User talk:Takabeg

Userpage	Talk page	E-mail	Articles	Sources	Sandbox	Awards

typo

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

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

Template:Kurdish independence movement

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

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

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

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

Talkback

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

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

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

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

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

You did not remove sources?

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

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

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

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

And you did not mention this.

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

This is, here on Wikipedia simply called Vandalism

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

This here on Wikipedia simply called Vandalism

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

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

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

And again you did remove Sources first.

You removed this

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

and this

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

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

and added a non existing source like this

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

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

Re:

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

Other neutral users interested in Middle East

Unfortunately, no. Middle East related articles are heavily infected with more nationalists than any other area. Most of them edit from the U.S. in an attempt to deceive their true purpose of removing reliable sources, mention of other ethnic groups and any facts they find unpalatable about their respective country of origin. These nationalist do not find anyone neutral to their POV. Why? Because they are most likely being paid to ensure that information is being sanitized, censored or forcibly included(ie.sourced with unpublished non-neutral sources[1]) in Wikipedia. So welcome to the most difficult area in Wikipedia to edit. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Refs removed

Hi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC behavior

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

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

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

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

Disruptive editing

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

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

IP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For example:

your edit: Put irrelevant modern Turkish alternative name.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adding unreferenced banner

Hi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

DYK for İncili Çavuş

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

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

Merhaba

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

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

Nihat Anılmış

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

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

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

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

Caaaaaaaat

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

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

Sanjak of Niš

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

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

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

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

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

Selam

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

Selam 2

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

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

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

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

Armenian placenames in Turkey

Don't remove Armenian place names from articles about Turkish localities[2] unless you first have a clear consensus to do so at the talkpage. Wikipedia has ageneral policy of including minoritylanguage place names for localities where Minority languages have been or are still spoken.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Tughra edit war

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

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

Sheikh Abdurrahman rebellion

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

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

Vankli

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

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

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

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

Anti-Kurdish vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it a good idea as the Kurdish name is only for Bingöl? [3] Kavas (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sinai and Palestine Campaign

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Birthdate

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

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

please read

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

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

---

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

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

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

Edit summary

Hi Takabeg,

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

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

wikipedia is an encyclopedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Help

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

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

Talkback

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

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

Name etc

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

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

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

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

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

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

Algeria under ottoman protectorate

salam turkish brother , we must cooperate and help each other to make a better history pages ,it's clear that the ottoman were turkish and also Algerian (ottman empire is a common history between algeria and turkey) . take this sources who show the flag of Algeria under the ottoman protectorate [4] , [ http://www.hukam.net/family.php?fam=54] . Tahert14 (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Prens Sabahaddin

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

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