User talk:Shuppiluliuma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] License tagging for Image:Milgem.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Milgem.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Milgem_ceremony_26July2005.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Milgem_ceremony_26July2005.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problems

I've listed Image:TuAF Peace Eagle.jpg and Image:Boeing737AEW&C.jpg for deletion as I believe the copyright status is correct. You added "The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the image is used for the decent presentation of Boeing products." That does not seem to agree with the Boeing usage conditions. [1] There already are similar images on the article. A fair use argument just to show Turkish Air Force markings could be challenged. Mark83 11:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Uploading exact replicas of images that have been listed for deletion is not very responsible (Image:737MESA.jpg and Image:737 AEW&C Peace Eagle.jpg. I've listed these for deletion too. Four fair use images for one subject is excessive. You also failed to provide a detailed fair use rationale as the tag requests. I would also argue that a fair use rationale along the lines of "to show Turkish Air Force markings" would be a weak one. Mark83 17:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, only Australia and Turkey are getting the Boeing Wedgetail.

South Korea didn't even decide yet, while Italy chose the E767 a long time ago.

You should've kept the images of Wedgetail (Australia) and Peace Eagle (Turkey).

[edit] Question about the Turkish Air Force

In the Turkish Air Force article, in the list of aircraft, it says 46 "F-5 2000 (under delivery)". It appears to mean these are new aircraft that are being delivered now. However, the F-5 Freedom Fighter article says that the aircraft has been out of production since the 1970's. Are these refurbished/upgraded aircraft from another country? --rogerd 21:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

They are old Turkish F-5s which are upgraded in Israel by IAI, with the avionics of F-16 (most of them are already delivered)

This way, Turkish Air Force aims to save flight time from the F-16D trainer aircraft (the ageing F-16C/Ds are currently receiving CCIP upgrade and being brought to Block 52+ level)

The F-5 2000s will be mostly used as trainers for F-16 fighter jets, but will still have combat capabilities (they may participate in combat missions)

Thanks for the update. --rogerd 22:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure :)

[edit] Barbaros Hayreddin Paşa

Hey Shuppiluliuma,

I had to undo your changes of "Khair ad Din" --> "Hayreddin" becuase they were done unilaterally. Please note that the article is not at Barbaros Hayreddin Paşa, and we should therefore conform to the current title and have the spelling consistent throughout the article. You are more than welcome, however, to propose to move the page to a new title. Simply make a comment on the talk page (and later move the page yourself) or go to WP:RM. Cheers! —Khoikhoi 08:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you please do this for me? Because "Khair-ad-Din" sounds like a stranger.

It's like calling "Prince Charles" with the name "Prince Carlos".

Thank you very much. :)

Sure, but I'm not sure where we should move the page to. The current title is bad, but then most Wikipedia articles about Pashas do not use the Turkish spelling "Paşa" in the title. Do you know what his most common name is in English? Thanks. :-) —Khoikhoi 03:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hayreddin is the most correct form and the name that's used in most English books (Hayrettin is the post-republican Turkish form, though Hayreddin is also correct in Turkish and is still widely used (like Mehmed and Mehmet, Ahmed and Ahmet, Murad and Murat, etc.)

Ok, so Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha or Barbaros Hayreddin Pasha? —Khoikhoi 03:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"Barbaros Hayreddin Paşa" (or Barbaros Hayrettin Paşa) in Turkey, "Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha" in the world.

"Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha" should be the correct English form.

Ok, I've now made a proposal here. —Khoikhoi 04:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much :)

But perhaps "Barbarossa" Hayreddin Pasha would be better, because that's the name with which the whole world knows him (and that's the way his name is written on history books worldwide)

Well, I checked that, and see the results:

6 results for "Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha"

49 results for "Barbaros Hayreddin Pasha"

—Khoikhoi 04:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That's obviously because of the Turkish web sites on the internet, and the Turkish users who make the research. Throughout Europe, including the history books written in English, he is known as "Barbarossa" (i.e. Redbeard) while "Barbaros" actually means "Barbarian" in ancient Greek language. :)

But either way, it's correct (Barbaros is the Turkicized form of Barbarossa)

Ok, I hope you're not annoyed by now—but I've changed my mind again! :p I noticed that both Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedias simply use "Barbarossa". However, since Barbarossa is a disambiguation page, I propose that we move the page to Barbarossa (Ottoman admiral). What do you say? —Khoikhoi 04:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds perfect to me. It would be much easier to find him this way, instead of writing "Barbarossa+Khair-ad-Din" or "Barbarossa+Hayreddin" or "Barbarossa+Hayrettin", etc... Just "Barbarossa" is much easier to find. Thank you very much for your kind efforts by the way. :)

No problem. :-) BTW, here's a tip: sign your comments like this: ~~~~ or --~~~~

Kolay gelsin. —Khoikhoi 05:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sağol... :))) Deseydin ya ben Türküm diye... Shuppiluliuma 05:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Bir şey değil! Remove the "nowikis" from your signature and then you're set. —Khoikhoi 05:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

OK :) Shuppiluliuma 05:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wowturkey images

Hi, did you get permission from the photographer to state he "irrevocably released all rights" to the picture? Thanks, --A.Garnet 13:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I'm an administrator of http://www.wowturkey.com and one of the site's rules is that you "donate" your photos for the positive representation of Turkey (because we believe Turkey is not well presented on the net)

They are free to use without copyright, taken by amateur photographers.

The images must also be allowed for commercial purposes, has this been allowed? I only ask because a few months back all the wowturkey images were unfortunately removed from Wikipedia because its terms of use didnt allow for commercial use. I hope that we truly can use all wowturkey images here because there are some really stunning pictures there. Thanks, --A.Garnet 19:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, Wikipedia is no problem. The primary principle of WowTurkey.Com is to "diffuse" decent images of Turkey. At the web site you can clearly read that the images are free for use, as long as they are used for "the positive representation of Turkey"; i.e. as long as you don't use these images to mock Turkey or the Turks.

[edit] Turkish Army

Hey, good work on the Turkish Army article!! On the other hand I noted that some of your edits might have been more appropriate for the Turkish Armed Forces article (for example comments about the Navy) since this article is only about the Army (Kara Kuvvetleri) and not the Turkish Armed Forces as a whole.. On the other hand your work is highly appreciated.. Kolay gelsin! Baristarim 00:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm only trying to do my best as a patriotic Turk. :) I corrected the grammar mistakes on some articles and added some information. Also check out the Ottoman Empire (photos and info), Turkish Navy (history and photos), Turkish Air Force (photos) and Istanbul (photos). Selamlar :)

u r doing good work :)) Thanks for the effort, we really need a hand around here, many articles about Turkey have problems, some of them because of grammar, style, prose etc.. I have been working on the medals of the Turkish Armed Forces, I created three articles, but the info on Genelkurmay website is not enough at all :)) We all do the best we can, at the moment we are trying to get Turkey article to Featured Article status, but it will be very hard since the article needs a lot of references and it needs a good trimming as well.. We should also get the WikiProject Turkey running again, it has been dead for ages.. Also try to get a user page up, that way people will see who u r more easily, and dont forget to sign your name by using the four ~, otherwise we have to look at the history page to see who wrote what :).. Anyways, if I can help u in any way I can, leave me a message :)) cheers!Baristarim 00:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are interested, you can also write (or move what is written in the Turkish Army section) the history section of the Turkish Armed Forces I just created, it has been lacking one for ages! If you want I can move it myself but since you have been quite interested in this I thought I would notify you before going ahead.. regards Baristarim 01:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formal welcome

Hello Shuppiluliuma! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! —Khoikhoi 04:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

[edit] The images you upload

Hi, I appreciate your effort to upload images related to Turkish culture / heritage to Wikipedia, but unfortunately you're doing it wrong. All the recent images you provided for the Ataturk page lack a proper licensing tag and this will certainly cause problems in the near future and result in the article to look very bad (these will get deleted). And when you add an image, take the Image:Portrait of Ataturk.jpg as an example, it is not enough to say that it's a portrait of Ataturk, you should clearly provide at least the name of the painter and the year of the painting, since we are trying to build an encyclopedia here, not a personal hobby website. Not acting this way reduces the quality of the article using the images, and I do not want you to do this. This same thing also applies for your recent image caption reading "32 Kings and 62 Presidents". Who are these 32 kings and 62 presidents on a dinner table? You need the name of every single one of these, if you are going to use that caption, otherwise it looks like simple boasting that again reduces the quality of the article. I worked day and night to improve the textual content of the Ataturk article and put it to its current state (the last remanining part is the Legacy section), please try to keep up with the quality of the text. Another point is that for a good quality biography article, the photographs should follow the development of the character throughout his life, and you cannot simply put a photo of Ismet Inonu and Ataturk of the 1930s to the section "Early life". Also, putting a more than necessary number of images is another thing that reduces the quality of the article. I am now going to fix these issues and I hope you could show some trust to my decisions. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 09:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you add the correct tags then? ;)

Be a good Kemalist ;)

You are doing a good job though with your devotion, keep it up, we gravely lack the time and effort to clean up a lot of articles, unfortunately. :( If I can be of help somewhere i will be happy to help out.. cheers!Baristarim 10:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Why don't you add the correct tags then?", because I can't! I do not know which highschool it is that Ataturk visited, I do not know who painted the portrait you put to the top, and when. And the worst thing is the dinner with "32 Kings and 62 Presidents". You should not upload these searching for Ataturk pictures on the internet and uploading them to Wikipedia like a machine. I again urge you to put a greater effort and do not upload an image and add it to the article unless you can provide at least the year and the proper name of the place. This is what I've been doing and there has been times that I spent five or six hours to find the correct year and place of one single picture, making sure that the information is correct. I believe what I ask of you is a legitimate thing, having myself re-written almost the entirety of the Ataturk article bringing it to the good shape it is in now. I spent countless nights working on the article, completing the biography and creating the reforms section. Please show some respect and trust to me. And I again want to point out that every single image of Ataturk you uploaded today lacks a proper licensing tag, and these will be deleted if you do not fix this issue. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 10:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Atilim that you're uploading too many images (most of them unsourced and for me also unneccessary). Putting too many images reduces the quality of the articles. Please, try to improve the content of the articles first. Cheers! E104421 12:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merhaba

Benimde elimde wowturkey sitesine ait çok güzel resimler var. Fakat ben bu siteye üye değilim mail yoluyla resimler elime ulaştı. 2006Hakan etiketli çok güzel boğaz manzaralı istanbul resimleri ve Fenerbahçe stadının resimleri mevcut. Bu resimleri mümkünse ekleyebilirmisin veya bu resimleri ben ekleyip sen onlara resim etiketlerini ekleyebilirmisin. Çünkü resimleri eklersem kime ait oldukları bilinmediği için silinebilirler. Cevabını bekliyorum teşekkürler. (Bu arada eklediğin resimler mükemmel)--Profesor 12:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (no title)

Dear Shuppiluliuma,
your enthusiasm is admirable, but please keep in mind that Wiki is an encyclopedia, not a collection of minutely detailed adventure stories, and especially not if the narrative is biased towards one or another party in a conflict. Much of the detail you continue to pour into the articles dealing with various aspects of Ottoman naval warfare is either trivial or contradicted by other historical sources or simply not documented at all. Please exercise some restraint. Look at high-quality Wiki articles about other naval battles or admirals to see how it should be done. Regards, Cosal 19:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: please stop changing things back that have already been corrected -- such as incorrect capitalizing of words (e.g., "Admiral"), multiple links to the same article, etc. Cosal 19:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Cosal,

Some of the "corrections" demonstrate only the ignorance of Wikipedia editors.

I for instance had to correct that Aruj died in Algeria, not Tunisia.

I for instance had to correct that it was Giannettino Doria who captured Turgut Reis, and not Giovanni Andrea Doria (Andrea Doria had several nephews, not just one.) There's also no such person as Gianetti Doria. And no such person as Lufti Pasha (it's Lutfi (more correctly Lütfi) Pasha)

As a history teacher, I'm more than qualified to "correct" some of your "corrections" on issues which you obviously don't know very well. So much for your "high quality" Wiki articles. ;)

By the way, it's "Castelnuovo" (not Castelnuova) which was the Venetian name of Herceg Novi on the Adriatic Sea, and it was taken by the Venetians, not the Spaniards (I had to correct yet another "high quality" Wiki mistake)

Not to mention the numerous grammar errors I had to correct.

P.S.: Are you by chance a Frenchman whose Sarkozyesque pride is hurt by some historic details?

My guess:

A) French B) Spanish C) Italian

Shuppiluliuma 13:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:TuAF F16.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TuAF F16.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 15:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Photo: Yaşar Kadıoğlu

Source: Turkish Air Force (official Turkish Air Force image)

http://www.hvkk.tsk.mil.tr/Gururumuz/Gurur.asp

Shuppiluliuma 16:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Ataturk_hosts_32_Kings_and_62_Presidents.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ataturk_hosts_32_Kings_and_62_Presidents.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of no source tag

Regarding this edit: Please do not remove {{no source}} tag unless you can state exactly where the image came from. If it was taken from a web site, mention the address of the exact web page that shows this image. If it came from a newspaper, mention the name of the publication, date and page number. Thanks. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 01:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

OK Shuppiluliuma 01:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Admiralty_Flag_of_the_Turkish_Fleet_at_Lepanto_1571.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Admiralty_Flag_of_the_Turkish_Fleet_at_Lepanto_1571.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barbarossa again

Hi, I know we discussed this earlier, but if you have the time, please check out the poll that's going on at Talk:Barbarossa Khair ad Din Pasha#Requested move. Thanks! —Khoikhoi 04:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Ataturk_at_Cankaya_Library_1934.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ataturk_at_Cankaya_Library_1934.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wowturkey images

Wikipedia image policy says that the images which are uploaded must be under a free license. That means that the pictures can be used outside Wikipedia by anyone (including third-party commercial entities) for any purpose. You may ask to be credited on each usage of the image, but nothing more. Restricting the use by any way, such as only for "positive representation of Turkey" is not acceptable according to our policies.

If an image is available under a free license, it should be allowed to be use, for example, by a website about the "Armenian Genocide" or by a website which makes fun about the Turkish tourist industry.

If wowturkey disagrees with these terms, please say so and the images would have to be deleted.

Thank you, bogdan 18:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I am one of the administrators of WowTurkey.Com.

The photos at WowTurkey have no commercial purpose (we don't make money out of them) but are taken by amateur photographers to show the beautiful parts of Turkey.

Some of our images are already used in advertisements across Turkey, and nobody payed us any money. We didn't complain either.

If someone wants to use these photos for bad purposes, he/she can get them directly from our web site anyway (not necessarily from Wikipedia)

And I can't see any reason why the skyscrapers or trams or houses of Istanbul should (can) be used to mock Turkey.

Regards,

Shuppiluliuma 18:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What are you doing?

Shuppiluliuma, can you please offer some explanation why you're removing the Ottoman Turkish names from Ottoman sultan articles? This is the script that they wrote in and the one that was used throughout the empire at the time. It's very important for readers to know how their name was spelled. —Khoikhoi 00:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Because they are "Arabic" and not "Ottoman Turkish" (Turks used the Arabic alphabet but didn't speak Arabic)

It's like saying Prince Charles as "Principe Carlos" and claiming it's English.

Shuppiluliuma 00:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The Ottoman Turkish alphabet is in the Arabic alphabet. Turkish didn't use the Latin alphabet until much later. —Khoikhoi 00:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I know. Turks wrote "Turkish" using the Arabic alphabet. But those names are written in "Arabic".

For example: Both English and Spanish are written with the Latin alphabet, but they are different languages.

I grew up in Saudi Arabia and can read Arabic very well. Those names are written in Arabic, not Ottoman Turkish.

There is an evident effort of Arabicizing the Ottomans.

Shuppiluliuma 00:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was Saposcat who added the names—he's pretty good in Ottoman Turkish. I'll make a deal: I'll ask him to leave a comment here, until then can you please not remove the names? (so we can come to some sort of agreement). Thanks. Also, please familiarize yourself with the three-revert rule, which states that no one can revert an article more than 3 times in 24 hours. —Khoikhoi 00:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Tell him also to rename it as the Arabic Empire.

Shuppiluliuma 00:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't get where all this hostility is coming from, I just am going for accuracy, not deletion. —Khoikhoi 00:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no "Arabicizing" of the Ottomans going on, Shuppiluliuma. Rather, there is an effort at accuracy going on. The Ottomans, quite simply, used a Perso-Arabic script, specifically a version of the Persian alphabet somewhat modified for the purposes of writing Turkish. This is a simple fact.

Let's look at an example of how writing their names in the Ottoman Turkish script is not "Arabicizing": مراد ثالث (Murād-i sālis). Here, the word ثالث (sālis) is, indeed, Arabic for "third". However, this is how "Murad III" ("Üçüncü Murad") was said (in addition to a number of other formal titles, of course, such as those enshrined in tughras). If this were an attempt at "Arabicizing", we would instead be writing الثالث (as-sālis)—as it is said in Arabic. But Ottoman Turkish did not use numbered titles this way; rather, the name was linked to the following number by means of the izâfet, a grammatical construct borrowed from Persian ezāfe, which works as something like a genitive. This fluid mix of Arabic and Persian words and constructions was one of the hallmarks of Ottoman Turkish, and so there is no "Arabicizing" going on: just the facts, just accuracy, no politics or anything similar. (Politics would be, for example, this edit, which was simply wrong and which I later corrected.)

So, please do not remove the Ottoman Turkish script from articles where it is used. Cheers. —Saposcat 04:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I refer your attention again to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Arabic), as well as that article's "Ottoman Turkish" section. It is, I suppose, alright to use the non-strict transliteration in the Ottoman sultans' articles' first mention of the name (the part in bold), as well as in the template box on the side ... but for the transliteration of the names in parentheses (i.e., the text immediately following the Ottoman Turkish script), strict transliteration—as per the article I've just referred you to—should be adhered to. So, again, do not change the parenthesized transliterations of the names in the Ottoman script back. Thanks in advance for not doing so. —Saposcat 04:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting edits to "The Ottoman Empire" without any discussion or comment

Shuppiluliuma, Wikipedia is a collaborative exercise. I appreciate the work you've been doing on the Ottoman Empire, however some of the changes you've made make the article harder to read, in my opinion. For example, I really don't understand why it's necessary to say, in the introduction to an extremely long article, exactly which countries which had not been occupied by allied forces were handed over at the end of WWI. Surely the place to do that is in the section on the dissolution of the Empire. At the moment, Yemen is mentioned in the introduction to an article covering 600 years or more, but is not mentioned in the section specifically dealing with the aftermath of WWI. This is ridiculous.

Could you explain why you reverted my changes please. And please remember to include comments when making changes, especially if you are reverting what someone else has done. If you had checked the discussion page you would have seen that I'd written briefly that I was going to rewrite the introduction. Please explain (in that section on the discussion page) why you reverted those changes, or I will take out the sentence on Yemen and Azerbaijan again.

Thanks.

--Merlinme 15:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Because your changes were full of grammar errors which caused inaccuracies in the context.

Regards.

Shuppiluliuma 20:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, the Ottoman Empire/Caliphate can be completely yours. Just make sure you keep the Arabic script away from the Republic of Turkey section.

Regards.

Shuppiluliuma 20:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm at least trying to help you guys in writing it correctly.

Shuppiluliuma 21:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Shuppiluliuma, I would be quite surprised if you could find English grammatical errors in my writing which changed the sense, but please correct them if you do. I think you may be assuming that there's only one other person apart from yourself making changes to the Ottoman Empire article, whereas in fact there are at least half a dozen. If you would take time to write on the discussion page what you are doing, or even just add comments when you revert changes, I would be very happy to have you participating in writing the Ottoman Empire article, as you clearly know a lot about it. Please don't be so hasty when editing though.

--Merlinme 09:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Ataturk_portrait.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ataturk_portrait.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Why are you so fond of uploading too many images? They are reducing the quality of the articles. Regards, E104421 14:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That's only "your" opinion. Most people have praised them.

Regards.

Shuppiluliuma 18:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. However, i remember there is at least another user above critisizing your image uploading for the Ataturk article (see the images you upload section above). I warned you before but you never explained why you are so fond of uploading pictures? Maybe you find adding images more easier than editing articles. I do not want to remove them without your approval but if you continue adding too many images without valid reasons (if you are to put an image, this addition should be necessary, otherwise reduces the quality of the article), i may start removing some of them without your approval. E104421 19:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have an idea on how many articles I edited or actually added?

Shuppiluliuma 19:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I never counted and will never be (if i have to, i can, of course), but this does not change "my" opinion that the images are deemed appropriate. For the articles, i confronted with your name, i can safely say that they are too many and some of them are unnecessary. E104421 19:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's again "your" opinion. I'm sure I wouldn't be fond of your work, either.

Of removing the uncessary images, you uploaded, without "your" opinion, that's right. I shan't be fond of... E104421 19:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Which one of my articles were "unnecessary" according to "you", by the way?

Shuppiluliuma 19:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ataturk and the Turkish Navy articles are quite good examples to "your articles" having too many images. We had to make a gallery in order to make "you" happy for the Ataturk article, but that's enough, be happy and try to cool down this uploading habit. E104421 19:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I was actually going to upload an image of Galata Tower (Wikipedia doesn't have any) but I guess I'll have to wait for you to go to sleep.

Shuppiluliuma 19:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not necessary all the time. Go on! However, please, do not add more than one, unless it has to be done. Cheers E104421 20:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:B Class Corvettes.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:B Class Corvettes.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}. If you have not already done so, please also include the source of the image. In many cases this will be the website where you found it.

Please specify the copyright information and source on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nilfanion (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. —Khoikhoi 22:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, sorry :) Shuppiluliuma 22:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem! It's a typical characteristic of new users. ;-) If you feel that you're going to take a long time to edit a page, simply add {{inuse}} at the top of the article. Cheers, —Khoikhoi 22:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:B Class Corvettes.jpg

[edit] Izmir Gallery

I like those photos, thanks! --Awiseman 21:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

More coming ;)

Shuppiluliuma 21:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish

Hi Shuppiluliuma. In the article List of air forces I've listed the ancestors of the Turkish Air Force. In 1925 something called Türk Hava Kurumu was founded. On the internet it's covering commercial and general aviation in Turkey today. Was the name a cover for illegal military aviation after the Versailles Treaty or what?

I've also some problems with the translations of the Turkish (and Ottoman) Air Services, and the accents on the Turkish names. Would you be so kind to iron out the worst errors for me (and the readers of Wikipedia), please? Necessary Evil 13:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

T.H.K., Türk Hava Kurumu (Turkish Aviation Institution/Society) is an institution of civil aviation which still operates today. It's not a part of the Air Force. It was established by Atatürk in 1925, 2 years after the Turkish Republic was proclaimed with the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. It also has nothing to do with the Treaty of Versailles or the Turkish War of Independence (1919-1922).

Türk Hava Kurumu web site:

http://www.thk.org.tr

Regards

Shuppiluliuma 16:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I made all the necessary corrections.

Regards,

Shuppiluliuma 17:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm breathless. What a job!! Now Turkey seems to be in order, but the Turkish Civil Aviation Organization then has to be removed, since it isn't a military force. Well Done! Necessary Evil 17:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I added that one at the bottom, I think it looks fine there

Shuppiluliuma 17:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Alsancak houses.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Alsancak houses.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] images again

Ufff, Shuppiluliuma. Please, give up adding too many images. These are really reducing the quality of the articles. What you've done to Turkish Navy page is really ridiculous, cause the article turned out to be an image gallery, rather than providing comprehensive information on Turkish Navy. Maybe you'd better to create a new article related with the images. I do not want remove them cause you should do it, but if i have to, i shall do so. E104421 10:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think that "your style" and "your contribution" is always the best and other people's work is not?

Without me, there would be no "History of Turkish Navy", no articles on "Kemal Reis", no "Battle of Zonchio", no "Piyale Pasha", no improvements of data on Piri Reis (such as his second world map), Barbarossa and Turgut Reis, and not a single image.

You should thank me instead of complaining.

Shuppiluliuma 17:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh, i may be an obstinate person but take a look at Turkish Navy, it's not an article but image gallery. By the way, your edits are good, i never said anything about them but images. Ok, thank you for the articles, however, i cannot say the same for the images. Kind regards E104421 17:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks much better now

Shuppiluliuma 18:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I'm planning to add almost complete history of Turkish Navy from official sources. There may be overlapping parts with your contributions. For this reason, after finishing the compilation, i may sent it via e-mail to you before editing the article. Otherwise, there would be dublicate issues, and i do not want to erase or edit yours. Cheers! E104421 18:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeter ki "Türk donanması Emir Çaka Bey ile başladı. Çaka Bey Bizanslılara esir düşünce denizciliği öğrendi. Mongol Türkler denizcilikten anlamazlardı, Yunanlılardan öğrendiler, vs." gibi abuk subuk detaylarla bizi rezil edip komşuları keyiflendirme. Testi kırılmadan uyarayım dedim. ;)

Her detay bilinmese de olur ;)

Yoksa ben de Deniz Kuvvetleri sitesinden özetleme yapmasını bilirim.

Shuppiluliuma 19:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

As i already stated above, i'm compiling not copying. Do not worry about the details. Cheers! E104421 09:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

3 farklı Murat Reis var, üşenmeden oturup yazmak lazım, ben özetle ikisini tanıttım :)

Shuppiluliuma 09:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, then i shall write the republic era. E104421 09:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yakup Ağa

I honestly have no idea how this happened. I didn't mean to revert your edits—sorry about that! :-) Khoikhoi 03:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. -- JHunterJ 13:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know. Thank You Shuppiluliuma 22:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lame naming reverts

Hi Shuppiluliuma, you haven't been here for that long yet, so maybe you are not fully aware how much the Greek/Turkish placenames issue is already in the realm of Lamest Edit-Wars Ever. There's unfortunately still no clear guideline, but please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Greek and Turkish named places) for the range of existing opinions and where they converge. I believe your edits go quite clearly against the emergent consensus that has been developing since, so please be prepared that some of your naming edits will soon be reverted by various people. I hope you won't then take it to yet another silly edit war. Thank you - Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's O.K. for me, I personally don't feel irritated of former names of Turkish cities in other languages. However, they should also show the same understanding for the former Turkish names of their own cities, since the Turks ruled these territories for more than 500 (in some cases more than 900) years.

Turkey is the "Rule Britannia" of this region, and if they want to play the game of "Old Names", it's fine for us. But they should have the stomach of not feeling irritated of the former Turkish names of their "formerly Turkish" cities.

Regards.

Shuppiluliuma 13:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

We didn't save these lands so easily, it took 100,000s of lives in the Turkish War of Independence.

So we also have the right to feel irritated.

Actually this was the main reason why Constantinople became Istanbul in 1930.

Shuppiluliuma 13:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, my own stance is that this whole line of argumentation - from both sides - is entirely irrelevant. We aren't including or excluding names in order to make people feel good - or bad. We are including names because they are interesting encyclopedic information. The only criterion is how to make the articles well structured and well readable. Greek or Turkish readers need not be told that "Istanbul" is "Constantinople" or that "Thessaloniki" is "Selanik". They know that already. Therefore, the information doesn't concern them. Strictly speaking, neither Greek nor Turkish readers' feelings should be taken into account here at all. I'll be blunt, in my view neither group has any right to feel offended about what facts we decide to tell or not to tell our readers, and in what order. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

So how come our cities are full of foreign "former names", and when we add the former Turkish name to a former Turkish city, it's instantly deleted? Don't you think this is double standards? I as a Turk feel offended, and I know that most Turks also feel this way.

Shuppiluliuma 14:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I can only point you again to that page where we were discussing these things. You'll find my own position stated there too. Maybe it's time to revive that page and finally move on to a binding compromise. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marking city name changes as minor

Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! --AW 15:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --AW 15:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't care. You people have Crusader mentality. But don't worry: Within a few centuries, we'll be back in Vienna (Never mind Greece)

So sweet dreams with the Greek names of Turkish cities.

Shuppiluliuma 15:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Stripes of a tiger don't wash away, MANOWAR is made of steel not clay ;)

Shuppiluliuma 15:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not-do-whatever-you-want-apedia. Please abide by the rules. --AW 15:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I said before, I'm not against Greek names, but WHY ARE THEY ERASING THE FORMER TURKISH NAMES OF THEIR CITIES?

WikiChristianopedia?

Shuppiluliuma 15:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Was that a religious slur?--Tekleni 15:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, Turkey doesn't belong to the Turks.

Shuppiluliuma 16:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It belongs to everyone who lives there, including the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, and your 20% Kurdish minority.--Tekleni 16:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

For the second time Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! --AW 16:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Greek names are OK with me, but why are you erasing the Turkish names of your cities then?

Double standards?

Shuppiluliuma 16:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

TURKEY BELONGS TO THE TURKS. Use the ETYMOLOGY section for names in your language.

Shuppiluliuma 16:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Greek. --AW 16:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attacks.

Edit summaries like this one are totally unnaceptable. You will not make such statements again, or you will be blocked. JBKramer 16:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to İzmir

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to İzmir. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --AW 16:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, every joke has some truth in it, don't you think?

Shuppiluliuma 16:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for jokes. --AW 16:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The Greek editors are a joke.

Shuppiluliuma 16:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's declare Turkey as a part of Greece to summarize it.

Shuppiluliuma 16:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. I view your above comment regarding the greek editors to be a violation of our policies. JBKramer 16:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

SHOW ME THE CITIES OF ANOTHER COUNTRY OTHER THAN TURKEY WITH SO MANY FOREIGN NAMES.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT SOME PEOPLE STILL CAN'T STOMACH THE TREATY OF LAUSANNE.

SHOW ME.

Shuppiluliuma 16:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't care. Comment on the content, not the contibutors. JBKramer 16:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I CARE. AND I BELIEVE MOST TURKS CARE.

Shuppiluliuma 16:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If you don't cease your personal attacks, you will no longer be permitted to edit the encyclopedia, regardless of what Turks and Greeks care about. JBKramer 16:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

See Tashkent and Delhi for cities with many names. --AW 16:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, we all know the true reason:

ZHTO MEGALI HELLAS. ZHTO KONSTANTINOUPOLIS, the Eternal Hellenic Capital.

Smyrni is Greek, so is Ankyra, so is Prusa, so is Trapezounta, so is..........

Psomi, elia, kai Kotso Vasilia!

Shuppiluliuma 16:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

And here's the Eternal Turkish Response (something which even Wiki's senior editors can't change):

HASSIKTIR GAMISOU ;)

Shuppiluliuma 16:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Translated, apparently that means fuck you, whore. I told you before that personal attacks are NEVER acceptable, even in languages I don't speak or read. Do not make them. JBKramer 17:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I have temporarily blocked you from editing for this edit summary.[2] Do not say anything like that again. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your behaviour

Dear Shuppiluliuma, I saw that, you had been temporary blocked. I know, you are a good editor.Of course you have your oppinions on Turkey related articles and Greek editors.But the way that you choose cannot bring any added value to you and wiki. Please be calm in discuss and edits. Dont put any bad words to articles or edit summaries. I believe we can find concensus on these articles and matters. Sorry my humble oppinions/offers. I hope we will see you again wiki/Görüşmek üzere. Regards/Saygılar. Mustafa Akalp^TC 17:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sağol dostum. :)

Türkçe isim tu kaka, Yunanca isim pek ala. Neyse, pes ettim. :)

Görüşmek üzere.

Shuppiluliuma 11:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Never say Goodby.We are welcome you when you unblocked again.See User_talk:Tom harrison

Regards. Mustafa Akalp^TC 17:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, keep cool. it's better to take these issues to Administrators' noticeboard or trying dispute solutions. See you soon. Regards. E104421 23:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I almost completed the sections i mentioned before (the republic era). I can send them via e-mail for you to check, since it's rather long, we have to summarize it. I shall appreciate "your" comments. You can send me an e-mail or activate your e-mail that i can contact with you. Regards. E104421 20:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)