User talk:Böri

Welcome!

Hello, Böri, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

meco (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The History of the Qiang people

There must be something about the Qiang (K'iang) people here...I don't know their history so I didn't write anything about them, but The History of Tibet begins with them. Böri (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. Any relationship between the Tibetans and the Qiang is speculative at best. Christopher I. Beckwith treats this question in detail in his PhD dissertation, a reference can be found on his Wikipedia page. Tibetologist (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo football team

But as you say they are not in UEFA or FIFA. I do not understand why they MUST play is a statement that needs adding to multiple talk pages. I am not of an opinion either way about Kosovo or its football team, but Wikipedia is not a place to express political opinions. Bevo74 (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a political opinion...Estonia can play in these games but Kosovo can't play! Is it justice? They are not a member of FIFA or UEFA because of Russia. Böri (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Northern Cyprus. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The editor correctly removed the bold type you placed and which you have put back in again Chaosdruid (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I realise that you tried to make the name more easily seen, but it was enough that the words were in "" marks. I think the editor that reverted your edit did not perhaps take enough time to explain why that was done.

If you look at the article, the only time we use bold is at the start, or in section headers. I suppose it may be ok to italicise that name to make it stand out. Making it bold would be incorrect though.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Böri (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dingir/Tengri

You were right, the comparison of dingir with tengri can be duly mentioned. The problem is that even though you were right, you didn't cite quotable references, and WP:CITE is so central to Wikipedia that it really doesn't mean anything if somebody is "right" as long as they do not present good references. In fact, all that Wikipedia aspires to do is arranging good references coherently. I have now cited evidence that the suggestion was made in the 1920s (in fact it was made even earlier, but not necessarily by reputable scholars), and was taken as speculation worth mentioning in serious literature at least until the 1950s. --dab (𒁳) 12:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Böri. 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.

Battle of Sırpsındığı(1364)

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

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

Karayolları haritasında görülebilir... Bu haritada (göstermiyor!) ilin kuzeybatı taraflarında http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosya:Edirne_districts.png Böri (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Böri. 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.

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

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

Önemli olan kaynak göstermektir. Takabeg (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. There was nothing offensive about the other editor's comments. Favonian (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The other editor is quoting from a source, and in English at least, the word "donkey" is not considered particularly offensive. Favonian (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's offensive! Do you know Turkish? Vandalism is what they wrote! Böri (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Donkey. Thank you. — Favonian (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comment has now been reinstated. Further attempts to delete it will likely cause you to be blocked from editing. Favonian (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sansürcülük

Please read Wikipedia:Censorship, Wikipedia is not censored Takabeg (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sansürcülük değil! Eşek ile Atatürk'ün adı-soyadının ne ilgisi var? Böri (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maritsa

Merhaba. Konuyla ilgili olmadigim icin pek bir sey soyleyemiyorum. Biraz kaynaklara baktim.

History of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey, 1. cilt Yazar: Stanford J. Shaw: Burada Sirpsindigi dedgimiz savasin Maritsa vadisinde 1364'te Haclilara karsi yapildigini anlatiyor. 1371'de ise Evrenos Bey'in akinlari var sadece.
An Historical Geography of the Ottoman Empire Burda ise, ilk anti-Osmanli hacli seferinin pek cok kaynakta ve Turk tarihinde 1364 olarak kabul edildigini, Haci-Ilbey'in bozguna ugrattigini yazmis. Ancak bunun bir yanlislik olabilecegini, 1371'te yine Maritsa'ya saldiran hacli ordusuyla karistirilmis olabilecegini soyluyor.

Simdilik bu kadar bakabildim. Kolay gelsin.--CenkX (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teşekkürler, Atatürk yazısına da bir bakın... Böri (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:79.191.101.135

I warned him on his user page.[1] If it happens again, let me know or contact WP:AIV. Viriditas (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Böri (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gallia-Gael

Many modern Irish historians seem to go with the status quo - i.e. the consensus reflected on the 'Gaul' page. Some older sources seem to prefer the ancestor theory, but that was a direct part of the Milesian migration from Spain theory, which was long considered nonsense in academic circles, until recent research indicated that an Iberian origin for the Gaels was possible after all.

Interestingly, the direct cognate of the Welsh forest-person 'Guoidel' in Gaelic would be something like 'coilltach', pl. 'coilltigh', which would have been pronounced in such a way that a link to the Greek rendering 'keltoi' would not be completely improbable.

The bottom line here, is that the Welsh origin is consensus, while anything else is currently considered 'fringe' at best - so as per wp:verify, the consensus is valid for the article and the alternatives are not (at least until, as Cagwinn so rightly pointed out, someone publishes them in peer-reviewed publications). This is not the same thing as saying that the alternatives are wrong, and my main aim in posting a response to your question was to raise the issue that at a lot of levels, the jury is still out on the actual relationships between the various terms for/around 'Celts'. Gabhala (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selam

Uyariniz icin tesekkurler. Bu tur saldirilar her zaman olucak, onemli olan Wikipedia'nin kurallari dahilinde bunlarla mucadele etmek. Itirazinizi uygun dille yapinca adminler yardimci oluyor. Iyi calismalar.--CenkX (talk) 10:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bozcaada

Maybe you'll be interested in the discussion on page Talk:Tenedos Happy editting Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. "They" are attacking against the Turkish History, Turkish Culture via Internet. Some "so-called Turks" also support them. Böri (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. For this message. Takabeg (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben kimsenin şahsına saldırmıyorum. "I'm neither Turkish nor Greek." diyen sizsiniz. Türkler sizin sandığınız kadar kötü insanlar değil. Böri (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Niye Türk Tarihi üzerine atıp tutuyor? Wiki'de Türk Tarihine yönelik sayısız saldırı var. is considered as personal attack. Takabeg (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ayrıca Türkler sizin sandığınız kadar kötü insanlar değil. de nereden çıktı ??? Takabeg (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saldırı dğil, siz kendi yazdıklarınıza bakın Istanbul Pogrom diyorsunuz, kim öldürüldü? İsimlerini yazın. Wikipedia ve Vikipedi'de yazdıklarınızın büyük bölümü Türk Düşmanlığı içeriyor. Saldırı yapan sizsiniz. Böri (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You sent same message that involving personal attack to this user, This is serious problem. Takabeg (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terörizm propagandası yapmak da suç. Wikipedia üzerinden terörizm propagandası yapılıyor. (Yapanlar isim isim belli.) Bu da suç. Hiçbir suç cezasız kalmaz! Böri (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where ? And google translate is very helpful. It also translates your message involving personal attack into English. Takabeg (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia saldırı amaçlı kullanılıyor ama silahlar geri de teper! (Bir kere sizin güvenilirliğiniz yok! Kasıtlı yazdığınızı herkes biliyor!) Böri (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPA2

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. For this comment Takabeg (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Başka biri hakkında birşey demedim ki! Sizin hakkında yazdıklarımı saldırı görüyorsanız, Türk Tarihi hakkında sizin sayısız saldırınız var. Yazılarınız ortada. Onların hepsi Türklere yönelik bir saldırı! Böri (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPA3

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. For this message. Takabeg (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relationship between the Qiang and the Tibetans

Dear Böri: Thank you for leaving the note on my page about the Qiang. Questions about the relationship between some of the Qiang tribes and modern Tibetans keep being raised. There is certainly an ethnic relationship between the Qiang and the Tibetans, but modern Tibetans are descended from a mixture of many tribes, so it is not accurate to say that Tibetans were originally Qiang. One can only say that many Tibetans are probably partly descended from various Qiang tribes and there were about 150 different Qiang tribes known during the Han dynasty who may well have varied considerably in their ethnic makeup from each other. I referred to this very briefly in my 2009 book, Through the Jade Gate to Rome on page 141:

"The Qiang are often referred to as ‘Tibetans,’ which is misleading. Qiang appear in the literature many centuries before a ‘Tibetan’ state had emerged and, while many Tibetans are indeed descended from Qiang tribes, they were only one of many peoples who contributed to the genetic and cultural inheritance of modern Tibetans".

I hope this is of some help to you.

Best wishes, John Hill (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you read Christopher Beckwith's dissertation, which discusses all extant sources for the history of Tibet before 650. He also disproves the identification with Qiang, with the possible exception of the Fa Qiang. Here is the citation

Beckwith, Christopher I. (1977). A Study of the Early Medieval Chinese, Latin, and Tibetan Historical Sources on Pre-Imperial Tibet. Indiana University PhD Dissertation.

I would be happy to help you receive it.

Tibetologist (talk) 22:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your recent questions on my talk page

Dear Böri: Thank you for your comments. Sorry I have taken a while to reply but I have not been well.

Now, about the Qiang - yes, of course, there should be something about them in the history of Tibet article but I cannot agree with calling them "Proto-Tibetans'. Using this term would imply that they were the main ancestors of modern Tibetans. Tibet first came together as a state when Songtsen Gampo united a number of tribes around the Yarlung Valley and the region of modern Lhasa - and there is no evidence that I know of to show that they were at all related to the numerous Qiang tribes who stretched across the Changthang plains to the far north and the region around Koko Nur in the east and stretching well into what we may call (for want of a better term) "Greater China." Some of these tribes became absorbed into the Tibetan world, some into the Chinese, but there are (according to the Wiki article) still about 200,000 people mainly in Sichuan Province who identify themselves as Qiang and speak Qiang languages. The Quanrong were, apparently, a branch of the Qiang.

Calling the Qiang people "proto-Tibetans" would be a bit like calling Maltese people "proto-Australians." There are, according to things I have read, more people of Maltese descent in Australia than in Malta. In a sense, any group that adds to the gene pool of a people might be considered "proto-" members of that group, but the term is usually reserved for the main group involved. One doesn't think of the French or the Vikings or the Italians as "proto-English" although they all contributed to the modern gene-pool in England (which modern DNA studies seem to reveal is mostly Celtic). In this sense one might be able to legitimately refer to the Celtic/Gaulish tribes as proto-English, prot.-Irish, proto-Scots, proto-Welsh, proto-Bretons, and so on.

The situation regarding the Di people is somewhat similar to that of the Qiang, although fewer people have survived as a separate entity into modern times than with the Qiang. They seem, with the possible exception of the Boma ('White Horse') Di, to have been assimilated into the Tibetan and Chinese populations.

About the name of Tibet - most scholars I know think it is derived from "Böd" which is, apparently, what the first Tibetans called themselves - and that name may well be closely related to Bön - the early Tibetan religion. I doubt very much that it was originally from a Turkic language. If, indeed, the western name 'Tibet' came through Turkic languages via Arabic - one might ask whether the Turkic name was not an attempt to transcribe whatever name the Tibetans used for themselves (i.e. probably Böd - of some variant of it).

The "history" of a place or people is usually taken to mean the story of the people or place since written records began. And this definition would place the beginning of Tibetan history in the 7th century. However, you are quite right if what you mean is that to say the "Tibetans" did not just appear out of nowhere in 7th century - we all have lineages going back at least 100,000 years as "modern" humans, and just recently through DNA studies and careful archaeological work we are beginning to unravel some of the outlines of this unwritten "history." For example, one can say that the Aboriginal people of Australia technically have a history which only stretches backk a couple of hundred years to settlement of the continent by Europeans, who brought writing. However, their "oral histories" have been shown to contain information stretching back thousands of years and their artwork and other archaeological remain, plus information gleaned from DNA, etc., has taken this "history" back to 70 to 100,000 years ago - if not longer.

Again, about the Qiang - I don't read the Chinese sources to say that the Qiang were the Tibetans - they are mostly dealt with separately. And it should not be claimed that the Qiang were not the allies of the Xiongnu - some tribes were at certain times - some tribes were also allies of the Chinese at certain times - and some tribes supported neither. Hope this is of some help. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could other users check User:MarshallBagramyan expropriation of the entire Kars article.

Could other users check User:MarshallBagramyan expropriation of the entire Kars article. This user constantly erases the other versions of the name of the city Kars in other languages (Armenian: Կարս Kars or Ղարս [ʁɑɾs] Ghars, Azerbaijani: Qars, Georgian: ყარსი Kars, Kurdish: Qers, Russian: Карс Kars) , and only lets the Armenian version of the name to stay (Armenian: Կարս Kars or Ղարս [ʁɑɾs] Ghars). Unfortunately this user's ethnocentric POV pushing by ignoring the history of the city, after the Armenian era, is still allowed to stay. He even defends it in the city article talk page.

Kars is Turkish FULL STOP Böri (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Turkism?

Hi there, you mention on Talk:Anti-Turkism that there are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia which reflect an anti-Turkish POV. You're welcome to address it yourself, of course, but if you're finding resistance to your position, or you don't have time to address it, could you mention some of these (the more egregious examples) on the talk page? (Don't respond here or on my talk page, I have anti-Turkism on my watchlist, and if you respond there other users are more likely to see your concerns as well.) Thanks, --Quintucket (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STOP VANDALISM!

DON'T WRITE FOOLISH THINGS ON MY PAGE! Böri (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Joris, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Cloudz 679 16:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I SAID: "DON'T WRITE FOOLISH THINGS ON MY PAGE!" YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! Böri (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The warning template Template:uw-vandalism4 which is employed by User:Cloudz679 above is inapproriate. Although Böri has gotten into an edit war this is not vandalism, and it shouldn't be labeled as such. Also, warning templates at WP:WARNING are graded so that one can apply a higher level warning if lower level warnings are disregarded. I can see no such gradual approach having been taken in this case.

As for the information that Böri is attempting to insert on the Joris page it is problematic from several perspectives. If this person doesn't have a Wikipedia article in the first place, why should the name be present on a disambiguation page? That does not conform with MOS:DAB. __meco (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see these diffs for earlier warnings. 1 2 3. Any further disruption will result in this matter being taken to ANI. Thank you. Cloudz 679 16:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I didn't allow for the possibility that earlier warnings had been deleted by Böri. Nevertheless, this isn't vandalism. It may be disruptive behavior though. __meco (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete anything! They wrote: WARNING 1, WARNING 2, WARNING 3, WARNING 128! For what? Böri (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit suggests you did. __meco (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Idlib, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. __meco (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning on Joris

Your recent editing history at Joris shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll write it on Joris-talk page. What they delete is not important for me. I know who Joris was. Böri (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Pomponius Mela are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 01:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tahrifat

Tarihin tahrif edildiğini belirmişsiniz. Elbet duyarlıyım. Ama 4.5 milyon madde var. Tam olarak hangi maddede tahrifat var. Ben elimden geldiğince Göktürk maddelerini gözden geçiriyorum. Gözümden kaçan bir şey varsa lütfen uyarın. İyi günler.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey-PKK conflict

Selam Böri kardeş. Yakın bir zaman önce farkettim ki Turkey-PKK conflict maddesi Turkish-Kurdish conflict diye değiştirilmiş. Nozdref (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mesajınızı okudum. Bir kısmını sildim. Türkler aleyhine yoğun bir propaganda var Wikipedia'da! Böri (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Idlib

It wasn't exactly relevant to an encyclopedic article, mostly supported by an unreliable source which it misquoted, and of course a misleading anecdote/joke which didn't reflect reality on the ground. My reasoning is provided in better detail at the talk page. Anyway, sorry for the late reply. Happy editing, salaam. --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi.

welcome to wikipedia.

PadmaPhala (talk) 12:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Paul is dead are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I say above, talk pages are for discussing specific improvements to the article. You posting "He really died in 1966 / These pictures show that" does not appear to be a comment about the content of the article or how it might be improved. --McGeddon (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above with Talk:Let It Be (song). Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 13:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using talk pages such as Let It Be (song) for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 09:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMPOSSIBLE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_S%C4%B1rp_S%C4%B1nd%C4%B1%C4%9F%C4%B1 Sırp Sındığı was a sudden night raid by an Ottoman force led by Hacı İlbey on a Serbian contingent at the banks of the Martisa river about 15 kilometres from the city of Adrianople. It occurred in 1364 between an expeditionary force of the Ottomans and a Serbian army that also included crusaders, sent by the Pope. The Ottomans destroyed the Serbian army, which is why the battle was known as "sırp sındığı" (destruction of Serbs). The battle was the first attempt to throw the Ottomans from the Balkans with an allied army Despite all efforts, the allied army crossed the Maritsa river very easily without any important resistance; and made a camp in Sarayakpinar (old name: Sirpsindiği) village in Edirne near the banks of Maritsa river. They were very near to Adrianople.The army leaders made an early feast that night. They hoped to take Adrianople with ease. They neglected to take any measures that might protect the camp, but the camp was being monitored by expeditionary forces. Hacı Ilbey decided to make a surprise attack without waiting for any reinforcements. Ottoman akinjis attacked the allied camp in the darkness of night, and they carried 2 torches for the purpose of deceiving the enemy into thinking that they had double their actual numbers. This trick worked. This surprise attack threw the allied army into a panic that they were drunk or asleep because of the feast. They supposed that the Ottoman Sultan Murat I had arrived there with a large army. Most of the alliance troops tried to retreat back to the road from whence they came. Many of them were drowned in the Maritsa river while trying to swim to the opposite side. Most of the soldiers were Serbians.

30,000-60,000 Serbian Empire,Bulgarian Empire,Banate of Bosnia, Wallachia, Kingdom of Hungary vs 10,000 Ottoman Empire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Maritsa The Battle of Maritsa, or Battle of Chernomen (Serbian: Маричка битка, бој код Черномена, Bulgarian: Битката при Марица, битката при Черномен, Turkish: Çirmen Muharebesi, İkinci Meriç Muharebesi in tr. Second Battle of Maritsa) took place at the Maritsa River near the village of Chernomen (today Ormenio in Greece) on September 27, 1371 between the forces of Ottoman commanders Lala Şâhin Paşa and Gazi Evrenos and Serbian commanders King Vukašin Mrnjavčević and his brother Despot Jovan Uglješa [10][11][12][13] who also wanted to get revenge of First Battle of Maritsa. A crusading army consisting of 30,000-60.000 troops began to move on Adrianople, at that time the Ottoman sultan Murat I was fighting the Catalan mercenaries in the Byzantine army at Biga, (Çanakkale). Also most of the Ottoman army was in Asia Minor. Lala Sahin Pasha who was the first Beylerbey of Rumelia, demanded Sultan to send him some reinforcements. Also Lala Şahin Paşa appointed “Hacı İlbey” to a be the commander of an expeditionary force that was supposed to monitor and slow down the allied army.

The Serbian army(THAT IS ARMY OF SOUTH SERBIAN STATES,NOT ALL SERBIAN STATES) numbered 20,000[2]–70,000[2][3][4][5][6](https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87irmen_Muharebesi 70,000 vs 800 90 vs 1). Most sources agree on the higher number. Despot Uglješa wanted to make a surprise attack on the Ottomans in their capital city, Edirne, while Murad I was in Asia Minor. The Ottoman army was much smaller[15] Byzantine Greek scholar Laonikos Chalkokondyles[2] and other sources[7] give the number of 800 men, but due to superior tactics, by conducting a night raid on the Serbian camp, Şâhin Paşa was able to defeat the Serbian army and kill King Vukašin and despot Uglješa. Thousands of Serbs were killed, and thousands drowned in the Maritsa river when they tried to flee.[9][16] After the battle, the Maritsa ran scarlet with blood.[16]

That is same battle, not two battles! And numbers ?! hahahahahahha Somebody belive in this hahahahahahha One man with sword cant kill 90 men ! He dont have energy for that ! Serbian army never had that number of men :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Velbazhd (That is one of the biggest battles of medieval Serbia. ALL SERBIAN ARMY have 18 000 men)--Sinhua111 (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)Sinhua111[reply]

The Serbs lost those battles. Böri (talk) 07:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Straton

Please stop adding an unlinked entry to this disambiguation page. Every entry on a dab page must lead to an existing Wikipedia article. If you have sourced information about this person and believe that they are notable, then create an article for them. Until then, do not replace the entry on the disambiguation page. Your editing is becoming disruptive and might lead to you being blocked if you continue. PamD 12:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Straton, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. PamD 12:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Straton. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Do not add an entry to a disambiguation page unless it includes a blue link to a Wikipedia article where the topic is at least mentioned. Dab pages are not guides to potential articles, but navigation tools to help readers find existing articles. PamD 08:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Straton. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. PamD 09:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Walter Krickeberg

I've started the draft with a quick translation of the lead from the German wiki. You can find it here: User:MjolnirPants/Walter Krickenberg. Don't be afraid to watch it and edit away, I'm not protective of my edits at all. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Project

Hi, You may be interested in Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Turkey) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Böri (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Böri. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Palindrome. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. EricEnfermero (Talk) 14:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Your recent editing history at Palindrome shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have made this edit at least six times now. You have been given edit warrign warnings twice. Stop doing this. The longer sentence is perfectly grammatical, so there is no reason to truncate it. Meters (talk) 07:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You even don't know the difference between a car and a cat... You're writing meaningless things. Nobody will care about what you wrote! Böri (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Böri reported by User:EricEnfermero (Result: ). Thank you. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please read WP:CANVASS. Why did you notify Nedim Ardoğa here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Böri - This is just a note to remind you that there is a talk page discussion of the car/cat issue at Talk:Palindrome. It would be helpful if you go there and explain your point of view so that a consensus can be reached in this matter. I know that you mentioned feeling attacked, but I can promise you that this is not anyone's intention.

I think that people just want you to slow down and discuss the matter on the talk page rather than just reinserting your preferred wording. When you do this in your first edit after a block for edit warring, I think it comes across as a little bit forceful, so people may have difficulty seeing you as someone who is being attacked. EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Palindrome. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Not a good idea to come back form an edit warring block and continue to make the same edits. Meters (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Meters (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your messages about the Egyptian calendar

on my talk page were completely incorrect, as is thoroughly documented in the existing article and any scholarly treatment of the subject. The Coptic calendar is precisely the Egyptian calendar plus Augustus's reforms and a new Christian era for the years. Clagett's books are much more recent than 1920, so no idea where that complaint came from. The idea that the Egyptian new year corresponded with the rise of Sirius is a common misconception based on the scholars talking about the Sothic cycle, whose existence precisely belies the idea. The calendar was presumably adopted in a year when Sirius began it, but it rotated out of that alignment without any correction twice in the historical record and claims to the contrary—Parker's prehistoric intercalating lunar calendar or others' proposed early Julian systems—are completely unsupported by the current record. Epip had no set Gregorian equivalent.

Beyond that, disagreements about article contents belong on the talk pages of the articles, not the editors. — $Llywelyn II$ 14:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moved that comment and my reply to the articles' talk pages so interested editors can see them and comment. It came to mind that there was eventually a fixed Egyptian calendar after Augustus's reforms but, since it wasn't established in a year when the new year correlated to the rising of Sirius and the Nile flood was never a very timely event and moved around over several months from year to year, the rest of the points you were trying to make were still completely wrong. Not your fault, though. Apparently you just got fringe or bad sources. — $Llywelyn II$ 14:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth

I do think you were right (if rude) about the cat palindrome and said so on that page's talk page.

The way to win that argument is not to edit war, though, but to find RELIABLE SOURCES—in this case well-done Google Ngram, Scholar, or Books searches—that establish your version is the COMMON ENGLISH version of the phrase or, at least, nearly enough common that we can choose based on what makes sense. — $Llywelyn II$ 15:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm right, of course ;) Böri (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to talk:Turkish occupation of northern Syria. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Editor abcdef (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which "promotional material" ? Böri (talk) 07:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Böri. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]