Jump to content

User talk:Namuslu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Namuslu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Kırklareli. 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! dmz 18:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey

  • According to CIA, ethnic Turkish people: %70-%75.
  • According to Milliyet, about %76 (Toplam 73 milyon olan nüfusun 55 milyon 484 bini etnik olarak Türk = 55,484,000/73,000,000)

Takabeg (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Çünkü bazı salaklar "Türk" yerine "Müslüman Türk" demişler ve ayrı bir kategoriye konmuşlar. Bazıları "Türkiye vatandaşı" demekle yetinmişler (ki onları Türklere eklemedim.) Namuslu (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bazıları "Alevi" demişler ki, Türk mü, Kürt mü, Zaza mı belli değil. Aslında Konda'nın hatası. Namuslu (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Millyet (KONDA) said Türklerin yüzde 76.03 ile 55 milyon 484 bin, Kürt ve Zazaların yüzde 15.68 ile 11 milyon 445 bin, diğer etnik gruplar toplamının da yüzde 8.3 ile 6 milyon 46 bin kişi olduğu hesaplandı.
Ethnic Turkish: 76.03 (regardless of their religions), Kurdish people + Zazas: 15.68. Takabeg (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bana sorarsan Konda yüzüne gözüne bulaştırmış, ama yine de sen bilirsin. "%70 Türk" çok az bir rakam (kesinlikle gerçekçi değil.) Namuslu (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
76.03 + 15.68 = 91.71. Who are the remaining 8.29%, especially when the Arabs are only 0.75% of the population? Namuslu (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Roma are only 0.03%. Arabs + Roma = 0.78%. How do you fill in the rest of 8.29%? Namuslu (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Milliyet linkinin altındaki yüzdeler tablosuna bakmamışsın anlaşılan, orada Türkler için 82-79% diyor Konda. Namuslu (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most realistic and complete graph is the one based on "mother tongue" in the same Milliyet link. Click on this graph Namuslu (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you want to use "Based on mother tongue", you must link not to Turkish people but Turkish language. But I don't think that your edits would be accepted by community. Because in infobox the term ethnic groups. I recommend you to explain situation of mother tongues in the section of languages. Because if community wouldn't accept your edits based only on your own POV, all of your efforts will be able to go down the drain. See you. Takabeg (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I hope you can contribute to the ongoing discussion on Talk:Chepni Turks. This user's behaviour is not understandable, despite I had sources about naming Chepni Turks as Chepni Turks (which is scientific name for this Oğuz clan) he/she insists on reverting it. İyi günler dilerim. -F.Mehmet (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Hi, Namuslu. Please read File talk:OttomanEmpireIn1683.png, Talk:Ottoman Empire. If we are namuslu, we have to use accurate maps, because here is an encyclopedia. And I recommend you to use talk pages. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about adding the inner parts of Sudan (part of the Ottoman Khedivate), and Aceh as a "tributary state", rather than creating a storm over a tiny coastline of Croatia and Circassia. I think the map is actually "modest". Pire için yorgan yakmak. Dudu bulup kıllısını aramak. Namuslu (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I looked at the map more carefully and saw that the Dalmatian coast of Croatia (which belonged to the Republic of Venice) is not included (only a part of the coast of Slovenia to the north is included - and Slovenia was briefly held by the Turks during the Second Siege of Vienna (1683) and the Great Turkish War.) A section of Circassia's Black Sea coast indeed belonged to the Ottomans. The map is "as accurate as it gets" (I'm sure with more accuracy than many other maps in Wikipedia.) We could actually add the sieges of Otranto, Nice, the Balearic Islands, the mission to Aceh (tributary state), inner parts of Sudan, etc... Namuslu (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kamâl Atatürk

Please read Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk#Kamâl Atatürk and stop POV pushing edits. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were Turkish, obviously you're not. The Arabic form "Kamal" has never been used by the Turks, not even in the Ottoman period. The sole Turkish form of this name has always been "Kemal". Namuslu (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

I have nominated Turkey for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a fairly good article with accurate information. Namuslu (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

Your recent editing history at Ottoman Empire 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. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Template:Largest cities in Turkey. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Could you please stop pushing Elâzığ. That town has only 331,479 inhabitants, not the 748,158 according to your version. Night of the Big Wind talk 00:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have never edited the Elazığ article, neither anonymously nor with this name. Namuslu (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to your changes at the Template:Largest cities in Turkey where you more then doubled the size of Elazığ by reverting the edit of the anon. Night of the Big Wind talk 00:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. Namuslu (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Izmir, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pınarbaşı (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) 10:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Armed Forces

Hi Namuslu. I'm a Kiwi wikipedian who keeps an eye on a wide range of armed forces articles worldwide across Wikipedia. I really appreciate your recent series of edits to the TAF article, including your frequent addition of references including from the IISS. However in this edit, you appeared to remove sourced data about the TAF, originating from The Economist, what we would consider as a WP:Reliable Source. Would you be able to explain to me why you made this edit? Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - I've just reread your edit summary and seen that you thought it was misplaced. I'm going to move it to the military-in-politics section, but you may be able to advise me better, and maybe it should be added at Deep state. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also just wanted to thank you for this edit re nuclear sharing and the weapons at Incirlik. Would you consider writing a paragraph on the resignations crisis? - it's really important, but User:Takabeg was not actually able to when I asked him about it. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Turkey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Holy League (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) 10:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Latife Uşşaki, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hanım (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) 10:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hi, I was thinking that maybe you would like to join the WikiProject Ottoman Empire. There you can also find and contact users who are trying to improve Ottoman-related articles. If you would like to get involved, just visit the participants page and/or inquire at the project's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or other member of the WikiProject Ottoman Empire.


Thank you very much for honouring me with your kind invitation. I will gladly give a hand as much as I can. Namuslu (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks, just make sure you add the project talk page to your watchlist. There have been plenty of empty threads lately. Uhlan talk 20:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Make sure you add your signature to this list: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ottoman Empire/Participants . Uhlan talk 00:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will do it as soon as I can. Thank you very much. Namuslu (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Istanbul Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Starting line (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) 10:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you happy now?

There is now a section at Talk:Istanbul on the Demographics section (Talk:Istanbul#Demographics_section). I expect you to just ignore me, but maybe you'll have enough decency to read it and actually put into words what you object to (if anything at all). -- tariqabjotu 12:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of deleting correct information? Namuslu (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a serious question, you have no business stepping on my toes. Wikipedia, or any piece of writing, is not supposed to be a collection of every single piece of information in the world. (I imagine you don't have a biography on Wikipedia, even if the facts of your life are "correct".) Irrelevant and minor points can and should be omitted, especially, as is the case here, when there are daughter articles (e.g. Religion in Istanbul) that can contain this information in more depth. -- tariqabjotu 13:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's a double-edged sword. Sure, you may have more first-hand experience with the city, but that leaves you with a very biased impression (can you imagine someone writing a neutral biography about one's mother?). It may also hamper your ability to differentiate what is important for a summary, and what's not. And it may make you less inclined to back up your points with sources, putting in original research over verified content. If your best objection to my changes is "you don't live here", let me know, and I'll restore what I wrote, post-haste. -- tariqabjotu 14:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Restored. -- tariqabjotu 15:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus reached. Namuslu (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Periods in captions

You were right to correct this caption, but not for the correct reason. If the caption is a complete sentence, it should end with a period. If the caption is not a complete sentence, it does not end with a period. For example:

Just for future reference.

Also, while I'm here, note my reason for reversing one of your corrections. -- tariqabjotu 05:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Namuslu (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blanket-reverting at Istanbul

I thought we had resolved this, but apparently not. I do not have to explain every little change I make to the article on the talk page. I do not have to ask for your permission before making changes to the article. Over a period of days, I have gradually made changes to the article, explaining the overall intent of my actions -- shortening excessively long sections, replacing poor-quality photos, and adding references. I have put a lot of time and energy into improving this article. Yet, you have decided to reverse all of that in an instant, for no discernible reason but perhaps the mistaken belief that Turks are the only ones entitled to edit articles about their cities.

It is inconceivable to me that you read through and compared all of the changes I made, much less disagreed with all of them. As I said to you before, if (as it appears) you disagree with a few changes I've made, reverse those changes. You are a human being with a computer and (presumably) hands; you can click the Edit buttons just like anyone else and re-add or remove specific sentences. You are capable of doing your own research, with the aim of coming up with competing claims. You do not need to reverse every change I make, including uncontroversial changes (like correcting spelling or updating references), just because you disagree with a minute part of it. Further, when you make changes to that article, or any other, especially if they constitute reverts, you should explain your actions like an adult, rather than resort to nonsense edit summaries like Nein and edit summaries (like your one about Istanbul Metro info being removed) that contradict reality.

This is the last time I am going to explain this to you. I am not interested in your reply, as there is nothing to debate with you. This is how Wikipedia works. It's a collaborative project, where you, just as I do, have to understand that people work together to build articles. It is not about one person acting as a gatekeeper, reverting edits without explanation and disappearing into the night. I have given you ample opportunity to explain your objections; I went over the whole of the Demographics section on the talk page only to discover that you didn't read a damn word I wrote and just reverted because you saw a foreigner editing an article about your city. Enough. I shouldn't have to keep coming to you to understand why days of work was suddenly reversed. If you want to continue this destructive editing pattern, fine. But, I categorically revert any edit by you that has no edit summary or explanation, especially if it constitutes a blanket reversion. Repeated disruptive actions as such will lead to me seeking sanctions against you.

Consider this your final warning. -- tariqabjotu 21:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that you don't own the article, before completely wiping off or revamping the works of other editors single-handedly. Try to "cooperate" with other editors and find a "compromise" - just like I am trying to do. Namuslu (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Istanbul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rowing (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) 10:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arap Mosque

Günaydın Namuslu,

you have messages at Talk:Arap Mosque. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 06:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Izmir (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Phaeton
Vestel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Waltham

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable

This unexplained rv with its hostile edit summary [1] is unacceptable and displays a disruptive "ownership" attitude on that article. I strongly recommend you self-revert. If you continue like that, you might be blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about "unilaterally changing everything in the article"? Isn't this an "ownership" attitude? Sorry if I'm a bit too "bearish" (versus the selfish "bull" in the china shop) in terms of reaction. Namuslu (talk) 10:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I told you, you are reverting too much and too aggressively. I've blocked you, though only for 12 hours for now, which I guess shouldn't hurt too much. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When the story of Istanbul is told by a non-Istanbulite who knows nothing about the city's lifestyle and latest trends, errors such as these naturally happen. I'll let him satisfy his ego in the meantime. Namuslu (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your response still displays an unacceptable, uncooperative attitude. Also, you chose to evade your block through the IP 88.251.107.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), continuing your edit war. Please don't go down this road. I've reset your block to another 24 hours from now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread regarding your behavior at Istanbul

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Namuslu's ownership issues at Istanbul. Thank you. -- tariqabjotu 01:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the article's "View history" section (the last 7 pages, starting from here) you'll see that "you" are (not me) behaving as the "article's owner", not allowing anyone else (other than yourself) to add or change anything. Namuslu (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A wise Greek man named Thales once reputedly said γνῶθι σεαυτόν. I strongly advise you to tame your oversized megalomania and selfishness. There are no "fellow admins" in the real world out there, to support your arrogant attitude. At least, you can be sure that God never tolerates it. Namuslu (talk) 02:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges, as you did at Istanbul. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that not only do keep removing properly verified information, replacing it with less-well sourced and much more unencyclopedic information, you even seem to insert promotional information--"Another fine example from the 17th century is the Galatasaray Hamamı, located on the Beyoğlu district, known for the quality of service and its cleanliness." Further edit-warring and promotional editing will lead to a longer block. Your uncollegial attitude is noted in the current ANI discussion, and that also should be taken as a suggestion for improvement. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Start from this point and see who "owns" the article. Namuslu (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being substantially involved with an article isn't the same as owning it. Unless you take note of Drmies' notes, I don't see good things happening for you here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you chose to edit Istanbul anyway with a handful of IP addresses, I was going to reset your two-week block starting today. However, you have been blocked for edit-warring and then re-blocked for continuing that behavior with IPs, and so I decided that enough was enough. Istanbul is already troubled enough; it doesn't need your disruption. I have asked other admins and editors to review my decision at WP:ANI; if you have something exciting to say you can do it here, and some kind soul will no doubt copy it to the ANI thread. Have a nice life. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you can be sure that I already have a great and luxurious life since birth (special thanks to God for this privilege.) I hope Tariq can get laid and finally cure his frustration and complexes (and probably acne) one day. No matter how ugly he tries to show Istanbul, "the gorgeous woman" still looks good. Cheers :) Namuslu (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is a privilege indeed; may you enjoy it for many more years. As for the comment about Tariq, I'm sure you understand that, true or not, such comments aren't really appropriate, and since you're not really here to hunt bears, as the old joke goes, I'm going to revoke your talk page access to stop more feelings from getting hurt. When I make it to Istanbul, it'll be my treat at a qahwa of your choice. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Namuslu&oldid=1211499831"