Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:49, 11 August 2010

Welcome!

Hello, Finn Diesel, 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:

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

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 Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --AW (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, 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". Thank you. --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 Misplaced Pages: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 the discussion 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 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 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 23:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Tulipán Tamás

You have uploaded the file http://en.wikipedia.org/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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages photo that I suspected was a copyright violation, I got a response from the legal department, saying that absolutely did not give Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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/Attila_(hun_uralkod%C3%B3) --Finn Diesel (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? The painter first published his painting on Misplaced Pages? 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

1. Hüseyin Nihâl Atsız, 16 Devlet Masalı ve Uydurma Bayraklar (16 state tale and fake flags)
2. Otto Maenchen-Helfen, The World of the Huns

"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. Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages'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 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

Finn Diesel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

there was a copyright violation about "File:Buda es Attila.JPG" but it is now fixed, the other users didn't notice that. thats why they continued to edit article. theres not any problem left.

Decline reason:

As pointed out in the notice above, you were blocked for engaging in an edit war. Since you have not addressed your behavior, I must decline your request. —DoRD (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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&Windows 22:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)