User talk:Finn Diesel

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! --AW (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

December 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

January 2010
Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". --Crossmr (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Kubilay Türkyılmaz.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kubilay Türkyılmaz.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Leyo 08:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Citations & leads
If you are going to cite something, please read WP:Cite and give the details suggested there. This must include the page number for books. You can include links if you wish where you can see the entire text, but snippets are rarely enough as they lack context.

You also need to read WP:LEAD and not add things to the lead not covered in the article. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

flag of the Göktürks
Please look at discussion at first before putting back over and over again that ahistorical flag of the Göktürks, Guss2 (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC).

ethnicity of the Bulgars
Please, before making any edits discuss the topic in the talk page (as I did). It is not 100% certain that the Bulgars were a turkic people. Indeed, this is the leading theory, but other theories exist as well and there is absolutely no reason for them to be dismissed. Besides, some of the online sources that you provided are not about the Bulgars at all and you deleted the link to Encyclopedia Britannica where it is written that the Bulgars perhaps "had some Iranian elements" Why?195.114.113.246 (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you stop that, please? Discuss before making any edits.Scheludko (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Bulgars. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * That's your second warning. I had already warned you on the talk page. kwami (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Tulipán Tamás
You have uploaded the file http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Buda_es_Attila.JPG, apparently by one Tulipán Tamás. I don't know who Tulipán Tamás is, when he worked, nor what interest the picture might be, since it has no obvious relation to the surviving description of Attila the Hun and the subjects seem to have Christian halos. Could you enlighten me, possibly on the file page? Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Mesut Özil, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation
You seem to have a misconception that if you feel strongly about something, that's just as important as a legal justification. The English Wikipedia does not accept copyright violation material in any situation. I've explained on the discussion page of Attila the Hun.

This response of yours does not address legal issues.

I'm familiar with English Wikipedia process and rules regarding copyright violation, and I know an administrator to contact with questions. Could you please read WP:COPYRIGHT.

Further, even given that the image is legal, I'm concerned that Richard Keatinge and I have raised several issues that you simply have ignored. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

i wrote an e-mail to the publisher of the original content and i'm waiting for the reply now. since everything looks normal, i have had no clue about that picture and you will be deeply secure after the feed-back. thanks for inmorming back.--Finn Diesel (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Finn, when there is a question of copyright violation, the material is removed from the English Wikipedia until copyright can be proved. Not the other way around, you don't get to leave it in until getting a response from someone. They might never respond.


 * In a situation where I contacted a museum about a Wikipedia photo that I suspected was a copyright violation, I got a response from the legal department, saying that absolutely did not give Wikipedia permission to publish the photo.


 * I asked for the source of the photo, so that I can verify the copyright status, not for you to contact them. The way the English Wikipedia works is that any editor must be able to verify sources. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Warning
Finn Diesel, you have been edit-warring to reinsert an image of dubious copyright status. Please don't, or you may end up blocked. I have removed the image from en-wiki pages and tagged it for deletion on Commons. If you want this image kept, you need to answer at least the following questions:
 * 1) Who is the painter of this image?
 * 2) When was the painter born and when (if no longer alive) did they die?
 * 3) If the painter is still alive or died less than 70 years ago, please note that the only way you can justify the inclusion of this image is if you can prove that the painter himself explicitly released the rights to it under a free license (which is very unlikely). You can not invoke the rules of WP:Fair use to justify it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Update: I just notice you again reverted me on the article page while I was writing this. So, this is your last chance to give a satisfactory explanation of why this image is free, before I block you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * how can i prove that, the art work is under a free licance. this is the original page the author has published the work: http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila_(hun_uralkod%C3%B3) --Finn Diesel (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? The painter first published his painting on Wikipedia? You mean this edit: . Okay, on their original hu-wiki image upload hu:Fájl:Buda es Attila.JPG, they say "Source=Molnár Csilla", and "Author=Tulipán Tamás". The latter seems to correspond to the hu-wiki uploader's username, hu:User:Tulipt. However, the same user also uploaded other files of entirely different style, with the same "author" field, e.g. hu:Fájl:Özséb.jpg, hu:Fájl:Atilla kiraly szines eles.jpg. So, is this person actually claiming they are the painter? Who did you contact, this hu-wiki user Tulipt? And what exactly did they tell you? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

dear Fut.Perf., why dont you try to protect the Attila article? all images had been removed by a user. who is going to protect the article?--Finn Diesel (talk) 05:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
You are WP:edit warring at Uralic languages. Three editors have no objected to you according this obsolete hypothesis special consideration. You need to resolve it there first, or else consult WP:dispute resolution. Continuing to edit war will only get you WP:blocked. — kwami (talk) 05:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 24 hrs for edit-warring both on Attila the Hun and on Uralic languages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You started up again as soon as your block was up, and I was going to give you three days, but now that I look into it, I see that in the mean time you evaded your block. So now you're blocked for a week. Please take the time to read up on WP policy (links are at the top of this page) and to learn how to cooperate with other editors. — kwami (talk) 08:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

kwami, im a linguist, many researchers believe Ural-Altaic is real. wikipedia is not your farm, so please respect to the spectrum of language science.--Finn Diesel (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There are lots of linguists around here. You need to learn to work with others. — kwami (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Evet, iki türlü de söylenebiliyor. yabancılar Attila, biz ise Atilla olarak yazıyoruz. Richard Kaetinge resimleri kaldırmya çalışıyor. Türk tarihinden anlayan biri olduğun için senden yardım istedim. Bu adamların yaptıkları açıkça Türk düşmanlığı, Türk tarihinin hiçbir devrine saygıları yok. Yardımcı olursan sevinirim, saygılar.--Finn Diesel (talk) 15:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hunları Türk tarihinin bir parçası olarak görmediğim için fazla ilgilenmiyorum (Gerç konfederasyon içinde Dingling'in yer aldığı söyleniyor). Yine de mantıksız girişimleri görürsem yardımcı olacağım. İyi çalışmalar. Takabeg (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hunlar Xiongnu devletinin devamı olarak Avrupa'da kurulmuş bir Türk devleti, cumhurbaşkanlığı amblemindeki 16 yıldızdan biri Hun devletini temsil eder. Askeri olarak heterojen olsalar da devletin asli unsurları Türkçe isim kullanan, Çuvaş dilini konuşan insanlardan oluşuyor ki bunları sende biliyorsundur zaten. Teşekkür ederim.--Finn Diesel (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cumhurbaşkanlığı amblemindeki 16 Türk Devleti siyasîdir. 1969 yılında icat edildi. Kavimlerin adlarının Türkçeye benzemesi de sadece bir tezdir. Hunların Xiongnu'nun devam olduğunu kanıtlandı mı ? Birde Xiongnu Türk mü ? Takabeg (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Kaynakça
'''"11. Conclusions

To judge by the tribal names, a great part of the Huns must have spoken a Turkish language. "

bu cümle ikinci verdiğin kaynaktaki sonuçlar kısmında yazıyor, adam Turkic kelimesini bir yana bırakıp direkt Turkish yazmış. Koskoca profesör böyle yazdıysa.. Düşüncelerimde bir değişiklik olmadı. Yazar da bu devletin Klan yapısı heterojen, yönetim birimi Türklerden oluştuğunu yazıyor. --Finn Diesel (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)'''
 * Evet çok şüpheli değil mi ? Turkish ile Turkic arasıdaki ayrımı bilmeyen birinin Türkçenin ve Türklerin ne olduğunu anlayabilmesi güçtür. Ve aynı kişi yönetim birimi Türklerden oluştuğunu yazıyor :) İşte güvenebilir miyiz ? Tabi ki hayır. Yine de X'e göre A şeklinde aktarılabilir. Takabeg (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

kaynak için tekrar teşekkürler. bu derin araştırmadan sonra aklımdaki soru işaretleri de kalktı diyebilirim. Attila kelimesinin kökeninin Goth dilinden geldiğini belirtmiş, sadece burada hayal kırıklığına uğradım. Çünkü "Ata" yani "Atta" kelimesinin kökenini Goth diline dayandırmış araştırmacı, halbuki bu kelime Asya kökenlidir. Kuzey Amerika yerlileri de "ata" der. Hiç bir hint-avrupalı father kelimesinin yerine "atta" kullanmamıştır. Muhtemelen biz Asya halklarından birinden Goth'lara geçmiş bu kelimenin kökeni hakkında hiç bir makaleye rastlayamıyorum. Dolayısıyla Attila'nın Türk olduğu tartışılmaz bir gerçektir. Oğluna Çengiz (Denghiz) ismini vermesiyle altına imzasını da atmış, ne diyebilirim? Karar senin.--Finn Diesel (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

benim anlamadığım bir şey var sevgili Takabeg, Kalifornia üniversitesinde böyle ciddi bir araştırma yapılmış ve Hunların kullandığı isimlerin Türkçe olduğu kanıtlanmışken senin kafanda oluşan soru işaretleri nedir? Sadece isimler beni bağlamaz diyorsan eğer, tarih bulmacasında zerre yol alamayız bunu bil. Hunlar beni bağlamaz diyebilirsin ama Hunlar Türk değildi demek kusura bakma ama bunca delilden sonra biraz saçma kalıyor.--Finn Diesel (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hunlar Türktü diyemeyiz maalesef. Deliller yok, ondan. Hunların kullandığı isimlerin Türkçe olduğu kanıtlanmadı, sadece ileri sürüldü. Yani tezler var sadece. Takabeg (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Codex Cumanicus Hunlarla aynı bölgede yaşamış Kumanlar için yapılan bir tercüme, ve tamamen somut bir delil. Şu an İtalya'da bir kilisede saklanmakta. Kumanların Hunların devamı olduğu düşünülürse elimizde somut bir delil var.--Finn Diesel (talk) 17:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Benim İskitler, Hunlar, Xiongnular zorla Türk yapma derdim yok. Bilimadamların yazdıklarını tarafsızca aktarırmamız yeterlidir. Neutral point of view önemlidir. Sırf kendi istekler ve görüşlerine göre davranmamalısın. Takabeg (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Attila'nın portresi
Selam. Sen niye bununla ısrarlısın ? Commons'daki açıklamaları okuduğum kadarıyla resim Attila'yı Avrupalı olarak çizmiş bir eser. Dönemin belgeleri ve günümüzün yaygın görüşlerine göre, Attila Avrupalı değil Asyalı. Dolayısıyla o resim yanıltıcıdır. Ancak galeride yer alabilir. Takabeg (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Senin kaynak Attila'yı şeytan olarak resmetmiş bir Latin gravürü. Atilla'nın infobox kısmında boyle bir şey görünmesini bir Türk olarak neden isteyelim ki? Madem wikipedia'da tarafsızız, o zaman Attila'yı nötral resmetmiş bir portreyi oraya koymak en doğrusu diye düşünüyorum. bu arada orada resmedilmiş kişi pek Europid birine benzemiyor.--Finn Diesel (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Neden cevap yazmadan düzeltme gereği duydun ki?--Finn Diesel (talk) 11:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

İyiki yardım et dedik ya, hepsinden daha zararlı çıktın. Attila'nın Moğol görünümlü olduğuna dair herhangi bir kaynağın varmı? türkler ile moğollar arasındaki görünüm farkını bilmemen bir yana, Latinlerin gravürlerindeki şeytan ikonunu Attilaya yakıştırman oldukça çirkin bir hareket. oldu bari Attila'yı elinde mızrakla resmeden iskandinav gravürleri de var isterse onlardan koyalım infobox kısmına? ne dersin?--Finn Diesel (talk) 11:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

İyiki yardım et dedik ya, hepsinden daha zararlı çıktın. Attila'nın Moğol görünümlü olduğuna dair herhangi bir kaynağın varmı? türkler ile moğollar arasındaki görünüm farkını bilmemen bir yana, Latinlerin gravürlerindeki şeytan ikonunu Attilaya yakıştırman oldukça çirkin bir hareket. oldu bari Attila'yı elinde mızrakla resmeden iskandinav gravürleri de var isterse onlardan koyalım infobox kısmına? ne dersin?--Finn Diesel (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk:Attila the Hun'a bakabilirsin. Şeytan olarak göstermiyor. Sarı ırk görünümlü olduğuna dair kaynaklar var. Biraz kaynakları aramaya çalışın. Yine de daha iyisi bulursak onu kullanırız. Avrupalı gibi olmasın. Commons'taki açıklamayı okudun değil mi ? Birde hepsinden daha zararlı çıktın. ifaden No personal attacks ihlalidir. Dikkatli davranmanı tavsiye ederim. Takabeg (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

hayır, orada Attila Europid birine benzemiyor ki? Avrupalı gibi resmedilmiş diyorsun, hayali portesi yandan yapılmış birini nasıl Avrupalıya benzetebiliyorsun ki? Hayal gücün çok geniş olabilir, peki fakat attila'nın sarı ırka (bildiğimiz Çinli yani) dahil olduğuna dair hangi kanıtlar sunabilirsin. Ben wiki kurallarından bazılarını çiğniyorsam sen hepsini birden çiğniyorsun. Adamların Attila'yı hristiyan yapma çabalarına bile gölge düşürüyorsun şu an. Attila'nın sarı ırkdan biri olduğunu ilk senden duydum. moğollar bile sarı ırk değildir bu arada...--Finn Diesel (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ben demiyorum Commons diyor. Vikipedide herşey kaynaklara göre işlenmeli. Takabeg (talk) 11:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The description of Attila by eyewitness confirms his Asian origin. Takabeg (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hunlar Türk tarihinin en önemli devrine imza atmışlardır. Hunların devamı olan Kumanlar astrolojide çığır açmışlardır. http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/id/25043545/ O sıralar çok daha ileride olan Asya medeniyetinden bir takım elementleri Avrupaya taşıyarak rönesans ve reforma geçişin temellerini atmışlardır. Konuştukları dil Türkçe (Çuvaş dili) iken sen onların sarı ırk olduklarını idda ediyorsun. Seninle bu platformda tartışamayacağım.--Finn Diesel (talk) 11:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Vikipedide kaynaksız bir gazete yazısının kıymeti yoktur. Takabeg (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Finn, I can't read Turkish and Google Translate is imperfect, so I apologize if I am repeating any points already made to you. You appear to have very strong feelings on what should appear in the article on Attila the Hun, and where. It might help if you would tell us what view of Attila the Hun should be presented here? At present I, and I suspect others, really do not have a clear idea of what you are trying to achieve nor why you object to certain edits.

Accusations of bias would not be helpful even if your guesses about motivation were correct. To accuse others of removing material that has in fact only been moved gives the impression that you are not giving sufficient attention to either courtesy or to the edits themselves.

I have suggested that the images which have no clear relation to what we know of Attila's appearance should be placed in a gallery where they can illustrate later iconography, not where they have misled people into interpreting them as historical. Do you agree?

I and other editors have pointed out that an image (File:Buda es Attila.JPG) without copyright information should not be used, and indeed should be deleted until copyright information is made available. Do you wish to disagree with Wikipedia policy on this point?

I hope to engage in a more meaningful discussion with you about ways to improve the article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu
Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu'nun kendi ağzından aşiretlerinin ismi; http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/yazarlar/14809205.asp?yazarid=218 Soner Yalçın'ın kısa araştırmalarından sonra aşiretlerin Türkmen asıllı olduğu ortaya çıkıyor. Kılıçdaroğlunun akrabaları arasında Zaza veya Kürt olduğuna dair bir kaynak yok. Dolayısıyla kendisi de zaza veya kürt olmuyor haliyle.--Finn Diesel (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Kendisi Kürt değil Zaza. Zazaların Kürt olduğunu düşünenler Kürt derler. Eninde sonunda Zaza. Takabeg (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Adam kendisi ait olduğu Türkmen aşiretlerinin ismini bir bir sayıyor. O bölgenin zamanla Zaza dilini benimsediği bilinir. Türkmen aşiretleri zamanla Zaza dilini konuşur olmuşlardır. Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu köken olarak Zaza değildir. Tıpkı Karadenizlilerin Laz olmadığı gibi.--Finn Diesel (talk) 12:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Zazalar hakkında bilgim yok dolayısıyla bu konuda yorumda bulunmam. Sen de bilgin olmadığı konulara karışmaz isen wikipedia ailesini sevince boğarsın. Mesela Hunların Çin kökenli (sarı ırk) olduğunu bu platformda değil de arkadaş çevrende belirtirsen çok daha iyi iş yapmış olursun. bu arada Latinlerin Attila hakkında yaptığı çalışma galeri kısmında olacak. Wikipedia'nın senin kişisel sayfan olmasına izin vermeyeceğim.--Finn Diesel (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Vikipedi kaynaklara göre işleniyor. Asya tipi veya Sarı ırk demek Çin kökenli anlamına mı geliyor ? Ciddi stereo tip yaklaşımın var. Kaynakları arayın. Kafana göre değil kaynaklara göre bilgileri ekleyin. Takabeg (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Eğer çok istersen kişisel yorumlarını bırakıp o imajı alt yazlar ile birlikte aktarın. Ve bilgi kayıplarına ve vandalizme izin vermeyeceğiz. Takabeg (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring
You need to stop edit-warring over those pictures at Attila the Hun. This is independent of what you think about the copyright status. If you continue revert-warring without consensus about insertion of images, you will get blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Finn, again you have reverted my removal of a picture which appears to be of no value. Please help us to come to some consensus on the talk page before you revert it yet again. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And consider not adding fuel to the fire concerning the 41.xxx-anon like you're doing here. You've already expressed your views about his POV quite clearly, so there's no need for reminders.
 * Peter Isotalo 17:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Again you have re-inserted valueless pictures and dubious unreferenced comments. Please discuss before you do this sort of thing. I have reverted it yet again. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

all copyright problems has been fixed.--Finn Diesel (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for repeated edit warring at Attila the Hun. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Fences &amp;  Windows  12:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: F.D.'s claim that the removals were only because of a mistaken copyright issue is not quite true, as I explained to him earlier. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

i have not any personal problem with you, i want to protect the article, nothing more. if you see my works im trying to improve something and i dont like to remove pictures in the articles because removing something is not my work. --Finn Diesel (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

i respect all users and all art works in wikipedia but i cant see any respect to Hungarian art works in articles. it is not an acceptable policy for Hungarian users in wikipedia.--Finn Diesel (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

the rights of "File:Buda es Attila.JPG" has been bought by wikipedia, but i can't understand why Richard and you are against this art work. i really wanted to know it.--Finn Diesel (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You are still going on about how wikipedia has "bought" the rights? Oh my. Wikipedia doesn't buy copyrights, ever. Now, please, for the last time, just answer me the following questions:
 * Who is the painter of File:Buda es Attila.JPG?
 * How do you know?
 * How and when did the painter license the image under a free license?
 * How do you know?
 * What makes you think the painter is a notable artist?
 * Up to now, your answers to all of these questions have been less than clear. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

-painter: Tamas, Tulipan (Hungarian)

-i know because i usually visit Hungarian wikipedia.

-all licance information has been sent to permissions-commons by the author himself (by my special request to him from hungarian wikipedia)

-i know because i get contact to aouthor.

-its not important weather he is notable or not, he lives in Hungary as Attila were.--Finn Diesel (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Finn, the main trouble with Buda es Attila.JPG is not the copyright, which I assume you will manage to sort out at some point. The main trouble is that this image does not give a useful representation of the subject of the article. It illustrates nothing that we actually do know about Attila's appearance or habits. We do not, for example, know that Attila ever prayed to anything, or that he did so with his brother.

We might find a use for this picture in illustrating modern Hungarian perceptions of Attila. If, that is, we can find reliable sources that say that this picture does portray a notable modern Hungarian perception. But I cannot think of any other valid use for it in Wikipedia. Wikipedia's aims do not include the presentation of irrelevant works by an artist from the same area as the subject of the article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

really? this is your point of view. so, Richard, what do you think about files like Hercules and Hydra or St. George and dragon? Because according to your strange wikipedia policy, those art works shouldnt be uploaded. As we seen what you did in "Hunnish language" article, you have some problems like Turkophobia or something like that(which i cant explain with words).--Finn Diesel (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Finn, thanks for commenting; most issues can be worked out by discussion. Are you trying to imply that I am editing with an agenda of hatred for all things Turkish? I suppose I could say quite a lot about that, but it can all be summarized as: don't be silly. I am here to help build an encyclopedia. Like anyone else I may be wrong or ignorant on specific points, but I am doing my humble best to support a noble mission.


 * I've tried to find a place where Buda es Attila.JPG might appropriately be used. At this diff I have inserted it into a new gallery on the page Attila the Hun in popular culture. Other editors may reasonably disagree, and the copyright status still needs to be sorted out, but this strikes me as a valid use for a picture with no historical value. I note as one trivial example that the bow in the picture is a good representation of the modern wood and fiberglass bows made by Kassai Lajos and others, but not of the historical composite bow with bone-stiffened siyahs. I guess (a reliable source would be useful) that it does illustrate something about modern Hungarian perceptions of Attila.


 * I'm not trying to comment on every picture in Wikipedia and hadn't previously noticed the pictures you mention. But, whatever I think of it, the Hercules image can claim notability merely by being in the Uffizi gallery. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Finn Diesel protects articles. But Fut.Perf. and Richard Keatinge are giving nothing to the articles, they never developed anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.156.124.146 (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This IP made an edit identical to a recent edit by User:Finn Diesel, so there is little doubt that they are one in the same. —DoRD (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you can see other edits like this, honestly, i have to say, those reactions are very normal because people has a right to NOT welcome users like Richard Keatinge who directly shows disrespect to the Hungarian art works about Hunnish Empire.--Finn Diesel (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Reversion
Finn, please bring your suggested changes to the talk page of Atilla. Nuujinn (talk) 22:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this IP you? User talk:212.156.124.146 It'd be best to be honest, as we can go to WP:SPI and ask a checkuser to check this. Also, resuming reverting as soon as you come off a block is hardly the best approach. Use the talk page, you don't want to or need to get blocked again. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

i always use the talk page.--Finn Diesel (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

its not me.--Finn Diesel (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Finn Diesel, continuing that revert war the way you're doing is just about the most self-destructive thing you could do. You've now set yourself up for a really really long block (or topic ban). It's almost 100% certain now you'll be blocked in a couple of hours. So why still revert? Are you just planning to "go out with a bang"? Either you make a last-minute U-turn now and start reasonable discussion, or your whole editing is rather pointless, don't you think? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

you threated me. do your best.--Finn Diesel (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

i will get a long ban, for what? for revert war? why dont you take care about Richard Keatinge first. --Finn Diesel (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Attila. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Courcelles 09:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Close friend? I mean no disrespect to Fut. Perf., but I don't know him from Adam.  I'm just an admin that has WP:ANEW on his watchlist, so sometimes jumps in and handles reports. Courcelles 10:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Just as a reminder
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Attila. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please stop this. Nuujinn (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hiyerarşi
Selam, Türkçe vikipedi'ye katılıyor musunuz bilmiyorum. Ben burada çok vakit geçiremiyorum ancak Türkçe vikipedide aktif olabiliyorum..Her yeri takip edebilecek kadar vaktim yok.. User:Takabeg Türkçe vikipedide kayda değer bulmadığımız ve silinmeye aday gösterdiğimiz maddeleri Zilan Massacre örneğindeki gibi ya da üzerinde tartıştığımız Orta Anadolu Kürtleri gibi maddeleri ingilizce vikipedide eş zamanlı olarak açıyor... Ya da orada kayda değer bulmadığı ve üzerinde tartıştığımız Şili Türkleri maddesini burada silinmeye aday  gösteriyor ve diğer bazı maddeleri... Zilan Massacre'nin kayda değer olmadığını ispatlamak için orada yaptığım tartışmaları burada da yapmak zorunda mıyım bilmiyorum ancak açıkçası buna zorlandığımı hissediyorum.. Kişisel olarak buna vikiler arası Trollük diyorum. Sizden ricam, burada bu tür şeylere çok fazla vakit ayıramadığım için bu tür meseleleri takip etmeniz. Zira bunun için bir prosedür olmalı ve birileri vikiler arasında bir hiyerarşinin olmadığını anlatmalı.. Kolay gelsin. --Nihan (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Finn, tuzağa düşmezsen senin için iyi olacaktır. Görüşürüz. Takabeg (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Bu bir tuzak değil, ayrıca yukardaki useri tuzak kuracak kadar önemsemiyorum. Bu kötü bir iftira olmuş. Linkleriyle birlikte veriyorum ve her şey ortada, istenirse tartışmalar da dahil tek tek ingilizceye çevirebilirim.. Türkçe vikipedide Zilan Massacre'nin Ağrı isyanları'nın bir parçası olduğunu ve özgün araştırma sayılabileceğine dair birçok kişi fikir belirtti. Kaynaklar yetersiz ve tüm kaynaklar Ağrı isyanlarına çıkıyor. Kaynakları incelenirse başlı başına Zilan Massacre anlatan bir kaynak yok. Üstelik Orta Anadolu Kürtleri ile ilgili Birnebun isimli dergiyi kaynak olarak vermesi de cabası.. Identifying reliable sources gereği bu kaynakların kullanılamayacağı ortada.. Hem Türklerle ilgili herhangi bir madde olduğunda bu tür dergileri, makaleleri güvenilir kaynak kabul etmeyen birisidir kendisi, çifte standart yaratıyor kısacası. Her şekilde ispat edebilirim. Ayrıca maddelerin orada ve burada tarihlerine bakılırsa, silinmeye aday olduğu tarihlere ve burada açılış tarihlerine bakılırsa ne söylemek istediğim gayet anlamlı olacak. İyi çalışmalar. --Nihan (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Takabeg beni ölümle mi yoksa ban ile mi tehdit ediyorsun? Yaptığın güzel editler yanında Nihan'ın da dediği gibi saçma sapan şeylerde yaptığın bir gerçek. Bunu saygısızlık olarak algılama lütfen. wikipedia'da yunan ve ermeni lobisinin gücü ortadayken birde kendi aramızda yapacağımız kavgalar bizi daha da geriye götürecektir. bu yüzden lütfen birbirimize destek olalım. bu arada Takabeg yaptığın editlerden yanlış anlamadıysam biz zaza'sın. türk halkı zazalara sempati ile bakar lütfen kendine düşmanca bakıldığını hissediyorsan bu davranışından vazgeç. dersimin bombalanması olayı yalandır. bomba yüklenebilen uçaklar II. dünya savaşından biraz önce üretilmeye başlanmıştır. havadan el bombasıyla adam öldürmek sağlam bir angelina jolie filmine ilham olabilir sadece. dolayısıyla dersim makalesi komple elden geçirilmelidir.--Finn Diesel (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Bombalamalar
Kavas ve Takabeg, arkadaşlar farkında değilsiniz belki ama terör örgütünün uydurduğu şeyleri wikiye taşıyorsunuz. dersim'in havadan bombalanması yalandır. bomba yüklenebilen ilk uçaklar dersim ayaklanması sırasında avrupa fabrikalarında birer prototipti. daha üretime geçmemiş uçakların türkiye tarafından satın alınıp sivillere karşı kullanılması yalandır. dersimde ölen vatandaşlarımız olduğu doğrudur ama bunların masum sivillerden oluştuğu yalandır. t.c. masum sivillere karşı katliam yapmamıştır. Kansas Bear gibi Türk düşmanı editörlere şirin gözükmek için ülkenizi satmayın. 10 yıl sonra Kansas Bear gibi adamlara itibar edilmeyecek.--Finn Diesel (talk) 02:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Terör örgütü derken PKK'yı mı kastediyorsun ? Olaylar PKK adlı bir örgütün kuruluşundan taaaaaaaaaaaa önce yaşandı ve basına da yanstı, anılarında da yazıldı. 50 kg bombaları konusuna gelince İstiklal Harbi'nde bile hava bombardıman harekâtları yapıldı. Gerekirse Turkish Air Force maddesinde gerekli katkıları yaparız. Kansas Bear gibi Türk düşmanı editörler ne demek ? Daha önce de söylemiştim ya sana ama yine No personal attacks ihlal ediyorsun. Kısaca ben kaynaklara göre çalıştığımı hatırlatmak istiyorum ve riske girmemeni tavsiye ediyorum. Takabeg (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Kansas Bear sadece benim değil, bir çok Türk yazarın nefretini toplayan biridir, editlerini kontrol edersen Türkiye aleyhine çalıştığını görebilirsin. pkk'nın quotelarını sayfalara taşıyabilecek kadar medeniyetsiz bir kişiliğe sahiptir kendileri. istiyorsan kendisine söyleyebilirsin bunları. bu yazıyı ingilizceye çevirip beni şikayet edebilirsin de..--Finn Diesel (talk) 02:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I. dünya savaşındaki uçaklar makineli tüfek yüklü bir şekilde sadece düşman uçaklarını avlamak ve casusluk amacıyla kullanılıyordu. istiklal harbinde 50kg lik bombaların kullandığını kanıtlarsan wikipedia'dan çekip giderim. kızıl baron filmini seyredenler bile o tarihteki uçakların günümüz uçakları yanında sivrisinek kaldığını görebilir. işte 99hp'lik Fokker Eindecker'in müthiş özellikleri: Armament 1 × 7.92 mm (.312 in) Parabellum MG14 machine gun

evet bu uçak dersimi yok etmiş olabilir.--Finn Diesel (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yok yok öyle demedim. 50 kg Dersim'de, İstiklâl Harbi'nde ise 2 x 10 kg. Takabeg (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Sandstein  18:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This block is in reaction to this edit by you. The Turkish text, according to Google Translate, means: "We must take a common stance against the above authors. High degree of anti-Turkish racist man. pkk perverse enough to show someone's explanation quote. We must take a stand against him". It is not acceptable to call others racist because of content disagreements, and it is doubly not acceptable to use a non-English language to mask one's efforts to misuse Wikipedia as a nationalistic battlefield. The block duration is twice the duration of your most recent block for disruption in the same topic area.  Sandstein  18:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: you apparently issued the same message here to another user.  Sandstein  18:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not acceptable, google translate is not working properly in turkish language. i ask for unblocking until any blocking reason would be found in my argument.--Finn Diesel (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried Babylon, and got a translation which, while rough, also showed you calling another person a racist, and trying to work with others to push your own point of view. Perhaps in the future, if you're worried about being misunderstood, you could write in English, rather than having us rely on machine translations.  As you can see, using Turkish to communicate doesn't mean you're allowed to use Wikipedia to push your own point of view into the encyclopedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

i have wrote about "racism" and it is still unacceptable.--Finn Diesel (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right- it's unacceptable to call other users racists. I'm glad we understand each other now. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

i don't call him racist, i said: "the user talks about racism..." is this your two week blocking reason?--Finn Diesel (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

omg, you came here and blocked me with no reason? it will NOT stop here.--Finn Diesel (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Tayyip Erdogan gender equality remarks
Hi there. I've recently updated Tayyip Erdogan's Wiki page with his statements that "he does not believe in gender equality" and "all families must have at least three children" along with the criticism these remarks caused. However, even though I have cited multiple NPOV references, there are some ideologically-driven users who want to delete the passage no matter what. Please help. The relevant links are below. 212.253.32.195 (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Recep_Tayyip_Erdo.C4.9Fan_gender_equality_edit_war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPN#Edit_war_at_Recep_Tayyip_Erdo.C4.9Fan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recep_Tayyip_Erdo%C4%9Fan#Justice

September 2010
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read our guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Courcelles 13:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."


 * Furthermore, under the authority of Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, I am hereby banning you from the Attila article, as well as any other reasonably related articles. Your recent history of editing on this site has been heavily skewed towards reverting on that article, and it is overly disruptive. Any appeal may be filed at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard. Courcelles 14:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

you had protected the page against invaders but you blocked me with no reason. i changed the article to the original one(to your switch). please protect the page against users like User:Nuujinn. thanks.--Finn Diesel (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for '''What part of being banned from the Attila article did you not understand? Your behaviour there has time and again been unacceptable, you are not allowed to edit the article. Given your first edit coming off the prior block for disruption there was to violate your article ban, I honestly wavered between just placing an indef block now.

Let us now be clear. When this block expires in October, you are BANNED from all articles related to Attila. Do not edit them, do not edit their talk pages, do not discuss them.'''. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read our guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Courcelles 00:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

October 2010
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year for Since you clearly have no intention of abiding by your article ban from Attila, this is the maximum remedy authorised by the WP:DIGWUREN discretionary sanctions. on the page Attila. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Courcelles 18:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

why is that? why me? there are many people who had edit the page. should i ask you before editing? so what? its not fair.--Finn Diesel (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No one has to ask my (or anyone else's permission) before editing an article. However, as you were explicitly told, you were BANNED from that article.  This means you have absolutely no right to edit it. Twice, you have now chosen to come off a block for violating that ban to immediately return to the same article.  The only logical conclusion, therefore, is that you have no intention to abide by the ban.  The only technical remedy I have available to therefore enforce your compliance is a complete block of your account. Courcelles 19:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Given the fact that this is your eighth block in the last four months it seems clear that you are either unwilling or unable to abide by Wikipedia policy and/or learn from your own mistakes at this time. I would direct you to the standard offer for blocked users as your best bet to (eventually) be unblocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. A year ban to the historian is an insult. Removals of the Hungarian "APPROVED" art works in the Attila article is irreverence--Finn Diesel (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind the standard offer. You either lack the basic level of competence required to edit here or you are deliberately ignoring everyone who tries to explain things to you. As such I have revoked your ability to edit this page, so now you will have to appeal directly to ArbCom as indicated above. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)