Misplaced Pages

User talk:Chapultepec: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:39, 8 September 2007 editSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,555,318 editsm Automatically signing comment made by Ortis12← Previous edit Revision as of 17:41, 8 September 2007 edit undoOrtis12 (talk | contribs)36 edits →Bulgarian Origin: new sectionNext edit →
Line 203: Line 203:


Cok guzel. Tesekkurler...--]] 21:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Cok guzel. Tesekkurler...--]] 21:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

== Bulgarian Origin ==

One truth worth more than a thousand lies!
You cant generalise Origin based on no evidence and foulthy information.
The subject of the Ethnic Origin of the Bulgars is been controversial for many years now. However there are several different theories , and none of them have been proven definitive. Some claim that they are of Turkic Origin ,which arose doubts and controversies, since there is no objective evidence to support it. Other Historians lately claim that Bulgars are of Iranian descent, based on resent archeological research and facts.
You can revert my posts or block me, but cant BLOCK the Truth!!!
--]

Revision as of 17:41, 8 September 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Chapultepec, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Mushroom (Talk) 21:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you... Chapultepec 21:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow!

I love the pictures on your userpage! Do you mind if I add them to my gallery? —Khoikhoi 22:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly you can add them, those are my contributions to everyone...
Chapultepec 22:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. :) Did you get caught up in the violence in whlie you were in the Caucasus? —Khoikhoi 22:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
That's interesting. So you were only in Ingushetia? That's a pretty small area, I would figure that you've been to Chechnya, or even Dagestan as well. —Khoikhoi 23:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps someday I'll go there, too...take care. —Khoikhoi 23:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.Khosrow II 15:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You just broke 3RR. However, if you revert it back to the last version by me, your changes wont count, and you wont be subject to a block. Its your choice, be blocked or unmake your changes.Khosrow II 17:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
No, in fact you broke the 3RR. If you count the reverts you made you can get it. And if you go to the article and see what I did and what I wrote in the messages of the last edits I made, you can easily understand it...
Chapultepec 17:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Since you accepted my proposal I will not report you.Khosrow II 17:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
In fact you did at least four reverts, and you deserve to be reported for it. But I think we came to a compromise and I don't think to report you too....
Moreover, I did not accept your proposal. Your proposal came after I thought the change and made my actions..
Chapultepec 17:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad you guys worked it out (at least I hope). In the future the place to go is WP:AN/3RR (new reports go at the bottom). —Khoikhoi 18:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Khoikhoi...
Chapultepec 18:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR Violations

Report them to WP:AN3 using the format specified at the bottom of the page. alphaChimp 19:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you AlphaChimp. I don't think to report him for the time being.
Chapultepec 19:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Baklava

This article is horrible written this sentence doesn't even belong there.

"The history of baklava, like that of many other foods, is not well documented. Though it has been claimed by many groups, the best evidence is that it is ultimately of Central Asian Turkic origin, but that its current form was developed in the imperial kitchens of the Topkapı Palace." Nareklm 11:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You erased my edits without reason. I cited a valid source, next time tell me why you reverted. --152.216.11.5 13:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edit? --152.216.11.5 13:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Above question was addressed to Chapultepec, not Nareklm --Oguz1 14:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
my mistake, sorry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oguz1 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Re: Yeniceri_aga.jpg

You might want to ask that question at Misplaced Pages:Media Copyright Questions and they will be happy to help. —Pilotguy (ptt) 23:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Hi, I've noticed your adding external links, and with spam a major concern, we try to keep an eye on people adding lots of links to Misplaced Pages, please don't think I'm accusing you of any impropriety, but I am curious - is there any reason you've added links to over 100 pages today ? Do the articles absolutely need this information and have you contacted anybody before adding these links. ? --Kind Regards - Heligoland 02:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Rumelia

Okay, Britannica might be one source, but any Turkish dictionary you open you'll find out that 'rum' translates to 'Greek' or in modern times 'Greek of turkish citizenship'. Most importantly, there's a different word to say "Roman". 'Rum' comes from the Arabic 'Ram', which was a name for Byzantium and sometimes for ancient Greece. Either way in post-Byzantine times 'Rum' refers only to Greeks, and it's still in used today for Greeks of Turkish citizenship and Cypriots. Denying this fact is like reducing the status of ethnic Greeks in Turkey and Cyprus to a subjet people who doesn't have the right to claim an ethnicity. Miskin 20:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

List of English words of Sanskrit Origin

Thanks for your great work on this page. I noticed that there are a number of quotes from the On-line etymological dictionary. Since the dictionary material is copyrighted, I just wanted to make sure the extensive quoting was not a problem. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! OK, great, so you have it under control. I should add that you have done a great job on that page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yıldız

Sure, good idea. I've also fixed the links at Çırağan Palace, Cinema of Turkey, Golden Horn, and Bezmiâlem. Khoikhoi 05:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. If you look at Category:Islands of Turkey and Category:Islands in the Sea of Marmara, you'll see that both are used. I guess it depends on which island, but we should use whatever name is most common in English. I prefer "Marmara Island" over "Marmara Adası", but I have no problem with just "Avşa". Cheers, Khoikhoi 06:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Tahn

I guarantee you, Tahn is exactly the same as Ayran. It is normally a flat drink, though in some places you have the option of getting the version with gas in it... but you always have the flat version option as that is the normal Tahn, the default - what you get at Zankou Chicken and all the other restaurants. --RaffiKojian 15:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yoghurt

What makes you think it was invented somewhere? —Michael Fourman 00:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi. I'm happy with the Bulgars etc., but in any warm region of the world yoghurt just happens - it really is a matter of discovery, rather than invention. And then you find it happens faster if you add a little of the old yoghurt as a starter, so the better strains get selected.—Michael Fourman 01:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Great. I've tidied a bit more, and put first back. OK? —Michael Fourman 07:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Oghuz Turks

Hey. The source is very outdated. Since then, genetic testing has been done, and genetic testing has shown no Oghuz descent. The only Oghuz connection is linguistic, its more accurate to say that the Oghuz Turks are the linguistic ancestors of todays Turkic speakers in Europe/South West Asia.Azerbaijani 14:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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 | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Maestro 10:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Maestro 11:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Turkish cuisine

Hi, our friend Zy is adding lots of good material to the Turkish cuisine article, but I fear he is adding too much material which is redundant with other articles. Please take a look at my comment in Talk:Turkish cuisine and see what you think. I wanted to make a joke with patlama dolması or something, but it's hard to be funny when you're at the dictionary+grammar stage of learning a language.... --Macrakis 05:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

RE Turkish Cuisine

The problem is that you should first put how a thing is called in Turkish and then in brackets. For example I think it is better to first give "sucuk" as it is and to write thereafter its pronounciation "sujuk". The same thing can be said for musakka, pilav etc.

None of the information I have put so far is redundant. Sometimes I may be tired and careless about grammar and wording however I am always coming back to correct or improve the text. But senseless/baseless removals make me upset gentlemen! I will continue to keep a close eye on your edits —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Z y (talk • contribs) 22:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Kebab

Kebab has many variants, shish kebab is very popular so it should stay. Doner kebab is not relevant or notable enough to stay, the other section I removed because dictionaries don't seem to be a good reference since they don't provide enough information. Artaxiad 09:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Turkish cuisine: Reiterations

Simdi tekrar yapmak su sekilde kacinilmaz: yemekleri birbirleriyle iliskilendirerek benzetmeler yaparak farkliliklarini soyleyerek anlatmak gerek. Dolma meselesi mesela. Tamam dolma diye ayri bir bolum var ama simdi zamaninda vejetaryen yemekler kismi acilmis. Simdi orada da bahsetmek gerek. Hem amac bilgi vermek ise tekrar iyi bile sayilabilir. Pekistirir.

Ingilizce karsiliklar tabii ki verilmeli. Aksi dusunulemez. Dedigim suydu; tamam brackets icinde ingilizcesi verilsin ama Turkcesi de mutlaka verilsin. Paranteze Turkcesi de alinabilir ama duz yazi olmamak kaydiyla, yani renkli olmali ki yemek adi gorunsun. Lokum mesela. Elbet Turkish delight denecek ama lokum da yazilacak. Adamlar bizim fonetik uzerinden ingilizce yaziyorlar zaten. Yani simdi kofte'ye sadece meatball yazsak olur mu?

Su kirmizi mavi meselesine gelince o isin teknik kismi, diger article'lara referans mavilerle otomatik olarak veriliyor zaten. Dikkat ederseniz diger cuisine article'larinda da hep boyle. Illa renkli yazimin arkasinda bir article olmasi gerekmiyor.

Sometimes repetition turns out to be inevitable. I think it is necessary/better to explain specialities by setting out their similarities to and differences from other dishes and by making references to other titles. Dolma for instance. Ok there is a part dedicated to dolma but it should be mentionned in the vegetarian dishes part as well. Aside from that if the aim is to provide information, repetition strengthens the infrastructure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Z y (talk • contribs) 09:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC).--Z y 09:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Turkish Cuisine

I sincerely do not agree that coloring the names of the specialities harms readibility. On the contrary, if we transform it into a paper without any difference in presentation (plain black), it would be less interesting from readers' perspective. Cause most of the time you pick the words and then read it.

Aksini dusunsem sizinle yazisma zahmetine girmezdim. Size de kolay gelsin. Iyi gunler.--Z y 12:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Bugun "must" ile konustuk bir template hazirlamak istiyorlar Turkish cuisine ile ilgili bakalim. Boylece diger ilgili article'larda dogrudan atif verilebilecek sayfanin altinda. Ama basliklar ve altbasliklari iyi oturtmak lazim. Siz de fikirlerinizi soyleyin.--Z y 19:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC) 


        Valla sustainability cok onemli..

Yaylag

Thanks for removing the categories from my Talk page, but I placed back the List of Turkish words category to the Yaylag page, since there is no Turkic words category, while yaylag definitely belongs to Turkish as well as to all Turkic languages. Plus many in West, and even Turkey, don't differentiate between Turkic vs. Turk, even calling Kirgiz, Uzbek, Kazakh as "Turk lehcesi", or Turkish dialect, as opposed to language. That's why I find that it's appropriate to have that category there. Wisconsin96 23:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I nominated the article for Did you know?, hopefully it will be featured. Please keep an eye the article too. Wisconsin96 23:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Türk mutfağı

Şablonlar için fikirlerinizi iletin.Karşı çıkma konusunu yeri gelince düşünelim diyorum.Selam.Must. 10:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Must. 14:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

    • Teplate in wikipedia now;

Template:Turkish_cuisine

I tried to add your offers in. Needs to organizing, some further formatting, adding categories etc.I will be here for further ideas,offers.Regards.Must. 13:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Turkey

user Hah Sayfada 4RR yaptı. raporlayabilirmisin.Acilen çıkmam gerek.Sağol.Must. 17:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

bulgaro-huns

I decided to discuss this first. Look at the bulgars article. Bulgars were swept by the huns, but nevertheless remained bulgars. Sorry for the revert - I even found a source for your version myself :) --Laveol 13:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

One truth worth more than a thousand lies. You cant generalise Origin based on no evidence and foulthy information. The subject of the Ethnic Origin of the Bulgars is been controversial for many years now. However there are several different theories , and none of them have been proven definitive. Some claim that they are of Turkic Origin ,which arose doubts and controversies, since there is no objective evidence to support it. Other Historians lately claim that Bulgars are of Iranian descent, based on resent archeological research and facts. --ortis12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ortis12 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Kımız

Kumis sayfasını Kımız sayfasına nasıl taşırız?Must. 16:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Şablon;Turkish cuisine

Şablonu yeniden düzenliyorum. Yeni hali; Tarhana , Kebab, Cağ kebab sayfalarında var. Yeni hali ile; şablonun bulunduğu sayfa hangi guruba aitse o guruptaki diğer maddeler gösteriliyor.Yani; Kebab sayfasında; turkish kebabs alt şablonu, Tarhana sayfasında ise Turkish soups alt şablonu açılıyor.Görüşler??Must. 14:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Türk mutfağı

Selam,