User talk:Phso2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome[edit]

Welcome...

Hello, Phso2, 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:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username 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.

Chris19910

Again, welcome! Chris19910 (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Template Greek instruments[edit]

The reason of removal of Greek instruments Tambouras, Karantouzeni, Thaboura, Thaboura, Cimbalom, Psaltery ? Tem (p.s. psaltery is also modern used-instrument) --Silentmaker (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit War[edit]

Stop editing war to something ... that you just don't get it.--CanarianIsland (talk) 20:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Phso2! I have seen the story going on the last two days. Maybe it’s a good idea for both of you to have a nice cup of tea, relax, and discuss the issue(s) at Talk:Rebetiko instead of reverting each other immediately. All the best. Alfie↑↓© 00:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Rebetiko, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Modal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

May 2012[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Kemenche, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Old Pylos castle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ibrahim Pasha (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Editing of Escors[edit]

Hi, I read your changes to Gilbert de Cors. There are a few things that I agree and others disagree... It is true that the Chronicle of Morea manuscripts(all versions) don't extensively deal with Gilbert de Cors' genealogy, but they extensively deal with "Le Maure"'s genealogy, possibly because they were responsible for sponsoring the original lost Greek manuscript. This was made by them as a means to ensure their linking to Frank-Moreot families and thus, a justification for their rule. Therefore, the genealogy is not really a 19th century hypothesis, but it is in fact much earlier. The problem is that apart from the Anjevin's documents (those belonging to the House d'Anjou, and the Azzenzis' collection of rules) and "the Chronicle" itself, there are not other documents left from the Principality of Achaya. This also includes the difficulties in proving the existence of lost fiefs possibly detailed in the lost manuscript and other documents. Le Bon points out the lack of these documents in other documents (found from the Anjevin's documents? I am no sure) as proving his point. However, it is "agreed" by historians in this subject that the original documents from Morea have been lost. The only thing left is "the Chronicle". I agree with you that we have to be careful in interpreting what "the Chronicle" says, and these manuscripts are copies from the original, which were subjected to extensive editing.... I like the way that you re-wrote it, but I will remove the 19th century hypothesis because it is no fully accurate... I don't know what you think about this?

Achaya (talk) 09:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Answer to Phso2...[edit]

Hi Phso2, thanks for the comments, and I agree with you. It is true that the Aragonese version provides the name of the castle, and everything that was given to him... In fact, the list of fiefs found in all the different version varies, as well as the typographic forms of the names (Chiper de Cors, etc....)..Yes, I fully agree that the connection is a hypothesis, as many derived from Medieval times.... Again, I agree that mostly because of the problems of her widow with the inheritance, as the Prince had to use quite a subtle way to address this issue, quoting and using the "rules of the land" (now lost, but exemplified in other legal documents of the Era from the Anjou family...).

Usually, I follow the oldest manuscripts such as the Greek version in Copenhangen, the French version in Belgium and the Aragonese version in Madrid... I don't bother with the Italian version (as it was a copy of a Greek copy...)...

Again, I liked the way you wrote it, I think is a good consensus. In fact, other authors had to go back to medieval documents in Champagne to identify the families involved in the fourth Crusade, as there are many typographic forms, names... Again, I like it the way that you wrote it......

By the way, my name is David, I think I will have to complete my User page. I am glad to find someone interested in Medieval Greece as well....

David Achaya (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Phso2. You have new messages at Talk:Cenaze Hasan Pasha.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for July 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kara Mehemet (Kapudan Pasha), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Nauplia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bohemond VI of Antioch may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • de Poitiers]], later titular countess of Tripoli; and Marie de Poitiers (d. ca 1280), married to [[Nicholas II of Saint Omer|Nicolas de Saint-Omer}} (d. 1294).<ref>[http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ANTIOCH.htm#BohemondVI ANTIOCH]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to George II Ghisi may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 1343, at the request of [[pope Clement VI]], he armed a galley conjointly with [[John I Sanudo]] ([[duke of Naxos]] and Balzana Gozzadini (regent of the two other thirds of Negroponte) to join the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Belshazzar[edit]

Your edit has been reverted. Twice now. If you are of the opinion that some change must be made to the article, then per WP:BRD you should first discuss this on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I replied to your question on my talkpage. You could have replied here,since I usually watch the talkpages of people I post to. Debresser (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

File talk:Rosne Pranvere.jpg[edit]

Please join this discussion. It's about Mahidevran's photo which you have discussed in January. Keivan.fTalk 15:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Marino Dandolo may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ] [[Enrico Dandolo]] by [[Karl Hopf]], on the basis of erroneous identifications with homonyms. (R-J Loenertz, ''Marino Dandolo, seigneur d'Andros, et son conflit avec l'évêque Jean'' in ''
  • et Franco-Graeca'' p 402-403, followed by Setton, ''The Papacy and the Levant'' vol 1, p 430 n 124([http://books.google.fr/books?id=5Gm79HuBY0cC&lpg=PA430&ots=XFcwZy9a1y&pg=PA430#v=onepage&q&f=false]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Andrea Ghisi[edit]

Hello Phso2 I create this article but the year of her death confounds me. Some sources say after 1243, others in 1266. Greetings Kardam (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

House of Candia[edit]

Hello, good job in deleting that article, it was a horrible mess! Nevertheless, the part about the Sardinian family was quite serious, it had long been the one with sources. Of course, that family has nothing to do with the French one, so an article on it cannot be added to House of Candia. What would you suggest me to do? possibly creating an article called House of Candia (Sardinia) or something of the kind? and maybe re-nominate the present article as House of Candia (France)? Presently, I copied in my sandbox the former part of the old article concerning the Sardinia family, though it still needs some editing. Thanks. --Vadsf (talk) 12:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually I know nothing about the Candia family from Savoy.... As far as concerns your suggestion of a Candia (Italy) article, first it should be a De Candia (since De is part of the surname and not a nobility particle) and secondly in the old article two "Italian" families were descripted, one from continental Italy and the other from Sardinia (although with origin from Campania, near Naples). I only am sure about the Sardinian one, who has a documented genealogy and nobility, I would rather avoid to mix it with other families with the same name, whose nobility I strongly doubt. Thanks for your help. Vadsf (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Helen Ma (actress)[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Helen Ma (actress) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Wgolf (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lily Ho Li Li[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Lily Ho Li Li has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Adam9007 (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Wgolf. I noticed that you removed a Biographies of Living Persons PROD, from Lily Ho Li Li, and I wanted to let you know that I have replaced it. Please don't remove these Biographies of Living Persons PRODs from articles unless they contain at least one reliable source or were created before 18 March 2010. If you oppose the deletion of an article under this process, please consider adding reliable sources to the article or commenting at the respective talk page. Thank you. Wgolf (talk) 22:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Lily Ho Li Li[edit]

Okay that is decent but I think you need a ref online also-don't remove the tags or deletion stuff though as you are adding those though as the admins will check! Good luck! Wgolf (talk) 23:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo-Centre.svg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo-Centre.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Anonymous Heroes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wang Chung. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please be a wise educator.[edit]

Good Day! It has been noted you edited the article Mahidevran Hatun and claimed that the last edit was without any sources. Please do check the sources again which are not UN-reliable. I would like to provide clear image of history to all who are interested in knowledge, I have therefore researched carefully before putting anything out on Wikipedia. Please do not take my message negatively, I appreciate your contribution to Wikipedia. The said article has a debate about the Title of the lady, which, according to her related era and customs, was changed after she became a mother to heir apparent.

Please don't waste your time and mine with such pointless discussions. Find an academic book that deals with her as specifically as Peirce's and go to the talkpage, otherwise just let it go.--Phso2 (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I apologize for saying but Sir/Ma'am, you sound very rude in your response. Since you want a book reference I'll give it you. Several actually, for your ease, I'll even provide you cited reference/links.
First reference from Alicia McNary Forsey's book; Queen Isabella Sforza Szapolyai of Transylvania and Sultan Süleyman of the Ottoman Empire (here she's also referred to as Haseki)[1]
Second reference from Leeann Murphy's Moon Istanbul & the Turkish Coast: Including Cappadocia[2]
Third reference from Isis Press' most reliable History book "Süleymân The Second and His Time"[3]
Fourth reference from historian Necdet Sakaoğlu's book "Famous Ottoman Women"
And I can go on and on and on but I really do have a life so I can't debate much, but please note these references are only the ones which are written in English, if you want more I can give you, in Turkish Language there are Dozens more books to prove her title, for instance a Turkish Philology; Türk dili: dil ve edebiyat dergisi, Issue 454.
My friend, Peirce simply didn't mentioned her title in her book, instead she added Hatun to her name which was used for every single lady at that time, and even today, Hatun (or Khatun) literally translates as "Madam". She did that out of respect. But Peirce's not using her title simply doesn't mean that she didn't have that title. For example, Chairman Mao's page in Wikipedia is Mao Zedong and Queen Elizabeth's page is Elizabeth II but it doesn't mean that these two notable people doesn't have their respective titles. I hope that will clear your point. And thank you for responding at least you are not completely rude to ignore my feedback. Have a nice one! Peace.Worldandhistory (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
You may call my answer "rude" but yours isn't better since your "reliable sources" include some travel guide; a collection of snippets isn't proper sourcing.--Phso2 (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Please note only one of the sources I provide isn't what you may call reliable source but others like "Süleymân The Second and His Time" and "Queen Isabella Sforza Szapolyai of Transylvania and Sultan Süleyman of the Ottoman Empire" are History books, if you reed them full you'll see how the price's mother have been referred as Sultana. Here are some more sources. The is a history book, not some Novel or Travel Guide.[4] and here's another one [5] And even if they are "snippet views" they do reject the motion that "Historically, Mahidevran couldn't be called Mahidevran Sultan". Though we should also not forget what Leslie P. Peirce has referred her, we should present in Wikipedia both possibilities and put everything every available source has to offer. We, you and I or anyone can simply not shape the history we like, but we can certainly educate people what all the sources has to offer. Hope you understand my point.Worldandhistory (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
From your latest proposal it seems clear that you don't distinguish between history books written by scholars and vulgarization historical books written by novelists (as author of the 4th books describes himself) or journalists. Do you tell me you read "Süleymân The Second and His Time"? If you really did, can you tell me how many sentences are devoted to Mahidevran? (i know the answer). You can't compare a brief mention in a text not specifically dealing with the subject with Peirce's book which is precisely dealing with the subject, and has a whole subchaper devoted to her, that is all.--Phso2 (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Whoever you are, I like you. You talk very smart friend. Your point is plausible But you did not understand my point, or maybe I couldn't clear my point to you that well. Please try to understand my point, rest assure I'm not denying Peirce's book here, she called her "Mahidevran Hatun" in her book, but at no Point did she also mentioned that Mahidevran was not called Sultan. My second point have 2 points in itself, first, people even today, specially Turkish people, still remember her by 'Mahidevran Sultan', turkish Historical drama Muhteşem Yüzyıl also referred her as Sultana in entire series (though you may say they added fiction) still, in old books, so called tour guides, novels and arts released years before this drama came on air, she has been referred to as Sultana many times. So there is a possibility that she was called Sultan. A man struggling for his life with cancer came up and disclosed his family tree which linked to Mahidevran, told that she was a wife[6], a dying man lying for what? Publicity? He could have claimed he slept with Angeline Jolie for that (no dis-respect for Jolie I love her). Second point, Peirce has also used references in her book, references which you and I have no access to. So let there be possibility of her title as "Sultan". And the main point, people know her by Mahidevran Sultan, to them, Mahidevran Hatun is totally a new person they did not intend to search on Wikipedia. So let there be a section called Title, and then add there what you think of her title as mentioned in Peirce's book. Again, please remember Peirce did NOT say that she was NOT referred as Sultana. Hope I was able to explain well, I would like to make a suitable change to the article but would not edit until we clear this point as I do not intend to enter into Edit War. Have a Nice one!Worldandhistory (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

For your first point, 1)she doesn't call her "Sultan", 2)she call other persons "Sultan", 3)she writes that the title "Sultan" was first given to haseki concubines, 4)She writes that Roxelane was the first haseki. So it is clear that she implicitly means MahiD/Gulbahar wasn't called "Sultan", although she didn't feel the urge to write explicitly "Mahidevran was not called Sultan" probably because it's a triffling matter that only Mahidevran fans consider a hot issue.
For the 2nd point, we can include in the article a note saying that although she wasn't plausibly called Sultan, a large number of journalists, novelists, tourist guides give her that title, along with some historians who speak of her incidentally.
The guy of the interview is not the first nor the last to believe in good faith or invent himself a prestigious ancestry. A self styled "descendant of", recounting 500 years old so called "family stories", is not at all a reliable source.
For your last point, people have absolutely no difficulty to find the article, even if they type in "Mahidevran Sultan".
Apart from TV series, Mahidevran/Gülbahar is on the whole a very minor historical character, of which very little is known; but because of the romanesque elements of her story people tend to fill the void as they can, often in earnest, which phenomenon has produced a plague of false "portrait of mahidevran" on Commons for example.
You take these things too sentimentally it seems: looks like you merely want to avenge poor Mahidevran by depriving evil Roxelana of the (undisputed in her case) word "sultan" for example.--Phso2 (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
OK sorry I said you're smart. First, Hurrem was indeed the first known haseki, no denial or objection. But it does require an authentic reliable source, an official account of that time maybe, which is impossible to find now (now don't say it is unfair, you have been asking about the same for Mahidevran Hatun). Second, Hurrem was indeed known as "Sultan". Third, the mere fact of you keeping track of these pages makes it seems that it's not me alone But you too who takes these things sentimentally. I do not deny I am in fact very interested in women of Ottoman Empire. Fourth, The reason why I removed "Sultan" was because it was unnecessary using a title every time you write someone's name, Queen Elizabeth for example. Fifth, You can not write a whole Wikipedia articles based on just one source (Peirce's) specifically for a person who has many controversial theories about name, origin and status, she may have been "minor historical character" but many now seems to be interested in her story. Sixth, the guy of the interview talked about it, full stop, not for us to judge whether he is to be believed or not, but it is for us to mention about his story in the article as it is completely relevant, let everyone be the judge in their own mind and just put about "an alleged so and so have now given some new accounts on so and so". And Seventh, last but not least, you will not understand my point, rather bring senseless rebuttals about someone being a "fan" of someone who existed centuries ago and whose even bones are now non-existing in their graves. I do not care about any of these historical figures, but I do care about putting the knowledge out for people who seek about how and what happened to them and how they are and have been known to people. I have a thing called life so I will not be changing about the article at moment. But you definitely will know when I will as you seems more interested in these two ladies and rather would want to keep track and make sure to put all good notes to one and all poor ones to another. So keep tracking. Have a good one! Worldandhistory (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Your own opinions in articles[edit]

This edit includes adding "some dubious source". Why?--Zoupan 12:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Source label: Because this source is the catalog of a painting exhibition, not a reliable scholarly history book as it should be, that is why.--Phso2 (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)—moved to initiated discussion.--Zoupan 13:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Then inline tag the reference if you believe it is dubious, instead of adding your own opinion into article space.--Zoupan 13:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes sir.--Phso2 (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Mahidevran[edit]

Hi. Please revert the recent edit on Mahidevran's page which is done by an IP. He has actually removed some sourced info and as I'm on WP by my mobile, it seems that it's impossible for me to use my rollback rights. Please undo them as soon as you can. Thanks. Keivan.fTalk 11:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Keivan.fTalk 11:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Please stop it now on Mahidevran's page. For the gazillionth time, just because Leslie's book didn't approve doesn't mean that the information in incorrect. The contents added are "Possible Theories of Origin", only THEORIES not STATEMENTs so there is no harm in mentioning the "most convincing theory is..." as no other possible origins was removed. IMWY6 (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

Please check Haseki Sultan. I think there is vandalism in this article by account name ValideSultan. Also, (s)he also created article Meryem Ayşe Sultan who said that she was Murad IV's haseki and Mehmed VI's valide.

Hafidh Wahyu P (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I've done what i could, i.e. revertig those inventions and warning the user. One should propose the fallacious article for deletion.--Phso2 (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Meyrem Ayşe Sultan[edit]

Looks like Meyrem Ayşe Sultan was just created, mirroring an article you sent to AfD. Are you sure this is a hoax? If so, I can speedy delete it, rather than going through the AfD discussion process. —C.Fred (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Phso2. 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)

Safiye Sultan[edit]

What exactly do you mean by "did you really had access to and read these sources"?I don't get the point of the question.Why would I edit the article if I wasn't sure about the information I am providing?Not everyone who replaces long-unchanged information is a troll,you know.And most importantly based on what grounds do you question my sources' validity?I am restoring the article to its proper version.If you have any reasonable and substantial objections to that,I would love to hear it. Chris Liak (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The citations are already there.I hope you do not expect to find the name Fülane somewhere because as I mentioned while editing the article it is not actually a name.We do not know the name of Mehmed's Haseki.Fülane derives from Arabic "fülani" meaning something along the lines of "beautiful" and is occasionally used to refer to women of the Ottoman dynasty whose real name remains unknown. Chris Liak (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hürrem Kadınefendi[edit]

Hi. I'm glad that you nominated this page for deletion but the problem isn't solved yet. I had a discussion with User:Retrieverlove and he told me that the information on Hürrem Kadınefendi and Nükhetsezâ Hanımefendi (wife of Abdul Hamid I) are self-made and wrong. Furthermore, he told that the articles about these ladies (Yıldız Hanımefendi, Nevdür Hanımefendi, Remişnaz Hanımefendi, Cevherriz Hanımefendi, and Şayan Kadın (wife of Abdülmecid I) provide wrong information as they were not imperial consorts but treasurers or kalfas of the imperial harem. Based on what he said I think Nükhetsezâ Hanımefendi (wife of Abdul Hamid I) should be nominated for deletion if the information is truly self-made as well as these two unsourced articles: Cevherriz and Şayan Kadın (wife of Abdülmecid I), which I have already nominated. The rest of them Yıldız, Nevdür, and Remişnaz at least seem to be sourced. I suggest we keep these ones if they are really backed by reliable sources as we already have articles about treasurers and kalfas like Canfeda Hatun or Meleki Hatun and instead correct the mistakes. There was also a previous case, Filizten Hanımefendi, who was a kalfa and the information on this article now seems to be corrected. What do you think we should do? Keivan.fTalk 12:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I will support the deletion of unsourced articles and I hope that someday this frenzy about fictitious Ottoman consorts and fantasy history will cease... I'm not interested in XIXth century women since they don't seem to have historical relevance, but I can check some sources (Alderson, Uluçay) if necessary. Regards.--Phso2 (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. It's a mess. Please check the sources that you have access to. And don't forget to vote on these entries: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Keivan.fTalk 02:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It really surprised me when you said here that "Info is found under another name in Alderson's "Structure of the Ottoman dynasty"". So do you mean the biography that was written there is about another person? It's just ridiculous. The worse thing is that we may have a similar case here: Nükhetsezâ Hanımefendi (wife of Abdul Hamid I). This article is also said to be a hoax as well. Is there any mention of her in your sources? Keivan.fTalk 19:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
There is mention of some Cenâniyar in the page about Murad V (table XLIX), as a consort, with a note saying that she "later married a certain Hüsnü bey, berber-bashi" (can be some alias name though...) without mention of 1940 death. I will check for this Nükhetsezâ.--Phso2 (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Nükhetsezâ is said by Alderson to be a consort to AbdulHamid, died 4/6/1850, but not the mother of Mustafa IV. Not found in Uluçay.--Phso2 (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Cenâniyar, well she still doesn't seem to be notable, even the year of her death isn't known. So Nükhetsezâ, as I had guessed, wasn't the mother of Mustafa IV. Then we have another issue. Who was his mother? And I think I should nominate Nükhetsezâ for deletion because as usual the information is self-made and if she wasn't the mother of a sultan then why would she even be notable? And thanks for sending the e-mail. Keivan.fTalk 20:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Mother of Mustafa IV is said to be Ayshe Sineperver (with orthograph variants) in Alderson and Uluçay. Apart from dubious notability, there is often no information to write an article with ; sometimes they are just names mentioned in archival records.--Phso2 (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I think every page about the Ottoman women should be checked immediately from different aspects when it's created. I'll be glad if you vote on this entry as well. Many thanks for your help. Keivan.fTalk 04:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I found similar articles written by the same user who had created "Hürrem Kadınefendi". One of them probably didn't exist and the other one is not notable at all. You can check the articles and vote on the entries (1 & 2) as well. Keivan.fTalk 03:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Phso2. I'm here to ask you to take a look at this article. I'd be glad to know your opinion as I have nominated it for deletion. Keivan.fTalk 21:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I have found two more articles which seem be fabricated as usual, and I have nominated them for deletion (1 & 2). Although I preferred to consult you first as I thought you might have access to some sources which mention their names and provide biographical details. Keivan.fTalk 20:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@Keivan.f: I'm a bit fed up searching in vain in sources to look for (mostly inexistent) information about evanescent or fictional characters, so I advocated "delete" without further enquiry. Anyway, I doubt there exist much information about the concubines of princes.--Phso2 (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Phso2. You have new messages at Talk:Ottoman naval expeditions in the Indian Ocean.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Phso2, I am sorry to discuss this in totally irrelevant section but I didn't want to add an entirely new section for a mere 2 sentences' recommendation. I reverted this edit as this articles is already full of "thoughs" there is no need for additional 2 more. As for the sec Title and Status the word "possible" itself implement there is a chance of an alternate opinion, adding "though not likely" only adds negative point to WP:NPOV. As for Sh. Abdl's section (first) his own article gives a detailed information that most sources place him as Hurrem's son, (second) this again have the word "possible" in it so again I request on keeping NPOV but not adding further lines declaring/nullifying otherwise possibilities. Last but not the least Pierce's reference is used a hundred times throughout the article, adding one more duplicate reference of her book is totally unnecessary. Thank you. 113.203.131.1 (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Gevherhan Sultan[edit]

Given I've noticed you multiple times you have reverted the edits I made in Gevherhan Sultan's page, excluding Atike Sultan as the daughter of Ahmed and Kösem I would have to ask you to put exact sources to claim that there were only four sisters, and not five (Is Hanzade who we don't have a clear picture who her mother was) and that Burnaz Atike wasn't one of them, otherwise your acts could be considered vandalism and a broke of the rules of a serious page like this. Consuelo J (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

You are actually reversing the roles and the burdain of proof. You have to provide a source for your repeated addition of the unsourced information that Atike is K's daughter; moreover this is not what the given references in this § say. So if you don't provide a reliable source, you'll be reverted again.--Phso2 (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Gülfem Hatun[edit]

Hi again. I was checking the revision history of this article and I realized that you had tagged the source which mentions Gülfem as a wife of Bayezid as 'self-published'. There's no doubt that the source is indeed unreliable but then the question is: who was Gülfem's husband? In popular culture she's widely portrayed as a wife of Suleiman yet we need historical evidence to prove such thing. Do you have access to any reliable source which makes it clear that who her husband truly was? Keivan.fTalk 04:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Duchy of Archipelago[edit]

hi Phso2 I modified page again. Dukedom have a Duke in line of sucession, who reinstated dukedom since 1997 after a carefull search and registration at Archivo Heráldico de Colégio de Armas de la Real Sociedad Heraldica Española, under number 2.326/1997. Title was lost during Spanish Civil War due to Franco´s dictatorship. You can find more info at http://www.docelinajes.org/2010/10/la-sociedad-heraldica-espanola. They edit a "boletin" - see at https://issuu.com/dintelaltadireccion/docs/she_boletin_nov2013, but not all editions are online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DPPS Ltda (talkcontribs) 21:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Phso2. 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)

De Candia hoax vandalism[edit]

I found a new article on Rita de Candia which I nominated for deletion as it looked pretty suspicious. Also found the same inaccurate info spread across several articles by the same IP's and did my best to revert it. I see that you've reverted this particular vandalism in the past and wanted to let you know it seems to be cropping up again. CataracticPlanets (talk) 06:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@CataracticPlanets:thank you for the alert. This "Candia hoax" is a very nefarious (it has even found its way into printed popular history books by uncritical "authors" that copied WP) long-term vandalism that keeps emerging sporadicaly. The vandal intermingles real facts and existing characters with in own fiction so persuasively that it is often difficult to deal with it, since he adds many pseudo-references (books that are often difficult to verify, and which ultimately don't support the text). It seems there is another cluster of hoax around Pelegrina Pastorino and Sur (magazine) ([1], [2], usual Canadian ips) with the habitual use of pseudo-references and deceptive picture descriptions (one of its usual features). Can you help with it?--Phso2 (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)