User talk:Phso2

Good Day! It has been noted you edited the article Mahidevran Hatun and claimed that the last edit was without any sources. Please do check the sources again which are not UN-reliable. I would like to provide clear image of history to all who are interested in knowledge, I have therefore researched carefully before putting anything out on Wikipedia. Please do not take my message negatively, I appreciate your contribution to Wikipedia. The said article has a debate about the Title of the lady, which, according to her related era and customs, was changed after she became a mother to heir apparent.

Please don't waste your time and mine with such pointless discussions. Find an academic book that deals with her as specifically as Peirce's and go to the talkpage, otherwise just let it go.--Phso2 (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for saying but Sir/Ma'am, you sound very rude in your response. Since you want a book reference I'll give it you. Several actually, for your ease, I'll even provide you cited reference/links.

First reference from Alicia McNary Forsey's book; Queen Isabella Sforza Szapolyai of Transylvania and Sultan Süleyman of the Ottoman Empire (here she's also referred to as Haseki)^[1]

Second reference from Leeann Murphy's Moon Istanbul & the Turkish Coast: Including Cappadocia^[2]

Third reference from Isis Press' most reliable History book "Süleymân The Second and His Time"^[3]

Fourth reference from historian Necdet Sakaoğlu's book "Famous Ottoman Women"

And I can go on and on and on but I really do have a life so I can't debate much, but please note these references are only the ones which are written in English, if you want more I can give you, in Turkish Language there are Dozens more books to prove her title, for instance a Turkish Philology; Türk dili: dil ve edebiyat dergisi, Issue 454.

My friend, Peirce simply didn't mentioned her title in her book, instead she added Hatun to her name which was used for every single lady at that time, and even today, Hatun (or Khatun) literally translates as "Madam". She did that out of respect. But Peirce's not using her title simply doesn't mean that she didn't have that title. For example, Chairman Mao's page in Wikipedia is Mao Zedong and Queen Elizabeth's page is Elizabeth II but it doesn't mean that these two notable people doesn't have their respective titles. I hope that will clear your point. And thank you for responding at least you are not completely rude to ignore my feedback. Have a nice one! Peace.Worldandhistory (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You may call my answer "rude" but yours isn't better since your "reliable sources" include some travel guide; a collection of snippets isn't proper sourcing.--Phso2 (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Please note only one of the sources I provide isn't what you may call reliable source but others like "Süleymân The Second and His Time" and "Queen Isabella Sforza Szapolyai of Transylvania and Sultan Süleyman of the Ottoman Empire" are History books, if you reed them full you'll see how the price's mother have been referred as Sultana. Here are some more sources. The is a history book, not some Novel or Travel Guide.^[4] and here's another one ^[5] And even if they are "snippet views" they do reject the motion that "Historically, Mahidevran couldn't be called Mahidevran Sultan". Though we should also not forget what Leslie P. Peirce has referred her, we should present in Wikipedia both possibilities and put everything every available source has to offer. We, you and I or anyone can simply not shape the history we like, but we can certainly educate people what all the sources has to offer. Hope you understand my point.Worldandhistory (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

From your latest proposal it seems clear that you don't distinguish between history books written by scholars and vulgarization historical books written by novelists (as author of the 4th books describes himself) or journalists. Do you tell me you read "Süleymân The Second and His Time"? If you really did, can you tell me how many sentences are devoted to Mahidevran? (i know the answer). You can't compare a brief mention in a text not specifically dealing with the subject with Peirce's book which is precisely dealing with the subject, and has a whole subchaper devoted to her, that is all.--Phso2 (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Whoever you are, I like you. You talk very smart friend. Your point is plausible But you did not understand my point, or maybe I couldn't clear my point to you that well. Please try to understand my point, rest assure I'm not denying Peirce's book here, she called her "Mahidevran Hatun" in her book, but at no Point did she also mentioned that Mahidevran was not called Sultan. My second point have 2 points in itself, first, people even today, specially Turkish people, still remember her by 'Mahidevran Sultan', turkish Historical drama Muhteşem Yüzyıl also referred her as Sultana in entire series (though you may say they added fiction) still, in old books, so called tour guides, novels and arts released years before this drama came on air, she has been referred to as Sultana many times. So there is a possibility that she was called Sultan. A man struggling for his life with cancer came up and disclosed his family tree which linked to Mahidevran, told that she was a wife^[6], a dying man lying for what? Publicity? He could have claimed he slept with Angeline Jolie for that (no dis-respect for Jolie I love her). Second point, Peirce has also used references in her book, references which you and I have no access to. So let there be possibility of her title as "Sultan". And the main point, people know her by Mahidevran Sultan, to them, Mahidevran Hatun is totally a new person they did not intend to search on Wikipedia. So let there be a section called Title, and then add there what you think of her title as mentioned in Peirce's book. Again, please remember Peirce did NOT say that she was NOT referred as Sultana. Hope I was able to explain well, I would like to make a suitable change to the article but would not edit until we clear this point as I do not intend to enter into Edit War. Have a Nice one!Worldandhistory (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

For your first point, 1)she doesn't call her "Sultan", 2)she call other persons "Sultan", 3)she writes that the title "Sultan" was first given to haseki concubines, 4)She writes that Roxelane was the first haseki. So it is clear that she implicitly means MahiD/Gulbahar wasn't called "Sultan", although she didn't feel the urge to write explicitly "Mahidevran was not called Sultan" probably because it's a triffling matter that only Mahidevran fans consider a hot issue.

For the 2nd point, we can include in the article a note saying that although she wasn't plausibly called Sultan, a large number of journalists, novelists, tourist guides give her that title, along with some historians who speak of her incidentally.

The guy of the interview is not the first nor the last to believe in good faith or invent himself a prestigious ancestry. A self styled "descendant of", recounting 500 years old so called "family stories", is not at all a reliable source.

For your last point, people have absolutely no difficulty to find the article, even if they type in "Mahidevran Sultan".

Apart from TV series, Mahidevran/Gülbahar is on the whole a very minor historical character, of which very little is known; but because of the romanesque elements of her story people tend to fill the void as they can, often in earnest, which phenomenon has produced a plague of false "portrait of mahidevran" on Commons for example.

You take these things too sentimentally it seems: looks like you merely want to avenge poor Mahidevran by depriving evil Roxelana of the (undisputed in her case) word "sultan" for example.--Phso2 (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

OK sorry I said you're smart. First, Hurrem was indeed the first known haseki, no denial or objection. But it does require an authentic reliable source, an official account of that time maybe, which is impossible to find now (now don't say it is unfair, you have been asking about the same for Mahidevran Hatun). Second, Hurrem was indeed known as "Sultan". Third, the mere fact of you keeping track of these pages makes it seems that it's not me alone But you too who takes these things sentimentally. I do not deny I am in fact very interested in women of Ottoman Empire. Fourth, The reason why I removed "Sultan" was because it was unnecessary using a title every time you write someone's name, Queen Elizabeth for example. Fifth, You can not write a whole Wikipedia articles based on just one source (Peirce's) specifically for a person who has many controversial theories about name, origin and status, she may have been "minor historical character" but many now seems to be interested in her story. Sixth, the guy of the interview talked about it, full stop, not for us to judge whether he is to be believed or not, but it is for us to mention about his story in the article as it is completely relevant, let everyone be the judge in their own mind and just put about "an alleged so and so have now given some new accounts on so and so". And Seventh, last but not least, you will not understand my point, rather bring senseless rebuttals about someone being a "fan" of someone who existed centuries ago and whose even bones are now non-existing in their graves. I do not care about any of these historical figures, but I do care about putting the knowledge out for people who seek about how and what happened to them and how they are and have been known to people. I have a thing called life so I will not be changing about the article at moment. But you definitely will know when I will as you seems more interested in these two ladies and rather would want to keep track and make sure to put all good notes to one and all poor ones to another. So keep tracking. Have a good one! Worldandhistory (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

This edit includes adding "some dubious source". Why?--Zoupan 12:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Source label: Because this source is the catalog of a painting exhibition, not a reliable scholarly history book as it should be, that is why.--Phso2 (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)—moved to initiated discussion.--Zoupan 13:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Then inline tag the reference if you believe it is dubious, instead of adding your own opinion into article space.--Zoupan 13:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes sir.--Phso2 (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Please revert the recent edit on Mahidevran's page which is done by an IP. He has actually removed some sourced info and as I'm on WP by my mobile, it seems that it's impossible for me to use my rollback rights. Please undo them as soon as you can. Thanks. Keivan.f^Talk 11:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Keivan.f^Talk 11:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Please stop it now on Mahidevran's page. For the gazillionth time, just because Leslie's book didn't approve doesn't mean that the information in incorrect. The contents added are "Possible Theories of Origin", only THEORIES not STATEMENTs so there is no harm in mentioning the "most convincing theory is..." as no other possible origins was removed. IMWY6 (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Please check Haseki Sultan. I think there is vandalism in this article by account name ValideSultan. Also, (s)he also created article Meryem Ayşe Sultan who said that she was Murad IV's haseki and Mehmed VI's valide.

Hafidh Wahyu P (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I've done what i could, i.e. revertig those inventions and warning the user. One should propose the fallacious article for deletion.--Phso2 (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Meyrem Ayşe Sultan was just created, mirroring an article you sent to AfD. Are you sure this is a hoax? If so, I can speedy delete it, rather than going through the AfD discussion process. —C.Fred (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "did you really had access to and read these sources"?I don't get the point of the question.Why would I edit the article if I wasn't sure about the information I am providing?Not everyone who replaces long-unchanged information is a troll,you know.And most importantly based on what grounds do you question my sources' validity?I am restoring the article to its proper version.If you have any reasonable and substantial objections to that,I would love to hear it. Chris Liak (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The citations are already there.I hope you do not expect to find the name Fülane somewhere because as I mentioned while editing the article it is not actually a name.We do not know the name of Mehmed's Haseki.Fülane derives from Arabic "fülani" meaning something along the lines of "beautiful" and is occasionally used to refer to women of the Ottoman dynasty whose real name remains unknown. Chris Liak (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I'm glad that you nominated this page for deletion but the problem isn't solved yet. I had a discussion with User:Retrieverlove and he told me that the information on Hürrem Kadınefendi and Nükhetsezâ Hanımefendi (wife of Abdul Hamid I) are self-made and wrong. Furthermore, he told that the articles about these ladies (Yıldız Hanımefendi, Nevdür Hanımefendi, Remişnaz Hanımefendi, Cevherriz Hanımefendi, and Şayan Kadın (wife of Abdülmecid I) provide wrong information as they were not imperial consorts but treasurers or kalfas of the imperial harem. Based on what he said I think Nükhetsezâ Hanımefendi (wife of Abdul Hamid I) should be nominated for deletion if the information is truly self-made as well as these two unsourced articles: Cevherriz and Şayan Kadın (wife of Abdülmecid I), which I have already nominated. The rest of them Yıldız, Nevdür, and Remişnaz at least seem to be sourced. I suggest we keep these ones if they are really backed by reliable sources as we already have articles about treasurers and kalfas like Canfeda Hatun or Meleki Hatun and instead correct the mistakes. There was also a previous case, Filizten Hanımefendi, who was a kalfa and the information on this article now seems to be corrected. What do you think we should do? Keivan.f^Talk 12:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I will support the deletion of unsourced articles and I hope that someday this frenzy about fictitious Ottoman consorts and fantasy history will cease... I'm not interested in XIXth century women since they don't seem to have historical relevance, but I can check some sources (Alderson, Uluçay) if necessary. Regards.--Phso2 (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. It's a mess. Please check the sources that you have access to. And don't forget to vote on these entries: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Keivan.f^Talk 02:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It really surprised me when you said here that "Info is found under another name in Alderson's "Structure of the Ottoman dynasty"". So do you mean the biography that was written there is about another person? It's just ridiculous. The worse thing is that we may have a similar case here: Nükhetsezâ Hanımefendi (wife of Abdul Hamid I). This article is also said to be a hoax as well. Is there any mention of her in your sources? Keivan.f^Talk 19:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

There is mention of some Cenâniyar in the page about Murad V (table XLIX), as a consort, with a note saying that she "later married a certain Hüsnü bey, berber-bashi" (can be some alias name though...) without mention of 1940 death. I will check for this Nükhetsezâ.--Phso2 (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Nükhetsezâ is said by Alderson to be a consort to AbdulHamid, died 4/6/1850, but not the mother of Mustafa IV. Not found in Uluçay.--Phso2 (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Cenâniyar, well she still doesn't seem to be notable, even the year of her death isn't known. So Nükhetsezâ, as I had guessed, wasn't the mother of Mustafa IV. Then we have another issue. Who was his mother? And I think I should nominate Nükhetsezâ for deletion because as usual the information is self-made and if she wasn't the mother of a sultan then why would she even be notable? And thanks for sending the e-mail. Keivan.f^Talk 20:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Mother of Mustafa IV is said to be Ayshe Sineperver (with orthograph variants) in Alderson and Uluçay. Apart from dubious notability, there is often no information to write an article with ; sometimes they are just names mentioned in archival records.--Phso2 (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I think every page about the Ottoman women should be checked immediately from different aspects when it's created. I'll be glad if you vote on this entry as well. Many thanks for your help. Keivan.f^Talk 04:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I found similar articles written by the same user who had created "Hürrem Kadınefendi". One of them probably didn't exist and the other one is not notable at all. You can check the articles and vote on the entries (1 & 2) as well. Keivan.f^Talk 03:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Phso2. I'm here to ask you to take a look at this article. I'd be glad to know your opinion as I have nominated it for deletion. Keivan.f^Talk 21:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I have found two more articles which seem be fabricated as usual, and I have nominated them for deletion (1 & 2). Although I preferred to consult you first as I thought you might have access to some sources which mention their names and provide biographical details. Keivan.f^Talk 20:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Keivan.f: I'm a bit fed up searching in vain in sources to look for (mostly inexistent) information about evanescent or fictional characters, so I advocated "delete" without further enquiry. Anyway, I doubt there exist much information about the concubines of princes.--Phso2 (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Phso2. You have new messages at Talk:Ottoman naval expeditions in the Indian Ocean.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Phso2, I am sorry to discuss this in totally irrelevant section but I didn't want to add an entirely new section for a mere 2 sentences' recommendation. I reverted this edit as this articles is already full of "thoughs" there is no need for additional 2 more. As for the sec Title and Status the word "possible" itself implement there is a chance of an alternate opinion, adding "though not likely" only adds negative point to WP:NPOV. As for Sh. Abdl's section (first) his own article gives a detailed information that most sources place him as Hurrem's son, (second) this again have the word "possible" in it so again I request on keeping NPOV but not adding further lines declaring/nullifying otherwise possibilities. Last but not the least Pierce's reference is used a hundred times throughout the article, adding one more duplicate reference of her book is totally unnecessary. Thank you. 113.203.131.1 (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Given I've noticed you multiple times you have reverted the edits I made in Gevherhan Sultan's page, excluding Atike Sultan as the daughter of Ahmed and Kösem I would have to ask you to put exact sources to claim that there were only four sisters, and not five (Is Hanzade who we don't have a clear picture who her mother was) and that Burnaz Atike wasn't one of them, otherwise your acts could be considered vandalism and a broke of the rules of a serious page like this. Consuelo J (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

You are actually reversing the roles and the burdain of proof. You have to provide a source for your repeated addition of the unsourced information that Atike is K's daughter; moreover this is not what the given references in this § say. So if you don't provide a reliable source, you'll be reverted again.--Phso2 (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. I was checking the revision history of this article and I realized that you had tagged the source which mentions Gülfem as a wife of Bayezid as 'self-published'. There's no doubt that the source is indeed unreliable but then the question is: who was Gülfem's husband? In popular culture she's widely portrayed as a wife of Suleiman yet we need historical evidence to prove such thing. Do you have access to any reliable source which makes it clear that who her husband truly was? Keivan.f^Talk 04:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

hi Phso2 I modified page again. Dukedom have a Duke in line of sucession, who reinstated dukedom since 1997 after a carefull search and registration at Archivo Heráldico de Colégio de Armas de la Real Sociedad Heraldica Española, under number 2.326/1997. Title was lost during Spanish Civil War due to Franco´s dictatorship. You can find more info at http://www.docelinajes.org/2010/10/la-sociedad-heraldica-espanola. They edit a "boletin" - see at https://issuu.com/dintelaltadireccion/docs/she_boletin_nov2013, but not all editions are online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DPPS Ltda (talk • contribs) 21:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I found a new article on Rita de Candia which I nominated for deletion as it looked pretty suspicious. Also found the same inaccurate info spread across several articles by the same IP's and did my best to revert it. I see that you've reverted this particular vandalism in the past and wanted to let you know it seems to be cropping up again. CataracticPlanets (talk) 06:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@CataracticPlanets:thank you for the alert. This "Candia hoax" is a very nefarious (it has even found its way into printed popular history books by uncritical "authors" that copied WP) long-term vandalism that keeps emerging sporadicaly. The vandal intermingles real facts and existing characters with in own fiction so persuasively that it is often difficult to deal with it, since he adds many pseudo-references (books that are often difficult to verify, and which ultimately don't support the text). It seems there is another cluster of hoax around Pelegrina Pastorino and Sur (magazine) (, , usual Canadian ips) with the habitual use of pseudo-references and deceptive picture descriptions (one of its usual features). Can you help with it?--Phso2 (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your addition to the article! As you are one of the most knowledgeable editors we have in WP on Frankish Greece, I would be grateful if you could give your opinion at the article's FAC. Any shortcomings detected, suggestions for improvement, etc would be most welcome. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 20:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cplakidas:Hi Constantine. I will have a closer look to the article. Don't hesitate to translate my personal english to proper one when needed--Phso2 (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Phso2! I have started some articles about the Ottoman Empire in English. I'm wondering if you're interested in writing French versions of some of them, as French was the main foreign language in the late (post-Tanzimat) Ottoman Empire. Egypt and Greece also used French at the turn of the 20th Century.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe:Hi. Sorry for the late answer. Unfortunately I don't have much time nor sources for this period, but I can help with French if needed. Cheers.--Phso2 (talk) 07:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

If you're interested in making French articles or stubs on topics already written (as in no need for referencing, just translation) in English, I have some ideas: Spyridon Mavrogenis, Imperial School of Medicine (Ottoman Empire), Constantinos Caratheodory (1802–1879), Edouard Blak, Gregory Aristarchis, Hüseyin Tevfik Pasha, Ali Ferruh Bey, etc. If you like to do this I can give more suggestions. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.

Phso2: Do not remove information from Wikipedia pages without first reading given sources. Further acts of vandalism will result in intervention by an administrator. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VenetianNobility (talk • contribs) 07:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

You should not wield serious accusations like "vandalism" wantonly, as you do. The content was already in the text, so it was not removed, the explanation that the problem is the picture's subject identification was in the diff, sorry if you didn't manage to understand.--Phso2 (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@Phso2, do not remove content without reading the source. "Unexplained removal of content is when the reason for the removal is not obvious, and is open to being promptly reverted."^[1]

Additionally, please be reminded of the following tips provided by Wikipedia.

Thank you. --VenetianNobility — Preceding unsigned comment added by VenetianNobility (talk • contribs) 09:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Please spare me your civility tips when you just have accused me of vandalism for no valid reason, just because I touched your owned article...--Phso2 (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Please see the useful comments above. Thank you. --VenetianNobility (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hah, I thought I was safe having a 1960s source to go on. But of course they all depend on Hopf, so now I have to rewrite the whole thing. Thanks for adding the sources! Constantine ✍ 15:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

And the irony is, the same guy who wrote the DBI article in 1964, Silvano Borsari, two years later published the study that refuted all this. Sigh... Constantine ✍ 16:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

This user is reverting edits or deleting text that is based on the Military History article of the battle of Gravia, without replacing the references with his own. Isn't that an edit war? I do not know a lot about edit wars so could you please enlighten me on this topic? Nonetheless I personally believe that some actions should be taken in order this user stop reverting edits or deleting referenced text. CorvusSaber (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@CorvusSaber: there are two differents things, "edit war" is the action of reverting each other instead of attempting to discuss to find a consensus; here it is simpler, it is mere "disruptive editing" from this ip which falsifiates sources according to its POV. If the ip goes on with the same edits pattern, better not revert it and instead notify admins there as you done it here. Cheers.--Phso2 (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William of Villehardouin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Karl Hopf. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Saw your edit there, perhaps you would like to check the previous versions without those unsourced additions added by Sira Aspera (talk · contribs). With the current status, it looks unreadable, and I think all those unsourced info (even if they were unsourced) are pretty much irrelevant to the article itself (person). Beshogur (talk) 11:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Beshogur: I was about to revert to your 22 May version but didn't want to start another guerilla about obscure wifes/concubines/children etc... I agree about the weak relevance, all these Ottoman articles have disproportionate (and too often unsourced) lists of relatives.--Phso2 (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I translated the Taiping Rebellion article to my language and it would be worrisome to give false information, but I don't know where this allegation of hoax comes from. AnAkemie (talk) 10:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi @AnAkemie: This mention was added by the sock of a blocked hoaxer who is busy adding "Levieux" ou "Candia" here and there whithout justification, I therefore shot at first sight and reverted it. It doesn't mean that the real naval officer Albert Édouard Le Brethon de Caligny is not related to the Taping Rebellion/Ever Victorious Army, though, but this must be verified by a source.--Phso2 (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I have just made a very partial reversion of Special:Diff/1159114328, which you made to the above article a few months back. The obvious intention of your revision was to remove misinformation relating to William II of Villehardouin - however, as this was the first mention of him in the article, the removal of the link and some apparently correct accompanying information about him left several references to an unidentified "William" in the next few sentences of the article. I have therefore restored the latter details (at the first now remaining mention of him) - I don't think I've restored any of the misinformation, but if you want to check and/or make any further adjustments, please do. PWilkinson (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes I was indeed much too hand-heavy and the text had become obscure, this is fine now.--Phso2 (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ~2025-37013-93 (talk) 10:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello! Perhaps you can help me. A user seem to want to censor an article. The article Çiçek Hatun includes the information that one of the theories of her background is that she was abducted during the conquest of Constantinople in 1453. This is not presented as provn facts: simply as one of the known theories of her background, and is also referenced. However, one user are engaged in an edit war and keeps removing the referened information with the excuse that the theory is presented as a fact, which is not true. Observe: . I do not have the time for a long argumentative discussion on talk pages with a hostile user about this, since I am swamped with work in real life. The information is already referenced, and it does not claim it is a fact, so the user has no leg to stand on. Can this be reported somewhere, or this user simply be blocked? Thank you --Aciram (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Aciram: : Hi. I will reply on the article's TP. Cheers.--Phso2 (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)