Talk:Alâeddin Mosque

message: I have changed the English but not the substance. Good work, Cretanforever. Can we add a picture of the royal mausoleum?  Aramgar 11:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Cretanforever: Your major revision of  Alaeddin Mosque (Konya, Turkey) on 5 September labeled “developped” has eliminated much factual information. The problem seems to stem from a perceived conflict between a single line from a paper by Machiel Kiel and assertions in Scott Redford’s ”The Alaeddin Mosque Reconsidered.” In fact, there is no contradiction between Kiel and Redford. I would respectfully suggest that you find a way to access and read the entire article by Redford: it is the most comprehensive work to date on the history of this complex building. The article by Machiel Kiel is of little relevance.
Your revision also includes much information not strictly relevant to Alaeddin Mosque (Konya, Turkey): the mention of the St Amphilochius and the etymology of its Turkish name is an example. And finally the names of the sultans of Rum were changed once again without so much as a word of explanation on the Talk page.
If  I must repeat myself I will: You Cretanforever and I Aramgar have a great deal in common. I would prefer to work with you as a colleague. I get the feeling that you may believe that I am some sort of enemy. I assure you that I am not. Aramgar 18:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cretanforever: Regarding the names of the sultans, an English-language article ought to use the spelling standards commonly accepted in English scholarly literature.  Please review WP:UE.  In addition, some of the text you provided  -- especially that concerning the Eflatun Mescidi -- was almost identical to that contained in the cited works; it needs a little more rewriting to avoid the appearance of plagiarism. Kafka Liz 10:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As requested, an explanation of my revisions yesterday: most of the edits related to spelling, grammar and style.  I removed information about the discovery of carpets in the mosque because upon checking the citation, it seemed more relevant to an article on Anatolian weaving or on Konya proper than to an article specifically about the mosque.  The phrasing also seemed far closer to that of the cited article than it ought have been.  The remark about touching mummified corpses simply seemed peculiar.  It has been pointed out that something different was meant; I will revise it back unless beaten to it. Kafka Liz 10:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Revision (although the [[mummy|mummified]] corpses are within reach)

message: Once again Cretanforever has replaced this page with an admixture of plagiarism, solecism, and irrelevant material. Rather than adding new material, he simply restored his edit of 5 September 2007 entitled “developped”. He offered no explanation for his changes in September.  This time he has offered only the disingenuous “image” in the Edit Summary box. I have kept the image as a useful addition but reverted the rest. Aramgar 19:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Revision (although the [[mummy|mummified]] corpses are within reach) Revisited

message: Arkadaṣım: For several months now, there has been some debate as to which spelling of the sultan’s name is the most appropriate title for the articles Kaykhusraw I, Kaykhusraw II, and Kaykhusraw III in English Wikipedia. The spelling current in English language academic literature is “Kaykhusraw.” You may prefer the Turkish spelling “Keyhüsrev,” which is understandable given the sultan’s role in Anatolian history and Turkish civilization. Still, “Kaykhusraw” is the form most familiar to readers of English, and Wikipedia Naming Conventions suggest that we use this form. Below is a list of credible English language sources. All use the spelling “Kaykhusraw.” The first two books in the list are the essential English language references for the history of the Seljuks of Rum.
 
:*”Kaykhusraw” Speros Vryonis, The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century  (University of California Press, 1971), p. 134.
:*”Kaykhusraw” Claude Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey: A General Survey of the Material and Spiritual Culture and History, c. 1071-1330  (Taplinger Publishing, 1968), p. 111.
:*”Kaykhusraw” Stephen Album, Checklist of Islamic Coins, 2nd edition (1998), p. 62.
:*”Kaykhusraw” The Glory of Byzantium: Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era, A.D. 843-1261, edited by Helen C. Evans and William D Wixom (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1997), p. 416.
:*”Kaykhusraw” Jonathan Phillips, The Fourth Crusade (Viking, 2004), p. 191. 
:*“Kay-khusraw” The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (Oxford University Press, 1991), vol. 2, p. 1117.
The titles of these articles must remain Kaykhusraw I, Kaykhusraw II, and Kaykhusraw III. I look forward to working with you in the future. I believe we have a great deal in common. Yours, Aramgar 03:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kaykhusraw or Keyhüsrev

message: The actual building seems to be modelled mostly correctly, but there is no cliff-face behind the structure like that in the picture. The mosque actually sits on the top of Konya's citadel hill. Maybe someone should edit the image to erase these cliffs. Meowy 14:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the türbe on the right, the so called Adsız Türbe, was never finished, in contrast to what the model  shows. Check out the recent photograph by Dick Osseman in which the modern roof is clearly visible: here. I would support, however, keeping the picture of the model: it provides an overview of this complex building superior to that of any photograph I have yet found. Aramgar (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: both points reflected now. Johnbod (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The picture showing the model 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Alaaddin.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Alaeddin Mosque. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060218045435/http://archnet.org:80/library/sites/one-site.tcl?site_id=7575 to http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.tcl?site_id=7575
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified