User talk:Polysynaptic/Archive 1

AfD nomination of Criticism of kemalism

I have nominated Criticism of kemalism, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of kemalism. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Mayalld (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that it has been nominated for deletion is that it is a POV fork. Wikipedia doesn't have articles for and against subjects, it has articles that take a balanced view of subjects from all angles.

Creating articles that attempt to come at a subject from a different POV is called POV forking, and is contrary to Wikipedia policy.

I have no wish whatsoever to silence criticism, and no agenda in respect of Kemalism (indeed I hadn't even heard the term before today, so I haven't really had time to form an opinion on the subject). The only agenda that I have is to ensure that Wikipedia policy is followed.

Following policy in this case is simple. All that is required is to insert the critical content into the main article on Kemalism

I hope this clarifies the position. Mayalld (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that other POV forks exist is no reason to have more (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). You seem to be arguing that until every other problem is fixed, this one cannot be fixed. That is a false argument. We fix things as they come to light, and as we find the time to fix them. Mayalld (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that picture should be removed and the article should be rewritten too.

Your comments in AfD

I'd just like to point out that, since AfD is a debate and not a vote, your comments (which possibly violate the civility policy) probably work against your article more than anything. Your article is accused of being a POVFORK, and combative behavior reinforces the notion that you are not acting in good faith and that you intend to push a viewpoint. TheBilly (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Criticism of kemalism. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mayalld (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Persian "vandalism"

Concerning your contribution on the talk page of Seljuq dynasty, I'm afraid you are mainly displaying your ignorance about the subjects of the articles you edit, and your lack of understanding of English. At least here on Wikipedia, by "Turkish people" we do not mean Turks in general, but specifically people who speak the Turkish language (and not any Turkic language), mainly the present citizens of the Republic of Turkey, and people in Turkish-speaking pockets left outside Turkey in former territories of the Ottoman Empire (as well as descendants of such people who self-identify as Turks). The Seljuqs, Göktürks, and other Turkic group, do not fall under that definition. In your edits you are equating Turkish and Turkic; you must stop doing that.

Several historic Turkic societies were Persianate, which does not mean they were Persian. Before changing all such well established things, perhaps you should read up on some historic sources, which are also widely available in Turkish.

Do not edit war but try to achieve consensus through discussion, and do not label edits lightly as vandalism but ~~[[WP:assume good faith]|]~~ assume good faith on the side of other editors. Otherwise you will be the one who will be considered a vandal. --Lambiam 22:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You use the racism label too easily. Do you consider the term Hellenization a humiliating racist term too? These terms refer to a process of cultural assimilation, and the concept of race does not enter the picture at all. Please read the articles I linked to, and take the time to study some of the sources that are mentioned there, and hopefully you will see that this is true. The notion of race has been introduced and emphasized in an ahistoric way in the last few centuries by politicians in order to arouse and use nationalistic sentiments for advancing their (often dubious) political agendas; in historic Turkic societies such as those ruled over by the Seljuq dynasty that concept would not have been understood; what they did understand was a notion of kinship based on clans or tribes, which were bound by allegiance to a dynasty, free of any racial connotations. --Lambiam 11:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent report to WP:AIV

You recently reported 82.83.133.161 (talk · contribs) to the Administrators notice board for vandalism. However, this user received no warnings. Please see the notice board for instructions on reporting vandalism. Note that content disputes are not vandalism and are not to be reported to this particular noticeboard. — ERcheck (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Religious Persecution.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Religious Persecution.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. WebHamster 15:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Unfair blocking. Actually it's me complaining about nationalist attacks. But it's again me being blocked.

Decline reason:

You were legitimately blocked for edit warring and personal attacks. You have not addressed these issues in your unblock request. If you wish to re-submit an unblock request, please go in detail why you think this block is unfair. As far as I know, this looks like a fair block. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated.

I have blocked you for a number of nationalistic attacks like this and violation of WP:3RR on Ghaznavid_Empire. You also appear to recently enter highly disruptive nationalistic attacks under different accounts. Please stop it or you will be blocked permanently Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request Again

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

This request is unfair. Becasue I was not the one who was offending. I am persecuted becasue of I am a Turk. Persian editors are editing articles related Turkish History such as Great Seljuq Empire and Ghaznavid Empire and removing "Turkish" and writing "Persianated" and refering it to Persian nationalist sources. Here are my sources from many authors and many publishers which strongly and undoubtedly defines Ghaznavid Empire as a "Turkish" Empire:

   * Malamud, M (1994). Sufi Organizations and Structures of Authority in Medieval Nishapur. International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 26, No. 3 (Aug., 1994). (pp. 427-442.).
   * Roux, J. P. (1984). Histoire des Turcs: Deux mille ans du Pacifique a la Mediterranee. Fayard.
   * Roux, J. P. (2000). Histoire des Turcs. Fayard.
   * Ghaznavid Dynasty. (2008). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved January 7, 2008, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9036676.
   * Gupta, A. (2007). Going to School in South Asia.Greenwood Press. (pp. 20, 21.)
   * Schofield, V. (2003). Afghan frontier feuding and fighting in Central Asia. Palgrave Macmillan: London. (p. 25).
   * Malamud, Margaret (1994). The politics of heresy in medieval Khurasan: the Karramiyya in Nishapur. Iranian Studies, 27 (1), 37-51. Retrieved January 07, 2008, from http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/00210869408701819.
   * Saran, Parmatma, Resistance of Indian Princes to Turkish Offensive, Sita Ram Kohli Memorial Lectures, Punjabi University (Patiala, 1967).
   * Bosworth, C.E., The Ghaznavids: Their Empire in Afghanistan and Eastern Iran, 994-1040, Edinburgh University Press, 1963.

I may put hundreds of more becasue every scientific article will define Ghaznavid Empire because it actually is. But that Persian author writes "Khorāṣānian" which has no significant historical meaning. Look at which characters he/she uses. Another article is Great Seljuq Empire. Those editors -mostly with an anonymous IP- remove "Turkish" and write Persian, Persianated, slave, Central Asian , etc. They do everything to just remove the word "Turkish". But Great Seljuq Empire is a Turkish Empire. It is ridiculous to associate them with any other identity. Their so called "sources" are all Persian nationalist works. Here are my references -non of them are Turkish, all international-:

   * Jackson, P. (2002). Review: The History of the Seljuq Turks: The History of the Seljuq Turks.Journal of Islamic Studies 2002 13(1):75-76; doi:10.1093/jis/13.1.75.Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies.
   * Bosworth, C. E. (2001). Notes on Some Turkish Names in Abu 'l-Fadl Bayhaqi's Tarikh-i Mas'udi. Oriens, Vol. 36, 2001 (2001), pp. 299-313.
   * Dani, A. H., Masson, V. M. (Eds), Asimova, M. S. (Eds), Litvinsky, B. A. (Eds), Boaworth, C. E. (Eds). (1999). History of Civilizations of Central Asia. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers (Pvt. Ltd).
   * Hancock, I. (2006). ON ROMANI ORIGINS AND IDENTITY. The Romani Archives and Documentation Center. The University of Texas at Austin.
   * Asimov, M. S., Bosworth, C. E. (eds.). (1998). History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Vol. IV: The Age of Achievement: AD 750 to the End of the Fifteenth Century, Part One: The Historical, Social and Economic Setting. Multiple History Series. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

what did i do wrong???

I am trying to contribute reliability and validity of articles in Wikipedia. but Persians are holding a smear campaign against me and systematically editing historical articles with an pexpansionist Pan Persian point of view.

Look at those vandals and their contribution history:

   * 82.83.133.161
   * 82.83.130.148
   * 82.82.128.9
   * User:07fan
   * User:Ali doostzadeh

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Religious Persecution.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Religious Persecution.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Ali_Kuscu_03.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Ali_Kuscu_03.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. 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:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. O sama K 13:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brunettes userbox

I just thought I'd let you know that Krimpet (talk · contribs) took it on herself to delete the brunettes userbox you were using. This follows other subjects about women she has chosen to take on herself whether or not they should be on Wikipedia the past two weeks, including starting an "edit war" on the DYK section of the main page.[1] Thought you might want to know.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 23:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

3 weeks. Rationale in block log. Moreschi (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the only one who suffering from persian irredentism see here for example [2] they prevent me to add the meaning of his title with no reason and of course there are Hundreds of examples Wikipedia gets worse --Bayrak (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kemalistler siksin seni heto muslim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.51.143 (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Tolga Yarman

I have nominated Tolga Yarman, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tolga Yarman. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Aadagger (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]