User talk:Keivan.f/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Japanese royalty

The recent revisions on pages on japanese princes and princesses nearly gave me a fit. The user's rationale seems to be based on information given on the official website of the Imperial Household Agency which doesn't hold up since that information hasn't been updated properly in ages. Besides, official pages for British Royals refer to them by their ducal titles where possible, but Wikipedia pages for all those people don't omit their names -.- . What's your stance on the situation, since you were active on those pages before ? I'm in favour of reinstating their name + title because it's less confusing. --Killuminator (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I would also argue Avicenna and Averroes need a move but then again both their latin and real names are kind of equally represented in all sorts of media. --Killuminator (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Killuminator: A few months ago I wanted Roxelana to be moved to Hurrem Sultan, her Ottoman royal name. But users opposed the move and gave examples such as Avicenna and said that in these cases Latin name should be used. Keivan.f^Talk 15:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Hurrem, there is this Turkish sitcom Magnificent Century, and since they of course use the Turkish name, the term Roxelana was largely pushed out of use in many places in SE Europe. --Killuminator (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

An example of a good move is Uluru. When I was learning about Australia in elementary school, the most common name was Ayers rock and it still is a rather widely used term, of that there can be no doubt. But, our teacher told us that Uluru war the correct name and over time, the word Uluru simply demoted the term Ayers rock. Words and meanings simply change over time, but we people are rather nostalgic beings and it takes us some time to adapt to changes. Anyway, a week has passed for those princely members of the Japanese imperial family, can we move them now ? Also I had a suggestion for this page, check out the last post on the talk page. --Killuminator (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Killuminator: I'll try again to give a move request for Hurrem Sultan in the future. And about the Japanese Imperial Family, well an administrator will close the discussion tomorrow and move the pages himself. I will answer to your suggestion on the article's talk page. Also I posted a paragraph from Japanese Wikipedians on Prince Akishino's talk page that shows why their empresses are called like this. Keivan.f^Talk 20:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I asked for help from someone named Ryulong to help me with Japanese empresses' articles but he just removes my messages without any clear reason and escapes from answering. Keivan.f^Talk 21:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

So much for traditional Japanese hospitality. Sadly, I'm not competent enough to trim down the family tree, do you know someone adequate for the job ? --Killuminator (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Killuminator: Yes, I think I know someone. Keivan.f^Talk 22:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Killuminator: Also do you think Roxelana should be moved to Hurrem Sultan? Keivan.f^Talk 11:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I didn't see your question, I was so busy these day. My last exam was this morning and I hope I pass, yikes. That should clear my semester. I would support moving it to Hurrem Sultan since it's clearly gaining on usage seeing how there's a sitcom that propelled the popularity of Suleiman I and people of that era. There's even a song about it : HUREM . --Killuminator (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

And yeah, the admins didn't move those pages we discussed earlier, even though there is a clear unanimous vote on the matter. --Killuminator (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for posting three times in a row, my brain is scrambled. A similar person from the same time period as Roxelana would be the infamous Redbeard but still the page is titled by his real name Oruç Reis. --Killuminator (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Killuminator: Hello. I hope you pass your exams. As I said previously I requested moving Roxelana to Hurrem Sultan which was opposed by some users. Many Ottoman sultanas were known by nicknames in Europe but on Wikipedia the form of their articles' titles is "Name Sultan". Her royal and official name is Hurrem Sultan and she is known by this name in Asia, Eastern Europe, and North Africa. Over 300 millions of people in over 50 countries watched the TV series Magnificent Century and almost all of those people know her under the title Hurrem Sultan. It's true that here is English Wikipedia but we shouldn't forget that this language is international. But I think this time you should give a move request and I'll support it absolutely. About Japanese royals, well I think there are too many pages listed to be moved and during these days one of admins close the discussion and move the pages. I'll try to talk to one of them to move the pages sooner. Keivan.f^Talk 14:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Killuminator: I think my brain is scrambled too. I wanted to say Africa but I wrote America. However as that TV series is currently airing in USA, so she will become known by the name Hurrem. Keivan.f^Talk 14:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Killuminator: Giving some examples of Ottoman sultanas who also have nicknames: Mihrimah Sultan (Hurrem's daughter) is also known as Cameria, Mahidevran Sultan (Suleiman's another consort) is also known as Rosne Pranvere, and many other examples. Keivan.f^Talk 14:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not experienced enough to request it and I think it's a bit early. Regarding the family tree (Japan), some user made it EVEN SMALLER ! It's outrageous to me seeing how I wear glasses and reading such puny letters requires me too get closer to the screen. Can you get that guy to trim the family tree down pleaseeee ? --Killuminator (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed something regarding Russian empresses, there is no navigational template for consorts. None, zippo, nix. --Killuminator (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw this discussion here now. I do not agree with it, because you are inventing a format that is incorrect. Gryffindor (talk) 09:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding my user talk page

When someone reverts a message you left for them, the general consensus on Wikipedia is that person has read it and simply did not wish to respond to it. Your insistence that I respond to you is not a right you or anyone has as you have so dutifully figured out yourself when you reverted my response to the fact that when you link to someone else's screenname in a thread, it automatically notifies them that they were mentioned like if you tag someone on Facebook or Twitter. I apologize for having not left a more valid reason for the initial revert. I hit enter too many times and didn't get to put in the edit summary that I do not care and do not wish to be involved in your unnecessary request to change several articles' titles.

Also, you are incorrect in your knowledge of rollback. Not only do I not have WP:ROLLBACK (I use WP:TWINKLE) I am free to use it as I see fit in my userspace and I would not be considered edit warring if someone repeatedly posted there against my wishes.

So please, do not link to my userpage again unless you want to get my attention. Do not involve me in your request to move every page on a the empresses consort of Japan. And do not assume I'm Japanese.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ryulong: Hi. First I apologize for saying bad words to you. I became really angry that time. I didn't become sad that why you're not interested in the topic, all I wanted to tell you that you could just say: "No, I can't help you". Since I hadn't heard that reverting someone's edits on your talk page means that you do not wish to be involved in his or her request, I thought that I had written something wrong in your talk page. I'm also a rollbacker but usually I don't use it for reverting the other users' edits and I try to answer them. And my purpose isn't to change Japanese empresses articles' titles, I just want to expand them. I needed a person who is interested in Japan's culture and know Japanese language and I thought that maybe you can help me. I asked some interested users for help and they answered. Again I apologize if I made you sad. Keivan.f^Talk 23:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, before you revert that, the editor was blocked as a banned user's sock. Also he lies about any restrictions I may have not that they're even relevant here tbh.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ryulong: Sorry but I didn't understand what you said. Which editor do you mean exactly? Keivan.f^Talk 21:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It's in your talk page history. I would rather apply WP:DENY to say anything further, but I've previously had to eal with editors who constantly restored attacks on me posted by banned editors sockpuppeting.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diana, Princess of Wales, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew Morton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries, please

Hello Keivan, and thanks for your contributions. Please consider making a habit of providing an edit summary when you make a change to an article. Doing so makes it easier and quicker for your fellow editors to understand the intention of your edit and to collaborate with you on the encyclopedia. Thanks in advance for considering this suggestion. Eric ^talk 16:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Eric: Thanks for your suggestion. I'll do it. Keivan.f^Talk 10:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Copying Camilla's article

Is there a reason why you keep doing that to Diana's? Every article should be written in its own way, you're making it so obvious and sad. (Monkelese (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Diana's article need two different sections, her early life, education and career needs to split, Camill's article didn't need to be split.

I know this wikipedia but please stop doing that, although it's already done, hope you happy. (Monkelese (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi dear @Monkelese:. Actually I have expanded Diana's article since two years ago. During these years I just tried to get inspiration from other articles, the Queen Mother's article, Camilla's article, etc. But you're right too. There should be some differences between articles. They shouldn't look exactly the same. I try to make more differences from now. Thanks. Keivan.f^Talk 08:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

HEY KEiVAN WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU ARE DOING? You just copy whatever I write in Camilla's article to Diana's, again i said stop it, the articles look too similar in the lead and most parts all because of what you are doing, just today I wrote, She has also raised awareness in areas including rape and sexual abuse, and literacy, for which she has been praised, and you write the same for Diana, using AIDS and leprosy, why do you keep making both articles similar, I suggest you remove the duplications and come up with your own ideas, it is wrong and immature stealing someone's way of writing. You are not like looking for inspiration, you're looking to make both of articles the same, which is severely wrong after I told you to stop it. Yet after I edited Camilla's page, you edit Diana's page writing the same as if it some sort of competition. I will report this if I can, I took Camilla's page which was not edited years ago and edited with my own style, you should have and should do the same. This is not about thinking her article is mine, but protecting it from unneccesary edits. Now you take Camilla's article and write it like Diana's, it is very wrong and if I were you I would remove it all and rewrite on your own. Again, every article has its way of writing, I get inspiration from other articles including Diana's but i DO NOT duplicate or copy exactly what is on her article, this is what you are doing, I had to revert Childhood and Youngadulthood on Diana's page because it was irrelevant for you to copy it from Camilla's. Again what do you intend to gain? Its like you are comparing both ladies whom you and I know are completely different from eachother. I wonder if I can report your childish behavior. (Monkelese (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Monkelese: Calm down. I just thought that you have written that sentence long time ago. You really think that I'm waiting for you to do something with Camilla's article? Hah. I don't follow you and I don't have to give answers to you about what I do with the other articles. Maybe you're right, I was wrong, I shouldn't add a sentence that is completely similar to Camilla's one, but if you look at Diana's article you see the information are completely different. Actually I was the person who separated Diana's early life section to two different parts long time ago and created another one for her education and career. Diana had a section for her charity work before Camilla, which I have expanded during these two years, if I added the title "areas of interest" it doesn't mean that I have stolen your precious way of writing. I created a section titled princess of wales after I read the Queen Mother's article that has a section titled duchess of york. If you really think using a sentence is stealing your way of writing then change it or every sentence you might think is similar to Camilla's article. Keivan.f^Talk 18:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Monkelese: I think you're the one who's behaving like children. I don't understand the reason of your anxiety. As you said they're two different individuals. Their appearances, their charity works, everything about them is different. If you feel that there are some similarities that makes you annoyed, tell me and I think about how to change it with your help and advise. You seem to be a wise person, so let's solve this problem in its right way. Keivan.f^Talk 18:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how old you are but you're very childish, this is not Diana's fansite, look at my edit on Camillas [Camilla, and look at Diana's on the same day Diana's you're copying exactly what I write, I don't care about sections like Areas of Interest, I care about duplicating the same thing I write, you should know better than that, even her grandfather, you do the same to to Diana's grandfather, why? As I said I have been inspired by articles including Diana's but never thought of copying the way her article is written, if you can't come up with a writing style, then stop editing. (Monkelese (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Monkelese: I removed that sentence. Anything else? Even when I asked you to tell me the problems, you behave like this. I'm really sorry for you. Keivan.f^Talk 18:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I will tell you who's aritcle I got inspired by highlighting the works on the Duchess, I got it through Michelle obamas article and overall the first ladies, but i never thought of using the same writing style. There is a difference, what I see here is basically taking most sentence in Camillas article to Diana's, and you don't rewrite it. They way their lead is written is very similar, it should not be. I don't have to point it out to you, you know which sentences (Monkelese (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you mean to delete your !vote?

You appear to have added a !vote and then deleted it. Was that what you intended to do? Cheers! bd2412 T 21:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@BD2412: Hi dear. Actually I wanted to support the move at first, but after looking at the books written by her and some other official documents that the others had provided, I changed my mind. I don't know whether to support it or opposse it. I also really don't have enough time currently to participate in such discussions. I hope all of the users choose the best title for the article. Keivan.f^Talk 05:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That is entirely reasonable. Thanks for explaining. bd2412 T 12:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions at RfD

I am not good at giving barnstars even though you deserve one, because I edit everything longhand, but would like to thank you for your contributions over at WP:RFD. I for one very much appreciate it and appreciate your expertise on Turkish Turkik?) subjects. Please forve me my typing mistakes, my fingers are larger than the keys. WP:RFD is a good place to hang out, because there are a few intelligent people who can cast their eye in all kinds of different directions, and that is the fun of it: I hope you shall become a regular there. Don't let anyone put you off, I may well disagree with you from time to time, but never personal, just arguing the case. Wittgenstein after all said the world is everything that is the case, at the start of Philosphia Mathematica, and finished with "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". (Or in other words, "If you don1t know, shut up"). But what more can you expect from a German :) Si Trew (talk) 09:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: Hi, Thanks dear. Sorry for replying late. I was too busy. I should say that I really enjoy to discuss both in real life and in the social media. Unfortunately, I can't neither come to Wikipedia everyday nor participate in such discussions currently, because I'm studying for my final exams at school and also for my university entrance exam. But I'll promise to come and be more active on WP:RFD and everywhere as soon as possible. Keivan.f^Talk 16:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Well bloody good luck to you. I was just translating a SPanish article from WP:PNT so my English is probably even worse than yours! All the best for your exams, you are a clever chap, you should sail through them. Si Trew (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: Thank you so much. I wish you the best in everything you do. Keivan.f^Talk 16:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I do nothing. I cook and clean and can translate and stuff like that, but I can't really work properly cos I lack concentration, I used to have it, but after a couple of hours now, I drift off and start singing Chas and Dave songs or something from Billy Bragg and just start playing on the joanna and completely lose the plot. Now, I can tell you how a joanna works but I have no idea what the black ones do, they seem to have stuck them in just to make Irving Berlin and George Gershwin put everything in B flat minor. And what have all the other keys got that the key of C major hasn't, I ask you?

I used to be able to concentrate, but I can't now. Si Trew (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: It's just a negative feeling. I'm sure you can take back your concentration in the future. And also everything you do in your life, try to do it in its best way. No matter what it is, cooking, washing, etc. I liked to talk more but I should go back to my room and rest, after a day full of stress because of Mathematics. Keivan.f^Talk 17:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

That's all one can do, do one's best. My three rules in life are don't hit, don't lie, don't cheat. After that everything is a bonus. Si Trew (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

there you again

Please remove other areas from Diana's section , seems you are not listening, come up with your own title, it ridiculous how obsessed you are right now, and stop removing things from Camilla's page, rewrite or let it be, its high time you stop this{Monkelese (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@Monkelese: I changed the title, but I'm really tired of your orders. How about changing the sections' titles in Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge's article because they're also similar to Camilla's article!! And I removed that sentence from the lead section of Camilla's article because it says that she uses the title "Duchess of Rothesay" because of the strong association of the title "Princess of Wales" with Diana. It's completely wrong as Diana was also Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland. Camilla adopted the title "Duchess of Cornwall" because of Diana. You reverted my explained edit without a clear reason. I think you have become sensitive on each of my edits. As I said before try to be optimistic a little and stop this behavior. And let this discussion end here now because neither me nor you have time to discuss for silly reasons and I have nothing to say and no more time for discussing anymore. Keivan.f^Talk 08:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The Duchess of Cornwall's other title are all supposed to mention, only thing mentioned is the princess of wales, why? Look at Diana's all is mentioned, you could have rewrote it, although it already makes sense, yet you choose to remove an entire sentence, you could have wrote, in scotland she uses duchess of rothesay and her other titles are the rest. removing it was uncessary, we HAD a discussion about this, you seem to be making sure both women have their page and everything written the same way, again they are different, even after I added extended family to Camilla's template, you do the same to Diana's, why? her template was fine before...listen to what you're doing wrong and stop coming up with excuses (Monkelese (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

As you can see it has been added, not removed, I will also not have this conversation anymore, regardless of what I say or said it doesn't matter to you, and I will say too, i have nothing to say to you anymore or discuss regarding this. This is my final say on this matter (Monkelese (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Monkelese: But isn't that making the lead sections the same? Because Diana's titles are mentioned in the lead section they have to be mentioned in Camilla's article too. OK. And yes, we had a discussion over this matter, but adding a new section to a template is not copying. I will add extended family to Charles and William's templates too and I see no problem here. Also as we agreed before the articles shouldn't have the same sentences. Another user and I changed Diana's lead section after you mentioned this, but similarity in third-level headings doesn't make that much problem. "Charity" section in Diana's article is a little bit similar to Queen Rania of Jordan as most of the royals perform public duties and it should be mentioned. I think we won't have more problems in the future as we discussed almost everything about these two articles. Keivan.f^Talk 05:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Kit Harington

Hello,

With regards to Kit Harington's page, to my understanding both Kit himself and the show creators have advised that 'Jon Snow is dead'. When pressed for more information about the character, they further confirmed that, saying 'dead is dead'. I believe that this is sufficient information to change the dates of Kits presence on the show.

Yours sincerely,

An active Wikipedia user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.29.74.39 (talk) 08:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Pippa Middleton

Are all of my ref. OK on this page? Srbernadette (talk) 07:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Thanks

I never add their names in Valide Sultan template. In fact, I removed it. It had been there before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hafidh Wahyu P (talk • contribs) 14:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Turhan Hatice Sultan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Consort. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 20 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) 16:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Haseki Sultan = Empress

Why Haseki Sultan can't be translated as empress? Hafidh Wahyu P (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hafidh Wahyu P Hi. Actually we can't make rules and decide how to translate it. Unfortunately the historical books doesn't mention the existence of such position (Empress) in the Ottoman courts. As far as I know historians also haven't translated it as Empress. I don't know what the word "Haseki" exactly means. Although if you have a reliable source that proves your opinion you're free to use it. Otherwise it's better to leave it in the way it is and not translate it. Keivan.f^Talk 16:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia

At 14:53 on 12 May 2015 you copied some text from the article Charles, Prince of Wales to the article Diana, Princess of Wales. When you do this you must note that you have done so in the edit history. Also when you make such a copy, please make sure that if there are any short citations in the text copied that you also copy the long citation from the source article into the target article. You will find details of all this in the guideline Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, however failure to attribute the copy is a breach of the copyright policy detail of which are in Wikipedia:Copyrights#Reusing text within Wikipedia).

-- PBS (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Halime Sultan

Hello Keivan, I see there is many false Informations about the consort or Valide Sultanas of the Ottoman Empire. Too much selfmade storys like Noble womans from circassian, Abkhazian Familys etc. This was not the real fact in the Ottoman Harem system, because they didn't want to have Womans from Noble Families in the Harem, like the Yeniceri.

Halime Sultan as a Valide is not given in any realiable sources.

To my Person, I am a descendant of Saliha Sultan, daughter of Mahmud II, and I wonder me, How many is written about the Womans in the Harem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talk • contribs) 14:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nalanidil Hello. Actually about Halime Sultan's situation I agree with you. The name of the mother of Mustafa I isn't recorded in history, and the book used as a source doesn't mention her name. I think one of the users moved it based on the new historical TV series that is currently airing in Turkey. As for this, you can give a move request. Valide Sultan (mother of Mustafa I) can be a better title. About the origins and early lives of Ottoman consorts I should say that they are sourced by numerous books and removing them without discussion on talk pages isn't a wise decision. Feel free to remove the "unsourced" paragraphs but the sourced information cannot be removed because you think that they're wrong. You must first provide reliable sources and then change the information. Also it's not stated that all of the Ottoman consorts were from noble families, only some of them were, but as they were captured and then sent to the harem, they turned to be slaves at first and it couldn't cause problem for the harem's system. Then they could rose to power and become Valide or Haseki. Keivan.f^Talk 16:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I have a Problem with the User Nein, he always made speedy for deletion for Ayse Siddika Hanimsultan the daughter of Saliha Sultan (daughter of Mahmud II). This angry me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talk • contribs) 20:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nalanidil There's no reason to be angry. That page was deleted because its individual wasn't notable enough to have a separate article on Wikipedia. Being related to a notable person doesn't mean that you're also notable. A person also won't become notable because of your personal views. You must provide reliable sources that proves a person was notable or influential in history. It's clear that Ayse Siddika wasn't an important figure in Ottoman history. She's unknown. I think moving the information about her to Saliha Sultan's article was a good decision. The articles about other Ottoman imperial princesses are sourced. You can see the sources in references sections. Those who don't have enough sources are tagged. And of course the daughters of a king are more notable than his granddaughters. And as an advise, please don't blank your talk page. Only pay attention to the messages and follow the instructions. If you have access to reliable sources, then use them and the articles won't be deleted. Keivan.f^Talk 11:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Well the sources I taken from this Book, it is written by the Ottoman Dynasty https://archive.org/stream/GenealogyOfTheImperialOttomanFamily2005#page/n13/mode/2up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talk • contribs) 20:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nalanidil Well, I saw the book and it seems to be reliable. But the main point is that it's just a genealogy. Maybe you can use this book for creating a family tree or add the name of Ottoman princes and princesses' descendants to their articles but you can't create separate articles for each and everyone of them, as a genealogy doesn't prove their notability. It's not actually a biography to show their activities and achievements. I'm completely sure that all of them weren't prominent, maybe some of them. But then again multiple other sources are needed to prove their notability. And as I said above my final statement is that being related to a royal family doesn't mean that a person is notable on his own. As a suggestion please read Wikipedia:Notability (people). It helps you to understand what I said better. Keivan.f^Talk 09:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Princess Rukiye Fazl

Well, if a Hanimsultan a Granddaughter of an Ottoman Sultan is not important for Wikipedia, why then a Princess of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Rukiye_Fazl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talk • contribs) 03:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nalanidil I didn't say that a Hanimsultan isn't important at all. You completely misunderstood what I said as you're looking so dynastic and fanatic to this matter. I said that being a Hanimsultan doesn't bring notability for a person. Maybe there were some influential and powerful Hanimsultans in history and they surely can have articles on Wikipedia but those like Ayse Siddika who weren't prominent and didn't play a role in political matters of the country or even the harem cannot. Princess Rukiye Fazl's article also doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and I will give a proposed deletion request for it but not because she was a princess of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty, but because she wasn't a prominent figure. Of course if there had been any powerful and famous princess in this dynasty she can have an article on Wikipedia. That's all. Keivan.f^Talk 09:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Serenay Sarıkaya

Hi, you better take care of that article now 'cause is nominated for deletion by an insane! Regards (Mona778 (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC))

Well done! He gave up! Cheers (Mona778 (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC))

@Mona778 Thanks for bringing this issue into my attention. Regards. Keivan.f^Talk 17:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Damat Gürcü Halil Rifat Pasha

Hello Keivan, maybe you can help me to create this Page. He was the Husband of Saliha Sultan (Mahmud II's daughter). He was one of the last big Ottoman Statemans and a native Georgian Prince. He was captured as Boy and grew up as a Muslim, in the last Janissaries Time. He married firstly Saliha Sultan and after her death he married again and got a son. This son was Damat Mahmud Celaleddin Pasha, who also became a Groom, because he married Seniha Sultan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talkcontribs) 12:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the Turkish Page of Damat Gürcü Halil Rifat Pasha: https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damat_G%C3%BCrc%C3%BC_Halil_Rifat_Pa%C5%9Fa

@Nalanidil I checked the Turkish article. It seems to be well sourced and the individual is also notable. You can create it. Currently, I don't have much time to translate it myself. You can translate the Turkish version to English yourself and don't forget to include the sources completely. Then I can check the grammar and the article's shape. I won't be on Wikipedia until Friday so if you create the article before that time, I can later improve it. Keivan.f^Talk 13:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Keivan, well my Turkish is bad, but I have create the Page... Damat Gürcü Halil Rifat Pasha is not to be confused with Halil Rifat Pasha, there are two different Persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalanidil (talk • contribs) 15:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Keivan.f. You have new messages at Nedim Ardoğa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

"Hatun" and "Sultan"

Was Ayse Hatun (wife of Osman II) really Haseki Sultan? Why in many sources, she called "Hatun", not "Sultan"? About Mahidevran. Was she really "hatun", not "sultan"? What is your sources? In article of Roxelana say "Mahidevran lost her status in the palace". I think (just my opinion) this word meaning she lost her status as "sultan". In Muhtezem Yuzyil, when concubines have a son, she received title "sultan". I know this series just "fiction", but this series talking about "history". So, of course some part from this series based on tradition in that time or some historical sources. What do you think? Hafidh Wahyu P (talk) 11:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hafidh Wahyu P Just forget Muhtezem Yuzyil. The title "haseki sultan" was created for Hurrem Sultan for the first time. Before that all the wives were called hatun. The article says that Mahidevran lost her status in the palace which refers to her status as the mother of the only heir apparent to the throne. About Ayse Hatun (wife of Osman II) and Ayse Hatun (wife of Murad IV) I don't have enough knowledge. You may ask this question from the user who created those articles and expanded them. Keivan.f^Talk 12:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Hurrem was first Haseki Sultan. But, what only haseki who can held title sultan? Mahfiruz Hatice was not Haseki nor Valide, but she received title sultan, too. From i know, title sultan appeared in 16th century for prominent dynasty member. It's very possible Mahidevran as mother for only Heir apparent received the title sultan too beside Ayse Hafsa as Valide and imperial princesses. Sorry for my English.Hafidh Wahyu P (talk) 11:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hafidh Wahyu P No, it's OK, I can understand what you're saying. First of all Mahfiruz's situation was different from Mahidevran. Although she wasn't a Valide Sultan she was alive during her son's reign and it's more possible that she had received the title "Sultan". Mahidevran was only the mother of heir apparent and her son died sooner than his father and never took the throne, so Mahidevran was neither a Valide Sultan nor the mother of a sultan. She was neither a Haseki as this title was first created for Hurrem. The individuals who held the title "Sultan" were the king himself, his mother "Valide Sultan", his principal consort "Haseki Sultan", and the imperial princes and princesses. Besides Mahidevran is mentioned as Mahidevran Hatun in Padişahların Kadınları ve Kızları by Çağatay Uluçay, The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire by Leslie Pierce and also in a quote from an Ottoman source. Keivan.f^Talk 10:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

But what about Selimiye Sultan? She was consort of Selim II. She didn't Haseki nor Valide. Hafidh Wahyu P (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hafidh Wahyu P So the article's title should be Selimiye Hatun not Selimiye Sultan. Keivan.f^Talk 13:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)