User talk:Orkh

Welcome!

Hello, Orkh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! (FYI: any image hosted at the Wikimedia Commons can be used in the English Wikipedia without needing to be uploaded) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Mehmed II enters Constantinople.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mehmed II enters Constantinople.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We requires this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Turkish?

Can you explain why you think that the painting by Fausto Zonaro, which can be found in Dolmabahçe Palace, is in some way more anti-Turkish than the one you prefer (which is, by the way, not also by Zonaro, as you falsely ascribe it, but a painting in Toulouse Museum by Jean-Joseph Benjamin-Constant)??? --Lambiam 15:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hunnic-philia

I don't know if you really act in good will while pushing "Huns" to "See also"s of many totally unrelated articles, but please stop it. Wikinist (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: ottoman

Hi! The image was deleted for two reasons: non-commercial images are deleted on sight, and because that painting already exists on Commons (I've already put it there). east.718 at 08:49, December 27, 2007

Like I said, I've already replaced the image. See here. east.718 at 08:54, December 27, 2007

There is no way that the picture is "under attack," as it's not even hosted on the English Wikipedia - it's located on the Commons at commons:Image:Benjamin-Constant-The Entry of Mahomet II into Constantinople-1876.jpg. east.718 at 09:01, December 27, 2007

Stop placing this image as the representative of Turkic peoples in relevant article

Turkmen girl.

May I ask what makes you think that this image should represent a face for all Turkic peoples? Try contributing text so that we can see how much you know about the subject. Trying to impose images according to your POV is not the way to go. You wrote some insulting comments in the discussion page for Bulgars. --Nostradamus1 (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You insist on this picture without even bothering to explain why it should be included. It is going to have a lasting as much of yours. Orada burada saldirganlik ve terbiyesizlik yapacagina once kendini egit. Cagdas Turkleri bu Kizilderli benzeri resim temsil etmeyecek.Nostradamus1 (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huns page

Hi, Please join us in discussion on the Talk:Huns page. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, please add some statements you may have to Talk:Huns#RfC: Ethnic composition illustrative sentence under "Statements by editors previously involved in dispute". I'm tired of having just the three of us with no one else who watches that Huns page participating to build any sort of consensus. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:Turkish people for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. See here for more information. Thank you. Also of note, you have an open account at WP:WQA. Please be more civil in your comments and refrain from typing in all capitalised letters, as that is considered shouting. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User page vandalism

This is the only warning you will get. Vandalistic edits to other users's user pages containing abuse and obscenity are absolutely not tolerated here. Next time will get you blocked for a long time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Short memory? User:Humanusticus, remember? Now deleted. I know enough Turkish to figure out what you wrote there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what? You are still not allowed to insult people on here. Discuss content, if you must, otherwise leave the other guys alone. This [1] is also unacceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in what your content disagreement is with Wikinist. I'm interested in seeing you behave. BTW, nobody here "wants" to "destroy" anything, we are all here to improve things. If you can't bring yourself to believing that, then there's something wrong with your approach. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Huns. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --Pudeo ⺮ 16:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule has nothing to do with personal opinions of anyone but I won't hesitate to report you if you still revert once, thus breaking the rule. Then you will be blocked by an admin which I'm not. --Pudeo ⺮ 17:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anadolu Selçukluları

Orkh: I am not sure that your edits (diff) to the first paragraphs of Seljuk Sultanate of Rûm have produced a clearer article. Over the past several months, other editors and I have placed the various names for this principality with appropriate explanations into the second paragraph. In removing the second paragraph and spreading individual sentences around, you have, I believe, unintentionally muddled the text. If you are concerned that the article may not be found easily by those searching for it, please know that redirects have been created for all of the variant names, including those in Turkish. In the future, please discuss sensitive issues of naming on the talkpage before making changes. Aramgar (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orkh: Please confirm for yourself that the following redirects work: 1.)Anadolu Selçukluları, 2.) Anadolu Selçuklu Devleti, 3.) Türkiye Selçukluları, and 4.) Selçuklular. Please consider creating other redirects if you think that I have missed any. If you do not know how, please let me know and I will be happy to help. In the future, please discuss such changes on the talk page. Thanks, Aramgar (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arkadaşım: A redirect works like this: you search "Anadolu Selçuklu Devleti" and Wikipedia goes automatically to Seljuk Sultanate of Rûm. Wikipedia has redirects for Anadolu Selçuklu Devleti, Anadolu Selçukluları, Türkiye Selçukluları, and Selçuklular. Do you know more names? I can make redirects for Turkish users. Please tell me. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting opinion

Orkh, hello. :) We are talking about the article Seljuk Sultanate of Rûm and would like you to join us. Could you please go to Talk:Seljuk Sultanate of Rûm#Edit war and give your opinion? Thank you, I would like to hear what you have to say. :) --El on ka 22:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)==Image copyright problem with Image:Benjamin-Constant-The Entry of Mahomet II into Istanbul-1876.jpg==[reply]

Image Copyright problem

Hi Orkh!
We thank you for uploading Image:Benjamin-Constant-The Entry of Mahomet II into Istanbul-1876.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May 2008

Thanks for experimenting with the page Great Wall of China on Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, and has been reverted or removed. All information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. It looks as though you were deliberately putting in incorrect information. If not, apologies, but the Ming wall was certainly not built to protect the dynasty from the Xiongnu of the 2nd century BC! Doug Weller (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Great Wall of China. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Please add a source or raise your concerns on the talk page. Thank you, Kafka Liz (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Hi, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You have recently been involved in an edit war on Azerbaijani people, and have been editing against consensus as well. Also I have noticed that you have been removing sourced material from articles without any explanation ([2], [3]). Both of these are contrary to building an encyclopedia, both are blockable offenses. Please cease from disruptive editing and try to contribute to Wikipedia in a more positive way. Consider this a warning, for if you continue in this manner you will be blocked. Khoi khoi 01:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

1 month, seeing as you so patently refuse to listen to warnings. Please slow down, use talk pages a lot more, and stop making tendentious edits and starting pointless revert-wars. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 10:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia articles, such as those you made to Bulgarians, even if your ultimate intention is to fix them. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Laveol ^T 22:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respect the Turkic peoples, however the Bulgars were Turkic! Your problem are the reliable sources. According to Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Regards! See:Wikipedia:Verifiability, Stop vandalizing, articles as you do with Turkic peopleS, please! Jingby (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:123bvc.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:123bvc.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Retropunk (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Orkh. Thank you. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]