User talk:Sira Aspera

August 2022

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block account

@Bbb23 I notice you blocked my account for "multiple account abuse". This is my first and only account here and if there is an objective way of verifying it it will be verified. I would like it done quickly. If you don't like the way I contribute to Wikipedia it's a different problem we can discuss. Thank you. Sira Aspera (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

I notice blocked my account for "multiple account abuse". This is my first and only account here and if there is an objective way of verifying it it will be verified. I would like it done quickly. Thank you.Sira Aspera (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC) Sira Aspera (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Either you are using multiple accounts, or this is meat puppetry. Either way, the result is the same. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

@331dot It is simply not reality, but a pure belief that I don't know even know how it was born.Sira Aspera (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked on August 1, 2022, at tr.wiki for socking by Superyetkin. Your first account, MuhammetFurkan1, was blocked on April 23, 2022, at tr.wiki for socking by Elmacenderesi (also a CheckUser). I'm not sure if there are other accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23Too bad that MuhammetFurkan1 Is not a my accounts or people I know. I didn't even notice the block on tr because I hardly ever visit wiki in that language. Simply, the Turkish pages related to my interests are BAD and full of untruths, as anyone with a bit of knowledge on the subject can tell you, but apparently the improvements there are not appreciated. Apparently, the answer is to denounce people with absurd charges and prevent them from defending themselves instead of, I don't know, contact them. So does it work like this? Did this suspicion / belief come to you and I am out without even being able to defend myself or prove that you are wrong? It doesn't seem fair to me.Sira Aspera (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I was blocked for account abuse. In particular, as a sock of MuhammetFurkan1. This is simply not true. I have a single account, this one, and I contribute on wikis in multiple languages, but this is not a crime. I pointed this out, inviting you to verify it objectively, and I was told, quite rudely, that if this was the case then I was acting as a different natural person but in league with the first account. All without proof, because being the false accusation there cannot be any, except that we both have an interest in Ottoman history. The only possible indirect contact with this account is having reverted some unsuitable changes and the latest version that seemed ok to me was his. I suspect that I simply made some changes that I didn't like and it was decided to freeze completely, not to mention the specific problem even though I had offered to do so. Apparently, the reason for the block is that I made a couple of edits on Turkish wikipedia, where the pages on the Ottoman dynasty are in a bad state and full of bogus information, as anyone with knowledge on the subject can confirm, and a touchy user decided that instead of talking to me he had to report me for "account abuse" and "vandalism", leave me without the possibility of defending myself and let me also be targeted by en wiki, that blocked me without asking for any proof or anything but on principle. All without proof, verify or without warning for heard my version. Honestly, I am very disappointed that I was not only falsely accused, but also nearly unable to defend myself although apparently the burden of proof lies with me, accused of absurd things and conspiracies and cut off simply because two editors were interested in the same subject.Sira Aspera (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Based on CheckUser evidence, you are unrelated to MuhammetFurkan1 (although they have socked). I apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your patience.-Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 Thank you. I'm happy this inconvenience is end. Is it possible to get the unlock also on wiki tr? I don't really care as en wiki, but it bothers me that I got blocked for a fake reason by a segnalation by random user who didn't like my contributions. Sira Aspera (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to make an unblock request at tr.wiki. I have no authority there.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Sira Aspera. Thank you for your work on Laura Orsini. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 23:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawn: Thanks to you, it was nice to start the day with this comment! Sira Aspera (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really important question

All sources clearly confirm that Şivekar Sultan and Şekerpare Hatun were the same person! Take a look at Turkish Wikipedia. Why do you say otherwise? IgnacyPL (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Wikipedia is probably among the worst on the topic (it regularly includes fanfiction among its sources) and in any case Wikipedia cannot be its own source. Secondly, no, that they were the same person is information that has been obsolete and has been denied for many years and is simply due to a misunderstanding about similar names. The two were two separate people: as you can read on their pages, which in turn report many reliable sources in English and Turkish, all absolutely agree in separating them, there is not a single point in their lives that could suggest they were the same person, apart from having both been in the same harem. Sira Aspera (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question

What evidence do you have that Şivekar Sultan and Şekerpare Hatun were not the same person? IgnacyPL (talk) 07:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already answered this question: any serious and up-to-date source that mentions them, including those on their own pages. Please read them and stop bothering me. It should be enough to realize that they were two different women with completely different lives.Sira Aspera (talk) 07:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Important question

Why do you think Sultan Mustafa was born in 1600 instead of 1592? IgnacyPL (talk) 06:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IgnacyPL Because the research has continued and the cited sources, which are the most up to date and have demonstrated that Mustafa could not have been born before 1600, say so which, as in the past, you did not bother to check. In the future you are:

asked to do so;
avoid changing the information to your taste by falsifying the source;
stop bothering me by treating me like a library reference/as if I had to justify myself to you for having read the sources.

Thank you. Sira Aspera (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afife = wise?

Hello! I wanted to ask, what your source for Afife meaning "wise" was? I've only ever understood it to mean "chaste" or "pure." Thanks! Evansknight (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! First, I wanted to say amazing job on your constant upkeep of the normally neglected Ottoman articles. I did quite a bit of updating the consort articles back in the day after I stumbled across a copy of Harun Açba's Kadınefendiler, but you've gone above and beyond. One thing I had a question about, and it's pretty purely a stylistic thing, however, is it necessary to include the literal translation of every name in every article about an Ottoman woman? I don't know if there is a larger body or task force for these things that might have established a ruling on this. I think including the name in the Osmanlıca script is useful, especially if one is using that to then refer back to Ottoman sources or visual arts in which the name is recorded thus, but including the translations, particularly multiple translations (such as in the Gülnuş Sultan article) just gets excessive and starts to make the header complex and confusing. It has never been the SOP for names in Arabic/Persian/Turkish to include the translations, only the native spelling, whether for male or female figures. It seems particularly unnecessary for names like Fatma or Hatice or Ümmügülsüm for instance, because the literal translation is irrelevant since the person is named AFTER someone who already had that name, for whom the literal translation might have been relevant, but once it becomes a common use name, it seems unnecessary to include it. For instance, we don't include the literal meaning of Thomas in every article about a person named Thomas, because once a word becomes a name, it loses some lexicality and ceases to be just a word with a meaning. Do you know what I mean? If anything, I could see perhaps linking to a specific page if one exists (e.g. Hatice), but I don't know. This may be a larger conversation. Thank you!Evansknight (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Evansknight First of all, thank you for the compliments.

As for the translations of the names, it was a my initiative. Initially I added those of the concubines because the names given to them reflect a precise characteristic of the Ottoman harem, namely that of "objectifying" them by giving them names which in almost all cases were not real names of the Ottoman tradition, but poetic names, a sort of "fantasy names" that distinguished them from free women (a sort of historical version of the "Aerith and Bob" trope). But later I also came across the names of the princesses, and at that point I thought it wouldn't do any harm to add them. Obviously if other users do not agree they can act accordingly. Sira Aspera (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've explained it, I actually get it. From a structural standpoint, I wonder if it might work to put the direct translation in the body of the article (like..."Upon entering the harem, XYZ was given the name ABC which is Persian/Turkish for DEF."), at least in the case of concubines. Evansknight (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]