This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ithinkicahn. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mustafa Çelebi may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
] and [[Cüneyt Bey of Aydın|Cüneyt Bey]], the ruler of the Turkish [[Aydinids|Aydinid beylik]]). Mustafa asked [[Mehmet I]], who had recently defeated his other claimant brothers, to partition
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Fındıklı, Borçka may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
The name of the village probably comes from the cultivation of hazelnuts ([[Turkish language|Turkish]]: ''fındık'' in the area.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Fıstıklı, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Disambig-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi, I see that you've adopted my script – welcome to 'the club' ;-). Thank you for correcting dates on Turkish government articles. It seems also that you have been changing some of these articles to using mdy dates, when they started off being dmy. Our convention is usually to leave the dates so that they follow the earliest original use. Please take time to read the script documentation carefully. I trust that you will continue enjoy using the script, subject to the above constraints. Best regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa?04:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
My bad, I will switch them back, thanks for the heads up! I've been trying to get rid of those pesky 00.00.0000 format dates in the tables, which, for some reason, your script can't seem to detect. I've had to set up a desktop script to reformat them into a shape that the script will detect. Thanks! Ithinkicahn (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
It appears to happen when the 00.00.0000 date is bounded by a hyphen (-) and another date of the same 00.00.0000 format next to that, and sometimes when there's simply a blank space next to it in the table cell. Sometimes, however, the script still works in these circumstances, but only on one of the dates (so 00.00.0000-00.00.0000 turns into either 0 Month 0000-00.00.0000 or 00.00.0000-0 Month 0000, not sure why one side works or the other). To make it work, I had another script remove all trailing whitespace in the cell, replace the short hyphen (-) with a ndash (–), and a space between the dates and the dash.
Like so:
From Cell1|Cell2|Cell3| 00.00.0000-00.00.0000 to Cell1|Cell2|Cell3|00.00.0000 – 00.00.0000
I thought you might have been referring to instances such as "|| dd.yy.yyyy ||", and I've now tweaked my test script to recognise these (will move these over to the production script once I've thoroughly tested these). I will try adding date ranges to this next. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa?05:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The rules deliberately detect the dash to prevent false positives. I have loosened them a little now and specifically added ranges, where I think the chances of false positives are lower. My test version of the script now works correctly on the table, such as was in the Turkish govt article. Will port it in due course. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa?06:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The change has now been ported to the production script. If you come across any of those wretched ranges mentioned above, the "UK-slash dates" button should zap them now. Let me know if you have any problems. Also, I'd be happy to consider adding features to the script, so please let me know. regards, -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa?01:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alişar, Sorgun, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sorgun (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I think the problem may be that the convention is not being applied to the US Senate template rather than the other way round. As you can see, there are separate presidential election templates for countries that have indirect presidential elections (also {{Albanian presidential elections}}, {{Italian presidential elections}}), {{Moldovan presidential elections}}). The difference may also be that the Senate template is only for the US Senate, rather than being a template covering all national elections, which every country other than the USA has. Cheers, Number5718:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
If you want support on wikipedia the worst thing you can do is to try to shut out criticism and delete messages. I created most of those Turkish village stubs and I didn't use Category:Villages in Turkey for a very good reason. Why do you think a massive category with over 5000 entries is useful to the reader? An answer please.♦ Dr. Blofeld08:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Much of the villages aren't categorized by district. I see no harm in having a category for them, at least until we have a proper article for list of villages in Turkey. Plus, this helps me create the disambiguation pages for a lot of the names, as I can see them all in one place, as well as correct infoboxes by adding maps for the coordinates on some of the villages. Right now, it's doing more good than harm. Ithinkicahn (talk) 17:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Haha yes, the frustrating thing is, a lot of them actually have coordinate data, but don't have the single required word in the infobox that would display them on a map. I'm getting to that very soon. Ithinkicahn (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi, I am sure you are familiar with the WP facilities. But assuming you have problems with changing the titles I'd like to give you a hint. I observe that whenever you want to change the title of an article you create a new article and carry the contents of the existing article to the new one by copy and paste method. ( i.e., Aladağ, Baltalı , Bağarası, Değirmendere ) Please don't ; because by this method the history of the article is lost. There is a move button at the top of the page and you can very easily change the title without altering the history of the article. I hope this helps. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey, yeah, I understand, but I don't do that "whenever I want to change the title," I did it in the past for a few tiny disambiguation pages/auto-generated stub articles. I'll try to avoid it in the future whenever possible, no worries. Thanks for the heads up though Ithinkicahn (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 100 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Sofu Hadım Ali Pasha
Hi, you insist using Rumi calendar for a person who lived in the 16th century. But you should realize that one year duration 1559-1560 can't be transformed to four year duration 667-671. Obviously there is an error. The name of the calender is also erroneous.
Rumi calender was put into use in 1839 only for international matters. All domestic matters as well as past events were defined in Hicri (Islamic Calender) You don't have to trust me. But you can trust the calender convertor. You can see that 1559 corresponds to 667 and 1560 corresponds to 667/668 (depending on the month) in Islamic calendar and it corresponds to nothing in Rumi calender. I am too aged to play with warring. Please correct the name of the calender. Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Don't ask me, look at the sources (which are 19th century Ottoman sources) that all give his terms as 966 to 971 on the Rumi calendar. The 1559 to 1560 dates are only estimations. Don't worry, I found an Ottoman source that gives specific months and days for each Egypt governor's term, so I'll add those eventually, but this is the most accurate for now. Ithinkicahn (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Now I see what you mean... Conversion from before 1840 isn't possible. So I guess they meant "years after the hijra" or something. Ithinkicahn (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
You have moved Seyyit Hasan Pasha to Seyyid Hasan Pasha. Well no objection. But a question on the rationale. How do you know the Ottoman spelling ? Any tape recorder ? or MP3 ? The fact is that the -d ending is Arabic and -t ending is Turkish. Since Latin alphabet was not in use in Ottoman times, we have no way the decide on the pronunciation. But since we assume he was a Turkish speaker -t ending seems more logical. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Nedim Ardoğa You're right, but that seems to be the trend. If it were up to me, I'd do an overhaul and start spelling all Ottoman names with the hard sounds (Mehmet, Ahmet, Seyyit, etc.), but I just did a quick search and he's almost always referred to (and linked to) as Seyyid Hasan Pasha, as is his son Seyyid Abdullah Pasha. So I don't know, I think we should do an overhaul of all Ottoman names at once or none at all at the moment. What do you think? Ithinkicahn (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Well there are too many editors preferring -d ending. In the past I've created many articles about grand viziers and whenever a name ended in -t somebody immediately changed it to -d. Warring is just a loss of time and I didn't pursue much. But still I think devoicing in Turkish forbids -d ending. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I've nominated about 60 of the Turkey geography stubs for deletion, as all of them contain 30 or fewer articles. Dawynn (talk) 12:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Nedim Ardoğa I checked the sources, like Sicill-i Osman. It seems that whoever wrote that article (was it you?) confused the two Izzet Mehmed Pashas who served as grand vizier within a few years of one another. Even the Turkish versions of the articles show that that Safranbolulu İzzet Mehmet Pasha didn't serve 3 times, but only once. The first two grand vizierships were by Izzet Mehmed Pasha. Check this source: Sicill-i Osmani by Mehmet Süreyya Bey (1996) [1890], pages 848–849. This includes both of them on the same page. Ithinkicahn (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
License tagging for File:Kora recep bulent bostanoglu.jpg
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"
(1954) ''Osmanlı Tarihi III. Cilt, 2. Kısım , XVİ. Yüzyıl Ortalarından XVII. Yüzyıl Sonuna kadar)'', Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu (Altıncı Baskı 2011 ISBN 978-975-16-0010) say.360</ref><ref name="
(1954) ''Osmanlı Tarihi III. Cilt, 2. Kısım , XVİ. Yüzyıl Ortalarından XVII. Yüzyıl Sonuna kadar)'', Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu (Altıncı Baskı 2011 ISBN 978-975-16-0010) p. 380</ref><ref name="
(1954) ''Osmanlı Tarihi III. Cilt, 2. Kısım , XVI. Yüzyıl Ortalarından XVII. Yüzyıl Sonuna kadar)'', Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu (Altıncı Baskı 2011 ISBN 978-975-16-0010) say.404</ref><ref name="
"Unknown" group="note">Although al-Jabarti mentions that a pasha served as governor at this time (in between Melek Mehmed Pasha and Silahdar Mehmed Pasha from July 1782 to July 1783 (see identity
year=1994|publisher=Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart|page=3|quote=...and Bakr Pasha sent [the letter]] with his envoy overland...}}</ref><ref name="Lokmacı Hacı Ebubekir Pasha" group="note">''Sicill-i
Please repair the broken templates and the 300+ links that point now to a disambiguation page instead of to the right person. The Bannertalk21:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gürcü Mehmed Pasha may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
(1954) ''Osmanlı Tarihi III. Cilt, 2. Kısım , XVI. Yüzyıl Ortalarından XVII. Yüzyıl Sonuna kadar)'', Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu (Altıncı Baskı 2011) ISBN:978-975-16-0010), pp. 402–404</ref> was an [[Ottoman Empire|Ottoman]] statesman. He was [[Grand Vizier of the
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ottoman miniature may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
Metin And, in ''17. Yüzyıl Türk çarşı ressamları''. Tarih ve Toplum, no. 16 (April 1985): pp. 40–44)</ref>
Awarded for valuable contributions to WikiProject Ottoman Empire, and to Wikipedia's overall coverage on Ottoman government and officialdom. As this is one of the more "neglected" areas, your work is all the more valuable. Keep it up! Constantine ✍ 21:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Changing infobox at Turkic peoples to contradict article
You changed the info box from Alevi and Sunni, which is what the article says, to Shia. With no explanation. This seems a very bad idea and I'd appreciate an explanation. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me? That box said Shia Islam until the last edit, which was a few minutes before mine. That edit was without explanation. I was just reverting it, since it was an obvious duplicate copy and paste of the Turkish people box. Ithinkicahn (talk) 10:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Ithinkichan! I would like to start by underlining that I am not familiar to any greater extent with the editor you have crossed paths with and thus unable to comment on his editing history or standpoint. Balkan historiography is without doubt a controversial subject as can be and demands utter sensitivity. Avoiding ethnic labels where there are conflicting sources is an obvious measure in my opinion. However, implying that the Bosnian Muslims of contemporary Bosnia and Herzegovina are any different from those in Ottoman Bosnia is rather absurd. They are one and the same community defined as Bosniaks (Bošnjaci) and are characterized by an ethno-social and socio-cultural continuity. Thus Bosnian Muslim and Bosniak are more or less synonymous terms in theory and practice. This name has been in use since at least the 15th century (as derived from the older Bošnjani) and was initially also applied to Christian Bosnians until these embraced Serb and Croat identities in the 19th century. As such, the term "Bosnians" (Bosanci) is actually of a more recent date but has gained more widespread usage in the English language. My point being: there is no historic rationale to turn down the definition of an Ottoman Muslim Bosnian as Bosniak. What is true however is that the meaning of Bosniak has progressed from initially being of a geopolitical, regional and even aristocratic character to becoming a full-fledged ethnic identity. But then again this is a development which more or less all ethnic groups have undergone in parallel with the 19th-century concept of nationalism. Ottoman Turks for instance surely did not have the same understanding of what it means to be Turk as the contemporary Turkish people do but that is no reason to claim them as two separate communities. Osman I is for example found in the Turkish people infobox. The same example can be also made for Serbs and Croats..or Swedes for that matter. Hence, a Bosnian Muslim is a Bosniak regardless of era, although the term Bosniak is seldom used in scholarly publications on account of it simply being relatively obscure and for that reason rather confusing to the reader. The Bosniak issue has naturally also been further clouded by the Yugoslav era which either downright denied Bosniaks as a separate ethnic group (in the hope that they would declare Serb and Croat) or simply recognized them as Muslims in a national as opposed to religious sense. The Bosniaks article is a pretty good piece if interested. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I am not intending to set off any polemy or correspondence with you, but I am only now uncovering the massive edit war you have been having with editor Demir. Especially this edit summary made by you caught my eye: He wasn't a Bosniak. Bosniak is a modern term for an ethnic group that didn't exist at that time. I have no specific opinion on how to categorize the historic individual in question, but the comment is extremely ignorant. My word of advice for you is to enhance your knowledge in the history of the region before contributing to related articles. Your jargon is notably provocative and chauvinistic. Bosniaks, the Bosniak name and the Bosnian language did exist indeed. The failure of the Bosniaks (due to various circumstances, such as for example being Muslim in a Christian-dominated region) to establish a nation state in the 19th century as compared to Serbs and Croats do not make them any less of a 'historically authentic' ethnic group. As previously explained, nationalism is a concept barely two centuries old. Moreover in history articles, the language(s) indicated should reflect the relevant historiography and its sphere of culture. The Bosnia Eyalet and individuals associated therewith belong to the Bosnian historiography and its cultural sphere. With the exception of a few decades of Yugoslavia, there was and is no unified "Serbo-Croatian" scholarship or historiography which would warrant the use of Serbo-Croatian. I.e. this is not purely a linguistic matter, far from. For example, in other Bosnia and Herzegovina-related history articles where collective claims in Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian historiography exist the custom is to indicate all three languages to underline the involvement and claim of all three ethno-cultural spheres. These are not politics or "modern nationalist sentiments" but simply giving due attention to historic entities and contexts. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 04:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Your recent revert
...and your edit summary pretty much terminates diplomatic relations between the two of us. You are behaving in an uncivilized manner despite my display of good faith with the posts above. Your little consensus on the Bosnian language talk page is nothing short of pathetic, based on a notorious proponent of SC who's an admin on Croatian wikipedia at that. I urge you to instead visit the Kosovo talk page where there was a much more extensive decision made to keep "Serbian" over Serbo-Croatian because of historic relevance. I won't edit war with someone who's perhaps not even of age, but you seem to spend absurd amounts of time here. Perhaps you should let this slide instead of pursuing something which just might make you frustrated. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 05:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Let me also remind you that Wikipedia is meant to be a collaboration between editors in good faith where people discuss in order to reach conclusions. You, on the other hand, show no willingness to engage in any such exchange while instead hoping to forcefully introduce your revisions by edit waring. You are touching upon an extremely contentious subject and you need to have a serious central consensus, which you do not. Unless you show willingness to obey by these norms I will have no choice but to seek arbitration. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 06:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me? You seem to be reverting MY edits with little factual evidence, instead citing your own personal pseudo-history. I encourage you to seek outside discussion for whether Bosnian or Serbo-Croatian should be included in historical names of people from that area. I have done it, as you have seen, on the Bosnian language Talk page, which you replied to as well. There doesn't seem to be a consensus either way, so I'm all for finding another source of strong and neutral outside consensus somehow.
I also ask that you stop using personal attacks against me while trying to put Wikipedia policy on your side, which it definitely is not. All this is obviously an emotional issue for you. It isn't for me, I'm not from anywhere near the former Yugoslavia and have no personal interest in the matter except for trying to stop nationalistic POV edits that you and Demir seem to engage in. Ithinkicahn (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Pardon me? I cannot believe you are seriously invoking the "discussion" you had on the Bosnian language talk page as something relevant. Here's a crazy thought, if you are truly seeking to establish a consensus in this controversial matter why not address people who are genuinely neutral? Pseudo-history? Who do you think you are? What prior perceived knowledge gives you the right to discredit someone who apparently has a much deeper understanding of the region's history. If you are so interested in editing on Wikipedia why not use it to educate yourself? You'll find a lot scholarly sources to support my "pseudo-history". I think it's also quite obvious who took the first step towards being uncivilized; your edit waring style is a testament to your unwillingness for serious dispute resolution. Not to mention your very bold statements on the history of the Bosniaks: a subject you ultimately know very little about, if anything. You simply think you know best, don't you (: I don't care where you're from but whether you like it or not your edits are (perhaps unintentionally) POV. I am not necessarily supporting Demir (who seems to have a couple of less flattering "traits" himself) but your comments are characterized by complete ignorance. And if anything upsets me it is when editors give themselves the right to go out on a limb. Once again, you have no consensus and it is unlikely you will ever have (because you do not seem to appreciate the hornet's nest it is). You cannot just expect to win this out by vigilantly reverting every edit contrary to yours. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 15:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Looks like someone else agreed, so I will happily let these slide. And I "cannot just expect to win this out by vigilantly reverting every edit" contrary to mine? It seems to work for you. And it's very humble of you to claim a "deep understanding", as you put it, of the history. I hope you have the degrees to back that up. It does not seem very obvious that I'm the "edit warrer" here either, since it wasn't me that reverted edits first. Your reaction to this whole ordeal is out of proportion and betrays your emotional instability attached to this topic. I hope you get that figured out. Cheers, Ithinkicahn (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm an emotional person. It is a weakness of mine but I wouldn't necessarily consider it as clouding my judgment or accuracy in any significant way. I'll be the first one to admit being wrong if I am at fault. However, being confronted with preposterous statements such as "the Bosnian language did not exist" does quite certainly get the best of me. I'll have you know the earliest dictionary in the "Serbo-Croatian" language was written by Bosniak author Muhamed Hevaji Uskufi Bosnevi who in his 17th-century works names his language Bosnian and ethnicity Bosniak. Luckily enough, the historiography of Bosnia and Herzegovina is currently being revisited by the Western scholarship using modern instruments of analysis. A historiography which hitherto has been traditionally dominated by the Serb and Croat nationalist view which pervaded the ex-Yugoslav academia. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 20:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad academia is correcting itself, but we should also take care not to overcorrect. Bosnian is still a dialect of the Serbo-Croatian language, as are Serbian and Crotian themselves. Most people don't know that, however, so having the most relevant dialect in the intro is probably a good choice, so I agree with you. I don't know the language, though, so I have a genuine question I'm curious about. Is "Husein-paša Boljanić" spelled the same way in Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian? That's probably the most determining factor in this whole business. Ithinkicahn (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
If I may answer, yes it is the same in all those plus Montenegrin, in Serbian/Montenegrin it can also be rendered in Cyrillic and this is Хусеин-паша Бољанић. You're right it is all one language, a pluricentric tongue like English (with multiple standards) but it is not referred to as Serbo-Croat in any of the four states and hasn't been since 1997 when FR Yugoslavia finally dropped it from the constitution. --Zavtek (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
@Ithinkicahn: It is important to keep in mind that constant revision of history is part of the normal scholarly process of writing it, not least because history is often written by those victorious or in power at the time of its making. Undue overcorrection is of course not acceptable since it equals the illegitimate distortion of historic facts. As Zavtek points out, no sane observer would argue the fact that these are all basically one language, however the umbrella term applied to that one and the same language is arbitrary and moreover controversial since it sets aside other historically involved ethnicities and traditions (such as the Bosnian one). Also as a term, it simply does not have the same historic connotations as Bosnian, Serbian or Croatian individually do. Theoretically speaking, I'm all for calling the language Serbo-Croat-Bosnian or simply Southwest Slavic (or any equivalent term) since this would be an accurate representation. But even so, Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia constitute distinct historic entities in which circumstance the most relevant "ethnic name" should be used. Now if Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia were to fuse into one nation, sanction the use of a unitary standard name and create history as a unit (as during Yugoslavia), then by all means address that unit's future history with a single term. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 00:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Köprülü Fazıl Mustafa Pasha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Holy League (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
' ("Newspaper for Women" in English) after the declaration of constitutional monarchy in 1908 (see [[Second Constitutional Era (Ottoman Empire)|Second Constitutional Era]].<ref name=esem/> She
Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Young Turks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enlightenment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Necmettin Erbakan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Çankaya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Did you read WP:OVERLINK before you added the link back? It states that "the names of major geographic features and locations; languages; religions;" should not be linked. In this case, I would argue that Islam doesn't need to be linked, but it is a religious movement so I left that. Just below that is WP:REPEATLINK that says that "a link should appear only once in an article". I'm not sure if you confused the two issues in your most recent edit on the article. Please take care not to link nations when they're not the directly related to the subject. Linking nations is acceptable when linking cities, regions, states or provinces within that nation. They're usually acceptable when discussing people, other than senior political leaders, or other things that got their start in a nation. The idea is that we don't want an excessive number of links, particularly early in the article. They distract readers and may pull the reader to a different article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from, but the subject of the article is one of the most prominent civil society organizations in Turkey. If you saw the rest of the article, it is also considered a movement highly involved in politics. If it makes sense to keep a link to Islam, because it is a religious movement, it makes sense to keep a link to Turkey, as it is also a political movement. You and I know very well what is meant in WP:OVERLINK; those are meant to be guidelines on what links to delete if the intro section becomes overcrowded. However, as it stands, the article's lead section has barely any links. Deleting a link to Turkey would be akin to deleting a link to the home nation of a political party from its lead article. Use some common sense on this case, please. Ithinkicahn (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
January 2014
Your recent editing history at Gülen movement shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I see you have a lot of experience in being quite litigious in these supposed edit wars that all seem to be started by you. Thanks for the heads up. Ithinkicahn (talk) 02:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Ithinkicahn: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, CeeGee10:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
From your edit summary: "This person does not use his last name as a stage name".
That may be currently true, but he did at one time. I own the album released under the name, "People Watching", which is listed at Amazon here. There are only three links leading into Khaleel, one of which refers to Bob Khaleel, and the other two of which refer to an unrelated rapper from Houston. There are also no listings of anyone using the double-e spelling on the Khalil page. In short, I see no justification for redirecting to the disambiguation page. -Dewelar (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
The Khalil page doesn't list anyone using any kind of spelling of the name, it links to Khalil (given name) and Khalil (surname) for people, which do in fact list people with the first name and last name Khaleel, respectively. I have nothing against redirecting Khaleel to that person's page, but it'd be great if you also highlighted on his page that he used to use the stage name Khaleel (and the hatnote you previously added as well). Thanks for the info. Ithinkicahn (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not unsafe per se, and Silahdar Yusuf Pasha pretty definitively refers to the man it redirects to, and there are no other candidates that I could find, but Ottoman people aren't really definitively named, and someone may decide that another epithet instead of Silahdar is better for the article, or find another Silahdar Yusuf Pasha while digging through old Ottoman archives that are unpublished. I'm just taking it to an extreme here. Furthermore, Silahdar was what he was known as at the time of the Cretan War, but he was only a Silahdar until very shortly before the war; he was also most likely known by other epithets and titles he had at other times of his career, which is why linking straight to his name is beneficial, I think. What do you think? Ithinkicahn (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
This is actually a classic case of WP:NOTBROKEN. If the reference to him using the redirected name is not broken in context of the text using it, then keep it (don't pipe-link something else). If it is, then change the link text (not merely the piped link). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the rationale to avoid respecting the guideline in this case. Either change the link text, or keep the redirect. There is no benefit to bypassing the redirect - in the end, the reader will end up at the description of the same person. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Risale-i Nur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottoman Turkish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
I apologize for that, I thought it was some nationalistic vandalism, as the categories added to the articles did not exist. I didn't realize they were made by you, please feel free to undo my reverts. Ithinkicahn (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
No I don't know the difference between these two people and in the article it was Abazin as you have preferred. So please don't apologize. I only want to know the difference between the two. Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I know they are two different people, but that's all I know. The records for Abaza Siyavuş Pasha I and Abaza Siyavuş Pasha II, as with most Turkish records on anything earlier than ~1800 AD, are pretty inaccurate and lacking, so they could both be Abkhaz or Abazin, or one could be Abkhaz and the other Abazin. Hopefully someone can fix that in the future. Ithinkicahn (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't question the block, although I must question the judgment of using the same punishment for both me and the perpetrator of the reverts, vandalism, and personal attacks. Ithinkicahn (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! I knew I'd end up blocked as well, since I lost my cool, and I was hoping for some better "dispute resolution" other than equal punishment for both, but at least there's some progress. Ithinkicahn (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
.jpg)
