Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:51, 8 April 2008

Welcome!

Hello, Res Gestæ Divi Augusti, 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:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which 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 ask your question there. Again, welcome!

« D Trebbien (talk) 04:51 2007 December 26 (UTC)

Turkish Army

Please do not just revert my entire statement as if it's worthless; I'm trying, slowly, to raise the quality of the whole article, and there was a phrase on the Cold War, Korea etc which could have easily stayed in as the basis for a proper WP:LEAD - lead section. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi RGDA. Can we please start a dialogue on improving the Turkish Army article? I have a good amount of data from many additions of the IISS Military Balance etc, plus outside, third party information which can be obtained on the Turkish Army, such as the Library of Congress Country Studies. (WP:SOURCES says we should not base articles on what organisations claim about themselves - see also specifically WP:SELFPUB). I also can claim some relevant professional experience. But it would be better if we avoid doing what we've done so far and go around reverting each other. The gold standard articles for armies are United States Marine Corps (an FA) and Russian Ground Forces (an FA I wrote). I would like to gradually move this article towards that standard, but would welcome your inputs. Please do feel free to drop a line on my talk page. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Modernisation section. I am not trying to say that the Turkish Army cannot do these things, all I am saying it that it is the Army itself that says it can - in line with WP:SELFPUB, a self-serving source. I strongly believe the fact that this is a Turkish military claim should be noted. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Buckshot has asked me to comment on this. As an administrator and coordinator at WikiProject Military history I'd suggest that both the Turkish military's claim and the US Government's assessment be included in the article, with the article's text making it clear where each viewpoint is sourced from. It would help if the methodology used in making the conflicting assessments could be included - the Turkish military's statement is a bit vague (eg, what does "at short notice" mean here?) so it may be the case that both references are correct as the definitions which are being used are different. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Res Gestae again, I believe, given that the Chief of the Army is always the next Chief of Turkish General Staff, and that given the Army's preeminent role in the Armed Forces, that a one-line politics note in the Turkish Army article is appropriate. (Anything more than that would have to wait on specific Army involvement in politics material). Do you mind if I put that back in? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The term "Army" is often used wrongly by the media to describe the "Armed Forces" (Army + Navy + Air Force + Gendarmerie + Coast Guard) of a country; such as in the case of "the Turkish Army's intervention into politics." This is not a fully correct definition, because other branches of the Turkish Armed Forces are also involved in such decisions and their application. For instance, the National Security Council has generals/admirals from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Gendarmerie. The Gendarmerie arrests people in case of a military coup. So it's way more complicated. The fact that, according to the Turkish tradition, the Chief of the General Staff is chosen from the Army commander has nothing to do with this. It has been this way even in the 1920s, decades before the first ever military coup in 1960. In Greece, for instance, the Chief of the General Staff is traditionally chosen from the Navy commander, as Greece is mostly scattered through islands and the Greeks consider themselves a nation of mariners. Turkey, on the other hand, is mostly made up of solid land and very few islands, hence the Army commander as the Chief of the General Staff. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand the point you're making, and I ws not trying to say that. The only point I want to make is that, given its preeminent role within the Armed Forces, the KKK/Land Forces/'Army' will generate more of the political involvement of the Armed Forces than the two less important services. How can we negotiate this so some form of acceptable wording can be inserted? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Add it to the Turkish Armed Forces article, but it's already mentioned there (extend that section if you wish.) As I said before, during a coup, the arrests are made by the Gendarmerie, not the Army. Even the Navy/Coast Guard is involved (e.g. taking the politicians to Yassıada Island.) Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 06:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

Can you enable your email access? I've got a Turkish Army list of units I'd like your comments on. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Drastic revert

Wasn't your revert of all edits of several days, without even so much as an edit summary, too drastic, as it also reverted valid corrections?  --Lambiam 10:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It was necessary: I removed copy-pasted material from the sub-articles of Istanbul that were poured into the main article by a user named Dananda. The article reached nearly 150K. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Economy of Turkey has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Will 16:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't delete it - I relocated it to the Labor section (where wages are listed) and added a (citation needed) to the end, as it is not resourced. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Misplaced Pages is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Turkey appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring on Turkey article

TigerShark (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• For further details, please see here. TigerShark (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And who says I didn't discuss anything in the Talk:Turkey page? How come those who make a complaint always get away with it, when in fact they are also involved in the so-called edit war? (I didn't constantly revert something, I made changes and improvements every time) Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So basically the system in Misplaced Pages is: "Whoever makes the complaint (first) gets away with it." Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get away with anything. I was blocked despite the fact that I only made three reverts, so if anything, I should be the one complaining. Krawndawg (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair Use?

Res Gestæ Divi Augusti, someone's been snitching that the photo on your user page is FAIR USE! This is the user responsible for the snitching. Teach them a lesson! --20000 /_{Contributions} 20:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR rule on Ottoman Flag

I'm reminding you that you can not continuously revert an article, which is clearly in dispute. You need to present your arguments and be civil. You can be banned if you are not civil. Kemalist (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)