaviour towards other contributors (hint: apology to OttomanReference would be in order.) As for the image, you know I've tagged the wowturkey ones as unlicensed, which means they'll have to go if no further action is taken - which would be a pity, really. Since you apparently know many of the authors through your website, you'd be the person who could most easily get their permissions. Just contact them and ask them to send an e-mail saying: "I, the photographer, release image X, Y, Z, ... for use in Wikipedia and elsewhere under the terms of the GFDL." And all will be fine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- WELCOME BACK!!! :) Rarelibra 16:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Agora_of_Smyrna.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Agora_of_Smyrna.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:Milgem_Model.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Milgem_Model.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Akman_Tower_in_Ankara.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Akman_Tower_in_Ankara.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Bosphorus Bridge and FSM Bridge.jpg
[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Bosphorus Bridge panoramic view.jpg
[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Bosphorus Bridge in Istanbul.jpg
[edit] Image tagging for Image:Milgem_Rendering.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Milgem_Rendering.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Images
Please look at the image rules. You're uploading tons of images without source or licensing information --AW 15:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hello? You can't just upload any image you want --AW 14:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Atakule_Tower_and_central_Ankara.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Atakule_Tower_and_central_Ankara.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:Turkish_Portuguese_War_1554.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Turkish_Portuguese_War_1554.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Barbaros_Boulevard_in_Istanbul.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Barbaros_Boulevard_in_Istanbul.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:Turkish_Russian_War_1788.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Turkish_Russian_War_1788.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Characteristic_Izmir_houses_in_Alsancak.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Characteristic_Izmir_houses_in_Alsancak.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Dario_Moreno_Street_near_Asansör.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Dario_Moreno_Street_near_Asansör.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
