User talk:Saposcat/Archive 1

Mehter

I thought you might like to know that I have edited and cleaned up the opening page or so of the Ottoman military band article. —Saposcat 22:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

And I have just reorganized and recaptioned the pictures, as well as deleting the lyrics. —Saposcat 22:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I didn't have enough time to check it. However, I still think of keeping lyrics of some marches if I can translate to English. What do you think? —TuzsuzDeliBekir 05:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, however, you certainly wouldn't need as many lyrics as were on the page before: one or two brief, carefully chosen, and to-the-point ones should suffice. —Saposcat 05:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, in the introduction to the "History" section of the Ottoman military band article, there is the following statement: "It is believed that individual intrumentalists may have been mentioned in the 8th-century-CE Orhun inscriptions, the oldest written sources of the people who would eventually become the modern Turks."

I have just read through the Orhun inscriptions, and—for the most part—understood what was being said, but I was wondering exactly where this possible mention of individual instrumentalists might be, because I couldn't see anything that looked like that on the inscriptions, and I would like to cite the specific mention in the article if possible. Do you happen to know anything about this claim of mehters being on the Orhun inscriptions? —Saposcat 09:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I will of course have a time to look at your translation. As for Orhun inscription, the statement is weird. It is believed that there was marching bands before mehter used by Turkic tribes. Their structures were the same as mehter. I think that is the part you are mentioning. But I am not sure of it. I didn't add the statement. Let me thanks to you for your help, çok teşekkür ederim. —TuzsuzDeliBekir 16:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire

I am giving the refs a go. I know people have different refferential styles so lets see if we can find a satisfying compromise. I am editing at the moment and is curious - does the "Quataert 2" ref mean it is page 2 of the book? Poulsen 10:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't want you to misunderstand me, I've only been stubborn for the reasons I expained in discussion. I'm a Greek born in Constantinople (and moved at an early age) and I have no personal agenda. On the contrary, my grandfathers worked for the Ottomans, as did their fathers before them, and hence I feel offended when Turkish nationalists try to falsely assign a national character on the empire and imply that all non Turkish-speakers were slaves. Thus I felt like contributing a little bit on role of the non-turkish peoples' within the empire, as well as the state's multi-ethnic character and its advantages. Alas some Turkish editors have made this really hard for me. I'll stop reverting this anon, the article will be cleaned up anyway (as it should), so I don't see much of a point anymore. It was nice editing with you, for as little as it lasted. Miskin 19:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Culture of Turkey

Hi Saposcat,

Some paragraphs in the Culture of Turkey article are copyvio from [1]. I was thinking of simply deleting them, but perhaps you could rewrite them instead. Let me know if you're interested, thanks. —Khoikhoi 00:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Three novels

Hi! I was looking at the article on Murphy and noticed you (I assume you) had thought up a merge suggestion. (I'm leaving this on your talk page, as well as the Talk:Three Novels page, as I have a feeling this isn't a subject that'll get a lot of dialogue going among the masses, if you know what I mean). I don't think a Three novels article is necessary...at least not one that covers the novels exclusively, outside of seperate articles. In fact, I think it might be detrimental. Beckett never liked the idea of Murphy, Malone Dies, and Unnamable as a "trilogy", and although they're sometimes published in the same volume, they are certainly stand alone works. At the moment, the articles on them are stubified, but I think they could be developed into full length pieces, without the need of labeling them like that, in one all encompassing article (if that is indeed your intention).

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

Cheers,

Yossarian

I definitely agree (particularly in regards to reading them as a series, in some fashion). Discussing the idea of a "trinity" would definitely be more aproproate in each seperate article, or something to that effect. Thanks for your input! —Yossarian 22:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

More Beckett stuff

I'l try to take a look some time later today. Got an exam this afternoon, so I may be indisposed. —Yossarian 18:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Very nice stuff. Can't think of too much to expand upon.

While we're talking Beckett, I think the plays are in desperate need of attention (with, perhaps, the exception of Godot). There are some substantial ones (Play, Catastrophe, both Act Without Words, all of which I had a hand in cleanup), but they need expansion, too. Happy Days, Krapp's Last Tape, and Endgame are just plain disgraceful (I plan to handle the latter two personally). On a similar vein: a pet project of mine, for some time, has been the four character pages for Vladimir, Estragon, Pozzo, and Lucky. I wrote them all myself, but back when I was a newb, not only to Beckett but Wikipedia as well, so they suck a bit. I just haven't had the energy to deal with them…mostly because they've pretty much been summarily ignored by everyone but me : (. If you'd even take a half a look, make half an edit, it'd be a real help.

Come to think of it, the novels need even more work than the plays…

Hmm…perhaps what we need around here is a Beckett project? ("Wikipedia:ProjectSTBD" (Project: Something to Be Done))? I had an idea LIKE that before, but I never did it 'cause it probably woulda ended up being me and some confused Quantum Leap fan (also me).

Anyway, looking forward to your thoughts.

Cheers,

Yossarian 09:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right, though I think that one, seperate template that encompasses radio, television, and Film (as it were) would be the way to go: keep the stage plays as a seperate entity*, because I think they should be treated as such (e.g. Beckett on Film only did the stage plays, minus Eleutheria [for obvious reasons]). In my original note on the template, I said we could one day include the television, radio, etc., but I think I've change my mind.

However, what the new template would be called is a hard question. It's just that I'd rather keep the "other" drama together because it's a slimmer body of work (and because of the problem of Film)...I'm not, in principle, against a true "Dramatic Works of Beckett" box, but the 19 stage plays are such a cohesive whole...maybe I'm just being nit-picky here. What are your thoughts?

Cheers,

Yossarian 22:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

* I stuck Film in there (and changed it from "The Plays" to "The Dramatic Works) because it looked so lonely.

Fab Godot Userbox

Aw man...I can't believe I didn't think of it first. No, that's great. Put it in the template proper! —Yossarian 09:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Changed the image. The one that was there was hard to see, and I fear it's copywrite status may be in question. I added a definitively free alternative created by myself. What think you? —Yossarian

Tweaked the image so the dot you spoke of is no longer a problem. Thanks for the kind words! Now off to bed with me! —Yossarian 11:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahmed/Ahmet Haşim

I have no objections about anything in your message. Also I really appreciate your efforts about Turkish culture. —Hattusili 21:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

Just saw Turkish literature has been awarded featured article status. It really is excellent, very well done. --A.Garnet 01:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I second that. That is one of the finest Wikipedia articles I've read in a long time. Kudos to you and all involved! --Kripkenstein 03:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

May I add that my pedanticism wasn't meant to detract from the page as a whole. It really is very fine (contrast English literature). I felt a little bad suddenly when I noticed the only Main page talk comments where small quibbles over the first sentence. Anyhow, congrats as well. Marskell 08:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Request

Can you also look at this article on Khata'i that I started? When you have time, obviously. abdulnr 01:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know

Hey Saposcat,

I've been aware of this for awhile, in fact, ever since I met Inanna I've discovered her hatred of almost everyone that isn't Turkic. I truly don't think I've ever met anyone so vile and racist, either. Thanks for the translation, I really appreciate it. I copied a version here with correct Turkish characters. What did TuzsuzDeliBekir and Hattusili say, btw? They think I'm a Türk karşıtı kullanıcı, mainly because I've kept them from adding their bias as absolute fact to articles, and because I don't accept Turkish government sources as credible, and I just happen disagree with some of the things that they believe so strongly in. I appreciate your kind words, this select few are giving all Turks a bad name. Kolay gelsin. —Khoikhoi 04:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I can't thank you enough! :) Unbelievable, she's the same one who said "there are no Kurds in Turkey, because that is the offical numbers". Would you prefer it if I copy it to my hard drive or keep it on Wikipedia? Thanks again. —Khoikhoi 07:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to disagree with you about TDB however. You should've seen the comments he made under his previous username. Oh well, Inanna never fails to amaze me, even after she's banned. Hoşçakalın. —Khoikhoi 07:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Lol, it's no big deal. It's not my real name or anything. —Khoikhoi 07:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. If you feel that the changes are necessary, then by all means go right ahead. You did a very good job nonetheless. —Khoikhoi 18:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hehehe, that's quite typical of her. Selam. —Khoikhoi 20:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI, have you seen this by any chance? —Khoikhoi 18:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. Yeah, he is more reasonable, same with Gokhan. Anyways, thanks again. —Khoikhoi 20:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Vox Magna

Ah, I didn't realize he left a comment on the talk page. Thanks. —Khoikhoi 07:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

hi!

Hi Saposcat! Long time! I was wondering if you'd have time to translate the following poem for me, and tell me something about its significance. Thanks!!

Beyaz atlı sımdı gectı buradan
Surarısı can elınden vurulmus
Cıksın daglar taslargayrı aradan
Beyaz atın suvarısı yorulmus

Ellerı elıme deymez olaydı
Gozlerı gozumu gormez olaydı
Bu gonul o gonlu sevmez olaydı
Beyaz atlı sımdı gectı buradan

Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!!!! That was really helpful. I appreciate it. :) deeptrivia (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Boğaziçi University Template

Hi thanks for the note. I'll check that later and correct it. Could you kindly check my latest entry on Talk:Armenian_Genocide#Need_more_objective_sources, I need some feedback on the approach. Thanks. --Gokhan 17:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for the encouragement. I also got some positive attitude from Raffi, but the famous others are not so warm. However it's a stressing matter and I wish we could really have a dialogue. You're right to keep away from these things. Maybe I'll do the same in near future. Because it's really bothering and disturbing, not good for my health! I have another question for you: Do you think I can learn Ottoman Turkish from scratch, I don't know any arabic at all? I would like to read old divan poems etc but I'm not sure I can do it or can be good enough in a normal time period? For example this weekend I was in Sultanahmet and I really wanted to be able to understand old writings around :) --Gokhan 07:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Turkish literature is too good to be a general article. Takdirlerimi sunarım. Ciao! Behemoth 07:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Military History

I know that and this is a repetetion for you, but just to make it clear; eras of the empire covers the military & political activities of the Ottoman Empire given time period. Some of the conflicts span more than one sultan, or handaled with different visers under one or more sultans. In both cases gives high prority to summrize them in a unified page, history of the empire. Given these arguments and others which you can find out, and it is not good idea to repeat the same information twice, which would make impossible to advance any topic if it repeats itself couple places. I was locating clear cut links and referances. If you help to improve the era pages that will give an coharent and unified Ottoman History. THANKS--OttomanReference 15:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Arabic Afrikaans and Ebu Bekir Efendi

Hi Sap. Would you be interested in this article Arabic Afrikaans and this one Abu Bakr Effendi? I found it by luck while reading about Afrikaans.

I may try to do some research here in İstanbul about that. What do you say, with your interest in Ottoman Lit and Ottoman Lang, I thought you may be interested in this too. We can work to improve this interesting bit of history maybe? Maybe Behemoth could also be interested, he/she seems to have an interested in Turkey related matters?

Selamlar. --Gokhan 06:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Get well

I hope it's nothing serious? Grandmaster 06:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Take care of yourself, hope to see you back as a regular contributor soon. Grandmaster 07:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ottoman Turkish

Well, thank you. Ciao! Behemoth 09:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Buddha Purnima

Please accept my Buddha Purnima greetings. --Bhadani 16:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Osmanlis

It is o.k. One thing; the definition may not be clear, I was thinking adding a small text that says osmanlis is a tribe that formed the empire and part of the turkic group. To make things less confusing, as there might be no other appropriate place to explain this, however you can find another solution to this need under ottoman page. Thanks--OttomanReference 19:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice, Thanks--OttomanReference 20:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

removal of argumantative positions

I worked on your last edit on Ottoman Empire. Removed all the argumentative points. Thanks for pointing out.--OttomanReference 13:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I wish you would not: "The topic is very current and important" even after a decade (unlike bzantine). I have a feeling some of the issues ottomans dealed is coming back to world politics. Also (a) Feedback is the source of recognizing the problems. (b) The topic is beyond a personal undertaking. (c) I have only time between projects, which I will not have access to it soon :-) --OttomanReference 14:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

-> Given hope that the previous paragraf changed your decision: I was hoping we can turn the Ottoman Empire page to a page that collects the articles rather than develping (covering) a specific issue which generates many edit wars. This will release its tension to other articles, and solve some of the problems (rguments) you brought. I also want to see this page under featured articles. There is a lot of work into this article. It should not dissolve.--OttomanReference 14:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

can you help me?

Can you help me about the Kemal Oz page; its content is only a misinterpretation of a Turkish law. May I delete it or should I wait for an adminstrator to do it. Teşekkürler--Hattusili 21:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)