User talk:Deff6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Deff6, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

Happy editing ! --Bhadani 15:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Tarkan's Come Closer

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums uses an example of which categories are to be assigned to articles and to other categories:

Category:Slayer albums is a sub-category of Category:Albums by artist and Category:Thrash metal albums, which is a sub-category of Category:Albums by genre. Category:1986 albums is a sub-category of Category:Albums by year.

So, just as one wouldn't add an album article directly to Category:Albums by artist, one also shouldn't add an article directly to Category:Thrash metal albums, Category:Pop albums, etc. Having every article available in a root directory defeats the purpose of categories. In the context of the Tarkan album, Category:Tarkan albums is a sub-category of Category:Pop albums, so his albums are represented. Hope this clears things up. :-) Mattbrundage 15:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I take it in good faith, however can you be specific please when you leave such a message on my talk page. Which pages exactly and when? Don't leave me messages like this again unless you're willing not to generalise. Deff6 13:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand; I wan't asking you to use edit summaries on a particular edit, but on all edits — so being specific wouldn't really make sense. I've just looked at your contributions history, and you almost never use edit summaries... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I thank you again, though I hardly know why my contributions seem to have caught your eye. I have checked other pages and user contributions and most people don't seem to use them, unless they revert a page. I thought this was an unspoken convention, and I meant in my reply to your comments on my talk page that if I had reverted something without giving a reason, please be specific with it.

However, thanks to bringing attention to this, I decided to read the editing policy and it says nothing about using comment boxes. What you call a policy (edit summary) is not a policy but a guideline. I take your suggestion with good faith as I've said and I will leave comment when appropriate (especially if I think a page should be reverted) - but if I make substantial or subtle changes - I usually open a discussion on the relevant article's talk page. Deff6 20:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't see where above I called it a policy; it was in fact made policy a while ago, I think, but seems now to have reverted to a guideline. The difference is minimal; guidelines represent the consensus about what is preferred by editors; the template above ({{summary}}) is there for just that reason. In fact most experienced editors do use summaries for their edits (those who are nominated for adminship are frequently criticised and voted against for not using them — see WP:RFA); it's a courtesy to other editors, apart from anything else. Moreover, the documents to which the template links all ask editors to use edit summaries for all their edits. They are certainly not only for reverting, as the help documents make clear.
With regard to the anon. user who has left me racist comments and personal threats, it's easier to delete his ravings than to go through them removing the worst bits (though a couple of times they've in fact been removed not by me but by other editors who saw them, and warned him against such behaviour).
The two dances are different in various respects; while the music is very similar (though even there the two have diverged), the dances performed are different, and they have very different cultural rôles. The Greek dance's close association with the underground culture of rembetiko is perhaps the most important of these.
I fail to understand your comment about the nature of my editing supporting the false and peculiar claim that I'm prejudiced against Turks and in favour of Greeks. As I've been attacked by Greek nationalists for exactly the opposite, however, I'll take it a sign that I'm getting things right. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't take what you say on good faith Mel. Can you give me some sources to back up your claims? I fear it is the exact reason that you fear Greek nationalistic reprisal you have done this. I have myself have seen video footage of the Greek Zeybek dance in a taverna and a Turkish Aegean wedding and they seem very similar. And I haven't noted any Greek nationalistic agreesion towars you as you imply - I throuoghly checked your records. Seeing as it was my contributions to this page which made you give me (what I still think is) unnecessary advice.

Plus the difference between a policy and a guideline is more than minimal. The way you expressed it as though I had broken one of the 10 commandements. Deff6 18:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't believe that you have thoroughly checked my records; I've been editing on Wikipedia since 2004, and I've made over 40,000 edits. I suggest that you stop looking for nonexistent conspiracies or hidden motives.
That you still insist that you're in the right concerning the use of edit summaries, despite all the documents that ask editors to use them, and no hint anywhere that they're only for reverts, is perplexing. Moreover, what I did was to place the standard Wikipedia "{{summary}} template on your page. If you disagree with it, go and discuss at the relevant Talk page. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I wish you would read what I write Mel. I am no longer insisting that I am right concerning edit summaries. In fact if you read previous accounts I thank you - as it got me actually reading the help documents. It was just that you made it sound like golden rule that must not ne broken - and when I found it was a just a guideline (and I see a larger difference in the two) I was surprised. How you can glean "insistence" from a last sentence at the end of larger paragraph about the Greek Zeybek dance is beyond me - but I am not here to argue about that. As my posts and the titles suggest - I am not contacting you about teh edit summaries any more - otherwise I'd write a heading "Edit Summaries".

I'm not here to argeu with you but to learn truly - I go at a thing until I understand it - if I am slightly dense forgive me. But you still haven't answered my REAL last question, which was please verify these differences by providing me with links on the web where I can read for myself these immense differences that have caused you to divide the two dances to two separate pages (still unnecessarily in my opinion). Just a site - where did you get your source of information from - what is your basis for these claims. That is my insistence - not the edit summaries.

And believe it or not I have trawled through your archives and the contribution history of the Greek Zeybek page and didN't find any Greek nationalistic atagonism you speak about DIRECTED to that page. Which is what I am talking about - not in general. I am not looking for any "conspiracies or hidden motives" - I am looking to understand why you don't just give me your basis for these claims. I re-iterate as a listener of fasil music (which is the forefather of rembetiko) and have seen the various dances performed - I feel that your divided the dances must have some other ground.

It is like having separate pages for diamond shaped and round baklava - which would be absurd. Both are still baklava. The only reason I can see is as one intimated - that because of the nationalistic fervour that quite obviously underpins rembetiko and the Greek zeybek dance - you have played to Greek sympathies.

Just give me your basis - a website - anything. Deff6 15:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

  1. If you're not concerned with or in disagreement about the edit summaries, then I suggest that you don't start your comments with them. That you keep insisting that I exaggerated their importance when I simply used the standard template text, and when all the relevant documents agree with me about their importance, is peculiar, but to keep disagreeing and to claim that you're not disagreeing is even odder.
  2. I didn't say that I'd been accused of ant-Greek chauvinism regarding the Zeybek article; what gave you that idea?
  3. I don't know of any Website that spells out the differences, any more than I know of a Website that claims that there aren't any (the Internet isn't the font of all wisdom — it has many gaps, and this is one of them). I know from printed sources that the cultural rôles and the nature of the dances in Turkey and Greece are different (the Turkish zeybek, for example, is not embedded in underground counter-culture, as the Greek zeimbekiko is), and that the music for them is both typically played at different tempos and with different instrumentation. That's not to say that there's no overlap, so that you'll doubtless be able to find some examples of each that sound very similar — but the same could be said of waltzes, mazurkas, and polskas.
  4. Why having separate articles on Greek and Turkish dances, even if they were pretty much the same, should pander to Greek nationalism is beyond me. The article on zeimbekiko clearly states its origins in the zeybek, and links to that article; what Greek-nationalist fervour do you detect in that? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I again reiterate I wish you read what I write Mel.

  • You say:

1. If you're not concerned with or in disagreement about the edit summaries, then I suggest that you don't start your comments with them. That you keep insisting that I exaggerated their importance when I simply used the standard template text, and when all the relevant documents agree with me about their importance, is peculiar, but to keep disagreeing and to claim that you're not disagreeing is even odder.

  • I say:

Check what I wrote again please. I didn't begin my last comment with the issue of edit summaries. They were the in last two sentences. As I said - the titles should suggest the main context of the query or subject. Plus all the relevant documents don't agree with you as to their importance if they are guidelines.

  • You Say:

2. I didn't say that I'd been accused of ant-Greek chauvinism regarding the Zeybek article; what gave you that idea?

  • I say:

This gave me the idea: when you write

"The two dances are different in various respects; while the music is very similar (though even there the two have diverged), the dances performed are different, and they have very different cultural rôles. The Greek dance's close association with the underground culture of rembetiko is perhaps the most important of these. I fail to understand your comment about the nature of my editing supporting the false and peculiar claim that I'm prejudiced against Turks and in favour of Greeks. As I've been attacked by Greek nationalists for exactly the opposite, however, I'll take it a sign that I'm getting things right."

What would any person get from what you wrote here? And as I said as no Greek nationalist HAS DISAGREED WITH YOUR EDIT then may I use your words and say YOU HAVEN'T GOT IT RIGHT for this article.

As for you 3rd and 4th points - as you can't give me any website or basis to justify your view - it remains simply that YOUR PERSONAL POINT OF VIEW and you are promoting to the state that you constantly revert other people's changes and have got BLOCKED for it, too.

This is the whole point of the argument. As I said - one sentence isn't enough - the Zeybek dance is the zeybek dance and the two different varitions should be separate categories on the same page. This makes more sense than having you argue that they are different enough to render tit necessary to have two different articles - which now is obviously your own personal point of view (which I suspect that Greek nationals must share) as you can't give me any independent source to verify your claims. Deff6 02:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  1. The whole first paragraph of your last message had been about edit summaries.
  2. That you misunderstand and read things into what I write says more about you than about me.
  3. You haven't responded to what I've said, you've merely reiterated your own position (together with increasing bad temper, and your suspicion that Greek nationalists share my view — which is both inadequate and irrelevant).
  4. Let's reduce it to its simplest level. There are two names for two dances with two different cultural roles in two countries; the onus is on you to show why they should in fact be treated in one article rather than two. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You say:

  1. The whole first paragraph of your last message had been about edit summaries.
  2. That you misunderstand and read things into what I write says more about you than about me.
  3. You haven't responded to what I've said, you've merely reiterated your own position (together with increasing bad temper, and your suspicion that Greek nationalists share my view — which is both inadequate and irrelevant).
  4. Let's reduce it to its simplest level. There are two names for two dances with two different cultural roles in two countries; the onus is on you to show why they should in fact be treated in one article rather than two.
  1. You are wrong. You must be skipping what was my last reponse. It was the last two sentences. I reepeat the response I am talking about:

I'm afraid I can't take what you say on good faith Mel. Can you give me some sources to back up your claims? I fear it is the exact reason that you fear Greek nationalistic reprisal you have done this. I have myself have seen video footage of the Greek Zeybek dance in a taverna and a Turkish Aegean wedding and they seem very similar. And I haven't noted any Greek nationalistic agreesion towars you as you imply - I throuoghly checked your records. Seeing as it was my contributions to this page which made you give me (what I still think is) unnecessary advice.

Plus the difference between a policy and a guideline is more than minimal. The way you expressed it as though I had broken one of the 10 commandements. Deff6 18:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

2. See one above.

3. I have responded to what you said, and I don't believe with bad temper. You haven't been able to respond to what I ASKED. This is your OPINION and you cannot verify it with independent sources. Greek nationalists share your view — this is no longer a suspicion of mine and it is adequate and relevant - remember NPOV ?

4 The onus is on YOU - you are putting forward an opinion that these two dances are so different that they need two different articles when in fact they don't. Of course when there are two different languages - the adoptive language will Greekicize the word. This doesn't mean they become two separate dances. Deff6 16:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mustafa Sandal page

I believe in your good intention and think that you are wanting to help me. Thank you for that. I am a Turk who lives in Germany. If you had known Turkish and read the TurkishVikipedia of Mustafa Sandal, you would seen that I am objective, too. My problem is that I cannot so good English and I cannot form so good English sentences like you. The English article of Mustafa Sandal was not written by me, it was written by a Mustafa Sandal fan. I've add it into this site and have changed some parts, who I tried to be objective. But I know that the article isn't objective, I've always wanted to change it but my English-known has not been enough for this, unfortunately...

So, I will be very glad if you work with me on this article... I give you the references/sources which Mustafa Sandal became the gold record and any else. I just need some hours for the sources... Thank you for your writing, it helped me a lot to express myself. Mustionline 13:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Documents for the sales/charts information

So, I made the sources ready from where I get the information which are mentioned in the article Mustafa Sandal. You can find the documents on Talk:Mustafa_Sandal#Documents_for_the_sales.2Fcharts_information Mustionline 14:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Orhangencebay4.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Orhangencebay4.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I know this will be like speaking back to answering machine - but I'll leave a reply for anyone interested. I didn't upload this picture, I merely tried to amend the copyright tag - when that didn't seem to work I uploaded another, with no problem. Deff6 18:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your behaviour

Your rapid descent into personal attack and insult is beginning to confrm the suspicion that you're in fact the anon. who made the racist accusations and threats. Whether or not you are, first, you should read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility; secondly, you should read the articles to which you linked more carefully, as well as reading what I said. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't threaten me please. My behaviour is in response to yours Mel. You are perpertuating your own view and personal sympathies on Wikipedia. Your actions to separate the dance form of Zeybek into two pages and not allow the proper history of the fance on the Greek Zeybek page shows your racisim in your editing - not mine. I haven't been racist towards you - though I believe you are prejudiced. You write what you like and then say if you don't like it prove it - even though you yourself can show no independent testimonial on the Net that supports your view.

I have given examples of articles, objectively written, that all give the impression that there is ONE zeybek dance with regional differences - those two regions just happen to be in different countries now and are known as Greek and Turkish zeybek dances. Simply because this dance came to Greece with the forced disapora of Ottoman Greeks doesN't detract from the fact that it has 'faithfully kept to its origins to the modern day - and doesn't mean that you can divide it into a separate dance with one small sentence as to its actual orignation.

The articles I provided show that the Greek style has not developed so much from its original counterpart as to be concluded as two different dances. You cannot even provide a link to state the opposite.

Don't threaten me now that I have proven you wrong. You can't silence me in that way. Every response you have given has been dismissive or shows that you haven't even taken the time to read my comments properly - your mistake with assuming I was still talking about edit summaries shows this clearly.

I stand by what I said. I believe in divine justice. Deff6 01:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you are the abusive anon. I'll not bother to discuss the issue with you further. In any case, that you see a threat in what I wrote implies either advanced paranoia or an inability to understand plain English, and the latter in particular explains your position on this.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

That you slander my name because you can't prove I am that anon - and nothing I have said points to that, you are just using it as an excuse.

If admins on Wikipedia are like you, then Wikipedia is not an place of knowledge. Just a place for small people in the real world to try and make a mark here. I pity you. I really really pity you. All all your accusations against me are really things you have done.

My English is just as good as yours. You are rude, unhelpful and very very egotistical.

You've shown your true colours and I'm glad. At least whoever reads this discussion will know what type of person you are. Deff6 23:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Orhangencebay.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Orhangencebay.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:(2)acayipsin_single_3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:(2)acayipsin_single_3.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Dede_efendi_ottoman_court_music.ogg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dede_efendi_ottoman_court_music.ogg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/f/User_talk%7EDeff6_b198.html"