User talk:A.Garnet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents

[edit] Tenedos/Bozcaada

Hey s'up. There has been a debate going here about a possible move to its official name. Some foreign editors are also involved, and there might be a good impetus to have it moved. I had been following the debate that has been going for a week or so, but just got involved. Baristarim 03:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed one of your comments from Talk:Cyprus dispute, as I didn't think it was helpful. I hope you'll agree. If you don't, feel free to re-add it. - Francis Tyers · 14:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


Dear A.Garnet, It is up to you, what you edit in Turkish speaking Template. I understand you, but remember that Turkish is official language in CYP so we have to right that MUST be accepted as official language in EU also. Please consider this. Kolay gelsin. Regards.MustTC 17:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Template:Turkic-speaking. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. At any rate please do not do more than three reverts in a 24h period. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.-please take a breath and go other articles for a moment.MustTC 17:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


A.Garnet YOU made a point? And thus whatever you say goes irrespective to international law, treaties and resolutions. No one said about redirecting to the RoC page dude. Do not put words in other people's mouth.

First, inclusion of both "entities" using the word you use should be there - one legally has three languages English, Greek and Turkish, and the other has only Turkish. Because of the issue, it is required to say that the UN and the EU recognize the Govenment of Cyprus jurisdiction over the whole island and the "tRNC" as a separatist administration. (Your viewpoint will be at odds with this of course and this is to be expected)
Second, Adding the word "entities" and thus playing word games has allowed you to go forth and put the "TRNC" there in the list. This vagueness is well thought out but unfortunately one must mention the facts about the whole issue by saying it is a separatist entity as well.
Third, I think the real solution is to not include both the RoC and the "TRNC" at all until the Cyprus problem is solved by the diplomats. If you think that international law does not apply to wikipedia as far as to the inclusion of valid and truthful information (like the "TRNC" is a separatist administration and the territory of which legally is part of the Republic of Cyprus) then wikipedia will turn into the internet which is full of nationalistic webpages.
Bottom line, either leave this to the diplomats to solve, and take out both TRNC and RoC or put both in with parentheses. Believe it or not a parentheses in the english language goes a long way in confering meaning to the reader. Unfortunately not too many people understand this in wikipedia and brush it aside. Your solution says according to your logic, that both the "TRNC" and the "RoC" are turkic entities or states. In terms of logic that is a false statement. Parentheses and words should state clearly that the RoC has turkish as an official language and that the "TRNC" is a separatist entity.
I Most emphatically do not support Mitsos. A poor defense from you unfortunately. Do not lump me in their company. By the way I think he should banned to set the record straight.

(UNFanatic 20:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] FWIW

For what it's worth Garnet, you're not the first (unjustifiably) accusing the Greek editors of cabalism (contrary to WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:NPA and the list goes on...). Permabanned User:Kaltsef also shares that view [1], and has in fact been sharing it on all members of the "cabal"'s userpages for the past few weeks. //Dirak 20:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian Genocide article

Hi, I could not see who else to contact other than you. The Turkish government section doesn't exist anymore, I don't know exactlly what are the reasons of this, but obviously it should be back, I must admit I never liked the previous version, which gave much too importance to Halacoglu. A Turkish user has translated the Turkish article, but I don't find much material that can be retrieved from it.(see his translation on my talkpage) See what you can do about it, maybe you and that guy could work together on it. I'm waiting your answers. Fad (ix) 02:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{Turkic-speaking}}

I protected it, and I guess I'll leave a comment on the talk page later. Can you explain to me (in brief) what the two side's points are? Khoikhoi 03:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I guess what the problem we have seems to be the criteria of what belongs in the template. Also what the definition of "Turkic states" are. I'll try to check it out when I have the time. Khoikhoi 06:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess I understand how you feel. I suppose the Greek editors look at things from the de jure perspective, while you and the other Turkish editors look at things from the de facto POV. This is just how it is, and all we can do is attempt to compromise. Khoikhoi 20:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solomos Solomou / Tassos Isaac

I don't quite understand what you've done there, you removed the references and then put instead citation templates? I believe you understand I'll then put again the references and remove the templates, which will start a revert war... --   Avg    03:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

please keep your eyes on these two articles.regards.MustTC 07:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can you keep an eye on..

Religion in Turkey? It was somehow chosen to be in the main page for today as "Did you know?", and has already started getting weird edits. I won't be able to be online for most of the day, so if you could add it on your watchlist, that would be great.. Cheers! Baristarim 06:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way.. I am sorry I couldn't get back to you earlier. Been running around as usual :) Pity that Kanuni article didn't make GA, but it's ok. We will eventually get around to it some day! As for the Turkey article, I think it is nearing completion. That's good because I am starting to get tired of looking at the same photos and sentences, I might start dreaming of the Dervishes or the Turkey-EU map at night! I just rewrote the foreign relations section, so have a look and tell me what you think. Obviously there is more room there for disagreement than, say, economy section. In any case, when all of the sections are done I will ask pretty much everyone who has been "hasir nesir" with the article to take a quick review of the article. It should seriously have no problem making FA shortly, there are only minor things left. Hopefully the same will be done for Ataturk one day, its GA was put on hold btw. Thanks for showing interest in the Turkey article recently, sometimes I feel like I am walking in no-man's land :)) It's ok though, I got nothing to complain about!

I just saw your note on talk:Turkey, so I will take a look there. Cheers! Baristarim 06:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopaedia Iranica

Please do not remove authoritative sources, especially not when they are taken from works such as Encyclopaedia Iranica. Tājik 00:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kurdish Genocide (Turkey)

It should be renamed. Most historians do not recognize the events as genocide, and it's our job to give the majority view on something. Khoikhoi 20:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You may have stopped regarding me as a "serious editor", but, nevertheless, it was my proposal, which was finally implemented. As far as I am concerned, I continue to regard you as a "serious editor". Cheers!--Yannismarou 15:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I accepted that the article was extremely POV, and, consequently, I proposed its renaming, rewriting and the adoption of a broader prespective. But I do believe - and I insist on this position - that the violations of Kurds' human rights in Turkey is a notable topic deserving a seperate article. I think this was a reasonable stance, and, therefore, it prevailed. After all, a user you regard as more "reasonable" than me was warned for his uncivil comments. Or did you neglect to perceive this last incident?--Yannismarou 17:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
"more than understable". This last comment of yours proves your objectivity. I expected something better of you, taking into consideration the content of these outbursts (there were more than one). And what matters in the end is what efforts we make to compromise a tense situation. Whatever I may have initially voted, I proposed and accepted what I regard as a reasonable solution. And I think that this is some proof of "seriousness". Although I really don't think that I have to prove anything to anybody. Best!--Yannismarou 18:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turkey

So, having fun? :) Yeah, the AfD wasn't good. Neither was it one of my proudest moments in Wikipedia, nor was it one of my most "keyifli" moments. But you know the story, so let's forget it for a while. Just wanted to let you know that Turkey made GA, with the GA reviewer making clear that he would support the FA pending very minor fixups like making sure that all images were license-free, some typos in the references section, and a few more basic references. Thanks for finding some refs for the history section, I was not able to get my hands on them. However the GA, and the imminent FA, made me actually forget about the whole, well, you know what! Baristarim 08:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remember to stay civil

Don't get pushed into losing your rag with those who disagree with you, or you'll end up being blocked for it. Good luck, and maybe have a nice cup of tea, or whatever it is you foreigners drink... :-) yandman 15:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

FYI look here. I assume his/her comments are not worse than yours ([2] [3] [4]), but I think we all deserve to have a more civil conversation, and I am willing to help in this direction. Merry Christmas! NikoSilver 15:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mutlu Yıllar

Onlar da Yeniyıl tatili ister Yeniyılınız kutlu olsun MustTC 15:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Onlar da Yeniyıl tatili ister
Yeniyılınız kutlu olsun
MustTC 15:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar time

Happy new year! Turkey is doing good for the moment :) ((update on my original message) Have a look at the FAC and the article's talk page, will make an interesting read. Valla hersey yolunda gitsin diye ecel terleri doktuk :)) By the way.. Since I finished the major work on that article, I had some time to peruse the histories of many articles, including Turkey and related ones. I noticed that you have been really making efforts to help out Turkey-related articles, and also noticed that nobody had given you a Barnstar yet, so:

The Barnstar of National Merit
For your efforts over a very long period to increase the quality of Turkey-related articles, may that be simple clean-up or taking a hands-on approach with POV issues, in a constant effort to help them out, I award you The Barnstar of National Merit! Tebrikler! Baristarim 01:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Türkiye Portalı

Merhaba geçenlerde Türkiye Portalını seçkin portallara aday gösterdim Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Turkey/archive1. Fakat bir Vikiproje Türkiye üyesi dışında kimse oy kullanmadı. Gelen karşıt oylarla kabul edilmemiş oldu. Lütfen oyunuzu kullanın.--Absar 12:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPA Warning

With regards to your comments on talk:TRNC: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. NikoSilver 22:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish diaspora

Just keep an eye for a moment... Btw, thanks for the star! Baristarim 22:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ottoman map

Thanks for pointing out and I'm sorry for the mistake. I really regret that I did not have access to any good sources when I made the map. I just did my best to combine a few existing bad looking images in a better looking, high resolution version. In a week's time I will be in Ankara for a while, then I hope I will have access to good resources in the library to renew the map with better detail and accuracy. But before that, I will correct the Cyprus mistake as soon as possible. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 01:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Genocide deniers

Yes, I see what you mean. You think it should be nominated for deletion? Khoikhoi 09:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it should be deleted, also because this category has just caused edit wars since it was created. As another user pointed out, it violates WP:BLP as well. Khoikhoi 05:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Districts of Turkey

Template:Districts of Turkey has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.MustTC 17:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this has been moved back to its original location status quo ante after the AfD, after a techincal problem was solved. Baristarim 22:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Then ASK him to remove it. Don't assume the right to delete others' comments, which is a far more serious breach of civility. Vizjim 05:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't have much time

But come back with another couple of sources and I'll see what I can do. - Francis Tyers · 14:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, did you consider joining one of the central asian Wikipedias? - Francis Tyers · 18:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
My question above was not sarcastic at all. I will come to your previous question in good time, and at that time it will be clear. - Francis Tyers · 22:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PGG

Thanks for the heads-up. Khoikhoi 04:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mail

Hi. Could you please enable your e-mail. Just add it to your preferences settings so that others could mail you, if you wish so. Thanks. Grandmaster 17:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pontic Greek X?

I think it's time to refresh your alternative title suggestions since it seems there has been a progress in Talk:Pontic_Greek_Genocide#Personal_statements. Okan 06:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pontic

Hey there. I'm not sure what the issues are, but I am always in favor of peer arbitration. Thanks for the note. --AW 03:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cypriot referendum

Hey, what's your take on this? Khoikhoi 01:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

My background does not extent to that period. I do not know the best way. A good template should give a visual clue of organization, not just collection. If you tell me (I know it is going to be a long summary) what are the issues. So that we can figure out how it should be organized. I may consider it. Thanks. --OttomanReference 19:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I just got back from a trip for a couple days and a self-imposed wikibreak :) So, what has been happening with the PG article? By the way, your e-mail function is disabled.. Maybe you would like you would like to change it? Cheers! Baristarim 22:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I hadn't realized that you had switched your email on - that was the case before I had taken the break. I will try to take a look at those articles and I also kind of feel bad that I hadn't contributed more when you had first aired the suggestion for arbitration. As for the templates, I am trying to look into it. I watch a lot of related articles in that end even though I get less often than I used to. That template was a simple and short "History of Iran" template in the beginning, then it morphed into Greater Iran (?), then it started spanning nearly every single entity that existed in that part of the world. Obviously, it is to be taken with a grain of salt when one hears that "Greater Iran" is only a geographical region and that there is no political innuendo that comes along with it.
The template wars, eh? :) Check this one [5] and see what happened between 6-8 Jan, or the flare-up at this article [6] that led to its protection. I tried to edit it as best as I could and should be ok for the moment.
I am a bit tired at the moment but I will try to take a look around soon to some of those articles. Take care! Baristarim 22:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Barış is quite right on his comments about the template. This template is getting quite absurd in any sense. There is no geographical designation as Greater Iran. This is a production of Persian revisionists as in the case of Iranian Cultural Continent claim. This is nothing but negationism. Regards. E104421 22:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stirling Moss

Thank you for your useful edits to this article. However, could you please add a detailed fair use rationale to the Image:Mercedes-Benz 300 SLR.jpg page? This is required for all non-free images. Thanks. Loganberry (Talk) 00:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw your reply to this - sorry about the delay in answering. I didn't realise you weren't the uploader, and that makes a difference - it's they who needs to add the fair use rationale. But in the absence of one, don't be surprised if the picture gets removed eventually, as Wikipedia's rules on fair use are getting steadily stricter (see my post about your userpage below, for example). Loganberry (Talk) 01:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Hi

Try clicking here. Khoikhoi 12:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Undo your last reversion. This might help you avoid the block. Miskin 17:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Turkic states

Please do not remove authoritative scholarly sources. This is regarded vandalism. Instead of removing the info, add more information and sources to the text. Removing scholarly sources only because you disagree - without giving any credible and reliable scholarly sources - is not a solution. Tājik 02:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not my opinion (honestly, I do not care), but that of scholars. And what you just did was removing authoritative scholarly sources (for your information: the Encyclopaedia Iranica is considered a primary scholarly reference!) and replacing them with tertiary and unreliable web-sites. This is against Wikipedia's policies, and admins will undo your changes.
Either disprove the given sources with better sources (keep in mind that the EI is authoritative!), or leave the message. Instead of deleting it, add more information to it. The Ottomans are NOT listed under the "Persianate" dynasties, but it simply says that they MAY BE regarded as "Persianate". Just check this information:
  • "... These Ottoman sultans received a good education during their youth, in which they learned Arabic as a scientific language and Persian as the perfect language for literary expression. As a result many of the subsequent Ottoman sultans, too, showed an interest in Persian literature and even wrote Persian poems themselves. Prince Cem Sultan (Jam Soltān) (d. 1495), Selim I, Süleyman (Solaymān) I the Magnificent (r. 1520-66), Prince Bayezid (d. 1562), and Murād III (r. 1574-95) wrote Persian poetry, collected in divāns (poetry collections), which have survived to the present day (Aydén, pp. 45-56). ..." Iranica
This is a primary scholarly reference!
Tājik 23:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand the meaning of "Persianate". It does not mean "Persian", it means "influenced by Persian". The Ottomans were strongly influenced by Persian language and culture, to an extent that until the 17th century, Persian was the court language of the dynasty, and that the Ottoman kings and princes wrote poetry in Persian. This, however, changed with the advent of Shiism in Persia, and the growing influence of the Europeans. On one side, the Ottomans did not want to be identified with the "language of the Shia" anymore, on the other side, they could not prevent the growing influence of their European subjects (especially Greeks). But still, the Ottoman Empire may be regarded as Turkic Persianate, meaning a Turkic dynasty strongly influenced by Persian culture and language. Tājik 21:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The Turkish identity of the Oghuz Turks has always been questioned, most of all by other Turks. And that of Islamizied and Persianized Oghuz, such as the Ottomans, even more. 1000 years ago, Mahmoud Kashgari wrote in his "Lexicon of Turkish words":
  • "... We do not consider [those who have mixed to be] among the Turks, since they insert into the speech of the Turks what does not belong to it. ..." -Dīvān ul-Lughat at-Turk 24-26
Turkology-expert N. Light comments on this in his Turkic literature and the politics of culture in the Islamic world (1998):
  • "... It is clear that he [al-Kashgari] `a priori´ excludes the Oghuz, Qipchaq and Arghu from those who speak the pure Turk language. These are the Turks who are most distant from Kâshghari's idealized homeland and culture, and he wants to show his Arab readers why they are not true Turks, but contaminated by urban and foreign influences. Through his dictionary, he hopes to teach his readers to be sensitive to ethnic differences so they do not loosely apply the term Turk to those who do not deserve it. ..."
N. Light further explains:
  • "... Kashgari clearly distinguishes the Oghuz language from that of the Turks when he says that Oghuz is more refined because they use words alone which Turks only use in combination, and describes Oghuz as more mixed with Persian ..."
The Oghuz Turks have been Persianized or at least strongly influenced since they entered written history. That's why they are known as "Turkoman" - from Persian "Turk mānand" - like Turks.
Now, we are talking about a dynasty that existed 500-800 years later, had adopted Persian life-style, Persian literary standards, Persian poetry, and even the religion of Central Asian Persians (Hanafi Sunniism in contrast to the Hanbali and Shafi Sunniism of Arabs). They looked up to Persian saints (i.e. Rumi and al-Ghazali), they wrote Persian poetry themselvs. The Ottomans were simply Persianate. In fact, along with Ghaznavids, Seljuqs, and Mughals, they are the classical examples of a Persianate society that was of Non-Persian origin. Tājik 22:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Noone claimed that the Ottomans were not Turks. This is a fact that no serious historian would reject. The problem is that you misunderstand the meaning of the word "Persianate". It does NOT mean "Persian in origin", it means "culturally Persianized", and this is another fact that no serious historian would deny. Keeping in mind that the Ottomans are labled "culturally Persianized" and "Persianate" in scholarly works (unfortunately, you deleted those sources), there is no reason not to mention that in the article. In no way does the word "Persianate" deny the Turkish origin and identity of the Ottomans. But it is a well-known fact that the Persian culture had the most important influence on the Ottomans. That's why still, Turks gave their children Persian names (Bahar, Cem, Bahadir, etc), use Persian vocabulary without really knowing their true meaning (gül, "canim", zincir, hafta, zaman, carsamba, persembe, hava, etc), identify themselvs with Persian saints (Baktash Wali, Rumi, and others), etc etc etc. The Ottoman language was a mixed language, with most of its vocabulary being Persian (the Arabic words were also taken from Persian, as evident in the Persian intonations still used in Turkish, for example in the name "Reza" - Atatürk's father - instead of the correct Arabic Ridha). That's why the Ottomans were a Persianate society, despite other influences from Greece, Arabic societies, Western societies, etc. Tājik 18:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intercommunal violence during the Cyprus conflict

Good and necessary article! Just wanted to question the use of one quote - "They had, of necessity, to relocate themselves in about 3 per cent of the land they owned, estimated at about 34 per cent of Cyprus." This is poor wording and would I feel be better put in your own words. Vizjim 20:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, enosis wasn't impossible. A bloody stupid idea, I'll grant you, but "impossible" is a word that should be reserved in an encyclopedia for things like phlogiston. Could it maybe be reworded in a more nuanced way? Vizjim 07:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
How's the latest? Incidentally, it's "unattainable", not "unnatainable". Cheers Vizjim 21:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Would welcome your balanced input on the "human rights" section I've just added to the main Cyprus article. Vizjim 23:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Re the name change - can you provide sources to suppoort the idea that this period was (or is) referred to as a "civil war" by English sources? Assuming that the article will continue to exclude the invasion, as I'd hope it would, it never quite went to open warfare, as I understand it. Vizjim 10:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for that: most comprehensive. You might want to add in references to the recent excavation of bodies of Turkish Cypriots killed in the fighting. It's all over the news here in the republic at the moment. Vizjim 16:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the TRNC claims to be a European government, and for many years resisted efforts to allow investigators into its territory to look for mass graves. I don't recall Turkey prosecuting officials responsible for massacres in the Kurdish regions. Turkey still hasn't allowed independent historians access to many files concerning the Armenian genocides. Greek Cypriots were responsible for evil, terrible things during the period we're discussing, but let's not pretend any country (and here I include the UK) has clean hands. Except for a couple of small weak Pacific island nations, virtually every country's government is guilty of covering-up atrocious goings-on from its own military or associated paramilitaries at some point or another.
Cyprus desperately needs its own Truth and Reconciliation Commission and I believe that making the truth about atrocities committed against innocent civilians by both sides known is more important now than punishment. But that won't come about until there is a solution (which I can;t see any time soon: can you?) Vizjim 21:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused - do you, personally, recognise the Cypriot government as the legal government of the whole of Cyprus, or not? Strikes me that you're engaged in exactly the same sort of position-of-convenience argument that you're accusing the Republic of. Vizjim 17:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The Greek Cypriot propaganda would have the Republic's case for legitimacy as being based on morality. Meanwhile, back in the real world, most countries base it on not being terribly keen to allow new countries to be created through invasion of other countries' sovereign territory. The argument you're using might confuse a Cypriot nationalist, but I'm afraid I'm rather more of a believer in realpolitik (or, possibly, cynic). And as far as I can see, your position is that the TRNC should be equal to the Greek Cypriots, but that until the Greek Cypriots recognise this the TRNC government is under no obligation to jail murderers on its own side. Simply a mirror image of the Greek Cypriot argument.
My family (by marriage) were innocent of involvement in Turkish Cypriot massacres, being peaceable Leftists. The grandfather was beaten up by the British, my father-in-law was held up against a wall with a gun in the back of his head by EOKA-B supporters (and was only saved because he supported the right football team), and my brother-in-law went through hell in the Greek Cypriot army. Oh, and everyone was nearly killed by invading Turkish forces. As far as I can see, the Greek Cypriot, Turkish Cypriot, Greek, Turkish, British and American governments should none of them be able to pretend to any kind of moral authority. And I'm not a believer in any possible reunification plan. De facto separation will become de jure. (The only question is: why on earth would any Greek Cypriot government ever give up its advantage over the North?) When separation finally happens, then both sides will have a moral obligation to investigate the atrocities carried out in their name: until then, the issue is too tricky for either democratically elected government to justify to its voters. Vizjim 22:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your userpage pic

Hello... I'm afraid that Only Fools and Horses picture you have on your userpage will have to go, because Wikipedia policy on fair use pictures says that they should "never be used ... on user pages" (paragraph 9). I'm not going to delete the photo myself, but I'm afraid that if someone else does you won't have a leg to stand on. Loganberry (Talk) 01:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Completely separate question

My wife is helping a friend who is compiling an anthology of war songs from around the world, by doing an entry on War Songs of Cyprus. She can do the Greek Cypriot ones, but we're looking for a good source of Turkish Cypriot war songs. Any suggestions, preferably ones that have been translated into English? Cheers Vizjim 22:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hah! Ironically enough, I then managed to miss your reply. Cheers. Vizjim 13:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[7] made on March 4, 2007 to Cypriot Civil War

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 20:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Block of Editor

Please take a look at this: [8] NN 18:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The matter has been resolved with an apology from Yannismarou. Thanks for your time. NN 15:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Miskin

Warned. Khoikhoi 04:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cypriot Civil War

Oi pal. Can you tell me what's the main problem with this article? I don't have the time to go through all the discussions and versions of the page so a summary would be much appreciated.--Doktor Gonzo 14:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert College has been nominated GA

Would you like to contribute to the nomination process or peer review the article? SEE: Robert College (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) --Maestro 10:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You're right about Ataturk

I saw an anon remove a section so I restored it, but didn't read the last paragraph carefully. --AW 15:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 20:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kanuni Sultan Süleyman

I just wanted to say "Well done and thanks!" for your great work and continuing improvements to Suleiman the Magnificent. I'm sure it's going to be on the front page some day! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding TMT

Please protect this and this. Previous versions are obviously POV unless someone cites sources; they clearly suggest TMT has a Pan-Turkist goal and a connection with Grey Wolves. We know the Gray Wolf is a mythological figure; its under nobody's copyright.--Doktor Gonzo 15:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Besides, according to both articles, TMT was found years before the Grey Wolves so a Grey Wolves influence is apperantly none. Regards.--Doktor Gonzo 16:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand why Grey Wolves need to be mentioned in the sentence as well but we can leave it for now; it is at least more neutral than the previous -obviously POV- version.--Doktor Gonzo 13:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jerusalem FAC

What do you think of the comprimise proposed to fix the lead? nadav 23:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


The featured article candidate discussion of Jerusalem (archived here) has been restarted. Please check if the current version of the article has addressed your concerns, if any, and voice your opinion on the FAC at the current nomination. nadav 19:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jerusalem's lead

I have made a few changes to the intro, per the conversation on Talk:Jerusalem and per a few suggestions on the FAC. I basically moved the Palestinian state piece toward the front and added a few intermediary sentences to set up the concept created by the sentence and the subsequent paragraph. Presuming this doesn't get reverted outright, I hope you will reconsider your positions on the FAC. -- tariqabjotu 06:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)

The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greco Turkish war

Merhaba, su article'a bakabilirmisin , alexius plutarchos ve her zamanki kisiler kendi milliyetci dusuncelerini empoze etmeye calisiyolar yine, yardim edebilirmisin bi ara?..--laertes d 09:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish Cuisine

Hey Garnet, take a breath,please come to article and template to develop, you may add some "pontic" dishes.Regards.Must.T C 11:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suleiman

I passed this article as you addressed all of my concerns. Good job on a terrific article. You may want to consider an FA nomination. Zeus1234 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] rv var

Please take a look.Regards.Must.T C 05:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)

The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)

The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 13:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TRNC article tag dispute

From the Wikipedia:NPOV dispute article:

"Wikipedia:NPOV dispute: Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed." A. Garnet, if you want the pov tag removed, then try to achieve a consensus. You want to be a wikipedia editor follow the guidelines. Just by thinking that all the sources the are in line with your prejudices are authoritative and all your opinions are correct doesn't resolve the dispute. Larisv 10:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

A.Garnet, stop being childish and follow the guidelines - and common sense for that matter. Just so that you don't complain that I don't discuss the addition of the tag and I don't respect your effort in editing the article, I took the time to give you a detailed (and BTW not exhaustive) account of what makes the article factually inaccurate and biased. You want the tag to be removed, try to reach a consensus. Unilaterally deciding (as opposed to proposing) that the article is NPOV, is not enough.

[edit] Larisv

I can't tell whether what Larisv (talk · contribs) is doing is pov-pushing, although there is an element of soapboxing and pointism. I left him/her a message on his/her talk page, to revert less and discuss more. I'll keep an eye on his/her edits, to see if the message helps. AecisBrievenbus 22:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 14! Kirill 02:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hı

Garnett, ı have made some edits to Suleiman article, they are mostly primary sources quoted from S.Z. Ahmed's book..Another thıng is somebody nomınated Ataturk article for GA status, and a reply ıs given about the possible adjustments, you may want to check it..With some contributions and without some of the unnnecessary pictures i think article can acquire a GA..regards..--laertes d 19:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merhaba

Please check your offline messages. --Mardavich 19:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Wandalstouring 08:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 08:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Graeco-Turkish War, Redux

Per your request on the MILHIST talk page, I've left some comments on this article's talk page, and will see what happens. I'll also start looking into the editing process if the other, more involved parties can't get back in order. Cheers, Drieux 02:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Garnett take a look to this same article, if you have time to deal with that..--laertes d 09:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)

Greetings!

Please refer to the above page for a suggestion on getting this article back on track.

Cordially, Drieux 03:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 08:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Ottoman warrior mentality of the Anatolian Greeks

I request your help to face a disgusting and offensive behaviour against we Turks from a nationalist Greek named Cplakidas in the article Greco-Italian War. He denies the evidence of scholars like the British Mack Smith (with precise book & page references) about the fact that the Greek army was able to stop temporarily the Italian army in Epirus because the soldiers were nearly one third (or more) Anatolian Greeks (moved to Greece after the 1922 exchange of populations) who had the warrior mentality of Ottomans. That is the reason the Greeks fought bravely and not like "a bit coward" Balkan Greeks, as they have always done. And this is confirmed indirectly by the same Churchill who compared the Greek resistance in Epirus to the one of our glorious soldiers in the Dardanelles during WWI. The same bravery of the soldiers of beloved Ataturk, wrote Churchill. But the nationalist Cplakidas erases all this references and call racist the reference to Smith & Churchill. I believe Cplakidas is the racist when denies that our courage was transmitted to the Anatolian Greeks after centuries of our domination and influence on them. Read the related talkpage to see how he denies even the declarations of the Italian generals about their mistake in evaluating the strength and resolution to fight of the "renowned weak" and corrupt Greek army.Eteturk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.215.160.97 (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re

Mea culpa! My revert was rushy I must say. Most of the stuff you reverted is indeed irrelevant. I should have read it more carefully. But are you sure is this also the case for this particular excerpt: "In Turkey, the literacy rate is 95.3% for men and 79.6% for women, for an overall average of 87.4%.[1] This low figure is mainly due to prevailing feudal attitudes against women in the Arab and Kurdish inhabited southeastern provinces of the country." Is this irrelevant also? Now, about the irrelevant "crap" comment of yours I will not spare any comments of mine. Regards.--Yannismarou 13:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hi

So what's up? Baristarim 05:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

btw, what was the latest issue with the human rights of Kurds in TR article? cheers Baristarim 05:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 12:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excellent job...

Excellent edit job. After fixing all the errors in grammar and word usage, all synapses at this end revolted--no way were they willing to attack coherence.Pebblicious (talk) 05:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 00:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PGG

This sort of caught me at a bad time- I'm trying to edit Franco-Prussian war battles and then this comes up. I really didn't devote enough time to looking at the edits as a whole and standing up for them- just the objectionable parts. I'm pouring over technical army details and then an edit war breaks out- I did my best. Unfortunately, it is the weekend and I am usually very busy. Put me down as supporting the POV tag until people can learn to control themselves and to use logical methods rather than push-button ones. Message me again if things heat up beyond control. Monsieurdl mon talk-mon contribs 21:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sul the Mag

I've made a number of minor changes (mainly for style & clarity) over the last couple of days: I hope they're constructive & useful. Please see also my comments on the FAC page. Good luck: I see no reason why the article shouldn't be promoted. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 22:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There you are—what did I tell you? Congratulations on a deserved success. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible edit warring on project article

There seems to be some issues going on over on the article : Military history of African Americans, in particularly in the section Military history of African Americans#Confederate States Army. Could you take a look at the article's edit history as well as the discussion, Talk:Military history of African Americans, and possibly give some input? Thanks. Sf46 (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 01:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

[edit] Ataturk

Hi, I dont know what to make of this comment: "What kind of ideology hates the "Ataturks Reforms"? Is this an "Islamo fashist fundamentalist movement?" The reader wants to see the "Atatürk's Reforms" as a clear text"

If your insinuating I have some ideological agenda to omit the word "Ataturks reforms" then your severely mistaken. Ataturks name is used three times in three sentences, the use of "his reforms" was intended to make the prose flow better. I hope I've got the wrong end of the stick, if not, I hope you get rid of that attitude when people are trying to help. --A.Garnet (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets begin with: Sorry! I really was not thinking a user or specifically you. There are three fundamental articles: 1) Mustafa Kemal, 2)Atatürk's Reforms and 3) Kemalist idealogy. Yes, these articles are in poor shape. I worked on reforms a little bit. Somebody seems to own the Kemalist idealogy. He basically reverted my edits. Those edits seems to be ideological based, and that is fine. When I begin to deal with these articles, I tried to create links between them. So that interested users can reach them. It is funny that these links do not stick at the introduction sections. This is not an ideological position. They are fundamental and should be in the introduction. I do not understand why they do not stick. But it does not stick. That is the root of my "frustrations". --Kemalist (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Cyprus and TRNC

Merhaba Garnet nasılsın? umarım iyisindir. Thats the best i can do in turkish :). Well i am contacting you in regards to this edit. I understand that you had engaged in a long discussion and agreed to the current intro. Wikipedia however is a live encyclopedia and open to the public to edit in good faith always and add relevant sourced information perpetually, true? Why do you insist on freezing the intro? Since you are the only one which objected the inclusion of the information above, i am leaving this message to ask you. Isnt it a fact which belongs in history recorded by the media? Why do you object? Thanks for your time, regards Meander₪ —Preceding comment was added at 14:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow! you are fast! (hope i can keep up :)). On one hand, I agree with you that the two are not comparable, isnt though notable? Both sides had questions with the plan, communicated at different points in time. Shouldnt reference be made to both? Please understand that i do not mind engaging in a lengthy discussion with editors including yourself as you rightly stressed on your message. I thought to discuss it with you, seeing that only you have disagreed with the content and maybe agree between us on content. I would be happy to if you are willing, then we can ask all in the talk page for edits It is only 5 sentences, how hard can it be? Meander₪ 15:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to popularize a Userbox

You're welcome to use the following Userboxes in your user page:

— talk § _Arsenic99_ 00:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your revert to my expansion

Hi. You have just taken out the subsection about the exhibition from the article Suleiman the Magnificient I had added today. First of all, the exhibition lasted almost one year in three major cities of the USA and showed only the items from his era as you can check. Although the event is now 20 years back, it was very important and attracted huge crowds. Moreover, I am not aware of any wikirule that a FA should not contain a subsection like this. Maybe you can give me a better argument. Thanks. CeeGee (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thank you for your edits on the "List", it looks better now. --07fan (talk) 06:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sarayonu Lefkosa.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sarayonu Lefkosa.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dervis Ali Kavazoglou

Hi again, I see you are an experienced wikipedia editor, congrats for Suleiman the Magnificent. Since yo are a turkish Cypriot i was wondering whether you would be interested in providing your knowledge on this article which i am trying to put together. Thanks Meander₪ 17:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish Invasion of Cyprus

Please stop trying to impose your view on the article Meander₪ 11:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikicookie

I am awarding you this WikiCookie for your constructive edits on Wikipedia--LAAFan 17:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I am awarding you this WikiCookie for your constructive edits on Wikipedia--LAAFan 17:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)