User talk:Nedim Ardoğa/Archive 3

---

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 00:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Ottoman Empire Barnstar
		Awarded for valuable contributions to WikiProject Ottoman Empire, although the project sadly seems to be dead. Nevertheless, your numerous contributions on the field of Ottoman history are valuable and worthy of recognition. Keep it up! Constantine ✍ 02:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

1 July 2010-31 December 2010

?

Selam. Please control Sultana Pertevniyal. Dağ Yahudileri tezi mi var acaba ? Takabeg (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Mountain Jews, Pertevniyal and Battle of Edirne

• Reply: I don’t know about Mountain Jews . But a quick search in internet returned and By the way, the ethnic origins of the valide sultans is usually debatable. According to tr-Wiki, Pertevniyal is Romanian and it is sourced.
• Can you please check the battle of Adrianople fought in Balkan Wars ? I have moved it to Battle of Edirne, but in just two hours, it has been moved back. The motive is very similar to that of Constantinople. Edirne, it is claimed was not used before 1913. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to Battle of Hadrianopolis (378), but Battle of Adrianople is common use. And Battle of Adrianople (1913) (yani Edirne Kuşatması) was fought in the First Balkan War. Takabeg (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I made a shor research in google books. For the title of the article Battle of Adrianople (1913), "Siege of Edirne" is better and more academic (especially in military history, military science) than "Battle of Adrianople" 1913.

This is an exceptional case Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Use modern names. Siege of Edirne is similar with the case of Siege of Constantinople (aslında İstanbul'un Fethi başlığı da sorunludur) and Battle of Stalingrad.

And I like Edward J. Erickson's works. He also prefer to Siege of Edirne.

P.S. "Battle of Edirne" isn't common use. We have to choose "Siege of Edirne".

Takabeg (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Pardon. "Siege of Adrianople" 1913 is common use. Takabeg (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Fuzûlî

Selam. Talk:Fuzûlî#Azeri sayfasına göz atar mısınız ? Fuzûlî Azerilerin dil ve edebiyatına etkisi vardır ama ne zamandan beri Azeri oldu ? Kaynakları kontrol ederseniz sevineceğim. Birde Talk:Azerbaijani people#"Azerbaijani" girl konuda görüşünüz nedir ? Takabeg (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Messages

For some reason every message you send to other users reaches me. (I don't know if they receive the messages adressed to them) Can you please check your preferences. Thanks . Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Baktım ama sorunun ne olduğunu bile anlayamadım. Dolayısıyla çözemedim. Now Battle of Sarantaporo (0 hit) is common use ? I found Battle of Sarantaporon (1 hit). Takabeg (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Istanbul şeysi

Selam. Yeni anladım, Ziya Gökalp maddesinde madde ile alakasız bir link görünce. Mesele sadece postane işiyle ilgilidir. Gereksiz link. Yani 1930 yılına kadar Constantinopole kullanımı da kabul ediliyordu ama daha sonra resmî olarak kabul edilmez oldu. Mesele bu kadar. Yoksa Osmanlının son döneminde Constantinopole'dan ziyade Stanboul ve Istanbul kullanımları daha yaygındı. Takabeg (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

19. yüzyılın ilk yarısında mesela 1835'te basılmış bu kitapta Constantinopole da kullanılıyor ama başlıklarda Stamboul kullanılıyor. Yani sabit bir şey yoktur. Yine de Cumhuriyet dönemiyle ilgili hatta Osmanlı dönemiyle ilgili bilimsel araştırmalarda bile Istanbul kullanıldığına göre Istanbul kullanılması hiç sorun değildir. Roma ve Bisans dönemleri için Istanbul'un kullanılması ne kadar tuhaf ise Ziya Gökalp'in ölüm yeri olarak Constantinopole'nın kullanılması da o kadar komiktir. Normal kitap ve makalelerde görmüyorum ondan. Takabeg (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So is there a middle ground we can find on the Istanbul/Constantinople issue? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a professional historian. I am not so familiar with the naming conventions. But one thing is for sure. Former names are not easily intelligible by the majority of population. For example the name Khorosan frequently appears in Central Asian history. But among amateurs who knows where Khorosan is ? Wallachia ? Iron gate ? Cumania ? Podolia ? So in an encyclopaedia, former names must be avoided. The modern names should be used together with the former names in parathesis. İstanbul (Constantinople) seems best to me.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I can agree to this as long as the references are left in place. What do you think? --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. (By the way, have I mistakenly deleted a reference ?) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Madde başlığı etc.

Selam. List of Turkic states and empires maddesinin başlığı ile içeriği artık uyuşmuyor. Uygun başlık olarak öneriniz var mı ? Birde Qaghans of the Turkic khaganates kontrol eder misiniz ? Takabeg (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Cumania

How do you think about this use's behavior ? Yani refarenslerin olmamayış ortadadır. Ne için ısrarlı davranıyor acaba ? Takabeg (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Links on pages

Hi

Please note that adding 16 links to one word in an article is considered a little over the top ?

WP:MoS recommends only 1 per article text, I have no problem with one in the lead, one in the text and one in images etc.

I have removed many links from the Adana page as a result of AWB clean ups - some were linked 16 times, 21 times and 14 times...

Sorry Chaosdruid (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid you're addressing to a wrong contributer. I haven't linked anything in Adana (except Çukurova, Adana which I've created today) . Maybe you'll prefer to get in touch with other contributers in History:Adana. Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason for contacting you were these: The link [3] and the way in which it is not always clear as to which one "Çukurova district" refers to—the district or the part of the city (and sometimes the plain).

I suggest making it more clear by using terms such as "Çukurova District" and "Çukurova municipality, Adana" or any other which would make the difference apparent...perhaps Çukurova district municipality as municipality defines that it is part of the urban Adana

I would point you to this page District#Turkey and Districts of Turkey which defines the normal use of the term for each country - here it states that you are using district incorrectly as you refer to "the district" in terms of the part of the city when it should probably be "municipality" as it is used at the top of the Çukurova page

"Adana lies in the heart of Çukurova","crossing the Çukurova westwards" (district or plain or some other?)

There are also lots of places where "the" has been ommitted "center for the Çukurova agricultural region" and perhaps you can address these also?

Chaosdruid (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• The only link I established was the link to Çukurova in the section Adana. But there is no ambiguation, for it is actually Çukurova, Adana the district within Greater Adana. (You can see that if you have used the link) Of course there is one other Çukurova ,the great alluvial plain which was the Cilicia of the antiquity. But I haven't linked it.
• As for the concept of district, well Çukurova (like Seyhan, Yüregir etc.) is an intercity district. (It is different from say Ceyhan which is also a district of Adana Province, but out of Greater Adana.) For further information, please refer to Metropolitan centers in Turkey. Cheers Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

So as you have said there are three: Çukurova district Çukurova Municipalities Union (population 5.5 million), Çukurova, Adana municipality (population 327,460) and the Çukurova alluvial plain (within Çukurova district).

I think you should link to "Çukurova municipality" to make the clear distinction.

I cannot understand why you are saying that the link Çukurova is the great alluvial plain - you need to click it and read the page it takes you to where it clearly says that the plain forms the core - not all of it.

If there is a problem with the way that the Çukurova page has been written then can I suggest you work on that to make the distinction between an area that is not an official governmental area and one that is merely geographical?

Chaosdruid (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Oghuz Yabgu State

Dear Nedim, please fix Oghuz Yabgu State as you see fit, my concern in editing was that for such a momentous state the article was, and still is, next to nothing in content. That is bad in two respects: first, as related to the state itself, and second as it relates to its people, and the fates of its peoples after dismemberment of the state. Many events in Khoresm, Khazaria, Caucasus and beyond budded in the Yabgu State. I appreciate you courtesy, thank you Barefact (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Analog or Analogue

Analog is the preferred US spelling. Analogue is preferred in the UK - and maybe other countries.

Sultans of the Ottoman Empire

Hi White Cat, Regarding your contribution to the template Sultans of the Ottoman Empire (in 2006), can you please see my note on the talk page of the said template ? Have a nice day. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I do not see the section in question. Was it renamed? -- Cat ^chi? 02:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It is in the talk page of the template.[4] Anyway I'll copy it here:

"In this template growth era is between 1453 and 1683. I don't know if this categorization is sourced. According Turkish sources, the growth era ends by the the end of the 16th century. Some historians prefer 1579 (death of Sokullu Mehmet Pasha) and some prefer 1606 (treaty of Zsitvatorok). In both cases, 17th century is the era of stagnation rather than the growth and the decline begins by 1699 (the treaty of Karlowitz.) See the discussion page of Project Ottoman Empire." Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to fix it. I am no expert in history and was merely modifying/standardizing templates. Do you have a source I can reference so that this issue is handled properly in the future as well? I want to put the source in the code. -- Cat ^chi? 19:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see most on line sources refer to en-Wikipedia. So I am not sure if I can find any academic on line source in English. But since you know Turkish you can check tr-Wikipedia and other Turkish sources. The historians think that the stagnation begins either by the death of Suleyman I in 1566 or by the death of Sokullu Mehmet Pasha in 1579 [5] and the treaty of Zsitvatorok in 1606 documents the era change. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you link me to a non-wiki source? I trust you and I can make the modifications you ask, but a week or two later someone else can change it back. If I source it, it will stay more stable. :) -- Cat ^chi? 22:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Index of Ottoman Empire-related topics

I came across this article while browsing Wikipedia's alphabetical article indexes.

This is the only "Index of" article that isn't an alphabetical index.

I've added a link to it at Portal:Contents/Outlines.

Please let me know if it's in the right spot on that list.

The Transhumanist    20:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Help please!

Hello. I'm looking for a Turkish speaker who could help me with something, so I had a look at Suleiman the Magnificent article history (one of my favourite featured articles since it has such wonderful illustrations) and there you were. I am trying to find out if there is a copyright notice and terms and conditions of reusing pictures somewhere on the Diyarbakir website. Can you help? Very many thanks in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• İyigünler. http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erzincan_Beyli%C4%9Fi az birşey çeviri yapabilir misiniz? Teşekkürler.--94.54.94.171 (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Anonim olarak yazabilir misiniz? Benim engelim yok ama öylesine hesabıma girmiyorum:)--94.54.94.171 (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Mersin harbor 60.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Mersin harbor 60.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:President_in_Mersin.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:President_in_Mersin.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Vilayat-ı Sitte

Hi. What do you think about Talk:Six Armenian vilayets#Common name ? Move request ? Takabeg (talk) 07:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Fifty civil engineering feats in Turkey, and WP:REDLINK

I see that you have removed all the red links that I added to the Fifty civil engineering feats in Turkey article. Red links are an inherent part of Wikipedia's structure: they are useful, because they invite the creation of new articles. In this case, the compilers of this list clearly thought that these particular engineering feats were sufficiently worthy of note to be celebrated in a special list -- it is therefore likely that each of them is notable enough for the creation of a Wikipedia article. Please see WP:REDLINK for more on this. -- The Anome (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

For an example of the sort of article that can be created from these redlinks, I've now created an article for the Kömürhan Bridge that cites academic papers written about the bridge: these are only a couple of the possible references, there are many more available to establish notability for this bridge.

Creating this article also created in its turn three new redlinks, for box-girder bridge, Elazığ-Malatya highway and balanced cantilever, showing the likely need for articles for each of these, and increasing the probability that they will be created by another user at some point. This is a good example of how the redlink system is meant to work. -- The Anome (talk) 10:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

...and that in turn has helped me create a redirect for box-girder bridge, so that it is no longer a redlink. -- The Anome (talk) 10:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulation for your efforts in creating the article Kömürhan Bridge. But still I find red links highly irritating for the eye. For one thing, the article Fifty civil engineering feats in Turkey is actually a list and any item without a blue link is easily understood as a non existent article. Since you are so determined to use the red links, I won't insist in reverting it. But still I feel it is my right to express my opinion against too many red links in an article created by me. Happy editting. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The Anome is right to state that it is a long established wikipedia convention to keep red links in place, for subject matter that should but does not yet have an article. The guideline, too, is clear enough. I respect that you have personal preferences, but trust that you will respect conventions developed over the years by a process of consensus, even where you do not personally buy into that consensus. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ottoman grand viziers

Sorry! Can you fix the links in the template then so avoid duplicate?Starzynka (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

History of Turkey

User:Lawrencekhoo suggested changing History of Turkey to an article about the history of the geographical region of Turkey. User:dbachmann who has some interesting views like "Turkey not in Europe" wrote the historical term for what is now Turkey is not "Turkey", but it is Anatolia. I don't think so, Anatolia is part of Turkey but Turkey has parts in Europe, so history of Anatolia cannot refer to history of Turkey between 1071(roughly)-1922. Can you comment on [6]? Indeed Cambridge University Press uses History of Turkey term [7]. Kavas (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Nedim Ardoğa. You have new messages at CeeGee's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Atilla Engin

Hello Nedim Ardoga, would you please review this very article about a Turkish Jazz/Fusion artist Atilla Engin? The article itself was tagged on 18th of September and since then underwent significant changes, including rewording some text and deleting some other. These changes were realized after back and forth, some fruithful discussions between me and a fellow editor named Pablo X who originally put the tag on. I wonder if this tag and its purpose is still valid, 16 days after, since all these improvements were made. I did not create the article, but I came up with many contributions, as a result of hectic research. I will greatly appreciate your input. Thank you Fusion is the future (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Nedim Ardoga, thank you very much. It was copy edited already on September 18 by reviewer Derild4921.

Another question: Since you reviewed the article, can you or for that matter anybody else (including myself) remove the tag?

I will also go ahead and make some changes towards your advice, in terms of the photos. Then I'll come back and ask your opinion about it. Thank you again. Fusion is the future (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources

No problem as such, but since most of it is copyrighted, I don't want to post a link to it that is publicly accessible. Of course, the internet being the internet, anyone who wants to can find out for themselves, but still... Happy editing! Constantine ✍ 09:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ottoman-Iran wars

I am sorry if you feel slighted or offended, it was certainly not my intention. I merely acted per WP:BOLD, since I had clearly tagged both articles for several days with no response, and assumed that silence equals consent, especially since the case was IMO clear-cut. The one being a disambiguation list and the other (yours) a somewhat fleshed out article, the former would inevitably be subsumed into the latter. I'll contact an admin to perform the history merge... Constantine ✍ 10:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, per WP:FMERGE, the two pages should stay separate, and merely appropriately tagged. I am proceeding to do that right now Constantine ✍ 10:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I like the Ottoman Empire too! We should be Wiki friends! Return of the 2006 Sensation (talk) 07:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nedim Ardoğa. You have new messages at Train2104's talk page.
Message added 19:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Timeline of the Seljuk Sultanate of Rûm

Do you have any sources for Ilkhanids defeat Seljuk Turks at the Battle of Sultanhan, Central Anatolia.? The only reference I found for a battle between the Ilkhanids and Seljuk Turks is the battle of Aksaray.[8],[9]. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure I have. The trouble is that I don't have English sources for pre Ottoman times. As for the location, Sultanhanı and Aksaray are close to each other, Sultanhanı at 38°15′N 33°33′E and Aksaray at 38°22′N 34°01′E and the distance between the two is about 37 kilometres (23 mi), within daily walking distance. But Sultanhanı is a cervansarai which was very important in middle age and Aksaray was a city. Now Sultanhanı is not shown on most maps and the two names may be used interchangeably for referring a historical event. Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

So are these one and the same battle or two different battles? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have two sources on the battle of Sultanhan . According to sources, Hulagu had been appointed as the supreme commander in south west territories of the Mongol Empire, Hulagu seized the pasturage of Baiju, the former supreme commander and Baiju asked for new pasturage from the Seljuks. Seljuks refused the request and they fought against Baiju in Sultanhan (October 1256) The translation of the phrase is “ Sultanhan which is near to Aksaray” There are no references to a second battle around Aksaray. By the way you can see an image of Sultanhan cervansarai in the article Aksaray. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Slm

About your revert, please read Talk:Battle of Bapheus and related academic works. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't invent the name Koyunhisar. It is on Türkiye tarihi Cilt II, AKDTYKTTK Yayınları, İstanbul, 1991 p 4 by Prof. Yaşar Yüce and Prof. Ali Sevim. I am not a historian but I find Atatürk Kültür Dil Kurumu a reliable authority on history and I have used their books as a source in a number of times in my edits. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Birde bu yazıyı da okursanız faydalı olacaktır. Takabeg (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If there are conflicting views on a poorly documented event, how do we know which one is correct ? Besides if the name Koyunhisar was incorrect, what is the correct one ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Bafeus Muharebesi is common use in Turkish. And it has no risk. If you insisted on using Koyun Hisar Muharebesi or Koyunhisar Muharebesi fot Battle of Bafeus, you have to explain that the naming of Koyunhisar Muharebesi is disputed. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I feel that a historical information lacking geographical data is useless. Where is Bapheus ? In addition to Yaşar Yüce and Ali Sevim,

• Lord Kinross:Ottoman centuries (trans Meral Gaspıralı) ISBN 978 975 21 6955 1 p 22
• Nicolae Jorga: Gescchiste des Osmanichen (trans Nilüfer Epçeli) ISBN 975 6480 18 1 p163
• Tarih dergisi Eylül 2009-Cemal Kafadar:Söğütte Kuruldu Koyunhisar'da parladı p 38
• Sakarya Uni.

all call this battle as battle of Koyunhisar. According to the map of Tarih Dergisi Koyunhisar is very near to Hersek a cape facing present day Dilovası on the other side of the peninsula. If you have an additional information about the contemporary name or the location, please edit it, otherwise please don't delete the name Koyunhisar. Happy editting. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

But I know (maybe you also know) some books (including Turkish school textbooks) repeated to give this wrong information. In this case, what do we have to do for Wikipedia ? Takabeg (talk) 06:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

In Wikipedia the contributors are not allowed to use original research. We have to use reliable references and that's what I am trying to do. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Now do you claim Halil İnalcık's research might be original research ? Have you read any specific articles about the battle of Bapheus ? Takabeg (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sayın Ardoğa. Söz konusu maddede İnalcık'ın makalesi mevcuttur. Ama kullanılmamıştır herhalde. Birde muharebenin tarihi ve savaş alanı hakkında da çeşitli iaddialar bulunmaktadır. Maddenin güzelce kaynaklandırılması lazım. (in Turkish) Takabeg (talk) 09:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he is, although he didn't do well with his imperial wife. Majuru (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Halis

Merci :). Can you translate Yassıada ve Kayseri 'den sonrki kısımı ? Beni aşıyo. Hava a nice day. Takabeg (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Çok merci. Birde do you know English counterpart of the term of Tasfiye-i Rüteb-i Askeriye Kanunu ? I want to use it in the article of Fevzi Çakmak. Takabeg (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly I don't know. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you! Good catch! Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 11:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No original research

Sayın Ardoğa, please control Talk:Göktürk civil war. We cannot accept Original research. And what's Onomastic table of the reference ??? Takabeg (talk) 06:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Takebeg,You are wellcome to contribute to Wikipedia . But unfortunatelly you prefer to tag everything in instead of creating. That is not positive contribution. Almost in all my articles you have tags for citations. But the sources are there . The trouble is that in Wikipedia it is almost impossible for tagging op. cit., i.e., different page of an already cited reference. (Or else there is a method which I am unawere of) But you can be sure there is no original reserach. Every thing is taken from the cited sources. As for onamastic, that's a term used by the professionals. The table I show is taken from a much wider table in the the reference I 've shown (N.G.Gumilev) . You can check it. From now on please see the references before accusing. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I read and checked all problems and I show them with tags. Did Gumilev use those terms ? Or you transliterated according to Gumilev ? Anway we must prefer to use common name in English, and add information with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources without Original research. For example, I've never seen names such as Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Yesterday I saw them in only some forums. Takabeg (talk) 07:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Amrak ? Takabeg (talk) 08:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't fabricate those names. Why would I ? They were taken from the source. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Facricate ? Öyle demedim ki :) Ancak İngilizcede hiç yaygın olmayan öneri yani Gumilev'in öneri metinlerde kullanmak yanlıştır. Aslıdna Türkçe araştırmalarında bile kullanılmıyor, biliyorsunuzdur. Takabeg (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Meriç

Öncelikle şu an dışarıda olduğum için yeterli kaynaklara başvurma şansım yoktur. 72 saat sonra evde olacağım. Ancak iki ayrı muharebe gerçekleştirilmiştir. İzahlı Osmanlı... . Birde Sırp Sındığı kelimesinin etimolojisi konsuunda kesin bilgi bulamadım. Kelimenin kökü neyse Sırp Sındığı bir mevkinin adı Genkur.. Sadece Sırplar katılmadı müttefik katıldılar. First Battle of Maritsa (Birinci Meriç Muharebesi) = Sırp Sındığı Muharevbesi. Çok yaygın olmasa da İngilizcede de Türkçede de birinci ve ikinci ayrımı yapılıyor. Second Battle of Maritsa (İkinci Meriç Muharebesi) = Çimen Muharebesi. Eve döndükten sonra orayada bilgileri ve kaynakları aktaracağım. (in Turkish) Takabeg (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Mesela burada first / second adlandırmasını görebilirsiniz. Ammaaaa 1363 diyor :)) Takabeg (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Your contribution to talk page of Battle of Maritsa supports 1371 theory which contradicts Turkish Wikipedia. If so why don't you improve the text in Turkish Wikipedia which places the battle on 1364.? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Uyar said that different battles broke out in Marica (Chernomen). In Turkish Wikipedia tr:Çirmen Muharebesi and tr:Sırpsındığı Muharebesi. Anyway articles in Turkish Wikipedia are not important. Because kaynaksız :) Takabeg (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Bunu alıp okursanız....Takabeg (talk) 06:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not a professional historian and I am not going to prove anything. I only want to point out that there are many versions of the same event even among the historians. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sırp Sındığı is in Edirne province. Chernomen is not in Turkey. Please read the book of Uzunçarşılı...also there are other sources like "Türkiye Tarihi" (by Yılmaz Öztuna), etc. "Sırp Sındığı Muharebesi" /Battle of Sırpsındığı (in 1364) Stephen Uroš V of Serbia, Louis I of Hungary (Lajos) and Tvrtko I of Bosnia wanted to attack Edirne... Murad I was in Bursa at that time... Hacı İlbeyi attacked the Serbs at night and beat them... Böri (talk) 11:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I have already read your rationale in the talk page of the article. For one thing Hacı İlbey had died before 1371. On the other hand 1371 battle was a classical battle and not a night raid. So there must be two battles. That's what I gather from Lord Kinross and Yaşar Yücel-Ali Sevim. But the majority of western sources disregard the first battle just like the contributors of the article. It would be fine if somebody creates an article about the 1363/1364 event. (I don't have enough references myself) . Why don't you try ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The Battle of Sırpsındığı in Ottoman Turkish: ...nâgâh haber geldi, Sırf leşkeri hücûm itdi didiler. Kasdı Edrene’ye gelmekdür. Kırk Elli Bin mikdârı leşkeri vardur... Sırf leşkeri Edrene’ye yakın gelmiş idi... şimdi ana Sırf Sınduğu dirler...gâziler bir gece tabl-bâz kakup dün basgunı itdi. Sırf leşkeri mağrur olup sarhoş yaturken nâgâh tabl âvâzın ve gâziler ünin işitdiler. “Türk geldi” diyü birbirine dokındılar. Atları ürkdi ve boşandı, bunları çiğnedi. Kâfirler dahı kılıç çeküp birbirin kırmağa başladı. Âhir sınup münhezim olup kaçdılar. Ba’zı râvîler rivâyet ederler kim Sırf leşkerin Hacı İlbeği sıdı dirler... Hacı İlbeğü aydur: “Yoldaşlar nice idelüm” dedi, Yoldaşlar aydur: “Tedbîr sizindir. Siz nice idersenüz eyle idelüm dediler. Andan Hacı İlbeği her yoldaşını bir depeye kodı. Andan bulara ısmarladı. Her kaçan ben tabl-bâz urup haykıram, herbirinüz dahı eyle idün didi. Kendüsi kâfirlerün bir yanına geçüp heman tabl-bâz urup tekbir getürüp bire gaziler koman diyü çağırdı. Çün kâfir leşkeri ol âvâzları işitdi, gördiler kim dört yanların Türk almış, kendüler ara yirde kalmışlar. Hemendem “Türk geldi” diyü birbirine tokuşup, ol orman arasına tağılup birbirine kılıç urdılar. Karanu gice içinde birbirin fark itmeyüp, eyle kırdılar kim vasf olunmaz. Hemandem münhezim olup kaçdılar gitdiler... Lala Şâhin dahı, İlbeği’nün dilâverliğini görüp, ol zaman beğlerine hoş gelmeyüp adâvet bağladılar. Âkıbet hîle ile Hacı İlbeği’yi helâk ettiler.

= my translation: Suddenly a news came (to Bursa*) that the Serbs were coming ... They wanted to capture Edirne. They had 40-50 000 men. The Serbs were near Edirne. Today, this place is called Sırp Sındığı. A small group of Turks (10 000 men*) attacked at night (with mehter!) The Serbian soldiers were high & mighty and drunk! The Serbs shouted: “The Turk came!” (they thought that Murad I was there!*) The horses of the Serbs ran away and killed the Serbian soldiers... At night, the Serbs didn’t see anything and they began to kill their own soldiers! (thinking that they were the Turks!) At the end the Serbs lost the battle... Hacı İlbeği beat the Serbs. Hacı İlbeği said “What will we do, my soldiers!” His soldiers said: “We will do whatever you want” They attacked the Serbs from four directions... The Serbs lost the battle... Most of them ran away to the forest and killed each other there! Lala Şahin Paşa (Beylerbeyi) saw that Hacı İlbeği was a mad man! [Because Hacı İlbeği fought against the Serbs... Lala Şahin Paşa didn’t fight against the Serbs, he was waiting the army of Murad I. Lala Şahin Paşa became the enemy of Hacı İlbeği (The hero of this battle)...]* Hacı İlbeği was killed! (by poison*) Böri (talk) 08:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Direct translation of a 14th century text is difficult. Are you going to upload this paragraph as as an example of an historical document or an article of the battle. For the battle I think more sources are needed. As for the translation I noted the following:

Their target was Edirne instead of They wanted to capture Edirne.

They have come close to Edirne the capital instead of They were near Edirne

Drunk instead of high and mighty

In the darkness of night instead of they didn’t see antything

Escaped from the battle field instead of lost the battle

defeated instead of beat

Several times ghazi was translated as Turks and Infidel was translated as Serb.

Also several sentences were omitted. It would be best if . . . are used in the place of omitted sentences. Happy editting Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'll change it. I translated it in 5 minutes. Source: Anonim Osmanlı Kroniği 1299-1512 (hazırlayan: Necdet Öztürk). Please begin to write this article (Battle of Sırpsındığı) in English. I will help you ,but please you begin first! Talking on talk page is not enough! The Serbs (and the others) don't see it (as an article)... Also I wrote it on Turkish Wiki Talk page. Regards. Böri (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I don’t have the sources. Only several sentences from Yaşar Yücel-Ali Sevim and one sentence from Lord Kinross. And the passage you’ve quoted is not an academic source. So lets make it this way. You upload the article and I’ll help if I can. have a good day. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Edirne was not the capital in 1364. The Turks captured Edirne between 1361-1363, but it became the capital in 1365(after this battle)...Bursa was the capital at that time! Niye Türkçe konuşmuyoruz? :) Maddeye lütfen siz başlayın, saygılar... Böri (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I found an another source: "Osmanlı Tarihi" (Yusuf Halaçoğlu) Anadolu Uygarlıkları Cilt:4 Görsel Yayınlar sf:697 Do "they" like Yusuf Halaçoğlu? :) Böri (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sırpsındığı savaşı: :Stanford J.Shaw: History of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey, Volume I Please read it!

http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=E9-YfgVZDBkC&pg=PA18&dq=Battle+of+Maritsa+1364&hl=tr&ei=c8bUTNK4KIG2vwPC7PDQCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CE8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Battle%20of%20Maritsa%201364&f=false Böri (talk) 10:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Kosovo

Please write your opinions on here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Kosovo#Decisive_Ottoman_Victory

Battle of Kosovo, maddede "Result Inconclusive" diyor. Sırp arkadaşımız(?) da "Sırplar kazandı" vb. diyor... Saygılar Böri (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Jorga also says inconclusive . But according to Kinross it was an Ottoman victory. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 09:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

They are attacking Atatürk!

Please look at Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk I deleted it... they wrote "eşek" on this page... Böri (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sardarabad

Hi. Common name in English is Battle of Sardarabad. Takabeg (talk) 06:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Görüşünüz yok mu ? Ben değiştireyim o zaman. Birde Hasan Izzet maddesini zenginleştirebilir misiniz ? Özellikle World War bölümü. Böyle bir kaynak bulmuşken geliştirelim diyorum. Yardımınıza ihtiyacımız var. (in Turkish)Takabeg (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have sources for the two topics you have cited. But I am ready to help for the details and syntax. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Tamam. Gramer hatalarımı kontrol ederseniz sevineceğim. Aslında Battle of Sardarabad eksik. Diğer maddelerde de görüyorum da Osmanlı'nın yeri yok gibi :) Mesela Second Balkan War. Ah şunu da soracaktım. Battle of Domokos, Advance to Adrianople gibi maddeler niye yok ? Dömeke Muharebesi ile ilgili yeterli kaynaklar yok elimde ama Erirne açabilirim. Hadi hoşçakalın. Takabeg (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahmed İzzet Pasha ve Ahmet İzzet aynı zat değil mi ? İngilizce Vikide nasıl yazılmalı ? Ahmed Izzed Pasha mı ? Takabeg (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

1. They are the same person. I think that the names should be written in their script . But titles can be changed according to spelling. So I prefer Ahmet İzzet Pasha.
2. Dömeke savaşı has no articles . But it is included in Greco-Turkish War (1897) using the name Battle of Domakos.
3. A question from me. Are Ahmad Khurshid Pasha and Hursid Pasha the same person ? The first is a governor of Egypt in early 19th century. The second grand vizier during Mahmud II's reign. Please see the merge discussion in the talk page of the latter. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Osmanlıcanın İngilizcedeki transkriptine bağlı demek ki. Hurşidler konusuna gelince, aynı kişi gibime geldi ama emin olamadım. Adaşları daha vardır. İnceleyeceğim. Takabeg (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Konuyl ilgili olan kitap olarak şu an elimde sadece Stanford Shaw'ın History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey var. Bu kitapta sadece 1812-1815 yılları arasında Grand Vezirliğini yapmış ve 1802'de vefat etmiş Ahmet Hurşit Paşa (Shaw böyle yazıyor)'nın balkanlarda uyguladığı zulümü yer alıyor. provincial governor, defeated and executed Ali Paşa of Janina diyor. Birde Talk:Kurdish diaspora#Requested move konusunda görüşünüz var mı ? Yani Kurdish diaspora olunca Kürdistan'ın dışında yaşamayanlar diasporada olmadıklarını ileri sürerek Türkiye'nin muhtelif yerlerinde ikamet eden Kürt vatandaşlarıyla ilgili bilgileri maddeden kaldırmaya çalışıyor. Belki Talk:Turkish population ve Talk:Turkish diaspora maddelerdeki ciddi sorunları bulduğum için misilleme yapmış olabilir. Takabeg (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Splitting

There is an article about two persons with similar names. (Benderli Paşa) I proposed splitting the article into two. I tagged it and I have the consent of the author. However when the article will be splitted by copy and paste method, then one part will lose the edit summary which is unfair. Is there a method to split the artcile and yet keep the common edit summary in both parts ? Thanks Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you do not mean "edit summary" but page history. If so, no, there is no way to duplicate an article's page history and this would be a copyright nightmare and destroy that page history because it could no longer be followed and would no longer be correct. However, if you follow the proper method for splitting a page, you will provide attribution for where the complete history came from in both page's using the edit summary (yes, the edit summary) by attributing where the material is going to when you remove it, and attributing where the material came from when you create the split article, in the forms, respectively: "split content to [[article name]]" and "split content from [[article name]]". Hope this helps.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hurşid

Depoya gittim ve İzahlı Osmanlı Tarihi Kronolojisi'ni getirdim. Bu kıymetli kaynağa göre, Hurşid Ahmed Paşa: Üçüncü Selim devri Mısır valilerinden ve İkinci Mahmud devri vezir-i a'zamlardan. Diğer Hurdidler olarak Hurşid Paşa: İkinci Abdülhamid ve Beşinci Mehmet Reşad devirleri Topçu feriklerinden: Nâzırlıkları da vardır. Hurşid Paşa: "Mehmet -" Sultan Mecid devrinde Beyrut ve Sayda valisi. Takabeg (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Birde yukarıda konuşulan Benderli hakkında şu bilgi veriliyor:

199) Benderli Ali-Paşa - Milliyeti: (?); tâyini: 1821 = 1236 senesi 28 Mart = 23 Cumâda-l-âhire Çarşanba günü; azli: 1821 = 1236 senesi 30 Nisan = 27 rebeb Pazartesi günüİ sadâret müddeti: 1 ay, 3 gün.

201) Benderli-Mehmet Selim Sırrı Paşa - Milliyeti: (?); tâyini: 1824 = 1240 senesi 14 Eylül = 20 Muharrem Salı günü; azli: 1828 = 1244 senesi 24 Teşrinievvel = 14 Rebî'ül-âhir Cuma günü; sadâret müddeti: 4 sene, 1 ay, 10 gün.

Sources

Takabeg (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Your English contributions to Wikipedia

Recognizing both your creative energy and apparent desire to improve Wikipedia with expanded content, I offer a few words of caution: as evidenced by articles and edits of your creation, your apprehension of English is below that required to draft material that accurately reflects the content of referenced material. It is not just the use of non-English spelling, broken diction, or non-native colloquialisms, but connotation and nuance of meaning that are lacking. Your self assessment that you 'contribute with a near-native level of English' is plainly inaccurate. When drafting articles, such as Melek Ahmet Pasha, I highly recommend that you partner with an adept English language user.Mavigogun (talk) 06:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your warning. Beginning by 2009 September, I have created more than 250 articles. (mostly about telecommunications, history and geography) Except for some silly spelling errors, this is the first time I am warned. OK I’ll try to be more careful. But you should realize that this is a project of collabrotion and all users can improve the articles in syntax or grammer even if they are not familiar with the subject. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Rica

Rica etsem Talk:Fevzi Çakmak, Talk:Nureddin Pasha maddelerini değerlendirir misiniz ? Anladığım kadarıyla sınıfı değiştirmek için yetki gerekiyor. Mesela askerî projeninki değişmiyor. Hoşçakalın. (in Turkish) Takabeg (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Birde Talk:Army of Islam (Ottoman Empire) artık Stub seviyesinde değildir bence. Takabeg (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Ottomans of Greek descent

Bunun gerekçesi nedir ? Aslında kaynaklar varken kategori kaldırılmalıdır. Kaynaksız bilgi ise kaldırılabilirsiniz. İyi çalışmalar. (in Turkish) Takabeg (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What does Ottoman of Greek descent mean ? Probably this refers to the origin of their mother. We know that almost all valide sultans were of different descents. Greeks as well as Albanians, Serbs, Bosnians, Circassians, etc. Some them were even French or Italian. So there was not a single descent. But in most cases, the origin of the slave girls is ambigious. (For example in article Osman II his mother is shown to be of Greek descent and in the list of Valide Sultans it is shown to be of Serbian descent.) Besides the children were raised in Ottoman tradition not in the tradition of their mothers descent. So except for DNA make up of their cells they had nothing to to with the descent of their mother. In fact most of them even couldn't speak their mother's language. So how can we call Osman II of Greek descent when his mother was of (probably) of Serbian origin and his granddmother was of Italian origin ? I can only accept a category as "mother's descent" Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Descent demek ki nesil veya köken demektir, kimler tarafından nerede, nasıl yetiştirilmiş olması ile alakalı değildir. Bence kaynaklar olduğu halde kaldırılamaz. Söz konusu kategori 1 September 2009 tarihinde eklenmiştir. Yani 1 yıldan fazla zaman geçmiştir ve aynen duruyor. Bu durumda hele kaynaklandırıldığı halde kategorileri kaldırmak doğru olamaz. Aslında ekleyen kullanıcıya da sorarsanız iyi olacaktır. Birde category as "mother's descent" açılırsa "father's descent" de gerekecektir :) Takabeg (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I know what descent means. Among the grand mothers of Osman II, there were 5 Turks, 3 Greeks, 2 Italians, and also 3 different origins (assuming that the list was correct and the slave girls were pure in descent.) Even if the list is incorrect we know that the mothers were either politically chosen (i.e. Turk) or slave girls (from all Christian lands) So there was no single descent as far as the DNA is concerned. But if the sense of belonging is taken into consideration they were all purely Ottoman. Please don't rush to revert everything before consulting. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Population of Athens during the Ottoman period

The coverage of the Ottoman period in the demographics section is too low and I added some basic info but there should be more[10], so please look for more sources if you can.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 18:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Istanbul

An article that you have been involved in editing, Istanbul , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going to the article and clicking on the (Discuss) link at the top of the article, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. İnfoCan (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Suleiman Bridge

Hello, Nedim Ardoğa. You have new messages at Talk:Suleiman Bridge.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Prefamilile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6sem_Sultan

Bu kişi veya kişiler osmanlı tarihi üzerine onur kırıcı fetih efsaneleri yazmaktadır, farkında omanızı bilginize sunarım, Zafer bozkurt, dizgi ve tasarımcı. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.179.176.237 (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of Turkish letters

Hi. Is there an established rule regarding the use of Turkish letters in the English Wikipedia? Regarding the article Hatt-i humayun, I am uncertain as to whether to spell it as "hatt-i humayun" "hatt-ı hümayun" or "hatt-ı hümâyûn" throughout the article. --İnfoCan (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no rule. I prefer to write the proper nouns as they are in Turkish. But for the other nouns I use the English versions. I think the following discussion [11] I was involved last month, on the use of names may be helpful. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Airports of Turkey

Template:Airports of Turkey has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Treaty of Istanbul/Constantinople

Nedim, I've said it before: internationally, in European languages, the city was still known as Constantinople until the 1930s. And since a peace treaty is an international agreement and enters legal and historical usage, the name of the time is used. Go check Google for bibliography on this treaty: usage is overwhelmingly in favour of "Constantinople", while "Istanbul" is used either by Turkish publications or by works that treat the Ottoman Empire only (and which naturally prefer Turkish forms). Treaties, like battles, are historical events, and their names are part of their historical identity, meaning that they do not get renamed if the place they are named after is renamed. That is why we don't have a "Fall of Istanbul" or "First Arab Siege of Istanbul" article either. Since you brought up Peking, see the "Convention of Peking". It was drafted while the city was internationally known as Peking, and has not been (and probably will never be) renamed since. Constantine ✍ 14:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nedim Ardoğa. You have new messages at Auntof6's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Award

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Merhaba! I, Darwinek, hereby award you this barnstar for your tireless contribution to Türkiye-related articles on Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. Kendine iyi bak. Darwinek (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know

You might consider keeping a closer eye on Turkish articles(which were vandalized by this editor[12]), since User:Atabek has decided to launch an attack on my editing and accusing me of racism, I will not be watching these articles any further. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)