User talk:Takabeg/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Takabeg, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Neo-Jay (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Kostantaniye

Hi Takabeg,

In English Wikipedia it is too difficult to keep the name İstanbul (or Istanbul) in history articles. Somebody changes it to Constantinople on the ground that İstanbul came to be used only after 1930. The only source for this claim is an ambigious circular of the Post Office to ban the address Constantinople in 1930. I am sure that by 1930, Constantinople (actually Kostantiniye) was already out of usage. But so far I couldn't find any on-line proof of this. Do you by any chance have any source to show when İstanbul bacame the name of the city ? Thanks. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Selam. Osmanlıda Konstantiniyye ve Dersaadet terimleri daha çok kullanılıyordu. Fakat İstanbul terimi de daha nadiren kullanılmış olsa da vardı. Açıkçası resmî olarak ne zaman değiştirildiğini bilmiyorum. Resmî belgelerde 1923 yılında İstanbul kullanılıyordu, herhalde. İstanbul şehremini mi yoksa Konstantiniyye şehremini mi kullanılyordu ? Buna da bakılması lazım. Takabeg (talk) 08:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ashina Jiesheshuai

Selamlar

Ashina Jiesheshuai maddesi güzel olmuş. Ellerinize sağlık. Ne yazık ki, Unicode konusunda yardımcı olacak kadar bilgim yok. Yalnız, Unicode ile yazılmış yazıyı okumak için okuyucu bilgisayarına da bu kodun önceden yüklenmiş olması gerektiğini sanıyorum. Bu sebepten Unicode ile yazılmış yazıları okuyucuların büyük bölümü zaten okuyamıyor. Belki de sizin düşündüğünüz gibi png format daha doğru olur. Öte yandan, yazıdaki şecere de ilgimi çekti. Bu şecere bu güne kadar gördüklerimden farklı. (Tabii bunda hakanların sık sık isim değiştirmelerinin de rolü olabilir.) Mesela Istemi ailesi Tardu’dan sonra yok. Hazar kağanlığı kurucusu sayılan Tong Yabgu’yu da göremedim. Selamlar.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Batı Göktürk kağanlarıyla henüz ilgilenemedim. Ondan Tardudan sonra yok. Zamanla halledecez. tr:Göktürk kağanlar listesi de yarıda kaldı. Güzel kaynakları biliyorsanız tavsiye eder misiniz ? Yılmaz Öztuna'nınki iyi değil :) Görüşürüz. Takabeg (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

İHH and Refah

The phrase "that was formed to provide aid to Bosnian Muslims together with Welfare Party" means that the purpose for which İHH was formed, was to work together with Refah. Correct me if I'm wrong – I can only see a fragment of the text from Rüşvetten Özelleştirmeye Yolsuzluğun 100 Yıllık Tarihi – but all the cited source says is that money collected by RP and İHH was transferred to Süleyman Mercümek's account. It does not say anything about why İHH was formed, and as formulated does not even imply that the organizations worked together in collecting the money. So the source does not support the statement, which is why I removed it. I thought the rationale for the removal was clear from the edit summary: source only states that both organizations collected money for Bosnia. If the book has further information, or you have other reliable information, on notable connections of İHH with RP (and other connections, such as currently with Saadet Partisi, or with Milli Görüş as you write), please let me know. I saw some claims relating İHH and Milli Görüş, but they were not reliable sources, and therefore not useable.  --Lambiam 18:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Communauté Islamique du Milli Gorus de la Région Lyonnaise Takabeg (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As you can see in this list of contact persons of IHH e.V., Adem Bark and Zeliha Vural, mentioned in the French Milli Görüş item, are project managers of the German IHH. To the best of my knowledge, that organization is independent of the Turkish İHH; see also Talk:IHH (İnsani Yardım Vakfı)#Another IHH.  --Lambiam 19:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

But they use very similar logomarks. (IHH e.V & IHH) Türkçeniz var mı acaba ? Takabeg (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Bir birine yakınsa da aynı değildir. Ama İngilizce konuşalım; bu tartışma herkes için anlaşılır olsun. Yes, as I wrote on the article's talk page in the section I linked to above: "having a similar (but not identical) logo". Why wouldn't they simply use the same logo if it is essentially the same organization? Note that while the German and Turkish websites do not even link to each other – also not on the Klarstellung page of IHH e.V. where they mention İHH by name – the website of the German IHH does feature links to the other branches; see here. The website of the Danish branch states here (in Danish): "IHH's head office is located in Frankfurt, Germany, and has offices in several countries, including Denmark." Apparently there is no organizational connection.  --Lambiam 19:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yanıt

O kadar iyi değilim. Öncelikle ben size İskit maddesinin içerikteki sorunlardan ziyade o kullanıcıların kişilere yönelik saldırıları konusunda soru sormuştum. Tezler hakkında yorum yapabiliriz elbette. Fakat kişilere yönelik yapılır mı ? CenkX, Nihan, Balabansapa v.s. katkılarında kişisel saldırı sayılan ifadeler ne kadar yoğun ? Bariz bir şekilde yapılan kişilere yönelik saldırılar ortadayken o ihlalleri ihmal ediliyor ve şahsımın üslup sorun ediliyor ? Adil mi ? Tarafsız mı ? Eşit mi ? Balabanpasa'nın mesajlarını özellikle tr:Tartışma:İskitler'e bakarsanız anlarsınız. Sürekli kişilere yönelik saldırı. Bilim dünyasında kabul edilen bilginin ırkçı tezi olduğunu zannederek onu aktaran kullanıcıları ırkçı yapmaya çalışmak doğru mu ? İçerik konusuna gelince bizim işimiz sadece bilim dünyasındaki durumu aktarmaktır. Eğer çok istenirse Türkiye'de Türkî halk olarak öğretildiği aktarılabilir. Vikipedi kendi inandığı tezleri savunacak bir yer değildir. Bilim dünyasındaki durumun aktarılması gereken yerdir. Dolayısıyla benim şahsen savunduğum görüşleri aktarmadım bile. "Devlet tezi" konusuna gelince, Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı'nın benimsediği tez demektir. Döneme göre değişiyor ama temelde aynı. Mesela 1930'li yıllarda Akalar Aka Türkleri yapıldı, Sakalar ise Saka Türkleri (hâlâ öyle literatür mevcuttur), Moğollar da Türk yapıldı. Birde bütün Anadolu Medeniyatı da Türk yapılmaya çalışıldı. Aynı şekilde Lenin Ruslaşmış bir Türk ailesindne geldiği biri olarak gösterildi. Kaynaklar var ama ne tür iddia olduğunu açıklamadan bunu kaynaklarla birlikte maddeye eklemek doğru mudur ? İskitler için de aynı şey söz konusu. Hun İmparatorluğu için de aynı şey söz konusu. Bütün Anadolu medeniyetleri Türk yapmak için Mustafa Neceti Bey (not: Vikipedinin maddesinde olduğu gibi Fevzi tarafından vurulmamıştır :)) Genç yaşta öldüğü için dedikoduların dolaştığı aşikar ama) kazılarda ne çıkarılsa çıkarılsın Türklere ait olduğu kanıtlanmıştır diyordu. Demek zorundayıd. Siyaset bu. Ama bilim başka bir şeydir. Günümüzdeki tezler (dünya standartına göre ise iddialar) bunların kalıntısı ya da devamıdır. Bu benim görüşüm değil tarihî gerçekir. Mesela Büşra Ersanlı Behar'ın İktidar ve Tarih: Türkiye'de "Resmi Tarih" Tezinin Oluşumu (1929-1937) o kadar kalın bir kitap değildir tavsiye ederim. Teşekkür ederim. Takabeg (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Tekrar merhabalar Taka kardeş. Bu mesajınızı gördüğüme çok sevindim. Aynı şeylerden bahsediyoruz. Ben de aslında İskitler konusunda yorum yapmıyorum, bu İskitlerden ziyade genel bir üslup şekli ile ilgili naçizane bir öneriydi şahsımdan. "Devlet tezi" tarzı rencide edici subjetif ve bilirkişi şeklinde algılanacak bir üslup nedeniyle tartışmalar alevlenir, uzlaşma olmaz diyorum. Nitekim sizin hakkınızda bu kadar karşıt görüş oluşmasının nedeni de bu diye düşünüyorum. Yani yorumum genel bir üslup ile ilgili, ilgili maddeden bağımsız. Size daha önce mail yoluyla da söyledim, aramızda bir iletişim bozukluğu olmuş. Ben tarafsızlık adına bunu yaptığınıza inanıyorum, ancak üslup sorunu nedeniyle ciddi sorunlara yol açılabilmekte. Bunu siz de takdir edersiniz. Bir diğer konu, belli bir yayım kuruluşunu toplu olarak devlet tezcisi olarak itham etmek. Siz de bilirsiniz ki, bilimsel çalışmalar belli çerçevelerde yapılır. Bu çerçevelerin durumuna göre kalitesine ve değerine karar verilir yayımların. Mesela bir tecrübe-i yazı en değersiz yazı iken, tıp için bir örnek veriyorum prospektif ve randomize karşılaştırma grupları olan çalışmalar en değerlileridir. Demek istediğim çalışmaların değerlendirmelerini subjektif, şahsa göre değişen, bu nedenle ileride ciddi sıkıntılara yol açması olası yollarla değerlendiremeyiz. Eğer öyleyse bile bunun yolu onun yayımcısı X hımm bak o kötü diyerek olmaz. Yine belirttiğim gibi mailimde, hangi tezlerin maddelerde yer alıp/almayacağı, nasıl bir yöntemle maddenin işleneceğinin karar noktası tartışma sayfalarıdır. Bu tartışma sayfalarında belli bir çalışmayı direkt kafadan silerek, rencide edici bir şekilde o olmaz demek uygun olmaz. Orada ciddi şekilde neden ve neden değil subjektif değil objektif verilerle konuşulmalıdır. Diğer kullanıcılardan baktığım balabanpasa'ya konuyla ilgili mesaj attım zaten. Bir de şunu belirtmek istiyorum, MEB'in benimsediği tez olması ona ne değer kaybettirir ne de başka bir şey. Tez'in değerini kaynaklarla ortaya koymanızı bekliyorum. Mesele MEB'in tezi olmak değil -ki olamaz da- şu şu verilerle bu tez örtüşmemekte, şu şu veriler şunu göstermekte deyiniz. Şu tez şu yüzden değerlidir derken, yine objektif veriler kullanınız lütfen. Sanıyorum bu sefer iletişim sorunumuzu çözdük -bu sefer bir rötar yaşadık gerçi ama olsun olur böyle işler :)-. Sonuç geçiyorum, ikimizde aynı şeyi destekliyoruz, bilimsel yaklaşım. Diğer mesajlar konusunda ilgilenmeye çalışırım, ama belirttiğim gibi vaktim çok sınırlı. Benden başkasından rica ederseniz çok sevinirim, ayrıntılı inceleme konusunda. Balabanpasa'ya konuyla ilgili uyarı mesajı yolladım zaten konu kapandı, tekrarında ilgilenirim ki olmayacağını umuyorum. Diğer linklere bakmamıştım bakarım. İyi akşamlar--Merube 89^msj 01:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merube 89 (talk • contribs)

O linkler direkt katkılar sayfasına imiş. Ben spesifik linkler sanmıştım. Dediğim gibi vaktim olmadığından katkılarını inceleyemiyorum, kusura bakmayın. Spesifik linkleri yollarsanız bakarım. Sadace spesifik link ile ilgili konuşurum dediğim gibi, zira genel yorum yapmadan önce ayrıntılı bir inceleme yapmam lazım ki ona ayıracak vakit bende yok ne yazık ki bu aralar. Bu durumda bakamıyorum yine. Saygılar--Merube 89^msj 01:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Tekrar selam. Buna farkettiniz mi ? Kaynakları kaldırma ve madde başlığı değiştirme faaliyetleri. Dün birkaç kişi farketti ama... İyi çalışmalar. Takabeg (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Birde "devlet tezi" teriminin kışkırtıcı ifade olduğunu gerçekten düşünüyor musunuz ? Öyle ise ciddi sorun var. Devlet tezi tutanlara göre mi kışkırtıcı oluyor ? Bu terim bilimsel araştırmalarda sıkça kullanılmaktadır. Yani "devlet tezi" teriminin "kışkırtıcı" olarak algılanmasına bilim müsaade etmez, mümkün değil. VP:MİLLÎ'yi tekrar okumanızı tavsiye ediyorum. Teşekkür ederim. Takabeg (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Adlandırma

Henüz çevirilmemiş olsa da adlandırma kuralında modern adı kullanın politikası vardır. Eğer yerleşim birimin adı değiştiyse ve o dilde (burda ise Türkçede) kullanılıyorsa onu tercih edilir.

Örnekler

Momçilgrad: eskiden Местанли (Mestanlı) idi. Fakat adı Момчилград olarak değiştirildi. Момчилград'ın Türkçesi ise Momçilgrad'dır. Hâlâ eski adları kullananlar var mesela gazeteler de görüyorum. Ama bağımsız ve tarafsız güvenlir kaynaklarda Momçilgrad. Modern adları kullanalım.

Krumovgrad: 1934 yılına kadar Кошукавак (Koşukavak) idi. Fakat adı Крумовград olarak değiştirildi. Bunun Türkçesi ise Krumovgrad. Değiştirildiğiyse ve yeni ad Türkçede hele bağımsız ve tarafsız güvenilir kaynaklarda kullanılıyorsa modern yani yeni adı tercih edilmeli.

Takabeg (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Merhaba

Tekrar selam. Buna farkettiniz mi ? Kaynakları kaldırma ve madde başlığı değiştirme faaliyetleri. Dün birkaç kişi farketti ama... İyi çalışmalar. Takabeg (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Birde "devlet tezi" teriminin kışkırtıcı ifade olduğunu gerçekten düşünüyor musunuz ? Öyle ise ciddi sorun var. Devlet tezi tutanlara göre mi kışkırtıcı oluyor ? Bu terim bilimsel araştırmalarda sıkça kullanılmaktadır. Yani "devlet tezi" teriminin "kışkırtıcı" olarak algılanmasına bilim müsaade etmez, mümkün değil. VP:MİLLÎ'yi tekrar okumanızı tavsiye ediyorum. Teşekkür ederim. Takabeg (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ben vikiye bu aralar çok zaman ayıramıyorum, siz gösterince fark ettim. Kibele ilgilenmiş gördüğüm kadarıyla. Milliyi gayet iyi biliyorum Taka ve benim dediklerimi anlamamakta neden ısrar ettiğinizi anlayamıyorum. Bilim bilim diyorsunuz da, bir türlü subjektif yaklaşımlardan vazgeçemiyorsunuz. Tıp dünyasından örnek veriyorum bu sefer anlaşılırım inş. Mesela destekçisinin bir ilaç firması olan bir makale düşünün. Makalede o ilaç firmasının bir ilacının etkileri konu edilmiş. Siz buna kuşkuyla yaklaşırsınız elbette, ancak bu makalenin bilimsel değil (!), firma destekçisi, yalancı, beş para etmez olduğuna sırf buna bakarak kesinlikle karar veremezsiniz. Eğer böyle yaparsanız bilimsel değil önyargısal davranmış olursunuz. O makaledeki bilgiler doğru da olabilir gerçekten de ilaç abartılmış olabilir. Siz bu makalenin değerine, makaleyi okuyarak, inceleyerek -hangi yöntemler uygulanmış, kaç hastada, nasıl hastalar üzerinde denenmiş, hangi ilaçlarla, hangi dozlarla karşılaştırılmış, hangi istatistiki yöntem kullanılmış vs. gibi temel verilere bakarak karar verirsiniz. Verilere de elbette kuşkuyla yaklaşmakta hakkınız var, buna da aynı konudaki diğer makaleleri -yine aynı temel değerlere bakmak kaydıyla- inceleyerek karar verirsiniz. En sonunda nihai kararınızı oluşturduktan sonra, eğer o ilk makalenin değersiz olduğunu düşünüyorsanız buna argüman olarak o bilmem kimin tezi diyemezsiniz, o makalede öyle diyor ama, şu şu şu veriler nedeniyle o makale değersizdir dersiniz. Sizin şu "devlet tezi" yaklaşımınız da buna çok benziyor. Elbette her devletin kendince desteklediği görüşler vardır ki "devlet tezi" derken bu kastedilir. Ancak bu konuda yapılmış bilimsel ortamlarda yayımlanmış tezleri sırf böyle destekleyicisi var diye kötüleyemez, değersiz addedemezsiniz. Buna böylesine subjektif, kişisel bir şekilde bu böyle işte diye argümanlarla karar verip bunu çok sert bir üslupla ifade edemezsiniz. Yukarıda daha önceki mesajlarımda da belirttiğim gibi, böyle bir argüman öne sürecekseniz objektif verilerle konuşmanız lazım. Kışkırtıcı dememin nedeni sizin direkt karşı sunulan tezlere karşı, uygun olmayan bir üslupla, üslubun altını çiziyorum, "devlet tezi" diye o tezleri baştan -önyargısal ki önyargının bilim dünyasında yeri yoktur- reddetmeniz ve o sayılmaz diye baştan savıcı cümlelerle, bilirkişi edasıyla karşı çıkmanız. Bu nedenle tartıştığınız kişiler agresif tutumlara sürüklenebilmekte. Bu kadar çok şikayet almanızın nedenlerini açıklamak istemiştim size ve bu nedenle ufak naçizane bir ricada bulunmuştum. Kışkırtıcı olan "devlet tezi" demeniz değil bunu deyiş şekliniz. Bilmem anlatabiliyor muyum. Halbuki eğer tezlerin bilimsel yanının zayıf olduğunu düşünüyorsanız, bunu uygun bir üslupla -üslubun altını çiziyorum- ve uygun verilerle sunmanız gerekir. Üslubunuza lütfen biraz daha dikkat ediniz ki, karşıdaki kişileri kışkırtıcı olma ihtimali çok düşsün. Nazik bir dille sunduğunuz veriler sayesinde hem uzlaşı daha kolay sağlanır hem de zaman kayıplarının önüne geçilmiş olur. Bu sefer derdimi anlatabildim umarım. İyi vikiler--Merube 89^msj 02:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Selam. Bilim bilimdir. Uyrudulmuş iddialar değildir. İşte devlet tezi budur. Ayrıca devlet tezine de çok objektif yaklaşıyorum. Zira uzmanlık alanıma giriyor. Aslında benim yapacağımı beklemeden diğer kullanıcıların ilgilenmesi gerekirdi. Artık uygun veriler vermek istemiyorum. O kadar da emeklerimi harcamak istemiyorum. Bu kadar basit millileştirme faaliyetlerini önlemeyen Türkçe Vikipediyi tarafsızlaştırmak çok zordur. Demin bahsettiğiniz Kibele TBA konusunda gayet iyidir. Ondan da öğrenirseniz faydalı olacaktır. Ayrıuca kişiler agresif tutumlara sürüklenebilen hiçbirşey yoktur. Zaten agresif tutumları vardır. Bu tür agresif tutumları önceden önlemek hizmetlilerin işlerinden değil miydi ? Kendinize iyi bakın. İyi çalışmalar. Takabeg (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Bu tür tutumları önlemek her vikipedistin görevidir aslında. Nazik bir üslup kullanırsanız emin olun daha iyi olacaktır. Her kullanıcı her konudaki maddeleri görmeyebilir, gören kişi ve vakit, istek bulan ilgilenir. Yine beni ısrarla anlamak istemiyorsunuz Takabeg. Üslubunuzu düzeltin lütfen, daha nasıl ifade edebilirim bilmiyorum. Herkese gereken şekilde yaklaşılacaktır ki öyle de yaklaşılıyor. Belli bir konuya özgü değil benim bahsettiğim konu, genel tavrınızla ilgiliydi. İşte bu uydurulmuş iddialar diye kesip atamazsınız, ben de bu tür iddialara katılmıyorum ama bunu ifade ederken şu nedenlerle uygun olmadığını düşünüyorum diyorum, uydurma diye kesip atmıyorum. Uygun değil bu tarz yaklaşım ve üslup. Neyse, siz de kendinize iyi bakın, sağlıcakla--Merube 89^msj 02:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

?

Selam Gökçe. Bu ne demek ? Ne ima etmeye çalıştınız ? O listeyle bayağı uğraştık. Fakat bir türlü olmuyor ? Neden ? Tanım yok. Yani listede yer alan devlet ve halkların kriterleri yok. Neye göre listeye alındı ? Neye göre listeye alınmadı ? Bağımsız ve güvenilir kaynaklar ile kanıtlanması mümkün değildir. Türk devletleri listesi, List of Turkic states and empires doğru mu ? Yanlış mı ? Tabi ki yanlış bilgilerle doludur. Takabeg (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Türk devletleri listesi'nin

"İlkçağ" bölümünde

İskitler, Hiung-nu, Büyük Hun İmparatorluğu, Batı Hiung-nu, Vusun, Vuhuan, Kuzey Hiung-nu, Güney Hiung-nu, Han Çov, Hun İmparatorluğu, Ak Hun İmparatorluğu Turkic state' mi ??? tarafsız ve bağımsız güvenilir kaynaklar ile kanıtlanabilir misiniz ????

Ben sadece Vey için tarafsız ve bağımsız kaynakları bulabilirim.

Takabeg (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Selamlar. Geçmiş olsun diyeyim, engellenmenizden dolayı. Artık buradan görüşür. Ben direkt konuya geçeyim. Listede yanlış bilgiler olabilir ki var zaten. Fakat bu silinmesine bir neden olamaz bence. Vikipedi'de birçok sorunlu maddeler var. Etiketleriyle birlikte düzeltilene kadar duruyorlar. Ayrıca en azından tamamen yanlış değil. Bu yüzden silinmeye aday gösterilmesi bence gereksiz. İyi çalışmalar...--Gökçe Yörük (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Tamam

tamam, düzelttimKavas (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Elinize sağlık. Şey... şablonu kaldırsak mı ? Takabeg (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Bence öldürülmüş gazeteci olduğu için kalkmalı, ama Chesdovi gibi yazarlar farklı düşünüyor olabilir. Kavas (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Kaldıralım. Umut Operasyonunda da Cevdet'in adı geçti. Yani sadece öldürülmüş gazeteci değildir. Eğer çok ısrar ederlerse silinmeye aday sayfasına göstersinler. Diğer kurbanları için ümitim yok ama Cevdet Kılıçlar'ın kayda değerliği ortadadır. Takabeg (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Celts

Celts are smilar to Oghuzs, both Celts and Oghuz are historical peoples who are distributed to different countries in history and continue their culture and language: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_nationsKavas (talk) 12:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Maalsef maddede Oğuzların ne olduğu anlatılmıyor. Celtic nations başka Oğuzlar başka. Takabeg (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Şu var bir de, http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrkmenler: "Anadolu'da yerleşik Türkmenlere ise "Anadolu Türkmenleri" denir" (yerleşik derken yaşayan demek istemiş galiba, çünkü göçebe türkmenler bile anadolu'da bugün var)

Maalasef, Anadolu Türkmenleri (Anadolu'da yaşayan Oğuz Türkleri derken yine bu kastediliyor), İran Türkmenleri ile ilgili bilgi İngilizce Wikipedia'da yok. Kavas (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Türkçe Vikipedide de aynı sorun var. Türkmen maddesinde Türkmen olarak hitap edilen Oğuzların köylerinden bahsediliyor. Bu da feci. İran Türkmenleri derken Azizi filan mı ? Turkmen people maddesi içinde anlatılıyor ve sorun da yok. Gerekirse madde açılabilir. Ama Anadoludaki Türkmenler ayrı. Syrian Turkmens (Turkmen in Syria çift maddeymiş :)) de ayrı. Takabeg (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Anadolu Türklüğü'nün din değiştirmiş Hristiyanlar, diğer Türk grupları (Uygurlar, Tatarlar, Kırgızlar vs.) hariç, önemli bölümünün Oğuz Türkü olduğu konusunda anlaşıyoruz değil mi? Köy isimleri olarak Oğuz aşiret isimleri kullanılıyor (mesela, ankara'da yukarı peçenek köyü). Halaçoğlu'nun aşiretler çalışması önemli bir kaynak bu konuda: http://www.anadoluasiretleri.com/Page.php?pid=29 Kavas (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

XI. yüzyılda Harezm bölgesinde toplu olarak yaşayan ve daha sonra batıya doğru göç ederek bugünkü Türkmen, Azeri, Gagavuz ve Türkiye Türklerinin aslını oluşturan büyük bir Türk boyu. Yani alınını oluşturan dedikleri boylar. Yani aslında aynı şey. Boylar. Türkiye'de yaşayan ve Oğuz grubuna bağlı Türkiye Türkçesini konuşan Türkler tamamı Oğuzlardan değildir. Konusu konuştukları diller ise Oğuz Türkleri. İkisi birbirlerine karıştırılmamalı. Birde Oğuzlar adlı yerleşim birimleri burda da var. Takabeg (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Alp Er Tunga

I agree with you in undoing the move in Alp Er Tunga. Have a nice day. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Bazı kadirşinaş çalışmalarınızdan dolayı tebrik ve teşekkürlerimi sunmak isterim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.120.41.118 (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ismin, kimligin

Takabeg, nasılsın, çok aktifsin, barekallah. Takabeg, ismin ne anlam taşır. Kendin hakkında yazar mısın? Dağ türkü müsün, ova türkü müsün, kimsin? Erturkmen (talk) 06:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Mountain Jews, Pertevniyal and Battle of Edirne

• Reply: I don’t know about Mountain Jews . But a quick search in internet returned and By the way, the ethnic origins of the valide sultans is usually debatable. According to tr-Wiki, Pertevniyal is Romanian and it is sourced.
• Can you please check the battle of Adrianople fought in Balkan Wars ? I have moved it to Battle of Edirne, but in just two hours, it has been moved back. The motive is very similar to that of Constantinople. Edirne, it is claimed was not used before 1913. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to Battle of Hadrianopolis (378), but Battle of Adrianople is common use. And Battle of Adrianople (1913) (yani Edirne Kuşatması) was fought in the First Balkan War. Takabeg (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:

Due to a higher population of en:wiki compared to the other projects, there is a greater representation of various points of view, so normally any unconfirmed or "nationalist", as you put it, statements in controversial topics are meticulously questioned and discussed. I can assure you that what you see as "nationalism" is in fact the true state of things, although being familiar with your activity in tr:wiki and the quality of your argumentation on some talkpages here, I can see how this can seem a problem to you. Parishan (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to think and I don't think that you are Azerbaijani nationalist. I know most of them are not nationalis but are lied under influenses of their nationalsms by their educational policy. Its is concerened with sysetmic bias. Türkçeniz var değil mi ? Takabeg (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ermenicem de var. Sizin için hangisi daha kolay? Parishan (talk) 06:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Maalesef Ermenicem sıfır (0). Benim için Türkçe (Türkiye Türkçesi yani) daha kolay. Takabeg (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Messages

For some reason every message you send to other users reaches me. (I don't know if they receive the messages adressed to them) Can you please check your preferences. Thanks . Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Baktım ama sorunun ne olduğunu bile anlayamadım. Dolayısıyla çözemedim. Now Battle of Sarantaporo (0 hit) is common use ? I found Battle of Sarantaporon (1 hit). Takabeg (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I understand how frustrating it should be for you that Turkish authors are tagged as Azeri when they were Turkic authors who influenced all Turkdom. I understand that you may seem to think that they're all nationalists over here. But this probably does not represent reality. Part of the reason why editors might act the way you think they act is that there are off-wiki coordinations. See here the arbitration on Russian Wikipedia. I myself was dragged in an edit warring because I accuratly replaced Azeri with Turkic. Ionidasz (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible. In Englich Wikipedia are off-wiki coorinations considered as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet ? Takabeg (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

More likelly meatpuppets, there is a more serious issue here between Azeris and Armenians than Armenians and Turks. Conflicts over here between Turks and Armenians is pretty much limited to the genocide issue, while those of Azeri and Armenians pretty much extend to claiming everything Turkic in the region as Azeri and everything Armenian as Caucasian Albanian or as unspecified. So the meatpuppeting become more problematic when 26 editors are involved and the targets are a wide range of articles. Ionidasz (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

In this case, Maphobbyist and GroenLinks are apparent meatpuppets maybe sockpuppets. Takabeg (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Since pictures are involved, you could request a checkuser with Neftchi. Ionidasz (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. OK. Now I have a question. How do you think about this use's behavior ? Takabeg (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you refering to the removal of the tag? Ionidasz (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeees. Takabeg (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Cumania

Done and the user has been warned. Regards--CnkALTDS^message 06:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Kılıçlar

I see being targeted by soldiers while trying to manage communication equipment of the ship as an assassination, is it not NPOV? Kavas (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ben emin olamadım. Kategoriyi zorla kaldırmayı da düşünmüyorum. Başka kullanıcı kaldırırsa da tekrar eklemeyi de düşünmüyorum. Yani fiilen suikasta benziyor ama suikast olarak tanımladığını görmedim hiç. İyi çalışmalar. Takabeg (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Atilla

selam Takabeg, Attila sayfasında yardımlarına ihtiyacımız var. Attila'ya ait olan tüm resimler kaldırılmaya çalışılıyor. Yapan adam eski .... Yanına bir kaç admini almış durumda. teşekkürler.--212.156.124.146 (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ve aleyküm selam. Geçmiş olsun. In Turkey many military operations were named after Attila. When the Turkish army invaded in Cyprus in 1974 the operation was nicknamed Attila as well. Hundreds of streets and regions use his name across Turkey cümlesi var ya. O Attila değil Atilla değil mi ? Takabeg (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Evet, iki türlü de söylenebiliyor. yabancılar Attila, biz ise Atilla olarak yazıyoruz. Richard Kaetinge resimleri kaldırmya çalışıyor. Türk tarihinden anlayan biri olduğun için senden yardım istedim. Bu adamların yaptıkları açıkça Türk düşmanlığı, Türk tarihinin hiçbir devrine saygıları yok. Yardımcı olursan sevinirim, saygılar.--Finn Diesel (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hunları Türk tarihinin bir parçası olarak görmediğim için fazla ilgilenmiyorum (Gerç konfederasyon içinde Dingling'in yer aldığı söyleniyor). Yine de mantıksız girişimleri görürsem yardımcı olacağım. İyi çalışmalar. Takabeg (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hunlar Xiongnu devletinin devamı olarak Avrupa'da kurulmuş bir Türk devleti, cumhurbaşkanlığı amblemindeki 16 yıldızdan biri Hun devletini temsil eder. Askeri olarak heterojen olsalar da devletin asli unsurları Türkçe isim kullanan, Çuvaş dilini konuşan insanlardan oluşuyor ki bunları sende biliyorsundur zaten. Teşekkür ederim.--Finn Diesel (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Cumhurbaşkanlığı amblemindeki 16 Türk Devleti siyasîdir. 1969 yılında icat edildi.Kavimlerin adlarının Türkçeye benzemesi de sadece bir tezdir. Hunların Xiongnu'nun devam olduğunu kanıtlandı mı ? Birde Xiongnu Türk mü ? Takabeg (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Xiong nu, bizim bir çok kaynağımızda "Doğu Hun" olarak geçer. O tarihlerde olan çoğu şey gibi bu konu da araştırması zor şeylerden biri. Xiongnu Türk olmasa bile Çin asıllı bir kavim olmadığı biliniyor. Altay milletine ait bir devlet olduğu da şüphe götürmez bir gerçek. Geriye Xiongnu devletinin bir Tungus-Moğol mu yoksa bir Türk devletimi olduğu sorusu kalıyor. Hunturk sitesinde Moğol İmparatorluğunun bir Türk devleti olduğu yazıyor. bu bir saçmalık, eğer Moğol imparatorluğu bir Türk devleti olsaydı paralarının üzerinde yazan resmi isim "ikh mongol ulus" olmazdı. Çengiz Han Türkleri ordularında kullandı diye Moğol imparatorluğu bir Türk devletiydi demek yanlış olur, dolayısıyla Hun devleti bize Moğol devletinden köken olarak daha yakın bir devlettir. --Finn Diesel (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"11. Conclusions

To judge by the tribal names, a great part of the Huns must have spoken a Turkish language. "

bu cümle ikinci verdiğin kaynaktaki sonuçlar kısmında yazıyor, adam Turkic kelimesini bir yana bırakıp direkt Turkish yazmış. Koskoca profesör böyle yazdıysa.. Düşüncelerimde bir değişiklik olmadı. Yazar da bu devletin Klan yapısı heterojen, yönetim birimi Türklerden oluştuğunu yazıyor. --Finn Diesel (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Evet çok şüpheli değil mi ? Turkish ile Turkic arasıdaki ayrımı bilmeyen birinin Türkçenin ve Türklerin ne olduğunu anlayabilmesi güçtür. Ve aynı kişi yönetim birimi Türklerden oluştuğunu yazıyor :) İşte güvenebilir miyiz ? Tabi ki hayır. Yine de X'e göre A şeklinde aktarılabilir. Takabeg (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

kaynak için tekrar teşekkürler. bu derin araştırmadan sonra aklımdaki soru işaretleri de kalktı diyebilirim. Attila kelimesinin kökeninin Goth dilinden geldiğini belirtmiş, sadece burada hayal kırıklığına uğradım. Çünkü "Ata" yani "Atta" kelimesinin kökenini Goth diline dayandırmış araştırmacı, halbuki bu kelime Asya kökenlidir. Kuzey Amerika yerlileri de "ata" der. Hiç bir hint-avrupalı father kelimesinin yerine "atta" kullanmamıştır. Muhtemelen biz Asya halklarından birinden Goth'lara geçmiş bu kelimenin kökeni hakkında hiç bir makaleye rastlayamıyorum. Dolayısıyla Attila'nın Türk olduğu tartışılmaz bir gerçektir. Oğluna Çengiz (Denghiz) ismini vermesiyle altına imzasını da atmış, ne diyebilirim? Karar senin.--Finn Diesel (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

benim anlamadığım bir şey var sevgili Takabeg, Kalifornia üniversitesinde böyle ciddi bir araştırma yapılmış ve Hunların kullandığı isimlerin Türkçe olduğu kanıtlanmışken senin kafanda oluşan soru işaretleri nedir? Sadece isimler beni bağlamaz diyorsan eğer, tarih bulmacasında zerre yol alamayız bunu bil. Hunlar beni bağlamaz diyebilirsin ama Hunlar Türk değildi demek kusura bakma ama bunca delilden sonra biraz saçma kalıyor.--Finn Diesel (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hunlar Türktü diyemeyiz maalesef. Deliller yok, ondan. Hunların kullandığı isimlerin Türkçe olduğu kanıtlanmadı, sadece ileri sürüldü. Yani tezler var sadece. Takabeg (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Codex Cumanicus Hunlarla aynı bölgede yaşamış Kumanlar için yapılan bir tercüme, ve tamamen somut bir delil. Şu an İtalya'da bir kilisede saklanmakta. Kumanların Hunların devamı olduğu düşünülürse elimizde somut bir delil var.--Finn Diesel (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Benim İskitler, Hunlar, Xiongnular zorla Türk yapma derdim yok. Bilimadamların yazdıklarını tarafsızca aktarırmamız yeterlidir. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view önemlidir. Sırf kendi istekler ve görüşlerine göre davranmamalısın. Takabeg (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ben de herkesi Türk yapma taraftarı değilim, benim o garip adamlarla bir alakam yok. İskitler hakkında zerre bilgim yoktur. Xiongnu zaten evrensel bir muammadır. Fakat Hunlar konusu şüphesiz bir gerçek. Yardım etmeyeceğin için açıkçası şaşırdım. Az sonra sayfaya saldırılar başlar yeniden. Neyse, yorumların için teşekkürler. --Finn Diesel (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

İyiki yardım et dedik ya, hepsinden daha zararlı çıktın. Attila'nın Moğol görünümlü olduğuna dair herhangi bir kaynağın varmı? türkler ile moğollar arasındaki görünüm farkını bilmemen bir yana, Latinlerin gravürlerindeki şeytan ikonunu Attilaya yakıştırman oldukça çirkin bir hareket. oldu bari Attila'yı elinde mızrakla resmeden iskandinav gravürleri de var isterse onlardan koyalım infobox kısmına? ne dersin?--Finn Diesel (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Attila the Hun'a bakabilirsin. Şeytan olarak göstermiyor. Sarı ırk görünümlü olduğuna dair kaynaklar var. Biraz kaynakları aramaya çalışın. Yine de daha iyisi bulursak onu kullanırız. Avrupalı gibi olmasın. Commons'taki açıklamayı okudun değil mi ? Birde hepsinden daha zararlı çıktın. ifaden Wikipedia:No personal attacks ihlalidir. Dikkatli davranmanı tavsiye ederim. Takabeg (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

hayır, orada Attila Europid birine benzemiyor ki? Avrupalı gibi resmedilmiş diyorsun, hayali portesi yandan yapılmış birini nasıl Avrupalıya benzetebiliyorsun ki? Hayal gücün çok geniş olabilir, peki fakat attila'nın sarı ırka (bildiğimiz Çinli yani) dahil olduğuna dair hangi kanıtlar sunabilirsin. Ben wiki kurallarından bazılarını çiğniyorsam sen hepsini birden çiğniyorsun. Adamların Attila'yı hristiyan yapma çabalarına bile gölge düşürüyorsun şu an. Attila'nın sarı ırkdan biri olduğunu ilk senden duydum. moğollar bile sarı ırk değildir bu arada...--Finn Diesel (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Orada Attila'yı gaddar zalim biri olarak göstermeye çalışan bir sürü insan oldu zamanında, Bleda ile birlikte Aziz görünümünde olan telif hakkı alınmış sanat çalışmasını kaldırmaya çalışanlar olduğu gibi, sen ise makalenin dibine dinamit koydun açıkçası. Tüm yapılan karşı saldırıları böylece bitirmiş oldun, sayende adamlar kazandı. Dediğim gibi Atilla'nın mızraklı resmini koyarsan Türk tarihi için çok daha iyi bir şey yapmış olursun en azından Attila orada insan görünümünde bir şeytan. Latinlerin yaptığı şu an infobox kısmında olan insan görünümünde olmayan bir şeytan çalışmasından daha iyidir.--Finn Diesel (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• The description of Attila by eyewitness confirms his Asian origin. Takabeg (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hunlar Türk tarihinin en önemli devrine imza atmışlardır. Hunların devamı olan Kumanlar astrolojide çığır açmışlardır. http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/id/25043545/ O sıralar çok daha ileride olan Asya medeniyetinden bir takım elementleri Avrupaya taşıyarak rönesans ve reforma geçişin temellerini atmışlardır. Konuştukları dil Türkçe (Çuvaş dili) iken sen onların sarı ırk olduklarını idda ediyorsun. Seninle bu platformda tartışamayacağım.--Finn Diesel (talk) 11:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Vikipedide kaynaksız bir gazete yazısının kıymeti yoktur. Takabeg (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Latinlerin gravüründeki şeytan tiplemesi Asya insanının dış görünüşüyle örtüşmüyor. Dediklerinle örtüşmeyen editler yapıyorsun. --Finn Diesel (talk) 12:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Ergenekon

Selam Cnk. Ergenekon maddesi düzelttim. Ama İngilizcem bayağı bozuktur. Kontrol eder misin ? Takabeg (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Kusura bakma Takabeg, gec kaldigim icin. Cogu zaman online olamiyorum.. Saniyorum ki duzeltmisler. Iyi calismalar.--CnkALTDS^message 17:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Kusurun yok. Düzeltmiş. Ama kaynaklara bakılmadan deforme de yapıldı. Mesela bunu tekrar değiştirdim. Ögel'in kendisi alakasız diyor. Yani uydurulmuş versiyonuna bakıldığında tartışmalıymış gibi gözüküyor ama orijinallere göre tartışılacak durum yoktur. İyi tatiller. Takabeg (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Elinde ders kitapları duruyor mu ? Bunun kaynaklandırılması ve bunun kontrol edilmesi lazım. Takabeg (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Umm.. Ben de bunlarla ilgili ders kitabi hic olmadi :).. Ama arastiririm..--CnkALTDS^message 18:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Su TBA mi?--CnkALTDS^message 00:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalizmdir herhalde. Siyaset gereği sonradan ilan ettiği eklenebilir. Türkmeniz, Oğuz Türklerindeniz hikayeleri çok duyduk :) Takabeg (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu

Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu'nun kendi ağzından aşiretlerinin ismi; http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/yazarlar/14809205.asp?yazarid=218 Soner Yalçın'ın kısa araştırmalarından sonra aşiretlerin Türkmen asıllı olduğu ortaya çıkıyor. Kılıçdaroğlunun akrabaları arasında Zaza veya Kürt olduğuna dair bir kaynak yok. Dolayısıyla kendisi de zaza veya kürt olmuyor haliyle.--Finn Diesel (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Kendisi Kürt değil Zaza. Zazaların Kürt olduğunu düşünenler Kürt derler. Eninde sonunda Zaza. Takabeg (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Zazalar hakkında bilgim yok dolayısıyla bu konuda yorumda bulunmam. Sen de bilgin olmadığı konulara karışmaz isen wikipedia ailesini sevince boğarsın. Mesela Hunların Çin kökenli (sarı ırk) olduğunu bu platformda değil de arkadaş çevrende belirtirsen çok daha iyi iş yapmış olursun. bu arada Latinlerin Attila hakkında yaptığı çalışma galeri kısmında olacak. Wikipedia'nın senin kişisel sayfan olmasına izin vermeyeceğim.--Finn Diesel (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Vikipedi kaynaklara göre işleniyor. Asya tipi veya Sarı ırk demek Çin kökenli anlamına mı geliyor ? Ciddi stereo tip yaklaşımın var. Kaynakları arayın. Kafana göre değil kaynaklara göre bilgileri ekleyin. Takabeg (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Latinlerin gravüründeki şeytan tiplemesi Asya insanının dış görünüşüne benzemiyor. Dediklerinle örtüşmeyen editler yapıyorsun.--Finn Diesel (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Kök Türük

Cnk. Tatilde misin ? Döndüğünde Göktürks maddesinin Etymology, Origins, Eastern Turkic Khaganate, Eastern Turks under the Jimi system bölümleri (yani kaynaklı bölümler :)) kontrol eder misin ? Takabeg (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Birde Bunu kontrol eder misin ? Takabeg (talk) 09:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

*
*

Issues are above have been fixed and related articles have been reverted to previous version. For next, if you claim the user,CenkX, removes primary sourced informations as you complain it's wrong what he/she does, please don't hesitate to kick up this matter to administrators. Thank you for your interest and contributions. Best regards. —CnkALTDS 15:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Göktürks dispute

I have looked into the edit dispute on the Göktürks article, and have made a proposal on Talk:Göktürks. SilkTork *^YES! 19:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

CenkX has accepted the proposal, and is prepared to work with it. I'd like to get your view before proceeding. SilkTork *^YES! 08:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

2. mesajınıza yanıt veriyorum

Özetle Takabeg (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Bana bu madde ancak wikitionary'ye uyar gibi geldiydi, o nedenle silinsin dediydim. Genişletebilirseniz kalsın; ama bu haliyle madde silinmeli demekte haklıydım. İyi çalışmalar... Kavas (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Var

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dersim_Massacre Kavas (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Dersim Massacre maddesini gördüm ama bu ayrı bir madde olarak kalabilir mi ??? Takabeg (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Aynı bölge

Temel Britannica zaten "aynı bölgeydi" demiyor. Kavas (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Şu link de http://www.wenge-pulur.com/index.php?pid=8 4 Ocak 1936 diyor. Kavas (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. İnceleyelim. Belki kanun çıkarıldıktan biraz sonra uygulanmıştır. Takabeg (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

1936'da uygulamaya sokulmuş. Ancak Dersim İsyanı 'ndaki Dersim Sivas'ın doğusunu da kapsar. Takabeg (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Kavas ve Takabeg, arkadaşlar farkında değilsiniz belki ama terör örgütünün uydurduğu şeyleri wikiye taşıyorsunuz. dersim'in havadan bombalanması yalandır. bomba yüklenebilen ilk uçaklar dersim ayaklanması sırasında avrupa fabrikalarında birer prototipti. daha üretime geçmemiş uçakların türkiye tarafından satın alınıp sivillere karşı kullanılması yalandır. dersimde ölen vatandaşlarımız olduğu doğrudur ama bunların masum sivillerden oluştuğu yalandır. t.c. masum sivillere karşı katliam yapmamıştır. Kansas Bear gibi Türk düşmanı editörlere şirin gözükmek için ülkenizi satmayın. 10 yıl sonra Kansas Bear gibi adamlara itibar edilmeyecek.--Finn Diesel (talk) 02:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Terör örgütü derken PKK'yı mı kastediyorsun ? Olaylar PKK adlı bir örgütün kuruluşundan taaaaaaaaaaaa önce yaşandı ve basına da yanstı, anılarında da yazıldı. 50 kg bombaları konusuna gelince İstiklal Harbi'nde bile hava bombardıman harekâtları yapıldı. Gerekirse Turkish Air Force maddesinde gerekli katkıları yaparız. Kansas Bear gibi Türk düşmanı editörler ne demek ? Daha önce de söylemiştim ya sana ama yine Wikipedia:No personal attacks ihlal ediyorsun. Kısaca ben kaynaklara göre çalıştığımı hatırlatmak istiyorum ve riske girmemeni tavsiye ediyorum. Takabeg (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Referansların "english" olduğunu eklemeniz çok yanlış, burada zaten İngilizce kaynak olacak. Kavas (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Tamam. Turkish citizens abroad açılsın mı ? Takabeg (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Turkish people

Tamam. Turkish citizens abroad açılsın mı ? Takabeg (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Joshua Project is not a reliable source. (Yes, I did use it but I noticed that it is not neutral.) Kavas (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. In this case we must remove from list numbers about Turkish citizens and replece them with Turkish people (Türkiye Türkleri). OK ? Takabeg (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a source other than Joshua Project you can use "Turkish ethnicity" numbers. Otherwise, you can label the numbers as "Turkish nationals". The Joshua Project numbers of people living in France from Turkey do not seem to add up to 500,000. Kavas (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Second, I do not oppose to the removal of Tonyukuk but I oppose to the removal of Monyukuk. The origins of Turkish people is "Turks" of Central Asia. I suggest you read an article about one Indo-European people, for example Germans for comparison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germans. The origin section starts with "Germanic people" not "German ethnicity". Kavas (talk) 01:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

In this case we remove Turkish descent Bulgarians, Meskhetian descent Georgians and Russian and so on. Do you understand me ? Takabeg (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Birinci konuyu bir de Türkçe söyleyim, Joshua projesi beni tarafsızlık açısından rahatsız etti, ondan dolayı hepsini çıkardım. Uygun kaynaklarla etnik Türk sayıları bulunabiliyorsa, eklenmesine karşı değilim; yanlış anlaşılmasın. Türk kökenli Bulgarlar çıkmasın, Türk etnisitesine göre dağılım yapıyoruz. (Turkish citizens abroad gibi bir madde de açılabilir ama işbu maddede Türk etnisitesi araştırılıyor.) Sorun şurda uygun kaynakla "etnik Türk" sayısını bulamıyoruz. 500,000 Türk vatandaşı Fransa'da olmalı değil mi? Joshua projesindeki Türk, Kürt ve diğer etnik grupları topla 500,000 etmiyor. Ama sadece bu değil, Joshua projesinin amacı sorunlu. Kavas (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Joshua'da sorunlar var ama her zaman değildir. Şimdi kaldırdığın KONDA tekrar ekleyin. Eski Türk harfleri de tekrar geri getirin. O güvenilir kaynaklardandır. Ve bu ciddi sorunlar çözülene kadar lütfen şablonlar kaldırmayın. Takabeg (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

1R Rule

Niye sözde kelimesini kaldırmadın ? Kaldırmayı unuttun mu ? Takabeg (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"Do not make any edit to the article that reverses the edit of another user in whole or in part more than once in any 24 hour period or you may be blocked from editing for a short period" Kavas (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sadece ondan mı ? Ama o mesele çok basit. Sözde kelimesinin eklenmesinin ansiklopediye uymadığı aşikârdır. Takabeg (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I could revert it. "Reverting actions performed by banned users are not counted as reverts" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_revert_rule#The_three-revert_rule Kavas (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Even in Turkish Wikipedia, we cannot use "sözde". Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The wording has been changed to "Sözde Ermeni Soykırımı", please stop interfering with a subject you do not have an understanding, thank you. --Hnbkd (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you know WP:NPOV ? Takabeg (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Selam

• Size Türkçe Vikipedi'de mesaj yazdım. Cevap verirseniz sevinirim. Esenlikler dilerim, saygılar...--Gökçe Yörük (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

&

Selam, Takabeg. Turkish people makalesi uzerinde herhangi bir icerik analizi yapilmamakta suan icin. Konuyla ilgilenen hizmetli daha dogrusu maddeyi korumaya alan hizmetli Beeblebrox maddenin icerigi uzerinde calismasi olmadigini soyledi. Suan icin herhangi bir sorun yok. Tesekkurler. —CnkALTDS 19:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Caferilik

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey#Religion, Alevileri Şii'lerin içine katıp, Caferilerden hiç bahsedilmiyordu. Bir referans ekledim, Caferiler 3,000,000 kadar. Kavas (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Niye bana sordun ? Shia Islam maddesinde de ayrım yapılmıyorlar. Ancak tam sayısını bilmiyorum ama Türkiye'de Alevi olmayan Şiiler var. Gerç bazı Aleviler de biz Caferiyiz diyorlar :) Güvenilir kaynaklar varsa iyi olacak. Takabeg (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Ben Aksiyon dergisini buldum şimdi. Kavas (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Bayağı varmış. Başka kaynaklar buluncaya kadar Aksiyon dergisine göre diye yazılırsa iyi olacak, bence. Sünni-sentristler görünce ne diyecekler ? O zaman Alevilerin sayısı 4.5 milyon filan (KONDA öyle diyor) değildir. Takabeg (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Ecevit ve Tekir

Ecevit'in kendisi Kürt değildir. Ancak sülalesi Kürtzade olarak kabul ediliyor. Yani Kürt kökenli. O değişmez. Anne taraf Boşnak mıydı ? Ona bakalım. Birde senin Erdinç Tekir'i Abkhazian descent Turkish citizen yaptığını gördüm de :) Tekir'in kendisi Abhazyadan göç etmedi. Sülalesi Osmanlı döneminde göç etti. Niye citizen ? Takabeg (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Turkish people deyince böyle ataları da Türk/Türkmen ya da Anadolu'nun yerli halkından olup yıllar içinde Türkleşmiş insanlar aklıma geliyor. O zaman Ahmet Türk Turkish people mı oluyor? Kavas (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Asimile olmuşsa Turkish people oluyordur herhalde. Mesela Ecevit Turkish people sayılıyor. Ahmet Türk'e Turkish people demek zordur. Kürt kimliği ön planda. Takabeg (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Original

The Zilan "massacre" is your original research. --Kmoksy (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No. I only transferred from sources including Devletin gözüyle Türkiye'de Kürt isyanları (Kurdish rebellions in the point of view of the government). If you feel that article could be original research you must prove with sources. Not with your own opinion. Takabeg (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Erdinç Tekir

Can you please explain to me why and under what guideline you readded the non free media to the Erdinç Tekir BLp? Off2riorob (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

We saw "Non-free use" medium in other articles at the same situation. I'd asked other user. If you know please explain for us. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You can not use non free media in BLP articles only in extreme situations where getting a picture is impossible like if they are a recluse. Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

By Wikipedia:Deletion of all fair use images of living people ? Takabeg (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No I don't think that is a active article but Wikipedia:Non-free_content pretty much explains. Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tekir.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tekir.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 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 05:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You can delete it now :) Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 05:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Selam Takabeg ne haber? Burada 33-35 milyon kişinin (sadece Türkiye'de) Kürtçe bildiğini görünce gülme krizine girdim. Hiç ilginizi çekti mi acaba?:D--Veritas-tr (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Daha önce düzeltmeye çalıştıysam da takip etmiyorum. Bakın. Kaynaklar aynı ama rakamlar değiştirildi. Farkettiğinde düzeltebilirsin. Sana emanet. Takabeg (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Vikilerde fazla aktif olamadığımdan ilgilenemiyorum şimdilik. Ama şu Kürtçe olayı bombaydı. Türkiye'de Türkçe konuşandan çok Kürtçe konuşan varmış meğer:p İngilizce konusunda da aslında seviyem 2. seviye denebilir ama bir zaman hedef olarak onu 3. seviye yazmıştım oraya:D Hala o kadar ilerleyemedim ama:d--Veritas-tr (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hemen bakıyorsun buraya

Sana benim editlerimi değiştirme demedim mi? Adres verir misin bir yüz yüze konuşalım bu ısrarın hakkında. Tmhm (talk) 11:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No :)) Takabeg (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Takabeg ya o düzeltmeyi geri al ya da adres ver yüzyüze konuşalım. Bekliyorum. Tmhm (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

In English, please

Hi Takabeg. Could I ask you to use English in talk page discussions? Comments such as User talk:Tmhm#Slm may be intended only for the user in question, but talk pages should be readable to any editor taking an interest in the discussion. Please see WP:TPG for the guidelines. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. Takabeg (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Zilan massacre

The article of Zilan massacre on Turkish Wikipedia was redirected to the article "Ağrı ayaklanmaları" and was extracted into a section: "Zilan Ayaklanmaları", not even "Zilan Katliamı". It has no article and also no section, but I think that "Zilan Ayaklanmaları" is not only Zilan massacre, so that section should be expanded. I think if it had an interwiki, that would be the section of "Zilan katliamı" in the article of "Ağrı ayaklanmaları" Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It proves that the transferring information couldn't be performed precisely. Some Turkish users wanted to delete this massacre from the history of Turkey. They insisted to delete information about massacre but not to use the term "massacre". If you want merge to other article, sourced information must be transferred to that article. As you know Zeylan Rebellion is not equal to Zilan Massacre. And Zilan Massacre are much more notable and well-sourced than other articles about massacre, for example tr:Muratağa-Sandallar-Atlılar Katliamı and tr:Taşkent Katliamı. I think these article must be merged to more-comprehensive articles tr:Kıbrıs Harekâtı or tr:Kıbrıs Sorunu. What do you think about it ? I hope you don't participate to the national front :)) Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 08:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The result of the AfD was not either keep the article and delete the article. The user who did the transferring has done it according to the result of AfD. Muratağa-Sandallar-Atlılar Massacre and Taşkent Massacre are more notable than Zilan massacre, they have memorials and every year the commemorated wiyh official commemorations. I will try to improve the article tr:Muratağa-Sandallar-Atlılar Katliamı first, than, I'm planning to improve the other one. If the section of "Zeylan rebellitions" on the Turkish article of "Ağrı rebellitions" may have a sub-section of "Zilan massacre", that would be the English article's interwiki. Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Turkish community merger

Hi. Thanks for performing this merge. It might be an idea to close the discussion here, indicating your rationale for the merge decision. I would do so myself, but I started the discussion so I'm not exactly neutral. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm neutral (I think:)). Takabeg (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Great. In case you weren't aware of how to do it, instructions for closing the debate are here. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The merge has now been reverted by another editor. I suggest that you contribute to the merge discussion and that we try to reach consensus there. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

help

Pls help me on the Hasan Sami Bolak article. User Kibele and her puppets are trying to make the article deleted as they did after a long political campaign in the Turkish wikipedia. You have enough language skills in English to tell people the facts better than me. Pls tell about their lynch campaign that they want to carry into English wikipedia. Thank you. 212.156.67.30 (talk) 08:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Takabeg. You have new messages at CnkALTDS's talk page.
Message added —CnkALTDS 11:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hakkâri. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Kuru (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand rule but he/she is an interwiki puppet who are committing interwiki vandalism. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Takabeg. You have new messages at Nedim Ardoğa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proof ataturk was a Yörük Turkmen

Check this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vOvaHyE4To

Atatürk's family tree

http://www.kanalkultur.com/yolalevi/i...

Yörük Turkmen in Balkan http://balkanpazar.org/yorukler.asp

His ancestors were Turcomans of Karaman who were settled into the Balkans in order to increase the numbers of Turkics in the region.

Profesori turk Enver Behnam Shapolyo shkruan: "Për gjyshërit e Ataturkut kisha pyetur një shok shkolle të Ataturkut, që ka qenë deputet, i quajtur Haxhi Mehmeti. Ai më tha: -Gjyshërit e Ataturkut janë nga komuna e Dibrës, Koxhshëk, të cilët kishin ardhur nga Konja e Anadollit dhe flisnin turqisht, për këtë shkak quheshin edhe "konjarë"...

Mustafa was born as the son of Mr and Mrs Ali Rıza Efendi Turkish and Zübeyde Hanım in Salonika, which was then a part of the Ottoman Empire. It was also home to various peoples in the cosmopolitan Muslims with Jews and Christians lived together peacefully mainly. Mustafa's paternal grandfather, Kızıl Hafız Ahmed was one of the Yörük Türkmen. His mother was the daughter of an old peasant, originally from Konya, Karaman-derived family of the little town Langasa (now Langadas) in Thessaloniki. The parents were married 1871,

"Efendiler, benim atalarım Anadolu'dan Rumeli'ye gelmiş Yörük Türkmenler'dendir " M.Kemal Atatürk

"Gentlemen, my ancestors came from Anatolia to Rumelia is from the Turkmen Yörük " M. Kemal Ataturk

No. If you want please try to prove it with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Your links are not identifyg reliable sources. Kolay gelsin. Takabeg (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Takabeg are you a turk? ataturk claimed hes a yörük turcoman and how can he be jewish or slavs or other??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutuk

Nutuk (Modern Turkish: Söylev) was a speech delivered by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk from 15 to 20 October 1927, addressed to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. The speech covered the events between the start of the Turkish War of Independence on May 19, 1919 and the foundation of the Republic of Turkey, in 1923. It is an important source for the study of Kemalism. It takes 1917 to 1930. It took thirty-six hours (on a 6 day span) to be read by Atatürk.

In this book he wrote:

"Efendiler benim Atatalrım Anadolu'dan Rumeli'ye gelmiş Yörük Türkmenler'dendir" "Gentlemen, my ancestors came from Yörük Türkmens of Anatolia to Rumelia (Balkan)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahindakan (talk • contribs) 13:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

In which volume and page ? Takabeg (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.milliyetciforum.com/atamiz-yoruk-turkmeni-18043.html

Ataturk with Yörük clothes

http://site.mynet.com/kusadali_mirza/325ataturk_efe.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahindakan (talk • contribs) 15:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I know that Mustafa Kemal did't mention it in Nutuk. Takabeg (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

my friend you have to ReEdit Ataturk as a Yörük Turkmen not jews nor albanian nor macedonians —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahindakan (talk • contribs) 15:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

different writers given albanian,anatolian,turk,jew,slavs, and others to ataturk's origin,

ataturk's ancestors was from Konya-karaman his father's father is Kizil Hafiz ahmet not safer efendi, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahindakan (talk • contribs) 17:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

tb

Hello, Takabeg. You have new messages at Nedim Ardoğa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

removal of Category:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

Hi! Would you please specify why you are removing the said category from articles regarding people associated with Atatürk.CeeGee (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

They are nor family nor relative. If we can add that category to articles regarding people, it will not be objektive. For example, Refik Saydam was known as a man of İsmet. Ali Fuat Cebesoy is only his classmate and friend. There are many classmates and friends of Mustafa Kemal. Why did you add category:musafa kemal to the article of Kâzım Karabekir ? He was one of the rivals of Mustafa Kemal adn many ribals and enemies of Mustafa Kemal. In short I've removed that category according to common sence. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The criteria for getting added to that cat should not be solely for his friends or relatives. If someone, who has played an important role in his lifetime, deserves to be added to the cat, whether friend or foe.CeeGee (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no objective criteria. Maybe for you important but for me not important. It must be important for everyone (every reseachers). Takabeg (talk) 08:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please reference that criteria. Thanks.CeeGee (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No. If I could do it I've added that category. When you add that category you can provide references. Otherwise we cannot add that category with our POV. Takabeg (talk) 09:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Your assumption excludes following fact as an example: The article "Kazım Karabekir" has references for his time with Mustafa Kemal but you have removed that cat.CeeGee (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Which references ? Takabeg (talk) 10:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean that all the lines mentioning Mustafa Kemal in that article are without any ref? If so, they all have to be taken out.CeeGee (talk) 10:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want you can do that. I will try to find sources. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ali Fuat Cebesoy

In your recent edits[4], you used "ibid.", which is not used here on wikipedia. Just thought I'd let you know so you can make the appropriate changes. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. Takabeg (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Call for discussion

Hi, Please see the discussion in the The talk page of Battle of Maritsa. Assuming that the battle is Sırp Sındığı in Ottoman chronicles, what is the date of the battle, 1364 as Turkish Wikipedia claims or 1371 as English Wikipedia claims, or were there two battles? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Your contribution to talk page of Battle of Maritsa supports 1371 theory which contradicts Turkish Wikipedia. If so why don't you improve the text in Turkish Wikipedia which places the battle on 1364.? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Uyar said that different battles broke out in Marica (Chernomen). In Turkish Wikipedia tr:Çirmen Muharebesi and tr:Sırpsındığı Muharebesi. Anyway articles in Turkish Wikipedia are not important. Because kaynaksız :) Takabeg (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

turkish people

So What is your problem with the article now? I'm not a mind reader! If there are problems please share them on the discussion page. But I don't see any more disputes.Turco85 (Talk) 08:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not my problem. There are problems of Wikipedia. Please compare them. In that article, Turkish citizens and ethnic Turkish people are confused. And numbers are exaggerated. It's very clear. Takabeg (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Takabeg. You have new messages at Nedim Ardoğa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

We cannot make up figures. We can only use what the references tell us. The footnotes section already says that the figure only includes Turkish citizens so I don't see what your problem is. You seem to forget that just because it only shows citizens it does not make the ethic Turkish population any smaller... The figures does not include ethnic Turks who are born in these countries or those who have been naturalised. The figures also do not include Turks born in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Macedonia, Kosovo, Syria, Iraq or another other traditional areas of Turkish settlement. I don't see you putting dispute tags on other articles which only shows citizen stats- which is in most articles. At least we have a footnote (which no other article has) which clearly states this. Don't place dispute tags if you are not even communicating with other users... I am not a mind reader.Turco85 (Talk) 18:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That article is about ethnic Turkish people. Of course we can/must include Turkish populations abroad. But we mustn't include other ethnic groups of Turkish citizens. It's very clear. Footnotes cannot legitimate these errors. Takabeg (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Then why don't you find the source which only shows the ethnic Turkish population? As I said before at least there is a footnote which says that the figures only include Turkish citizens. There is not much else that I can do. The only thing that I find annoying is that you don't seem to have this same problem with other ethnic group articles. If you look at the Bulgarians, Greeks, Russians, Germans etc etc articles many of these only include citizen figures and the articles do not even mention this. But I don't see you putting dispute tags on these articles. As I keep saying, we have put a footnote which makes it a balanced article; there is not much else that we can do. It is not in our power to interpret these figures differently. Turco85 (Talk) 14:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

We mustn't use and must remove information and sources that define to deal with Turkish citizens. Do you understand ? Takabeg (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Then find source which only shows the ethnic Turkish population first then. But let me ask why have you not got this same problem which other articles which only show citizen stats for? You seem to be very biased. You are obviously pro-Kurdish which I don't have a problem with but you also seem anti-Turkish we I do have a problem with. Turco85 (Talk) 15:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you want to say ? Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Takabeg (talk) 15:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Takabeg, it is not a personal attack and you know that. I observe the contributions which users make including you. You seem to be very pro-Kurdish which I have no problem with. But you also seem anti-Turkish in your edits. I have already said to you that the numbers do not include ethnic Turks from other countries yet you do not seem to care about this. Furthermore, I have pointed out that you do not seem to object to other articles only using stats which shows citizens… you only seem to have a problem with the Turkish people article. We have tried to be neutral in the article by placing a footnote yet you still have problems. What is the solution takabeg? Turco85 (Talk) 15:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

My contributions are especially about Turkey including Turkish, Kurdish etc issues. And I only transfer information from Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. So it's impossible for me to edit with bias. And I tried to neutralize articles. So maybe some users want to edit according to their ethnic bias, I may be seemed to be anti-X, anti-Y. But for users without such biases it is not a question. Takabeg (talk) 16:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes as I have already said I keep track of what many users contribute, including you. As for your sources I don't think you do use reliable sources. For example, you have tried to inflate the number of Kurds by using Joshua Project! However, I do not want to diverge from the main issue here. I suggest you try to work with me and discuss issues. Assume good faith rather than trying to blackmail me by reporting me to admins. All you have done is try to avoid my question to you. Why do you have a problem with the Turkish people article using stats based on citizens which is clearly footnoted yet you haven’t got this same problem with other article which do not even mention that citizen figures include minorities?. Turco85 (Talk) 18:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

To exaggerate the population of the ethnic Turks, shows ethnic Turkish nationalism by itself. Takabeg (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

So Takabeg, you are still avoiding my question even though I have put it in bold font for you. Maybe this discussion is going nowhere as you clearly have no reason. When don't you illustrate to me which figures you believe to be exaggerated? I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as you are clearly trying to create different numbers from statistics. We already have a footnote [for the millionth time!] which says which figures only include citizens... this is not a form of nationalism it is in fact a neutral and accurate statement. Please answer my initial question or just stop wasting my time. Turco85 (Talk) 12:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Artık beni güldürmek için enerjini harcama :) Maddeleri aç. Takabeg (talk) 12:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (look at the following link: [5]) Joshua Project has already been discussed. It is not considered to be a reliable source. Therefore either remove the Joshua Project source from the Kurdish diaspora otherwise I shall.Turco85 (Talk) 12:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Konsensüsün oluşturuludğunu göremedim. Takabeg (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You call me a Turkish nationalist yet you’re the one talking in Turkish. This is English Wikipedia. As part of the Wiki community we are meant to be working together on Wikipedia not against each other. So answer my initial question otherwise I won’t be able to take you seriously. Turco85 (Talk) 12:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking Turkish language doesn't mean Turkish nationalist. I always work with other reliable users. And prevent ethnocentric edits. Takabeg (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this is my last message to you. I have asked you for the following so that we could resolve this dispute:

• Why don't you illustrate to me which figures you believe to be exaggerated?'
• Why do you have a problem with the Turkish people article using stats based on citizens which is clearly footnoted yet you haven’t got this same problem with other articles which also use citizens stats which do not even have a footnote mentioning that citizen figures include minorities?

You have not answered any of my questions therefore I do not see how you are trying to solve the situation.Turco85 (Talk) 12:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I cannot take your massages seriously. You can use discussion pages and read Wikipedia:Harassment. Takabeg (talk) 12:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No Takabeg, why don't you just report me? Either answer my questions and stick to the topic so that we resolve this dispute otherwise stop commuicating with me.Turco85 (Talk) 12:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Sırpsındığı(1364)

Hello! Sırpsındığı is in Edirne province. Chernomen is not in Turkey! "Sırp Sındığı Muharebesi" /Battle of Sırpsındığı (in 1364) Stephen Uroš V of Serbia, Louis I of Hungary (Lajos) and Tvrtko I of Bosnia wanted to attack Edirne... Murad I was in Bursa at that time... Hacı İlbeyi attacked the Serbs at night and beat them... Böri (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Tam olarak Edirnenin neresinde ? Takabeg (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The Battle of Sırpsındığı in Ottoman Turkish: ...nâgâh haber geldi, Sırf leşkeri hücûm itdi didiler. Kasdı Edrene’ye gelmekdür. Kırk Elli Bin mikdârı leşkeri vardur... Sırf leşkeri Edrene’ye yakın gelmiş idi... şimdi ana Sırf Sınduğu dirler...gâziler bir gece tabl-bâz kakup dün basgunı itdi. Sırf leşkeri mağrur olup sarhoş yaturken nâgâh tabl âvâzın ve gâziler ünin işitdiler. “Türk geldi” diyü birbirine dokındılar. Atları ürkdi ve boşandı, bunları çiğnedi. Kâfirler dahı kılıç çeküp birbirin kırmağa başladı. Âhir sınup münhezim olup kaçdılar. Ba’zı râvîler rivâyet ederler kim Sırf leşkerin Hacı İlbeği sıdı dirler... Hacı İlbeğü aydur: “Yoldaşlar nice idelüm” dedi, Yoldaşlar aydur: “Tedbîr sizindir. Siz nice idersenüz eyle idelüm dediler. Andan Hacı İlbeği her yoldaşını bir depeye kodı. Andan bulara ısmarladı. Her kaçan ben tabl-bâz urup haykıram, herbirinüz dahı eyle idün didi. Kendüsi kâfirlerün bir yanına geçüp heman tabl-bâz urup tekbir getürüp bire gaziler koman diyü çağırdı. Çün kâfir leşkeri ol âvâzları işitdi, gördiler kim dört yanların Türk almış, kendüler ara yirde kalmışlar. Hemendem “Türk geldi” diyü birbirine tokuşup, ol orman arasına tağılup birbirine kılıç urdılar. Karanu gice içinde birbirin fark itmeyüp, eyle kırdılar kim vasf olunmaz. Hemandem münhezim olup kaçdılar gitdiler... Lala Şâhin dahı, İlbeği’nün dilâverliğini görüp, ol zaman beğlerine hoş gelmeyüp adâvet bağladılar. Âkıbet hîle ile Hacı İlbeği’yi helâk ettiler.

= my translation: Suddenly a news came (to Bursa*) that the Serbs were coming ... They wanted to capture Edirne. They had 40-50 000 men. The Serbs were near Edirne. Today, this place is called Sırp Sındığı. A small group of Turks (10 000 men*) attacked at night (with mehter!) The Serbian soldiers were high & mighty and drunk! The Serbs shouted: “The Turk came!” (they thought that Murad I was there!*) The horses of the Serbs ran away and killed the Serbian soldiers... At night, the Serbs didn’t see anything and they began to kill their own soldiers! (thinking that they were the Turks!) At the end the Serbs lost the battle... Hacı İlbeği beat the Serbs. Hacı İlbeği said “What will we do, my soldiers!” His soldiers said: “We will do whatever you want” They attacked the Serbs from four directions... The Serbs lost the battle... Most of them ran away to the forest and killed each other there! Lala Şahin Paşa (Beylerbeyi) saw that Hacı İlbeği was a mad man! [Because Hacı İlbeği fought against the Serbs... Lala Şahin Paşa didn’t fight against the Serbs, he was waiting the army of Murad I. Lala Şahin Paşa became the enemy of Hacı İlbeği (The hero of this battle)...]* Hacı İlbeği was killed! (by poison*) Böri (talk) 08:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Önemli olan kaynak göstermektir. Takabeg (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Kaynak olmadan yazılabilir mi? Ben mi uydurdum? :) Kaynak: Anonim Osmanlı Kroniği 1299-1512 (hazırlayan: Necdet Öztürk)Burada da belirteceğim... Böri (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Selçuk Akşin Somel, did not recognize a battle in 1363 or 1364, since the "Historical Dictionary of the Ottoman Empire" only mentions the battle of Chermanon(1371).[6] --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

In which article and pages of that book ? As far as I know, Somel isn't a specialist about medieval history. But you can give this information with sources. Takabeg (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ataturk's religion

What do you think about Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk#Religion Takabeg (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I added my opinion regarding Ataturk's religion. --Tuleytula (talk) 09:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Your recent comment at Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

Hi Takabeg. Your comment has apparently upset Böri, who has tried repeatedly to remove it because it contains the word "donkey". Following a discussion at AN/I, I have reinstated it. Favonian (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

My comment had not upset anybody. According to Cemal Granda, Atatürk said that. I dare say No more censor ! Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

List of high-ranking commanders of the Turkish War of Independence

Oğuzhan. Bu listeye Devlet Mezarlığı ile ilgili bilgileri ekler misin ? Takabeg (talk) 05:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Neleri eklemeliyim? "Cemetery" isimli sütuna kabri Devlet Mezarlığında olanları mı yazayım?--Oğuzhan (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

O sütunu ikiye bölebilir misin acaba ? Orada iki satırlı yapılabilir belki. Belki de ayrı bir sütun açılabilir. Sana bırakıyroum. Takabeg (talk) 11:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Removing the merge templates

Why have you removed the merging templates for Kurds in Turkey and Kurds of Central Anatolia for? They are all in Turkey! I also find it ironic as you wanted to merge Turks in the United Kingdom and Turks in London so badly. Turco85 (Talk) 11:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

There are many books titled İç Anadolu Kürtler v.s. (Kurds of Central Anatolia). And I have them. But I've never seen books titled Turks in the United Kingdom and Turks in London. Takabeg (talk) 12:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Do not remove the templates without discussing the problems. Thank you. Turco85 (Talk) 12:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, please remember the 3 revert rule. Turco85 (Talk) 12:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't remove {{Under construction}}. Please stop harrasment. Takabeg (talk) 12:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Takabeg, I don't think you know what harrasment means. Either work as a team or I will have to ask an admin to resolve these issues. It is up to you.Turco85 (Talk) 12:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That was me yes. But it is not a puppet. I forgot to sign into my account. Turco85 (Talk) 12:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well here are my reasons Kurdish diaspora and Kurdish Population has the same material. Completly duplicated. Turco85 (Talk) 12:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Not same exactly. Kurdish population include the Kurdish people living in Turkey, Iran, Iraq Syria. Takabeg (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That is only 4 countries! You seem to have tried to copy the Turkish population and Turkish diaspora but that is totally different. Until yesterday both the Kurdish diaspora and the Kurdish population articles were exactly the same until I improved the Kurdish diaspora article. There is no need for two articles which both use the exact same sources and say the exact same things.Turco85 (Talk) 12:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Both of Talk:Turkish population and Talk:Turkish diaspora are article with POV and with fake information. Takabeg (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have a problem with them then discuss it on its discussion page. I have tried to resolve that issue with you yet you never answered any of my question before. As for the Kurdish population article it seems as though it has previously been redirected to the Kurdish disapora. The history section illustrates that it is you who has gone against this discussion. Turco85 (Talk) 12:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Kurdish Population and Kurdish diaspora and a more general comment

Please do not do copy and past moves to enforce your opinion. You've already tried to do an end around on proper process once on this issue and now you're trying to do so again. If you wish to change the article title on an emotive topic such as this please use WP:RM. Unattributed copy/paste moves are not allowed on wikipedia as they are against copyright. I understand that some changes were made to Kurdish diaspora but if you were unhappy with them the appropriate action would have been to revert and then possibly discuss - see WP:BRD.

More generally I urge you to discuss things more and help form consensus. Removing the merge tags, discussed above, was not helpful - it didn't mean the article was going to be merged, just that someone wanted to discuss it, something that seemed quite reasonable. I'm sure you're aware of WP:3RR so please abide by it. Dpmuk (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there is no discuss. Only one anti-Kurdish user add template without reason. And about Kurdish diaspora, I think the title must be changed to Kurdish population. Otherwise, some anti-Kurdish users tried to remove information about Kurds in Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria. But their edits are not correct. Because Kurds are living in territories of Turkey outside Kurdistan. For example some Kurdish groups have been in Inner Anatolia some centuries before. They are different from other Kurds who are living in Turkish Kurdisntan and new emigrants from Turkish Kurdistan. In Iran different Kurdish groups who live outside Iranian Kurdistan. I'm not Kurdish but I don't want to allow anti-Kurdism. Our most constructive way is changing title of article Kurdish diaspora to Kurdish people. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is something to discuss. That's how wikipedia works, it's that simple. When users disagree we discuss it. See WP:CON. I'm trying to stay out of the actual arguments themselves and are only getting involved to try to ensure we have consensus and no policies are broken (as you did with an unattributed copy and paste move). I happen to agree that Kurdish population seems the more logical title but given that's based on what I've heard from other user's comments rather than my own research I wouldn't be happy contributing to an attempt to form consensus. Regardless it's clearly an emotive topic and the best way to resolve it, as I said back in August, is to start a requested move discussion so consensus can be formed. Dpmuk (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Takabeg. You have new messages at Nedim Ardoğa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Takabeg. You have new messages at Nedim Ardoğa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Off-wiki canvassing

Turco85 stalked me to User:Cguven's talk page and appears to be canvassing support via email.[7] User:Cguven has been removing referenced information concerning Kurds[8],[9],[10],[11], so if you start to encounter some "new" editors reverting your edits, you'll know why. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Why would I be stalking you? That user messaged me on my user page.Turco85 (Talk) 23:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Abdullah Ocalan

Why did you remove the following fromt the introduction: 'Öcalan has admitted to using violent methods and personally approving organized attacks and executions.'? I have now placed this article on my watchlist and will be keeping an eye on it. I am going to have to make sure that the article is not POV like the Kurdish diaspora used to be.Turco85 (Talk) 23:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you forgot Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. And he was imprisoned because of not brutal.... but by the judgment according to the Turkish Criminal Code (TCK). Please stop your Propaganda. Takabeg (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Is academic references propaganda now? I have used reliable sources, something which I'm starting think you have no clue of.Turco85 (Talk) 23:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You choose especially unneutral sources for example, Abdullah Öcalan, that fit to you Turkish nationalist point of view. If that source were neutral some words such as brutal, bloody etc. couldn't be used. We have common sence. So we know what is propaganda. Wikipedia must not be used as the tool of your propaganda. Takabeg (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh I forgot, the PKK is very peaceful, it's not brutal at all. It's just me being a nationalist Turk like you keep saying [me being sarcastic to lighten the mood]. Takabeg, you should known by now, I am not anti-Kurdish, and all edits which I do on wikipedia are supported by academic references which can also be backed up with other sources. I have placed the report by the Council of Europe which also says that he admits to the PKK having a terrorist nature, it will be interesting to see if you delete this as well. I want to get along with you, but I find many of the your comments to be disrespectful towards me. Please try to get along.Turco85 (Talk) 00:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of your edits are not neutral and harmful. Because the users who control your propaganda may think that other Turkish users or users from Turkey are neutral. Are opinions of the Council of Europe absolute ? For example warns Turkey to embrace valuse. I understan that you want to make and call him "terrorist". But they used the term "terrorist" for their political purposes, just like the concept of State Sponsors of Terrorism. Takabeg (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Give me an example please... I actually find this to be very rude. I have spent hours and hours trying to improve the Kurdish diaspora by adding neutral academic sources, something which you never did before that. You are literally discriminating against me because I am Turkish Cypriot! Stop looking at me as a Turk and start reading the sources!!! Before I even contributed to this article there was already categories on the article including the following:'Terrorism in Turkey'.

I always try to assume good faith. But you seem to be a very biased contributer. Has the PKK not contributed to some 40,000 deaths, including men, women and children [who are civilians]? Is it not true that if an individual wants to leave the PKK they cannot leave the organisation as they wish? Its members who try to leave get tortured or better yet, some have even been killed. And I can show you many many academic sources which say this. Has the PKK not bombed many urban areas in Turkey, including Istanbul [as I recall there was one just a few weeks ago]? I'm assuming that I have read much more about this subject then you have. Feel free to 'support' Ocalan and the things he has done, that is up to you. But please do not bring your own personal beliefs into it.

So what is Ocalan Takabeg? A terrorist or a humanitarian? And please feel free to use reliable sources when answering this question. That is if you answer it.Turco85 (Talk) 08:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't have to define people humanist or terrorist. Your stereotype　and extremist approach is very harmful for neutrality of Wikipedia. Takabeg (talk) 08:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Then why don't you ask for a mediator to get involved and I will show them all the academic references which I have found?Turco85 (Talk) 08:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not stereotyping, a terrorist is a terrorist! Especially one which academics would call a Terrorist, in which case this article has reliable sources.Turco85 (Talk) 09:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

As I stated on Talk:Turkish diaspora I'm trying to stay neutral on this as it's not an area that I know much about, or indeed massively interests me, and instead just trying to offer advice to people so we can have food articles and avoid conflict. I would suggest that whenever you remove a sourced statement you leave a comment giving your reasons - in the edit log if you think you can explain your actions adequately in that space or on the talk page. Removing sourced statements, like the one discussed above, without giving a reason is a sure fire way of winding up other editors and could be seen as being disruptive. Turco85, although I by no means agree with all their actions, has in this instance been offering to supply academic sources to support the statements that you have removed. Your responses seem to suggest that it is your opinion that any sources that will support these statements will be biased, presumably because it doesn't agree with your POV. Whether this is what you think or, as I feel is more likely, you've expressed yourself badly it's making the situation worse as it makes it look like you're POV-pushing and will only accept stuff that you agree with.

You're also helping to make this situation more combative than it has to be by statements like the Council of Europe is not neutral without any discussion of why this is the case. I believe there is a case to be made for the Council not to be neutral in this situation but I don't think it's a given and would need to be discussed before reaching the conclusion it's a biased source. In response to "We don't have to define people humanist or terrorist", your correct no we don't, but if several sources are reporting them to be a terrorist it is probably something that should be commented on unless a good reason is given not to. Of course how we report it and where is also important and open to debate. In short a better explanation of why you take the actions you have and discussing thing in a less POV-pushing way (whether this was delibrate or not) would help this situation greatly. Dpmuk (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I cannot agree with your POV. Council of Europe is political organisation. We can use their statement as source, but we cannot absolutize it. I we want to use it, we have to write According to X, According to Y. Takabeg (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

And that's a fair enough point of view. If you'd posted a reasoning like that on the talk page when you first removed the information things would probably have been a lot calmer. Although I possibly disagree with your view (but as I say I don't know much about the subject so my views should be taken with a very large pinch of salt) it at least gives something to be discussed and this is normally a far less combative and more productive way of making changes. I'm not going to comment further on the issue as I don't know enough about it but your statement above is a good starting point to start a discussion with the knowledgeable editors involved in this as long as you respect their views, back up your statements (preferably by referring to policy/guidelines and/or reliable sources), remember this is a discussion, not an argument, and so try to discuss and not just state views, and finally remember and accept that, at the end of the discussion, consensus may be against you and so the article may have to stay in a state you don't like and personally disagree with. If you discuss things more while bearing these points in mind I'm sure things will go a lot better and we'll end up with a much better article. Dpmuk (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Don't remove

I guess you don't understand what "sourced information" is and what would constitute its removal. Anyone can change anything in "sourced information" as long as the meaning and the facts remain the same. Removing duplicated information that serves no real purpose is not "removal of sourced information". I know policy as well as you do, so if you have an issue, discuss it instead of posting warnings in wiki-jargon like I am a noob. Regards, Constantine ✍ 17:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I understand you removed information.　Anyway you found your mistake and try to fixed. OK. Takabeg (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Takabeg. You have new messages at Nedim Ardoğa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Anticipated controversy

Removal of ethnicity labels from the pages Hezârfen Ahmed Çelebi and Lagâri Hasan Çelebi will surely lead to editing conflict with those with an investment in those associations. Before redacting and assigning a new label, it behooves you to establish your assertion with credible references. Since there is a great deal of material that endorses the supposition of the ethnicity you redacted, I recommend that you cite the original source when arguing for the change.Mavigogun (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

They are Ottomans. According Category:Turkish people, This category includes Turkish citizens of Turkish ethnicity or descent. The claim must be WP:SOURCED in the article or the category will be removed. Now we cannot say Hezârfen Ahmed Çelebi and Lagâri Hasan Çelebi are Turkish. If you have sources about their ethnicity, you can add sources. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Merci

Rica ederim :) Constantine ✍ 15:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Population of Athens during the Ottoman period

The coverage of the Ottoman period in the demographics section is too low and I added some basic info but there should be more[12], so please look for more sources if you can.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have sources about demographics of Athens, now. I'll tell you when I would find such sources. Maybe I can find Thessaloniki's. See you. Takabeg (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

List of formations of the Turkish Army 2008

Dear Takabeg, I'm a wikipedian from New Zealand. I've noticed your great work on Ottoman Empire military formations - it really fills in a gap we don't have much on. I've been trying to work on the present day Turkish Army without much success as it's very hard to use the translation software like Google Translate on Turkish sites. If you could contribute anything to the above article it would be really good. Thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Maybe to form List of formations of the Turkish Army 2010 is easier for us. Because I formed the list in Turkish Wikipedia with using their HQ's phone numbers like this:) and formation were changed. After finishing Ottoman series, I'll try to improve the article. But I don't have sources about them. See you. Takabeg (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The HQ phone numbers are a great source of information. Plus there is all the Turkish newspaper reports that I have trouble reading. Please do make some amendments after you've finished the Ottoman series; thanks fro your help. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits on this. You've obviously looked at 70th Mechanised Infantry Brigade (Turkey); what you may not have noticed is that there's some hidden-at-the-moment badly translated Turkish text from the original article that User:MatthewVanitas and I could not work out. It's only visible if you open the edit box, - it's below the existing text. Would you mind please going back to the original tu-article and taking a look? Also, because the article started in English rather than U.S. spelling, in accordance with WP:RETAIN about maintaining the first variant of WP:ENGVAR I've moved the article back to its original spelling. Hope you don't mind. Kind regards from Aotearoa New Zealand ! Buckshot06 (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. See you. Takabeg (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Please refer to WP:MOSBIO#Opening_paragraph before promoting ethnic nationalism on biographies, like you did on the Yilmaz Guney article. Further violations will be reported. Karfiol (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:MOSBIO before promoting ethnic nationalism on biographies, like you did on the Yilmaz Guney article. Further violations will be reported. Karfiol (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Why warning ? According to reliable sources, Yılmaz Güney was a Kurdish director. As you know, Turkish government removed his citizenship. I've read a news that claimed his rights of citizenship had been returned in 1993. Anyway his ethnic Turkishness was zero. And Turkish citizenship was forgotten. But we can give information about his citizenship problem with sources. Wikiepdia must contribute to the Turkish Ethnocentrism. Please stop anti-Kurdish vandalism. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:MOSBIO#Opening_paragraph and learn how things are done in Wikipedia. In the opening only citizenship is mentioned. Ethnicity may be mentioned in the Personal Life section.

Context (location, nationality, or ethnicity); -In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national (according to each nationality law of the countries), or was a citizen when the person became notable.

Hence a Turkish citizen is called a Turk. If you can show a reference to his Kurdish citizenship, passport etc it may be included. That's a different concept than ethnicity.

If you do not know how to work with rules consult a peer otherwise you will be reported for persistent promotion of ethnic nationalism and vandalism. This is your last warning. Karfiol (talk) 11:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Takabeg, while you are reading warnings from someone that is intolerant of Kurds/Kurdish/etc, take a look at Fatih Akın..... :-D --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

You should add User:Tmhm[13] to that list. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Probably. Merci. Takabeg (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Impressive

Mashallah, your contribution to turkish history articles is phenomonal from modern day to the gokturks you may find this book interesting , its online http://islamic-e-books.com/The_Arab_conquests_in_Central_Asia regards an lushan 81.178.243.48 (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

p.s do you know there is a muslimwiki

Merci for your recommendation. I don't know islamwiki. Good luck. Takabeg (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Şablon

Oğuz rica etsem Template:Kurdish population düzeltebilir misin ? Takabeg (talk) 10:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Birde List of Commanders of the Turkish Land Forces İngilizceleştirirsen iyi olacak. Takabeg (talk) 11:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Vedat Garan ve Faik Türün'ün sicillerinde kullanılan "Mu." neyin kısaltması acaba ? Takabeg (talk) 09:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Bilemiyorum. Aklıma bir şey gelmedi.--Oğuzhan (talk) 09:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm o zaman Turkish Army order of battle (1941)'deki K.Gr. ne olabilir ? Takabeg (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Takabeg, thank you very much for the Turkish Army OB in 1941 article and your Ottoman warships articles as well. It's really helpful, useful information. Is it possible to find citations for the 2010 orders of battle for First Army? Thank you very much again. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you want a reflist template in the Late Otoman military ranks template?

I added a {{reflist}} template here, but then I wondered if it might get transcluded across many articles, so I reverted myself. Does it need the template? Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to show that link as sources in related articles (Mirliva, Ferik (rank) etc.). Do you have any good ideas ? Takabeg (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Takabeg. You have new messages at Reaper Eternal's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Suraj Abdurrahman#References

Did you see the reference header at the bottom of this page? Not sure whether you saw that at the bottom. Anyway kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you accept that web site as Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources ? Takabeg (talk) 09:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Normally, no. Let me explain why I put it in. The pdf copy looks very like a standard Commonwealth army listing of a senior officer's dates and details of service. The other thing I should explain by e-mail; is your 'e-mail this user' enabled? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Takabeg. Can you make something clear for me? The corps/brigade/regiment list in First Army (Turkey) for 2010. Did you get that out of the Istanbul phonebook? Please make this clear either by answering here or by e-mail. Kind regards from Aotearoa, Buckshot06 (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, in accordance with WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME, I think the Turkish Army Corps should be 3rd Corps, 4th Corps, 5th Corps, not III Corps, IV Corps, V Corps. What do you think? Buckshot06 (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Valla I don't know :) About Ottoman era, specialists pretend I Corps, II Corps to 1st Corp, 2nd Corp. But today Turkish Armed Force uses 3rd Corps stile for modern Turkish corps. According to it, in Wikipedia 3rd Corps (Turkey) can be used. And some researchers also use 5th Cavalry Corps (one of the corps during the War of Independence). I think if there is no objection you can change the styles of the naming of Turkish (not Ottoman) corps. See you. Takabeg (talk) 07:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire Barnstar

		Ottoman Empire Barnstar
		Awarded for valuable contributions to WikiProject Ottoman Empire, in particular for your excellent work in creating and expanding a multitude of articles on Ottoman military history. Aferin! Constantine ✍ 17:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, "transferring basic information from printed materials to Wiki" is about 80% of what any article-writing is about ;). The reward is for taking the time and making the effort to find the sources and write the articles. Furthermore, like Buckshot below, I too consider that you are filling an important gap and that you help reduce systemic bias... Cheers, Constantine ✍ 01:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Barnstar

I, User:Buckshot06, hereby award you, Takabeg, this barnstar for your extensive contributions to WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, in regard to Ottoman and Turkish military articles. Keep up the good work!

Buckshot06 (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Takabeg, congrats on all your great work! The thing with the corps number is that Tu:wiki uses tr:4. Kolordu (Türkiye), for the only corps article so far. Is this the same formation as IV Corps (Ottoman Empire) - no significant changes over the years? Buckshot06 (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

As for the corps numbers, what do the KKK themselves use? 4. Kolordu? 4inci Kolordu? 4nci Kolordu? Since we have no corps articles on En:wiki so far (though your Ottoman corps articles link very well!), we can get the exact style the KKK actually uses in place before we start creating the modern corps articles. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for award and your kindness. But I only transfer basic information from printed materials to Wiki. tr:4. Kolordu (Türkiye) was not same as Ottoman IV Corps. Because it was dissolved in the end of WWI. Although some military formation have historical continuities with same numbered formations of the Ottoman Empire. For example First Army (Ottoman Empire)-First Army (Turkey), XV Corps (Ottoman Empire)-15th Corps (Turkey)-15th Infantry Division. But they are not same formation precisely. So I think that we had better explain them in other articles. And I will tell you when I would research about usages of KKK. They are also too inconsistent. See you. Takabeg (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

But I would have to go to Istanbul to get those books, and I would have trouble translating the Turkish apart from the unit designations even if I did! What you're doing is fantastic; take Iraq Area Command (Ottoman Empire) for example. Now we can link that to the Desert Mounted Corps and the Arab Revolt and all kinds of things!! Buckshot06 (talk) 08:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Tricky issue

Takabeg, I would like to ask a favour. Would you please consider reviewing my edits at Genocides_in_history#Turkish_government_position, and telling me what you think; whether I need to change any wordings etc. I would very much appreciate your help. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

About this issue, I have added in Armenian Genocide#Republic of Turkey and the Genocide.

According to Kemal Çiçek, the head of the Armenian Research Group at the Turkish Historical Society, in Turkey there is no official thesis on the Armenian issue. Türk Tarih Kruumu

Takabeg (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Made some changes to Turkish Navy. Please cite the two cite-needed tags in the history section as soon as possible. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Merci. Maybe he/she is User:Shiham K :) Takabeg (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand you're inserting refs quickly, but please ensure there is an English-language title of the work as well as the Turkish there eventually. Warm regards Buckshot06 (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

For Your Information (FYI) I've created TCG Gelibolu as a set index page. Viva ANZACs! [14] Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Merci. ¡Viva España! Takabeg (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Special Movement

What is the significance of this redirect to the article you linked it to? Thanks!BLUE_DOG^TN 06:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I only fixed name. Takabeg (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you did now.BLUE_DOG^TN 06:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hatt-ı Hümayun

Hi Takabeg. The article Hatt-ı Hümayun is ambiguously named and will have to be renamed. I am working on an article on the technical meaning of "Hatt-ı Hümayun" at User:İnfoCan/work. I am confused by one topic. Would you happen to know why the 1856 edict is called the Hatt-ı Hümayun? Did the sultan handwrite it himself? Or am I misunderstanding something? --İnfoCan (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)--İnfoCan

Hatti-Humayun (about technical meaning of Hatt-ı hümayûn) diye bir madde varmış. 1856 yılınki, 18 Şubat 11 Cumâda-l âhire, Pazartesi Gülhâne Hattının ahkâmını te'yid ve tevsî' eden Istlâhat Hattı-ı Hümâyûnu. Yani kısaca "Islâhat Hatt-ı Hümâyûnu" veya "Islâhat Fermânı". Takabeg (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Tamam da, eğer 'hatt-ı hümayun', padişahın eliyle yazdığı bir resmi evrak demekse, Islahat hatt-ı hümayun denmesinin nedeni, onun tamamını eliyle yazdığı için mi? Yoksa bir katibe yazdırılmış da Padişah kenarına bir not mu düşmüş? Metnin sonunda Sadrazamına emir veriyor, bu kuralları uygulatacaksın diye, o yüzden mi? Onu merak ediyorum, İnternet'te bulamadım. Bu konuda elinde basılı kaynak var mı? --İnfoCan (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

A. Alâaddin Çetin, Başbakanlık Arşivi, Başbakanlık Arşivi Kılavuzu, Enderun Kitabevi, 1979, p. 12. nasıl ? Takabeg (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Orada yazan benim için yeni değil, zaten o bilgiyi yazdım User:İnfoCan/work'te. Benim sorum özellikle Islahat fermanı hakkında, onun neden "Islahat hatt-ı hümayunu" olarak adlandırıldığını merak ediyorum. Yani acaba "beyaz üzerine hatt-ı hümayun" muymuş, yoksa "unvanına hatt-ı hümayun" muymuş? --İnfoCan (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

İstediğin Nitekim 1856 de ilân edilen Islahat Fermanı; Âli Paşa ile istanbul'daki Fransız ve ingiliz elçileri tarafından hazırlandı. İsmail Hakkı Uzunçarşılı, Enver Ziya Karal, Osmanlı Tarihi, 6. Cilt, p. 23. mü ? Takabeg (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Perde arkasında öyle olmuş olabilir ama resmen öyle açıklanmamıştır. Yani sadrazamın padişaha sunduğu bir belgenin üzerine padişahın "mûcebince amel oluna" yazması gibi değil olay. Aklıma üç olasılık geliyor: 1) "Hatt-ı Hümayunla Müveşşeh Ferman" (terim yazmakta olduğum maddede açıklanmış) olabilir; 2) bir katibe yazdırmayıp kendisi kaleme almış olabilir, yani "beyaz üzerine hatt-ı hümayun" olabilir; 3) (Gülhâne Hattının ahkâmını te'yid ve tevsî ettiği ifadesinden yola çıkıyorum), Gülhâne Hattı üzerine eklenmiş bir belge (rescript) olarak sayıldığı için hatt-ı hümayun denmiş olabilir mi? (rescript kelimesinin yanlış kullanılmış olduğunu zannediyoum ama belki de yanılıyorum.) --İnfoCan (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Sorumun cevabını buldum [15]. --İnfoCan (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

İyi. Sevindim. Alakasız konu ama hazırladığın metinde yer alan Kaymakam Mısır'da albay için mi kullanıldı mı ? Türkiye'de yarbay için kullanıldı da... Takabeg (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Kaymakam maddesindeki "lieutenant colonel" Türkçe yarbay demek [16]. Albay nerden çıktı? Osmanlıcadaki anlamı da yarbay [17]. --İnfoCan (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Maddenin üstte sağdaki tabloya, U.S. Army equivalents'e baktın mı ? Colonel diyor. Tablo doğru mu ? Takabeg (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yanlış olmalı. --İnfoCan (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Bitti: Hatt-i humayun (government document).

Ayrıca Template_talk:Did_you_know#Hatt-i_humayun_.28government_document.29 olarak aday gösterdim.

--İnfoCan (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Eline sağlık. Takabeg (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Iraqi Turkmen

Hello Takabeg, unfortunately you seem to be using references incorrectly [again]. Please read them carefully:

• Ershat Hurmuzlu [18] says the following on page 3: 'The Iraqi government adjusted its numbers in response to the successful 1958 revolution and, in 1959, admitted to a Turkoman population of 567,000'.
• H. Tarık Oğuzlu [19] has not even said that Iraqi Turkmen make up 136,800 of the Iraqi population! In fact, what it says on page 313 is the following:'In Demirci’s study, the 1957 census puts the Iraqi population at 6,300,000 and the Turkoman population at 567,000'.
• Fazıl Demirci on page 5 says the following: 567,000!!

I Don't think you are reading the references properly. As for the google book search you have done, I cannot rely on that because I cannot read the entire sentence as you have given a limited view to the source.

So please stop trying to manipulate a census takabeg. If you are not happy with the amount of sources I--94.120.44.129 (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)--94.120.44.129 (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC) have used, I can provide you with much more.Turco85 (Talk) 11:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just gained access to Scott Taylor's work [your google book search]; if you carry on reading it [which I assume you have not], it says the following 'the Turkmen registry stood at 567000 — an increase of more than 400 per cent from the previous year's total...' Turco85 (Talk) 11:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

567.000 was the number in the study of Fazıl Demirci. Original number was 138600. Sensus was also disputed. We must transfer information according to Neutral point of view. Takabeg (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I have just shown you that all your sources do not claim what you say they do. You are POV-pushing which in unacceptable. Until you find sources which say what you claim, your contributions will be reverted.Turco85 (Talk) 12:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is my question for you, above I have highlighted how all the sources claim 567,000. So why have you placed these sources back into the article for?Turco85 (Talk) 12:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

We know this issue, both official number and Demirci's claim are biased. And I only try to stop your propaganda activities. Takabeg (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

lol, I invite everybody on wikipedia to look at my contributions! Every edit that I do has academic sources. I pride myself in the work that I have done. You can insult me as much as you wish, I will not fall to your level. It is in fact the source which you have proved which shows that Iraqi Turkmen make up 567,000 of the Iraqi population, you just never read the sources properly. Every souce you have provided says that there was 567,000 Turks in Iraq. I don't see what your problem is. Turco85 (Talk) 12:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I found this article in the Wayback Machine, the arguments it makes against the pro-Turkoman/Turkish numbers (in the References and footnotes section at the end) are interesting. Following WP:NPOV, in controversial cases such as this we need to present and discuss all claims. --İnfoCan (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Merci. But nationalists cannot accept alternatives. Demirci, Hürzümlü, Oğuzlu hepsi Türk. Oğuzlu'nun güzel tarafı 312-313 sayfalarında According to Demirci and many other Turkish and Turkoman scholars the, In Demirci’s study' şeklinde alıntı yapabilmesi. p. 87 1957 sayımının ilk resmi sonuçlarõna göre 136 800 Türk bölgede yaşamaktaydı. Irak hükûmeti gayrı-Arap unsurları düşük göstermeye çalışmış olabilir (büyük ihtimalle öyledir) ama 1957 Census dediğimiz zaman ilk olarak bunu gösgerdikten sonra ilaveten diğer görüşler (mesela Demirci'nin iddiası)in eklenmesi doğru ve normaldir. Değil mi ? Takabeg (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Merhaba dostum. Madde o kadar oturaklı, kaynaklı, kayda değer olmasına rağmen bazı bilinen kişilerin silmeye kalkmaları çok çirkin bir davranıştı. Size haber vereyim dedim. Sonunda Siz zaten gereğini yapmışsınız. Teşekkür ederim. HSB

Ganbot hakkında hatt-ı hümayun

File:Ii-abdulhamidin-hatti.jpg hatt-ı hümayununu okudun mu? Padişah'ın isteği yerine getirilmiş midir acaba? :-)

--İnfoCan (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

List of gunboats of the Ottoman Empire'ya baktığım kadarıyla 1893 veya 1894'de sipariş verilen bot görünmüyor. Bulursam seni haberdar edeceğim. Takabeg (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for removing the vandalism. --Nlu (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Osmanlıca?

Arapça harfleri okuyabiliyor musun? Hatt-i humayun (government document) maddesinin tepesindeki resmin açıklaması doğru mu? --İnfoCan (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Arap harfleri okurum da manuscriptler bana zor geliyor. Belki bu kullanıcı rahatlıkla okuyabilir. Takabeg (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Osmanlıca?

Arapça harfleri okuyabiliyor musun? Hatt-i humayun (government document) maddesinin tepesindeki resmin açıklaması doğru mu? --İnfoCan (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Arap harfleri okurum da manuscriptler bana zor geliyor. Belki bu kullanıcı rahatlıkla okuyabilir. Takabeg (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Kaynak olarak kullanılan siteye baktım. Ona göre,

Mansûrum olmuştur.

İşbu hülâsada inhâ ve sürhde beyân olduğunu vechile zikr olunan hitâbetler tevcîhâtının icrâsına ve müceddeden minber vaz'ıyla ikâme-i

salât-ı Cum'a ve ıydına ibtidâr olunsun.

Fakat Eid ile alakalı mı gerçekten ?

Bu yazı 18 January 1860 tarihinde yazıldıysa......

1860 yılının Eid ul-Fitr (Ramazan Bayramı) bayağı ileride

Ramazan ayının son günü = Rumi 9 April 1276, Miladi 21 April 1860.

Aynı yılın Eid al-Adha (Kurban Bayramı) taaa ileride

Zilhicce ayının onuncu günü = Rumi 17 June 1276, Miladi 29 June 1860.

İlla Eid'de mi sür'atle başlayacak ? Belki öyledir de

... vazia ikâme-i salât-ı Cum'a va'idi ibtidâr olunsun. olabilir mi ?

Takabeg (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Transkripsiyon yanlış yapılmış olabilir, iyi düşündün, ama "va'id"in anlamını [20] bu cümleye oturtamıyorum. --İnfoCan (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

salât-ı cum'a ve salât-ı îdeyn diye bir tabir varmış.

burada da ikame-i salât-i Cuma ve ideyni...

Takabeg (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

salât-ı cum'a ve salât-ı îdeyn diye bir tabir varmış.

burada da ikame-i salât-i Cuma ve ideyni...

Takabeg (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yani bayram namazı demek [21], değil mi? --İnfoCan (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

İki bayramın. Takabeg (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk Back

Hello, Takabeg. You have new messages at CnkALTDS's talk page.
Message added —CnkALTDS 22:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Roman Numerals for Ottoman Armies in Jerusalem Battle 1917 article

Hi, I noticed you changed these to Arabic - is this more correct? :) --Rskp (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey Roslyn, Elinize sağlık (health to your hand). As far as I know, about the Ottoman and Turkish units, Roman numerals were used for corps, and Arabic were used for divisions, (sometimes for field armies). Off course, we can also see VII Army but most of researchers prefer Seventh Army or 7th Army to VII Army. But if you want to use VII Army, you can use. Because we cannot say that VII Army is wrong usage. However, we would refer to some corps in that article, Roman numerals may cause confusion. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Quickly, WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME says "Names should generally follow the stylistic conventions used by the service or country of origin. For example, while US and British usage has spelled-out numerals for army-level formations and Roman numerals for corps, editors writing about different countries should follow those countries' normal usages; thus, "3. Panzer Armee" becomes "3rd Panzer Army", and "18-ya Armiya" becomes "18th Army"." Hope that helps. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want, you can explain to Roslyn. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 05:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Maroon Berets

Are the Maroon Berets the four Army commando brigades? If they're not part of the army, which service are they part of? Buckshot06 (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

A part of TSK. Bordo Bereliler are consisted of officers and junior officer from various forces. Takabeg (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Mustafa

Can. Sende Mustafa var mı ? Ve görüntü dosyalarından iyi anlar mısın ? Mümkünse o belgeselin 1:04:18 - 1:04:51 kısmını (Nureddin, Mustafa Kemal, Kâzım Karabekir ve Fevzi) kesip düzelttikten sonra Commons'a yükleyebilir misin ? Zor bir iş mi acaba ?

Birde gemileri List of naval steamships of the Ottoman Empire, List of patrol vessels of the Ottoman Empire, List of miscellaneous naval ships of the Ottoman Empire olmak üzere üç listeye sıkıştırmıştım. Fakat sanki başlıkları uygunsuz (daha doğrusu ahenksiz) gibi. Önerin var mı ? List of major warships in the late Ottoman Empire (Navy). List of small warhips in the late Ottoman Empire. List of miscellaneous naval ships of the Ottoman Empire. Takabeg (talk) 09:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Mustafa yok, Veda vereyim mi? :-) Aslında olsaydı dahi istediğini yapabileceğimden emin değilim, muhtemelen kopya kontrollüdür.

Gemi listelerini istersen Naval ship classes, Auxiliary Ships and Coast Guard gibi düzenleyebilirsin. Yani savaş amaçlı, savunma amaçlı ve destek gemiler. Eğer "Naval ship classes" fazla büyükse gemi tiplerine göre bölebilirsin, battleships, cruisers, destroyers, frigates gibi. Category:Lists of ships by country'ye baktın mı? --İnfoCan (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Not:List_of_miscellaneous_naval_ships_of_the_Ottoman_Empire maddesindeki tabloları birleştireceksin değil mi? --İnfoCan (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Birleştirsek iyi olacak. Sınıflar olunca birleştirilemiyor da o listede yoktur herhalde. Ayrıca List of Turkish Navy ships'deki format ile hazırlayacağım. Takabeg (talk) 05:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Bunu da bölsek mi ? Takabeg (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Anlamadım, bölmek değil silmek lazım o sayfayı. O sayfadaki her liste zaten Category:Turkish Navy lists ve Category:Lists of ships of Turkey 'e dahil, sayfanın var olması için bir neden yok.

Bölmüştüm ve o da kalıntı. Takabeg (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Diğer bir konu: Hatt-ı Hümayun of 1856'ya neden {{merge}} koydun? Tamamen farklı kavramlar, birleşmeleri için bir neden göremiyorum. --İnfoCan (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hatti-Humayun maddesi (çok kısa ama)nde de aynı şey anlatılıyor değil mi ? Birleştirildikten sonra Hatti-Humayun başlığının Hatt-ı Humayun maddesine yönlendirilmesi gerekiyor, bence. Takabeg (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Pardon, haklısın. Hatti-Humayun maddesi ile Hatt-i humayun maddelerini karıştırdım. --İnfoCan (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Tam "Cümbüş Donanması" oldu...

Tebrikler... Yok mu ekleyecek başka bir hırsızlık, kaçakçılık, skandal, rezalet, vesaire?

Bu arada, savaştan önce bize ait olan cephaneler için "çaldılar" kelimesini kullanmışsın ki, tek kelimeyle iğrenç ve atalarımıza hakaret. Memleket işgal altında bile olsa, savaştan önce bize ait olan cephaneleri "çalmadık" biz. Kendine ait olan birşeyi çalamazsın.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.249.212.233 (talk • contribs)

Ayrıca, Yavuz, Turgut Reis ve Mecidiye gibi gemiler, Cumhuriyet döneminde onarılıp uzun süre kullanıldılar. "Out of service" yazıp bırakmışsın, sanki Cumhuriyet döneminde hiç kullanılmamışlar gibi. Bu arada, savaştan önce bize ait olan cephaneler için "çaldılar" kelimesini kullanmışsın ki, tek kelimeyle iğrenç ve atalarımıza hakaret. Memleket işgal altında bile olsa, savaştan önce bize ait olan cephaneleri "çalmadık" biz. Hırsız değildir Türk milleti. 85.107.79.116 (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Kaynaklarda öyle terim kullanılıyor. Steal hoşuna gitmezse smuggle ile değiştirebilirsin. Smuggle ise çalmak değil gizlice çıkarmak demektir. Herşeyden önce Çingenelerden özür dile. Takabeg (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Hi Takabeg. Please cite your sources and add them to User talk:Buckshot06#Re:Iraqi Turkmens where User:Turco85 has placed the sources supporting his position. I can only check the sources if they're given in full. I will make my decision based upon the quality of the sources provided. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hezarfen

Şunları biliyorsun değil mi ? [22], [23]. Çelebileri halledek ? Takabeg (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

List of Turkish Navy ships listesindeki Kurtarma Grup Komutanlığına Bağlı Gemiler in İngilizcesi nedir ? Birde şey diyecektim: Türkçe Vikideki Kafkas İslam Ordusu ile Army of Islam (Ottoman Empire) kıyaslar mısın ? Niye bu kadar farklı ? Takabeg (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Selam, İngilizcem madde yazacak kadar iyi değil maalesef. Kafkas İslam Ordusu maddeleri arasında ne gibi farklılıklar gördün?--Oğuzhan (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Farkedemedin mi ? Bağlı olan tümenler bile farklı :) Takabeg (talk) 13:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

selam

Merhabalar Takabeg, öncelikle umarım iyisindir. 2 aylık engellemen bittiği için sevindim ve Türkçe vikipediye dönersin diye bekliyordum. Ancak görüyorum ki İngilizce vikide aktifsin, dönecek misin acaba?Ertly (talk) 09:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Selam. Burada da çok işim var. İyi çalışmalar. Takabeg (talk) 13:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Merhaba

Günaydın efendi. I thank you greatly for bringing those three articles to my attention. After skimming through them, I have two serious objections: 1) the sources used, almost all originating from Azerbaijani websites which have a track record for obfuscation and distortion, can hardly be considered to be neutral or reliable 2) even if they mentioned in one or two sources, they lack real notability and it seems difficult to justify the existence of the separate articles which have been created thus far. I will bring this to the attention of an editor who has some experience in these matters. Best, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Why did you changed ataturk's early life again?

Watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXMjGwBhMcw

which this video was created by me and i found many proof that he was Yörük Turkman!

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,726976,00.html#ixzz18pnedDGl

Kemal is pure Turk (not, as some have said, a Jew) and has proved to the whole world that he is the core of Modern Turkey.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,726976,00.html#ixzz19K5bw025

and change it to ataturk's early Lfe now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahindakan (talk • contribs) 14:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You can read Talk:Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. The term Pure Turkish (Saf Turk) is neither scientific nor academic.　This term belongs to Turkish nationalists. Takabeg (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

well dude how come some peoples changed ataturk's origin as slavic and albanian and jewish On Wikipedia then??

there is No proof that ataturk being an jew nor albanian

and did you saw my video? and u can see some Yörük turkman in debre/Kocacik like ali riza efendi came from there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahindakan (talk • contribs) 02:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you know who wrote that article in Time ? Ataturk's mother and fathers origins are ambiguous, especially his fathers. But Aatürk himself is Turkish. But what is pure Turkish ? Takabeg (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

http://arkasokak.net/mustafa-kemal-ataturk/34695-ataturkun-dayisi-ve-yasayan-akrabalari/

which has all the details on the site for ataturks family and so on

also you have to watch this about his ancestor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uFhX3pFicI

Dont believe to some Propaganda that ataturk were an jew,slav,or albanian

ataturk himself is turkish and Yörük turkman

"Efendiler, benim atalarım Anadolu'dan Rumeli'ye gelmiş Yörük Türkmenler'dendir " M.Kemal Atatürk

"Gentlemen, my ancestors came from Anatolia to Rumelia is from the Turkmen Yörük " M. Kemal Ataturk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahindakan (talk • contribs) 17:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hasan Sami Bolak

Just wanted to let you know that I have nominated the article Hasan Sami Bolak for deletion. Your contribution to the discussion would be appreciated. Regards. Pinar (talk) 05:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Turkish Wikipedia

Hi, I saw your comment in the recent Arbitration request concerning Atabey. "As long as I know, in Turkish Wikipedia, Atabəy is known as a notorious propagandist with his POV of the Azerbaijani state nationalism. In Turkish Wikipedia we decided to delete these articles about unnotable massacres. In English Wikipedia he repeated same propaganda". I'm interested in finding out how articles can seriously differ between Wikipedias, and the influences that can make them different. Maybe, if you are willing, in the future we could discuss this, and you could point me to some Turkish wikipedia articles whose edit histories and talk pages reveal the conflicts. Sorry for this IP signature, I just made an account today, but have almost immediately forgotten the password! 93.97.143.19 (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Greco-Turkish War

Hi, if you have time for it, could you keep an eye on the Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922) article, as it is often the case some Greek or Turkish nationalist would visit such articles from time to time, trying to impose their nationalist views by force. Now there is one. Thanks, allbest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.185.14.9 (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Pers Şövenizmi

Hocam türklerle ilgili maddelere katkı yaptığınızı gördüğüm için buraya yazıyorum. Buradaki pers şövenizminin farkında mısınız? tajik isimli kullanıcı başta olmak üzere organize bir şekilde türklerle ilgili maddelere saldırıyorlar. Her şeye kaynak olarak gösterdikleri Encylopedia Iranica ne kadar tarafsız bir kaynak acaba? Discussion bölümlerinde türkleri aşağılıyorlar, osmanlı imparatorluğu'nun bile turco-persian olarak gösterilmesini istiyorlar ki roma'nin devamı olduğunu düşünür çoğu kişi. Siz Xiongnu ve Hunlari türk olarak görmüyorum diyorsunuz ama onlar bütün türk imparatorluklarını ve imparatorları persianate ve turco-persian yapmış durumdalar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpluskx (talk • contribs) 23:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

User: Alpha Beta Gaga

Bu [sayfada] Kansas Bear adlı terörist grupları destekleyici editler yapan bir kulanıcıya karşı kendini savunan birisi var. Bu arkadaşı nasıl destekleyebiliriz? Bu Kansas Bear nereye şikayet edilebilir. Alpha Beta'nın iddia ettiğinden daha fazla düşmanca çalışmaları var bu kullanıcının. Wiki'de şikayet düzeni nasıl işler? teşekkürler.--Cupcaker (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

List of patrol vessels of the Ottoman steam navy

I've suggested a couple of minor changes to your page: List of patrol vessels of the Ottoman steam navy.Mickmct (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Merhaba/Selam

Hi, I don't speak Turkish but you seem like an ubiased person. Can you take a look at the articles Medes in the Turkish Wikipedia? See here: [24]? I think accuracy should be a concern and some of the same users tried to insert these unreliable sources in Persian wikipedia but they failed. Now Turkish Wikipedia is an easier target since no one knows as much about the Medes and also the people that tried to manipulate Persian Wikipedia speadk the language well. Thank you--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Haha :)) I look at this edit. Version of Melikov is better. But Version of Erdarion is Azeri POV pushing edit. Maybe they confused Old Azari language with Azeris. I reccomend you to consult with User:InfoCan and/or User:Noumenon. Takabeg (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I know it is sort of humarous, but imagine someone who has no knowledge of the issue! I did wrote in the talkpage of InfoCan in Turkish wikipedia, but I do not speak Turkish well (I have picked up alittle in recent years here and there, but far from anything useful). If you can, please keep an eye on it--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Merhaba again. I do not know Turkish, but the guys you mentioned did not seem to edit the article Medler article again, and the admins there (who might not be knowledge) are supporting their psuedo-science. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately some users (including some admins) in Turkish Wikipedia confuse neutral point of view with accepting pseudohistory. But most users know these problems. About discussion page of Medler, Melikov think his edits abnormal. Melikov wrote that there is no scholar who claims such theory in Azerbaijan (Baku). There are many articles like this in Turkish Wikipedia. For example tr:İskitler :)) Takabeg (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I am glad your active in English wikipedia.. usually Iranian scientists and poets such as Nasir al-Din Tusi, Biruni, Avicenna, Parthians, Medes, Scythians and Persian poets who lived in era before formation of an other ethnic groups (e.g. Turkish-Azeri was formed in the 14th/15th century) are are targed by the same type of groups.. [25] ..Khaqani, etc.

Siege of Van

What an excellent idea. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Dispute tagging

Hi Takabeg, Are you proposing to move the title of Historic states represented in Turkish presidential seal? If so why don't you start the discussion ? Happy editting. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Category name

Hello Takabeg! On the issue of the Category:Greek military personnel of the Turkish War of Independence, I think we should move it to Category:Greek military personnel of the Greco-Turkish War of 1919–1922, as "Turkish War of Independence" represents rather the Turkish POV on the conflict. Constantine ✍ 09:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

For me it's not serious problem. It's just like Category:British military personnel of the American Revolutionary War, Category:British military personnel of the Russian Civil War etc. But if you want you can change. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the issue is chiefly that the "Turkish War of Independence" is a much wider conflict than the Greco-Turkish War itself, and categories should reflect the naming of the primary article. What I mean by POV (aside from the "independence" part ;)) is that to the Turks, the Greek front was a part of something wider, while for the Greeks, it was a war in itself. Constantine ✍

List of campaigns of Suleiman the Magnificent

Hi you were not around. Any problem in Turkish Wiki ? Anyway let me talk about your accusation of Ottomanphille. You were not sure if I were one. Well I am not. (Why to admire a monarch who killed his two sons and Piri Reis ) But this is an encyclopaedia and there is no point to follow feelings. I created the article and I never thought to classify the campaigns as Victory or defeat. That was Kebata's doing. But while defining defeat he used opinions. Lets look at the defeats . In 1529 Suleyman captured Buda, expelled all Austrians out of Hungary. He tasked a junior commander to enthrone Zapalya. Is this defeat ? Sure, he also tried to capture Vienna in vain. But still that was not a defeat. Because nobody chased him and he returned home with much booty. My two main sources Hammer and Iorga don't call this a defeat. Maybe unclear outcome at most. The same with the campaign of 1537. There although Corfu was not captured, many forts at the Adriatic cost were captured. While returning home nobody chased Suleyman. This is certainly not a defeat. (Please compare these campaigns with the campaign of 1683 which was certainly a defeat) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of Ottomanphille. You can read my message.. I said I don't Nedim is whether Ottomanphille or not. Many Ottomanphille fiends of mine are only reason to change the term "Suleiman's military defeat" to "Suleiman's military failure". As I've said before, you'd better edit (and discuss) with showing sources. Türkçe Bilgi Net is not identified reliable source. Like Wikipedia, Armenipedia, Konapedia. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Please check the sources of this article. I didn't use Türkçebilgi for this article. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Takabeg, and thank you very much for your help with List of campaigns of Suleiman the Magnificent. From the first day when I started editing this article, I was constantly "sabotaged". Nedim is acting as the owner of this particular article, and he disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Just because he created the article, he thinks that it has to be his way, no matter what the sources saying. And he refuse to discuss. I am very frustrated, especially after all hard job I have put into this article. All inline citations were inserted by me, and he refuse to present sources saying "...But we should be careful with the sources. They are not always reliable...". Anyway, thanks again for your help. I really appreciate this.--Kebeta (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately Nedim continued to edit with his POV. If he would show Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources we can control them. But he don't want to do so.... Takabeg (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This is amazing. As I have said on ANI, I don't think this has anything to do with Suleiman's military success or failure, this is about me (or somebody else) editing "his" article. Amazing. --Kebeta (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Featured list candidates

Takabeg, thanks for additional references. However, Nedim doesn't dispute that Suleiman failed to capture Vienna, but he doesn't see that as a failure. So, no matter how many sources you provide, that won't be enough. Anyway if you could take a look here. I have tryed to put your references in section "References". But, since they are in Turkish, maybe it would be better if you fix this. All inline citations and references have to have same style per FL criteria. Anyway, I would like very much that our cooperation give a final touch to this article. Any suggestions how to further improve the article, are more than welcome! Regards, Kebeta (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The list looks good. I hope Nedim also find and show sources. Maybe he will find some sorces to support his argument. Maybe he won't find them. Let's see. Takabeg (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

TAF

Thanks Takabeg. Can you find a reference for the stated role of the Turkish Chief of General Staff? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Federal Research Division, Turkey: A Country Study, Kessinger Publishing, 2004, ISBN 9781419191268, p. 337. Is it too old ? Takabeg (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Takabeg. You have new messages at Nedim Ardoğa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re

I fully agree on the Ottoman Air Force issue, Ottoman military aviation or Ottoman air forces (to cover the Navy) would be better. On the vilayets, if the term is specific, i.e. if there was a group commonly called "Six Armenian vilayets/provinces", then I'd support it remaining there. "Six Vilayets" is too generic and unclear, unless it too was a specific term. In other words, if the "Armenian" part has been inserted for disambiguation purposes (leaving aside nationalist reasons), and the correct technical term is the "Six Vilayets", then that is the correct name. I am afraid however that my knowledge in this particular area is limited to what Wikipedia itself has to say. On the last question, the Greek term was Στρατιά Μικράς Ασίας ("Army of Asia Minor"), under the control of a general titled αρχιστράτηγος Μικράς Ασίας και Θράκης ("commander-in-chief Asia Minor and Thrace"), who also exercised operational control over the Army of Thrace. IIRC, the English literature uses the translated Greek term (as, apparently, does the Turkish one). Regards, Constantine ✍ 22:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. But unfortunately [26]. There are many problems even in English wikipedia. Although I say, English wikipedia is better than Turkish wikipedia from the point of view of neutlarity. See you. Takabeg (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure :) I agree that en wiki is better (the German WP is also exemplary in many matters), but that is to be expected: there are both far more editors active, and editors from all over the world with their various POVs, leading to a more balanced end result. In this respect, BTW, I have to say that you are one of the most level-headed editors I've seen from our region. My respect. Constantine ✍ 09:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Megiddo info. box

Hi. What kind of problems do you see ? Please don't revert without without reasonable causes. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have at least some good reason for reverting your addition to the Ottoman commanders in the information box in the article. In general, this section has been misused in other articles to become a cenotaph rather than a source of information. The general rule, expressed in the discussion (not very well conducted) in Template talk:Infobox military conflict is that This should be restricted to the lowest single-point-of-authority(s) who had active strategic / operational command (either de facto or de jure) for the planning, coordination and execution of their forces in a given conflict. (emphasis mine). In this case, for the Ottomans, this would be the commanders-in-chief of Yildirim, von Sanders and Mustafa Kemal who replaced him. If we start adding each Ottoman army commander, then we should also add every Allied corps commander, and the Emir Feisal, and once we are started on this path, there would have to be good reasons not to include the RAF commander(s) in the theatre, Lawrence of Arabia, several Arab tribal chiefs, Ottoman and German corps commanders and so on. All these supporting cast are given their due prominence in the order of battle in the middle of the article.

I think it fair to state that the Ottoman army commanders had little responsibility for the overall direction of operations in the theatre, and very little influence on events after Allenby's offensive opened on 19 September. HLGallon (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sanders was the commander of army group and others were the commander of field army. However, if we must choose commanders according with their responsibilities, we can choose Sanders, Djevat and Mustafa Kemal. Because when the offensive were launched, Djevat's Eighth Army and Mustafa Kemal's Seventh Army were deployed on the frontline. Djemal's Fourth Army was at (relatively) peripherical area of the main battle field. What do you think about it ? Takabeg (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

About removing "Category:Turkic history" from Golden Horde

Hi Takabeg - I'm puzzled about why you removed Category:Turkic history from the article. The references - see Golden Horde#Geography and society - would appear to support the cat. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Shirt58. Category:Turkic history is duplicate category. There is Category:Tatar states in that article and there is Category:History of the Turkic people in Category:Tatar states. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 11:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You were right, and I was wrong. Entirely my own mistake - my apologies, and thank you for correcting it. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Takabeg. You have new messages at Nedim Ardoğa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Siege of Shkoder

The book says (p. 71) "The Powers were now faced with the problem of how to dislodge the Montenegrins from Shkoder, as by virtue of a treaty concluded with Essad Pasha Toptani, Montenegro had gained control of the town" and (p. 72) "Durham went on to describe the terms of the agreement made between Essad and the Montenegrins". I can't find anything as formal as "peace treaty" either. BTW, do you have any knowledge on the issue raised at Nedim's talk page on the "t"/"d"? Constantine ✍ 14:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Merci. About the issu of "t"/"d", I think problems can be solved only with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, not with personal preference(s). Scholars, even in Turkey, prefer "d" to "t" for transliterating Ottoman alphabet. Takabeg (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

By all means. I am already doing this whenever I come upon such cases. Only perhaps we sould try to settle this with Nedim first so that we don't have move-wars. Constantine ✍ 18:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. As long as I understook, he want to use monder Turkish also in historical article. But here is English Wikipedia ... So one anonium do wrong edit that I've said to you before :) This anonim may be this user. See you. Takabeg (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

IMO, Nedim is a good editor, but he relies exclusively on Turkish-language sources (specifically, Türkiye Tarihi by Profs. Yaşar Yüce and Ali Sevim, do you know perhaps how good it is? It doesn't seem to be very popular on the internet) so of course he is writing from a purely and narrowly modern Turkish perspective, with its often paranoid mindset about names (Nedim has for instance in the past repeatedly several historical treaty articles from "Treaty of Constantinople" to "Treaty of Istanbul", even though the issue of naming in an English encyclopedia has been repeatedly explained to him). I fear that he doesn't trust me, being the hereditary arch-enemy and all that, so perhaps you could explain the naming issue to him... Constantine ✍ 07:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Off cource, IMO, Nedim Bey is a hard worker (çalışkan) and much bette than average Turkish users. And it's just what you say, it's very difficult for Turkish people to be free from modern (official) Turkish perspective. (In former message, I've try to explain his preference of using modern Turkish　orthography with the term modern Turkish.) Yes I'll try to explain the naming issue with perseverance.　IMO, Yaşar Yücel, who was the chaiaman of the TTK (1983-1992), & Ali Sevim's Türkiye Tarihi is not bad, but out dated, that was written with orthodox approach of TTK at that time. Takabeg (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Vilayets and sanjaks

Hi. I noticed your edits and I really appreciate them. There is one thing I am confused about. I am not native speaker of English so please dont mind if my logic is wrong. But here it is:

• Vilayet of Kosovo means vilayet that consists of Kosovo territory
• Kosovo vilayet means vilayet which name is Kosovo

Taking in consideration that i.e. vilayet of Kosovo had much more territory than only Kosovo (part of Macedonia and so called Sandžak in Serbia and Montenegro) if we name it Vilayet of Kosovo someone could be lead to believe that it contained only Kosovo?

Is my logic correct?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm non-native speaker too. Vilayet of Kosovo and Kosovo Vilayet are same. As long as I know, Scholars prefer the style such as "Vilayet of X" to "X Vilayet". Maybe someone could be lead to believe that it contained only Kosovo, it's possible, but I think there is no problem because we can show maps in articles. Anyway we can use both of them "Vilayet of X" to "X Vilayet". Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You are probably right. After I thought about it more, I realized it is always Republic of.... something i.e. Republic of Serbia, Albania, Bulgaria, ..... Maybe there is same logic with vilayets and sanjaks. Never mind. It is not a serious issue anyway.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire Barnstar

		Ottoman Empire Barnstar
		Awarded for valuable contributions to WikiProject Ottoman Empire, I have noticed your edits and appreciated them greatly. Aferin! --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Treaty

On the page 71 it is written "The powers were now faced with problem how to dislodge Montenegrins from Shkoder, as by virtue of treaty concluded with Essad Pasha Toptani, Montenegro had gained control over the town." --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

IP edits

It's either someone who has a serious problem with understanding Wikipedia policies and communicating in proper English or (IMO more likely) an IP troll who comes by lately and makes a mess of Greek articles (have a look at Zeibekiko and Zeibeks to get an idea, the general mentality, level of English and tendency to hurl insults esp. towards me point to WP:DUCK). An ANI thread has been opened, let's await developments. Constantine ✍ 15:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Translation

Hi Takabeg! Since you have been already involved, and you speak Turkish, can you please ckeck here, under campaign 7 (Corfu). Nedim added some text with Turkish references about supressed rebellion of forts like Solin and Klis. I wrote to Nedim on the talk page that Klis was not Venetian at that time (only Solin), that siege of Klis resulted in an Ottoman victory 2-3 months before the Campaign 7 even started and that none of this was personally led by Suleiman. Can you please check what exactly his referense says. Is it speaks of Klis and Solin as a part of campaign 7 (Corfu), and is that reference realible. Thanks!--Kebeta (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Turkish:

Bu sırada Bosna beyi Gazi Hüsrev Bey, Venediklilere ait Solin, Kilis ve diğer kaleleri fethederken ikinci vezir Lütfi Paşa, donanmadaki kara kuvvetlerine kumandan sıfatıyla, Barbaros kumandasındaki donanma ile birlikte Adriyatik denizine hareket ettiler. Bir hafta sonra (Mayıs 1537) padişah, Adriyatik'teki Osmanlı kuvvetlerine yardım ve Delvine ve yörelerinde genişleyen isyanı bastırmak amacıyla oğullarından Selim ve Mehmet ile birlikte İstanbul'dan hareket etti.

English: In the meantime, when Gazi Husrev, who was the sanjakbey of Bosnia, conquered Solin, Klis and other strongholds that belong to Venetian loads, Second Vizier Lutfi Pasha, with the title of "the commander of the land forces in Navy", left for the Adriatic Sea together with the Navy under the command of Barbarossa. A week later (May 1537), the sultan left Constantinople together with his sons Selim and Mehmed to support the Ottoman forces in the Adriatic Sea and to supress rebellions expanding in Delvine and regions.

Bosna sancakbeyi Gazi Husrev Bey'in Solin (Soljani) kalesine vaki taarruzda ve Kilis kalesi kuvvetleri tarafından esir alınarak görürülen reâyanın eski yerlerine gönderilmesine delâletleri hakkında, Venedik beylerine gönderdiği mektup.

Takabeg (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Gazi Husrev conquered Solin, Klis and other fortresses. This campaign is concerned separate from Sulaiman's campaing. Sulaiman's campaign was named "Sefer-i Pulya ve gazzâ-yı Körfös" or "Sefer-i Pulya ve Gazâyı Korfos". In some sources, the campaign for Pulya and the campaign fo Korfos were concerned as two separeted campaigns, but traditionally they (Apulia and Corfu) are concerned as one campaign.

Re: Ottoman names

Tough call... In the end, it is a choice between common usage and consistency. The traditional transliteration - and also, the way I understand it, the one closer to Arabic-influenced Ottoman phonology - is the rendering with "d". The problem is that from my experience, lesser-known individuals are more likely to have been published under their modern Turkish forms, while more well-known ones (who appear in general historical literature and not just Ottoman history books) will be with "d". If we use the "d" forms for the sultans, grand viziers and pashas, then it would be odd to use other forms for other Ottoman people - unless a particular name is so well entrenched in usage that it becomes unavoidable. What I am trying to say is, in most cases we will have a case where a specific "Mehmed Pasha" gets say 100 hits and "Mehmet Pasha" gets 150. I would prefer, for consistency's sake, to use the "d" form. Anyhow, I trust your judgement on this, so here's a proposal: why don't we start checking names (let's start with the Grand Viziers) and see with what frequency each name form occurs. Thus we can gauge a rough baseline on usage and make a better-educated guess. Constantine ✍ 20:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, as a complete aside, I have wondered for years why Enver Bey/Pasha is at İsmail Enver. What do you think? Constantine ✍ 20:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes let's start with the Grand Viziers. As to the artilces Ismail Enver, Ahmed Djemal and Mehmed Talat, I couldn't find any reason to be preferred names without "Pasha" in English Wikipedia. I know the reason why İsmail Enver in Turkish Wikipedia. In Turkish Wikipedia, there is a rule about titles. According to this rule, we mustn't use Paşa, Bey, Efendi. But in most case, this rule doesn't be applied. For exampla Cemal Paşa and Mehmed Talat Paşa have title of Paşa. Unfortunately this rule was/is made bad/wrong use with some political reason. For example, Ziya Hurşit who was one of the　suspects of İzmir Suikastı, then after he was sentenced to death and hanged. To sum up, that rule is invoked for person whom some uses dislike. In English Wikipedia, I think we must change Ismail Enver, Ahmed Djemal and Mehmed Talat to Enver Pasha, Ahmed Djemal Pasha (Ahmed is indispensable　because there were some Djemal Pasha in Ottoman Army) and Talat Pasha. Takabeg (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I see. All right, we begin with checking the Grand Viziers, and see what we come up with... On the CUP triumvirate, I suggest opening move requests. Constantine ✍ 21:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

On your second question, I am not quite sure I understand what you mean. On Nedim's comment, few people outside Turkey and Turkic-speaking countries now the difference between "C" and "Ç" in Turkish, let alone that "C" is "Dj" and not "K", but probably everyone who doesn't live in a cave knows of Texas, and most half-educated people would recognize it even if their mother language doesn't use the Latin alphabet. That's the reality of the 21st century, making comparisons like these doesn't really prove anything, it's apples and oranges. Constantine ✍ 21:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

To be clear in this case it is about a historical article, and historical naming overrides other concerns. If we had a battle article on this, it would be called "Battle of Chataldja", so it makes sense to have the "Chataldja Army" too. Constantine ✍ 21:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

With second question, I wanted to explain not specific disputes but this problem. Takabeg (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		As a gesture of appreciation for a translation efforts - I Kebeta, hereby award you the Special Barnstar. Thanks, Kebeta (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Re:

Merhaba arkadaşım :) I certainly will take a look at the article right now and will also look into your query regarding Bash-Abaran with the sources that I have at my disposal. I know that it might be difficult to find since it's no longer in publication and somewhat outdated, but the book by E.D. William and Paul Muratoff, Caucasian Battlefields (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), will come in very handy in your edits (or private study) on modern warfare in the Caucasus. I would also like to thank you for your valuable contributions on these articles and hope that you continue. All the best, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sağol Mareşal. I found Baş-Abaran in the new edition of the book you said. I also used same book for the article Van Resistance. Do you know modern names of those towns ? Takabeg (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, thanks for reminding me about that. I'll definitely look for them as well, but check the end of the third and fourth volumes of the four-volume work by Richard G. Hovannisian on his history of the first Republic of Armenia. They include a list of town names which were used during that period and have since changed. You should be able to view these two volumes online through Amazon.com but I'll carry out a search through my end as well. Best, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Selam Taka. I took a brief look at the place names you mentioned and, for the moment, I have just identified Alagöz, which is the modern-day village of Aragats (Aragads in the Western Armenian pronunciation) in Armenia. On Bash-Abaran, I wasn't able to find much sources on the battle in Armenian, but the book by Allen and Muratoff makes it clear that the battle continued, more or less, until the 29th (see p. 476). Regarding the photograph of the Azerbaijani girl: my opinion is that an "Azeri" means a person who belongs to the Azeri nation-group, while Azerbaijani refers to the Republic of Azerbaijan. But the the two words seem to be interchangeable and have been used as such for quite a long time. I admit that I myself am guilty of failing to distinguish the two at times. If I find anything else, I'll be sure to tell you. Best, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, Karzak, if I understand correctly, is the village of Kartsakh/Kartsakhi in current-day Georgia, in the Akhalkalak region of that country. It has sometimes appeared as Karzakh in Armenian. I haven't been able to identify Mahtaka unfortunately. All the best, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Çok Merci. And I've proposed it. Best regards. Takabeg (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: About the name of list

Hello, Takabeg. You have new messages at Talk:List of campaigns of Suleiman the Magnificent.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re:

I agree with the content and spirit of your edits. I won't go near the Cyprus thing, for any change means becoming embroiled for days and I am currently rather busy in RL (and that's also why I keep from any greater projects lately). I welcome any input to the 1897 war article, I've been meaning for years to bring it up to scratch... On Barbarossa, his mother was probably Greek, but the ethnicity of his father is unknown. I've seen authors speculate that his father was "possibly" of Albanian origin ([27]), but Greek has also a great many supporters ([28]). The problem is that "Greek" hee can be used to mean simply "Christian". In the same vein, he was certainly not an ethnic Turk as implied by the article, but rather a "Turk" in the sense that he was born a Muslim and was not a convert. Constantine ✍ 06:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Merci. I'll try to improve it. Now I want to ask other question: was the Greek military operation at First Battle of İnönü, offensive or Reconnaissance in force or movement to contact etc.... ? Even in Turkey, some scholars dout its importance. In Greece what do they estimate this battle (maybe we can use the term meeting engagement:)) ? Takabeg (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, it was meant as a reconnaissance in force and a show of force: the Greek high command (many of whom were recently re-installed royalists and not the more experienced Venizelists) severely underestimated Turkish strength and ability and intended to deliver a blow to Kemalist forces, advance to Eskisehir and improve Greece's military and diplomatic position prior to the upcoming London Conference. BTW, if you want a good English-language account of the war from a Greek and Allied perspective, I heartily recommend Ionian Vision by Michael Llewellyn Smith. Constantine ✍ 16:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Haha. I'll read it too. What do you think of these editions. He claimed According to the Ottoman archive with showing a novelized work written by Halikarnas Balıkçısı (Cevat Şakir Kabaağaçlı) as a source. And I don't think the Ana Britanica (Turkish version of Encyclopedia Britannica) is neutral source... Takabeg (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, a good example of non-RS use. When you see people editing "an XX general/president/hero/etc of YY ethnicity" stuff, that alone is an indicator that something is afoot. On the other hand, adding half a dozen citations behind the ethnicity is also ridiculous (in an older version, Cyril and Methodius boasted some 20 citations to establish their Greekness). Well, that's what comes from living in a region where nations are still riddled with insecurities about themselves and their identity. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 23:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

errors - Ottoman scripts

Well, Taka, I use a computer and those kind of errors can occur. Normally, when I press caps lock, the letter ح is to be seen, but there was an error, and as you see on [29] here, I had realised the error and fixed it. Note that this is one of my old edits. Thanks and have a nice day. -F.Mehmet (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, are you my fan? You seem you're following all of my edits? I'd be honoured so much. 10x Thanks for that -F.Mehmet (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not your fan. I'm here only for preventing erroneous information to be given. Unfortunately I found much erroneus information and/or referenceless information in your edits. Kafanıza göre değil güvenilir kaynaklara göre katkıda bulunursanız sevineceğiz. İyi çalışmalar. Takabeg (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

---

So, what about your edits? I randomly selected one of your edits:[30] You said

"She is propably the citizion of the Republic of Azerbaijan. But we cannot say she is ethnic Azerbaijani. At least she is not similar to typic Azerbaijani type."

Now that's a dangerous sentence to be used on Wikipedia. This shows your opinion. Your POV. Wikipedia: "Kafanıza göre değil güvenilir kaynaklara göre katkıda bulunursanız sevineceğiz." Önce kendinizi düzeltirseniz biz de sizi örnek alırız. Selamlar. -F.Mehmet (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Why dangerous ? We cannot put photograph of typical Kurdish girl as a ethnic Turkish girl. Many ethnic Azerbaijani friends of mine say that "I can know she's Lezgin at a glance". Moreover, as we know, Turks in Turkey use the term Turkish people to explain both the citizen of the Republic of Turkey and ethnic Turkish people, Azerbaijanis also use the term Azerbaijani people to explain both citizen of the Republic of Azerbaijan and ethnic Azerbaijani people (Azeri). Takabeg (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

But, have you got any neutral "published" thing to prove that she is not Azerbaijani? Let me answer this instead of you, nope. Still a POV, then. İyi günler.-F.Mehmet (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The article Azerbaijani people expains an ethnic group. Even we use the term Azerbaijani people for both meaning (ethnic Azerbaijani people and citizen of the Republic of Azerbaijan), the term Azerbaijani is used for an ehnic group in English Wikipedia. To be albe to use that photograph, we have to prove that she is ethnic Azerbaijani. Bu kadar basit. Takabeg (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Moving page

For the moment I will not move the page, not because the businessman is not notable, but because there may be others who are who may need to be disambiguated in the future. Please feel free to come back to me in a year and ask again. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity categories

That is actually a good question, I've wondered myself about the discrepancy between the categories using ethnic label and the country of origin. There are categories about "X people of Y descent" and "people from Z province" but not "People from country X". The reason I've arrived at is that this is because the country of origin is ultimately not important: you can be born in Germany and be ethnic Turkish, Greek, Italian or what not... Personally I don't see a problem with not having categories "People from Turkey/Greece/Russia/etc", but this is a question of Wikipedia-wide practice, so I'd suggest placing a few requests for comments at WP:CAT or the village pump. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 13:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Frankos

Athanasios Frangos or Frangou (you can transliterate "ng" with "nk", but the former is more correct for modern Greek), Major General and commander of 1st Division. Born 1864, died 1923. I'll try to find material and write something on him. Constantine ✍ 07:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Merci. In Turkish books, We cannot find first names of most divisional commanders. For example, Georgios Hatzanestis (Yorgo Hacıanesti :)))'s chief of staff Colonel Valetas, Nikolas Trikupis (com. of I Corps), Colonel Francos (com. of 1st Div.), Colonel Dimaas (com. of 4th Div.), Colonel Kallidopulos (com. of 12th Div.), Golonel Rokas (com. of 5th Div.), General Dijenis (com. of II Corps), Colonel Kabalis (com. of 13th Div.), Colonel Kardikas (com. of 9th Div.), Colonel Krusopulos (com. of 7th Div.), General Sumalis (com. of III Corps), Colonel Papanikolao (com. of 10th Div), Colonel Gerças ??? (com. of 3rd Div.), General Kladas (com. of 11th Div.), Colonel Teotakis (com. of Independent Div.), General Gonatas (com. of 2nd Div.), General Kalinski (com. of Cav. Div.) etc....... Takabeg (talk) 07:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know the situation, it's like trying to find the names of Ottoman commanders from Greek sources ;) Anyhow, any help I can provide, I will. Most of these commanders fought in the Balkan Wars and WWI, so sooner or later I'll get around writing some short articles on them. Constantine ✍ 07:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Here we go, in the order you gave above, except for the ones already linked: Georgios Valettas, Dimitrios Dimaras, Periklis Kallidopoulos, Nikolaos Rokas, Kimon Digenis, Militiadis Kaibalis, Panagiotis Gardikas, Vasileios Kourousopoulos, Petros Soumilas, Dimitrios Papanikolaou, Georgios Gortzas, Nikolaos Kladas, Dimitrios Theotokis, Stylianos Gonatas, Andreas Kallinskis. Constantine ✍ 08:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Çok merci. Did you forget Djemal Pasha and Talat (Talaat) Pasha ? Takabeg (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Rica ederim :) On Djemal and Talaat, indeed I did forhet them. If you want to, introduce them in the Enver Pasha request, or we can initiate separate request(s). Constantine ✍ 22:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember the exact details on the course of the Dumplupinar battle, but the fact is, the strategic disposition of the Greek army was idiotic: instead of focusing on their southern flank which was the evident point of attack, the bulk of I and II Corps covered the northern flank. Anyhow, it is true that several Greek units were not engaged and retreated, but that is because the front had already collapsed elsewhere. There certainly wasn't a conspiracy, it was a simple result of Turkish material and tactical superiority coupled with passivity, inadequacies and bad choices on the Greek side. Such conspiracy theories (in the reverse) are popular here too, but IMO they are that much nonsense: I for one cannot imagine Venizelos or anyone ordering people like Plastiras to deliberately let the Turks in, and Plastiras obeying, not saying anything publicly, and not shooting Venizelos as a traitor the first opportunity he got. Constantine ✍ 07:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Good work guys - thankyou for this kind of discussion. Warm regards Buckshot06 (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Lesbos

I can agree to the Turkish name being given in the history section because the island was once part of the Ottoman Empire, but not in the lead. None of the reasons given in WP:NCGN for including the name in Turkish in the lede apply. Imbros is a very different case: The island was always inhabited by Greeks and even now there are Greeks. By contrast, there aren't any Turks on Lesbos and never many in the past. Athenean (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact I like alternative names. Constantinople-Konstantinopolis-Poli-Istanbul etc, Edirne-Odrin-Adrianopole-Adrianoupolis etc. However, if there were such rule you mentioned, we have to remove all of them. At first please remove Ανδριανούπολις from Erirne and transfer to appropreate section (if any)　of the article. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 06:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You really need to read WP:NCGN. Athenean (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but I've read that page. I recommend you read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Please read it again and again and again :) Takabeg (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Question

I noticed that you pretty much edit continuously 24/7. The longest gap between your contribs is no more than 4 hours usually, and this only rarely. Can you explain how you do that? Just curious. Athenean (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe for you it's curious. I'm a very hard working. I try to edit with every occasion for neutralising national-ethnic POV pushing edits. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes, that's what they all say. Athenean (talk) 07:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Your Neturality

Hi, I checked your contributions to Wikipedia. Although your works are quite impressive, I noticed you are neither an anti-Turkish individual or a self orientalist tries to get admire from westerners by criticizing Turkey every means possible. What is the logic behind creating this[31] there is already an article covering the issue thanks.Abbatai 12:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I tried to write the article Greek landing at Smyrna with military and oriented contents. Many users who are interested in the Greco-Turkish Waw are focusing on its atrocities and massacres too much. There are uncomfortable situations in some articles related with Greco-Turkish issue. I'm going to start the article with the topic of the dismissal of Nureddin Pasha. Do you know following eppisode ? Evimizin kapısına gelen memleket gençleri heyecanlı sesleriyle haykırıyorlardı: "Vatanını seven Yahudi maşatlığı'na gelsin".... Türkçe biliyorsunuz herhalede. Yani o madde ile biraz (biraz değil de bayağı) ayrıntılı ama önemli bilgileri aktarmaya çalışacağım. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Siksok case. Takabeg, I'm sorry, I'm too busy in real life. Apologies. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Email

Hi, do you have an email? Or can send me one? My wikipedia email is active.. I also updated my comment on Medes [32]. But I gaveup anyhow in the Turkish wikipedia.. the important point is that such vandalism cannot be done in English wikipedia. You may want to add such articles to your watchlist as they often to get vandalized by the same like-minded groups. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is my email: [33]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For your efforts in defending articles against vandalism and your pursuit of neutrality. Khodabandeh14 (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Question re Greek landings at Smyrna

It appears we're working on a similar topic. The American battleship Arizona was deployed to Smyrna at the time of the landings. Stillwell says that there was much tension between the Greek Georgios Averof and Italian Caio Duilio, which had both been deployed to the area — apparently they had their guns pointed at each other at all hours of the day. Before Arizona's arrival, an American naval officer with a yacht parked himself in-between the two to deter them from getting into a skirmish. However, Stillwell doesn't say how this was resolved – he just continues into the Greek landings and how Arizona provided shelter for American citizens in the area. Could you shed any light on this? Many thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I became happy to find user who is interested in same/similar topic.

According to a book that I'm reading now,

British, French and Greek naval commanders discussed under the chairmanship of Admiral Calthrope in the morning of May 14, 1919. The British forces would occupy Karaburun and Uzunada, French forces would occupy Urla and Foça, Greek forces would occupy Yenikale fortress. In order to prevent possible resistance, states who had fleet would land their detachments previously and whould not make an impression that the occupation waa done only by Greece. On May 11, Admiral Bristol (Rear Admiral Mark L. Bristol, the Commander of US Naval Detachment in Turkish Waters) came to Izmir from Istanbul with battleship Nhama ? (I don't know this ship. It must be USS Arizona). And then ten US warships including two cruisers and six destroyers concentrated in that area. Captain (of USN) Dayton proposed to Greece that Allied foreces will occupy Smyrna (Izmir) at first and they would transfer the area.

So I don't have detail information about naval fleets and its landing forces. I'll tell you when I find them. If you want, you can start at Greek landing at Smyrna.

Takabeg (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me know when you've gotten a bit further with the article and I'll gladly add what I can. Thanks for helping me out!

With regards to your discussion on Parsecboy's talk page (he's a good friend of mine), I wouldn't be so harsh with him. He's an extremely nice guy with way too much knowledge of German naval history. At the time that article was written, following WP:ALT was a requirement at FAC, and describing the image in terms like "A large warship sits motionless in harbor against the backdrop of a large city." was considered essential because duplicating information found in the caption was considered sacrilege. Thankfully that requirement at FAC has been dropped, but I believe if you scroll down WP:ALT you will find similar examples of that language. Parsec wrote the article in early 2010, before the requirement was dropped[34] Personally I think all alt text in that article could be removed, but I tend to defer to editors that have authored the article. :-) Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Typical Azeri look?

Just curious to know what you mean by "typical Azerbaijani type" and how you define it. Parishan (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Most of Azerbaijani friends of mine said that we can distinguish she is Lezgin at a glance, it's very clear that she is no of typical Azeri Turks. I know that they are not POV pushing Azerbaijanis. So I respected their opinion. In this situation we cannot prove both of them (ethnic Azerbaijani or Lezgin). Thus we cannot use that picture in articles related with ethnic group. But we can use it in Azerbaijan. Takabeg (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you realise that what "most of your Azerbaijani friends say" is not credible for Wikipedia? If I have friends who believe in Santa Claus, it does not give me serious reasons to claim that he is real. And if I were to judge by the kind of Azeri people I encounter, then that girl's photo has every right to be in that article. There is no "standard physical look" for an ethnic group. I have known ethnic Azeris with features that are a lot fairer than that girl's. Be careful: you are resorting to racial stereotypes which may qualify as anti-ethnic sentiment on your part. Parishan (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyway we cannot prove and know her ethnıcıty (Azeri Turk (Azerbaijani people in Wikipedia) ? Lezgin ? othters ?). That's all. Takabeg (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it is you who cannot prove that she is not Azeri. The author of the photo named the photo 'Azerbaijani girl from Khachmaz'. If you want to challenge that, it is your job to bring forward reasons to doubt that she is Azerbaijani. All you have managed to lay on the table is claims like 'my friend says she doesn't look Azeri' which is unacceptable as rationale for removing an image on Wikipedia. Parishan (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It's nothing but your egoistic claim. If I'll able to prove she is an Azerbaijani people (yani "Azeri Turk"), I'll propose to use for the article Azerbaijani people. If I will prove she is a Lezgin, I'll propose in the same way. But unfortunately nobody can prove it. It's easy. Takabeg (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not my claim. It is what the author of the photo indicated on the file's page in Commons before you came pushing your 'according-to-my-friend' POV. Parishan (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Takabeg, it is better for you check this pictures also [35] [36] Thanks.--Abbatai 23:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Abbatai. I added {{Personality rights}} to Children_puppy_sulaimania.jpg. Takabeg (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Re:NPOV

What I regard as POV is your attempt to disassociate Shusha from Azerbaijan through a biography article. Ahmet Agaoglu was an ideologist who related himself to Azerbaijan and regarded himself as such. The term 'Nagorno-Karabakh' which you are working hard on including into that article was not in use at the time of his birth, having emerged in the midst of ethnic conflicts of the early 1920s. The fact that more sources indicate Agaoglu's birth as 'Azerbaijan' and not 'Nagorno-Karabakh' does not make me atırpecanagan azkaynaganı. Parishan (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

O dönemde orası Elisabethpol Governorate'de yer almıyor muydu ? Tarafsız davranabilmen için kendi milliyetçiliğini bastır biraz. Dışarıda istediğin kadar yapabilirsin milliyetçiliğini ama Wikipedia'da asla. Takabeg (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Please address your accusations to all those authors who agree with me in that Agaoglu was born in Azerbaijan, not Nagorno-Karabakh. And I do not remember allowing anyone to refer to me as sen on Wikipedia. That is simply impolite with regard to a person you have not formally met. Parishan (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Kurdish independence movement

I have reversed your move of this template, which has not been discussed and was breaking a number of articles. If you think it should be moved, please make a proposal on the talk page - you can use {{Requested move}} if you like - and do not move it again unless there is a consensus to do so. JohnCD (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You didn't have to revert it. If you read Template talk:Turkey–Kurdistan Workers Party conflict, you will understand. Formerly this template was Template:Turkey-PKK conflict. One user changed name and contents without consensus. Now that user accepts our oppositions. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 11:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at this later today. What you did caused problems, because when you moved it and tagged the old one for deletion, that put all the 20+ articles that transclude it into the queue for speedy deletion. Any change needs to be co-ordinated with its use in articles. Let's continue the conversation here - I watch this page. JohnCD (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Because of (for example):

• The organization has now ostensively abondaned a goal of seperate Kurdish state and instead to seek to promote and advance the rights Kurd living in Turkey, specifically the right to maintain ethnic identity. (Parliament of Australia)
• Kurdistan Turkey: Abdullah Ocalan's Last Interview

Interviewer: With which aims? Autonomy? A federal system? Independence?

Abdullah Öcalan: What is needed for a contemporary man. What is true for all peoples is also true for us. A system comparable to what we see in Europe, a democratic federal system. The form is not a problem, if the will is there. The most important thing is to acknowledge the Kurdish identity.

• "Öcalan: Bağımsızlık istemiyoruz" (We don't want independence), Hürriyet

I think that Wikipedia must not provide information to make a false indication. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I have run out of time tonight. I will reply here tomorrow. JohnCD (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

typo

Regarding "Category:Ottoman Military Academy almni". I think the last word is supposed to be alumni, right? --Lysozym (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Axxxxeeee. Mer30. Takabeg (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Template:Kurdish independence movement

I apologise for my delay in replying. If you have consensus to change the name of this template, by all means do, but it is transcluded by a large number of articles - see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Kurdish_independence_movement - and you need (a) to review these to be sure that your revised title is still appropriate for them , and (b) to delete the template from the article if it is no longer appropriate, or alter the article to include the new title if it is. The problem when you moved it last time was that, when the old title was tagged for deletion, all the articles that transcluded it were added to CAT:CSD, the list of articles for speedy deletion, and that was what alarmed me. I guess that would have ceased to be a problem once the old template was actually deleted, but that would still leave a redlink in the articles. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Most of article included in this template is irrelevant with independence movement and this template was added to various irrelevant articles. Today I'll improve them. See you. Takabeg (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Note: there is no need to to copy all of our conversation to my talk page - I am watching this one, so I will see if you reply here. It is simpler to keep it all in one place. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Roger. Takabeg (talk) 10:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Takabeg. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 09:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I don't think this is vandalism, it's a content dispute discussed at the top of my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not content dispute. Maybe there was content dispute between those who believe that Zazas are Kurdish, and those who rejekt it. But sources clearly show the presence of various theses. At least he is abusing Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. And do you control sources ? In short Wikipedia must not support any propagandas because of WP:NPOV. We have to show everything, if we can find reliable soruces. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no contende dispute between "those who believe that Zaza are Kurdish and those who rejekt it". Because there is no Source rejecting Zaza as Kurds. And who are you to reject what the Zaza are if they consider themselves as Kurd. All sources which were added before are shown and no one of us did remove them unlike you. You are just not able to separate linguistic from ethnicity and this is your problem not ours. Wikisupporting (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't remove any source. I used existing soruces that you used for trying to prove Kurdish nationalists' theory. But it was detected that you used those sources fakedly. You can control sources easily. You will understand that what scholars wrote. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion again and stop your propaganda. Takabeg (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You did not remove sources?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zaza_people&action=historysubmit&diff=437361252&oldid=437335876

Wikisupporting (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't remove them. I transferred infromation only with exiting sources. You removed sourced information. Takabeg (talk) 11:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You did remove all the parts important for the ethnic identity of Zaza and only used those part which talk about linguistics and suit your Propaganda. This is called double moral and Vandalism not "transferring informations". And you also did manipulate them! For example you picked out only one statement from van bruinessen. "According to Martin van Bruinessen, few Kurmanji-speakers understand Zazaki, but most Zazaki-speakers know at least some Kurmanji." What is irrelevant for the ethnic identity of Zaza.And says absolutely nothing about it. And I asked you hundreds of times WHO are you to reject the Zazas identity if they consider themselves as Kurds and are excepted and are accepted as such by ethnologists. The whole linguistic debate is just unimportant in this issue and should be mentioned in the Zazaki language article.

And you did not mention this.

"Virtually all Zaza speakers consider themselves, and are considered by the Kurmanji speakers, as Kurds"

This is, here on Wikipedia simply called Vandalism

Wikisupporting (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This here on Wikipedia simply called Vandalism

What ? I didn't remove them. I transferred infromation only with exiting sources. You removed sourced information. As you know, especially in Europe, some groups of Zaza people think themselves as Kurdish only by political reason, Some groups of Zaza people think themselves nothing but Zazas. I know situation personally, but I didn't reflect imformation of mine. I only read existing sources and transferred from them. It's easy. Why you want to propagate article ? In Turkey, situation is a little different. Not only Zazas but also many Alevi Kurds didn't think themselves as the same group of Sunni Kurdish nationalist. Furthermoer, there are considerable numbers of Zazas in the Ülkücü movement of the Turkish nationalism. We have to refer to these facts in the article with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Takabeg (talk) 11:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you having a hard time in understanding what you yourself are posting? "Transfering sources" means simply you did only recognize those parts talking about linguistic issues and let out the self-designation and ethnic role of Zaza. You also did manipulate statements of martin van Bruinessen. He is talking about a small circle of zaza in the Diaspora, you wrote "Some of the Zaza speakers" and did not even mentioned that it are Speakers from the Diaspora. And also you didn´t mentioned that he said that virtually all Zazas consider themselves as Kurds. Means almost all Zaza consider their ethnic identity as Kurdish. Ludwig Paul mentioned in his book that the most important thing for the identity of Zaza is their Religion and Culture and someone should not mix up the linguistic issue with the ethnic one because ethno-cultural Zaza and Kurmanji Kurds build a unity.

A Zaza Alevi feels much closer to a Kurmanj Alevi from Tunceli than to a Zaza Sunni from Diyarbakir. And Kurdish Alevis are a minority. The Sources clearly point out that the Zaza movement is strong in diaspora not in Turkey were the majority to all zaza consider themselves as Kurds! I am not speaking of those assimilated Zazas living in the western metropols of Turkey because they are as much assimilated as the Kurmanc. And there might be some Zaza who might not see themselves as Kurds but this is also the case among Kurmanji Kurds and a political and not ethnic issue! Are we going now to write under the Kurmanji article. "Kurmanjis are a iranian People which some of them consider themselves as Kurds and some not"? This is exactly what van Bruinessen points out. There is no clear border of "kurdishness" and "non kurdishness". So basically all People who consider themselves as Kurds are Kurds. And van bruinessen points out that virtually all Zaza consider themselves as Kurds.

And again you did remove Sources first.

You removed this

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35883517/Kurds

and this

http://www.zazaki.net/haber/among-social-kurdish-groups-general-glance-at-zazas-503.htm

Wikisupporting (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

and added a non existing source like this

http://www.kenthaber.com/Arsiv/Haberler/2007/Mart/22/Haber_217409.aspx

Unfortunately I didn't remove them. I only suspended them because I couldn't be sure whether they are Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources or not. Anyway you can see them in all editions, because I've never removed them. Probably we will have to remove some of them. Takabeg (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:

The one group which I am most familiar with are and which a great deal of literature has been published on are the Islamicized Armenians of Hemshin. For them, there is The Hemshin: History, society and identity in the Highlands of Northeast Turkey, edited by Hovann Simonian (London, 2007) and several chapters from Armenian Pontus, edited by Richard Hovannisian (Costa Mesa, CA, 2009). The second group is the Armenians who were forcibly converted to Islam during World War I but who have retained their Christian identity. They are spread all throughout the eastern provinces of Turkey but I've heard that there are significant numbers residing in the Black Sea, Lake Van and Diyarbekir regions. So the relationship with the Zazas and the Alevis cannot be ruled out. You might have to consult more specialized literature to find out where forced islamiziation was most prevalent during the period. As regards numbers, it's truly difficult to give something that can be even remotely called accurate. And yes, Hitler was telling his generals to be ruthless in their assault against the Poles; there were, as yet, no plans to exterminate the Jews in 1939 (this only happened later, in about 1942). İyi şanslar. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Other neutral users interested in Middle East

Unfortunately, no. Middle East related articles are heavily infected with more nationalists than any other area. Most of them edit from the U.S. in an attempt to deceive their true purpose of removing reliable sources, mention of other ethnic groups and any facts they find unpalatable about their respective country of origin. These nationalist do not find anyone neutral to their POV. Why? Because they are most likely being paid to ensure that information is being sanitized, censored or forcibly included(ie.sourced with unpublished non-neutral sources[37]) in Wikipedia. So welcome to the most difficult area in Wikipedia to edit. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Refs removed

Hi

Can you please explain why you are removing google book references from the Turkish invasion of Cyprus article?

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Because of crowdedness. I've pasted them. Now I think that users who are interested in that issue understand facts. If you want, you can paste them again. Takabeg (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I do not understand what you are trying to say.

"Because of crowdedness" - They only appear in the references section and not in the main body of text.

"Now I think that users who are interested in that issue understand facts" - if you mean that they understand it and so do not need the refs that is highly against Wikipedia policy of sourcing facts. The urls show the text from the source in context. It is highly irregular to remove them.

I suspect that I do not understand your points due to English not being your first language, perhaps you can try and simplify what you are saying to make it more clear. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, English is my fifth language :) You can do as you want. Takabeg (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I only speak two, and my second (French) is not that good, so well done :¬)

I have put them back in, but I am concerned that I address your concerns as well. Are you Turkish (or Cypriot)? I only speak a few words of Turkish, though I would like to learn more I do not think I will ever visit Cyprus or Turkey due to lack of funding. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a citizen of the world :)) I've been to Ukraine too. Kiev, Odessa etc... I wrote the article tr:Kseniya Simonova. See you. Takabeg (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC behavior

The idea behind the RfC is to let others to comment, not you. Please consider moving your comments, they are a breach of RfC etiquette. The RfC is not a vote. Your "keep" is meaningless. Athenean (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute. I'm reading Wikipedia:Requests for comment now. Takabeg (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. Not sure there is a point to leaving those sources in there though. They are your sources, and should be with the rest of your comment. The way it is now, it looks like I added them. Athenean (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Other user may also add sources. In this case, as long as I know, {{reflist}} must be at the bottom of the page. Otherwise they will not appear. Takabeg (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Please be aware that I had to resort to asking for a third party help due to your repeated and unexplainable and unwarranted reverts in Tevfik Fikret article. Regards. Murat (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources ? Takabeg (talk) 05:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

IP

No its not belongs to me,And who are to ask that question???Also dont try to blame the people with undreal absurd and pankurdish claim!

Why ? Pan-Kurdish claim ? Which one ? Show me pleeeeeease.

Your edits, remove Kurdish and put Turkish. IP's edit, remove Kurdish. They are too much and i will not try to collect and show them,i dont care with that offencive acts.To blame people with Pan Turkism or turkish Nationalism and anti kurdism is shows and prove my words.

Why did you remove Kurdish ? Why did you put Turkish ? I recommend you read Talk:Nasreddin. Takabeg (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Türkçe vikipedideki olumsuz,yapıcılıktan ve tarafsızlıktan uzak tavırlarını burda da devam ettirme.--Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 06:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sayende Türkçe Viki millî Vikiye dönüşecek :)))) Modern Türk çocuklarına zarar verme. Takabeg (talk) 06:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sayemde hiç bir şeyin olduğu filan yok,daha önce de söyledim Türkçe vikideki zararlı ve tarafsızlıktan uzak kürtçü milliyetçi tavrına devam ediyorsun.Biz başkaları gibi tarih boyunca hiç medeniyet ve devlet kuramamışların olmayan tarihini uydurmaya çalışmıyoruz:))) Ayrıca bu samimiyet nedir?git babana espiri yap madem çok espirilisin.--Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 07:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't make a wisecrack. I suspect Sockpuppetry and/or Matpuppetry. Takabeg (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

If you didn't make a wisecrack then whati si this "Sayende Türkçe Viki millî Vikiye dönüşecek :))))" also "Modern Türk çocuklarına zarar verme" mocking and insulting or Personal Attack??? don'forget the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility

Ve daha önce de dediğim gibi zararlı ve saldırgan davranışları bırakman lazım. --Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 07:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Why personal attack ? I recommended you. Or do you want to make edits that would cause harm to children ?

For example:

your edit: Put irrelevant modern Turkish alternative name.

IP's edit: Put irrelevant modern Turkish alternative name. And change qaγan (this is according to source) to Kagan.

IP's edits: Put irrelevant modern Turkish alternative name. And change qaγan (this is according to source) to Kagan.

Takabeg (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Don' try to switch the subject i said you before i am not the only one user who knows Old Turkic,also i saw his/her edit and i edited such as i know,its simple but you don't want to understand,amd still continue to blame me!

Also don't try to confuse and manipulate me it is not recommend,it is not advice!you obviously try mocking and insulting me.

Ayrıca hemen İngliziceye çevirdin vardır bir bildiğin veya işine gelmeyen bir konu.--Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding unreferenced banner

Hi

The unreferenced banner is only for articles or sections that do not have any refs. The section you added it to in the article Turkish invasion of Cyprus had 3 refs in there already. It also says "article". To change it to "section", add the section parameter:

• {{unreferenced|section|date=July 2011}} which gives:

If you want to ask for more references you can use these banners:

• Template:Refimprove - asking for more sources
• Template:Primary_sources - asking for secondary and tertiary sources rather than primary ones
• Template:Verify_credibility (inline) - questions the validity of a particular source

I have also corrected some of the grammar from your recent edits today :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Çok Merci. I put {{Citation needed|date=July 2011}} in that section of the article Turkish invasion of Cyprus, because there is no sources of third party. Takabeg (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

sorun değil. The lead (the first part of the page above the table of contents), does not have to have references (but often they do). This part of the page is a summary of the article and the references may be in the main part of the page. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear takabeg. I am writing this to thank you for your great helps and anti-vandalism edits on middle east related articles. Wish you the best in your future works and edits. Regards.--Aliwiki (talk) 14:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for İncili Çavuş

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, HJ Mitchell. I think that all information about him are not historical facts but legends. So I don't decide whether the style of question such as "Do you know "Suleiman the Magnificent supposedly gave İncili Çavuş a pearl to wear to distinguish him from other sergeants? is suitable to DYN or not. Regards. Takabeg (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Merhaba

• Selam Takabeg, nasılsın? Türkçe Viki'ye girmiyor musun artık? --Cemallamec (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Ve aleykum. Senden naber ? "Osmanlı Hava Kuvvetleri" diye bir şey yoktu ("Osmanlı Hava Kuvvetleri" -Llc 4 results: sadece Türk Kültürüne Hizmet Vakfı, bir seminer, Mustafa Selçuk, Soner Yalçın'ın eserlerinde geçiyor. Hava Kuvvetleri Komutanlığı'nın yayınladığı Ajun Kurter'in Türk Hava Kuvvetleri Tarihi serisinde bu terimi göremedim. Takabeg (talk) 23:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Nihat Anılmış

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Nihat Anılmış, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.tsk.tr/eng/Anitkabir/baskahramanlar_10.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Impossible. Your BOT made a mistake :) Takabeg (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Caaaaaaaat

Hi. How are you ? Anata wa ogenki desuka ? Toaru Majutsu no Index'ten dolayı mı, とある白い猫 oldun ?　Takabeg (talk) 06:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

İyi günler. はい、　げんきです。 Nickimin manga ile direkt ilgisi yok. :) -- とある白い猫 ^chi? 11:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sanjak of Niš

Hi. Will you please be so kind to help me with Sanjak of Niš by adding its name on Turkish language into infobox.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In modern Turkish, Niş Sancağı but I think that we don't have to put modern alternative names into articles. As to Ottoman name, Niš was described as نيش or نش and Sandzak/Sanjak was سنجاق. I'm not sure whether سنجق نش and/or سنجق نيش is correct or not. This page is useful. Takabeg (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I did not expect that you would reply on your talk page and therefore I did not read it. There are some users which prefer to reply on the same talk page. They often inform other users about such preference by explaining that on the top of their talk page (i.e. like this user did).

Once again, thank you for your reply about alternative names on Turkish language. I agree that it could be an good idea to use original script for native names, besides modern ones.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah... I'm sorry but I forgot to replay on your page. It's possiblely Niş Livası. I'll consult dictionaries when I'll go back home. See you. Takabeg (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Selam

• Selamlar. Sizi merak ettim. Nasılsınız? Türkçe Vikipedi işi bitti mi sizin için?--Gökçe Yörük (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Selam 2

• Selam Takabeg. Epeydir uğramıyorsun mekana bir bakayım dedim. Keyfin yerinde gibi. Ancak vikipedide birçok madde taraflılaştı sen gideli onu da belirtmeden geçemeyecem. Vikihaber'de hizmetlilik oylaması bir oylama var katılırsan memnun olurum oy kullanma hakkın var zaten. Cevap yazarsan buraya da giriyorum görürüm ben. İyi akşamlar.--Reality006 (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Gerçi Türkçe Vikipedi'den de yazdım da görmezsin diye buraya da yazdım.--Reality006 (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Birde List of dictators maddesinde İsmet İnönü diktatör olarak eklenmiş. Türkçesinde çıkarılmış. Sana göre İsmet İnönü diktatör müydü? Ben çok hakim olmadığı için Türkçe'sine müdahale etmedim ancak makul gerekçelere göre değişiklik yapabiliriz.--Reality006 (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

There are approaches to define the İnönü period ("Millî Şef dönemi" ) as a dictatorship (Hakkı Uyar, Tek Parti Dönemi ve Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi, Boyut Kitapları, 1998, ISBN 9789755211442, İnönü dönemini diktatörlük olarak tanımlayan yaklaşımlar da vardır p. 381.). Yani "disputed", "debatable" filan eklenebilir. Takabeg (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Birde "Osmanlı Hava Kuvvetleri" terimi yaygın değildir. Çünkü öyle bir şey yoktu. Haberin olsun. Takabeg (talk) 06:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Armenian placenames in Turkey

Don't remove Armenian place names from articles about Turkish localities[38] unless you first have a clear consensus to do so at the talkpage. Wikipedia has ageneral policy of including minoritylanguage place names for localities where Minority languages have been or are still spoken.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Is that the Van Province's Armenian name ? No. You can put that into the article Van. Did you read Talk:Van Province ? Please don't confuse articles on province with articles on city. Takabeg (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You have a point there.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way you broke WP:3RR. That is a bad idea and could get you blocked. In the future get admin attention instead.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Takabeg. You have new messages at Nedim Ardoğa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tughra edit war

I have reverted the content to before this little edit war and am inviting both you and the other gentleman to discuss the matter at Talk:Tughra. You guys need to find a consensus position before you start editing again. Vanisaac (talk)

I just saw that you were already trying to do that. Thanks for your patience and calm. I'll keep an eye on Dragon to make sure we get consensus before any more changes. Vanisaac (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sheikh Abdurrahman rebellion

Greyshark09 just requested speedy deletion of the page Sheikh Abdurrahman rebellion. Since speedy deletion is reserved for completely non-controversial cases, I declined the request for now. Your comments on the talkpage indicate that you might agree that the page should not exist, but I am not familiar enough with the history to judge one way or another. Would you like the page deleted or kept? - 2/0 (cont.) 16:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you can delete. First of all, we've never heard the Sheikh Abdurrahman rebellion. And we can regard him/her as only user who contributed to that article. Edits of other users are nothing but very minor and meaningless. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Vankli

You know well what kind of edit it is. Stop edit warring or I must report you!  Anastasia Bukhantseva  04:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want you can report. Anyway your edits are irregular. See the revision history of that article. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If you make one more revert, we'll go to arbitration. Neutral sources prove the arguments. What's irregular? I restored the article with neutral point of view.  Anastasia Bukhantseva  04:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I said that "if you want you can". But unfortunately your edits were done without normal prosedure. Have you read Wikipedia:Requested moves ? Takabeg (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Kurdish vandalism

Do you think I was born yesterday? I've been on wikipedia for several years and cannot help notice constant vandalism against anything Kurdish by Turkish natioanlists. Your excuse that Kurdish names only apply to cities does not fool me and I will continue to protect these articles from vandalism against Kurdish names which are constantly being removed. Turkish nationalists have even been trying to erase the word Kurd from every single article in wikipedia and clearly I cannot let this happen. This isn't some website owned by the Turkish military junta, this is wikipedia and it is supposed to be neutral. Now you can add your fake Turkish names to where ever you want, but I will continue to revert any edits deleting Kurdish names from any articles, by you or other users.Kermanshahi (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

What ? You still confused provinces with cites ? I don't know whether you are Kurdish nationalist or not. But I know that I'm not Turkish nationalist :) This is not the matter of anti-Kurdish, anti-Turkish. It's very very easy. Why don't you understand ? Takabeg (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

These provinces are named after these cities, because they are based around these cities and while the Turkish regime has changed their names, the local populations continue to use their original names for both city and province, which is the same. Every few weeks or months there are some Turkish users which delete the Kurdish names from both city and province articles, this is purely because they do not want anything Kurdish on wikipedia. This is ofcourse not acceptable.Kermanshahi (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and use talk pages. OK ? Takabeg (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not personally attacking you, I am just telling you what has been happening here for years. Now I don't know what your motives are, but I have read what the Turkish constitution has to say about the Kurds, the teachings of Ataturk say that Kurds do not exist and this is the reason why all these cities were re-named in the first place and I can only assume that this is the motive for the majority of vandals which have attacked these articles. But Ataturk is dead and Kurds exist, so either we keep both names or I will continue to revert your edits.Kermanshahi (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I reported on one I looked at in random. The article in question is about the province (see AN/I, it's not on my clipboard now). Therefore, removing "province" in the prose is incorrect. I'm going to do a quick skim of some more articles and see what else I can find; I'll make corrections as necessary, but based on this one, Kermanshahi, please try to seek consensus to change them any other way unless you want to see yourself blocked for 3RR, as you are quite close. CycloneGU (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Takabeg, you are also close to 3RR. I suggest you both take a break and let cooler heads prevail for the time being, then come back and discuss it as civilized adults and use a talk page if you still disagree. CycloneGU (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you know the place where we bulit consensus ? At first in talk pages (Talk:Van Province, Talk:Şanlıurfa Province etc...). Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Having not checked every single article's talk page, it appears you haven't established a pattern that applies to all 11 articles. Some you insist on leaving "Province" (which is correct), and some you don't (which is not correct). In the interest of consistency, it should be one or the other. I've changed them all to have "Province" as most already did.

Also, I'm wrong about 3RR, the edits were from different days. I've struck that. CycloneGU (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it a good idea as the Kurdish name is only for Bingöl? [39] Kavas (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• Onun yerine ne yazabiliriz ne yapabiliriz maddenin adını? geç cevap için kusura bakma tatildeydim.)--Reality006 (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

For example, tr:Osmanlı ordusunda askerî havacılık or tr:Osmanlı askerî havacılığı are possible.

"Osmanlı ordusunda havacılık kavramının doğuşu ile askeri havacılığın kuruluşu için gösterilen ilk gayret ve çabalar açıklanmaya çalışılacaktır" (Ajun Kurter, Türk Hava Kuvvetleri Tarihi: (1910-1914), Cilt 1, Hava Kuvvetleri Komutanlığı, 2009, p. 41.)

"XX. yüzyıl başlannda Avrupa'da başlayan havacılık alanındaki gelişmelere paralel olarak Osmanlı Devleti' 'nde de askerî havacılığın kurulmasına çalışıldı." (Turkiye Diyanet Vakfi Islam ansiklopedisi, Cilt 33, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfi, İslam Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 2008p. 512.)

"Osmanlı hükümetleri de askerî havacılığın kurulması için..." (Genel Türk Tarihi, Cilt 6, Yeni Türkiye Yayınları,2002, p. 217.)

As to Inonu, you can read Metin Heper's İsmet İnönü: The Making of a Turkish Statesman. He wrote "Inönü was a statesman, and not a dictator; he did not try to promote his personal interests and/or pursue his own Utopian or fanciful projects..." (p. 98.). And he wrote "As noted, unlike Atatürk, Inonü never became a taboo in the eyes of the people..." (p. 6.) Takabeg (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sinai and Palestine Campaign

Hi, Can you tell me why you removed the reference to Jadir Bey Tala Bey? :) --Rskp (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you find them as prominent commanders in reliable sources ? Takabeg (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Why? --Rskp (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Who are they ? Takabeg (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see you don't know them. Well if I added them its probably because they were mentioned by Erickson or possibly Woodward in the body of the article, but I'd have to have a look to check. :) --Rskp (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, as long as I understand, they were not general. That article is not related with specific battles, but campaign, we don't have to add them in the info box of campaing. Takabeg (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I've checked and they are not mentioned in the article but might be in sub pages so I won't undo your cut. --Rskp (talk) 02:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Birthdate

According to this source, he was born 1299 hijri/1882 CE.--Aa2-2004 (talk) 09:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hiiii. Thank you very much. Takabeg (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

please read

"ΑΙΜΟΣΤΑΓΗΣ ΠΑΠΑΣ" Ο ΓΕΡΜΑΝΟΣ ΚΑΡΑΒΑΓΓΕΛΗΣ ΓΙΑ ΤΟΝ ΝΑΣΟ ΘΕΟΔΩΡΙΔΗ ΤΗΣ "ΑΥΓΗΣ" ΚΑΙ ΤΟΥ ΣΥΝΑΣΠΙΣΜΟΥ Οι επετειακές κραυγές που συνήθως ακούγονται και γράφονται κάθε άνοιξη για το ζήτημα της όντως απεχθούς και μαζικής εξόντωσης των Ποντίων επιτάσσουν μια ψύχραιμη προσέγγιση και αποτίμηση του ιστορικού αυτού ζητήματος. Δυστυχώς μέχρι σήμερα ουδείς ειδήμων ασχολήθηκε αντικειμενικά με την ιστορική ανάλυση της άλλης πλευράς της αλήθειας στο θέμα του ελληνισμού του Πόντου.... Η επιχειρηματολογία της εθνικιστικής μερίδας των Ποντίων, σε σχέση με αυτά που υπέφερε ο ποντιακός λαός από το 1915 έως το 1924, αναφέρεται πράγματι σε πολλές αλήθειες, ταυτόχρονα όμως δεν διστάζει να χρησιμοποιεί μισές αλήθειες, να αποκρύπτει άλλες αλήθειες και να διαδίδει πολλά ψεύδη.... Από κοινωνικής και πολιτικής σκοπιάς το πιο αναληθές κατασκεύασμα είναι η θεωρία του λεγόμενου επαναστατικού αγώνα προς «απελευθέρωση» του Πόντου από τον «τουρκικό ζυγό». Θεωρητικά ο όρος «απελευθέρωση» μπορεί να έχει αποδεκτό περιεχόμενο μόνο όταν αφορά σε μια σχετικά μεγάλη εδαφική περιοχή όπου η φίλια εθνική ομάδα αποτελεί την πληθυσμιακή πλειοψηφία.... Στην προκειμένη περίπτωση ο ελληνικός πληθυσμός των τριών νομών ή Βιλαετίων, του Πόντου αποτελούσε μια σημαντική, μια μικρή ή μια εντελώς ασήμαντη μειοψηφία. Τα επίσημα αυτά στατιστικά στοιχεία, που αφορούν στο έτος 1912, προέρχονται από τον καθηγητή του Πανεπιστημίου Αθηνών Σωτηριάδη. ...Συγκεκριμένα, στον νομό, δηλαδή στο Βιλαέτι της Τραπεζούντας οι Έλληνες ανέρχονταν μόνο στο 25,9% του συνολικού πληθυσμού, συγκεκριμένα οι Τούρκοι αριθμούσαν 957.866 άτομα ενώ οι Έλληνες ανέρχονταν μόνο σε 353.533. Το πραγματικό αντάρτικο στον Πόντο άρχισε μόλις το 1916, όταν οι Ρώσοι κατέλαβαν την πόλη της Τραπεζούντας μεταφέροντας το ρωσοτουρκικό πολεμικό μέτωπο στην περιοχή εκείνη. Οργανωτής του ελληνικού αντάρτικου ήταν ο φανατικός «στρατηγός» Καραβαγγέλης, ο οποίος ήρθε στη Σαμψούντα το 1908 ως μητροπολίτης...Μετά τη δημιουργία των ανταρτικών σωμάτων με χρήματα και πολεμοφόδια που πήρε ο μητροπολίτης από τους Ρώσους, τα εξαπέλυσε να προσβάλουν τον τουρκικό στρατό στα μετόπισθέν του, τη στιγμή κατά την οποίαν οι Τούρκοι πολεμούσαν τον ρωσικό στρατό στο μέτωπο της Τραπεζούντας....Οι αντάρτες του Πόντου συντάχθηκαν κατά τη διάρκεια του πολέμου με τα εχθρικά κατοχικά στρατεύματα της Ρωσίας, καταπολέμησαν τον στρατό του κράτους του οποίου ήταν υπήκοοι, καταπιέζοντας και σκοτώνοντας αλλόθρησκους συμπολίτες τους....Οι ταλαίπωροι αντάρτες, το πλείστον τουρκόφωνοι και αναλφάβητοι, έπεσαν στην παγίδα του αιμοσταγούς αυτού παπά χωρίς να αναλογιστούν τις συνέπειες του λεγόμενου απελευθερωτικού αγώνα, δηλαδή δεν συνειδητοποίησαν καν το τι θα απογίνονταν αυτοί μετά το τέλος του πολέμου, όταν ο μεν παπάς θα εξαφανιζόταν για να σωθεί, όπως και έγινε, αυτοί όμως θα παρέμεναν....Κάτω από την εγκληματική καθοδήγηση του Καραβαγγέλη οι χριστιανοί άρχισαν να πυκνώνουν τις τάξεις των ανταρτών χτυπώντας πισώπλατα τον τουρκικό στρατό και ληστεύοντας κυρίως τουρκικά χωριά, για να μπορέσουν να επιβιώσουν....Λόγω των πράξεων αυτών ο τουρκικός στρατός άρχισε στην περιοχή της Μπάφρας το κυνήγι εναντίον των ανταρτών, που μετεξελίχθηκε βεβαίως σε μαζική εθνοκάθαρση, απολύτως κατακριτέα αλλά και διακριτή από μια «γενοκτονία», που θα προϋπέθετε «άμεσο δόλο εξόντωσης μέχρις ενός», πράγμα αναπόδεικτο...Όμως στα ελληνικά ΜΜΕ γίνεται συνεχής αναφορά στα εγκλήματα που διέπραξαν οι Τούρκοι εναντίον των Ελλήνων στον Πόντο παρασιωπώντας συστηματικά τις εγκληματικές πράξεις των Ελλήνων ανταρτών, τις οποίες παρουσιάζει κομπάζοντας σε μια μελέτη του ο εθνικιστής Πόντιος συγγραφέας Ανθεμίδης («Επαναστατική τρομοκρατία – Αντίποινα των Ελλήνων κατά του τουρκικού πληθυσμού»)....Συνεπώς είναι ανεπίτρεπτο να ζητούμε με θορυβώδη τρόπο από την Τουρκία να καταδικάσει τα δικά της εγκλήματα, χωρίς όμως να ζητάμε συγγνώμη για παρόμοια εγκλήματα που έκανε η «δική μας» πλευρά."----F.Mehmet (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC) A Turkish explanation for the text above

I'm sorry but I don't understand Greek language. Takabeg (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

---

Nasos Theodoridis'in kaleme aldığı makale, Yunanistan'da milliyetçi çevrelerin uzun yıllardan bu tarafa dile getirdikleri "Türkler, 353 bin Pontus Rumunu soykırıma tabi tuttu" iddiasının tarihi çarpıtmaktan başka bir şey olmadığına dikkat çekti. Şimdiye kadar bu konuyu tarafsız ele alacak bir tarih analizi yapılmadığını vurgulayan Theodoridis, "Pontusluların toplu halde yok edildiği konusunda duyulan yıldönümü çığlıkları, bu tarihi konuya soğukkanlı bir yaklaşımı gerekli kılıyor. Ne yazık ki Pontus Helenizmi gerçeğinin öbür tarafını ele alacak, tarafsız bir tarihi analiz yapacak uzman bugüne kadar çıkmadı. " ifadelerine yer verdi. "GÖZÜ DÖNMÜŞ BİR PAPAZ PONTUSLULARI OYUNA GETİRDİ" Aşırı milliyetçi Pontusluların bazı gerçekleri gizledikleri ve birçok yalanın yayılmasına neden oldukları belirtilen yazıda, Türk-Rus savaş sırasında Rum gerillaların 1908 yılında Samsun'a metropolit olarak gelen "general" Karavangelis tarafından organize edildiği bilgisi veriliyor. Yunan avukat şöyle devam ediyor: "Metropolit Ruslardan aldığı para ve savaş malzemesiyle organize edilen gerilla gruplarını, Trabzon cephesinde Türklerin Rus ordusuyla savaşırken, Türk ordusunu arkadan vurmaya gönderdi. Savaş sırasında Pontus gerillaları Rusya'nın düşman işgal ordularıyla birlik oldular. Farklı dinden vatandaşlara baskı uygulayarak ya da onları öldürerek, tebaası oldukları devletin ordusuna karşı savaştılar. " Rum gerillaların gözü dönmüş bu papazın tuzağına düştüklerini belirten Theodoridis, karşılıklı çarpışmalar sırasında Türk Ordusu tarafından öldürülen Rumların soykırıma tabi tutulduğunu söylemenin ise mümkün olmadığına dikkat çekiyor. Yazar, "Soykırım 'bir tek kişinin dahi kalmamasını öngören' doğrudan 'kasıtlı bir girişimdir'. Burada bu kanıtlanmıyor. " ifadelerini kullanıyor. Yunan medyasında sürekli Türklerin Rumlara karşı Pontus'ta işledikleri cinayetlerden söz edildiği eleştirisini yapan avukat Theodoridis, aşırı milliyetçi Pontuslu yazar Anthemidis'in gururla sözünü ettiği Rum gerillaların işledikleri cinayetleri sistemli olarak sessizce geçiştirdiği örneğini veriyor.----F.Mehmet (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand Turkish language. I know that the article Greek genocide is not neutral. I think that the term "Pontiac Greek Genocide" is acceptable, but "Greek genocide" is propagated, in accordence with reliable sources. We'd better split articles to "Pontiac Greek Genocide" and "Greek XXXX (I don't find appropreate term for this episode)". To improve and to neutralize article, I need helps of neutral users both from Greece and Turkey. Regards. Takabeg (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think both are not acceptable, because Mr.Theodoridis ,who is a neutral writer, actually wanted to say the genocide never happened. I am also from this region in Turkey and I know that events between rums and turks were only a war, both sides killed each other (for example in our village, my great-grandparents' friends were killed by Rum and Armenian guerillas) but we cannot classify these events as a genocide. (a Turkish genocide or a Rum genocide). Same valid for 1915 events.--F.Mehmet (talk) 09:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hi Takabeg,

I am glad that you are very active in editing the articles dealing with Ottoman Empire. That is the topic which sure deserve much better coverage of wikipedia. Many of those articles are on my watchlist and therefore I noticed that you sometimes don't add brief explanation of your edits into edit summary. As you already know I highly evaluate your contribution to many of those articles and was not involved in any edit war or dispute with you. Please understand my message as really friendly. I would really appreciate if you would add brief explanation of your edits into edit summary box in future because it would really help me to understand the intention of your edit.

Best regards,--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

wikipedia is an encyclopedia

everyone can freely edit. I have sources and it is "normal procedure"F.Mehmet (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please read also Wikipedia:Article titles. Takabeg (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ne yapmaya çalişayisun anlamadum. Neden benum yazdıklarumi beğenmeyisun? :)F.Mehmet (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've read all of them and my edits don't go against any rule on wikipedia be sure.F.Mehmet (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article titles is very clear. Takabeg (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, very clear indeed. I also have clear sources and it does not go against any of the rule on Wikipedia:Article titles, thanks. I hope we can collaborate again. -F.Mehmet (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Your favorite is not common name. You'd better read Wikipedia:Article titles, Wikipedia:I just don't like it, Wikipedia:Requested moves. Takabeg (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:Help

I would like to pay attention to the issue mentioned in your message, but I can not do it now, since I have some urgent real life activities. I hope I will have some time in the evening. Best regards, --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that someone started the procedure for renaming this article which should resolve the problem. I guess there is no need for me to be involved?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Takabeg. You have new messages at Baffle gab1978's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Baffle gab1978 (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Name etc

Just a quick note: you don't have to go around changing the occurrences of every name/title/term etc to avoid redirects. As a matter of fact, it is rather counterproductive: alternate names are equally legitimate, just less popular, than the article title, and it helps to have them in the encyclopedia so that readers become aware of them. That is why redirects exist and should exist aplenty. Only in navboxes etc should there be no redirects. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 14:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

As to rules of Wikipedia ? I support to standardise all every time when we change titles. If possible, I want to use Bots for these work. Titles were changable, maybe we would be able to find more common names. Until then, existing title should be presumed most common name. But if there is rule to prohibit changing, we would not have to go around changing. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

And how do you think of these edits ? There is some truth, but had the Kingdom of Algeria or Algerian Kingdom been established at the time ? Takabeg (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Huh? I can't really understand what you are saying there. Redirects are allowed and widely used in Wikipedia, hence they are legitimate and obviously have a purpose. What you are doing is precisely what WP:NOTBROKEN warns against: "It is likewise unhelpful to edit visible links for no reason other than to avoid redirects. That is, editors should not change, for instance, Franklin Roosevelt to Franklin D. Roosevelt just to "fix a redirect"." Complete standardization is a fiction, and useless to boot: if a topic has multiple names, then we should use them and encourage others to use them. If Lefkada is also Leucas, Leucada or Santa Maura, and Missolonghi also Mesolongi and Messolonghi, and if Nedim or others want to use Mehmet II for Mehmed II, then we should use or allow the use of these terms, depending of course on context, because that corresponds to actual usage. It is not against Wikipedia rules, and even less against actual practice in the English or any other language, to have various forms in articles. The common usage criterion applies to the main article title, not what forms are used elsewhere. Variety is a bonus as well as a recognition of reality, because you cannot have rigid standardization in a living language. Constantine ✍ 14:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. But I think that Mehmet II/Mehmed II is different case. Some users prefer domestic versions (do you know this case ?) and intentionally change titles/names to modern Turkish versions. Takabeg (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Domestic or not, "Mehmet" is also used in English scholarship and hence valid. As I said, the common name criterion applies for the title and usage in the main article. Redirects from alternate forms are permissible otherwise. Constantine ✍ 08:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Algeria under ottoman protectorate

salam turkish brother , we must cooperate and help each other to make a better history pages ,it's clear that the ottoman were turkish and also Algerian (ottman empire is a common history between algeria and turkey) . take this sources who show the flag of Algeria under the ottoman protectorate [40] , [ http://www.hukam.net/family.php?fam=54] . Tahert14 (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, we must cooperate and help eash other. But at first, I recommend you to read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. And please use "Talk pages" when you edit redically. Regards. Takabeg (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

hello , nooo it's not nationalist modifications at all, you must know that the ottoman empire is my history and heritage as yours,

and im proud of my ottoman empire. (it's clear that there are a large diffirance between turkish and ottoman), i suggest you tu see my new modification and give me your remarks and your points of discord, thanks. Tahert14 (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Turkish and Ottoman are different. I'm proud of niether the Ottoman Empire nor the Republic of Turkey :)) I'm just interested in their history. Please use talk pages before your new modification. Takabeg (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

i agree with you, i will make "ottoman Algeria" instead of "Algeria" , if there are any other probleme in my modifications , please tell me. Tahert14 (talk) 12:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Prens Sabahaddin

Y-DNA investigations showed an Indo-European line. R1a1. In Georgia this is very rare. Gürcü Halil Rifat, was born in Georgia, and has probably also a Georgian mother. He was by birth a Muslim, not Christian Georgians, thus Cveneburi. the paternal line, however, points to an Indo-European Genentik. Thus not entirely clear is whether he could possibly be Abkhazian. 33% of Abhkhazen shows on the Y-DNA R1a1. Dilek2 (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

? Takabeg (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, in the DNA Family Tree are Timur Can's Y-Dna...and show's him as R1a1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.134.39.50 (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Tahert14

Hello,

I reported this case to the ANI: [41]. This guy is well known for his nationalistic edits. I invite you to give your opinion on the ANI board.

Regards,
Omar-Toons (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sanjak of Berat or Sanjak of Vlorë or ......?

Hi Takabeg,

I need your help. I created the article Sanjak of Berat but then I found some sources which claim that there are sources which mistakenly called Sanjak of Vlore as Sanjak of Berat because the seat of Sanjak of Vlore was in Berat.

Will you please help me and give me your opinion about what is the correct name of this sanjak?

Thanks in advance.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll tell you when. Takabeg (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

As long as I understand, the Sanjak of Valona ("Sanjak of Valona" -Llc) had become one of the kazas ("Kaza of Valona" -Llc) belonged to the Sanjak of Berat. But I'm not sure. I continue to search. Takabeg (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Takabeg. We are not in a hurry, whenever you feel like researching this issue is allright.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Zhengzhou

Thanks for the help. I could not think of searching for "Çengçou", I only searced for Zhengzhou and Çengçu :) I will move the article accordingly. --Seksen (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hiçbirşey :) According to Türk Ansiklopedisi (Cilt 11), ÇENGSİYEN (ing. Chengheien) ya da ÇENGÇOU (ing. Chengehow), doğu Çin'de, Honan eyaletinde, Huangho (Sarı Irmak) ırmağının güneyinde Kaifeng'in 64 km batısında Peiping (Pekin) den Hankov'a giden demiryolu (yani Beijing–Guangzhou Railway) ile Çangan (Siking, Siyan) dan Tunghay'a giden demiryolunun (yani Longhai Railway) kavşak... (p. 452.) Takabeg (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I want to correct some errors in page Göktürks, but I can't find direct reference

Göktürks

Hello, Takabeg,

First please forgive me if I make some mistakes in English here, for I'm a native Chinese speaker. Yesterday when I searched for information about ancient Turkic history, I found in this page there were some expressions that were not the same with the Chinese version.

The first one was the time when Ishbara Qaghan was on his reign. In the Chinese page of 阿史那贺鲁(Ashina Helu), it is clearly written that his reign was (？-659年). But in the English page of Göktürks, his reign changes into 634-639. The same period was in fact another Khan's reign called 阿史那同俄(Ashina Tonge, 634-639).

The second one was about whether Chui River was the border between Dulo and Nushibi. In fact, Dulo was a tribe of Bulgarians, who at that time lived in the area of nowaday Ukraine. For reference, see here: Bulgars. Ukraine does not border Chui River, which flows through the plains of Kirgistan and Kazakhstan. So we can conclude that Chui River coudn't be the border between Dulo and Nushibi.

Thank you.

--User:霎起林野间(talk)

As long as I know, there is no "Turkish version" of the history of this dynasty. If there were nationalistic faked "history" :) With the term "Late Turkic Khaganate", you tried to explain 後突厥/后突厥 ? But we cannot find this term in historiography in English language. In this situation this term is considered as original research. I think that "Second Eastern Turkic Khaganate" and/or "Second Turkic Khaganate" (東)突厥第二汗國/(东)突厥第二汗国 are better. And please add reliable sources.

According to these sources, 阿史那同俄 (āshǐnà tóng é) is a son of 阿史那默啜. I recommend you to ask User:Nlu about sources. Thank you.Takabeg (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I know that "Second Eastern Turkic Khaganate" is better now, but I didn't know then. It's my mistake. However, as for 阿史那同俄, I can't agree with your opinion that he was a son of 阿史那默啜, for in the Chinese version he was actually the Khagan who ruled Western Turkic Khaganate in 630s, not 650s. I'll turn to Nlu for further information. Thank you all the same!^^ 霎起林野间 (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)霎起林野间 (talk) 18:48 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Page moves

If your requests are going to be uncontroversial requests, can you list them in that section? That gets done more quickly. Also, when you sign, can you leave a space before the tildes so that your signature is easier to find? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. Takabeg (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Khwarazmian dynasty

Hi Takabeg,

Thank you very much for your sources on the origin of Khwarazmian dynasty. For some users, it is like a contest to make old dynasties etc. belong to a certain nation's ancestors. They were of Turkic (not Turkish) origin mamlukes indeed. Categorizing Seljuks, Ghaznevids etc. as Persian states might be fanciful but not serious approach. They all occupied Persian territories and used their economic, intellectual etc resources, and this did not make them Persian. Ex. British Empire was not an Indian Empire etc... --Hanberke (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As long as I understand, many users confuse dynasties with states. Khwarazmian dynasty, Tulunids (Tulunid dynasty) was Turkic dynasties, but they were not Turkic states. And we cannot use Category:History of the Turkic people for Tulunids. In the same way, Ayyubid dynasty was Kurdish dynasty, but it was not Kurdish state. And we can use neither Category:History of the Kurdish people nor Category:History of Kurdistan for Ayyubids. We can solve this As to dynasties and states estublished in present-day Iran, Category:Persian people is used for ethnic group. Category:Iranian people is related with nationality (Iran). But Category:Iranian peoples (Iranic peoples) is related with ethnic group. We have to remove Category:Iranian peoples of sub-categories of Category:Iranian people. On the other hand, in the term Category:Persian history, the word "Persian" means former countries in Iran. They are considerablly complicated. For now, our quick solves are to enhance notes on categories. Category:Turkish people is also problematic. Takabeg (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)　

P.S. Bu arada I didn't provide sources on the origin of Khwarazian dynasty :)) Takabeg (talk) 05:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Hanberke (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Merci. Takabeg (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!/Turkish General Staff request

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	A barnstar well earned for all Ottoman and Turkish military articles Buckshot06 (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Merci. Takabeg (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

That's well earned, but did also want to ask something of you. As a Kiwi I've followed this enormous changover with the Turkish Armed Forces, but I wouldn't know quite how to emphasise what's going on and what angles are important. Would you be able to write two or three sentences for the TAF article describing what happened, with references if possible? I mean, having the chief of the Gendarmerie now being Chief of the General Staff is a major, massive development !! I'm quite happy to help out, clean up, search for refs, etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Fikret Bila, "Düğüm Kara Kuvvetleri’nde: YAŞ’ta ayrılan 4 komutanın yeri boş kalacak. Balanlı tutuklu olduğu için koltuğu boş olacak. Taşdeler’in gelip gelmeyeceği ise belirsiz", Milliyet, July 30, 2011. (in Turkish) - Google Translate Takabeg (talk) 08:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this Takabeg. Unfortunately Gtranslate makes a hash of this and talks about cigarette lighters in the first paragraph, as well as other absurd errors. It's quite hard for me to follow. Would it be possible to explain what's happening, to me, here on this page, in a few sentences ? Best regards Buckshot06 (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course I'll give you some time Takabeg. The WP:Publication date is still some way off ;) ! Thank you also for the Al Jazeera link. Please just add it to your list of things to do, and we can continue to correspond on the matter. I hope all your dealing In real life are going well. Best, Buckshot06 (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Topal Osman

The article really needs to be copy edited since the prose is heavily tortured. As soon as I have time I will check this one.Alexikoua (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Merci. Takabeg (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Takabeg. You have new messages at Talk:Sasun Resistance (1904)#Requested move.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sanjaks, Elayets and Vilayets

If your question about changing the names of elayets is referred only to elayets of the Ottoman Empire, then I think that it is a good idea provided the following two conditions are fulfilled in case of every elayet we talk about:

1. if there is no other form extensively mentioned in numerous sources on English language
2. if numerous sources on Turkish language much more frequently follow the suggested form "Eyalet of X" then form "X Eyalet"

Even if both conditions are fulfilled (and I think they probably are) I propose to follow the procedure and change names of all "X Eyalet"s to "Eyalet of X" one by one.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

List of beys

Hi. Perhaps you have sources with lists of names of beys or beylerbeys that governed some Ottoman provinces such are Temesvar Eyalet, Sanjak of Segedin and Sanjak of Syrmia. It would be nice that these articles are expanded with these names. PANONIAN 20:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have complete lists of them. I'll tell you when I find related sources. Takabeg (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well if you have incomplete lists that could be useful too. PANONIAN 19:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Medes

I've reported Bokan995 for violating WP:3RR. If you continue to edit you will also exceed 3RR and may be blocked by the Administrator dealing with the report. Note that there are very few exceptions to this rule, read it carefully. Dougweller (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. Takabeg (talk) 23:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Kararname

Hi Takabeg,

Will you please help me again.

I want to create articles about Kararname other than those of League of Prizren. Since many of the sources are on Turkish, can you please provide me with links to some proper explanation of the term written on English?

Sorry if I bother you too much. Best regards,

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You didn't bother me. I'm planning to create articles such as Kararname 413, Kararname of 1296 (1880). Maybe I'll create them tomorrow. See you. Takabeg (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Maps and names

Can't you people just trim a word or two from your alphabet? I mean do you really need two different i's lol? Anyways I tagged them for renaming, hope that will fix it.--Nero the second (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Just wanted to let you know, that renaming is alright. Won't take actions against that. I've just chosen to replace these -to me- odd letters with letters that seem to be very similar to letters that I can find in both German and English alphabet. To me it's easier to work with these filenames cause I lack of course these letters on my keyboard. Just that you know. Bye--TUBS (talk) 07:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Çok merci. Takabeg (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes of course it's understandable, actually I thank you for making those maps in the first place ;) Oh Tak, you don't have to tag those images for renaming twice, I think we now just have to wait until an administrator renames them. Cheers mate, Nero the second (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Tourism in Turkey by province

Category:Tourism in Turkey by province, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Student7 (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Iran

No, I'm not Persian. Cut and paste is easy so I don't have to figure our entering Persian characters. Thanks for finding fa-wiki equivalents for districts that I couldn't find. Would you be interested in helping with transliterating the names of various places to Latin letters? I know many vowels aren't written in Persian so Google translate is basically useless, and another method of character substitution yields impossible results: Ajan Qarah Khvājeh (in Golestan) comes out āǧn qrh ḫūǧh (which no English speaker could begin to pronounce). So your help would be valuable, if you are interested. P.S. I really don't speak Persian. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Template about sanjaks

Hi Takabeg,

What do you think about creating template about Ottoman Sanjaks? Something like this: Template:Sanjaks of the Ottoman Empire? This template would be added to every article about some Ottoman Sanjak and would allow readers to have more clear picture about Ottoman sanjaks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It's good idea and helpful for readers. But it will be very difficult work. Takabeg (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes it will. I have already created articles about numerous sanjaks in Balkans and I intend to create articles about all of them in the Balkans. Do you think we could find someone to help with sanjaks in Asia and Africa. Do you think this article could be useful although there would be a lot of red links at the beginning? Do you have some source with list of all Ottoman Sanjaks?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have only the list of sanjaks between 1700 - 1740. Takabeg (talk) 07:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That is great. Can you give me a link to the source which contain that list? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Rumelia Eyalet -- Takabeg (talk) 06:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Takabeg. There are some sanjaks that are/were not listed, like Sanjak of Niš. Is there a source for this list?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you imagine, this source explains there were 123 Ottoman sanjaks, 44 of them in Europe after latest reform. It sure will be a huuuge work to prepare this template I mentioned.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yess. I think I found a source for many of them.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Congratulation : ) There was 32 eyalets in 1669, 41 eyalets between 1700 and 1718, 50 eyalets between 1717 and 1930, 40 eyalets - 1740. These variability will kill us. Takabeg (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That diversity in eyalets is exactly why I am focused on sanjaks. I think that they were much much more stable. They were shifted from one eyalet to another, but kept their structure as sanjaks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:History of Kazakhstan

Dear Takabeg, can you please help me with the template Template:History of Kazakhstan located at User:Barefact/DraftTemplate:History of Kazakhstan. I would appreciate your corrections and endorsement, formatting listings in left alignment instead of the default center alignment, and "create documentation" that I am not sure about. A help and second opinion, before I move it into the WP Templates, will be greatly appreciated; eventually it will go into all articles connected with Kazakhstan history, and first of all on the page History of Kazakhstan. Barefact (talk) 06:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Barefact. Personally I prefer this style to sidebar. Takabeg (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree. But look at pages from England to China to Mongolia, they all have both on the same page, listing their pedigree. As a quick reference, on the top with dates, it has its own value. I hope you would help me, or refer to somebody who would. I know you have busy hands. Barefact (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Constantinopolitans

Re Category:Constantinopolitans, I suggest we have a discussion about what this cat should include. It is obvious that RS refer to people after 1453 as coming from Constantinople. That editors what to distinguish between Greek and Turkish rule will have to be figured out. The name refers to inhabitants of the city under both Greek and Turkish rule. Chesdovi (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Category talk:Constantinopolitans must be applied to people from Constantinople. Takabeg (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Constantinopolitan + "Grigoris Asikis" -Llc 0 result Takabeg (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want you can start discussion here Takabeg (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If Constantinopolitans means people from Constantinople, it must be applied to people who lived in there in all eras. It is clear the city name was only changed in the 20th century.

"Grigoris Asikis" = 0 result. Chesdovi (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

At first, you'd better read Wikipedia:Categorization. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Which section? (I can see the whole issue in the name page needs attention too.) Could possibly have this cat for the pre-1453 guys if that is the common term applied to them, while the rest can go under "People from Constantinople"? Chesdovi (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sohrevardi

Hi.The user boqan has once again reverted and vandalized the sohrevardis article.please correct it.thanks.--85.165.230.121 (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I think the last edit by Bokan995 is not radical and acceptable, but these edits by User:Konjkaw look like vandalism. Takabeg (talk) 09:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Karim Khan Zan

Hey, please stop removing Karim Khan Zand version by Xani95. His version is much more cleaner and reliable. And there is no point to use two pictures of him. What he did that he cleaned the text.

--Bokan995 (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

No. Please read Talk:Karim Khan. Takabeg (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sock or meat?

?? Dougweller (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I think maybe user didn't read these rules. New users sometime abuse these rules because they are without knowledge. -- Takabeg (talk)

I was wondering who you had in mind. Dougweller (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Bokan995, Xani95, Xano95 etc... -- Takabeg (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been keeping track, but that makes sense. Dougweller (talk) 05:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

But Xani95 seems to have undone some of Bokan's edits, eg Bokan addes 'dynasty' to King Manisarus, Xani95 removes it, not sure this [42] looks like Bokan? Dougweller (talk) 05:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Do take them to WP:SPI if you are concerned though, I'm bothered by the similarities in names also, esp. with Xano. It's easy to use SPI. Dougweller (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Merci. But I'm not sure whether they are meatpuppets or not ? Possibly other users (as you know, there are some anti-Kurdish users who were banned in Wikipedia) intentionally made accounts to trap some Kurdish POV pushing users. See you. -- Takabeg (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources on March Days

Merhaba Takabeg. I apologize for the late reply. I don't have any Armenian primary sources on hand, but, according to Stepan Shahumian, a total of three thousand people died on both sides during the conflict. I got this figure from an endnote in Richard Hovannisian's Armenia on the Road to Independence. In case you might want to use the information, I can give you the full citation. Best, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Merci. -- Takabeg (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Selam

Selamlar. Nerelerdesin? Buranın son değişikliklerinde adını gördüm, bir de baktım ki burada aktifmişsin. Hem Türkçe Vikiye uğramayı düşünüyor musun diye sorayım dedim hem de eski bir arkadaşa selam vermek istedim :)--Rapsar (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ve akeyküm. Takabeg (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Burada mesajları benim sayfama da atman gerekmiyor herhalde? :) Neyse, sorularıma cevap verecek misin? :)--Rapsar (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you know ?

Murat Belge, "Mavi Anadolu Tezi ve Halikarnas Balıkçısı"- Edebiyatta Milliyetçilik, Birikim, Sayı 210, Ekim 2006, pp. 32-45.

Turgut Reis'in anne-babasının Rum olması ihtimali güçlüdür. Ancak, Türk kaynakları bu iddiayı ciddiye almazlar. benzer biçimde, Hızır Reis ve kardeşlerinin babalarının Rum'dan dönme bir timar beyi olduğu kuvvetle muhtemel, annelerinin Rum olduğu da kesindir. Halikarnas Balıkçısı, Turgut Reis'le ilgili bu güçlü ihtimale önem vermeye hiç niyetli görünmüyor. Tersine, kitaba doğumunu anlatmakla başlayarak böyle bir ihtimali zihnimizden silmek üzere davranıyor. Belge, p. 35.

-- Takabeg (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Invitation

Hey. You make nice edits here on Wikipedia. Something tells me you would be a nice contributor at drobos13 as well, which is a unique discussion environment where everything is pre-moderated and everyone is anonymous in public. It also has a very usable interface and has had over 11 years of R&D put into it. You would be part of the initial crowd of early adopters and be able to really get your voice heard. Please at least consider it and note that this was sent by a human being, manually, rather than some sort of automated bulk spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rattlemake (talk • contribs) 07:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Empty {{Merge to}} at Qutalmish

I've removed the empty {{Merge to}} that you added to Qutalmish without suggesting the target page. If you still feel it should be merged, add it back, but specify a <target page>: {{Merge to|<target page>}}. Mark Hurd (talk) 08:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Split that article. -- Takabeg (talk)

Hello

Hi. I'm not sure if you can speak Chinese, but is it correct that the term Yùjiǔlǘ (郁久閭) would be pronoucned something like "ugur" or "uguri" in Chienese ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

郁久閭 is not pronounced as Ugur / Uguri in middle (Guangyun) and modern Chinese languages. Nobody knows ancient pronunciation :) -- Takabeg (talk) 07:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks mate Slovenski Volk (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Zaza people

Thanks for asking my opinion about disputes on Zaza people article which is not exactly something that I am familiar with. I hope that someone who is more competent will reply to your request for comments. If not please let me know and I will try to understand the issue and give my opinion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Merci. Takabeg (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

PS. When you have time, please control existing sources. Because one of the administrators completely deceived by that user. This is not nationalistic edit war. Turkish nationalists try to make Zaza people Turkomans (Oghuz Turks). Kurdish nationalists try to make them Kurdish people. Zaza nationalists try to make themselves Zaza people. This is a struggle between propaganda vs. normal users. I think Wikipedia must not support propaganda. -- Takabeg (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I will try to learn something about Zaza people. In the meantime I can only say that in such cases wikipedia should follow WP:NPOV and represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw what happened with Zaza people article. I think that administrator was right when he protected the article. There is wikipedia policy which deal with protection of the pages. It is Wikipedia:Protection policy. It says: Changes to a fully protected page should be proposed on the corresponding talk page, and carried out if they are uncontroversial or if there is consensus for them. The article about Zaza people is very bad and needs to be improved. If you want to improve it I think you have the following alternatives:

1. to continue going trough Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process, which is similar to what admin who protected the article suggested, and hope that somebody would be interested to help with this article.
2. to try to reach consensus on the talk page. It is not easy but after some time it would be obvious who are users who refuses to accept consensus and are involved in tendentious editing.
3. to do complete recreation process, like in the article about Vojsava Tripalda. Sentence by sentence. On separate page Talk:Zaza people/Temp and separate discussion page Talk:Zaza people/Temp-talk leaving the same kind of notice on the article page, with admin's approval.

The easiest way is alternative num 1, but I would not be so optimistic. It is season of summer vacations. I would wait a couple of weeks and prepare informations to be added to the article, together with sources, within separate subpage like User:Takabeg/Sandbox/Zaza people ethnicity issues. If nobody who can really help do not give good advice and opinion, then I would go for alternative num 2. If there is a deadlock on the alternative num 2 I would go for alternative num 3. What do you think?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia and anyone can edit! --Goktr001 (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Anyone can edit. But we must not provide wrong information. -- Takabeg (talk) 01:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Özür dilerim ama tehlike derken? --Goktr001 (talk) 02:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Mesela... Turkish nationalis POV pushing user olarak rapor edilebilirsiniz. En kötü ihtimalle engellenebilirsiniz. Tehlike değil mi bu ? Takabeg (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ben orada bir görüş dile getirdim. Türk milliyetçiliği yapmış olmam mümkün değil. Alternatif bir isim önerisiydi sadece. Yanlış bir bilgi ise sizde silebilirsiniz. Gayet doğal olanı da budur. --Goktr001 (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ben anlarım da İngilizce Vikide diğerler pek anlamazlar, hatta genelde yanlış anlarlar. Yakın geçmişte kukla olmadığı halde engellenen Türk kullanıcı da görmüştüm. Yukarıdaki yazıyı okudunuz mu ? O maddede bariz propagandanın yapıldığı halde, hizmetli yanlış anlıyor. Sadece bilgisizliğinden mi tarafı tutuğundan dolayı mı bilemem ...-- Takabeg (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Bu konuda hiçbir fikrim yok. Size iyi çalışmalar. Bence Wikipedia kendi olmaktan çıkmış olmalı, dediğiniz doğruysa. İyi geceler Türkiye'den. --Goktr001 (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Your version B must be used, because it does meet the criterias of Wikipedia of objectivity, impartiality, political neutrality and the use of academically referenced sources. User:Wikisupporting is clearly having a political agenda and is fanatically pursuing so. The comments of the user is full of hatred and anger and is totally intolerant and uncompromising towards any other constructive editions. This is unfortunately the downside of Wikipedia which was founded on the idealistic principles of constructive editing by anyone, and the major criticism and problem of it is, when it is used for reference and homeworks for schools, it is hijacked by such users for their own political agendas.

Wikipedia and all of its articles must be objective, impartial and politically neutral. Academic sources meeting these criterias must only be used. There is no place for biased, ethnocentic and politically motivated propaganda material in any Wikipedia article, as has been the case in the Zaza people article. Another serious matter is that politically and fanatically minded users, not only ignore but most importantly prevent other users editions, by erasing objective, impartial and politically neutral and academic theories and engaging in edit wars. -- Van de Kemp (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the administrator restored the one-sided version of the this user without much ado and indefinately fully protetected the Zaza people artice, in which no editions can be made anymore. The administrator admitted that he/she does not know about this topic and lost his/her cool by completely blocking it and warning all users with a permanent block. Unfortunately when administrators, well meaning, but having no knowledge about these topics, become inflexible and arbitarily freeze the articles to avoid addressing the disputes and edit wars. I strongly recommend that you take this issue to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. I am cautiously optimistic, because there are still methods left to address this problem and I urge you to use them all. -- Van de Kemp (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any recommendations on how to deal with this issue, because the problem is that the principles and policies of Wikipdia are violated and allowed to stand. The administrators who checked this article, seem oblivious to these blatant POV violations and are reluctant to intervene. I am thinking of taking this myself to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. How should I proceed?. Kindest regards -- Van de Kemp (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Takabeg. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Zaza people.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It's inappropriate for an editor (Menikure) who has never discussed the issue to take it to a noticeboard. I'll also note that Kwamikagami is an experienced editor. Articles are protected to prevent back and forth edit warring, which seems to have been occuring. Disputes should not take place within an article. Requests for mediation might be appropriate. I've little experience there but can advise how to do this if the documentation is unclear. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Or, if you have something very specific you want included (or even removed), an RFC to get others involved (I seem to have suggested that at one time) - see WP:RFC. Dougweller (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

　I cannot understand why an "experienced" editor or administrator couldn't understand that propaganda (very clear). It's very interesting. Maybe he/she was tired. Did you understand that propaganda ? I believe that Wikipedia must not permit any propaganda. Takabeg (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Sock puppets

You were right, I started an SPI:

"[Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Confirmed the following are the same:

Xano95 (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • spi block • block log • SUL • checkuser) Bokan995 (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • spi block • block log • SUL • checkuser) Xani95 (talk+ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • spi block • block log • SUL • checkuser) TNXMan 9:41 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1) Administrator note: Only did stuff quickly here, blocked 2 socks, 88.90.56.34 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) is autoblocked. Open to actions on the master, which I didn't look into. -- DQ (t) (e) 10:40 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1) Clerk note: I'll assume some good faith and let the master off with a warning for now. Relist as necessary. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 3:53 am, Today (UTC+1)"

Dougweller (talk) 04:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Merci. Takabeg (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Selam tekrardan. Şu resmin silinmesi gerekmez mi? Özgün lisanslı bir benzeri çekilebilir pekala.--Rapsar (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this picture can be used in Wikipedia as "Non-free media use rationale for Altay (tank)". Takabeg (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Uygun bir resmi çekilebilecekken bu lisansla yüklenmesi doğru mu ki? Öyle olsaydı her maddeye bir resim eklenirdi zannedersem. Zahmet olmazsa konuyla ilgili birine sorabilir misin? Derdimi tam anlamıyla anlatacak İngilizcemin olmadığını düşünüyorum. Öte yandan şu resmi de sahte bir lisansla yüklemişler sanırım.--Rapsar (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a chinesse dictionary too,so you have to delete chinesse names too! Also Giving names in other langs. is not means to be a dictionary!--Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia is not Chinese dictionary. But those Chinese names have historical value. Takabeg (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Resim ve rica

I cannot take a picture of this tank. If you suspect you can use talk page. When you took a picture, please upload :) P.S. If you have time and you know some rules of Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, WP:NPOV etc. ), please control these national POV pushing edits. Görüşürüz. Takabeg (talk) 08:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not telling you to take picture of this tank. I'm telling you that you or me or anyone else could take a picture of it. So, i think we can not use this "non-free media" on pages. Anyway, see you...--Rapsar (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyway you can use File talk:Altay MBT From SSM Annual Report.jpg. Goerueshueruez. Takabeg (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Island

The most common is Leucas. See here. There are two or three scientific names which share the word Leucas, but they amount to less than half the number of references. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Merci. Takabeg (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

De rien. On second thought, I should have included Santa Maura, as in this engram, but it has become significantly less common over the last century, understandably. (Ngrams are rough, and should always be doublechecked; but I think rhis one holds up.)

If you are making a general survey, I would also commend, for the other Ionian Islands, Paxos, Zacynthos, and above all Cythera (widely known, under that name, in works on literature and art); I am pleased to see that we use Corfu and Ithaca. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing warning

Instead of canvassing other Turkish users (TheDarkLordSeth) in the hope of getting help in an edit-war you might be planning, why don't you answer me in the article talkpages? If you can't do that, then just let it go. That would be the sensible thing to do at this point. Turkey did some pretty bad things on those islands, and you're not going to be able to cover it up. It's all documented, there are piles of evidence about it. The more you scratch, the worse it's going to get. Athenean (talk) 07:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop Wikipedia:Harassment. I asked opinion to one Greek (I think he/she may be a Greek. But I'm not sure he/she is Greek or not.) and one Turkish (I think he/she may be a Turkish. But I'm not sure he/she is Turkish or not). This is not canvassing. Maybe I will ask other neutral Greek users. Takabeg (talk) 07:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

F.P. is not Greek, and TDLS is not neutral (topic-banned from everything relating to the Armenian Genocide). But feel free to ask as many neutral users as you like. Just stop canvassing non-neutral co-ethnics, ok? By the way, why haven't you responded in the talkpage yourself, instead of asking others to do so for you? Athenean (talk) 08:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know he/she is a Greek or not. Only I think he may be a Greek. Please stop Wikipedia:Harassment and leearn WP:NPOV. Please, please, please.... If you want you can ask opinion to neutral Greek users. Takabeg (talk) 08:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to write this message to you by e-mail, but since you don't have one I chose to do it here. I simply wanted to point to you that wikipedia generally discourage accusing others of harassment. I could simplify it like this: one should either bring the case of harassment on WP:ANI or avoid accusing others of harassment. In this case I think that the best way to solve dispute is to discuss. Athnean is established user who knows the rules and edits wikipedia in good faith. I think that his subject of interest can easily overlap with ours in future. In that case I believe his contributions can be valuable, like they indeed were in the past. Two of you have big potential for frightful future cooperation and therefore tone of your conversation (I mean both of you) should be adjusted according to that potential. I will point to this comment at Athenean's talk page.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you are a good person and very kind one. But we must not allow nationalistic, ethnocentric approaches in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I witnessed his/her nationalistic and ethnocentric reactions. See you. Takabeg (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for nice words about me and I can say that I am really happy that you are here on wikipedia and that we may cooperate here.

I feel I can share some personal thoughts about your concerns. I understand your general concerns about nationalistic and ethnocentric approaches in Wikipedia. I am faced with such approaches all the time in the field that is subject of my particular interest - Balkans, Albania and Skanderbeg. You should bear in your mind that historiography in this region (and not only this region) was/is very "nationalistic and ethnocentric". You can read the article I wrote about it: (Nationalization of history). Such nationalistic and ethnocentric approaches are always accompanied with approaches which are opposed to other nationalistic and even non-nationalistic approaches. Nationalism of one nation is always accompanied or based on hatred of some other nation. That is probably part of Antemurale myth I wrote about also. I know how frustrating it can be for someone who is aware of it. I am not talking about users of wikipedia only, but also about many of non-contemporary sources which still have significant impact on society. In some cases I feel like wikipedia is the last modern resort of some 19th century nationalistic ideas. I plan to prepare detailed analysis of such approaches in sources about Skanderbeg.

My point is: I think that people who understand this situation can not change anything about it. I think that is is valid for wikipedia editors too because none of us can change anything in real world nor other users. I found out that the easiest way to cope with frustration is to AGF not only when ti comes to wikipedia users, but everything else in the world.

In case of Athenean, I really believe that you will not be disappointed if you AGF.

Sorry if I bothered you with such long comment.

Looking forward to successful future cooperation with you.

--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you so often, but I felt I should illustrate my point from my above comment about some discourses toward Ottoman Empire and Turkey with this text. I found it when I wrote text about Nesting Orientalisms.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Merci I'll read article. I think you have never bothered and won't bother other users. Takabeg (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

E-mails

Hi Takabeg,

Sometime it might be useful if you chose to receive e-mails from other users.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have (or had) some e-mail adresses, but I forgot passwords, because I don't use them frequently :) I cannot enter to my adresses :(( Takabeg (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You can open new one, i.e. on Gmail.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Iranian people of Azerbaijani descent

I fail to see why you created this category when there is already Category:Iranian Azeris and the description of the two categories is precisely the same. Did you mean to create an equivalent category, or is there some distinction you mean to categorize? If the former, did you get consensus to, essentially, change the name of the cat?

In the meantime, until this is settled, please leave both categories in the Lofti Zadeh article, as there is no reason that I can see to choose one over the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If we use only Category:Iranian Azeris, we have to remove this category from many articles. Lofti Zadeh's father was Azerbaijani, but mother was Russian. So we can see Category:Iranian people of Russian descent in that article. In this situation, Azerbaijani descent is suitable category. Takabeg (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that "Iranian Azeris" is inappropriate because both parents are not of Azerbaijani descent? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You'd better research and provide reliable sources. Takabeg (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

No, actually, you had better get a consensus to create a new category. Since you don't wish to cooperate, I'm nominating it for deletion based on duplication. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Categorization. Takabeg (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want, you can nominate. But you must know that it's impossible to make Ali Reza Pahlavi I, Princess Ashraf Pahlavi, Farah Pahlavi, Farahnaz Pahlavi, Leila Pahlavi etc. "Iranian Azeri". When the category is deleted, the only thing we can do is to remove Category:Iranian Azeris from those article. Takabeg (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

CfD page. Make any further discussion there, I am unwatching your talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Two things

1. I simplified your recent edits to some category pages. There is no reason to mention all relevant policies and qualifiers on category pages.

If you want you can simplify.

Thank you. Debresser (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

1. I noticed in passing that you have been changing quite some maps. I do hope you asked around and got consensus before you did so. I have quite some experience with editors who start making massive changes without prior consensus, and it always ends badly. Debresser (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

About wrong map, you can read talk pages. Takabeg (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, the main thing is that there has been prior discussion. I was just asking. Debresser (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"Problematic map"

Please discuss the "problematic map" you have removed from a large number of articles in some centralized place to determine if there is a consensus to remove it. Your judgment in this matter is not sufficient, you need consensus. Please do not revert my undoing of your edits until you hasve that consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I must revert your blind reverts. Because here is an encyclopedia, we don't have to provide wrong information. This map's wrongness was proved with sources. We cannot make wrong information, correct information with consensus. Takabeg (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Where was this proved? Please give diffs. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

File's talk page. You can easily understand problems of that map when you compare with this well-sources map. I sent message to creator of that map. You can improve that map ? Takabeg (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see a discussion here on the Wikipedia file talk page for this Commons image, but only 2 people objected, of the 3 who participated. File talk pages are, in general, an extreme backwater of the project, and unlikely to attract much attention -- certainly not enough to support a wholesale removal. I suggest that the map's accuracy or innaccuracy be discussed on the WikiProject Ottoman Empire talk page, or some other well-traveled centralized place, before any further deletions are made. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a histrical truth, we cannot change history with consensus The Ottoman Empire had never possesded Circassia. Takabeg (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If it is an historical truth, then you will almost certainly have no trouble convincing a consensus of Wikipedia editors of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Source for Circassia being at least nominally part of the empire - http://books.google.com/books?id=PWy46e5eAAcC&pg=PA60 --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Nominal X is different from possession. If Circassia was nominal part, we have to explain on the map. In fact, Ottoman sultan didn't consider Circassia as the part of Empire. You will understand when you read talk page and sources at that file. Takabeg (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless, there is no clear consensus that the map that shows the widest extent should be replaced. Have the discussion, _then_ enforce the consensus -- don't edit war on the strength of 2 people agreeing with you. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have opened a discussion on the talk page of WikiProject Ottoman Empire here. This seems to me to be a reasonable place for a decision about the map to be made. I will also notify the map's creator of the discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It's very clear that well-sourced map is better for readers and wrong map is harmful for readers. Consensus cannot improve map. Takabeg (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

But you have only claimed its wrongness thus far, you have not proven it or convinced a consensus of editors that your claim is correct. You've been here long enough to know that this is how Wikipedia works. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing, again

As you have been told before, please do not canvass other editors who you believe will support you point of view in consensus discussions. The comment you posted here and this comment from anoher editor indicate that you have been doing so. I posted neutral notices to two relevant WikipProjects asking for more input, which is allowed, but asking similiarly-minded editors to participate in order to "win" a discussion is a violation of policy. Please stop.

Also, please note that I am not, as you suggest in the first link, pushing a point of view. As I have said repeatedly, I have no dog in this hunt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Why again ? This is not canvassing. I only asked users who know the history of the Ottoman Empire. You can see User:Kebeta's contribution. About Azeris, I asked opinion to both side (User:Saygi1 & User:Alborz Fallah). I understand that you don't understand what is encyclopedia. First of all, you'd better read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a battleground. I strongly recommend for you. Takabeg (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Please resist the temptation to make remarks directed at the editors you are in discussion with. I note from my search through WP:ANI threads concerning you a certain tendency to take offense where none is meant, and to exacerbate and escalate disagreements by personalizing them. This is not a good idea, as it goes again our aim to be a civil and collegial project. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, is very clear who personalized issues, when we investigated these edits. Please focus on topics. But I dare say your blind reverts are very harmfull for both other users and readers. Takabeg (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly an unproductive discussion, so I'm retiring from it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Noting: User Takabeg, you would do wisely by listening to advice given by administrators rather than citing irrelevant policies at them an. You clearly have a habit of taking lightly on WP:CANVASS - when administrators tell you to take care with that it is for your own good. Canvassing is a blockable offense. So is personal attacks. You're tactic of making it look like you are the offended one and other editors are the ones who have it wrong is not fooling anyone. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Tactic ? Fooling ? Takabeg (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, reading your talkpage it is very clear that when someone offers you advice or comments on your behavior, you routinely react by trying to turn the tables and make it look as if the ones who comment are doing what they are accusing you of. Administrators are not so naive that this maneuver will fool them in the long run. It is a much better idea for you to heed the advice other editors give you.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I remember this your message. We cannot legitimate to provide wrong information even for protection minority rights. I'm always on the side of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Takabeg (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand what I write in that message that you are providing a diff for? In that edit I am in fact supporting an edit you made, by arguing that including minority language place names requires sources. Why are you citing policy at me now, when it is clear from the diff you provide that I am fully aware of those policies?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's possible. Maybe I misunderstood. I'm sorry but my English is poor. So I miss details of messages. I didn't write those policies for you. I wrote them to show my absolute stance. Thank you again. Takabeg (talk) 04:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Question ? You've mentioned to administrator. Who is administrator ? Takabeg (talk) 04:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Category: Descendants of Jochi

Hi. Takabeg. I think you seek them under the name "Descendants of Jochi". I don't know another common name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MongolWiki (talk • contribs) 05:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this category (also Category:Descendants of Shiban and Category:Descendants of Toqa Temur) is important for history of Central Asia, but they were deleted. I guess the naming was wrong and some users confused. Is Category:Khans of decent from Jochi possible. Takabeg (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi.Thanks for contributing on Category:Azerbaijani inhabited regions --Orartu (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Eybi yox. Takabeg (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ama bence abartmaynın. "Predominantly inhabited" region ile sınırlı kalmalıdır. Takabeg (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Selam.Haklısınız.Kılavuz için teşekkürler.--Orartu (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sourced claim?

Re: [43], what is your take on creation of Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis so long as the claim is sourced in the article? Chesdovi (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want, you can call information instead of claim. Anyway we need reliable sources. Takabeg (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Would you support such a cat is if infomation was merely in the article? ie. Any rabbi who lived in the historic region of "Palestine" could be categorised as a "Palestinian rabbi?" Chesdovi (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible. But historically the name involving Syria Vilayet, Sanjak of Jerusalem etc. is better. Takabeg (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have not come across any sources calling such rabbis Syrian-Vilayet rabbis or Jerusalem Sanjak rabbis?! Chesdovi (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard :) But "Palestinian rabbi" is generally used for rabbis of the early centuries. There are very rare sample for the Ottoman period. Takabeg (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Nicosia

Hi Takabeg. There were multiple edits there. I'd appreciate if you can be a bit more spefic on which part of my edit you consider to be POV and not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masri145 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)