User talk:Lardayn
|
Again welcome
Dear Lardayn, Thanks for your contributions to Turkey related pages. Please continue your contributions in positive manner, refrain yourself to falldawn into edit-rv wars. Please dont hesitate to ask help when you neded. Regards.
Unspecified source and copyright for Image:Rumsfeld-vs-Saddam.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Rumsfeld-vs-Saddam.gif. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.
The file also doesn't have a copyright tag, so one must be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on
March 2007
Hello
Just wish to say welcome here. Please do not get dishearten and leave wikipedia. If you need any help you are welcome to leave a message at my talk page In next few weeks I will start an arbitration case regarding pictures of Muhammad in the article. I will invite you to help us reach some solution. --- ALM 16:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
sorry for the revert in Iraq
Yes, your reason for Turkish being in the lead does make sense. Thanks for explaining why in your edit comment. Peace, Drmaik 14:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Reply
No worries mate. I'm sure we can work nicely together. Regards! :-) - Zippocar 06:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
This user's attempted censorship
This User's censorship continues unabated: see Hagia Sophia. --Wetman 14:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- What I did is removing the articles without any sources. I stand against racism that many including you are in. --Lardayn 12:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- All - please see ]
- I'll consider that, thank you.--hnnvansier 12:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pedro"
- Thankyou for your moderate response.
Hi
Welcome to Wikipedia!! I hope that you will enjoy your time here. I was thinking that maybe you would like to get involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Turkey - we need all the help that we can get! There you can also find and contact users who are trying to improve Turkey-related articles. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Baristarim 04:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Listen, I don't think that Khoikhoi is being racist against the Turks :) When you feel that there is a point of contention, rather use the talk pages to discuss than engage in edit-wars. Most of the contentious articles have been rewritten many times and after long debates and discussions, so it is normal that it is sometimes hard to make the changes that you would like to do. But, just use the talk pages and raise your points there - it will be better. Cheers! Baristarim 05:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
An Automated Message from HagermanBot
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
Sources
Your information provided in articles are not NPOV nor third party please use appropriate references. Ashkani 10:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Muhammad pictures
I am back and I will need your help after 15 days. Please be around and ready for help. Wassalam. -:) --- ALM 11:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- and thank you for leaving messages on my talk page. --- ALM 11:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:Deniz efe acikgoz sml.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to
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 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "
- Please delete it.--hnnvansier (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Cyprus massacre
Mass deleting? I am merely reverting the article back to the way it was before "someone" (cough cough) made some extremely POV edits that pretty much cast doubt that the whole affair ever existed. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 06:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Very true. However, the version I reverted back to is cited, whereas your additions were merely personal reservations. Unfortunately, at least the Nicosia massacre is well-attested. Check the following sources: On Nicosia [1], [2], [3] and [4]. On overall Venetian and Cypriot losses, amounting to over 50,000 by contemporary reckoning, [5] page 990. As for overall population of the island, it was about 160,000 in the mid-16th century [6]. Now, given that capitals always have a large number of people, and that in wartime, the people of the countryside flee to the cities (and Cyprus had only two fortified cities at the time, Nicosia and Famagusta), 20,000 is a perfectly normal number. PS, as should by now be obvious, I do not consider the Cyprus massacre to be either informative or well-named. But dismissing what you don't like wholesale as propaganda is not helpful either. When you disagree with something in WP, there is only one remedy: back up your claims with sources. I don't like unsourced allegations of massacres either, but this is not one of them... Constantine ✍ 07:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)]
- Lardayn, while I appreciate your effort to disprove this, publications from the Turkish General Staff and the TRNC are not exactly WP:RS, when it comes to admitting such things. It would be like using Greek or Cypriot government publications to disprove any wrongdoings at all against Turkish-Cypriots. I can also go to bookstores and find books to back up virtually any claim you care to make. You said these publications don't mention the massacres. That does not mean they did not happen. Not mentioning something is not disproving it, but rather whitewashing it. The massacres however are mentioned by independent foreign scholars, and more importantly, by contemporary accounts. Under no circumstances could they have been invented for 20th-century political propaganda, since they are mentioned by 16th-century Venetians! I really don't want to get into an edit war over this, since anyway the article is likely going to be merged into the Ottoman-Venetian War article. But accept what happened. All countries and nations have committed atrocities at one time or another, neither the Turks nor the Greeks are an exception to this... Constantine ✍ 10:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)]
- I cannot under any circumstances accept your point. If you say something "may not have happened", then you dispute that it happened, and ergo, since an event either did or did not happen, you claim it did not. On what ground? Because it is not mentioned in three books? I have at least a dozen book right now in my library about the Second World War that don't mention the Holocaust explicitly. Does this mean the Holocaust "may not have happened"? As for the sources, since when must a historical book have a verified "purpose" to be reliable? Do we choose what sources to believe base on our personal preference? In that case, the Turkish books ought to be removed at once, because sure as hell they do have an agenda. And how exactly does a country study for the Library of Congress have an anti-Turkish agenda? I'd think the US is removed and to not care enough so as to be neutral about that. And either way, right above I have provided you with a series of sources by neutral and expert scholars that verify the historicity of the event (although perhaps not the scale claimed in the article). There are contemporary reports of the massacres. How much clearer can this get? I am very much afraid you are driving POV to limits here... Constantine ✍ 11:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Lardayn, while I appreciate your effort to disprove this, publications from the Turkish General Staff and the TRNC are not exactly
- This is not the place to discuss Turkish foreign policy, or what the "entire Turkish nation" does or not. You have still failed to acknowledge that independent authors, in the links given above (did you even check them thoroughly?), clearly mention these events. Especially given that some of the authors, like Setton, are among the foremost experts in the period. Instead you persist stating that, because they are not mentioned by some books - and don't try to convince me that a publication by the Turkish General Staff (or any General staff, for that matter) would ever say anything that would tarnish its image - they did not happen. Setton clearly states that a book published in 1571 accounts for 56,000 dead or imprisoned people in Cyprus. If you want a contemporary eyewitness account, here you are. Page 107: "the Turks slew that day above 20,000 persons". Constantine ✍ 11:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- No one can forbid you to think and say anything. If you wish to deny these events, be my guest. But adding your own personal and hitherto unsupported opinions to Wikipedia as official views is verifiable. Then you can add it, and I'll defend your right to do it. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 22:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)]
- No one can forbid you to think and say anything. If you wish to deny these events, be my guest. But adding your own personal and hitherto unsupported opinions to Wikipedia as official views is
- I read it, and I appreciate your sentiment. There are also people here in Greece who believe similar stuff, i.e. that Greeks always fought cleanly, never engaged in ethnic cleansing, etc., even when there are diaries by generals describing arson and mass executions. That is the difference between personal beliefs and establishing what happened, which is what scholars are for. That is why you can have whatever opinion you want, but unless backed by solid evidence and research, you cannot add it here even as an "alternative" fact. Because some people will come and say "hey, Wiki mentions that these things may not have even happened, I'll bet they're just anti-Turkish propaganda." And since contemporary reports maintain they did happen, that would be flat-out misinformation. Regards, Constantine ✍ 22:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I did not write the article, so don't accuse me of its content. There certainly must have been Armenians on the island, since Armenian Cilicia was just opposite, and Armenian communities exist in Cyprus still. Anyway, that is not the point. You ask, "why should the Ottomans perpetrate such a massacre"? They had nothing to gain from it, you say, quite rightly so. But massacres of this sort have happened many times after sieges, especially if the siege was costly to the besiegers, as in Nicosia. It was usual that army commanders would allow their troops to rampage for a few days and do whatever they liked after a city fell. This is not confined to the Ottomans, but can be found throughout human history. It is not a matter of deliberate policy, but of the frustrations and bestialization that war induces. Second, I never said anything about the Ottoman archives, or that Turks can't read Ottoman Turkish etc. Please don't put words in my mouth or distort what I wrote. Have you actually read the archives yourself? Have you consulted a history book that is not affiliated with the General Staff or a ministry of state? Because here in Greece too, if I read the Army History Directorate's books, I won't find any account of such acts perpetrated by the Greek Army. If there's one thing that I've learned from ten years of reading history books, it's that official versions of history always tend to gloss over embarrassing facts, mostly by not mentioning them. For example, in Turkey, much is made of the atrocities perpetrated during the 1919-1922 war by Greeks. Here, official histories don't mention anything at all. Ergo, by your reckoning, it did not happen. And I assure you, the Greek state has archives as good as the Ottoman state did... As for who wrote of the massacre, I gave you the links, read them. The guy was an eye witness and survivor, what more do you actually want? A written statement by the pasha that his forces killed 20,000 people? I wonder, if the massacre didn't happen, where did these 20,000 people vanish to? Someone should have mentioned them, or not? Why would the Venetians accuse their government of being responsible of the death and imprisonment of over 50,000 people, if these people were actually safe and sound? But whatever argument I present, if you don't want to be convinced, you won't. Constantine ✍ 11:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your edits to the page
I would propose - as a means to avoid any dispute about this matter - that you certainly could - and should - state an opposing view regarding the Armenian Genocide on the page
Still, I would urge you not to delete any material verified by citations, at least until it's been discussed on the talk page.
I hope we can work together on this to build a better Wikipedia. Please feel free to reply on my talk page, if you'd like. Katana0182 (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
March 2009
]
- I'd second this and say that your edit to the Falkland War article was equally unhelpful. There is a place for funny, it isn't in article space. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hrm? No, it doesn't require hours to click 'My Watchlist' and spot such obvious vandalism. Or was that annother poor attempt at humour? Also, could you stop marking all your edits as minor when they blatantly arn't? Minor fixes, adding a word you missed...that is minor. Entire talkpage posts? Not so much. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)