Jump to content

User talk:Baristarim/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Comments

Bot Request

I can have have that task done fairly quickly. I just need the cats that need tagged and the template that your project uses. :) Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 05:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Approved for AWB!

Thank you for your recent application to use AutoWikiBrowser. I have approved your request and you should now be able to use the AWB application. Be sure to check every edit before you save it, and don't forget to check out the AWB Guide. You can get any help you need over on the AWB talk page. Feel free to contact me with any questions, Alphachimp 02:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

:) - Francis Tyers · 21:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Teşekkür

Osmanlıca vikisine verdiğiniz destekten dolayı çok teşekkür ederim. Siberyaca wikide hakkında ise:

  • Osmanlıca test vikisine her konuda yardımcı olan ve Eski Türçe vikininde ilk zamanlar yöneticisi olan Yaroslav Zolotaryov daha önce şu mesajı yollamıştı:
    • Bize bir oylamada yardım edebilir misiniz? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Siberian_Wikipedia Bu oylama Sıbırca hakkında. Eski Sıbır Türklerin Eski Slavlarla ilişkiler yeni bir dilin ortaya çıkması için sebep olmuş. Ruslar bu dilin kullanmasını yasak etmek istiyorlar, bu dilde yazmış Wikipedia'nı kapamak istiyorlar. Amma şu Wikipedia islam hakkında güzel bilgiler veriyor, güzel yazılar içine alıyor.

--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Çalışmalarınızda başarılar dilerim. İyi akşamlar --Tarih 21:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Turkey

No problem its added to my watch list now :) Nareklm 23:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy New year! Nareklm 09:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Revert

Baris, I will accept your revert on the title of the section, but not on its content. I realize that this isn't about the history of Turkey, but the earlier version of this section seemed to be more slanted towards the Turkish POV (that Armenian Genocide was a civil war and that there were deaths on both sides and that Armenia was actively at war with Azerbaijan during the Karabakh conflict). I was very even handed in my approach to writing this mentioning both the Armenian and Turkish positions. I also did not create the Pakistan section (I don't know who did), so you can remove it. -- Clevelander 23:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, why not place Russia in a section seperate from the South Caucasus? I realize that you think that the South Caucasus may not be as important to Turkey as Russia, but I believe that they are crucial enough to garner their own section. -- Clevelander 23:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok I will delete the Turkish version of events, they shouldn't be in there either. Nagorno-Karabakh could be mentioned I suppose. However it shouldn't be a whole list of events either.. I didn't write that section, so I don't know who did either.. Baristarim 00:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
No, both sides should be represented and the relations between both nations should be discussed as they are in my version. -- Clevelander 00:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I also began developing the Central Asian section. Hope this helps! Sincerely, Clevelander 00:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Why did you just send me the above message again? -- Clevelander 00:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I was copypasting, I didn't realize that you had put a message. Baristarim 00:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the Genocide should be mentioned. That's the focal point of Armenian-Turkish relations. If we don't mention that, then what's the point of mentioning Turkey's relations with Armenia or the South Caucasus at all? -- Clevelander 00:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I made a comprised, less historical version. What do you think? -- Clevelander 00:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Excellent! See? Turks and Armenians can work together! :) -- Clevelander 00:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
No problem! -- Clevelander 00:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Yes I am aware of what the tags are used for, and you shouldn't be removing a "POV check" tag when an editor has nominated an article to be checked for its neutrality, what you're doing is both disruptive and rude. --Mardavich 06:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You don't know what the tag is used for I am afraid, and calling me disruptive and rude for pointing it out is extremely unfair. Did you read this Wikipedia:POV check? I don't think you have. The policy says "The POV check template, {POV-check}, may be added to an article which you feel may need to be edited to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Add the template at the top of the article, and then explain your reasons on the talk page of the article that needs checking (not the talk pages of the template or this article)."

Don't worry, I am extremely well aware of how Wikipedia works, and I couldn't see anything in the talk page. There needs to be a detailed explanation of the disagreements, otherwise such placement of template is what is disruptive. I hope that you will agree with this? That template as is was used for harrassment of the article instead of some legitimate encyclopedic behavior. Tags without explanations, or talk pages without discussions are grounds for the immediate removal of such tags. Please keep that in mind. Baristarim 06:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have every right request an article to be checked for neutrality, you're in no position to remove my tag. --Mardavich 06:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
?? Of course you can nominate it, but you have to explain your reasons in a detailed way in the talk page. Read applicable Wiki policies, instead of calling me rude or disruptive. Cut down on the incivility. If the person making the nomination doesn't explain his reasons in the talk page, the tag will be taken down per Wiki policy as pointed out above, is that clear enough? Instead of apologizing and admitting that I actually knew the policy and you didn't, and as such, you falsely accused me of being disruptive and rude, when in fact it was people who were putting it in without any notes on the talk page were disruptive, you left an even nastier note on my talk page! Thanks. Baristarim 06:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Listen, I am afraid you are in violation of WP:AGF by claiming that the tag was used for "harassment" of the article. That's a bad faith assumption on your part, and you're acting very rudely too. I have explained the reason for the tag, go back and revert yourself immediately. --Mardavich 06:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 18 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article religion in Turkey, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Yomanganitalk 01:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

  • Thanks for your "barnstar".
  • Sensitive articles under my watch.

Regards. MustTC 06:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Religion in Turkey

I added the article to my watchlist. I have an exam today and won't be around for most of the time, but I'll do my best. Atilim Gunes Baydin 12:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Menderes

I don't like Adnan Menderes but when I read the article about him, I thought that it isn't satisfactory so I decided to improve it. I divided the article into 6 sub-secions and I added two new images. If you know some interesting or extra data about Menderes, please share them so we can further improve the article. Saygılarımla, Deliogul 14:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You can send messages to dilhan@ku.edu.tr. Deliogul 15:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Turkish Statistical Institute

Hi, I am aware that the name they are using is a bit awkward. But I believe that it's not up to us to discuss what the appropriate English title of the institute ought to be. If the institute calls itself the "Turkish Statistical Institute", we can only report that exactly as it is. Atilim Gunes Baydin 17:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

But, at the same time, I was expecting that they won't be consistent with the English name they are using, like the case with many government offices in Turkey. You see, here they use the better sounding name of State Institute of Statistics. But I think we should go with the usage in their main publication, the statistics yearbook (here is the pdf, both in English and Turkish) which uses "Turkish Statistical Institute". I don't think the English site is very comprehensive though. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 17:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
As a note, the reason I started looking there was to find some figures on the religion of Turkish citizens, to help you provide some reference for the Religion in Turkey article. Honestly, it's ridiculous that there are statistics of the five most common names in Turkey, according to regions, gender, etc. (here, and the page design is quite funny, check this out!), but none to be found on crucial issues like the religion and languages spoken. Atilim Gunes Baydin 18:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

French Law

Hi there

I have begun to act on cutting out the fat in the France article whilst adding in necessary sections (if one follows other country FA's). I noted on your user page that you are a lawyer and live in France, I therefore presume that you know something about French law. As the article French Law is rather poor, I was wondering if you could write a short summary on this topic in the France#Law subsection. Thanks. --Bob 18:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Pan-Turkist POV

The Germanic Europe article is quite something different than the POV of List of Turkic states. The Germanic Europe article is only naming the Germanic-speaking countries of Europe, and does not lay claims on countless historical governments.

It ios NOT a "Germanic World" article trying to push for nationalistic POV, like "USA, Australia, Europeans are all Germanics and united in their Germanic identity".

The List of Turkic states is a total POV article.

Why don't you just create an article "List of Turkic countries" and only sum up the present Turkic states, WITHOUT the usual Pan-Turkist POV about "all civilization comes from Turks" BS?! It would also be good to mention the large numbers of Non-Turkic minorities in those countries, because unlike European nations, Asian states are a conglomeration of different ethnicities (just for the case that you do not know it: this multi-ethnic character is also the reason why the USA cannot be considered a "Germanic nation"!)

Tājik 20:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I will just repeat what I said before.. "These are your words: there are no articles called List of Germanic states (containing Germany, USA, UK, etc) or a List of Slavic states (containing Russia, Bulgaria, etc) either ... " I am not going to take seriously the arguments of someone who was insulting others by calling them pan-turkist on the premise that there were no "list of slavic states (containing Russia, Bulgaria) etc." The utter proval of the falsity of your god-like affirmations stops me from lending any type of credibility to any of your arguments any more, nor can I assume good faith. There is a list of states that group Bulgaria and Russia, and your god-like affirmations have been proven to be utterly false. You might at least apologize for your propagation of un-truths, it is called disruption. Europe is also a mix of ethnicities, what r u talking about? Basques, Slavs, Nordmen, Latins, Hellenes, Celts etc. The level of non-academic character of your arguments is so low that do not even try to take others to take your arguments seriously. Slavic Europe clearly mentions "Austria-Hungary", "Imperial Russia", "Mongol invasion", "Ottoman invasion", "Holy Roman Empire".. Do not ever expect me to take you seriously. The good faith assumption, and so-called knowledgability of the subject matter is out of the window, and that utterly. That article is not pushing for all of them to be "united in their Turkic identity". I can assume the same thing about Iranian peoples, Arab world, Slavic Europe etc in that case. How about looking at the issue with greater good faith? Do not reply to me unless you are ready to accept that you were "utterly wrong" when you affirmed "there are no articles that group Russia/Bulgaria" etc. End of story. Baristarim 20:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It was not me who nominated the articles for deletion, but certainly do support its deletion. There may not be a "Turkic conspiracy", but there certainly is a very ill-minded Turkish ultra-nationalism that has infiltrated many Wikipedias, most of all the German and English Wikipedias ... the Turkish Wikipedia is a joke and does not have any reliability.
What you call a "history section" is in reality pseudo-history - it's the manifestation of odd Pan-Turkist theories that should have no place in a serious encyclopaedia.
I have nothing against a List of Turkic states article that is NEUTRAL and is limitted to modern Turkic states. But the current article is POV. It wants to present historical kingdoms and dynasties as "Turkic" although these peoples were either not Turks, or they did not have any Turkic identity. There is already an article Turkic peoples (which also containst certain POV sections), there is no need to create another article.
You can say whatever you want, but you cannot convince me, because POV stays POV.
After more than a year of constant fights with nationalistic Turkish Wikipedians and their POV, I do not expect any good faith from them ... there are only a very few neutral and open-minded Turkish Wikipedians who are not biased with the usual Pan-Turkist propaganda of the post-Atatürk era.
Tājik 20:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Pfff... Baristarim 20:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
a) do not abuse the 1RR ...
b) do not put too much information into the short list: it's totally enough to give short infos (example: origianlly Turkic descent; Turkic identity is disputed<source>) Readers can simply go to respective articles for more info
Tājik 22:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course you will ... I guess this is part of your good-will conversation ... Tājik 22:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, read my posts about good faith. In any case, I warned you twice before this got out off hand. I am not trying to dangle 1RR over your head, trust me. If that were the case, I would have simply reverted all your edits, and would have reported you in your second revert. Even after all this, I am trying to be fair. So don't assume please.. Baristarim 22:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Could you please explain it to this A. Garnet that he should not remove authoritative sources?! Tājik 00:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Here are more scholarly sources:
  • "Persian in service of the state: the role of Persophone historical writing in the development of an Ottoman imperial aesthetic," Studies on Persianate Societies 2, 2004, pp. 145-163.
  • "Historiography. xi. Persian Historiography in the Ottoman Empire", Encyclopaedia Iranica, vol. 12, fasc. 4, 2004: 403-411.
  • S. Nur Yildiz, "Persian in the service of the Sultan", Istanbul Bilgi University - Early Ottoman History ([1])
  • F. Walter, "Music of the Ottoman court", Chap. 7 The Departure of Turkey from the "Persianate" Musical Sphere [2]
I would not call that a "minority opinion"!
Tājik 01:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

urgent help

are you here? MustTC 20:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

checkmail in next 3 min.MustTC 20:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok.doneMustTC 20:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's keep that for the records shall we?--   Avg    03:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • List of Turkic states and empires needs attention. By providing references from iranica and other biased sources, the list is turning out to be a totally disputed one. We should provide sources for each entry, i know this is ridiculous for a list, but no way. Better to find references available from the internet first. I'll try to dig the sources from the metu library tomorrow. Cheers! E104421 21:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    Xiongnu is definitely Turkic. I added the references. Especially, see this. The previous reference to "Vovin, Alexander. "Did the Xiongnu speak a Yeniseian language?". Central Asiatic Journal 44/1 (2000), pp. 87-104." was probably taken from the wiki-article, i guess, this was just a dispute trial. I'll do the rest tomorrow. Cheers. E104421 22:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    The so-called new research dated 2000. The genetics study was published Am J Hum Genet. 2003 August; 73(2): 247–260. The Vovin reference is just a minor one. I think, it is irrelevant. The one who put the reference there probably did not read the article but just took it from the wiki-article. Regards. E104421 22:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
    Baris, In the Xiongnu article the argument is as follows: It is unknown what the language of the Xiongnu was. It may have been Turkic based on their geographic location and their alleged connection to the Huns (see below), although a Yeniseian language has recently been suggested.(ref. A. Vovin). This does not prove that they are not Turkic. There is a French abstract here Regards. E104421 23:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

attack

Special:Contributions/58.147.4.20 and User:Clevelander are makind attacks to some articles.

regards. MustTC 23:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

How am I making attacks to articles? (BTW, I'm writing this from work and I can't log on to Wikipedia) -- Clevelander 12:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Solomos Solomou

It's fine for me the way it is now, thank you for being cooperative. I have an issue with Mustafa Akalp (with his let's say guilty past) sending emails for help in order to get away with the 3rv rule--   Avg    04:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 18th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 51 18 December 2006 About the Signpost
From the editor: Holiday publication
Elections conclude, arbitrators to be chosen Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser opens
WikiWorld comic: "Dr. Seuss" News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Check your email. Khoikhoi 06:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

When I reverted the Iğdır article, I assumed you were reverting the information I added on the Zor caravanserai. I'm sorry. -- Clevelander 10:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Coat of Arms of Turkey

Coat of Arms of Turkey'i ilk defa burda görüyorum. Bence bunun yerine ya Cumhurbaşkanlığı forsu yada TSK amblemi kullanılmalı. Ne dersin?--Doktor Gonzo 13:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

not a political region!

The problem I was faced was regarding the use of the terminology; "Western Armenia" as a geographical term has been used by Armenians, even today. I'm in favor of keeping the term and specifying that it was a "historical subregion in Eurasia". Anything beyond geological use should be moved to relevant articles, and keep them as see also. "Wilsonian Armenia" has its own article, and it is not western Armenia, so it does not belong there. The "language of Armenians" in the article is also another "type" of problem. The Ottoman Empire does not exist so the "Western Armenia", knowledge in the article regarding language should be treated with the terminology "Armenians in Turkey", "Armenians in Armenia" . I think the only paragraph that should stay is the first one. If you approach this way, I thing I can support it.--OttomanReference 16:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Your starting to get on my nerves now.

What the hell is your damn problem? I am starting you get pissed off by your un-reasonable deletions of the template. When that template was put in that articel it was you that attacked by deleting it without any good reasons and stating "There is only one state Armenia... ones before it were not called "Armenia". That is the most annoying and ignorant thing to say, before saying go research and you'll see that Armenians had their contry and many different capitals through out many years, before Turks migrated to Anatolia and took over everything by killing and distroying what was build for many years. Is it that offensive to you to see Armenian template on those articles? Well than thats too bad for you, you should get used to it because those cities in Eastern Tureky was build and belonged to Armenians and it was taken away by force and that past should not be forgotten that other people besides Turks lived in those cities and it used to be their capitals. ROOB323 21:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

NAMBLA fandom

So what do you think about NAMBLA, the pedophile group? Baristarim 04:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

And, btw, in the "English" language, having sex with an underage person is pedophilia, are you honestly trying to defend that it is not so??? How can it be a "slur"?! The new lows of the politically correct saga. Well, there are all sorts of people on the Net I suppose.. Baristarim 04:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that they are a bunch of idiots. I also do not think much of people who see pedophilia everywhere. Haiduc 04:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe. However pretending that taking advantage of the naivité of a human being because of his age, in a way that will be detrimental to his development as a balanced human being in society, is not pedophilia, and that on the basis of some animal urges (misplaced desires) that have not been rooted out by evolution is also not something to be thought highly of, right? :)Baristarim 05:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I am really not interested in this kind of simplistic polemic. I do not trust it. There are two kinds of sexual pedophiles, as far as I can see. One group tries to defend the sexual use of underage children, to justify their own sexual urges. The other group, suffering from the ravages of religious indoctrination on top of their craving for children, become "antipedophiles," see pedophilia everywhere and attack it ruthlessly, in order to cope with their own unresolved desires. Both types should be kept as far away from children as possible, they are selfish, maniacal and dangerous. Haiduc 05:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
You are right I suppose :) Baristarim 05:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Despicable

I don't know what you may or may not think. But I have a history in Wikipedia and I do not allow you to call my actions "despicable", especially when there is nothing despicable. If other Geek users decided to comment on this page this is not my problem. I have the right to comment on any page I want, and in any way I want, especially when I do not offend others; something you did in the most insulting way. I do no allow you to question my actions and of slandering me. Your unfortunate comments make me re-consider what I said about the board, and make me re-consider even the purpose of my presence in this board. Sorry!--Yannismarou 09:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is despicable. If you cannot see that, I cannot understand the point of the reply you left to Mitsos in the WPHOG talk page! When I said "out of nowhere", I meant to this AfD, out of nowhere. I know very well that all the contributors to that AfD have been in Wikipedia for a long time. Did you actually read my post? Don't you find it interesting that ten Greek editors showed up to the AfD of an article that was only created two days ago? How did these people know about this? There is no logical explanation! Am I wrong? What would you feel if you were in my place? Please imagine that for a second! I had noticed that the debate has picked up steam in the PGG article, then Dirak creates this page, it is AfDed, and suddenly ten Greek editors show up! Just thinking with your head and not with your heart, you must surely see the bizarreness of the situation. How is that a show of good faith? All those people had signed up for the coop board, and this? I respect people's opinions, however people also have a right to wonder what is going when suddenly ten Greek editors jump into an AfD not even about Greece, for an article created by a Greek editor on a topic bizarrely resembling an article that they had been edit-warring recently. Whether you agree with me or not, I have also been in contact with other admins about this, and they all agree. Is that also a coincidence? You know, I was really glad when I had read your reply to Mitsos... It really felt good that there would be such people out there who thought like that. But when you said that "at first I had some reservations, but I realized that they were sincere", imagine what it is like for Turkish editors. I am sincere. But where does all this charade fit into this? YHowever, if we cannot see eye to eye on this, there is not much I can say. Other administrators also feel the same way, so what am I supposed to think? Baristarim 09:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
In Solomou article I also added a [citation needed], concerning the assertion that he is a national hero. Now, concerning the deletion proposal, I made concrete proposals right now. Would you like to comment on them? I think it would be more useful, instead of writing long texts.--Yannismarou 10:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I was not referring to anyone in particular. If you are talking about good faith, see this. If I were not sincere, I would have simply edit-warred over that article instead of actually devoting time to fix it. I cannot change your opinions, but if a simiar thing had happenned with Turkish editors, ie if a Turkish had created a Albanian genocide article, then ten Turkish editors who had signed up to the coop board jumped in (some who had not even edited since November 11 [3], then I am sure that you would have felt the same way. Especially, if the article in question was created per WP:POINT because of a dispute in another turco-greek page. Of course you have the right to browse any page you want in Wiki, but it might be nice if you explained how you actually learned of this AfD. There is clearly a problem with good-faith here, and that is a cornerstone of that board's foundations. Did you read FPAS' comments? If you cannot see the violation of good-faith policy of the board in this whole charade, and worse, violation of Wikipedia policies on WP:POINT and disruption in this, how can I explain to other Turkish users that they can come in good faith to the coop board and raise issues in a civilized environement? I really would like to know what you would have felt if the situation was inversed between Greeks and Turks. What is it that makes you doubt the validity of the coop board? Have any Turkish coop board members created an Albanian genocide article, emailed each other and all showed up in the space of ten hours to vote keep? Are you honestly telling me that there isn't anything fishy? How did all those users learn of this so quickly? Personally, I was contacted by a non-Turk over this after ten Greek editors suddenly showed up and voted keep. This user emailed me because I was at the coop board and also because he thought that there was something "extremely fishy" going on (his words). Who is at fault here?Baristarim 09:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Pff, ok I will try to be constructive and drop the heat. So let's see what can be done.. Baristarim 10:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Baristarim, as a card-carrying honorary member of the "GREEK WIKIPEDIAN NATIONALIST JUNTA", I strongly object to your exposing our despicable methods in this way. Ahhh, I meant to say, well, ... ;-) Let's say, I half agree with you, these block-like AfD votes are not very nice. But please cool down a bit and be careful with accusatory language like that. Point is, the Greek contributors form a fairly close-knit community, people tend to be aware of what others are doing, just by following each other's talkpages and contribution histories. So you may sometimes get these apparent effects of block voting behaviour even without any organised votestacking necessarily going on. In the present case, I can tell you on my honour that I, at least, did not receive any votestacking requests, and I was nevertheless aware of the existence of the AfD from early on, so others may have been as well. - Don't know if that satisfies you, but anyway, I'll bring the topic on at the Junta's next executive board meeting, which is hopefully going to take place some time during my Christmas vacations :-) Want to join us in Athens? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I am equally disugsted by their behaviour. Some of them who voted keep are ones i took for serious editors (politis, yannismarou), but when i see them tow the nationalist line like that i lose all faith in their intentions. I expected that much from Nikos, Dirak, probably Hectorian and Aristov will show up soon also - but not from seemingly reasonable editors. Its like all standards of common sense and decency are thrown out the window when it comes to backing other Greek editors, or supporting articles which "get one over" on Turkey or Turkish editors. The whole thing is reduced to a bloody joke. --A.Garnet 14:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

What's cooler than being cool? Ice cold!

Seriously mate, I'd go and take a walk in the park ASAP. I know these guys are gaming the system, but you're not going to change their opinion, and if you carry on like this Turkey is going to spend a few days without being improved, if you see what I mean. Thanks. yandman 14:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Really, Baris, I don't know why you are reopening this now. You made your point about votestacking this morning, it was discussed and duly noted (and will, I'm sure, be taken into account by the closing admins), then you seemed to have closed the issue [4] - why now repeat it with even more venom ([5])? I mean, making such a rant once is understandable, reiterating it over and over again borders on disruptive attacks.
Another thing is what we do now formally with the AfD, now that the article has been merged and moved. That was certainly done as a good faith attempt at finding a widely acceptable solution, but of course it messes up the AfD process. Some delete voters seem to be contented with that outcome, but I take it you would still prefer deletion? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Indignation? Give us a break

I fail to understand your 'indignation'. This is about communication and you seem to shy away from responding to suggestions even when they enhance Turkish articles. As for suggesting in the 'Kurdish genocide' talk page that this was a racist attack against Turks... well, that is about as contrived as some of the more fancifull comments in Wikipedia. Come on, I know you can do better than that. User:PolitisPolitis 15:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Friendly advice

Despite our hot debate I still regard you as a valuable member of the Wikipedia community. That is why I'll give you a friendly advice: Avoid to use your maternal language in dialogues with your native Wikipedians (as you did with Dr. Gonzo in the notorious deletion page); especially when you discuss hotly debated issues. You may put yourself in serious trouble, without even realizing it and without having done something wrong.--Yannismarou 15:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I was talking to Ozgur, not to Doktor, how can I be talking to someone who posted his note after I have? :) Ozgur is not part of the TR "gang", so it is pretty safe to assume that we were not scheming! Ozgur also speaks Turkish, and I also speak French sometimes, so it is not a big deal if those languages are used from time to time. If I was insulting an editor etc, I am sure Ozgur would have warned me in English in his reply. It wouldn't have changed anything about the AfD in any case. Baristarim 17:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I accuse you of nothing nor do I ask you to apologize. I'm sure you did nothing wrong. I just inform you that discussions in native language are, in general, not appreciated (sometimes other users are suspicious towards them and regard them with scepticism), and it would be nice if you could avoid them (so that you are not treated with suspicion). If you allow me, I would also like to tell you (without wanting to becoma paternalist) another thing: when you express your opinion, bold and capital letters do not help. On the other hand, they often achieve the opposite effect: most users dislike this kind of emphasis.--Yannismarou 17:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yasar Kemal

Hello Baris, since you said "Yasar Kemal has said many times that he is Kurdish, he was never ever been prosecuted, in any case." would you like to change his ethnicity in his article; Yasar Kemal. To add, Turkey "guya" doesn't legally persecute people who say they are ethnically Kurdish but let's face it, it's still socially not right to say it and media plays a big role here but things are getting better as the average mentality of people change to accept. Ozgur Gerilla 15:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Kurt sanatcilarin tanimlama olayini simdilik es geciyorum cunku canimizi sikan sorunlar var (sonra ayrintili tartisiriz, gerekirse). Oncelikle, kusura bakma, bende gec gordum AfD'yi yoksa mesaj birakirdim, ben orda fikirlerimi yazdim ve sizde oyle yaptiniz; bu makaleyi orda olmasini istiyorsak daha cok arastirma ve referans eklememiz gerekiyor, haklisiniz, ama benim dusundugum suydu; birakin makale kalsin arastiralim; yetersiz ise bir ayin icinde yine burda silmeye karar veririz ama ben bu halindende memnunum. Yanlis anlasmalar oldu, sizin Yunan kullanicilarindan suphelendiginiz olay ve bu yuzden tedirginliginizi cok iyi anliyorum, arkadasim, ve ben hic bir zaman sizin emeklerinizi ve taraftarsizliginizi rencide edecek birsey demedim; cunku sizin gercekden burda emekleriniz var ve benim buna saygim var, umarim boyle kalir ama sinirlerin arti bugun umarim bir daha oLmak cunku gercekden keyif kaybi. Kalas lafini geri aliyorum ama Doktor Gonzo gercekden Kurtlere hakaret etti AfD de ve bu yuzden bu hatasini anlamasini istiyorum. Bundan baska, lutfen keyfini kacirma sen degerli bir kullanicisin, benim bazen sert karsi ciktigimiza bakma; ben fikir alis verisini severim. Bazi kullanicilarin istedigi seni pusuya dusurmek bunu farkettim lutfen bunlara aldanma sen fikirlerini paylas WP kurallara uyarak. Lutfen bukadarda pesimist olma bu olanlara karsi ve umarim AfD nin sonucundan memnun kalmissindir. Tesekurler, yakinda daha fazla makalelerde calisma dilegi ile. Ozgur Gerilla 17:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you (or should I say, Teşekkür ederim) for the barnstar! :) Rarelibra 15:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a new article on Byzantine Greeks (formerly only a sub-section of Greeks), so it doesn't link back to Byzantine Empire. I've been overseeing much of Turkish POV as long as it doesn't belittle other ethnies. In any case it's not very wise from you to start debates on well sourced material that you're obviously not very familiar with. If you still want to get it out of your system I'll meet you where you started it. I've already replied to some of your queries, only the ones that weren't clear provocations of course. Miskin 18:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Concerning this edit [6], see what I told you above. If your edit summary reflects your convictions then I should go through the entire Ottoman Empire article and change all mentions of "Ottoman Turks" to "Ottoman Empire". I might as well copy paste your edit-summary on each edit. Please change it back, I've had enough trolling from Mustapha already, I would have expected more reason from your part but it appears it's stronger than you. I'm only trying to provide links for a new article, and thanks to your and mustapha's prejudice it becomes an Odyssey. Miskin 19:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
"...then I should go through the entire Ottoman Empire article and change all mentions of "Ottoman Turks" to "Ottoman Empire"." Isn't this called black mailing?--Doktor Gonzo 14:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
No, it's called "double-standard check". I wasn't planning to do it. Miskin 20:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

My first edit wasn't referring to your edit in Turkey but in the Talk page of Cretan Turks. Just for the record, the bulk of the Byzantine army in Manzikert was mainly composed of Armenian and Latin missionaries, this is possibly one of the reasons that the battle was lost. On the other hand ethnic Turks and Turkish-speakers had always been a minority in the Ottoman army, but this has nothing to do with assigning their victories to the Ottoman Turks now does it? Anyway I don't care where the link goes, you can put it elsewhere if that's your problem. All I want to do is to link this article around, that is all. Catch you later. Miskin 19:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm a busy person too but I don't use that as an excuse in my disputes. You have to learn to respect other people's cultures if you want them to respect your own. You also have to look at yourself before you judge others (Clapton, 63). This lawyer provokation strategy doesn't work in wikipedia, and it definitely doesn't work on me. Miskin 00:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway let's continue the discussion under more civilised and prejudice-free circumstances. I'm tired of the stereotyped Greco-Turkish disputes, they're getting too banal. Miskin 20:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And I should ask from you to excuse the overtones I might have used, delivering offence was not an objective. I thought you were trying to provoke and I replied with provokations. I don't enjoy arguing with reasonable people for no real cause. Miskin 02:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Küsmüyüz, problem nedir. MustTC 19:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

ok

Contribution'larıma bak. incidents. selam.

Turkey GA

Hey, thanks should go to you! I just wanted to see the referencing work complete, and no one wanted to take care of the antiquity section it seemed, and I'm a bit inclined to these antiquity issues. I wish I had helped you better during your efforts. I don't know if it's noticed, but I'm trying to take care of the images used on the page and now I'm making a high resolution free-licensed (and good looking I hope) map of the Ottoman Empire. I will upload that later today. Talking about the GA issue, I actually regret that you nominated the Ataturk article so soon. It's unfortunate that neither me nor you seem to have enough time to work on providing references on time. I feel obliged to do the cleanup on the Ataturk article since I wrote about half of the text there. Bonne journée! Atilim Gunes Baydin 11:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Baris, sorry that in the midst of all this arguing i forgot to congratulate you for your efforts and the very encouraging remakrs given by the reviwer. Well done once again, and hopefully we can make it FA sometime soon. Thanks, --A.Garnet 16:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Subsections

I agree with you on subsections. If editors want subsections, they can creat new articles (so long as they are not POV motivated). The most difficult subsections to re-integrate into the main text seem to be those related to Jewish affairs. I am also quite happy that we had a good debate on the recent Kurdish related article, which, in my opinion, was removed based on the strongest arguments (yours). Politis

An improved time table

I would like to get your input to improve the Template:Casualties of the PKK conflict. Hope it looks good..OttomanReference 14:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR

You just violated Wp:3RR on Kars.--Eupator 21:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Only an idiot can confuse something that existed centuries before the UN with a modern UN member, lets give more credit to casual Wiki readers. Not a convincing argument.--Eupator 21:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey why did you ommit the nomadic part? lol Someone surely can say "Armenian savages" but they would be a laughing stock if they already aren't.--Eupator 21:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

GDP per capita

People use PPP as the standard measure of a country's standard of living, not nomimal GDP per capita. which explains why there is GDP PPP per capita on the country infobox and not GDP nominal per capita. I dont know to use the citations so i used the square brackets. Will try to find the proper format for the citation now.

Thank you! The life expectancy given in the aricle is also outdated. According to the 2006 CIA factbook, male LE is 70.18, female LE is 75.18 and overall LE is 72.62 [7]. Could you change that also ?

Reply

Hi Baris. I did not have much time to edit lately, for i am quite busy in real life. that's why most of my recent contributions are reverts or minor corrections. However, i had been following the discussions, the fDs, etc. so, when i found the time, i voted for those i had already made up my mind, after reading the arguments, as always... No reason to "oppose Turkish POV" at all costs for me; i have always been editting and voting according to what seems right to me. Regards Hectorian 15:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Greater Iran

Hi Baristarim. Although I still believe that the article Greater Iran should be renamed to Iranian Cultural Continent, I want to show you a small article I found in the net. It's about Richard Nelson Frye's 2005 book/autobiography called Greater Iran. It's a bit long, but I still want to post it here. You can delete it once you've read it. Cheers. Tājik 01:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


Geography of Turkey

Selam Barış arkadaş. Ne var, ne yok? :-) Happy Holidays. I have replied to your comment on the talk page, hopefully we can come to a compromise. Ciao, Khoikhoi 00:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

IMO, "List of Turks" is too ambiguous - is the page about list of ethnic Turks, Turkish citizens, or Turkic peoples? I don't really care about Fuzûlî, but I see what you're saying. Also, having a list of all Turkic peoples would be way too long. I agree that the page needs to be structured - perhaps by occupation. See the List of Armenian-Iranians article I created for a good example. BTW, why are you always up so late? :-) Get some sleep! Khoikhoi 01:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see. That is weird! Khoikhoi 04:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Cok Tesekkur ederim

Wikipedia ya alismaya calisan yeni biri olarak ilac gibi geldi mesajin. Cok tesekkur ederim. inan 2 gundur icim kan agliyor, yuzlerce yere mesaj attim, sadece tartisiyoruz Vikipedi dekilerle. Nuh dediler Peygamber demediler. inat ettiler. Ellerine ne gecti bir bilsem. Turk Edebiyati sayfasi hala bombos. Turkiye sayfasina baktim, ekleyebilecegim birsey var mi diye, mukemmel bir sayfa, dusunsene onu bir yoneticinin attigini pat diye.. O kadar emek vermissin icin acimaz mi ? Bir mesaj at bir sor, tek istedigim buydu. tr.wikipedia.org a girersen bir ara, yonetici sikayetlerine bakiver. illa diyorlar Kultur bakanliginin sitesinden aldin onu. Onu dis baglanti olarak ayrica verdim ben sayfada. Ama ordan birsey kopyalamadim diyorum. Yok da yok.. Bircok kisi ugramiyor artik oraya benim gibi.

Su an burada ufak bir sorunum var. Kocaeli ile izmit ayni diye geciyordu sayfada. Ben onlari ayirdim. Yonetici arkadasimiz benden izmit'in ilce, Kocaeli'nin de il olduguna dair "kanit" istiyor anladığım kadarıyla. cite your sources, izmit kocaelinin bir ilcesi. il tablolarinda da oyle geciyor. Districts of Kocaeli.. ben ayrica nasil kanıtlayabilirim bunu. link falan mı vermem lazım sayfada ? ben dogma buyume izmit'liyim.

KhoiKhoi, herşeyi gayet iyibiliyor.Sizden kanıt falan da istediği yok. Siz İzmit'e yanlışlıkla Kocaelinin merkez Province'si demişsiniz. Şimdi düzeldi.Barış ta Kocaeli Province olarak taşıdı.No problem. Mailinizi kontrol edin.Selam.MustTC 04:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Burdaki calisma sistemine ise hayran kaldim. istedigim sadece buydu. Bir mesaj at. sor. Bir daha sor.. inanmadin mi. Kanit iste.. Bu kadar basit .. Sakin Vikipedi ye girme. Cildirirsin benim gibi. Hala inanamiyorum 2 gundur olanlara.. --Onder K. 04:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry...

Barış, Yeni yılın şimdiden kutlu olsun. Sana ve bir çok türk kullanıcıya atamadım..Kullandığım resim "Fair use" imiş. silindi.Yenisini hazırlıyorum. Bu arada gelen cevaplardan ilginç;

  • Sen Ateist değilmisin, niye bu mesajı atıyorsun?
  • Sen müslüman değilmisin, niye bu mesajı atıyorsun?

Bu kullanıcılar,şu anlaşılıyorki, bulundukları kültür dışında başka kültürlerle hiç temasa girmemişler, başka biri kültürden biri ile hiç bir ilişkileri olmamış.Biraz daha hoşgörülü davranılmayı hakediyorlar diye düşünüyorum. Yılbaşında nerede olacaksın? Ben muhtemelen,işlerimi toplayabilirsem, perşembeden sonra yazlığa (Çeşme-Karaburun arası)gitmeyi planlıyorum.1 hafta kadar kalacağım.Hem biraz yapılacak işler var, hemde biraz dalarım diye planlıyorum. İstanbulda balığa hasret kaldım. Selam. MustTC 05:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Great Fire of Smyrna

MustTC 05:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Koy icin sablon sayfa

Ben bu sayfalarda kayboldum. Wikipedia da kullanilan sablon bir Koy ariyorum. Karnesi sagda, sayfa icinde cografyasi, tarihi, ozellikleri gibi basliklari olan. Yada hazir bir sablon. nerede bulabilirim . Musait oldugunda link verirsen cok sevinirim. Saygilar --Onder K. 05:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Şanzelize

Hocam ne işin var şanzelizede, monmartır da. Gel sana kendi zıpkınladığım balıklardan ikram edeyim.Yanında Denizli-Gömce'den Çalkarası(Kırmızı ama balıkla bile iyi gidiyor). İyi tatiller. MustTC 06:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Fuzuli

If you want to leave in Fuzuli, that's alright with me. I just wanted the list to be accurate, Fuzuli was an Azeri, and as an Azeri I can assure you that the differences between Azeris and Ottoman Turks was well defined by the time Fuzuli, these ethnic definitions were already formed by the time of the break-up of the Seljuks in the 14th century. --Mardavich 11:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Mutlu Yıllar


Onlar da Yeniyıl tatili ister
Yeniyılınız kutlu olsun
MustTC 15:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

about Turkestan

all the contents which I hand written ,you can find in the article History of Xinjiang.Please be cool and try to respect all the voices from different people.--Ksyrie 23:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

? I am cool :) The thing is additions have to be sourced, that's all. Hand-written is not important, they have to be referenced. When did I say something about not "respecting different people" etc? Take it easy man :) Cheers! Baristarim 23:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I beg you taking a few minutes reading History of Xinjiangplease.--Ksyrie 23:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I am sure that they are there, however I will try to look at that article some time later. Nothing is stopping you from transposing the references from that article, if they are there. That's all I am trying to say... Baristarim 23:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes,we are just too easy to believe what we have been told when we were young children.But you know,there are numbers of records from different parts of world,some time what we feel ridiculous may be seen as fact somewhere.I just put forwards what I know about it--Ksyrie 23:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Okkaayyy.. Hmmm.. Am I missing something here? Are you trying to imply that I am some sort of brainwashed high-school student? :) Tsk tsk. lol. However, that is still not important: You cannot simply include what you know about it. Wikipedia is not an exposé of people's beliefs. If you are going to write something, then bring in the references that support it. See WP:OR. Si t'as des autres questions, laisse-moi une note. En revanche, n'oublie pas qu'il faut éviter de tout simplement écrire ce qu'on "know about it". + ne me laisse pas des notes avec des suggestions subtiles comme si je suis un produit d'une machine de lavage-à-cervaux. La plus grande faute, c'est de considerer les autres comme n'ayant pas de la capacité intellectuelle pr comprendre le monde + d'assumer que les gens qu'on viens de rencontrer sont, par nature, inferieur à nous-meme, intellectuellement. Baristarim 23:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
just go to History of Xinjiang,I found some links,I will try to find more.--Ksyrie 23:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed your link. I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. "References" means scholarly sources, not some random travel website. I strongly suggest you to familiarize yourself with how references are interpreted in Wikipedia + how references should be scholarly sources, rather than some commercial websites. Any inclusion of unreferenced content should be deleted. Please do not add random web-links. Again, I advise you to peruse through certain Featured Articles to see how references should be used and interpreted. Cheers! Baristarim 23:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
lol,I want to say it is not a commercial link.It's the website of Xinhua News Agency.Maybe you just want the reference you want to see.--Ksyrie 23:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I know exactly well that it was Xinhua, and I also know what Xinhua is. Chinese governmental websites cannot be considered as "scholary sources". Ha ha. Maybe you should cut down on assuming that you are smarter than others. I look and see what exactly is there: a Chinese governmental website. Again, bring in historical scholarly sources: if that is hard to understand, you might want to consider (re)-reading the guidelines of Wikipedia and check other FA history articles. Xinhua News Agency is definitely not an authoritative source on history, let alone for modern day politics. Est-ce vraiment si difficile à comprendre mon gars? Baristarim 23:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Xinhua? You must be really joking my fellow. Xinhua is an integral part of the Chinese governmental structure: there is absolutely no way that its posts can be considered as reliable, let alone authoritative. Baristarim 23:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Do not contact me again by saying things like "maybe you want the reference that you want to see", d'accord? D'abord apprennes comment parler aux gens, après apprennes comment marche Wikipedia, puis apprennes aussi que Xinhua n'est que de la merde. References vaut dire: ".edu", ou thèses academiques ou encyclopedies etc. Si t'arrives pas à comprendre ça, c'est toi qui a beaucoup des choses à apprendre sur la vie et le monde, pas les autres. Xinhua n'est pas une "reference", point final. Je t'ai dit gentillement de trouver des sources. Wikipedia n'est pas une forum, mieux comprendre ça mon gars. Baristarim 00:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
What a fabulous sophistry,just see the two external link in Turkestan,this on [8] and this [9].Maybe you should check yourself before asking for others.Do you consider them as scholarly sources?--Ksyrie 00:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I had enough of this nor do I have time for it. I have not contributed at all to that article, so I don't know about those links. However, you are confused about the difference between "external links" and "references" I really got no time to explain you the basics of wikipedia or of the English language. External links are not references, they are simply web-links that are somewhat relevant to the article. Do you really know how Wikipedia works? Please read its policies. References are cited in a different fashion. "Links" can include anything as long as they are relevant to the subject, but they are not used as "references". As I said, Xinhua is not a scholarly reference on history. point final. I strongly advise you to peruse other Featured Articles on history to get an idea about the correct construction of a Wiki history article. Cheers Baristarim 00:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
So I found it legitimate to add this links hereHistory of Xinjiang and here Turkestan?I am sure you are more experienced in wiki.Of course I will try to find the true "references" as you suggest.--Ksyrie 00:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


Great Smyrna Fire

stop Do not do any more reverts on Great Fire of Smyrna article, otherwise you will be breaking the three-revert rule. -John Kritivic

Happy new year then

İyidir! Çok çalışıyorsun bakıyorum:) Through your participation, there are sharper articles with the Turkish POV taken. :) Cretanforever 11:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Emre Belözoğlu

I have no idea why you actually reverted this page, thus undoing some of my editing that brought it into line with the Wikipedia Manual of Style, but your stated reason makes no sense. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

That's OK — and sorry if I was sharper than I needed to be. We do, though, only demand that there be a citable source. Unless there's reasojn to doubt a spource, we can't also demand that the source be given a citable source, etc. If what was claimed went against other sources, or seemed inherently unlikely, then we'd have grounds for questioning it, but it's not clear to me that that's the case here. Do you have reason for thinking that the material is inaccurate? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 2, Issue 52 26 December 2006 About the Signpost
Seven arbitrators chosen Wikipedia classroom assignments on the rise
WikiWorld comic: "Molasses" News and notes: Stewards appointed, milestones
Wikipedia in the news Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Baristarim/Archive_5&oldid=1190100114"