User talk:Kingturtle/Archive6

Same here Kingturtle, thank you for your welcoming message!

I am a bit puzzled by your profile though. You seem to be at the Ghandi dot whereas I am at the Friedman dot. Wiki states libertarian socialists aim to distribute power more equally amongst members of society to create more freedom for the individual. If this is done by abolishing government its okay by me. But if it’s done by abolishing the free market, as many socialists would like to, it must be a major misunderstanding.

When private property is taken away by force and given to others who have done nothing to earn it, as is the case in many welfare state, there is nothing libertarian (i.e. no force, no fraud) about it. And believe me I know what I am talking about as I live in Holland (EU). Next to Sweden, the nanny state par example. Thus the phrase ‘libertarian socialist’ is a contradictio in terminis.

In other words: there can be no such thing as a libertarian socialist. Hence the political compass may be incorrect. To see where you really stand, I would advise you to use 'The world’s smallest political quiz'

Good luck and please let me know the result !

Cheers, Peter

PS Have you ever considered a society where everyone is free to politically associate WITHOUT imposing ones ideas on others by means of majority rule ? As a matter of fact this is a rather old idea. Belgian political economist Paul Emile de Puydt (1810-1888) came up with it in July 1860.

De Puydt advocates freedom of choice for government, or no government at all, and free competition between governments. When you’re a socialist, communist, fascist, liberal, democrat, monarchist or whatever, you should be free to choose your system of government, or no government at all if you’re an anarchist or libertarian, without having to move to another country. Or as De Puydt puts it: “no need to give up either national traditions or family ties, no need to learn to think in a new language, no need at all to cross rivers or seas, carrying the bones of one's ancestors.”

This idea of total political freedom is less odd than it may seem. After all, there are many large private associations (like the AAA) that people can join voluntarily to benefit from their services. And they don’t necessarily have to move when they join ! The important thing is that those who are not interested are not forced to join. That is genuine freedom.

“Each generation is like a new tenant who, before moving in, changes things around, cleans up the facade, and adds or pulls down an annex, according to his own needs. From time to time some generation more vigorous or short-sighted than its predecessors, pulls down the whole building, sleeping-out in the open until it is rebuilt. When, after a thousand privations and with enormous efforts, they have managed to rebuild it to a new plan, they are crestfallen to find it is not much more comfortable than the old one. It is true that those who drew up the plans are set up in good apartments, well situated, warm in winter and cool in summer; but the others, who had no choice, are relegated to the garrets, the basements or the lofts.

So there are always enough dissenters and trouble makers, of whom some miss the old building, whilst some of the more enterprising already dream of another demolition. For the few who are satisfied there is an innumerable mass of objectors. We must remember however that a few are satisfied. The new edifice is indeed not faultless, but it has some advantages; why pull it down tomorrow, later, indeed ever, as long as it shelters enough tenants to keep it going?

I myself detest the wreckers as much as the tyrants. If you feel your apartment is inadequate or too small or unhealthy, then change it - that is all I ask. Choose another place, move out quietly; but for heaven's sake don't blow up the whole house as you go. What you found unsuitable might delight your neighbour.”

“My panacea, if you will allow this term, is simply free competition in the business of government. Everyone has the right to look after his own welfare as he sees it and to obtain security under his own conditions. On the other hand, this means progress through contest between governments forced to compete for followers. True worldwide liberty is that which is not forced upon anyone, being to each just what he wants of it; it neither suppresses nor deceives, and is always subject to a right of appeal. To bring about such a liberty, there would be no need to give up either national traditions or family ties, no need to learn to think in a new language, no need at all to cross rivers or seas, carrying the bones of one's ancestors.

It is simply a matter of declaration before one's local political commission, for one to move from republic to monarchy, from representative government to autocracy, from oligarchy to democracy, or even to Mr. Proudhon's anarchy - without so much as removing one's dressing gown or slippers.”

Source: Panarchy

Peter de Jong I (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

for helping understand what i THINK i did wrong in posting about Cupid and Santa as depicted on TinkerTank.org. I'm still confused, but hope that people "get" my intention was not spammy and I can figure out how to include these in the dialog on those pages. basically, there is discussion of all of those characters in popular culture and how they are used and evolve, so i linked to the TinkerTank.org site, which is not commercial in any way (there's NOTHING for sale at all) but is a purely "academic" and creative site that re-imagines all these myths in a modern way to be useful to parents and kids..... so i guess it seemed spammy because I mentioned it in each of the character postings on Wikipedia.... Personally, I've never seen anything quite like it, because it does have all the characters in one place, and it isn't selling stuff like other sites..... and the characters are totally original.... so i'm trying to figure out how to join the dialog without breaking the rules..... thanks for helping Hudroy (talk) 02:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Evil flag

No problem, I looked on the war in afghanistan's page. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Women's Edge

An article that you have been involved in editing, Women's Edge, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women's Edge(2nd nomination). Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of tuberculosis victims

An editor has nominated List of tuberculosis victims, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tuberculosis victims and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Special:Userrights

All the pages you linked are the same! Do you mean Special:Makesysop and Special:Makebot? If so, then yes, they still work fine at the moment, but it seems that the developers are keen to standardise on Special:Userrights, which is already used by stewards, so (guessing here) they might not be available in future version of MediaWiki. The instructions appear once you have entered a username - just click on the group to add a user to (or remove them from, in the case of bots). You can also add a reason, as before. If any of the instructions could be clearer, we can alter them. Just let me know if you have any difficulties. Warofdreams talk 01:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Riceflan...

...which I take to equate to "rice pudding" or "rice custard", in addition to making me hungry, is singularly obsessed with this guy named [[Iver Whitney Adams. No particular harm, just amusing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Luis-Frois.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Luis-Frois.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome!

I hope I can do this community justice. I've utilized Wikipedia so much that I want to give back when I can. Thanks again.
--Low2snow (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

New Hampshire Liberty Forum Jan 3-6, 2008

You may not be able to visit, but this may still be of interest to you: New Hampshire Liberty Forum Jan 3-6, 2008

And Michael Badnarik explains in his Constitution Class why nothing we have is truly ours (unless you happen to own it under allodial titlewhich is very rare). I can also recommend his book Good to be King.

A visionary cartoon Ron Cobb made in 1968: At least we don’t have to worry about anarchy anymore

Finally, on a lighter note, Diet Coke + Mentos and MTV oldie Der Günther

Enjoy! Peter de Jong I (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ending times

Hello Kingturtle, I just wanted to say that when closing RfAs, don't forget to update the ending times and remove the "voice your opinion" buttons on the RfA, as shown here and here. Also, thank you for becoming more active on Wikipedia again, both to improve the encyclopedia, and to resume bureaucrat duties. Acalamari 18:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Benazir Bhutto

Hi Kingturtle, I reverted this edit as I assume it took out more than you intended! You probably want to try your revision again :-) Best, Gwernol 19:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Final count for my RfA

Hi Kingturtle - thanks for closing my RfA! I noticed, however, that the count total is actually 34-2-0, and it is listed as 34-2-1. Seicer had changed their Neutral to a Support. I didn't want to change the page myself, but I would appreciate if you took a look. Thanks! - AKeen (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I must say

Well spoken, that was very thoughtful and insightful commentary. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 18:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was wondering if anybody was reading the commentary. I spent the morning with toast and coffee reading everyone's commentary. It took a long time, and was dull at times, but well worth it. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I too wondered that. It's annoying to see editors who ask people to explain the reasons for identical sentiments. If User:1 thinks it's a bad idea and you ask him to explain and he does, and User:99 essentially agrees with User:1 and s/he gets belabored to explain their reasoning, when it's quite redundant to explain the same thing over and over, which makes the discussion unproductive. I guess they just can not accept that people can agree with others. It makes it all very hard to follow and stay focused. Luckily for me I simply said, Per Doc, Splash and Spebi—it's quite simple, they summed up my feelings perfectly. :) KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 18:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Detractors?

You can't be serious. I don't particularly care, but... I think that qualifies as sacrificing user-friendliness for pinpoint technical accuracy. Please consider changing it back, I'm not going to war with you. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:15, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

PS I'm not even sure where you're getting that definition from. To detract is to take away from something, not to oppose it or disagree with it. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:17, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm up for any suggestions. Opposer is a rather lame word to use in any instance. Kingturtle (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[1] - It's accurate and it's a word everyone understands. I'm not sure what more you're striving for. This isn't an encyclopedia article. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:24, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Also: Everyone who's voting against is using the word "oppose". It makes the most sense to name the section headers in line with that. No one is announcing that they "Detract". Please change it back, or agree to let me do it. I would do it right now but I don't want to get into an edit war. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:29, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not married to Dectractors, but I'd like something instead of Opposers. Kingturtle (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose is what people are saying. We don't have a hundred detractors or nay-sayers or anything else. People are saying they oppose, and when summing up what they're saying in plural, we have to use the plural form of oppose. I'm sorry but I put it back the way it was. I'm begging you not to make a big deal out of this. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:35, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

er....I wasn't and I'm not making a big deal out of it. Kingturtle (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Equazcion •✗/C • 02:44, 6 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Invite

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

WP:CHU

Hi I noticed you were an active 'crat so I thought I would ask you if a user would be renamed a third time if the third one is a WP:USURP request Alexfusco⁵ 02:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I support User:WJBscribe's note: "I see no reason to have three renames in such short succession." Kingturtle (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That was what I thought but I thought the rules might be different if the 3rd was a WP:USURP request. Sorry for bugging you I wanted to be sure before telling the user that if he was renamed now he would not be again. Alexfusco⁵ 12:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Origins of Baseball

Dear Kingturtle, I see that you unreverted a reversion I made on Origins of baseball. My explanation for my reversion appears on the article's discussion page. Thanks, Mlouns (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hometown Wikipedians

Re: your comment on my talk page, take a look at User talk:Danlev#Rochester Wikipedia groups and User talk:Truthanado#hey, i moved to rochester recently. Not too promising, maybe a start. Welcome back. Truthanado (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Assassination of Benazir Bhutto#References

You may be interested in reading the above. Cheers. Nil Einne (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

note to self

http://swen.antville.org/

Your majesty

Your majesty, please forgive me for addressing you before you address me.

Would you be so kind as to close my RFA, which stands at 52-0-1? WJBscribe has recused himself because he made the nomination. You are the only bureaucrat that has closed a RFA within the past few weeks that also has edited today. Thank you, sir.

Archtransit (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Kingturtle! I will use the tools that you have granted me wisely, compassionately, and to better Wikipedia. Archtransit (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your help reagan 16:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Question

Yeah I can see where that'd be an issue. Templates can be very tricky. If you click edit on that template, you will see that at the top, it says "{{United States topic". That means that it is using the United States topic template within the USPoliticalDivisions. Now. I THINK that you can use this page. Essentially, the PoliticalDivisions page uses the information from United States topic. But beyond that, my knowledge ends. :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 15:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

George Brett

I am going to put something on this subject on the relevant Talk page, but I wanted to mention to you why I thought the "decade" discussion should be removed from the article.

Perhaps "nitpicking" was the wrong word; "irrelevant" is closer to correct. Putting in a paragraph about how decades run from 1 to 0 instead of 0 to 9 is irrelevant to a discussion of baseball; something like this should go into a section on . . . who knows what, but it should be in an article involving calendars (possibly one that discusses on which year a century or millennium begins), but not one involving baseball.

The truth is that a decade begins and ends whenever someone declares it. The last decade began 16 January 1998 and ends today if you like, by some definitions. As far as baseball is concerned (as defined by baseball writers and statisticians, official and otherwise), it is pretty much universally accepted that a decade is comprised of those years beginning with the same first three digits. Inserting a calendric technicality into a baseball article when baseball itself is satisfied with its own answer seems a meaningless diversion for this particular article. The fact that the original editor used the word "technically" in his edit should tell us that it's a tangential discussion. I believe he meant well, but I just don't think the discussion is relevant to the article.

IMO, Baseball is all about numbers, but not all numbers are about Baseball. --Couillaud (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Style: empty Wikilink vs. external link

Can you point me to some guidance on why it's better to create an empty Wikilink for Debbie Dingell? Wdfarmer (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links): "If a red link is within the context of the article, and it is a topic with the potential to eventually be a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia article, then the link should be kept as an invitation for an editor to begin the appropriate article with this title. Such links do not have an expiration date." Red links "point to "buds" from which Wikipedia will grow in the future." Also, it says "You should not add a descriptive title to an embedded HTML link within an article." Embedding external links is meant for citations and references, not for covering up red links or for creating external links.

Why is a red link better? From Wikipedia:Red link: "Good red links help Wikipedia — they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished."

An embedded external link takes the reader away from Wikipedia, and could take that reader on a reading and link-clicking adventure that takes them away from Wikipedia for a long time. We want people to stick around, I think. A red link is an offer to a reader to make an article, to stick around, to help. Kingturtle (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! 'Nuff said. Wdfarmer (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the greeting

Thanks for the greeting, though I've been editing wikipedia articles for several years now.

With the ever-increaing number of Wikipedia counter-vandalism tools, isn't there one that notices/analyses the types of changes unregistered contributors make? I suspect editors that introduce categories, magic words, and semi-obscure templates, then document their work in lengthly edit summaries, are less likely to be a vandal than the average contributor. It would be nice to get a welcome template once in a while that acknowledges I don't appear to be a wiki-neophyte... :-) — 68.167.252.13 (talk · contribs) 15:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC).

welcome templates

heya Kingturtle! i surely cannot template an experienced, kind, welcoming editor such as yourself! :) just wanted to remind you to subst: the welcome templates on users' pages instead of transcluding. all the best, ~Eliz81^(C) 19:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

:) Can you translate "subst: the welcome templates on users' pages instead of transcluding" ? Thanks Kingturtle (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, and sorry for the inaccessible language! Within the double brackets, put the phrase subst: (colon included) before the template name. This does a simple cut and paste job of the content of the template. If you don't use the subst: function, the welcoming words maintain an unnecessary link back to the template itself. I think there might be a template about this somewhere... let me see if I can find it (I think it's more elegantly worded than my words here). ~Eliz81^(C) 20:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When using certain templates on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Thank you. i'm not templating you, just wanting to share the content with you ;) ~Eliz81^(C) 20:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I see, so type subst:welcome instead of welcome ? Kingturtle (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup! That would be about the summary of it :) ~Eliz81^(C) 20:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I never interacted with HanzoHattori. My comment was in response to HanzoHattori's I leave Wikipedia in protest statement, and I sympathize with and empathize with many parts of what it says. Kingturtle (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

question...

Were you serious here? My own experience with this user was a deeply negative one. I made this timeline following my big interaction with him. And was able to produce it when he was the subject of an {{rfc}}. Geo Swan (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

AIV

Why did you remove that AIV I am requesting intervention and no one has helped. Jdchamp31 (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is for vandalism. User:Squiggleslash's edits were not Wikipedia:Vandalism. You may want to pursue Wikipedia:Editor assistance, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Third opinion and/or Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts to get the assistance you are looking for.

The reasons I removed your request from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is because it wasn't vandalism and the alleged vandal was thwarted because the article in question was protected.

My removing your request was in no way a personal slap toward you nor was it taking Squiggleslash's side.

I am happy to assist you in any way I can. Kingturtle (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

StevenLeClark

Thanks for trying, but one can't seem to do much to educate/enlighten StevenLeClark. He appears to be a sockpuppet of Beh-nam. StevenLeClark appeared and edited the same article right after the previous incarnation of Beh-nam, AmericanAnthropologist01 was blocked. Just as AmericanAnthropologist01 appeared just after AbbasPeretz was blocked. See Beh-nam's statement at User talk:Number 57#Banned user Beh-nam. Is there a place we can list the new incarnations as they appear? --Bejnar (talk) 07:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

template talk:in the news

Hi Turtle, there's a discussion on your Bobby Fischer item and it would be nice if you gave your opinion. Potatoswatter (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

You're welcome! And thanks you for giving me the welcome to the project. Regards! Daniel dj87 (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're into creating policy by precedent..

You might consider undoing your promotion of Archtransit. I think it's pretty clear that there's no longer any consensus for him having the admin bit. Yes, I understand that such an action would be seen as an expansion of crat power, but then again, crats are chosen for their good judgement, right? I'd personally like to see us get to a place where crats are allowed to fix mistakes in promotions when they become apparent. And yeah, I further understand that crats don't directly have the technical ability to do this, but as you're a trusted member of the community, I can't imagine a steward would refuse such a request, coming from you. Anyway, just wanted to throw this crazy idea out there, in case you're feeling exceptionally bold. Friday (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot oppose this suggestion in strong enough terms. It would expand bureaucrat authority well beyond what the community has agreed to. The RfA in question was unanimous - how can Kingturtle have done anything other than promote? A lot seems to be made of the fact that this new admin has made two unwise uses of his admin tools - one block and one unblock. I have said that were I aware that he was planning to involve himself in controversial user conduct areas, I would have suggested more time elapse before that RfA. But my disappointment in how he has conducted himself aside, people seem to be very keen to jump on this guy rather than help him to learn. That aside, crats cannot unpromote users and I believe the stewards would likely and correctly reject such a request. If you want someone desysoped without their consent, take it to ArbCom - but I can't see ArbCom going beyong a strong caution (something the community has already delivered). WjBscribe 17:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, damn. This suggestion would have a way better chance of flying, if the crats were in agreement about it. I still hold out hope that there will come a day when we trust crats to do the whole job, rather than just half of it. Friday (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

When I became a bureaucrat there were specific responsibilities granted to me for the role. I am not about to go beyond them, especially when there are already protocols in place to address admin misconduct. Simply put: It isn't my role as a Bureaucrat to remove an admin.

If you feel Archtransit has acted improperly against you or someone else, you should express your concerns directly to Archtransit, and try to come to a civil, orderly resolution. If you've tried that and things are not resolved, consider taking further action according to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. (For more possibilities, see Requests for comment/User conduct: Use of administrator privileges.)

Administrators can be removed by a ruling of the Arbitration Committee. At their discretion, lesser penalties may also be assessed against problematic administrators, including the restriction of their use of certain powers or placement on administrative probation.

As an admin I can assist you in protecting articles; as an editor, I can assist you in simple mediation. Kingturtle (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Whitey Ford

Some guy added a blurb about a restaurant that "lasted less than a year". It sounded fishy to me. If it's true, why bring it up, except to knock Whitey? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I didn't read it as knocking Whitey. Maybe you can rephrase it to not sound like a personal jab. Kingturtle (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your assuming I would even want it in there. Since it's unsubstantiated and seems to be vaguely insulting, why keep it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I added a reference to the restaurant and removed the part about it closing. Kingturtle (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems good. I take it that it's still open? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it is. We could always call the phone number, but that would be independent research ;) Kingturtle (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[Insert rimshot here] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologize

I humbley apologize for my mis-behavior. From this day on, I shall no longer make "joke edits". I'm so sorry for making them. I'll start doing good edits and making usefull contributions, okay? Best regards and no hard feelings, Yoshaibo (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Ioeth#Bagelboi

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

Subst-ing

Oops, I'll go fix that. Thanks. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ruth, Gehrig, etc.

Hey, come on, if it weren't for Ogden Nash, nobody would ever have heard of these guys. >:) Actually, I'd venture a guess that exponentially more Americans under the age of 30 have heard of Ruth than have heard of Ogden Nash. I wonder if someone wrote any poems "immortalizing" Nash? Meanwhile, I am chagrined that I didn't see that POV-dripping comment long ago. I wonder if you've looked through the (probably) 26 articles that the segments of that poem were posted in? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that "immortalize" is a poor choice of words, would you go along with saying, "Gehrig (or Ruth) inspired the poem..."? JGHowes ^talk - 06:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

In Grover Cleveland Alexander it says "mentioned", and that's what I just changed it to in the Ruth and Gehrig articles. I don't think all 26 letters are covered in the articles. I didn't see it in the Cobb article, for example. But the Ogden Nash page indicates that it could or should be there. If the poem is going to be cited, it should be done uniformly across all the articles. One of the articles has it in a little box, which is kind of a neat way to do it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that Baseball Bugs' wording seems to cover all bases (pardon the pun). I didn't realize that the Lineup for yesterday poem quoted in Lou Gehrig is part of a larger poem mentioning several players. I used a centered {{quote box}} format for the verse at Lou Gehrig, which looks nice. JGHowes ^talk - 06:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

An apt pun for any baseball reference. :) The box looks good. It should be extended to all the articles that reference the poem. One point to ponder: I don't think the poem is sourced, as such. However, it's all over the internet, and I'm sure someone could verify it in a collection of Nash's works. Here's one site with the poem. With his crazy puns, the one for Evers could also be added to Tinker and Chance's pages: [2] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll put that on my to-do list, to extend to all baseball articles using the poem, properly sourced. (I hope Kingturtle doesn't mind our taking over his Talk page like this for an impromptu discussion!) JGHowes ^talk - 06:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. And I'm sure his "ctrl-x" keys work. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Crosley Field

Since I'm here, would you mind giving me your opinion on my merger proposal on that page? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes

At Talk:Results of the 2008 Republican presidential primaries you asked about multiple uses of a single reference. Zntrip has answered your question, but if you would still like to look at a help page one is at Help:Footnotes. Eluchil404 (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That's exactly what I need! Kingturtle (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

thx

I have the mop but can you search the RFA meeting shown to find the bucket?	Thanks for closing, my request for adminship passed 60/0/0 on Monday! I want to thank Mrs.EasterBunny and Royalbroil for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. To paraphrase a president ... I wish my mum and dad could see the comments made. My dad would be so proud to see the comments ... and my mum would have believed them". I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and you may be surprised to find that I have not deleted all of the pages by accident..... yet). Thanks again, Victuallers (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)	An early RFA meeting to decide if Victuallers can be included as a sysop - use cursor to identify.

Anoshirawan

Hi Kingturtle. I see you protected Template:History of Afghanistan due to the aforementioned editors repeated reversions. I warned him/her earlier about edit warring across multiple articles against consensus (the whole Afghan/istani thing). Perhaps the next step is a block if the behaviour persists? пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If you feel you have enough incidents to discuss, start an incident report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Kingturtle (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Infighting

I noticed you removed the wikify tag from the page. What makes you think that this article meets wikipedia standards? I just want your say before I put it back. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 00:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The article looked pretty tame and clean compared to most of the messes I encounter when doing Wiki work. Maybe I've become numb toward the marginal cases and can only see the extreme messes now. Indeed, re-add the tag if you see fit. :) Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well i guess your right there. This is an excellent example!:o Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 00:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Well, maybe I will try to tackle that one later tonight! Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Greasy Neale

You moved the talk page of Earle "Greasy" Neale into the mainspace at Greasy Neale. Was this intentional? Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't intentional. I fixed it. I am not sure how it happened. Thanks for noticing it. Kingturtle (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Dawat e Islami

Hey, got your message. It's a bit complicated. Short version, deletion of content with the seeming intent to hide certain information from public view. Long version, i've dealt with this editor a lot in the past few months. I edit more frequently than they do, and they usually edit many of the same articles I do so I see their work a lot. There's a definite trend of spurious article creations, attack page creations, and content deletions. Normally I would say it's just POV insertion but after so many warnings (especially about content deletion) it makes one wonder. Regardless, what is your view of the article? Do you feel I was somewhat accurate or out of line in using the V-word? MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you were out of line at all. I was mostly asking so I could continue to improve my admin skills :) As for the article itself, it is a huge challenge to write about religion in a NPOV format, especially because some editors are passionate about their own opinion. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

Well, not this time anyway it seems...my effort to regain my adminship was unsuccessful, but your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--MONGO 07:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Why are you removing the information and links to Encyclopedia Britannica on Afghanistan article that shows the different ethnic groups in the country. You also removed the CIA map and replaced it with the self-made biased one which was made by the banned editor User:Beh-nam. Are you also trying to some how make Pashtuns less when the entire country is theirs? The nation of Afghanistan is about 70% Pashtuns and Britannica is showing part of the facts there but you are totaly removing the info. I removed the Iranica information because it is not available online, its link is dead. Dead links are suppose to be removed.--Inferior-Parsibaan (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to sort out the many different points of view on this issue. The more references we can string together, the better we can write the article. Kingturtle (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Afghanistan translates to or means "Land of the Afghans" and "Afghans" refers to "Pashtuns". Britannica states that 49% of totall population of the country are Pashtuns...9% other. The "9% other" also are considered Pashtuns because those are all the different people living in Pashtun territories and practice Pashtun culture, (Nuristani, Hindkowan, others). That's 58% already, and with the remaining 2 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan who will return to Afghanistan by end of 2009, Pashtun population inside Afghanistan will be about 70% again, as it was for the last over 250 years. Majority of the Afghan refugees in Pakistan are Pashtuns. All this is besides the point for now. The Iranica figures that banned editors (User:Tajik and User:Beh-nam keeps adding is now dead link. Also, it is a figure made by anti-Afghanistan Persian man from Iran. Nearly all Iranians are anti-Afghanistan, so their information on Afghanistan will never reliable outside Iran. We must only use Britannica and CIA for now until Afghanistan's government provides us with their correct numbers, which will be in this year when the national census is held in August.--Inferior-Parsibaan (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

user: Inferior-Parsibaan

This disruptive user is user: NisarKand and is a well known racist. His user name implies that Parsibaans (another terms for Farsiwans/Tajiks) are inferior. On my talk page he also called me a "Khar Tajik" meaning that Tajiks are donkeys. Thanks for protected the Afghanistan article. Can you also protect the Demography of Afghanistan article please? He is removing the language map that is based on a real map by the 1985 government because he claims it is forged (he doesn't like the fact that many Pashtuns speak Persian instead of Pashto). There is no point of rv'ing him because he will keep coming back with other accounts. If you could protect the article then he will be forced to use the talk page. Thanks. Farsiwan22 (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting, but please leave it on my version because he removed the language map and numbers (which is vandalism). The language numbers are from the CIA world factbook and the map is based on a government map from 1985, so he has vandalized the page. Thanks. Farsiwan22 (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection is not an endorsement of the current version. As far as I can tell, the current version is not vandalism, but a POV in an edit war. The map that is currently there is not invalid. Kingturtle (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Use this time in the article's talk page to come to an agreement. Kingturtle (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't support his vandalism. He should use the talk page and explain why numbers from CIA World Factbook are removed and why the language map which is based on a goverment map are removed and why numbers from Iranica are removed. Farsiwan22 (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

He removed the language map, that is not invalid either. And he removed CIA numbers and Iranica numbers. How can you support that? Farsiwan22 (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection is not an endorsement of the current version (protection log). Please discuss changes on the talk page or request unprotection.Kingturtle (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And keep in mind he is a racist and biased user. Just look at his user name. Farsiwan22 (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Farsiwan22 is the banned editor User:Beh-nam and User:Tajik, both of the banned editors are using the same account names as an attempt to confuse others. Pashtuns in Afghanistan speak their own language, they also speak other languages. That does not mean they don't or they can't speak Pashto. This is what you Parsibaans don't understand. I am speaking English that does not mean I am English man.--Inferior-Parsibaan (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What on the protected version of Demography of Afghanistan is racist or a lie? Kingturtle (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Inferior Parsibaan" (that, by the way, is a racist name and means "Inferior Farsiwan") has manipulated and falsified the numbers. The attached sources (namely CIA factbook and Encyclopaedia Iranica) present others numbers. On the talk page of the Demography of Afghanistan article, he also pretended to correct the numbers according Encyclopaedia Britannica. But that was again a lie. I have posted a link to the current version of Britannica, and it does not support his claims.

"Inferior Parsibaan" is another sockpuppet of User:NisarKand who has been vandalizing Afghanistan-related articles with dozens of sockpuppets. Most of the time, he chooses racist names, targeting the Tajik or Hazara population of Afghanistan. Prior to his ban, he was notorious for his Pashtun-nationalist views and for supporting the Taliban movement and their terrorist attacks in and outside Afghanistan. (That was one of the main reasons why he was banned). However, in this case, not the view of NisarKand/Inferior Parsibaan is vandalism or the map he has inserted, but the numbers he has put in. They contradict the sources they are attached to. While the Encyclopaedia Iranica gives 39% for the Pashtuns and 33% for the Tajiks, he has changed those numbers to 42% for the Pashtuns and 18% for the Tajiks. That's certainly vandalism and purposely falsifying given sources. (That was one of the main reasons why he was banned). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.148.249 (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The above statement was written by the banned editor User:Tajik from Germany who is a Shia Qizilbash claiming to be from Kabul. Qizilbash are not ethnic Tajiks and Qizilbash do not even make 1% of Afghanistan's population. Also, Shias are minority in Afghanistan. Because of all this it is why he creates disturbances between Sunni ethnic Tajiks and the majority/powerful Sunni ethnic Pashtuns. Now to the main topic, this banned editor User:Tajik totally rejects and removes Encyclopedia Britannica's latest 2006 ethnic make-up in Afghanistan (shown at the bottom), and rather only allow the 1960s Encyclopedia Iranica ethnic make-up stay. He himself stated that Iranica shows 39% for Pashtuns but the Demography of Afghanistan article has the number at 36%. It is very odd the same Tajik using his usual 82..... IP changed 39% the other day to 36%.[3] I understand he supports his Iranian culture and encyclopedias but he can't force us to trust them the same way he trusts them. I also want others to help this person understand something that we can't rely on 1960s ethnic make-up when there is 2006 very recent Britannica's figures available. I have nothing against the CIA numbers but just want to explain they are from pre-2001. I did not mess with or removed the CIA numbers. Another problem is the bogus map created by the banned editor User:Beh-nam, which is showing Pashtun areas marked as Tajiks. Beh-nam is personal vandal buddy of Tajik since 2006, they chat to one another through another site and make plans where to spread their Persian propaganda, this isn't my claim it's something they openly admitted several times. Why would we not use the official CIA ethnolinguistic map that I added? I'll answer why...because Beh-nam and Tajik claim that the CIA map is false. hahahahaha...this explains the mentality of these two vandals who are here making fun of themselves. The following is the latest ethnic make-up in Afghanistan: Britannica - Afghanistan (PDF file)

• 49% Pashtun
• 18% Tajik
• 9% Hazara
• 8% Uzbek
• 4% Aimak
• 3% Turkmen
• 9% other

These are the same numbers I've added to Afghanistan and Demography of Afghanistan articles and the banned editors (Beh-nam and Tajik) completely removes this information because they don't like to see it.--Inferior-Parsibaan (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting that the true racists and fascists here are accusing others of behaving in such a manner. Beh-nam and Tajik should be ashamed of themselves. --Kitabi420 (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed those numbers because those are not written in the actual Britannica. They are just written in a fact sheet and those numbers are estimates from the early 1900s. Ironically this user's other sockpuppet complaine that the CIA numbers are oudated but wants to use numbers from the early 1900s. What is actually written in the Britannica Encyclopedia is:

• "... No national census has been conducted in Afghanistan since a partial count in 1979, and years of war and population dislocation have made an accurate ethnic count impossible. Current population estimates are therefore rough approximations, which show that Pashtuns comprise somewhat less than two-fifths of the population. The two largest Pashtun tribal groups are the Durrani and Ghilzay. Tajiks are likely to account for some one-fourth of Afghans and Hazara nearly one-fifth. Uzbeks and Chahar Aimaks each account for slightly more than 5 percent of the population and Turkmen an even smaller portion. ..." LINK -- Farsiwan22 (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• For the record: The numbers are not from the "early 20th Century"; they were prepared by Encyc. Brit for their World Data sheet in 2006 using best available information. The actual citation was to the "World Data" sheet. If Farsiwan22 will check, he will see that his quoted language is unchanged from the 2005 printed version of the Encyclopedia Britannica (the oldest new one that I have handy), and is probably older, as, at a quick glance, the article only appears to cite things up to 2001. It may still be in the 2008 Britannica, but it is out-of-date. --Bejnar (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If the people at Britannica chose to omit the 2006 World Data sheet in the 2008 version then they did so for a good reason. By the rules, Wiki has to follow the 2008 version. Farsiwan22 (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you on Afghanistan

Thank you for lowering the protection level for Afghanistan article. Can you please also do the same for the Demography of Afghanistan article for the same reason? Thanks. Farsiwan22 (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was about to and then the 2008 State of the Union Address came on, and I had to watch it. I'll do it right now. Kingturtle (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I watched it too. Thanks alot. Farsiwan22 (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

poor baby

Hey - I just took a look at your user page and I have an incredible amount in common with you!

Having said that - since Pelosi's "poor baby" quote, although made prior to the speech, was a reaction to proposals that she was told Bush would make in the speech later than day, don't you agree that this is in fact a reaction to the speech? I mean, she didn't criticize his tie or his delivery - she was responding to leaked proposals that were going to be in the speech. The timing seems pretty irrelevant there. X3210 (talk) 04:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think responses come after. But that's just my rhetorical opinion.

I looked at your user page and couldn't find anything we had in common ;) What do we have in common? :) Kingturtle (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

She wasn't responding to his speech, she was responding to leaked information that was expected to be in the speech, and the article now says that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, if Bush knew she had made that comment, he could have altered the speech to make her comments sound silly. Commenting on things before they happen is risky. I'm reminded of a bit from All the President's Men where the Washington Post published a story that LBJ was going to let J. Edgar Hoover go. LBJ then publicly announced that Hoover had been given his FBI Director job for life, putting egg on the face of the Post editor. And offline he told his aide, "Call Ben Bradlee and tell him 'F-U'". Bush could have essentially done the same thing to Pelosi, if he wanted to. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

It's nice to be back, I've missed things around here :) I assume you caught my message on Alison's talk page, since I don't believe we've crossed paths before, but pleased to meet you and thank you as well! :D -- Editor at Large • talk 13:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Beh-nam & Tajik socks...

Farsiwan22 (talk · contribs) is a sock of one of these banned users and is continuing their crusade of corrupting Afghanistan related articles and labeling everyone else as "racists" or "Afghan nationalists". I'd recommend using caution when dealing with them. --Kitabi420 (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking into it. Kingturtle (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry to bother you again, but Farsiwan22 (talk · contribs) is still ignoring the discussion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Zahir and continues to revert legitimate changes. He insists on using a Persian language book which nobody can access for verification. He also rejects any verifiable source that is not inline with his personal views. This has been a constant theme Tajik, Beh-nam, and Anoshirawan with regards to Afghanistan related articles. We have all been trying to deal with these users. --Kitabi420 (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:BaldBot

Hi buddy. Could you flag my Bald Bot ready for drilling? Its been approved. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BaldBot Thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done 11:32, 30 January 2008 Kingturtle (Talk | contribs | block) changed rights for User:BaldBot from (none) to bot ‎ (approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BaldBot). Kingturtle (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've been contributing to this encyclopedia consistently for a long time and have created around 14,000 articles on wikipedia, higher than anybody, and have previously requested that my new articles are automatically filtered but no one seems to be concerned. I have addressed this to several people but no one has taken it seriously when I said I was concerned about clogging up new pages even when I am adding general content (I;m not talking about the French commune stubs now. I refused adminship long ago but surely I am respected enough to be regarded as admin level in editing. I always add valuable content and most of my articles are referenced except such stubs. I have strong ideas about how this project should be developing and have helped set up more than 50 Category:WikiProject Africa projects and begin assessing them to address the problem of uneven quality and bias on wikipedia, .I;ve even creator perhaps a hundred or so missing locator maps for infoboxes so we can add locator maps and quality infoboxes to places anywhere in the world. Isn't it time somebody made a decision to help new page patrollers by helping them. I;ve contributed ten times more than many adminstrators on wikipedia (107,000 edits) who automatically have their page unmarked -shouldn't mine be the same on a permanent basis? I consistenly add new content to wikipedia which is generally referenced and useful content. Articles like Deforestation in Brazil , Cinema of Kenya and Haj Ghorban Soleimani etc is what I consistently create. E.g yesterday I added infoboxes to all Category:Cities in Kazakhstan and Category:Cities in Kyrgzystan. It would help patollers a lot. Any idea if you can help me receive permanent clearance? I would hope that my editing is trusted on here. I have no problems if you would be willing to discuss this with other bureacrats and make a decision between yourselves. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit unsure of what exactly you're asking for. Kingturtle (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking that when I create general articles with my normal account that my new articles automatically are patrolled like administrator new articles are. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 23:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, admin created articles do not get automatically patrolled. Kingturtle (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes they do honestly. If you look at the new pages - if you created a new article your new articles would be clear and others like mine would be higlighted yellow as unchecked. Some of the admins who regularly create new articles such as Charles Matthews or Punkmorten always have their pages automatically cleared and marked as patrolled as if being an admin makes them a superior article writer. I;m just trying to help new page patrollers and have them to recognize me as a trusted article writer too, rather than having to have each articles checked continuously and cause them unnecessary efforts to keep track of them. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a write-up about this in the namespace somewhere that you could show me about it? Kingturtle (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. All I would need is my normal account to be marked with a flag which would automatically marked it as patrolled. At present the BaldBot I was using has been disapproved again despite you setting it up. Really I;d rather my own account was flagged and it would save me having to use a different account as I do a lot of work on other areas of wikipedia, I;m not the only one who thinks this is the best solution. Here is what Jack said on the bot discussion page:

I wrote a short script to remove these entries from the new pages patrol. I strongly support giving this user User:Blofeld of SPECTRE the ability to create new pages marked with the bot flag. Out of 500 new page entries on the page, I was getting an average of under a hundred not-french-commune pages last week. JackSchmidt (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could post a comment at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BaldBot? I wouldn't mind if we got rid of that bot if my own account could be flagged on a permanent basis -it isn' a bot after all and was only created to help new page patrollers ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC) ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Related thread

Hi Kingturtle, I've raised a couple of issues with the Bot approval group over how this Bot account's approval was handled. See Wikipedia talk:Bots/Approvals group#Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BaldBot if interested. WjBscribe 11:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look. Kingturtle (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

typo

Hiya Kingturtle, there's a typo on your (protected) user page, "this many edit", in case you want to fix it. Btw, while I'm saying hi...didn't we meet over at DipBounced a couple of years ago? (I'm dkindsvater.) I completely agree with the thing about "falling in love" with Wikipedia, I wish I had found it years ago. My current project is Wikiproject Robotics, and I have a lot of other interests, I expect we'll bump into each other along the way :) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I just fixed it. Yes, that was me at DipBounce in the first half of 2006. I love that site. I got married in June 2006 and we're only just getting settled to a point where I've been able to do wikipedia again. I hope I can get back to DipBounce again. I hope all is well, Kingturtle (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Doing well, thanks. Hey, look at you, you're a bureaucrat! Keep up the good work. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

Several sockpuppet accounts of user: Beh-nam purposly messed up Pashtun people article and I came to fix their vandalism. Beh-nam removed Zalmay Khalilzad's image, claiming that Khalilzad does not represent Pashtun people. Khalilzad is a very popular ethnic Pashtun [4] and his image must be included in Pashtun people article, read his own article and there is a source from his University of Chicago, where he attended, clearly stating he is an ethnic Pashtun. My only purpose here is to fix obvious vandalism.

I am keeping close tabs on those articles. Thanks, Kingturtle (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Demography of Afghanistan

It's either we include all sources (2000 Britannica's, CIA factbook and 1960s Iranica) or we ONLY use CIA source, there is no other option left. They reject latest Britannica's figures and instead rely on 1960s figures just because it shows higher Tajik population numbers, at that time Afghanistan's total population was less than 15 million, today it is 31 million. Are you taking their side perhaps you also have ill feelings towards the ethnic Pashtuns? Why are you doing this? it's not going to change the ground reality. We need to add accurate latest statistics to make the article look good that's our job here. Over 4.5 million Afghan refugees (15% of total population) returned to the country and you don't think that impacts the previous figures? Majority of those were ethnic Pashtuns living in western Pakistan, and little over 2 million still remain there until December 2009. ALso, the images of children of Tajikistan and the old man Uzbek man from Uzbekistan do not belong in this article, they are not people of Afghanistan. That's like images of Canadian Citizens being in USA demographic article.--203.175.65.183 (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Moving to the appropriate talk page. In the future, please don't post your case here. Post it in the TALK page of the article you are referring to. Kingturtle (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

lol

lol thanks for the message. ok, i will work on that :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheesepuffsaretasty (talk • contribs) 19:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor diversion

Hi! Here's a wee coincidence I happened to notice:

• Your first: 09:11, 26 November 2002 (hist) (diff) Camel case‎ (moved to "CamelCase") (top)
• My first (as an anon.): 09:50, 26 November 2002 66.46.163.14 (Talk) m Second Opium War (August 21 should be August 22) [embarrassingly, I reversed the dates in my edit summary - the edit was okay though]. Pinkville (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been a long time! :) Kingturtle (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Fer shure. :~) Pinkville (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Block typo

Apolgies. Guess it should have been July 2008 anyway (because of it being 6 months)... :) Regards, Rudget. 16:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Elephant in the Room

I saw you did not do anything to this page, although vandalism happens to this page about every other day. Do you think you could maybe put an anti-vandalism tag or something on there? I have noticed that wikipedia users have been doing it as well, and not just people with IP's. Y5nthon5a (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've placed a 3 day semi-protection on the page. Kingturtle (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry for bugging you about it. I will get back with you if it continues by users of wikipedia or if it continues after the vandalism tag is off. Y5nthon5a (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

no problem :) Kingturtle (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Help with figuring out where to post this

KT, I totally get that I'm generally supposed to post stuff in proper forums rather than asking any one individual for advice. But this is a tough problem that I've been working on for a while...and it's difficult to know where to post this without getting a response of "this isn't the right place". Could I ask your indulgence to read this and, based on your vast experience, tell me where you would post this in order to get a response? This is just one step in a multi-step process. I have already become one of the most active editors at WP:Robot and related articles, I adopted robots.wikia.com, I'm familiar with WV culture to some extent, I've read a lot of stuff that admins read....in short, I'm taking the "fill in the chasm" approach to solving this and other problems. I'm just having a tough time knowing where to post this kind of message and reaching the people I want to reach without annoying the ones who don't want to read it.

Request for a little wiki-love to help us attract more hobbyists to WP

This is a request for people to wander over to WP:WikiProject_Robotics#Moral_support and post a short message saying something like "I get it...I'm not involved with this project, but this stuff is hard, WP needs more of this kind of information, and I appreciate all the people willing to work on this project" (or, for minimalists, just put "moral support" and your name.) In a nutshell, the problem is that people with experience in technology in general and robotics in particular are, for the most part, staying in their own little communities and not contributing to Wikipedia/Wikia/Wikiversity. I have put a lot of time into chatting with communities of hobbyist and student roboticists (who, btw, tend to have fantastic wiki-values and are just the kind of people we want editing here), and trying to get them to understand the benefits of being brave and tackling the WP-and-sister-sites culture, and a lot of time chatting in WP-related irc channels and robotics-related WP talk pages. There is a very tough problem here of a cultural divide, and a little wiki-love would go a long way. Technologists in general, and roboticists in particular, are used to feeling rejection on a number of levels when they talk with people who don't have the same interests...and I'm convinced that's why we don't have more participation from them in Wikipedia.

Here's the problem: try posting a comment to a general audience somewhere saying that you've had some success with getting a robotic vacuum cleaner or a robotic toy to work better, and asking people to try it out and see if they like it, and roughly the first 10 responses you get will be dismissive in some way. This is not at all surprising...everyone has issues with everyday technology, everyone knows that all this stuff gets particularly scary if you look 20 years into the future (and these anxieties are reinforced every day by TV and films), and everyone expects people who are very technophilic to also be semi-autistic, not willing to play by the usual social contracts. All this discomfort tends to get dumped, without apology, on the heads of robotics-enthusiasts, and this has tended to make them clump together for their own protection and comfort. To translate to another context that you might understand better: imagine that you're the only black, or gay, or disabled person in a small town, and suppose every time you try to talk about what's interesting to you, people respond based on all their own stereotypes rather than listening to what you have to say. Get the problem?

Of course, WP isn't here to make the world better, we're just trying to build an encyclopedia...and this is exactly the problem. Wikipedia has coverage of most subjects in excruciating detail, but even the most basic questions about everyday robots aren't covered well in Wikipedia...and worse, you'll have to read 600 pages of stuff before you find out that what you want to know isn't here. This is a tough problem to fix, the subject matter is hard and changes every day, but it would be a lot easier if various hobbyist groups (I won't mention names here so as not to play favorites) did their thing on Wikiversity and Wikia (as appropriate), with the truly encyclopedic content migrating to Wikipedia. -Dan Dank55 (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

One way way around here to get help with a project on wikipedia is to create an an ad at Template:Wikipedia ads. Maybe that can help. Kingturtle (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

JamesonTai just did this for us today. I guess I'm asking which audience might be most receptive, or at least, least likely to get annoyed :) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to delete the banner when you've seen it...unless you want to promote us :) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Jamesontai added it to Template:Wikipedia-adnavbox, so now anyone who has chosen to have {{Qxz-ads}} on her/his userpage will see the ad (occasionally, since all the ads come up randomly). Kingturtle (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the info. The central question is still something I need help with, and of course I'm happy to go ask someone else, if you like. The problem is that there is a cultural problem that is very intractable here, and when I discuss it with people who I think would be sympathetic, I'm only getting reactions from one side of the divide or the other...I'm very surprised that I haven't found many people who immediately "get it", that there are a lot of guys who don't feel comfortable at WP, that we would benefit from having them, and we could make them feel more comfortable just with a little wiki-love. Where is a good place to discuss the problem from that perspective? In a sense, I don't want that argument to get too wild and hairy at WikiProject Robotics, that's "arguing in front of the kids", if you get my meaning. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Portal:Robotics would be a good place to start that? Kingturtle (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're right, I should say something over there. It's possible I'm being both impatient and over-cautious at the same time. I'll just continue to get the word out, and wait for the inevitable culture clashes and conflicts. But I may come running back here if I run into a problem I can't solve :) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

These things take time - sometimes years! :) Kingturtle (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I'm going to be bold and go post over at WP:AN and see what happens. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. I've gotten a lot of nice support for our project today, notably here. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Kandahar

It's not vandalism. It's sourced, read here: http://books.google.com/books?id=EIY2Qliz5SwC&pg=PA157&dq=gay+kandahar&sig=IzPxrwhzvfQq8s9baV22N_E8G0Q. It's like how San Fransisco is known to be like that in the United States but people in the east don't know that. Same with Kandahar, it's regionally known to be a city with lots of homosexuals. It is sourced after all and I can provide additional sources. StevenJacobs5874 (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for the warm welcome. StevenJacobs5874 (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

in san francisco they have gay pride parades openly in the city, if you try to show up in a gay pride parade in Kandahar you will most likely be hanged or stoned to death. taliban used to hang many Hazara and Farsiwan gays in northern Afghanistan in Mazari Sharif, see RAWA website for full details along with images of hanged gay Shia Farsiwans as well as Tajik prostitutes of Kabul. [5] That's well founded or very convincing information.--ZmaGhurnStaKona (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

{{Geek-stub}}

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first!

In this particular case, I can see this template as being a bit of fun on a user page, and I certainly don't want to spoil that fun (there's no reason why you couldn't subst it onto your userpage or a subpage of that)... but as a stub template it's already being used on articles, and indiscriminate use of it there is likely to cause offence very quickly. Grutness...wha?

Can you please help?

I need your help on the Hazara people article. The article was nominated for good article status and it is very close to passing, but the reviewer has placed its passing on hold because first he wants some changes. He has listed the changes he wants on the talk page of the article. Please review them and fix the things that he requested. I would do it but I don't have time right now. We have 7 days to make these improvements listed. Thanks. Hazara898 (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Shikab

Shikab is not NisarKand. It is actually user: Khampalak. Hazara898 (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

When you people can't stand the truth being written you accuse people of someone else. In that case you are Nasir no wait you are Beh nam. How about that? Bunch of IDIOT! LAST WARNING DON'T PUT IN FAKE NUMBERS I HAVE PUT THE INFORMATION WITH THE GOVERNMENT SOURCE WHILE YOU ARE PUTTING FAKE NUMBERS. DON'T TEST ME! THE ADMINS AND MANAGMENT OF WIKIPEDIA IS KEEPING AN EYE ON EACH ONE OF YOU. I HAVE CONTACTED THEM AND BE PREPARED WHATS TO COME.SHIKAB--Shikab (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fielding Bible Award

There is such a thing -- see www.fieldingbible.com. However, I agree with its removal since I believe it is not sufficiently notable. --Nlu (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah! That's right. A Bill James project I had forgotten about. The process that James has created for voting is pretty interesting. It might be worthwhile to include the results. Step one would be to write The Fielding Bible. Kingturtle (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User:BaldBot

Hi buddy. Could you flag my Bald Bot ready for drilling? Its been approved. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BaldBot Thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done 11:32, 30 January 2008 Kingturtle (Talk | contribs | block) changed rights for User:BaldBot from (none) to bot ‎ (approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BaldBot). Kingturtle (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've been contributing to this encyclopedia consistently for a long time and have created around 14,000 articles on wikipedia, higher than anybody, and have previously requested that my new articles are automatically filtered but no one seems to be concerned. I have addressed this to several people but no one has taken it seriously when I said I was concerned about clogging up new pages even when I am adding general content (I;m not talking about the French commune stubs now. I refused adminship long ago but surely I am respected enough to be regarded as admin level in editing. I always add valuable content and most of my articles are referenced except such stubs. I have strong ideas about how this project should be developing and have helped set up more than 50 Category:WikiProject Africa projects and begin assessing them to address the problem of uneven quality and bias on wikipedia, .I;ve even creator perhaps a hundred or so missing locator maps for infoboxes so we can add locator maps and quality infoboxes to places anywhere in the world. Isn't it time somebody made a decision to help new page patrollers by helping them. I;ve contributed ten times more than many adminstrators on wikipedia (107,000 edits) who automatically have their page unmarked -shouldn't mine be the same on a permanent basis? I consistenly add new content to wikipedia which is generally referenced and useful content. Articles like Deforestation in Brazil , Cinema of Kenya and Haj Ghorban Soleimani etc is what I consistently create. E.g yesterday I added infoboxes to all Category:Cities in Kazakhstan and Category:Cities in Kyrgzystan. It would help patollers a lot. Any idea if you can help me receive permanent clearance? I would hope that my editing is trusted on here. I have no problems if you would be willing to discuss this with other bureacrats and make a decision between yourselves. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit unsure of what exactly you're asking for. Kingturtle (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking that when I create general articles with my normal account that my new articles automatically are patrolled like administrator new articles are. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 23:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, admin created articles do not get automatically patrolled. Kingturtle (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes they do honestly. If you look at the new pages - if you created a new article your new articles would be clear and others like mine would be higlighted yellow as unchecked. Some of the admins who regularly create new articles such as Charles Matthews or Punkmorten always have their pages automatically cleared and marked as patrolled as if being an admin makes them a superior article writer. I;m just trying to help new page patrollers and have them to recognize me as a trusted article writer too, rather than having to have each articles checked continuously and cause them unnecessary efforts to keep track of them. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a write-up about this in the namespace somewhere that you could show me about it? Kingturtle (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. All I would need is my normal account to be marked with a flag which would automatically marked it as patrolled. At present the BaldBot I was using has been disapproved again despite you setting it up. Really I;d rather my own account was flagged and it would save me having to use a different account as I do a lot of work on other areas of wikipedia, I;m not the only one who thinks this is the best solution. Here is what Jack said on the bot discussion page:

I wrote a short script to remove these entries from the new pages patrol. I strongly support giving this user User:Blofeld of SPECTRE the ability to create new pages marked with the bot flag. Out of 500 new page entries on the page, I was getting an average of under a hundred not-french-commune pages last week. JackSchmidt (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could post a comment at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BaldBot? I wouldn't mind if we got rid of that bot if my own account could be flagged on a permanent basis -it isn' a bot after all and was only created to help new page patrollers ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC) ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Still a no to flagging my account is it? Well there will be several thousand new pages created over the next weeks which could easily be unhighlighted automatically. You can't say it didn't try to take the most sensible course of action and save people having to check each and every one of them ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said no. I asked for you to point me to a namespace page that discusses the feature you are talking about. I am unclear on what exactly it is you need. Kingturtle (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Its been brought up here: here. To see what a mess the new pages create see here. With each page I create pther editors have to check each one to take away the ugly yellow highlighter. If my account was flagged as an admins automatically it would be white and programmed in as checked ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look here you;ll see the havoc the yellow highlighter creates on my new pages meaning each one has to be checked by other editors. Once it is patrolled in is clear and white. If an admin created an article it would automatically be clear and not highlighted you see ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

E.g See the new pages now. Because you are an admin they are immediately clear compared to others which are yellow and have to be controlled. ♦ King of Baldness ♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Jujutsu

Hi! I saw your revert. But they are irrelevant. I'm Japanese and know the language. Please take a good look at the difference of two words. The article is Jujutsu/柔術 and the word in Gembutsu/現物 is jujitsu. It's probably jūjitsu/充実, meaning fulfillment. Or it maybe a spelling mistake of jijitsu/事実/fact. I scanned the related articles in ja. WP but could not find jujitsu. Anyway please trust me and revert your edit. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I trust you. Could you please read Gembutsu and edit it so that it makes sense? Kingturtle (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw your latest edit. Thank you for trusting me. OK. I think it's jijitsu/fact and I am going to edit the article. Best regards. Oda Mari (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. BTW, your name is 亀王/kame Ō in Japanese. 亀 is turtle and 王 is king. Happy editing. Oda Mari (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

RBI vs. RBIs

Re: your edit summary, I usually see RBI plural written simply as "RBI" - "Runs batted in" - as per my earlier edit. RBIs I suppose would be "Run batted ins" which seems odd. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I realize that Runs batted in is inherently plural, but the pluralization of the the abbreviation is RBIs not RBI. The URL http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/rbi.html explains it simply.

RBI is an acronym. The pluralization of acronyms is to add an S. To quote Wikipedia:Manual of Style, "Acronyms and initialisms are pluralized by adding -s or -es as with any other nouns (They produced three CD-ROMs in the first year; The laptops were produced with three different BIOSes in 2006). As with other nouns, no apostrophe is used unless the form is a possessive." WeaponS of Mass Distruction, is WMD singular and WMDs plural.

Another example is the plural U.S. being U.S. States. Sounds redundant, and it is, but that's how it is written. See RAS syndrome for more oddities. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As good a place as any to reply to your message. I don't happen to agree that the pluralization of an abbreviation should add the "s" or "es" in this specific case but I do respect the reasoning and will yield to the manual of style. Thanks for pointing out the relevant section - I meant to look at one point, but never got 'round to it. Majorclanger (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand completely. I personally hate seeing U.S. States as standard usage. Alas. Cheers, and keep up the great work!! Kingturtle (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There are cases in which RBI is used as singular, such "the 100-RBI plateau" and "5 100+ RBI seasons". Kingturtle (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So why isn't "HRs" used as the plural of "HR"? BRMo (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It is. Anywhere you see it as HR for plural, it needs to be changed to HRs. Kingturtle (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

RBI and HR will appear without the S in cases of statistical lists, like the backs of baseball cards and encyclopedia listings. RBIs and HRs are when used in sentences. Kingturtle (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome. I have been active before but I deleted my old account when I lost control of the domain that used to host my old email address. It was easier to set up a new account. I have already read some but not all of the links you suggested. I'm getting around to it. Right now I'm just doing a few edits here and there on subjects I know well. The Abrams page something I found in the SCIENCE-BASED MEDICINE website http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=33#more-33 JRWoodwardMSW 03:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Shaker citation ref tag

It would be helpful if people using the ref tag would be specific about which portions of the article require referencing. The article is one of the better sourced articles and the use of the ref tag places or implies that the article is unreliable to a high degree. If you are going to place this level of standard of the article than you need to use a bot and Ref a more than healthy percentage of Wikipedia in this category. Again, which portions need the citation?

--jadepearl (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Super Tuesday on the GOP side

MY friend and I are going to be down on my computer most of the night on Super Tuesday. For whatever races are left on the Republican side, I will be happy to keep them updated. Please send me confirmation so I know what to do! America69 (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you very much :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User rights

Sorry to bother you, but I have a question about user rights. When you promoted User:Roger_Davies to sysop, he was already a rollbacker. You promoted him from rollbacker to rollbacker, sysop. Since an administrator has rollback rights, is it really necessary for his rights to be sysop and rollbacker? Thanks. Earthbendingmaster 21:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself. The Rollback rights is a new feature. I am not sure why it doesn't disappear once someone is made an admin. I'll look into it. Kingturtle (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. I have seen more than one like that. Earthbendingmaster 21:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

vandalims

The last edits of User:E104421 are certainly vandalism. He is removing obvious good faith edits and he is removing various reliable sources (i.e. from the Encyclopaedia of Islam).

This one, for example. Even someone who is not an expert realizes that this version of E104421 is much weaker than the re-written and corrected version.

His bad faith edit in Iranian peoples is even more obvious: [6].

Everyone known as the ethnic groups are primarily defined by language. That means that the Hazara are an Iranian people because they speak an Iranian language. Accordingly, the present-day Turkish people are a Turkic people by definition, although their phenotype is Mediterranean and not Mongoloid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.42.175 (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, Kingturtle. I'm undoing the edits by the banned User:Tajik & User:Beh-nam's sock/meatpuppets. Their puppetry is confirmed by the check-user. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tajik & Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam. Regards. E104421 (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please also note the diffs: comment1, comment 2. E104421 (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The aim of Wikipedia is to create a good encyclopedia. If a user contributes to an article and adds constructive and reliable information to it, than it's a win for Wikipedia. What you are doing is general bad faith reverting to wrong versions. In Iranian peoples you are reverting to a POV version. In the article Timurid dynasty you not only deleted many academic sources (most of all quotes from the authoritative Encyclopaedia of Islam) but you also deleted the edits of 3 other users, including those of Kingturtle. Your latest edits in Turko-Persian tradition were also general bad faith edits.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.132.173 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Tajik, you're banned by the WP:ArbCom. Regards. E104421 (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

banned editors still vandalising articles are like computer viruses with ugly faces. because of this wikipedia is going to shut-down sometime in august of this year, that's what I heard. we don't have to worry about tajik anymore —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZmaGhurnStaKona (talk • contribs) 15:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahmad Shah Durrani

I know it can be frustrating when another editor just keeps putting in irrelevant, wrong and misguided material, but please try to refrain from bulk reversion when such an editor incidentally corrects spellings, or adds useful references. I disagree with much of what Anoshirawan did to the Ahmad Shah Durrani article, but he did fix a couple of things. I could not find two of his references with the little provided, I suspect transliteration problems. I hope I haven't done an injustice to the article by what I included of his. --Bejnar (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

re: The Purloined Letter Approach

Thanks for the encouragement! Now I feel all fired up to do some more writing, except I got nothing to write about... So it's wikifying time, I guess! - Scraimer (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

On CommerceNet Singapore

Horrors. Had got permission from them to take their web site text as starting article for non-profit free usage. Why didn't you check with them? Thanks.  :-) 8 February 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.95.205.150 (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't as simple as me checking with them. If they gave you permission, the onus is on you to provide the proof. Read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more information on this. Once you get the permission (which you may already have), follow the procedures listed on that article titled When permission is confirmed. Kingturtle (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing material

Why remove material and conclusions when there is an ongoing AfD? Now the material looks very dubious and poorly sourced. Even the primary source was removed from the inline citations. Copying a few paragraphs fall under fair use or it could easily paraphrased.Ultramarine (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

An article under AfD does not suspend editing on that article. That time, like all times, should be dedicated to making an article better. I was trying to make that article better. Wikipedia simply cannot have large, uninterupted amounts of copy-and-pasted text in an article. I am not opposed at all at having that information paraphrased - and I welcome anyone to do that. I hope that makes sense. Kingturtle (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Moving RfA comment

responded on my talk pageBalloonman (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Campaign against missile defence

Hi, can you help me edit the article I put together. It has a copyright vio. and needs a ot of other work to be done on it. I'm only learning! I'd like to reduce the scope of the article to just 'Polish campaign against missile defence.' How do I access and edit the article though? Thanks Ploughshares (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: nice work!

Thanks. I am thinking of moving that long list of places to List of Notable Places in Islamabad. I think that would clean up the article a lot and make its overall look more appealing. Thoughts?  UzEE  03:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, back into the lion's den

Kingturtle, I probably will be okay after the dust settles. But it would be really nice if you would read my latest post in WP:AN, and also the previous thread on the same subject that's linked there, and leave me a quick vote of support there, something like, "Please go a little bit easy on the WikiProject Robotics people guys, I don't have the same sense of them that some of you do." Or, whatever you want to say. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's not going to work. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

your recent edits

In various article, you have not only reverted to a wrong version (for example in Timurid dynasty in which you reverted the edits of 3 different users), but you have also been proxying for the banned User:NisarKand. I think that you are not aware of that, so I just wanted to tell you. Please assume good faith and at least take a look at the versions your have reverted.

User:E104421 is actually vandalizing articles by deleting authoritative scholastic sources (such as in Barlas) and he is purposely reverting to a factually totally wrong version in Iranian peoples. Just compare this version with the one of E104421 (especially the POV in the genetics version).

E104122 has not contributed anything positive to these articles. Neither has the sockpuppet of NisarKand (whose edits you seem to protect and support). In Demography of Afghanistan, he has deleted a reference to the Encyclopaedia Britannica with no valid reason.

The person who posted the above statements is the controversial banned editor Tajik who uses IP range very similar to this one 82.83.129.175. He agreed in the discussion at Talk:Demography of Afghanistan for all sources to be added but then decided to change his mind. He also agreed for the images of people from Tajikistan and Uzbekistan to not be included in the Demography of Afghanistan article but then decided to change his mind about it and began edit-war. Please keep an eye on this user, User:Beh-nam and Anoshirawan because their single purpose on Wikipedia is to spread Persian POVs no matter what it takes even if it involves vandalism and falshood. Tajik and Anoshirawan are both from Germany and Beh-nam is from Canada. All 3 of these users are the rare Afghans that are against the nation of Afghanistan and the government of Afghanistan and the majority of people of the country. They are not Tajiks as they claim, they are from "other" group. Trust me I'm very sure and their intentions are to make one group of people in Afghanistan fight the other one. They are pretenders and are currently pretending to be ethnic Tajiks. They have not a single good edit, all are controversial stuff. Don't pay any mind to them and keep reverting their anti-Afghanistan POVs from every article you come across, eventually they will get tired and go find other hobbies.--203.175.65.58 (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:VonKleistCOIN.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:VonKleistCOIN.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:1972olympiadCOIN.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1972olympiadCOIN.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Gay city

Please do not insult the people of Afghanistan by calling them gays. There is no recognition or establishment of Kandahar being a gay city. You know this is very controversial topic and you only used one reference from one single gay homosexual westerner who probably had an Afghan male pumped his behind there. That does not mean the city of 1 million people is gay city. Gays are naturally found in every place on earth, but to label a city of conservative Muslims as a gay city then you are trying to spread hate. Kandahar is Taliban territory, and Taliban hanged gays to death in the soccer stadium. Just like they exist in every country, gays also exist in Afghanistan. In the west, gays can have gay parades, kiss and make-up in the open but in Afghanistan they will be killed on the spot if they do that there. The only way you can label a city as gay city is when gay sex is practiced in the open, and that it be well established.--203.175.65.58 (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Homosexuality is nothing to be ashamed of. Kingturtle (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you a homosexual?--ZmaGhurnStaKona (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't everyone? Kingturtle (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BrenerDollar.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BrenerDollar.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Errr

[7] ? Why did you remove my comments? Pedro :  Chat  22:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how that happened. But I fixed it. Sorry! Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for the revert. Pedro :  Chat  22:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Edits

What about the charts that were ALREADY THERE FOR 07?Dshibshm (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. Kingturtle (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey

No problem. :) That's a great thing to add to the project. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 15:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And if you have a better name for the cats, this is the time to tell me. :-D I struggled a bit with it. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 15:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I actually have 2 subcats. One is for primaries. The other is for caucus'. I didn't combine them for consistency sake. Many states (including my home state of Wisconsin) don't even allow caucus'. It's literally against the state Constitution. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 17:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Cherrylips 15

I understand my AIV might seem a bit bitey at first glance, but said I said in the AIV, this appears to be a sock of User:Cherrylips 13 who was warned repeatedly for having their talk page as a social chat board, and now has their talk page locked as a result of it. Otherwise I wouldn't have given it any mind, but it's passing the duck test to me. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. thanks :) Kingturtle (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Welcome

Thank you. Man Who Was (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edits on "Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries"?

You left this message on my (IP address) user page:

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you.

There were comments in the edit summary. And the edit was reasonable.

208.49.88.21 (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

My real user name is dfuss - I just hadn't logged in.

Dfuss (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That information is not incorrect. It is simply uncited. It is tagged with {{fact|date=February 2008}}. Since the information is not incorrect, we should give the editor a chance to place a citation for it. Kingturtle (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You should have been clear in your comment on the user page. The problem wasn't that there were no comments in the edit summary. Dfuss (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I'm sorry about that. Kingturtle (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Democratization of Wikipedia

I was thinking of writing a paper on the democratization of wikipedia, but I need empirical evidence. Also, if you have any other ideas as to research with wikipedia, those would be appreciated.

Policy question regarding RfAs

Kingturtle,

I have noticed that you have in your role as a bureaucrat certified the results of many requests for adminship.

A man of honour is the sole person to oppose the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kim Dent-Brown. However, he has indicated:

"Anyway, if this vote continues like that, I will change my Oppose, this user deserves to land on 100. if anyone else opposes, my !vote will remain the same.

kinde regards

A man of honour (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)"

The RfA is scheduled to end 23:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC), around five and one half hours from now. Currently the tally is (66/1/0). If A man of honour does not change his vote and there are no other votes against this RfA prior to the deadline, will his vote be counted as Opposed or Support?

My interest in this matter is more from the perspective of assuring fair and impartial elections, than in trying to get a 100 percent consensus for a future admin.

Sincerely,
--Dan Dassow (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, only the editor her/himself is allowed to change her/his oppose to a support and vice versa. In this case, if A man of honour makes a particular stipulation, it is his responsibility to physically change it. Bureaucrats and other edits should not get into the habit of changing the positions of other editors, even if said editor writes explicitly what her/his strategy is. Kingturtle (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Khowsti

I saw that you have insisted in putting sockpuppet notice on this user page [8]. But, I couldn't find the proper evidence page. Where is it? Jahāngard (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Khowsti, an alleged new user, amazingly knows the history of User:NisarKand and even speaks to NisarKand in edit summaries. Khowsti, an alleged new user, is editing Kabul, an article plagued by at least six different sock puppets in the past week: a veritable sock puppet edit war. Also, Khowsti, an alleged new user, knows complicated en.wikipedia editing syntax, and is therefore an experienced editor here. Kingturtle (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

He may be a sock-puppet of another experienced user (not necessarily a blocked user). What is the evidence for the relationship with user:Beh-nam? In Afghanistan, most of people are either Pashtu-speaking or Persian-speaking. Many of the Persian-speaking people of Afghanistan have similar viewpoints as user:Beh-nam (on the other hand, many Pashtu-speaking people of Afghanistan may have viewpoints similar to the viewpoint of user:Bejnar). Does it it necessarily make them sockpuppet of these two? Jahāngard (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Does this make me a sockpuppet of user:Beh-nam or User:Khowsti? :-) Jahāngard (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to do the research as to which sock puppet it is, that'd be great. I'm a little busy on another project. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hazara

I have moved the Britannica quote to the "origin" section. You are being dishonest, because the simplistic opinion of Britannica contradicts the more detailed version of Encyclopaedia Iranica.

Most of all, User:E104421 - known as a notorious Pan-Turkist - is being dishonest. While he persists that "Turkic peoples are only defined by language", he claims that Hazaras are a "Turkic-Mongolian people" despite the fact that they are speakers of Iranian languages and are thus an Iranian people.

If genetic results define them as a "Turko-Mongol people", then the Turkish people should not be considered as a Turkic people, because modern genetic results prove that they are not related to the Turkic peoples of Central Asia (= the "real" Turks):

Spencer Wells says: "... The Turkish and Azeri populations are atypical among Altaic speakers (Table 1) in having low frequencies of M130, M48, M45, and M17 haplotypes. Rather, these two Turkic-speaking groups seem to be closer to populations from the Middle East and Caucasus, characterized by high frequencies of M96- and/or M89-related haplotypes. This finding is consistent with a model in which the Turkic languages, originating in the Altai-Sayan region of Central Asia and northwestern Mongolia (31), were imposed on the Caucasian and Anatolian peoples with relatively little genetic admixture---another possible example of elite dominance-driven linguistic replacement. ..." [9]

The Turks of Turkey and the Azeris have the same position among the "Turkic peoples" as Hazaras and Aimaqs have among the "Iranic peoples".

I am not being dishonest. Britannica says what it says. We should not pretend it says otherwise. We need to include the Britannica reference alongside other references you find. Kingturtle (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. But placing Britannica in the intro while ignoring more authoritative sources, namely Encyclopaedia Iranica which is a scholastic source directed by the Columbia University, is not the right way. The "Mongol origin theory" is just ONE theory. While it is also attested in Iranica that Hazaras do have an important Mongol background, it is also very obvious that they descend from native populations as well. And they are regarded an Iranian people (not a Turkic people!) because they speak an Iranian language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.131.209 (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Then put the other references IN without taking the Britannica reference OUT. Kingturtle (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I did. I took ALL references out of the intro and put them into the body of the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.131.209 (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Not quite right, since you did changes in the info-box, too. Regards. E104421 (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The changes in the info box are totally correct. The Aimaqs and Hazaras are Iranian peoples by definition:

• The Iranian peoples[1] are a collection of ethnic groups[2][3], defined along linguistic lines as speaking Iranian languages[4].

The Hazaras are related to other Iranian peoples in general. The alleged "Mongol descent" of the Hazaras is just one theory. And you, E1044221, and KingTurtle are actually falsifying the article by ignoring the more authoritative information of the Encyclopaedia Iranica (which, in contrast to Britannica, actually names the authors of its articles!).

Hazaras have the SAME position among Iranian peoples as the Turkish people who are of native Anatolian origin (Greeks and Kurds) have among the Turkic peoples. Yet, no would ever write in the introduction of the article Turkish people that they are a "Turkish-speaking eathnic group of Greek and Kurdish origin". What you two are doing is extreme falsification and POV pushing!

What I am doing is warding off sock puppets. Kingturtle (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

don't forget

Don't forget to also do a checkuser for NisarKand's latest sockpuppets. Or are you just going to turn a blind eye to them as you have done so far? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khowsti (talk • contribs) 01:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There already is one: NisarKand. Kingturtle (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I just blocked User:Mirzlax (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) without a checkuser, because the edit pattern clearly matched. —C.Fred (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Kingturtle (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: simple request

I started replying you on my page, but I figured out I didn't leave you a message here. sorry for the "sigh" but there are a big green box at the top of WP:RFCU and a big red box when you click "Request a Checkuser" explaining the procedure. That being said, checkusers will need you to explain on the case page why you believe a check is warranted. Per the foundation privacy policy, they usually need that before starting their check. Look at the other cases below your to have an idea on what you need (diffs, mostly). Thanks. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I had previously read through the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, but they are confusing when involving cases that already exist. The instructions in this instance that I was trying to follow were "If you are adding a new request for this user please add it above this notice at the top of the page. Only the latest request will appear on the checkuser page. Please don't create a separate page with a different name" which appear on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam. I hadn't clicked on the "Request a checkuser" button because these instructions don't say to; they say to add the new request to the top of the page, which I did. Maybe these instructions need to be rephrased? Kingturtle (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's one of the most bureaucratic page on WP (but unfortunately for a good reason). The instruction box is clearer, but there's probably some work to do to have more people use it. I moved things around, and updated a few instructions. Tell me if it's better! -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That helps! But I think what threw me were the instructions within the Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam page:

"If you are adding a new request for this user please add it above this notice at the top of the page. Only the latest request will appear on the checkuser page. Please don't create a separate page with a different name."

That says nothing about starting with the Request a checkuser button. In fact, it sort of implies that you just place your request atop the page manually. Maybe those instructions in particular need to be adjusted to say something like "Please be sure to start your request with the Request a checkuser button" and *not* say "please add it above this notice at the top of the page." Kingturtle (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah you are right, that's a source of concerns. Unfortunately the text is hardcoded in the case pages and we would need to use a bot to update. I'll see with the other clerks what they think. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help! Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hazaras

Great. First you revert to a wrong version. Then you ignore all sources given to you, including Encyclopaedia Iranica (see this scholastic reference!) and all sources mentioned in Iranian peoples and Iranian languages. And then you block an article in which you yourself were involved as an editor. Isn't that against the rules of Wikipedia?! Previously, you were proxying for the banned User:NisarKand (or one of his 83! sockpuppets) in the article Ahmad Shah Durrani. You have reverted that article to this version of User:Mirzlax, sockpuppet #83 (!!!) of User:NisarKand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.144.211 (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Dear Kingturtle, can you please change the protection level of Hazaras to semi-protection, so that the established editors can edit the page? The current intro should be expanded to reflect the other scholarly theories regarding the origin of Hazars. Also, while I do understand and appreciate your intentions of warding off the sock puppets (namely those of the banned User:Tajik) on these Afghan-related pages, you've essentially (and most likely unknowingly) been reverting most of these pages to the sockpuppets of another banned user named User:NisarKand. --07fan (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand that there have been many different sock puppets going at it on that and other articles. That is why I created the lengthy protection, to give established, responsible users time to get the article right. Kingturtle (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I set the protection level to block all new and unregistered users. What setting are you proposing? Kingturtle (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

" Oh I see, the page is only semi-protected. You used the wrong protection template though ( {sprotect} is the right one ), I will change it.--07fan (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Pashtun people

User:Pgan002 made a huge copy edit and you just reverted all his hard work thanks to another NisarKand sockpuppet. Check the history. Do you want me to tell User:Pgan002 that all his hard work just went to waste? Also I restored a few sentences that Nisarkand removed long ago which are sourced and I requested citation for a few parts, and user Tombseye provided it. You just rv'ed all this and are supporting another NisarKand sockpuppet and just put all User:Pgan002's hard work in copy editing to waste. TruePashtoon (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's already fixed. Kingturtle (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting back to Tombseye. You see how radical this NisarKand is? He lies alot too. I provide sources for everything I write he just makes things up. He is a proven racist and that is why he was banned among other reasons (providing fake citations, uploading fake licenses images, sockpuppety, etc). The reason Beh-nam was banned is very different than NisarKand. Beh-nam was banned for actually "edit warring" with a user that later turned out to be a sockpuppet of NisarKand! Also he was accused of proxying (which is easy to accuse someone of that) and banned for it by user: Thatcher131, the real reason Thatcher banned him is because Beh-nam reported his friend for sockpuppetry and this angered Thatcher. Considering this, Beh-nam shouldn't even be banned right now. Beh-nam contacted ArbCom about it but they are too busy and don't respond to emails. Beh-nam is really angry at Thatcher for abusing his admin powers and banning others to protect his friends. Also Beh-nam never made a single sockpuppet while NisarKand even before being banned had dozens of sockpuppets. Beh-nam has no choice since he can't appeal to ArbCom and Thatcher would manipulate them anyway.

You are a sockpuppet of a banned user. Kingturtle (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe maybe not. As an admin you should find out why that user was banned. Please investigate.

note about NisarKand

One thing NisarKand does is make lots of accounts and keeps them inactive for a month. That way he is able to edit/vandalize semi-protected articles. TruePashtoon (talk) 17:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Kingturtle

Kingturtle, these banned editors Tajik and Beh-nam are making a fool outta you. Don't you realize that all these banned editors are doing is attacking Pashtun related articles and you're helping them succeed. Their purpose is not to help improve the Pashtun people article, their purpose is to attack and destroy it by spreading their Persian propagandas in it. Everytime when these banned editors are revealed, they quickly start talking about NisarKand to turn attention somewhere else. Please revert the Pashtun article back to the version which removes Beh-nam's and Tajik's vandalism. These two proven vandals, Tajik and Beh-nam are creating sockpuppets and sharing them by providing to each other passwords for each account. Tajik is from Germany and Beh-nam from Canada, they are both extreme haters of Pashtuns.--Pheng Lee (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What "Persian propaganda"?! Stop throwing around accusations without any base. Give examples. So far everything I've written on Wikipedia has been sourced by reliable and scholarly sources. You on the other hand use unreliable sources (eg. Pashtun-nationalist websites), fake citations, or just make things up as you are doing here! TruePashtoon (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR?

On which article am I engaged in edit warring? If you mean my user page, from my understanding we can have whatever we like on our own user page. Am I wrong? TruePashtoon (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:TruePashtoon is 100% the banned editor User:Tajik and he should be ashamed of himself because he always gets caught when he tries to attack Pashtuns.--Pheng Lee (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not Tajik and you definitely have mental problems if you think I am attacking Pashtuns. In what way? By providing a source that they make up 39% that you don't like? That is not attacking Pashtuns. Stop being so childish. Tajik has never used a single sockpuppet, though Beh-nam has because he was banned by an abusive admin. You on the other hand were banned for racism, providing false and fake citations, attacking other users including the admins, using sockpuppets (before you were banned), providing fake licenses on images, and other reasons. Since your ban you have been caught using over 80 sockpuppets. With these sockpuppets you continue to remove sourced content and instead write your own versions with no sources. You do not belong on Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia and should be written by scholars. Go on a forum or something instead. TruePashtoon (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope this is in the right place

I hope I'm posting this in the right place. It's a message to Kingturtle. (I'm relatively new to wikipedia communications, so I apologize if this is in the wrong place.)

Why did you feel it appropriate to delete my section on "Word search trivia puzzles" and delete the external link (superwordsearchpuzzles.com)?

I thought the paragraphs I wrote gave a legitimate description of a different variety of puzzles that was not mentioned on the page.

As for the link, it was a non-commercial, non-spam link that gave examples of trivia word search puzzles. The puzzles were a different type/style than the others listed.

In my opinion, the link was more appropriate than some of the the other links. "Word search generator for site words" link has less than 100 words about word searches and it only lets you generate simple puzzles for young children. Hardly seems like an authority wordsearch site.

I'm just wondering what your thinking was with the deletions of my edits.

Thanks for reading.

  Marfalump (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Marfalump

I put back your edit to Word search, but I am not going to put back your external link. Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed. Please read the section in Wikipedia:Spam on External link spamming. I hope that helps. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Kingturtle,

Thank you for replying... I appreciate you putting back my word search edit.

The purpose of the link was to show examples of the edit. I didn't see the link as spam and included the page because:

1. It is one of the larger sites on the Internet exclusively dedicated to word searches that I've come across. (It's just for word searches, not word searches, cryptograms, crosswords, etc, etc.)

2. There are no ads on the page, nor does it seem to have a connection to a larger web entity. It appears to be a completely non-profit, commercial-free site.

3. It specifically described the type of word search I wrote about in the edit (trivia word searches)-- it describes word searches with words and with examples.

That said, I can appreciate the need to keep the links under control.

Do you think that I should have should have cited the site as a source for information instead of adding it to external links?

Also, do you really think the link to: "Wordsearch Puzzles Generator for Sight Words" is appropriate? I think that seems like a far more trivial link, in my opinion.

Thanks again for reading. Looking forward to your reply.

Marfalump (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason I marked it as spam is because you added the superteacherworksheets.com external link to many articles. Kingturtle (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Kingturtle,

I did not add the superteacherworksheets link to the word search page. In the above discussion we were talking about the importance of the word search link. Please, I'm not trying to create an argument here. I am trying to see the your logic as to why the word search link is inappropriate.

Yes, I am new to being a Wikipedia contributer. I was doing it in the best way I know how. I'm not a spammer. I added a paragraph to the word search page about a (relatively common) type of word search that was not mentioned. And then I added a link to a large, non-commercial word search site to back up the information I posted.

Yes, I see you moved the superteacherworksheets link on the cursive section. I posted a link that showed examples of how to make modern cursive letters. It wasn't a spam link-- I thought I was contributing a useful resource since the other links all pointed to rather antiquated forms of cursive. But I did not criticize THAT link's removal by you.

Now-- back to the word search link we were discussing. Please, tell me why you think the WORD SEARCH LINK is inappropriate.

Thanks.

  Marfalump (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You added a superwordsearchpuzzles.com link here, here, here, here and here. Adding the same link to many articles is spamming. It isn't a question of whether the link is good or not. It is a question of whether you were spamming or not. And you were spamming. Please think about adding content to articles and not blanketing one link over many articles. Kingturtle (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sakes, no.

I added superwordsearchpuzzles ONLY to the word search entry page.

The other ones were superteacherworksheets.com. Different domains. Completely different sites.

Now, I will work on adding content to wikipedia. I did add content to the word search page we were talking about.

My intention was never to spam, but to add what I thought was useful information to the site. I can refrain from adding links, if that is necessary. I don't even care if the superteacherworksheets.com link is there.

But I still feel strongly that the superwordsearchpuzzles.com link is necessary to show examples of the type of word search puzzle I was talking about. And I still believe it is more relevant than the other links for that entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marfalump (talk • contribs) 17:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I will not remove it if you put it back in. But please be aware of the spam policies here. And please continue to work on Wikipedia. Kingturtle (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Third order, Society of Saint Francis

Hiya. Don't forget to use the maintenance text as notification for the original author on their talk page. It's only fair! ;-) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is fair. I thought it happened automatically. Is there a tag or template for me to use? Kingturtle (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

At the bottom of the template, the text is labelled: Maintenance use only: {{subst:Nothanks-web|pg=Third order, Society of Saint Francis|url=http://tssf.org/}} ~~~~, which you can copy-paste right on to their talk page. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks!! Kingturtle (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you beat me to it. Kingturtle (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Malibu Rehab Model

Hi--i've done a lot of work on this artilce. it also looks like a few others chiped in--what do you think? thanks for your help reagan 04:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Photoengraving article

Kingturtle:

My name is Robert DuHamel and I am the original author of the photoengraving article on Wikipedia. I am writing to declare that the article is entirely my own work except for a few edits by other authors. The article is based on my personal experience as a former photoengraver. Southern Alberta Photo Engraving (photo-engraving.com) copied the material from Wikipedia without attribution. I am going to restore the article and put this notice on the talk page.

Rsduhamel(talk) 21:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, great! Follow the instructions on the message I left on your talk page. You need to send an email to the proper authorities. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Your instructions say if I own the copyright to "send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication". The original publication is on Wikipedia. It was not copied from another site. All I can do is show that it has been on Wikipedia since November of 2004 and that photo-engraver.com has no history at archive.org, which indicates that the site is less than six months old. So, do they get to steal my IP without attribution just because I originally wrote it on Wikipedia and nowhere else? Rsduhamel (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorry for the misunderstanding. Kingturtle (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC) P.S. If you have time, could you wikifying that article? Kingturtle (talk)

Merger proposal

Please see Talk:United States presidential election in Massachusetts, 2008#Merger proposal.—Markles 00:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

User Page

Is it okay now?--Falconkhe (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Actually it was quiet very good one, I wanted to make my page something like this but you know I have just joined Wikipedia that's why?--Falconkhe (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Am I right?

I have just visited this page, I found its a merger of two pages, this is the past edition of the page. I am of the view that this page should be split from this page becuase I have found user page, having sufficient information, plus the User:iamsaa is interested to do so, so am I. What do you think?--Falconkhe (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

NisarKand is vandalyzing again

He is removed sourced content that has been approved by several editors on the Hamid Karzai article. Please keep an eye on that article. Also on Demography of Afghanistan, he is ignoring everything that was said on the talk page. Thanks. DurraniPashtun (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Demography of AFghanistan

The version you just blocked the article on is the version that NisarKand made. The version I put it on was approved by several other editors. So please change it to a version not by NisarKand, he has ignored everything on the talk page (eg. Britannica says two-fifth not 49%, etc). Thanks. DurraniPashtun (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Also the color coding doesn't even match on NisarKand's version, not to mention many other wrong things already discussed on the talk page. Look at the article's history please and put it on a version not by NisarKand, anything it doesn't have to be my version, just a version not by NisarKand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DurraniPashtun (talk • contribs) 17:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

arudraraju

i'm going to work on the ancient inscriptions soon.--Arudraraju (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Good job!

By taking his side and locking the article to his version, you are encouraging him from coming back again and again because he knows you will take his side anyway and support his false edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DurraniPashtun (talk • contribs) 17:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not taking sides. I reverted the article back to the last version by a registered user who is not a sock puppet. Kingturtle (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You haven't checked the article's history well enough. Take a look at the [history here]. It was this edit that changed the map and it was by the confirmed sock of NisarKand user: Inferior-Parsiban. Do you not realize that even his user name was racist? User: Nakon was not away that Inferior-Parsiban was a racist sock at the time and he was never involved in this article before. That was the first time this map you have right now was put there and the old one removed, as you can see it was NisarKand who changed it to this way. So now that you are aware of it please change it to before NisarKand. DurraniPashtun (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it to the last version by Bejnar. Kingturtle (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That is still after NisarKand already made the edit I listed above. Please revert it before that (the edit by NisarKand above). DurraniPashtun (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, KingTurtle is once again proxying for NisarKand and his biased version. He has even restored the wrong version of NisarKand (with the help of the bad-faith edits of User:Bejnar). KingTurtle, I do not know if you realize this, but you are actively FALSIFYING sources. Just like Bejnar. Both of you claim - while you are in fact proxying for NisarKand - that Latif Pedram is a "controversial politician". Either you have blindly copied that from NisarKand (which would prove that you are in fact proxying for him), or you actively falsify sources and then protect your own wrong version (which in fact would make YOU a controversial admin). The source you people use for your biased version says:

• "... During the campaign, he [Latif Pedram] emerged as a controversial figure in the press and political circles for campaigning for women's personal rights ..." PBS source abused by NisarKand and his freind Bejnar to lable Pedram as a "controversial politician".

All Afghanistan-related articles need neutral admins acting according to WP:AGF. You people are neither assuming good faith, nor do you have any neutral view or any good intentions in this case. This is not the first time that you, KingTurtle, are destroying the good quality of an article for the sake of your Taliban-supporting friend User:NisarKand who has by now managed to set up 90 (!) sockpuppets! User:Bejnar is automatically reverting to the false versions of NisarKand. He is in fact proxying for NisarKand. Great job, KingTurtle! Wikipedia is proud of you and your pro-Taliban vandalism! It does puzzle me somehow that you, as an admin, do not know the first rule of Wikipedia: namely to create a good and reliable encyclopedia. Instead of blindly reverting to some version, you should at least READ what you are doing. If you do not have any knowledge of the subject, then you should either contacts someone with more experience in the field or leave it to someone who is more neutral and who has the intention to follow Wikipedia's rule #1.

Well said. Kingturle all you need to do is look at the history of the article to see that the version you have is by NisarKand. I've even given you the diff. DurraniPashtun (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Beh-nam was banned because he was accused of "proxying". Now Bejnar and Kingturtle are proxying for NisarKand. Maybe they should be banned too?

Notice how Kingturtle is reporting accounts for checkuser for Beh-nam, but he just ignores NisarKand's sockpuppets (User:GingizKhan). There is lots of evidence to suggest that this is proxying. If Beh-nam was banned for allegations of proxying then why not Kingturtle and Bejnar? DurraniPashtun (talk) 19:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a POV in any of this. I am simply warding off Sock Puppetry. If you know of sock puppets, report them through the correct channels or let me or someone else know. I will look into User:GingizKhan. Kingturtle (talk) 20:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You will look into GingizKhan? You're the one who put the sockpuppet tag on his talk page and somehow you forgot about him? That is suspicious. Beh-nam got banned for just 1 edit he made that was claimed to be proxying. You and Bejnar have made dozens of edits that can easily be considered proxying. So why is Beh-nam banned? And do you know why NisarKand was banned? He was banned for long racist rants, using many accounts at the same time, uploading false images, attacking admins, faking sources, etc. That is a much better reason than why Beh-nam (which really was no reason)... yet you seem to be against Beh-nam but for Nisarkand. I'm wondering why, other than proxying?

I do not know why Beh-nam was banned. I am merely enforcing the ban. Think of it this way - there is a judge and a police officer. the judge gives a sentence, the police officer enforces the sentence. You don't negotiate your sentence with the police officer. Kingturtle (talk) 20:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then you're a police office going after the wrong guy. You're going after the good guy and helping the bad guy get away with whatever he wants. DurraniPashtun (talk) 20:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

KingTurtle, a police officer who is supporting the bad guys - even if he acts according to the law - is a danger for the cummunity. ALL of your reverts and edits are extreme bad faith edits which have only one purpose: to remove scholastic sources, to falsify sources, and to proxy for disruptive users. You have recently removed some 5-6 scholastic sources in various articles, you are openly siding with Grey Wolves-supporters in various articles in which you push for extreme-nationalistic views, you purposely destroy the good quality of an FA article by deleting good sources and enforcing an obviously false and POV version.It really does not matter if you are acting according to Wikipedia rules. You are most certainly violating the first and most important rule of Wikipedia: to create a good and reliable encyclopedia!

re: edits in your RfB

In question 5b you say that your answers appear in bold - but there are a few instances such as "note I do oppose reconfirmations" that are not in bold. Could you put your notes in bold too? Otherwise it is hard to tell if they are your notes or Twooars's notes. Cheers and good luck! Kingturtle (talk) 13:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, done. Neıl ☎ 13:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh... What?

So, I log in to my account for not really any good reason, and find that my Talk page has been subject to a massive 6k edit, including this:

Hello, Deprogram! Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed.

Along with a bunch of other drivel. Apparently you are responsible. Fantastic - I feel most welcome. Can you explain to me what was reverted? I'm not sure I need a welcome page template as my Talk page, either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deprogram (talk • contribs) 23:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I interpreted these edits [10] and [11] as being experiments. Kingturtle (talk) 13:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you help?

Hi, I want to fix a target for myself on Wikipedia, I wanted to select an article an work on that until to make it one of the best of Wiki, I have done a alot of contributions to this article, can you kindly help me to make further improvements?--Falconkhe (talk) 10:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That article is really quite good. I have no expertise in that subject, so I can't be of much help. If you want to continue expanding the article, read Ten rules to make an article FA and A fool's guide to writing a featured article for great tips. If you want others to help you, request Peer review. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 14:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Good save

You know what i'm talking about. Thanks for being on the lookout man. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Dawat-e-Islami

dear will u help in Improving article plz help me in this regard.Shabiha ^(t 16:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That article is really quite good. I have no expertise in that subject, so I can't be of much help. If you want to continue expanding the article, read Ten rules to make an article FA and A fool's guide to writing a featured article for great tips. If you want others to help you, request Peer review. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hazrat Sayyedna Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi

Could you please help me to improve this article, I want to make this as one of the best on Wikipedia as soon as possible. I would highly appreciate your help & support in this regard.--Asikhi (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That article is really quite good. I have no expertise in that subject, so I can't be of much help. If you want to continue expanding the article, read Ten rules to make an article FA and A fool's guide to writing a featured article for great tips. If you want others to help you, request Peer review. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. Cheers!--Asikhi (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds March 2008 Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Troll

I'm pretty sure he holds a grudge. With the number of edits shoe has and the quality of work I've seen, I have no problem trusting even without a substantial article building component. Cheers, and happy editing Dlohcierekim 15:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Admins are supposed to work for the improvement of Wikipedia

Your recent edits in Atabeg, Iranian peoples, Bey, Hazara people, etc were against WP:AGF and you have in all of your edits removed sourced material.

I will continue to revert your bad faith edits which have the sole purpose to proxy for banned users (as in case of Demography of Afghanistan where you deleted a source, falsified another, and reverted to the wrong version of banned User:NisarKand) and to prevent the improvement.

I am acting according to the rules of Jimbo Wales:

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. (WP:IAR)

You are a banned user and you are using sock puppets. I will continue to help block your new accounts. I will continue to protect articles from your touch. All editors, not just admins, are supposed to work for the improvement of Wikipedia. Serve your sentence properly, have faith that other editors will make the right choices, and then come back and be an editor without playing games. Kingturtle (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have not used ONE SINGLE sockpuppet! I was banned because of a WRONG ACCUSATION, and later, the admins even ADMITTED that the accusation was wrong. User:Tajik-Professor was a sockpuppet of User:NisarKand, but it was used to ban me. Interestingly, after it was clarified that the ban was injust, the sockpuppet of NisarKand was unblocked, but my account was not. Until today, there is not a single checkuser file that could prove that claim that User:Tajik and User:Tajik-Professor are the same person. On the other hand, there is a checkuser file that proves the contrary: All the rest are sockpuppets of User:Beh-nam, User:NisarKand, and so forth. Go through the list: all claimed sockpuppets are those of Beh-nam and NisarKand! Since the ban, I am only using my IP, unlike others who create dozens of sockpuppets! As for your new friend User:E104421: maybe you should ask your fellow admin User:Future Perfect at Sunrise for more information about this guy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.138.115 (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Tajik has never used a single sockpuppet. Tajik-Professor has been confirmed by several admins to be someone else. Yet Tajik is somehow still banned. When Beh-nam asked the admin Thatcher131 about it, he got threatened for getting banned. They told him to stop asking about it or he would be banned. Beh-nam thought they were kidding around (how can someone get banned for asking questions?). But Thatcher actually did ban him when Beh-nam asked more about it and reported one of Thatcher's friends for sockpuppetry. That thug Thatcher banned Tajik for no reason and later did the same to Beh-nam and all other admins are too lazy to look into it! If no one will look into it what do you suggest Behnam does? What should Tajik do? We need you to investigate this, please. Malizai (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are not using sock puppets, then use your normal, unblocked account to make fair and rational edits. Kingturtle (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are banned, then you should not be editing. Live out your sentence with good behavior and then come back and edit fairly and rationally. Kingturtle (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't. If I register a new account, I will be accused of sockpuppetry! Just check my latest edits: do you really believe that any of them were disruptive, POV-pushing or vandalism?! In all of them, I offered scholastic sources and I even tried to discuss them with others. Just check them!

Quick Comment

I have noticed this article tagged with notibility, while nine reliable sources are used for the article, can I remove tag?--Falconkhe (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In my eyes it looks like the tag can be removed. But you should also ask User:Scientizzle, who added the tag originally. Kingturtle (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• • User:Scientizzle has not yet removed that tag from this article, what to do?--Falconkhe (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Deacon of Pndapetzim

I'm going to jump the gun here. Good close. Close in terms of numbers, and you made the right call IMHO; looking at the "strength" of the opposing arguments e.g. many opposers seemed to feel that they would support in the future, or made their opposing statements quite weak. Pedro :  Chat  20:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I won't add anything regarding the close, but you can be sure my bias leads me to regard it as extremely Solomonic! Any advice you ever feel you need to offer, critical or otherwise, will be welcome. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions request

I've been working on the Billy Pierce article, and was wondering if you might have any suggestions for further work. I think the article needs a better picture (and if anyone has the capability of creating a couple of bar graphs, I've got a small project for them), but other than a few minor additions I believe I've got it in good shape. Any ideas? MisfitToys (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrat discussion - Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Riana

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Riana/Bureaucrat discussion

Having briefly discussed this request with Deskana and as we did not think this is a case where a lone bureaucrat should determine the outcome of the discussion, I have created a subpage to allow for bureaucrats to discuss the matter. If you have time, I would be grateful if you could review the RfB and express an opinion as to what outcome you believe is appropriate. WjBscribe 02:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your objectivity and I'm not at all worried by the level of discussion (I don't think it's particularly controversial yet, but maybe that's because I'm not on the outside looking in?) Anyway, at least I don't have to answer questions anymore :P Good luck with your decision and whatever it is, I'm glad that there was transparency in the process. ~ Riana ⁂ 23:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I noticed (trying to read through all that thoroughly is quite a challenge!) that there was some talk of "excluding" votes - I was wondering whether Miranda's comment would be taken into consideration. Personally I'm not really sure about the discounting of votes - but since an explicit statement has been made by an opposer here, perhaps it's viable? All the best, ~ Riana ⁂ 23:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Miranda has contacted me to say that she really would like to withdraw her opposition. We don't allow closed discussion to be altered for good reason, and I'm leaning towards thinking the same should apply to those "on hold" - otherwise we will find ourselves discussing a shifting canvass. That said, we haven't reached a decision yet but I'm not sure we should treat existing participants different from new ones - is someone for "forgot to withdraw their comment" different to someone who "forgot to comment". Anyway, thought I'd bounce it off you for your thoughts as your around. WjBscribe 16:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I think we need to keep the RfB closed. Re-opening it looks fishy and like we're trying to manipulate the outcome. The best road at this point is to finish the discussion in Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Riana/Bureaucrat discussion and go with what's decided. Kingturtle (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'll never understand your fierce opposition to promoting this RfB. The community has spoken and the 90% "rule" is being roundly rejected. To fail to listen to that voice is just beyond the pale of what you promoted to 'cratship to do. Color me as disappointed as I've been in a long while with the processes--and the people behind the processes--of Wikipedia. Bellwether ^B_C 14:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll explain my position succinctly: I stated yesterday that I would not protest or stonewall any decision to promote Riana, but that I'd like to see with her promotion a statement that explained in great detail why the promotion was made.

I did not set the 90% threshold. I have nothing against Riana whatsoever. It is part of my responsibility as a Bureaucrat not to ignore valid opposition, even if it is only 15%. I do not consider it right to change protocol mid- or post- RfA or RfB.

I fully support lowering the bar, and I created Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfB bar to help move that along.

I hope that helps you understand. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Confused

See [12]. I'm now completely confused. You have given no indication that you objected to Dan, Deskana and Warofdreams' opinions that we should finally close the RfB at the end of yesterday. And have given no suggestion before now that you might change your mind as to what the outcome should be. Are you now saying I should reverse myself so this can be discussed longer. WjBscribe 15:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused now too :) . I read this as you saying you were going to close the RfB as unsuccessful, so this comment was meant to buy more time. My position still stands: I will not protest the promotion as long as an explanation is made addressing the issues I raised. Kingturtle (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a statement of immediate intent - I have closed it. What we were left with was a situation where 4 bureaucrats had made it clear they did not think promotion was appropriate: UninvitedCompany, Rdsmith4, Deskana and yourself. 3 bureaucrats supported promotion: Myself, Andre and Warofdreams. Now it is true that both you and Rdsmith4 said you would allow me to promote over your objections, but that was in my view unfeasible. I cannot ask for input from my colleagues, find out that a majority disagree with me and then go ahead as I please anyway. It seemed to me that the views of those opposing promotion were not going to change - you have never suggested you might close the discussion as successful. Once I decided that I could not close as successful over your objections, the only outcome left was an unsuccessful one and there seemed no reason not to enact that outcome. WjBscribe 16:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I think Cecropia's contribution to the discussion now puts the result beyond doubt in any event... WjBscribe 16:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Democratic National Convention total delegates

Hello Kingturtle, you've raised an interesting point. Is the total 4049? the total without Michicgan & Florida? I assume it is. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

Do you have an E-Mail address. I have a few questions I'd like to address, but not here on your talk-page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.129.202 (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I turned on my email access here. You may click here. Kingturtle (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I sent you a mail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.229.175 (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have replied. Kingturtle (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Pat Neshek

Pursuant to some OTRS inquiries I would appreciate it if you and the folks at the WikiProject for Baseball could keep an eye on this article, specifically the annotative/qualitative tone of his performance. Thanks, - TheDaveRoss (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Khost

I saw mosque picture on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lashkar_Gah page and decided to add khost mosque pic to khost infobox so isn't that allowed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by McTools (talk • contribs) 18:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Warnings (before reporting you), you are in violation of all these

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one(s) you made to Sami Yusuf, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Thank you.

User:Power_plus5

I already hit this guy with a warning for the page move on Joe DiMaggio, I just used normal English to do it. He's apologized, done nothing since, and I gave him a welcome message. Now you've templated him for the same page move. Am I missing something, did I not fix the page move so there's still disruption somewhere? Was this not already resolved, or did you feel something more was necessary?

Thanks. Add my sig now for both posts - oops :) Franamax (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The user had previously been advised not to vandalize articles (Lou Gehrig), so I was pushing the warning level up. But in light of your strategy, I have removed my warning from that user's talk page. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Process-wise, you're probably more correct to use the escalating series of warning templates. I just hate to see them flung around (like just above this section) and I personally prefer to make a post in my own words about the specific mal-action I'm addressing. It takes a whole lot longer, but it quite often does the trick, and if an admin comes along later considering a block for some future mal-action, it also can make them more comfortable doing the block, or giving a final warning, if they see someone has actually tried to make contact and explain. That's how I see it anyway. Cheers to you too! Franamax (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We are in agreement. I have myself welcomed users with spotty edit histories. Cheers, and happy editing, Kingturtle (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam

Hello, I think you forgot to list the case for Beh-nam so I've done it here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser&diff=prev&oldid=197582991 —Preceding unsigned comment added by McTools (talk • contribs) 22:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong

You're wrong. That part had been in the aritcle for a long time. Then User:Blnguyen made massive removal that identified as possibly vandalism, so I just prevent it. JacquesNguyen (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether the text was in there for a short or long period of time, it is still copyrighted text and cannot be in the article. Kingturtle (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

i was just joking!

my friends said i should do it: just randomly change a page. they said it was funny and that nothing would happen sorry sorry sorry

     /\/\/\
    |-  - |
    |  |  |
    | --- |
    \--Power plus5 (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)_Frank Dominici III____/
       |
     /-|-\
       |
      /-\
      | |
      | |

Proxying for Bejnar

Be careful not to proxy for him or you will be reported for it. You proxied for him on Tajiks. Also Anoshirawan is not me and this has been confirmed by past checkusers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalalabadi (talk • contribs) 03:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverting a sock puppet is not proxying. Please serve your sentence and come back when you are invited back. Kingturtle (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You should appologize to Anoshirawan

You reverted his edit on Afghanistan and accused him of being Beh-nam while it has already been proven by checkuser that they are two different people in two different countries. You should fix his edit and apologize to him otherwise you are going against the very advice you just put on my talk page.

See the checkuser here for yourself and correct yourself on Afghanistan.

That checkuser was rejected because it was submitted a brand new editor, not because a checkuser had actually been performed. I am investigating the case further. Kingturtle (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Anoshirawan

I don't think that Anoshirawan is a sock puppet. He has been around a long time and has a distinctive style of editing. In the past Anoshirawan has vandalized ethnic data in Afghan articles, see his talk page. He was suspended for a month and has just come back. Anoshirawan and Behnam used to pass notes back and forth a lot. --Bejnar (talk) 07:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Log Cabin Wilderness Camp

The text from the source you cited is GDFL. It can stay, though it may need to be rewritten. --evrik ^(talk) 13:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. Kingturtle (talk) 14:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Elliot Spitzer

I kept the dates to indicate that he is governor but theres no harm in changing it since the likelyhood of Paterson being inable to assume the office is slim. Kevin Rutherford 18:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

There is harm in it. Spitzer is still the governor. Paterson is not yet the governor. We do not have a crystal ball. Anything can happen. Kingturtle (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Load factor (aerodynamics)

Hi Kingturtle. Thank you for leaving a comment on my User talk page about your deletion from Load factor (aerodynamics). I have given a lot of thought to your fear of copyright violation. I have also examined very closely the text you deleted, and the web page you quoted. (The web page you quoted deals with the same topic as the Wiki article so it is not surprising that the two have at least a little in common.) The only text I have found that is close to common to the two sources is as follows:
Wiki: "Positive Load Factor - During normal flight the "right way up", the load factor is 1g."
WWW: "POSITIVE LOAD FACTOR - During normal flight, the load factor is 1 G or greater than 1 G."
I don't believe this justifies your concern regarding copyright violation to the extent that the entire Introduction must be deleted. (Can you see any other text that is common to both sources?)

I wrote part of the Introduction but I certainly didn't copy it from any website. I think it is more likely that the web site you quoted has taken its lead from Wikipedia.

I will restore the text you deleted and raise the matter on the Talk page. Please clarify your concerns, in detail, on the Talk page. That way other readers and I can consider the matter and decide whether the Introduction should be amended or not.

Happy editing! Dolphin51 (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

PS. I have now examined closely the history of Load factor and I see that when the article was created in May 2007 it was an exact copy of the website. In fact, the website was quoted as the reference. When I first amended the article on 21 August 2007 I moved it away from the text on the website. I have now summarised all this on the Talk page. I will give consideration to how the Introduction might be re-written to completely divorce it from its May 2007 origins. Dolphin51 (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No vote for Viet Dinh

On Feb. 29, 2008 on the page for Viet Dinh you asked for a citation for the fact that the one No vote came from Hillary Clinton. I did not make the edit in question, and am not sure how these citations work, but I did witness Dinh state that fact to his Corporations class at Georgetown University Law Center on Feb. 28, 2008 (the day the edit was made). What is the proper citation in this case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zzyzxs (talk • contribs) 13:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Witnessing it yourself is considered original research, and there is supposed to be no original research on Wikipedia. Can you find a news story or a video clip of what you witnessed? Kingturtle (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I found a source. From the 9/18/02 Los Angeles Times: "At Home in War on Terror: Viet Dinh has gone from academe to a key behind-the scenes role. Conservatives love him; others find his views constitutionally suspect." by Eric Lichtblau, Column 1, A1. Can you help me with the proper citation format? --1zzyzxs (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Use:

<ref>{{Citation | last = | first = | author-link = | last2 = | first2 = | author2-link = | title = | newspaper = | pages = | year = | date = | url = }}</ref>

I got it from Wikipedia:Citation templates. Give it a shot. Kingturtle (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. anything you leave blank will simply not show up. Kingturtle (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks almost right. What did I miss?--1zzyzxs (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice work! I fixed the slight error. I think the problem was that author-link is supposed to be a wikipedia link, not a URL. Kingturtle (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(not so) humorous comment

I think there's a 99.9% probably that you reverted my weak attempt at levity inadvertently and even if you didn't, there's a 99.9% chance you realized my intent was humorous and ironic. Just in case, I want to make sure you know I was not implying a negative sentiment. Ronnotel (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Nice one :) Kingturtle (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

LC class PH

Page wikified as requested.Eclecticology (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Jack Kramer

Thanks for your support. Cheers!!! MusiCitizen (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Your recent warning on my talkk

Please carefully see that during my editing of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam I clearly noted that I was just adding new information so that cannot be considred a revert. See the special exceptions at Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Exceptions before warning me. I'm not in any edit-war with anyone, I'm just reporting someone who I believe is stirring trouble here.--McTools (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

revert one and revert two. Please do not do it a third time. Kingturtle (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What is there to do in the case where I have to add more information to the same page but someone has reverted to older version?--McTools (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Take the conversation to the talk page of the article in question. Discuss your position there. That's what the talk areas are for. Edit wars are of no use. Kingturtle (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

re Mohammed Zahir Shah

They are promoting the idea that his kingship is granted by God. Isn't there policies on Wikipedia prohibiting these type of extreme POVs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalalabadi (talk • contribs) 19:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It depends on how its written. See Dalai Lama, where it says "According to tradition, the rarefied mindstream of these tulku take repeated births and embodiment to fulfill their Boddhisattva vow....Tibetan Buddhists hold the Dalai Lama to be one of innumerable incarnations of Avalokiteśvara." Kingturtle (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Anoshirawan and company...

Are back to their usual behavior immediately after his most recent 30-day block expired. Seems some people just don't learn. I have been watching many articles, and things were clear until his block lapsed, at which point he and the banned socks magically came back all at once. Either he is a sock-puppeteer, or this three "man" team is still waging war on wikipedia. --BahooshBacha (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not Beh-nam

Why would I be reporting Anoshirawan if I were Beh-nam? I haven't even edited in over a month. Even now, I'm just using this account to watch articles and report abuses I see. Editing is a waste of my time.

--BahooshBacha (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If you insist on getting me banned when I've made it clear I'm not editing, then that is your choice. But at least make sure I am who you accuse me of being. My past edits are those you have restored time and time again. After Bejnar, I am by far the most neutral editor on Afghan articles... and the breadth of my editing activities was at best 1/20th that of the abusive users and their socks.

--BahooshBacha (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

All these sockpuppets

How come all these indefinitely blocked users are able to have so many accounts and are making a mockery of the blocking policy by still editing. I see the checkuser for User:Jalalabadi has been listed for three days and still hasn't been carried out so blocked User:Beh-nam is able to edit. Isn't it possible to block the accounts on sight and revert all their edits or protect pages as they longer enjoy editing privileges. - dwc lr (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

user: NisarKand should not be allowed to edit and make threats

According to Wikipedia's rules Wikipedia:No legal threats, legal threats are a violation and should not be allowed. So please do not allow him to make legal threats even on talk pages. I don't mind that he wants to make legal threats. He can, but for what? Now he accuses me of distributing pornography over the internet just because a reference I cited was a porn website? He did the exact samething by also citing a porn website as a reference. It is the silliest thing I've heard ever on Wikipedia. He might as well report every editor on Wikipedia for distributing porn, sue Wikipedia, and take legal action against every porn site, porn store, television channels, Hollywood, magazines, newspapers, chat rooms, blogs, forums, and so on.

Only NisarKand would make such such a silly threat. Trust me, it's NisarKand. I've known him for years and I've developed a good intuition for his socks and I've never been wrong about them. Don't be fooled by his edits to non-Afghanistan related articles. He is doing that to throw off any suspicions. But it's still easily to tell it's him. As usual he is obsessed with Beh-nam, he still displays Afghan nationalism, and even though he is a new user he is somehow familiar with check user alreadyand his edits are too advanced for a new user.

I will do a checkuser on him soon and you'll see.

Template talk:Editabuselinks

Hey, there. Just thought I should draw your attention to Template talk:Editabuselinks#Checkuser noticeboard link, since you added said link. Nothing urgent, just wanted to be sure you have a chance to speak. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to follow up, this does seem like a random noticeboard to add. Should the Arbcom clerks noticeboard also be added? MBisanz ^talk 23:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't random at all. Checkuser requests are very important for some edit abuse issues. Kingturtle (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, RFCU is important and is on the template, but the CU-Clerk noticeboard doesn't seem to fit into the normal checkuser request process. MBisanz ^talk 23:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I see the discussion there, ignore my comments, I was mistaken. MBisanz ^talk 23:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No harassing

What's the big idea? You're playing with my personal page. Can you please stop doing that.--McTools (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect you are a sockpuppet. Kingturtle (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware, I'm new here and I don't appreciate this behaviour. I didn't remove the tag you applied but just placed it at the bottom.--McTools (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no rule that you have to keep the tag at the top.--McTools (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Iraq flag

Do you mean on my user page or to you? If to you, its because even though Arab nationalism took a blow after 1967 and Nasser's death, the furthering of this destruction was continued by the removal of the three stars which symbolized Freedom, Unity and Socialism, the motto of Arab nationalists not just the Ba'ath. Saddam's handwriting is a different story, I ll use the Kufic script instead. If you are Iraqi and you are offended please don't be, this is just my view as an Arab nationalist. I don't exactly see it as a joke (I just got a little emotional while I was writing it) but I think its ridiculous. Iraq's Arabs need to focus on driving al-Qaeda and the Coaliton out of its land and replace its puppet leadership with a real one. Thats a victory while the flag is a defeat. Although at any circumstance, I think Iraq has been irreversibly Islamicized after the US invasion on both the Sunni and Shia sides and the stars won't be all important to them anyway. I feel awful for Iraq as I do Gaza and more broadly the entire Arab World. I refuse to recognize a flag influenced by an invasion of imperialists and pro-Israelis and will only recognize pan-Arab symbols. At least the colors are still there. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not offended - merely curious. Flags, passports and nationalism are a fascinating topic to me. The borders of the Middle East countries were created by Imperialist nations, and in strategic ways to weaken local strength. Nasser's response is very interesting, and omitted from U.S. history books. Kingturtle (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Gasmask.jpe

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Gasmask.jpe. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

AfghanStar

Hi KingTurtkle, just been reading your personal interests page, you are SERIOUSLY COOL! Im still a bit new to this, so how do I edit my own???

Anyway thankyou for the compliment on AfghanStar. I dont suppose you have any info to add on the winners or judges on the series maybe??? Also How can I tell if there are any other-language versions of AfghanStar and link them??? Bleaney (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for the kind words. Wikipedia is full of all sorts of interesting people.

Over the years, when I see a style, format or idea on a user's page, I incorporate it into my own. Feel free to use any ideas from my page.

As for AfghanStar, I find it very difficult to find reliable English language information on current pop culture in the region. I used to use a site called http://www.myafghan.com/ , but they are no longer issuing current event stories. Alas.

Where does your interest in Afghanistan stem from? Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My interest in Afghanistan? I just got captivated the country in 2001-2 during the invasion, what a country! And as the world sadly turned its attention to Iraq, ive stuck with Afghanistan. Plus im a major fan of the BBC, and they alerted me to AfghanStar Bleaney (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, same here! I devoted myself to learning about Afhganistan during the U.S. invasion. I've learned so much since then! I don't know what people did without the internet :) Kingturtle (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Here in the UK b4 the internet all we had were dusty public libraries with lots of out of date books and scary spinster librarians. They are still around today! Bleaney (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Perhaps you should just ban Anoshirawan for trashing every article he touches. Maybe then, people like this "Khampalak" won't have to replace propaganda and misinformation with proper facts. This is no place for pushing political agendas and making political statements based on ignorance and prejudice. --EduardoGuerez (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a current checkuser request of Anoshirawan at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NisarKand. Kingturtle (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

He also uses open http proxies to evade blocks/bans and commit sockpuppetry. I found cached pages not too long ago linking his Wikipedia editing activities under the name "Anoshirawan" to a few proxies. I suspect that this usage of proxies may somehow be the reason his signatures always get screwed up when he signs his comments on talk pages (text with no hyperlinks for talk/contrib). --EduardoGuerez (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Report them at the proper places. I do not have checkuser abilities. Kingturtle (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again. Where would I report this? He continues to indiscriminately revert any edits that are not his, Beh-nam's, or Tajik's. --EduardoGuerez (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have evidence that it is NisarKand, post it at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NisarKand. Kingturtle (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not making that assertion. I don't think they are the same person. What I am saying is that Anoshirawan should have been banned for the same reasons as Tajik and Beh-nam. They knowingly change facts into lies, and cherry-pick or misrepresent facts to support the most ridiculous claims. Further, they accuse EVERYONE of racism and nationalism when it is they show this behavior with every single edit and argument they make. If there were no Anoshirawan, Beh-nam, and Tajik... there would be no NisarKand, Khampalak, and now me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EduardoGuerez (talk • contribs) 22:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser and read everything closely. Then use the button located at "To request a check." Kingturtle (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Rename

Hello, you are on the list of bureaucrats and you seem to be online at this moment, and i'd like to ask you to rename me to Texcarson. I have been renamed on the spanish wikipedia, commons, and i'm waiting to be renamed on the italian wikipedia, here, and meta. Thanks in advance — Raffaello9 (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

well, i don't want to have problems with the new login system, and i've seen admins performing short blocks (1 second or so) on renamed accounts to link the previous block log. I was blocked on the italian wikipedia as well in January 2006 but no one ever had problems in renaming me — Raffaello9 (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You should answer on the request page. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Anoshirawan

That name was posted last year, but someone declined to do it, that does not mean he is not the same user though. See Here Momusufan (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I had thought Anoshirawan was a sockpuppet for NisarKand, and I placed checkuser request here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/NisarKand. Kingturtle (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems no one has done that request yet, Should I leave the suspected sock tag on his page or take it off? Momusufan (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The suspected sock tag is ok, but for it is too early for the BannedMeansBanned tag. Kingturtle (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I removed the banned tag. Momusufan (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I am curious why you think it is Beh-nam while I think it is NisarKand. Kingturtle (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, check the edits made by a sock to Beh-nam, DoctorLeeOnWiki and the edits made by Anoshirawan, they look pretty similar. Momusufan (talk) 15:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you give particular examples, and we can put a request up at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam. Kingturtle (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history for Mohammad Zahir Shah, you can see obvious similarities in edits by Anoshirawan (talk · contribs) and Beh-nam (talk · contribs)'s socks. The same goes for Kabul University, Hotaki, and various other articles concerning Afghan history. They both push the term "Afghanistani", and they both claim that Afghanistan "didn't exist until the 19th century", and insist on changing "Afghanistan" to "Khorasan", "Greater Khorasan", "Greater Iran", etc. This is a complete departure from all other editors, except banned Tajik (talk · contribs). They all coordinate their activities on one another's talk pages as well.

Version constantly restored by Beh-nam (talk · contribs)'s socks: [[13]]

Version constantly restored by Anoshirawan (talk · contribs)'s socks: [[14]]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by EduardoGuerez (talk • contribs)

Don't know what you're talking about

You sent me a message on March 4 informing me that you removed a link I had posted. Unfortunately, I can't remember having posted a link, please tell me what you mean. I feel somewhat insulted, though, since I wouldn't post advertisements as you suggest I had done. So, please, be more concise. Strombomboli (sorry, I don't know how to add a link to my post box) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strombomboli (talk • contribs) 19:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Very strange! I do not know how that happened. The message was obviously meant for a different editor. I apologize. Cheers!! Kingturtle (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Taiketsu (talk · contribs)

This user reverted again after you warned them about edit-warring, so I've blocked them for 1 week. The previous block (also for edit warring) was 4 days. Given that this user was also involved in a high-profile move at Global Warming today, I thought it prudent to mention here, in anticipation of further drama. FYI, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Kingturtle (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

My ER

Thanks for commenting on my ER. I didn't intend to further the dispute, and even though he wouldn't have passed, I thought that deserved to be brought up. Perhaps I could have done it in a more civil way. Anyway, thanks! Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 20:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It was fine that you brought up the diff. It was just the way you delivered it that broke civility. Keep up the good work! Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I am sometimes harsh rather than civil toward frustrating editors. My gentle reminder to you is also a gentle reminder to myself. :) Kingturtle (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, we all need gentle reminders every now and then. Even better that we sometimes know to give them to ourselves. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 17:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"Userbox" nominated for deletion

Hello Kingturtle. I've nominated userbox for deletion because it violates Wikipedia:Avoid self-references, and following previous deletions, the May 2006 deletion review, the August 2006 deletion review, and the countless other discussions. The general consensus is that user boxes are not notable for encyclopedic inclusion.

I tagged it using the no-objection deletion template; feel free to remove the deletion template if you disagree, and I will use the requests for deletion process instead. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:33:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 23:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

CopyVio's

I am curious as to why you post here, when you could just as easily delete them yourself. ~ Cheers! Dreamy ^§ 00:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been posting here as a matter of protocol - to avoid having, using or displaying too much power. One editor identifies, another editor takes action. Would it be better for me to just do it myself? Kingturtle (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you're doing the right thing. Don't ask how I got here! :) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for clearing that up for me. I have another new piece of info for when/if I become an admin. ~ Cheers! Dreamy ^§ 16:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, if I were to simply delete it immediately, it wouldn't give the authors of the article time to fix the problem. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

McTools confirmed as NisarKand by checkuser

user: McTools has been confirmed as sock puppet of banned user: NisarKand, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/NisarKand.

Once again I was right about another sock of NisarKand. Though this time it took me longer to realize it because he tried to throw us off by decorating his user-page and editing different articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.16.253 (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

user: Thatcher also that McTools lied about his IP. It is the same as NisarKand's.

McTools has not been confirmed. McTools is marked as likely. Kingturtle (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank You For Your Concern

I do understand, but I want justice as well. Cheers.Kevin j (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You'll need to take a different tack - one of collaboration and calmness. Kingturtle (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Indef banned user's IP's blocked

Do you know how to get the Indefinitely blocked users like Beh-nam IP's that they use to flout their ban blocked, do they have to be posted at Checkuser or somewhere else? - dwc lr (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not know how to stop the recurring sockpuppetry other than manually. :/ Kingturtle (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Anoshirawan

Is it possible to put semi-protection on his talk page for a little while? It seems Beh-nam's sock IP's keep posting there and his edits keep getting reverted since Beh-nam is a banned user. Momusufan (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And probably put protection on Panj, lots of sock edits there too by Beh-nam. Momusufan (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I blocked 70.48.246.197. See how it goes. Kingturtle (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok then. Momusufan (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila

I addressed the copyvio issue of Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila in this edit, let me know if you see a problem. Jeepday (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice work! Thanks! And happy editing. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The Climate Group

Hello, my sole contribution to this was to make The Climate Group a redirect to Climate Group, which I had kicked off with a short para. For unknown reasons somebody deleted the redirect and made a new article. The other (duplicate) article seems in its current form to be copied from their website as well. cheers Rd232 ^talk 14:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks. I restored your original redirect. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection of User:Jimbo Wales

I thought that page was supposed to be unprotected? Teh Rote (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The protection can be removed in a few hours. There was a particular user who was vandalising the page over and over again. Protection seemed the most logical solution. Kingturtle (talk) 00:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

JacquesNguyen

JacquesNguyen used Bugeaud to evade the weeklong 3RR block I issued two days ago. I indeffed Bugeaud and extended JacquesNguyen's block length to two weeks. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 01:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphan work

Hi Kingturtle, just thought out of courtesy that I reverted this recent edit. I understand you're trying to reduce orphans but this isn't the way to do it - Artun was barely notable as a youth player for Ipswich Town and adding it into the ITFC article as you did, out of context and without citation, wasn't appropriate. I reinstated the orphan tag on Artun's article as well. I guess we need to find a better way to de-orphan the article. Regards, The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. That's a fair cop. That was sloppy of me. I'll be more careful. Thanks! Kingturtle (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Days of the year guideline

As a frequent contributor (or vandal patroller) to the days of the year articles (WP:DAYS), your comments on the current state of the proposed guideline for that project would be greatly appreciated. Discussion is taking place here. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 19:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads up. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

copyright issues

Have created a new Software Asset Management page in the temporary file and wanted to let you know as it appears you submitted it for copyright violation. There has been some discussion, and I created a new page that leaves out the controversial text. What are the next steps for removing the copyright notice and uploading the new page? Thanks. DMD2007 (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That's great work!! I've copied it over to Software Asset Management. Kingturtle (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Tupac Shakur

Hey, sure why not? But I´ll wait... Why would you be intrested to see a section like that? And also how did you come across my userpage? which article? my best! Cyrus111 (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I came across your userpage because I have Tajikistan on my watchlist. Sometimes I look at userpages for fun. I'd like to see the Tupac section because it is a fascinating idea to me that his influence is so international and so political. Kingturtle (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Userbox

Seriously, this page has one heck of a delete log [15] ...I don't think you're necessarily wrong in trying to get it recreate it, but maybe you should try and get consensus on it first (I think deletion review is a good start).--UsaSatsui (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The new version answers the concerns from 2006. I've mentioned what's different now in Talk:Userbox. Thanks for the idea about DRV. That is a valid direction to take this. Kingturtle (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. Sorry about not responding to your arguments; I've been very busy on MetaWiki with the upcoming board elections and various standardization projects. Now that you've placed it on deletion review, I guess I no longer need to respond after all. :) —{admin} Pathoschild 00:19:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Renaming

Thanks a lot for renaming my account. --Two Wings (jraf ) (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Successful RfA page

Hi, I saw you've been updating the page. I was wondering what source you are using for the information? The dates you are giving are incorrect in some cases, and in places you've been unable to find who promoted. Wikipedia:Bureaucrat log gives all the information you need prior to 22 December 2004, and it's what I've been using. Make sure to stick with UTC for consistency though (I think that's what is causing the date difference). Thanks, Majorly 19:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been using each RfA's edit history. Thank you very much for helping out! :) Kingturtle (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What source are you using for the data? Kingturtle (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Which data? I'm using the log I linked above for when they were promoted, and the RfA itself for the end tally. Majorly (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, got it. I misread you. Thanks, Kingturtle (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggest

Hi, I made this, I was wonderng if you would like to use it. Good luck. – i123Pie _bio^contribs 19:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting! Kingturtle (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping that you, and other buro's, would use it, when you rename a user. – i123Pie _bio^contribs 20:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That information is quite useful to those experiencing name changes. Kingturtle (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Unsuccessful RfA

Oh well. I try not to make mistakes or rush into things, but it seems like half of my deletion-releated edits are borderline reckless -- and as a result, I end up looking like I don't know what I'm doing half the time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It can be tough when peer pressure makes you start second-guessing yourself. I'd say go with your instincts. Stay consistent. And - wait until September. It looks like a lot of the opposition was based on the frequency of your attempts. I think you're doing good work. Keep on truckin'. Kingturtle (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Half the time, however, my instincts turn out dead wrong; other times I just end up making stupid errors in judgment like this. I do indeed second-, third-, and fourth-guess myself; most of the concern seems to be over my first guesses missing the mark. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah so everyone makes mistakes. None of those crashed any servers or sent anyone to the emergency room. Learn from your mistakes and grow. Also, here's some more advice. If you are sitting there second guessing your second guesses, then just don't do anything at all. There's no rule that says you have to do anything. No one even knows you're looking at it. Just let it be - *and* wait to see what someone else does. We can learn by watching too. When you're mind is swirling with indecision, that's a sign that you're not sure! So listen to your mind and don't act on indecision. Cheers again, Kingturtle (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That still doesn't take care of the cases where I'm positive that I'm right but I end up being dead wrong. Actually, very few of my mistaken AfD/CSD nominations are out of uncertainty; otherwise, I wouldn't tag them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

After closing vote

Not a big deal, but I'm a little confused why you moved the vote here. If you look at the timestamp of the revision: 01:30, December 10, 2004 it's before the actual closing of the RfA by Raul654 at: 03:19, 10 Dec 2004 as shown on Wikipedia:Bureaucrat log. If we had done official closing templates back in those days the time when Mark made the promotion would have been the actual closing. Also I'm curious how you got to checking those oldies. Anyway, certainly no big deal, just showed up on my watchlist. - Taxman ^Talk 04:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

On that one I went with the "ending 18:13, Dec 9, 2004" posted at the top of the RfA. I'll revert my edits. Kingturtle (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for the username change ;-). Regards. --Manwë (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding refusal on name change request

Hello. Please look at Wikipedia:Changing username#EivindJohnsen → EivindJ once more. I "own" the username on all wikipedias, with the nye single user login system ... so how can I make my English username the same as the one I have everywhere else and which I "own"? Thanks! --EivindJohnsen (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a bug that prevents bureaucrats from renaming accounts to a name that has been "reserved" to a unified global login. See Bug #13507. Hopefully that will be fixed soon. WjBscribe 23:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for reply. I'll just wait then (: --EivindJohnsen (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Username change request

Could you please process my request? I noticed that my request was skipped over and would like it either processed or an explanation as to why it hasn't been processed. Thank you in advance. Browne34 (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! EchoBravo (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

RBI's to RBIs

Hello! Need your response here, regarding AWB help. --SMS ^Talk 21:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

user: NangOnamos

Right after user: McTools got banned for being NisarKand this user has appeared and has managed to delete several articles and vandalize several articles. Please report him for sockpuppetry. Thanks.

user: NangOnamos

Right after user: McTools got banned for being NisarKand this user has appeared and has managed to delete several articles and vandalize several articles. Please report him for sockpuppetry. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jogezai (talk • contribs) 23:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Copywright

Oops that was done when I was relatively new to wiki and wasn't aware of copywright, apologies. Would you recommend deleting it and then restoring it as a stub to hide the text in the history? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, just re-write it and keep the history. P.S. don't take my message personally. It was in no way a judgment about your character :) Kingturtle (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Job Characteristics Model

See Diff I was not able to confirm copyvio at Job Characteristics Model, thoughts? Jeepday (talk) 04:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI - Diff Jeepday (talk) 19:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Keep up the good work, Kingturtle (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" and , "{{advert}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed , (e.g.Vijayanand road lines). See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 14:39 30 March 2008 (GMT).

Erroneous copyvio tag on Federal Occupational Health

Hi, I think you tagged this one in error. See Talk:Federal Occupational Health#Not a copyvio. TJRC (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I removed the copyvio tag, but added a Tone tag and a copyedit tag. Thanks for the heads up. Kingturtle (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar Alert

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your work on orphans, copy editing, and for contributing for so long. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I have a vicious habit of looking through everyones contrib's. :) I'm actually surprised its your first. And it's no problem. Back to work. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you weren't editing for quite a long time. Welcome back. I hope you stick around. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A bit of help

Hi, I'm a relatively new bureaucrat on the Hindi Wikipedia, and I've been asked to rename (usurp) a user. But whenever I type in the current name and the new name on 'Special:Renameuser', I just get 'The user "Shyam" already exists' (Shyam is the new name for the user) - although when I check hi:Special:Contributions/Shyam (Shyam's contributions) I find nothing. I would be grateful if you could explain how I can usurp the user account. I'm sorry for bothering you! Thank you. --Wolf ^{talk | हिन्दी | বাংলা} 16:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have forwarded your request via email to User:WJBscribe. He is better versed at the inner workings of usurpations than I am. Kingturtle (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wolf. The problem is that there is an account called Shyam on the Hindi Wikipedia [16], it just doesn't have any contributions. You need to rename that account out of the way, for example by changing it to Shyam (renamed), and can then rename the user who made the request to Shyam in its place. Does that make sense? WjBscribe 18:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Cusack

"(rv. hmmm that url links to " Toddler's body recovered in Oklahoma flooding" . maybe this was a typo?) "

It had to have been as the same news site had stories for both. Whoops! Lemme see if I can get the real link to the stalker story... WhisperToMe (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I figured it had something to do with that news site changing their URLs around, or just updating that page with new news, and purging the old news. Kingturtle (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I was reading the child story and the Cusack story and must have copied the wrong URL. Anyway I added the actual URL to the story now, so we know about Cusack's stalker. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Fernando Ureña Rib

I remember what happened ... the article was created in category space, I simply moved it to article space. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you re-write it so we can keep it? :) Kingturtle (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds April 2008 Newsletter

The April 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

I wanted to personally thank you for pointing out what should be obvious on my RfA: atheist does not equal bias. I'm taken a back that people are using that for grounds of opposing me rather than other issues others have brought up. It's you and a few of the other positive comments that haven't completely depressed me and made me just withdraw. Cheers! Redfarmer (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I love the Ralph Wiggum quote! Redfarmer (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Card-carrying atheists get a bad rap. Stick with the RfA. Momentum has been known to change in RfAs. Here's to Ralph Wiggum. Kingturtle (talk) 11:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Awarding Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Aprils fools day was a blast. Loads of users lightened up to have good old fashion fun. I want to thank you for taking part in editing this page in particular and even though I may not know you, embrace the same talk pages, or even edit with you in the near future, I'd like to award you this Barnstar for making Wikipedia a fun environment in which to contribute. Until next year. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		For your recent excellent work at Wikipedia:Changing username. Your username is the most common I see appearing on my watchlist for that page. Keep up the good work! Acalamari Bellatrix! 15:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the name change. RkORToN 02:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

RTV

Since Will's on vacation, could you look into this Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#RTV_Request? MBisanz ^talk 02:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Climate Group

see Diff, let me know if I missed something. Jeepday (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mosto Mostapha Bousmina

May I suggest a withdraw? References have been added and I was tempted to close it. But out of consideration I figured it would be best to ask you first. Cheers! SynergeticMaggot (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

glitch with AWB

AWB is changing Herat to Heart. Please do something about that. Thanks. SwatiAfridi (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation

Per [17] the rename can go forward. MBisanz ^talk 05:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHU

Thanks for changing my user name. Victor Lopes (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou:)

Thanks for moving my acount i was Iwilleditu but thanks to u know im Save the Humans. so Thankyou :) Save The HumansTalk :) 20:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanky you, Gracias and Merci!!!

Thanx 4 changing my username. Rdrgz93 (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Arigato

Seems like you get this a lot ... thank you very, very much for changing my username! Yunfeng (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:JacquesNguyen

Would you please help watch Template:History of Burma? User:JacquesNguyen changes it several times a day, accusing me of vandalism in the edit summary (I wrote the template, I am not vandalizing it, I assure you), and has never once justified his slander or changes. I see you have also had dealings with him, and would appreciate your help. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the template for one week. I hope things can get worked out in the Talk arena. Kingturtle (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked User:JacquesNguyen indefinitely because of his latest disruptions added to his history. I'm not married to it, and if you disagree let me know and I'll reconsider, but this was his third strike for me. Cheers, --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Did anyone ever get a check user done to see if the account was a puppet for user:Bugeaud? Kingturtle (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Anoshirawan is the banned User:Tajik

Earlier you mistakenly thought he was Beh-nam, but User:Anoshirawan is the banned editor User:Tajik. His IP will confirm this because he edits from the same exact ISP or specific location in Germany.

Afghanistan

The ugly demonym business is rearing its ugly head again. Just wanted to give you a head's up and see what you thought of the user who brought it up. Thanks, hope you're well. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Widzer

the last edit was for formating, putting it into last style. is that not coorect thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.223.181 (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

please look at page it is only a list of contrubtiuons not a resume--advice as always is welcomed...thank you reagan (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Cause at least someone has noticed all the work you do! MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Redlinking at Grundy

Hi, please write the article before you link it. Also, I feel strongly that the free image of the illustration from Grundy's show is better viewed at the larger size. It is a free image, so it can be larger. If you want to contribute something to the article, please do some research and write something about Grundy. Please don't just drop in to give me a hard time on formatting issues. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not giving you a hard time about the formatting. The image is much too big. And as for the red link, don't fear the red links. They are our friends. Kingturtle (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lectures

Theres an irc channel up every sunday. I figured maybe you would like to attend? We're late at starting but its starting about now. In case your interested. (wikipedia-en-lectures) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Username change problem

Hey,

Thanks for changing my username, the problem is, the reason I gave for changing my name was to avoid having my name in the public eye, and now there's just another Google hit on my name showing what my name was changed to. Seems sort of self-defeating in nature. Is there any way, now that the name was changed, to delete that from the page? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.8.226 (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphan cleanup bot?

Hi, I remember you had requested that a bot go back and check on orphan-tagged articles to see if they still were. Did that go anywhere? I poked around the Bot Request page, and found the discussion in the archives, but there didn't seem to be a definite decision either way. Let me know.--Aervanath's signature is boring 16:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing came out of that conversation. I've gone back to doing it manually. It takes me about one month to go through one month's worth of tags. Very tedious and time consuming. A bot would be very useful. Kingturtle (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Username change

Thanks for doing the change. --JulesN Talk 06:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Username change petition

Hi Kingturtle, I am a linguist and currently obsessed with Leet. It will be much appreciated if you can deal with my username change request: Flyming → Phlyming. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyming (talk • contribs) 11:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjet Birds May 2008 Newsletter

The May 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Bagram Airfield vs. Bagram Air Base

I have lived on BAF for the last year. I think I know what the place is named. Do you live and work here? Why is my changing the page from the incorrect "Air Base" to the correct "Airfield" an issue with you? Alexif (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the most common usage as the title of the article. "Bagram Air Base" -wikipedia retrieves 183,000 hits, while "Bagram Airfield" -wikipedia retrieves 49.000 hits. I hope that explains it for you. Kingturtle (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of (Sri Lanka) Princess Diana Institute of Peace

A tag has been placed on (Sri Lanka) Princess Diana Institute of Peace, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 16:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Mark L. Walberg

Hey, I noticed that you moved Mark L. Walberg to Mark Walberg and removed his middle initial on other pages. I just thought I'd point out that he is usually credited as "Mark L. Walberg". That's the way he's credited on The Moment of Truth, and it's the way he's listed on IMDb. It's probably to avoid confusion with the similar Mark Wahlberg. Even though they're not spelled the same, I would just feel more comfortable with going with the way he does his name unless there is a Wikipedia guideline or policy against it. Chicken Wing (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure

Sure. --Bhadani (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Phony orphans

You might want to check out Wikipedia:Phony orphans, where I've posted the (partial) results of an analysis of the 2008-03-12 database dump. The analysis script should be finished in a few hours, at which time I'll finalize the list of phony orphans. I've left another note with the editor that runs the orphan checker bot. You and the bot were the most common editors to have already removed orphan templates from phony orphans, so I thought you might be able to make the most use out of the list. --Sapphic (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That's awesome work you've done. Thanks for letting me know. Should I be aghast or proud that I am in company here only with a bot? :) Oh to have a positronic brain. Kingturtle (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Bazargan, Afghanistan

You are welcome. And I didn't know. I must have come across a redlink to it on short page patrol (a dab page maybe) and then just went and created it rather than leave the redlink there. Just tidying up. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

dont' forget NisarKand

You always ignore NisarKand. That shows that you support Afghan nationalists.

If you are accusing Beh-nam, then don't forget user:Bistiks.

PashtoonBoy (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Good job on ignoring him and allowing him to remove sourced content, and ignore years of consensus that Afghanistan is part of Middle East. PashtoonBoy (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

How can Afghanistan be part of Central Asia, South Asia and also the Middle East? Do you have brains? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bistiks (talk • contribs) 12:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Username

When you get a chance, would you mind approving my new user name JoeCool950, from my current one. The new one use to be my old user name. Thanks.--Joey Kaminski (talk) 02:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for changig my username JoeC 4321 (talk) 19:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Haji Mohammed Zaher

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Haji Mohammed Zaher, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Haji Mohammed Zaher seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Haji Mohammed Zaher, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Avraham 2/Bureaucrat discussion

I wanted to comment there, but was unsure if it was for Bs only. Just to note that two opposes are declared as "weak" and several neutrals (myself included) lean to support. Feel free to repost this comment or ignore it... you guys have a tough job to do and have my trust as ever. --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

From what happened with all the other bureaucrat chats, I believe comments are welcome on the talk page but the actual page is reserved for bureaucrats for signal to noise purposes. By the way, I used {{rfah}} to the debate - I hope this is OK. Cheers, Paul Yeratz (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll x-post. --Dweller (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

RfB closure thanks

Hello, Tortoise Rex

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the discussion regarding the closure of my candidacy for bureaucratship. As you know, after your discussion, you decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect your decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. As these discussions are specifically not mathematical, but qualitative as well, even after the discussions at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfB bar and Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/RfB bar, I fully understand that your collective decision here was based on "significant and varied" for which there is sufficient evidence. So, while I cannot say I am happy with the decision, I can say that I am satisfied with the care taken to make it, and accepting of your collective judgment. Once again, thank you for your participation. -- Avi (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My conclusion was based on weighing the opposition. There just wasn't sufficient support to overcome the valid opposition. I encourage you to continue your hard work here, and if you are still interested in becoming a bureaucrat, read the oppositions in your RfB closely and continue to grow. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I understand that, but I am allowed the human emotion of disappointment, no? I hope you understand that I have no complaints against any of the current crats. -- Avi (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Most definitely you're allowed that. It smarts. But look on the bright side. You made great progress between your first and second attempts. You've definitely grown in the eyes of your peers. Keep growing :) Cheers again :) Kingturtle (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I shall try, regardless of any possible future candidacies. Also. KT, please feel free to hit my userpage upside the head with some advice in the future, if you think I warrant it. Thanks again! -- Avi (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Change my username

Hello. Can you change my username from "Zunpl" to "Zun"? I'm asking, because I use Zun as my username in Polish wikipedia, which I main contribute. And can you answer on my polish talk page? Zunpl (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Please make your request using Wikipedia:Changing username. I'll be happy to help you once that is done. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Change Of Username

Thank a lot for changing my username. Daredevil555 (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Mdb1370

I have followed up on your note and advised the user to use the talk page for WP:Baseball, since there is a discussion thread started there, and this debate covers a number of articles. It's complicated further by the fact that some favor it, some oppose it, and some think it should only be World Series winners. Also, there's the question of which players it should cover. Personally, I think it's pointless. But consensus needs to be reached on the project page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Rudget

I am working on a reply. I just want to make sure I have everything covered. Kingturtle (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Joel Widzer

This article seemed to have been fine until RogDel came along and did some formatting work. RogDel has a history of creating turmoil. This is not a resume, it is very much in line with the pages of other authors. It seems like your picking on this page.

I'm not picking on the page. I am trying to get it up to snuff. Kingturtle (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

New Message

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

Thank you

		Civility Award
		Thank you for your gracious and extremely speedy help. Will you have a cup of tea now Father? Oh go on, go on, go on, go on, ye will ye will, ye will, ye will. :) Merkin's mum 12:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yer welcome :) Kingturtle (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Thank you

Thanks for the barnstar. I'm sorry for the copyright issue there. I was just wondering, what "good work" did I do there. Most of it was just a copyvio. I should be giving you a barnstar. Do you mind explaning? Thanks. -- RyRy5 (talk ♠ Review) 00:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I gave you the barnstar because you put a lot of effort into creating and organizing the article. I didn't know at the time about the cut-and-paste controversy. Anyway, I think you've learned a lot through the process now. In the long run it will make you a better editor. Sometimes you have to learn the hard way. That's okay. I think the response was heightened because the article was a candidate for DYK. Learn from your mistakes and don't be afraid to be bold. Read Wikipedia:Copyright violations carefully and examine the changes we've all made to the article to see how we've utilized the copied materials. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Me and User:Baseball Bugs have improved the article further. I'm trying my best to improve myself and yes, I'm learning a few things here. Thank you again. Regards, --Ryan Cross (talk ♠ Review) 20:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Rename clerk bot

see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SoxBot VI

Could you take a look at my thought on this new bot and possibly comment yourself? WjBscribe 19:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Would like to draw your attention to a possible typo on your user page

You have this quote:

• "Without irony, where would be poets be?" - Kingturtle

I suspect it is supposed to read:

• "Without irony, where would poets be?" - Kingturtle

although I could see:

• "Without irony, where would beat poets be?" - Kingturtle

as well. If the actual intention were obvious, I'd help you out and make the change, alas, in this case it isn't.

Speaking of irony, the next quote is:

• "Me fail English? That's unpossible." - Ralph Wiggum

—  X  S  G  07:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha! That's hilarious. Thanks for the heads up! I'll fix it. Cheers Kingturtle (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Mazari Sharif reverts

When I was scrolling through the edits, I randomly picked several to view, and I saw a non-english addition, what appears to be an advertisement, some junk, more advertising, testing with the infobox image, Original research and POV, and other edits, such as changing the name in the text to a different name. I should have clarified that it was a good-faith revert, but rollback prevents me from doing so. I will look at the revert again and make acceptable changes, and if you see something I miss, I encourage you to fix it. I hope this clarifies the situation. If you need me to explain something, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Thanks for pointing this out, Spencer^T♦C 22:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

My recent RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace and talk space, so that is what I will do. I have made a list and I hope I will be able to get through it. I will go for another RfA in about three month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been about three months. I will not be checking back to this page so if you would like to comment or reply please use my talk page. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 07:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Your question

Thanks for asking about this. Please look at my last comments on the discussion page of my 1st RfA. I've also replied in the thread of q7 but if you would like to follow up, either off the project page or on it, please do. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Two things

I know you said you're not reading the above, but there are some wild personal attacks in there (I see they've been warned).

I didn't see this until only now. Although I thought this was made clear in Antandrus' nominating statement and my own answers, the pith is, since late last year and especially immediately after my last RfA, the most (and likely only) helpful path I could see for bringing to Wikipedia all my knowledge, skills, experience and belief in the project (such as they may be, anyway), was to hold myself steadfastly to the much higher standards admins are held to, rather than wait until I was an admin. I found that for me, if the project was taken care of and I helped meaningfully with that, the sway of its overall content would become much stronger than that of any individual articles I might work on. I think this was bound to happen anyway, though, no matter what articles I might have been working on at the time.

I'm only answering questions in the questions section of my RfA. If you would like me to paste the above linked question into that section along with this answer, let me know. Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. It just so happened I was away for the holidays when you wrote it, and your nomination closed before I could respond. Just so you know, based on your more recent responses to my questions raised, I would have changed my opposition to neutral. Congratulations on your nomination. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:LAA invite

Please accept this invite to join the Angels WikiProject, a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles related to the Los Angeles Angels. Simply click here to accept!

RyRy5 (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the Barnstar! Patken4 (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHU

I was wondering, since you did some today, whether you would do some more at WP:CHU. SimpsonsFan08 ^{talk Sign Here Please and get Award} 15:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

When I have some time freed up later this afternoon. Cheers. Kingturtle (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for changing my username. 92.5.91.181 (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

DOY guideline

Hi - A while ago, you said at WT:DOY that you're working on an alternative to WP:DOY at User:Kingturtle/sandbox4 which has been untouched since Feb. Do you still intend to get to this at some point? If not, could you rephrase your objections to the proposed guidelines in a way that would allow someone else to edit them to your satisfaction? I'll make the point again that the current version of the proposed guidelines reflects the current practices of the folks who actually maintain these pages, and anything significantly different from this likely won't (and would therefore have a very hard time gaining consensus as a guideline). Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your agenda at WT:DOY. You seem to be arguing against any exclusionary criteria in favor of a strictly inclusionary criteria. Do you really think there's a problem with too many interesting facts being ruthlessly deleted from these pages? Just curious. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am arguing for a more generous criteria that would allow for events that are interesting, educational and notable, but not internationally significant. I definitely don't want a fully inclusionary criteria for events.

With the current exclusionary criteria on the table, for each day we're going to be left with a dozen events that are mostly about world leaders and international relations. Events that are socially and artistically interesting (and the like) will disappear, and DOY will become (has become) dry and boring.

Three years ago I was reading DOYs allowed to my high school history classes. I don't do that as much anymore, because there are fewer interesting events to discuss. Kingturtle (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

How about a strict size limit, perhaps something like "no more than 50 events, 50 births, and 50 deaths per day" (and if 50 isn't the right number, then 100, or 200)? I really think without some kind of counter-balancing force an inclusion-oriented guideline will tend to make these pages grow uncontrollably. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at June 2 as an example. These items are of interest and valuable to history - but are not internationally significant.

• 1692 - Bridget Bishop is the first person to go to trial in the Salem witch trials in Salem, Massachusetts, is found guilty, and would go on to be hanged on June 10.
• 1835 - P. T. Barnum and his circus start their first tour of the United States.
• 1855 - The Portland Rum Riot occurs in Portland, Maine.
• 1886 - U.S. President Grover Cleveland marries Frances Folsom in the White House, becoming the only president to wed in the executive mansion.
• 1997 - In Denver, Colorado, Timothy McVeigh is convicted on 15 counts of murder and conspiracy for his role in the 1995 terrorist bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

We need a policy that can include events such as these. Kingturtle (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should move this to WT:DOY, but would a guideline along the lines of "consider including the following types of items, but limit the number of entries to no more than 50" be acceptable? -- Rick Block (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

moved to Wikipedia_talk:Days_of_the_year#discussion_about_criteria_.28moved_from_User_talk:Kingturtle.29

Bot

I have made a bot called BarkBot. I was wondering if you could make him a bot. Thanks! Please respond on my talk page.-- Barkjon  23:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh

This has to be the funniest indent I've seen yet. :) Acalamari 01:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of parents who homeschool their children

I have nominated List of parents who homeschool their children, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of parents who homeschool their children. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Troikoalogo (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Impossible.

Since I don't have any articles watchlisted, I don't see how we could have any in common. I just lost teh game (talk) 11:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you've just frequented some articles I have watchlisted. Kingturtle (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds June 2008 Newsletter

The June 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

your recent Protection on Pashtun people

You actually didn't revert it to the right one. NisarKand added this image:

A Pathan looking man from northern Pakistan.

So it should be reverted to before he added that pic. One of that other editors versions had his without that picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.55.98 (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Pashtun people

Well, you've made a reversion of an edit made by someone else and have wrongly accused me of vandalism in the edit summary. Could you please explain? I have been here for an year and a half and have a perfectly clean record in Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pashtun_people&diff=216511462&oldid=216509067

I added the image because it was taken by National Geographic journalist Maynard Owen Williams. I did'nt find anything disagreeable with it though I am open to any decision, even if it leads to the removal of the image. Well, the user whose edit you have restored, has been repeatedly tagging the image for deletion without any strong reasons just because he does'nt like it. -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 00:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry :-). I guess there has been a misunderstanding. I thought you removed the image I added. tc -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 00:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't remove that image. I reverted a separate series of edits and then added a semi-protect. Happy editing! Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Racism

Punjabi old man from India.

Ravichandar is a racist Hindu from India and has uploaded the image of the homeless looking poor Punjabi old man from India so he can add to Pashtun people article. We cannot verify the information on the image because there is no link provided. This racist Hindu claimed that he personally took the image from the National Geographic magazine, this is hard to believe because if that was the case this racist Hindu would have added some more detailed information like where the photo was shot at. We have no idea if he is Pashtun, a Punjabi or something else. I believe Ravichandar is another racist editor trying to express his ill feelings towards Pashtuns because most Hindus hate Pashtuns for backing Pakistan in case there is war between Pakistan and India as well as other reasons. Like how Ahmad Shah Durrani (Pashtun) defeated 100,000s Hindus 7 times. We know today that India's economy may be rising but it is still one of the poorest country on earth due to very large number of beggers who are starving everyday. The Pashtuns are not rich but also not beggers like the 100s of millions of Hindus in India. I can provide sources for everything I have explained here. That image does not belong in Pashtun people article so it should be removed because it is clearly offending a large group of people. The only thing the image expresses is extreme poverty. This Hindu racist does not know what is offensive so we have to teach this to him, her or it.--119.30.71.201 (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I count 5 occurrences of "racist" and 1 of "racism". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to answer to 119.30.71.201's crappy accusations. Anonymous user from Pakistan, you've indulged in every possible act prohibited as per WP:NOT: WP:CIVIL ([18],[19],[20],[21],[22]), WP:3RR ([23][24]), Wikipedia:Sock puppetry (119.30.76.138,119.30.67.8) and obviously, WP:NPOV. Consider it as sheer good fortune that you have not yet been blocked.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 16:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Revision to template

Hi Kingturtle, Just a note to let you know about a proposed tweak for {{MLBBioRet}} to add a parameter to it (see sandbox). The discussion is at Template talk:MLBBioRet JGHowes ^talk - 02:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Are you OK with this change? JGHowes ^talk - 18:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Pitcher of the Month cleanup?

Hi. Per your call for cleanup, could you start some dialogue on the talk page? I'm honestly not sure what cleanup you're looking for. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to Shabuhragan article

I noticed that in March, you deleted all the quotations from Fundamental Epistle article, without any discussion whatsoever. I'm sure your intention was to "clean up the article", and remove large quotations, which, I imagine you might say, would belong in a Wikitext article or something. However, by deleting those quotations, you deleted a substantial amount of work that someone (namely me) had done to collect those quotations from out of Augustine's works. It seems to me that it would have been more appropriate to suggest moving the material to Wikitext - or wherever you think it should go - instead of completely deleting material (and a few hours of work), which was relevant to the topic - "Manichaean texts", and which other people researching that topic would likely be interested in seeing. Jimhoward72 (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

My response is here. Kingturtle (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I posted a reply - basically asking whether wikitext would be more suitable than wikiquote, and why or why not.Jimhoward72 (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hey, thanks for the barnstar! Much appreciated. It has been about 20,000 edits since the last time I got one, so I'm glad to see people still appreciate my work! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

supporting user: NisarKand on Afghanistan fabrications

You are supporting this edit of NisarKand. He is providing a fabricated source that contradicts the sentences before it in the article. Please correct this and undo his edit otherwise Afghanistan article will be thought of as a joke of one sentence is contradicting the next. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AchamaenidPersian550 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That source is Dupree's, they have done extended research and studies in Afghanistan in the 1970s before the wars. The quotation of Ibn Matutta backs Al-Biruni's writings, that there were in fact people who called themselves "Afghans" in 1333. This is historical fact, you can't say Ibn Matutta didn't visit Kabul in 1333 or what he said is untrue because there is convincing writings that proves he went. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charsada (talk • contribs) 08:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Aquarium Wiki

Hey, thanks for the feedback! I and a friend started a year and a bit ago and its done much better then I ever immagined it would. It took a while but I finally got our site added to the Interwiki map so I went around and updated the links. Hope to see you on the other side every now and then. Thanks --Arjes (talk) 19:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

---

I know, today I just updated current links, but our editors try to add links here only to articles with a decent amount of content so we don't come by here very often. We also on occasion edit the pages that contain care information but the goals of the sites are different so information doesn't typically flow between the two sites as much as it should. --Arjes (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/88.68.221.138

Can't you just block this IP instead of reverting all his edits? He is the banned User:Tajik, who also used banned User:Anoshirawan as proxy. Banned user:Tajik lives in Germany and all the IPs from Germany editing Afghanistan related articles with pro-Persian POVs as well as anti-Pashtun or anti-Afghan POVs are him, the banned user:Tajik. Using IP to evade block is one thing but using the IP to vandalise pages is violation of rules and should be blocked on the spot, without needing to ask for approvals from other administrators.--George From The Jungle (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

what's dispute?

Please stop adding dispute tag for no reason. If there is a dispute you can add it, but don't add it for no reason please. Thanks.

I am adding the dispute tags to articles in which different POVs are in dispute. Kingturtle (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahmad Shah Durrani

Can you please protect this article from the banned User:Beh-nam and banned User:Tajik because they are removing images and well sourced information. Thanks.--119.30.69.18 (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This IP is from banned user: NisarKand and he is removnig sourced content from Encyclopedia of Islam and adding fictional images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.52.25 (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Template move

Would you mind if I moved {{Warningkt}} to your userspace? Its a cool template, but not one I think we should be listing as available to all users (many of whom will misuse it). MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I made the change. Kingturtle (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Spam links

The changes I made were flagged as spam and reverted by you. I was wondering which guidelines I violated? Most towns have descriptions of public transportation options, and many MBTA lines/stations have listings of connecting services. Was the issue that I had a link to http://www.ipswichessexexplorer.com/ ? I have no affiliation with Ipswich Essex Explorer or the MBTA, which are both government sponsored non-profit services. Tjmather (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There are two issues at hand. (1) Although the external links you're adding are useful, the value of Wikipedia is in its own text, not in the quality of its external links. Repeatedly adding external links may be construed as spammming. As stated in Wikipedia:Spam, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You're here to improve Wikipedia—not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right?" (2) Please do no embed external links (i.e. [http://www.ipswichessexexplorer.com/ Ipswich Essex Explorer] ). To quote Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), "You should not add a descriptive title to an embedded HTML link within an article." Embedding external links is meant for citations and references, not for covering up red links or for creating external links.

Does this make any sense? Please ask if you need further clarification. Kingturtle (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Understood - sorry for not reading the guidelines more closely - what I could do is create a new wikipedia article for Ipswich Essex Explorer, and replace the link to http://www.ipswichessexexplorer.com/ with a Ipswich Essex Explorer tag. Does that work, or do you have another suggestion? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjmather (talk • contribs) 00:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a great idea. Then eventually you or someone else can make the redlink into an article. And the wikipedia will keep growing. Thanks for understand, Kingturtle (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Demography of Afghanistan

You protected the article on NisarKands vandalism. You should have protected it on the other version which was supported by many users, not sockpuppets of racist and banned user NisarKand. NisarKand is racist and is claiming with false sources that non-Pashtuns are immigrants in Afghanistan. Will you support this racist sockpuppet's edits or will you revert it back to a proper version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DurraniPashtoon (talk • contribs) 21:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You realize, until you change your behavior, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution. Kingturtle (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What behaviour? It is NisarKand that is the problem? Do you even know why Beh-nam was banned in the first place? It is because NisarKand made sockpuppets and got him into edit warring trouble with them and made his block log look bad. Beh-nam isn't even supposed to be banned. He has done more for Afghanistan related articles, with Tajik, than anyone. And this is how you treat them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DurraniPashtoon (talk • contribs) 21:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the British Library, it clearly says that Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Turkmen are immigrants from former Russian Turkistan. The link is provided at the articles where this is mentioned, this is accurate information backed by the most trustful source and so if you don't like it because you are Tajik then that's too bad. The British were involved in Afghanistan for nearly 100 years in the past and they did complete country study at the time, by having teams of men going all around the country and writing what they saw. Tajiks came to Afghanistan in the late 1800s and early 1900s during the rules of Abdur Rahman Khan, Habibullah Khan and Habibullah Kalakani. The small number of Persians that lived in prior to this were not Tajiks and are still not Tajiks. They have other names such as Qizilbash. So.....do not remove sourced information and Kingturle did not protect the article on the wrong version, it is much accurate than all the BS and Persian POVS you and banned User:Tajik had placed in.

Just as I thought

You support NisarKand and you vandalize constructive edits. Stop vandalizing or you will be reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DurraniPashtoon (talk • contribs) 21:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You are a sockpuppets of banned users. Serve your sentence properly, *then* come back and play nice. Kingturtle (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

So what if he supports NisarKand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.71.70 (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You, NisarKand, are a racist and you gave the article a racist tone.

It was NisarKand's sockpuppets that got me banned. I will never accept my ban unless admins investigate it. NisarKand on the other hand was banned first for good reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.244.173 (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Demography of Afghanistan

So you are actually going to just leave it on NisarKand's vandalized and racist version instead of the consensus version?

You are a sockpuppet of a banned user. Grow up. Kingturtle (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Dari

تورتلکینگ جان، چرا همیشه این متن را خراب میکنی؟ اگر نتوانی ایرا بخوانی، تو هیچ چیز راجه به این زبان نمیدانی —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodwa4 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I cannot read that alphabet. Judging from your edit history I can say this, though: please make the fixes you see necessary in Dari (Persian)‎, but please be sure to cite credible references. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Kingturtle, could you please explain exactly what facts you are disputing on the talk page? I don't see any point in us fighting back and forth about this, and the only way to reach a resolution is for us to discuss the issue and reach an agreement. Thank you. Rodwa4 (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not taking sides in the dispute. If you read the articles edit history you will see a series of edit wars. The varying points of view have not come to terms with each other, thus I tagged the article as disputed. Kingturtle (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok thank you. That sounds reasonable. I think the problem is that there are very few, if any, actual sources on Dari that can be cited. That is why most of that article is not cited. That also makes it hard to take a side in a dispute, however, the edits I have made are almost entirely about how the English is written and not a change of any of the actual factual information presented. Rodwa4 (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Whenever possible, please provide citations. Also, if you have time, maybe you can fish through the edit wars in the article's history and parse out the positions of both sides, and summarize the positions in the article. Kingturtle (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion over notability of Ohio high school sports conferences

Hello. You are receiving this message because you recently participated in an AfD discussion regarding the notability of high school sports conferences in Ohio State. While the AfD has been closed as no consensus, the discussion is continuing here. You are invited to participate. Thank you. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Created articles

If I can help the process even a little bit that's great :) Thanks for taking the time to drop me a note! --Ubardak (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

already discussed on chiropractic talk

See Talk:Chiropractic#Comments_on_Education.2C_licensing.2C_and_regulation_7. The article was protected before for the same reason. Protection did not work before. QuackGuru 23:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of User talk:CUNYDSI

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on User talk:CUNYDSI, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because User talk:CUNYDSI is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting User talk:CUNYDSI, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Demography of Afghanistan

Hi Kingturtle. Do you mind if I revert the page to the last version by a non-banned user? My only concern is that by protecting to NisarKand's version, we are encouraging him to edit Wikipedia. Khoikhoi 22:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Please go right ahead. Kingturtle (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Khoikhoi 00:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the IPs belong to Beh-nam, which I am reverting on sight. Notice the confirmed IP at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam#Beh-nam 14. Khoikhoi 23:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Total Rune

Hello, I am Total Rune of the RuneScape Wikia, and I recently had my attention directed to User:Total Rune, which did redirect to User:Lord of Ra. I am requesting that you protect User:Total Rune and User_talk:Total Rune so that Lord of Ra may not redirect them to his page again. He may have originally created the account "Total Rune" here on Wikipedia, but I am the real Total Rune from RuneScape, and he's a poser who was pretending to be me. The reason I'm on an IP address right now is because I am User:Vampire Warrior, I was blocked from Wikipedia for a fake suicide note which I used (stupidly, I admit) in an attempt to ditch an e-stalker who was following me around from Wikipedia to YouTube to several forums I was a member on. If you need any proof that I am the real Total Rune (of RuneScape) and that Lord of Ra simply made the account named Total Rune here on Wikipedia to pose as me, please check here. It would be greatly appreciated if you protected those two pages for me. 70.49.204.107 (talk) 04:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the redirect, and I protected the user page. Kingturtle (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you undo your revert. Total Rune is my RS account name, but due to Lord of Ra using it here, people on the RS Wiki are getting confused and thinking I'm Ugozima, hence why I redirected it to my page. 70.49.204.107 (talk) 05:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, upon investigating, the redirect from User:Total Rune to User:Lord of Ra doesn't seem to work. Instead of taking me to Lord of Ra's userpage, it takes me to Vampire Warrior's still. 70.49.204.107 (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of Afghanistan edits

Just saw your note about editing those pages, would you like to discuss over at my talk? Publicus 17:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Diamond Joe Quimby

I HAVE HAD MY GLOBAL ACCOUNT DELETED I would like to ask you to rename my account now that my Global Account has been deleted. I would very much appreciate that if you could do very it quickly. 75.88.227.21 (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done Kingturtle (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This user is involved in an on going sock puppet case, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Diamond Joe Quimby, and this is a maneuver in an, albeit lame, attempt to avoid the case/ban. ~ WikiDon (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct: PoliticianTexas back to Diamond Joe Quimby. ~ WikiDon (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It might be easier to just block indefinitely both the PoliticianTexas and Diamond Joe Quimby accounts. I think we just need a checkuser confirmation to do that. Kingturtle (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Rodwa4 is User:NisarKand

See his contributions. He has a short list of edits and they are all Afghanistan related and they are NisarKand's POVs. He always does this, make sockpuppets and then starts using them when they have full access. WikiSockpuppetFinder (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Kingturtle, I'm not sure who "WikiSockpuppetFinder" is, but he's mistaken. Not sure if there is anything I can do to prove that I am not someone else who was banned, but if you have any advice I'd appreciate it. The reason most of my contributions are regarding Afghanistan is that I have spent a lot of time studying Dari and Afghan culture for my job, so I have a fairly large amount of knowledge on those subjects. If you check my edit history, you will see that I have 2 edits from more than a year ago, then nothing until this month, that is because I created my Wikipedia account back then, but didn't really "get into" editing at that time. Recently I have used Wikipedia to search some info on Dari and Afghanistan, and noticing some mistakes I chose to use my account once again to make what I saw as needed corrections, and this time around I found editing to be rather enjoyable, hence the much larger number of edits in the last couple weeks. Like I said before, if there is anything else I can do to assure you I am not some banned user, please let me know. Thanks, Rodwa4 (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Rodwa4, no problem. We'll do a simple checkuser test as a matter of protocol. That will prove that you're not someone else. You don't have to do anything to make it happen. I'll do the paperwork. Kingturtle (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok thank you Kingturtle. I appreciate it. Rodwa4 (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiSockpuppetFinder, I don't see any edits by NisarKand or a NisarKand puppet on the Dari (Persian) article. Therefore I cannot do any edit comparisons between NisarKand and Rodwa4. Do you have anything more specific? Kingturtle (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Kingturtle, I did a quick check and I think the only article which both me and NisarKand have edits in is Afghanistan. Maybe you can check there. Rodwa4 (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind looking at Santa Cruz, California?

I had added some detail to the captions in the photo gallery. The photo of the "Victorian Townhomes," which I find includes your old home--is that Lincoln or Walnut? I've added "Lincoln Street"--if I'm wrong please change it. I've looked at these streets most of my life and, from the photo, I still don't know for sure. Lantana11 (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It is Lincoln Street. The staircase on the left is on the corner of Chestnut Street. The entire building is landmarked, I believe, and called something like the Lincoln Row Houses. Kingturtle (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Must've been a wonderful place to live! Lantana11 (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow - as it happens, I was there last weekend :) - Alison ^❤ 06:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Hi Kingturtle, since you are a mod and the Afghanistan article is locked, I was wondering if you could look at a couple things that were discussed on the talk page, and make those changes if you don't disagree with them. (Sections are "Misleading sources" and "Errors in this article") Thank you, Rodwa4 (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you made some changes, but you're leaving the middle east reference. Is there a specific reason for that? I would like to at least, (as a minimum), see the 2nd reference there removed, since it in no way supports that claim, and also if your going to leave it could you please check the other two references, it just seems to me that because Afghanistan is mentioned on two websites who's titles include the phrase "Middle East" is not really much verification of anything. Thanks again, Rodwa4 (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Israelites

Ugh, that was a pretty bad mistake. Thanks for finding it (and fixing it).   jj137 (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The NisarKand and Beh-nam show

Hi there. You'll be interested to hear that I have now rangeblocked both Beh-nam and NisarKand - hopefully, it should hold matters for a while. More details on ANI. Two rangeblocks on Beh-nam with very little collateral damage, if any, and one rangeblock for NisarKand. I expect Beh-nam to be back on another range soon but checking the numbers here, we can likely hit that one, too, when the need arises. I think everyone is fed up with the both of them at this stage. Beh-nam went on an offensive comment-spree tonight, so I thought it time to take a deeper looks.

Oh, and I owe you a response to your enquiry. I've not forgotten!! :) - Alison ^❤ 06:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Dude, thanks for the namechange. it was far faster than i thought it would be--Lenary (talk) 06:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Joel Widzer

Please review the edits made by Daniel J. Leivick on the Joel Widzer Page, I think he is being unfair. This guy has a lot of enemies as noted and caught be you earlier —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.223.181 (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have blocked 72.211.223.181 (talk · contribs) for 3RR. Joel Widzer has been deleted, yet again, as advertising. Toddst1 (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

lets figure out how this is adversting. i think that Leivick stired up a lot of trouble. please help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reagan0005 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the page and your comments. I think that you know from the few pages that we worked on that i try to adhere to the proper protocol and work towards a helpful site. thanksreagan (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Kingturtle. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Kingturtle, could you offer any tips to make this a good page? one that won't upset the world and cause the troulbe there was been in the past...Thanks reagan (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

TFD Withdrawl

Just wanted to let you know that I see the good point you made and withdrew Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_June_16#Template:Behave. MBisanz ^talk 17:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks

for fast username change of italian user--Zandegù (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Harmon Killebrew

Before the deletionists go apoplectic, I wonder if you'd mind checking the tag for the image of the Killebrew poster I uploaded? It's a lousy photo, frankly, but it's the best I have at the moment. Next time I go to the Dome, I'll try to get a better one. This thing hangs on the big drape in center and right-center upper deck, and has been there for quite a few years, so "fredoom of panorma", as some non-English speaker once called this kind of thing, would presumably apply, but I don't know how to tag that. Thank you for any help you can provide. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, image status is not my strong suit. Your rationale sounds good, though, but I am unsure how to tag it properly. As for the image, it is indeed (as you say) lousy. It might be removed by someone just on its quality alone. Cheers for now, Kingturtle (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Luckily I can get another. I just thought it seemed silly not to have an actual photo of one of the game's greats. Quality doesn't seem to be much of a criterion. They'll willingly accept the lousiest snapshot, as long as it's "free". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

HELP

Greetings Kingturtle,

Being new to Wikipedia, I have no friends or allies yet, but I noticed you made a grammatical correction in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier. Thanks. By the tags attached to the page, it is under attack. Hopefully you will weigh in with an opinion on these images an Administrator deleted within minutes of seeing the article. They were originally posted by another Administrator with the tag he deemed appropriate, and who created the article. He has not been available for some time. When two Administrators have a diametrically opposed POV, then consensus is built by other users offering an opinion. The Administrator who placed the tags and deleted them wrote they made Cormier look too good and were not neutral. A dispute tag is attached to both images so every opinion in the Discussion counts. Should they be restored or deleted?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Police_warning_4_God%27s_Emissary.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Police_Warning_4_God%27s_Emissary_1.jpg

You might be interested to see this image I would like to see posted to the Article having permission from Maclean's Magazine to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MacLean%27s.jpg

I don't know how to restore the images to the article so a reader might offer an opinion, and any help you or another can provide will be appreciated. Will the voice of the turtle be heard throughout the Land? Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I will not be able to look into this until tomorrow - about 17 hours from the time of this post. Kingturtle (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you DoDaCanaDa (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• I do appreciate very much your honest reply. I do not view the questions raised about article to be personal attacks against me so I am emotionally immune there. The discussion with ADM who deleted the images has been conducted in a spirit of goodwill and without prejudice. The Administrator who created the article has been unavailable and as I said I have no friends or allies yet with the time to devote to developing the article which is almost finished. I wish I could find someone to help. I realize a perceived conflict of interest may be claimed but I think the effort to keep the information as factually basic and neutral as possible under the circumstances is evident. The timing is right to bring the information to the public. Honestly, oftentimes I feel humanly totally alone in bringing the factual events to light, but a person of faith is never alone. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for you to bring your items to light. There are many places on the internet for you to do this: myspace, facebook, livejournal, tribe.net, etc. Please read closely the links I provided you. They will give you a much better understanding of how and Wikipedia operates. It is preferred that you step aside from editing the article. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• There will be no more editing by me until someone comes forward to help make the article conform to all the requirements of Wikipedia. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing prevents you from editing other articles :) We can certainly use your strong editing and writing abilities on articles that aren't about you :) Kingturtle (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have been totally aboveboard in my user page about how I discovered the article and the consequence. I have been learning as I go along. However since the article was created by an Administrator am I not considered to be a "user". Up to just now I was under the impression editing an article about oneself was discouraged but not forbidden since no one else has been available to help. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• I just saw you removed the info box with the links to the disputed images. Now how can any other users offer an opinion on the non free/fair use question? I would not have presumed to remove the tags placed in the article. Did you remove those as well? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It is ok for now to leave the box out until the image issue gets resolved. Articles are living breathing documents and can always be fixed and changed later when situations merit.

By the way, it was not my intention to make you feel I was accusing you of starting the article. My intent is to advise you about policies and protocols. True, writing about oneself on Wikipedia is not forbidden, but it is discouraged, and I am trying to discourage you :)

Lastly, refer to yourself and others here as editors rather than users - at least that's the language I like to use :) Kingturtle (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• You have definitely discouraged me from editing. I had planned to finish the article with the week I attended the Republican National Convention in Kansas City during the bi-centennial of the American Revolution in 1976 along with the record of the time in the Kansas City Times of September 13, 1976.(The paper picked the date of publication) With the benefit of 31 years hindsight, specific prophetic statements in that newspaper report can be seen to have been fulfilled. Walking softly carrying my big stick, I approached every Senator, Congressman and delegate talking in small groups within the thousands socializing in the Lobby of The Crown Center Hotel. It is my claim Senator Jarvis Proposition 13 in California was inspired by my image in the pictures. I have no doubt in the future, when senior Republican Party leaders who attended that Convention have their memories provoked by the picture, they will have to admit, "Yes, I remember that guy." As if to lend authority to all the referenced headers applied to me by The Citizen in time past, the night President Ford won the nomination, my image standing at the podium of The President of The United States on a Secret Service restricted balcony must have appeared revolutionary to the thousands of witnesses in person and ABC, CBS, and NBC broadcasting live at a Republican Convention. The image is one in dispute.

Would you please restore the disputed images to the article so users can post an opinion on them? Otherwise how can the dispute be resolved? Many thanks. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The images you mentioned above in your original post on this page have not been deleted; they have been removed from the article. Are those the images you are referring to? Or are there other images in question here? Kingturtle (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• These are the images linked at the beginning of this discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Police_warning_4_God%27s_Emissary.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Police_Warning_4_God%27s_Emissary_1.jpg DoDaCanaDa (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Those images are not deleted, just removed. I'll look into why. I'll start a thread about them at Talk:Ray Joseph Cormier. Kingturtle (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• I really appreciate the time you have taken to deal with this. I'm sure you have more pressing matters to take care of. Again, bear with me being unfamiliar with all the rules and policies of Wikipedia. If you read the discussion between J any myself, his last word was the images can be restored to the article, but he himself would not undo what he did. I don't know how to do it. It was a Wikipedia Administrator who originally posted them with the tag he believed appropriate. If it is left up to users to resolve the dispute between Administrators by posting an opinion, how can they do that if they don't know the images exist and were once in the article?

This paragraph from the article I consider to be significantly important. "In 1981, Cormier hitchhiked from Ottawa to Whitehorse, Yukon to draw attention to Revelation 19:11 [2]. Newspapers across the country chronicled his journey, and twenty years later the world was stunned to witness 9/11 as described in Revelation 18. That year he was shocked to learn of the development and deployment of the neutron bomb by the good guys in world evolution. He considers the concept of the device to be demonic and anti-human, exposing the power that brought it into existence for what it is. The nuclear device does not explode a fiery blast to destroy the loot, but unleashes enhanced dirty radiation so that the people die a slow, tortuous death. That has come home to roost with the fears these days of terrorists building a crude dirty bomb."[7][8][9][10][11] While there are many References indicating I was in fact in Whitehorse, because of the strict policies over copyright, it's exasperating to know how speedily the disputed images were deleted and yet having gotten written permission from Maclean's to reprint the script, eight days have passed since the information was sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and this is still not posted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MacLean%27s.jpg

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait until User:J Milburn comes back so he can clarify what he thinks. There's no harm in waiting a few days. In the meantime, I hope you can read the links I provided for you earlier. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Fair enough! I did look into the links which are helpful. Thanks for taking the time to guide me in the right direction. Peace. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• I should have left sleeping dogs lie. I'm overwhelmed now with even more tags applied to the article by more editors. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm very disappointed to see the article totally destroyed, but I'm no stranger to disappointment. I had hoped to be able to complete it and then find someone to help me to perfect it so it would read encyclopedic. The interaction with Trudeau concurrent to the 3 Popes was factual, not fantasy. I have copies obtained under the Access to Information Act of RCMP reports confirming the substance of those facts. The Declaration on Remembrance Day is exactly factual and important, referenced and in Court documents. What further verification is required? Since I discovered the article April 19, approximately 2500 views were registered to the page from an average of 60 views a month for the two years previous. According to Wikipedia because they did not object is considered consent to the way it read. This paragraph from the article I consider to be significantly important: "In 1981, Cormier hitchhiked from Ottawa to Whitehorse, Yukon to draw attention to Revelation 19:11 [2]. Newspapers across the country chronicled his journey, and twenty years later the world was stunned to witness 9/11 as described in Revelation 18." There was an off site link so a user could read directly 19:11 and 9/11 from Revelation themselves. Deleting this information will not stop what is already in motion. This could have been edited to be more encyclopedic in style. Everyone has a POV. I do want to especially thank you for the help you were providing me to earlier. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• I was feeling overwhelmed and defeated yesterday by the decimation of the article by two editors, but today is a new day and I am in a stronger mood. I'm sorry you deleted the images that are now appropriately tagged. I saw your entry on J Milburn's talk. This is what he said already: "I moved the comment to the talk page, as there is no tag to oppose the deletion notice I used there. Seeing as you asked, I have no opposition to you adding back the images, but others may, and the images may still be deleted. However, the tags should not be removed until the issue is resolved. I am watching the article, but I doubt I will be editing it much." J Milburn (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"As I said above, I have no huge objection to you adding back the images yourself. An administrator will assess whether the images should be deleted after a few days, I don't remember how long off-hand. As for the maintenance tags on the article, the best way to get them removed will be to deal with the issues- provide sources for everything in the article, ensure it is written from the neutral point of view and ensure it is written in an encyclopedic tone. J Milburn (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I will not undo your action, but this should address your concerns, and I will leave any remedy up to you. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be patient. There is no deadline; there is no hurry. I am waiting for Milburn's return. Kingturtle (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Username change

Hi Kingturtle! I noticed that my username change request from a few days ago was skipped, and there was no comments from admins about why that was the case. Are there any issues with my username change? Thanks for the help! --Samuel tan85 (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed the change, thanks!-Samy85 (talk) 05:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't do it

My IP address may have been high-jacked, as I have been censured and blocked for changes/deletions to Wikipedia entries, which I have never made. Vicki 142.161.49.49 (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That event took place in January. Everything should be reset by now. Cheers. Kingturtle (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hazara people

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hazara people. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Kingturtle (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Which part of the article is disputed? Surely the entire article is not disputed, it is very well sourced. RodneySmithJr (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

There have been over 30 reverts on that article over the past 5 months. One would look there for the disputes. Kingturtle (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Paul Davidson - notability tag

Dear Kingturtle, the article on Paul Davidson got a notability tag from you. He happens to be a prominent enough Post Keynesian economist (although I disagree with most things he has written). I have some source material to beef up the article, and will put him on my to do list. I suggest that you remove the notability tag. The article is of course extremely minimal, not even a stub. Hope to get around to fixing it in the coming weeks. Cheers Robertsch55 (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You have no right

I first contacted you for help and you delivered the opposite. I am not challenging you on the edits you made to the main article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier, but I do challenge your action to delete the article in the Discussion. I have undone and will undo anyone who deletes it. Let the users decide. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You are misinterpretting how Wikipedia works. Old edits aren't delete; they are archived in the article's history. This way we all can see what was written and when, and what was changed and when. Nothing has been deleted. Content has been removed, but that old content is easily found in the article's history. Kingturtle (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Lou Gehrig

I wonder if you could take a look at this article's stalled GAN and provide a second GA review? This GA nomination made back in May has gone nowhere in the last two weeks because of the reviewer's prose objections and he has not responded to rejoinders. JGHowes ^talk - 10:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I see the article has a number of revisions and copyedits needed. It isn't something I can address immediately. But something I can work on over the next few weeks. Kingturtle (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA Review

Hello Kingturtle. I've noticed that you have a completed set of responses to the RfA Review question phase at User:Kingturtle/RfA review , but they don't seem to be included on the list of responses here. If you've completed your responses, please can you head to Wikipedia:RfA Review/Question/Responses and add a link to them at the bottom of the list so that they get included in the research. We have a closing date of midnight UTC on 1st July, so please add your link before this date. Once again, thank you for taking the time to participate in the Question Phase of RfA Review.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 14:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not done yet, and I don't know if I will have time. Kingturtle (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. We put the date in place to allow it to draw to a close before compiling the report. Drop me a note when you feel you're ready, and I'll do my best to incorporate it in to the report. Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 15:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Ray Joseph Cormier images

If a free image could not possibly be created or found that showed the subject, then one of them could be used. Otherwise, to comply with our non-free content criteria, they should be deleted. J Milburn (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, another picture of the event cannot be located. Kingturtle (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Police_warning_4_God%27s_Emissary.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2nd_Police_Warning_4_God%27s_Emissary_1.jpg

• It seems to me this is exactly why Discussion pages exist. The original tag attached to the images is in dispute. The membership is greater than the 5 of us posting opinions in this dispute. Unless the four of you speak for all of Wikipedia, how can the dispute be brought to consensus if the images cannot be seen by other users? Only one other editor made a comment: XDanielx: Valid claim of irreplacibility given -- image primarily depicts an event, not just a person. You also discount the fact that the images were originally posted by an Administrator like yourselves. He created the article not knowing about the prophet aspect of the person. He seem to be MIA, although he really didn't sign up to the part he didn't know. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Inshalla is sockpuppet of banned User:Anoshirawan

Hello everyone, this is "Inshalla". I am a Canadian majoring in mid eastern and east Indian history at McGill. I am by no means an expert on the usage and terminology on Wikipedia but definately have reviewed historical articles on Ahmed Shah Durrani. Not sure who this "Kingturtle" is and the unidentified user 119.30.69.203 (maybe both are the same). Nevertheless, why does my edits get reversed by this turtle without any justifications with historical facts whatsoever and being locked out for weeks  ? Please act maturedly and provide justifications for you blatent inaccuracies and actions. ...... Khuda Hafis.

P.S. I really don't care who "Anoshirawan" or this "NisarKand" or what ever they believe in, but if this "Kingturtle" is some sort of a moderator with Wikipedia and an expert on history, then please be totally unbiased. Thank you. I am no "sockpuppet" of anyone period. Thx.

• • • • —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inshalla (talk • contribs) 02:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you please do a checkuser for User:Inshalla to confirm that he is a sockpuppet of the banned User:Anoshirawan. This vandal just wont leave the Ahmad Shah Durrani article alone. Thanks!--119.30.69.203 (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

here you say it is Beh-nam. Kingturtle (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not sure at that time but now I'm 100% sure it is banned User:Anoshirawan. Latest edits on Ahmad Shah Durrani page was made by IP from East Coast USA [25] and admin Thatcher explained previously that Anoshirawan is in USA. [26]--119.30.69.203 (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice try NisarKand, but Anoshirawan is not from the East coast so that is not even him. But still Kinturtle supports you and undid that IP to your version and locked the article on your version! He will be reported for proxying for banned users (that is actually why Beh-nam got banned) and YOU will be reported to Alison and IP range blocked for ever! RodneySmithJr (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again Kingturtle you are collaborating with the IP of user:NisarKand. You will soon be reported for proxying for NisarKand (banned racist user). RodneySmithJr (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And you also protected the article on NisarKand's version... once again! I will report this to Alison very soon, it is too obvious you are proxying for NisarKand! Even though you know that this is his IP you support him and you never asked for an IP range block on him, just on Beh-nam. Also you have never done a checkuser on NisarKand. Proxying for banned users is a serious violation and I will take this to high level admins soon! RodneySmithJr (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I protected User:Scythian1's version. Kingturtle (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, but Scythian's version was NisarKand's version. NisarKand made this version. You are still proxying for him and will be reported soon. This is why Beh-nam got banned actually, he was asking admins to unblock user:Tajik and the admins banned him for it. You will be banned just like Beh-nam was and then you will know how it feels like to be banned. RodneySmithJr (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Identify all the NisarKand puppets and IPs and I will gladly report them. Kingturtle (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, for the record, I have requested checkusers on NisarKand, and most of resulted in blocks. Kingturtle (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Proxying involves posting or editing material at the direction of a banned user. I am not in communication with any banned user regarding what to write in articles. Kingturtle (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Kingturtle, everytime when you file checkuser on someone you must add your request here or else admins won't be able to review it. Also, you made a huge mistake on Sher Shah Suri because you reverted to the wrong version by banned User:Tajik from Germany.

notability advisory

After the last few days I believe anything can happen. The only verifiable references are the newspaper reports. The irony is I was reaching out for help DoDaCanaDa (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What is happening to your article now would have happened anyway. Don't blame yourself. Kingturtle (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Odd entry in my bot's status log

Thanks for flagging my bot. Was that other entry supposed to be there?--Rockfang (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ignore the 2nd entry. Kingturtle (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

July 2008 Birds Project Newsletter Link

The December 2024 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. --Addbot (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Theodore Bean

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Theodore Bean, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? KenWalker | Talk 06:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

User Beethoven userbox

Hi, just thought that you may want to update the Beethoven userbox ({{User Beethoven}}) on your userpage to the userfied version at User:Richard0612/Userbox Archive/User Beethoven. My bot would have updated the transclusion, but as the page is protected it cannot. Thanks. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 15:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Major League Baseball All-Star Game venues

Another possible list would be hosting the All-Star Game the same year a ballpark opened (or closed). However, that's less interesting since obviously it would be a pre-planned event. The "trifecta", though, would be to host both the All-Star Game and post-season action in the same year the ballpark was opened. That's a pretty short list. In fact, taking a quick look, it has only one entry: Riverfront Stadium in Cincinnati, 1970. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Images

Re your last comment in Discussion of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier "These images seem posed. I'd like their captions to be as generic as possible." Kingturtle (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC) That's some POV you have. Do you really think the Ottawa Police co-operated and posed for them with the crowd of people? Are the images that good? It there a possibility all the information you and your allies edited from the article were not seen from a completely NPOV? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, to me they look posed. To me, they look like people are holding back smiles and laughter. That is my POV. And because that is my POV that is why I posted the comment in the talk page rather than making changes to the article. Kingturtle (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

WPIX

Will you be warning Rollosmokes as well? He has been warned about this particular issue before, and his persistence in trying to revert to an incorrect usage is approaching vandalism. Your revert back to his incorrect version was in error. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I already did. I guess you missed it. Please solve this dispute in the talk pages. Kingturtle (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's still at his incorrect version. I've posted on the WPIX talk page - we'll see if he responds. You might want to see this edit by Baseball Bugs. Thanks! TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Hi Kingturtle - the problem with the infobox fix that one editor has put in place all over the encyclopedia without discussion (as far as I've seen) is that it is inconsistent and confusing, and the usual function of the infobox (as opposed to the bottom-of-the-page succession boxes) is to show actual positions held, in reverse chronological order, with the most recent and usually the "highest" post on top. So for example John Edwards, no longer a Senator, still has his infobox with US Senator on top, with start and end dates, because it is the highest position he held. This has been across-the-encyclopedia style, presumably developed and refined by groups of people working on the various political wikiprojects, and changes should be discussed with them I would think. Being a candidate is notable of course and should be thoroughly covered in the biography, and the succession box can be included to show who ran before and after whom (although that doesn't seem particularly useful to me), but the style of the political articles has been to show highest and most recent office held on top, followed by earlier ones - actual positions held. What we had instead (again, one editor doing it on his own) is a somewhat haphazard and inconsistent fix to the existing infobox templates that had in some cases fields like "in office" showing with a range of dates that made no sense, no indication of who actually won the election but the words "election date" which incorrectly implies that the subject did win the election, an "incumbent" field that is not relevant to the election in question, a few were missing altogether - if a sitting President ran for re-election and lost (Carter in 1980 for example), the losing candidate had no candidate entry in his infobox. So - it's not that it doesn't have potentially useful information, it's that it was wholesale added haphazardly and ad hoc without consistency or discussion about its appropriateness or what the design should be - and it conflicts with existing standards for what should be in infoboxes. See here for some discussion too. Cheers Tvoz/talk 00:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tvoz that consistency is well worth striving for. As to the rest of her arguments, they make no sense to me. Achieving a major party's nomination for president of the U.S. (or V.P.) far outweighs any offices that person may have held previously/currently. I think Tvoz wins these arguments because she seems to spend an inordinate amount of time editing Wikipedia, and other users (including me) end up conceding due to lack of time. That Tvoz assessment is just a theory, but it's my theory all the same.--Utahredrock (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Kingturtle asked me a question and I answered it. How much time I spend here is neither known to you nor any of your business. I think the quality of my 12,000+ edits speaks for itself and frankly I'm not interested in your theories about me or your opinion about my editing. As I have already suggested to you, if you hope to edit here successfully your time would be well spent watching how quality discussions are handled, reading and understanding basic wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the occasional opinion essay, rather than making it up as you go along. Tvoz/talk 22:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

hello

Hello! :) I thought you might be interested in this. Check it out and add your name under "Participants" if your interested. Have a nice day and happy editing! --Grrrlriot (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

William Brewster

I am a former U.S. history teacher and I am a 12th great grandson of William Brewster.

Guess that makes us cousins . . . however many times removed.

I made a comment above, it looks like you far outrank the user I was commenting on as far as your contributions to this crazy online encyclopedia. I too find it addicting, but it comes in waves. There are extended periods when I don't contribute. Hopefully I am getting close to one of my wiki-blackout times.

; ) Cheers,--Utahredrock (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Burma-Shave

You've opened an interesting can of shave cream. In fact, The Verse by the Side of the Road has the text of every sign series ever produced. So that's sufficient as a source. There are at least two problems with the list, then. One is that some of the entries ignore the 6-signs aspect and are strung together as 4-line poems plus "Burma-Shave". So that would need to be corrected. The other is the question of which examples are appropriate to use and/or is the list of examples too long. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The book you mention has the text of every sign series, but does that Wikipedia list contain only verified verses from that book, or are there other verses that are in there people have made up themselves? I don't have the book. If you do, can you go through the list and mark the ones that aren't in the book? Do you have the time? Kingturtle (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I have time *today*, but I was thinking that I should review the list sometime soon, to at least put the "/" in the right places. As part of that process I would be verifying if they actually existed or not. Seems to me the list has grown over time, too. So, at the moment, as long as the item is valid, it could stay on the list? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I know how it is when things are busy. Don't sweat getting it done immediately. But each example needs to be verified. The ones that cannot be verified should either be tagged with {{fact}} or removed all together. In the long run we should probably parse the list down. We don't need a complete list. Kingturtle (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The complete list would be a copyright violation, and also a tad long, as there are about 600 of them. It may be that one of the links actually lists all of them, which means we can pare down the article's list a bit to illustrate the types of jingles reference in the article. In fact, the list could be abolished and for each type there could be a couple of examples. I would group them into shaving-related (which is most of them), and safety-related (which became more and more of a theme as time went on), and special mention for the outrageous puns. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I arranged them by year. A few of them were not quite right. I was trying to point out what was different about the ads in addition to whatever was just funny. Not all of the ones there were that funny, either. I also added some that were either funny or different. The next step would be to trim them down, as there are obviously way too many. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

WPIX...

...is just the tip of the iceberg, as its talk page indicates. This guy Rollosmokes, as noted in a recent WP:ANI discussion, has decided that The CW doesn't have the right to call itself The CW because it's "grammatically incorrect". He has hit many articles with this obsession, including WGN-TV, which he finally stopped editing because I kept challenging him. His behavior is basically disruptive, exacerbated in part by his insistence that he's smarter than the rest of us about grammar issues. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I did like the fact that for a hot second you had blocked WPIX from editing. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

He's back and doing it again on another article... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Kingturtle protected the article. Something has to be done about this guy. He's a zealot, and there's no persuading a zealot. Blocking is the only way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've posted another incident in WP:ANI, which is actually a continuation of the previous incident, since nothing happened. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Pox Party

Fair enough, I've merged what I could see as relevant. CredoFromStart ^talk 14:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

NisarKand wrote that on Gardez

Take a look at the articles history and you can see that it was NisarKand's IP that wrote that sentence. He was very racist towards Tajiks and there he fakes sources claiming that that guy was leader of Tajiks, which is ridiculous. He is just angry that Pashtuns support Taliban and now he is trying to make Tajiks look bad by faking sources. Just take a look at the history of the article, that 192... IP is NisarKand's, I don't why you don't know that yet. ZhongguoYen (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Go away. Serve your sentence, then come back and play nice. Kingturtle (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you know already that Beh-nam got banned because NisarKand made sockpuppets and used them to get him into 3RR trouble.

Secondly, I am adding nice images and quality sourced content and improving articles which is the #1 rule according to Jimbo Wales himself. So I am playing nice, it is you who are not playing nice. You are removing these nice images and removing the quality sourced content, what is the point of doing that? There is absoloutely no point in that, it is counter productive and against Wikipedia's # 1 rule.

Instead you support racist and nonesense edits by NisarKand's IP on Gardez.

You know that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/119.30.76.97 is NisarKand's IP yet you support his edits! I've had enough of you supporting NisarKand! Now I will get Khoikhoi who is a senior admin and familiar with NisarKand involved! And I will also get FuturePerfectSunrise involved and I will expose your countless occasions where you supported NisarKand! You are going to be in big trouble once they found out that you are essentialy proxying for NisarKand!

I reverted to 30 June 2008 DWC LR. Kingturtle (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That has NisarKand's edits on it! Check the history more carefully. Once again you pretend to be blind and support NisarKand! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.21 (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I welcome non-banned users to edit articles. If non-banned users make changes, that is fine with me. Banned users are not allowed to make edits. I will continue to revert your edits and your accounts. Kingturtle (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Kingturtle, I don't think you need to guess too hard to know who this is :/ [27] - Alison ^❤ 19:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Kingturtle (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Please help

I did as you told me and went to Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations where I was directed by a robot back again to Wikipedia:Changing username. I have no clue what needs to be done to change my name to Pjetter, EN:WP and EN:WB are the only ones which are missing. After that I promise to leave you alone.

I thought procedure was to make way for Pjetter by renaming to something like Pjetter-old, so it is possible to change Londenp to Pjetter. Please do help me: I am lost. Londenp (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Was it you who made the Pjetter account? If so, log into it and say on talk page that you are Londenp. Kingturtle (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I did sign my request on both request pages Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations and Wikipedia:Changing username with both names already, but I will do as you request. Londenp (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Did sign on User talk:Pjetter with both accounts. Pjetter (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll address it in a few hours. I'm at work currently. Kingturtle (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks :-) Pjetter (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Billy Collins Photo

I apologize in advance if this is a breech in protocol, but I took a photo of Billy Collins today that I've posted under Creative Commons, and I'd like to offer it for his entry here. I'm not sure the syntax and thought it would be easier to offer it to you, as someone who has posted recently in the Billy Collins entry.

[[28]]

Thanks in advance -- pw

Docpete72 (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Restoring to Article

As you and other editors suggested, I have recused myself from editing the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Joseph_Cormier which is proper. I have also dropped my desire to post the 95% of the article edited out to the talk page for discussion and re-working in deference to other Administrators experience. I have been appealing to those same editors to do the right thing and restore balance to the bare bones left in the article after the major decimation with no response. They left this in: In 1986, to complete his Canada-wide mission, he hitchhiked East to Quebec and the Maritimes.[7][8][9][10] This makes no sense without the inclusion of this: In 1981, Cormier hitchhiked from Ottawa to Whitehorse, Yukon to draw attention to Revelation 19:11 [2]. even removing these references so a viewer would have no clue of this verifiable action without going to the history:

[7] Steve St. Laurent. "Visiting 'prophet' no average preacher", Calgary Herald, 18 July 1981, A11.

[8] Cathy Lord "Visions compelled search for God", Edmonton Journal, 25 July 1981, G13.

[9] Leslie Cole "Self-proclaimed prophet: Showmanship not his style", Whitehorse Star, 26 August 1981, pg 3.

[10] Nicholas Read "'Divine gifts' inspire ex-executive to tramp the land with a message", Vancouver Sun, 3 October 1981

[11] Maclean's, 31 August 1981, People Section.

With every passing day, my POV is evolving to believe this is a deliberate act of subterfuge. Will you please do the right thing and restore this information to the article? With the dispute and discussion ongoing over the images in the article for deletion over FUR, Maclean's has provided written permission to post this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MacLean%27s.jpg image, but reference [11] is removed. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are written collaboratively by many editors. Sometimes by bringing in more minds, articles can reach a better equilibrium. If you like, I can summon some more editors to help copyedit the article. Kingturtle (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• I appreciate this reply, and that I knew and have been hoping and waiting for those editors to voluntarily come forward. I respect free will. It is the only inviolable right and freedom we have in common as humans. No power can take that away from anyone. Editors and contributors will perfect this article by their own interest and free will. Peace and blessings to all of those. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• King, I see you put a tag in the article but it didn't take. A bot came after you and did something I don't know what. Would you look at it again please? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• That's a cool looking tag, King. Reminds me of my days with General Electric. A lightbulb was drawn on the sandwich board I wore with the gag in protest of the extreme probation I was subjected to days before I was expelled from the House of Commons on the historic 1st day of TV, wearing the gag reading 'Fear of The Truth'. Thank you so very much for listing the article on the RFC biolist. I eagerly anticipate seeing the information above restored. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Re your comment on my talk. You know I recused myself from editing the article on me a long time ago in my word to you, which is proper and right. I have kept that word, now having to rely on strangers to examine the raw information in the history and discussions, mostly with users on their talk away from the article. Experienced Wikipedians would know how to follow those discussions, but a casual visitor would see only a small fraction of the discussion over the article.

I see someone else removed the RFCbio list tag you placed on the article. I undid that. Another editor edited your own personal talk and that appears to be fine with you seeing you did not undo it. I can no more separate and remove myself from the article than you can abandon your own talk. I will not edit my article, but I will defend it alone until others come to my assistance. The explicit request in this section concerning the removed newspaper references is still being ignored.

When I see others working the article, I would be so happy to edit and contribute good words to other articles.

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You are not alone, don't worry - all living people must rely on others to tend to their wikipedia articles. It is the best way to reach NPOV.

• I agree with this policy 100% See the bold print. I have been alone for weeks on that. So far I have seen lots of talk with no action.

The RFCbio tag was moved from the article to the talk area, which is where it is supposed to be. I made a mistake placing it in the article.

As for the images that were deleted, do you have any personal photos that you could scan, and would you be willing to release them to the public domain? Or can you have a digital photo of yourself taken that can be added? Kingturtle (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• The Administrator who created the article said we would meet and he would take the scan. I haven't heard from him since before this whole controversy started. I have some old photos as a kid if they could be used. I have my campaign poster from the elections I could post, but as it looks now, my article looks pathetic, but it's encyclopedic . It may have been the wrong format, but it looked much better before it was demolished.

I still have the 13 jersey from the deleted images which I haven't worn since I ran for Parliament in 1997. When I'm wearing it and carrying my big stick it's "official", like the papal Ex cathedra. I don't wear it casually or for fun.

It's somewhere in a user talk how I got the appellation of prophet. It came from the Secret Service guarding President Ford as he was expected momentarily at the restricted balcony with his podium bearing his seal in The Crown Center Hotel. I was standing there in his place being questioned looking exactly as I do in the image just deleted. They wanted to hold my stick for "security reasons". I was very active and highly visible at the Republican National Convention in Kansas City in 1976. Newspaper references verifying those activities are yet to be posted to the article. I would like to see the article perfected before this year's Republican Convention. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your contributions to the talk. I've never seen so many tags. Let's hope it works. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm glad to see you have such an interest in the article, you know almost instantaneously when an edit is made, and make a comment. You will note I have made no substantive edits except for very minor corrections. Wikipedia does not absolutely forbid this. If it did, I would not make the minor corrections I did. I have added no new information since I agreed with you it is the best to leave that to others. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

External Links

I am new. But the external links are no links for publicity or promotion. These are links to the regional centers of SAARC. And yes, they are relevant. You check that for yourself.

Merde.Pandanayan (talk) 20:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Can this be used?

I understand. Sorry for adding too many links. I'll delete 6 of the 9 links I added.

Another question is there are these free publications on the website of SAARC. You can view them here: http://saarc-sec.org/main.php?t=3.2 Can these free publications be used by me to enrich the content.

I wouldn't obviously just copy paste. I would study them and then add to the Wiki article.

ThanxPandanayan (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely! Be sure to read Wikipedia:Citation templates and Help:Footnotes to better understand how to cite what you add. Don't copy and paste text from your sources; try to summarize instead. I am sure you'll get more help along the way. Welcome to wikipedia! Kingturtle (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanx. You've been of great help. Pandanayan (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

SAARC Secretariat

Hi, I intend to edit the paragraph entitled "Secretariat" in the SAARC article.

The original one had some mistakes in grammar and was lacking in flow as well. I have added some citations as well. Check out the edited version:

Secretariat

The SAARC Secretariat was established in Kathmandu on 16 January 1987 and was inaugurated by His Majesty King Birendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev of Nepal.

It is headed by a Secretary General appointed by the Council of Ministers from Member Countries in alphabetical order for a three-year term and assisted by the Professional and the General Services Staff, and also an appropriate number of functional units called Divisions assigned to Directors nominated by Member States.(Citation)

The Secretariat coordinates and monitors implementation of activities, prepares for and services meetings, and serves as a channel of communication between the Association and its Member States as well as other regional organisations.(Citation)

The Memorandum of Understanding on the establishment of the Secretariat (Citation) which was signed by Foreign Ministers of member countries on 17 November 1986 at Bangalore, India contains various clauses concerning the role, structure and administration of the SAARC Secretariat as well as the powers of the Secretary-General.

In several recent meetings the heads of state or government of member states of SAARC have taken some important decisions and bold initiatives to strengthen the organisation and to widen and deepen regional co-operation. The SAARC Secretariat and Member States observe 8 December as the SAARC Charter Day. Pandanayan (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Orgun

Yes hopefully it can be expanded (eventually). Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Thank you

Ohai. You may remember me from when you copyedited baseball uniform. I saw you thanked User:Nothing444 here for creating a certain article. I don't know if you noticed, but he was banned from Wikipedia if you looked at his userpage. Oh, and since you did a good job copyediting baseball uniform, I was hoping if you could copyedit the Simple English Wikipedia's baseball uniform. It's currently a proposal for GA, but we needed someone to simplify it, copyedit it, ect. Could you do that? Thanks in advance. -- RyRy (talk) 05:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Reminder...

Thanks for that. But I have been treating others in an extreme civil manner this entire time. I have never threatened anyone with banishment nor have I accused others of trolling. (as another has done to me). I trust this reminder has gone to the other one involved as well.MAL01159 (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The user has gone forum-shopping all over the place, while refusing to answer the question I've posed repeatedly, which is for him to cite a source that states the words "1994 broke the Braves' streak". I have repeatedly pointed him to the Braves' statement that the streak is 14, while he continues to ask me for a source that says so. I initially thought he was trolling. His behavior since tends to support that observation. Although I'll allow, for now, the possibility that he's a newbie who doesn't "get it". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

He also disappeared once several editors started asking him the same question. Trolling. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate accusations made about me be directed to me. And when making accusations of me, it would be nice if they were actually true and verifiable. I have answered your question. Repeatedly. It is you who have refused questions. Regarding my "disappearance" I'm sorry to say that I don't spend my entire day hovering over wikipedia. Sometimes I have more time for this place than others. I do have a job that requires my attention. Try considering such things before making grand absolute comments, please.MAL01159 (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm retired, so I have nothing but free time and good ideas. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, KT. Thanks. And since the compromise didn't seem to be winning the other half of the vote that it needed to, I also think it was right to switch it back to the original phrasing. JohnInDC (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Atlanta Braves

I'm not sure that the discussion on Talk:Atlanta Braves is getting anywhere, and I'm sorry if your contribution got lost in the general scuffle. If you want to propose an alternate form of words for the disputed sentence, I'd be happy to look at it and discuss it here or there. Who knows? We might get consensus for it. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's just the one user who has a problem with it, with no end to the debate in sight, because of his core assumption that the Braves do not have the right to claim 14 consecutive division titles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And I've also had about enough of this endless loop. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm proposing on Talk:Atlanta Braves that we move towards closure. I appreciate everyone's efforts, and I apologise to KT for spamming your Talk page. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"Spamming the globe, to bring you the constant variety of Sports..." :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Joel Widzer

Hi KingTurtle I made a major reedit to the Joel Widzer page. Can you review it and help with any needed changes. I think that it adheres to the proper policy but certainly would Appreciate your input Thanks reagan (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you also look at the tags added by Daniel J. Leivick, who has casued problems in the past? Your help will be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reagan0005 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I won't have time until Monday to copyedit the article. Your edits need a lot of work there. I re-added the tags, though. They belong there - unless you want to revert to the version before your most recent series of edits. Kingturtle (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I’ll keep the tags. My objective is to present a good article for the community as I did with other articles. Since there have been “editing Wars” I wanted to get your feedback as I know you’ve been following the page. I’m on-board to take in your feedback. Separately, I do believe that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel_J._Leivick has had a heavy hand with his editing power. I hope you can keep a watchful eye. Thanks a bunch! --reagan (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

KingTurtle I added a number of references to the Joel Widzer article, therefore I removed the tag. Thanks--reagan (talk) 01:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Need a little help.

I noticed that the wiki page for Smokey Joe Wood had his nickname spelled wrong. I was able to change Smokey Joe Wood to Smoky Joe Wood everywhere except for the title of the page. I don't know how to edit the title of the page. Thanks. Joe Wood's grandson. Alaskakid —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaskakid (talk • contribs) 04:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. The following articles have his name spelled as Smokey. If you have time, maybe you can make the changes. Nice to hear from a grandson of a great. Kingturtle (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

More on Braves

I have now explained the 1994 thing by comparing it to the 1916 thing, which is the best way I know how to explain it. If he still doesn't buy it, there's no hope, and we're done with him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

ncpa

hi. i wasn't aware that the user was a Beh-nam sock (nor aware that Beh-nam was banned). I do support reversions of sock-edits, but in this particular case i did not find them harmful. --Soman (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

banned, racist, and Taliban supporter user: NisarKand still editing and vandalizing

I'm just wondering why you haven't IP range blocked him yet? He is freely editing with his IP and vandalizing and pushing his Afghan-nationalist POVs. Here is one of his IPs that he edited with recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/119.30.73.220. And with this other IP he is making personal attacks on others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/119.30.71.194.

How can you expect Beh-nam to accept his ban if you are still allowing NisarKand to edit? Especially when it was NisarKand who got Beh-nam banned by making sockpuppets and getting him into 3RR trouble. I don't think Beh-nam will accept his ban as long as NisarKand is allowed to edit because that would not be fair. If NisarKand is IP range blocked also then Beh-nam will accept his ban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.208.18.73 (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Rollosmokes

I will do my best to let the admins handle this, when or if his promises become reality. He's got blatant personal attacks on his page against 7 users, and he promises to resume his edit warring. Yes, I'm annoyed that he's been let off the hook. For now. But he hasn't actually done anything. Yet. So we'll see. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Just don't bait him into it. If he fails, he fails. But poking a cornered dog and making him bite you and then saying "See! That dog bites" - that just doesn't fly. Kingturtle (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It's just the excuse he needs to resume the edit war, ja? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

And it discredits you. Kingturtle (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

To lower myself to his level? Yes, you're right. Enough, Aldretti. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I've marked my issue "resolved", I've removed my comments from his page, and am no longer watching either his page or his edits. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Have faith that if he makes a ruckus elsewhere, he will be confronted. And certainly keep watching articles that are important to you. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is one (or maybe two) still on my watchlist, but not because of him as such. But I won't say which one it is. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It may be starting again - he just reverted someone on WPSG, but he slipped in a "CW" only change, which was NOT part of the other edit he reverted. I've corrected his "mistake", but this bears watching. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the article. Kingturtle (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I saw any further discussion either with or about that user as being a waste of my time and anyone else's. All I wanted was for him to explain why The CW couldn't be called The CW. For a guy who obviously has some knowledge of broadcasting stuff to work himself into a permanent block over that issue (among other things, but that was the trigger) seems like an incredible waste. I don't like to see anybody get blocked, I want to see them "straighten up and fly right." But some can't or won't. They blame everyone else for their troubles. And I know, 'cause I've been there. All this still comes down to one of my two wikipedia axioms: "How badly do you want to edit?" In that guy's case, the answer was, "Not badly enough to compromise." So it goes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In any case, User:Rollosmokes looks to be back, this time as User:Black Waves. I've moved the issue back to WP:ANI. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Hi, old friend. More than two years after being desysopped (and after reading as much of th the Giano II drama as I could till my eyes glazed over, I'm thinking of reapplying for sysop. What's the best way to go about an RfA these days? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Baseball Newsletter

The Baseball WikiProject Newsletter Issue I – July 2008

"A home opener is always exciting, no matter if it's home or on the road." - Yogi Berra News and announcements Welcome to the first Baseball WikiProject Newsletter, dated Tuesday, July 15, 2008. The Article Improvement Drive has been revived. Check it out! The Outreach department is in the works, please contribute your ideas! Featured content In the past month, WikiProject Baseball has had the following articles promoted to Featured Article status: Art Houtteman 1926 World Series St. Louis Cardinals seasons Philadelphia Phillies seasons List of Major League Baseball players from Puerto Rico This month's newsletter was designed and written by Wizardman, jj137, and Blackngold29. If you would like to contribute to future newsletters, please contact the Baseball WP outreach dept.

News from the diamond The 79th MLB All-star Game is scheduled for this evening. The 2008 Home Run Derby took place yesterday. Justin Morneau defeated Josh Hamilton in the final round, 5 home runs to 3, although Hamilton broke a record with 28 home runs hit in the first round. From the Editors Baseball has a history unlike any other sport. It has been played in countless countries throughout the decades, and it will undoubtedly continue play for many more. On this eve, some the finest players the sport has to offer will take the field at the Yankee Stadium. Four popes spoke there, Pelé scored goals there, "The Greatest [football] Game Ever Played" was battled out there, John Philip Sousa lead a band there, George Costanza worked there; but what do all these events have in common? They fail to reach the level of greatness that the baseball that was played there did. In 1923, a man named Babe Ruth decided to build a new house, and over the years, that house was a home to some of the greatest baseball ever played. If I were to list out all of these great moments, it would be longer than the bill for the New Yankee Stadium. So I'll sum it up by saying that we can remember these great moments by adding them to this place we've gathered at for future generations to read about, to learn about, to dream about; but more importantly we can watch tonight and we can remember how baseball is unlike anything else that we will encounter in our lives. — Blackngold29

--  jj137 (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Dave Nilsson

This is about one year late, but in case you never got the requested information, the Baseball Reference Bullpen Wiki has just about everything you ever wanted to know about Dave Nilsson in this article. It looks like he bought a majority stake in the Australian Baseball League around the time he disappeared from MLB. Thanks-- SashaNein (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping me change username. Jamesmh2006 (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Nikolai Fedorenko

Hi there, Kingturtle! I've expanded the Nikolai Fedorenko article, added a few categories, and removed the notability tag. I guess now he looks notable enough :). Drop me a line if anything! Take care. KNewman (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Terrific. Nice work! Kingturtle (talk) 05:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Veronika Decides to Die (Film)

Can you please undelete this .The page was originally created by a banned user but that was before their ban and it is a legitimate film (there is numerous pictures of it being filmed in NY in June ) and on which I have being doing edits .05:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Done. Kingturtle (talk) 05:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Pamir Mountains

Please take a look at the latest version of Pamir Mountains and also other images uploaded and used in various pages by User:Alj87. There are no copyright tags, and more importantly, there is no information to prove that the images actually correspond to the respective articles. Thank you. --Zlerman (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have advised Alj87 on how to properly label uploaded images. Let's see if that makes a difference. Kingturtle (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Jim Chappell

No problem. How did you find out so quickly? Chubbles (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I am a frequent visitor of Wikipedia:Recent changes article requests. Kingturtle (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That page is kind of confusing. How does it work? Chubbles (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That page is very confusing. Here's how it works:

There are 124 separate lines (numbering 0 through 123) of six to eight requested articles. When someone goes to Recent Changes, one of those 124 lines will appear randomly under the category Requests. This is an easy way for those interested in writing requested articles to have access to some of the requests.

When such an articles is written, it turns from a red ink link to a blue ink link and needs to be removed from Wikipedia:Recent changes article requests. Simply editing Wikipedia:Recent changes article requests won't do the trick. An editor has to press the Use this link to edit the template button to edit the 124 separate lines. In this example The Anome removed North Carolina State College and added Locator/Identifier Separation Protocol. Generally speaking, you want to add a redlink article that is about the same length (in characters) as the one you remove. Mostly of late it has been The Anome and me who have been maintaining the list - but that is only out of circumstance. Anyone is welcome to help maintain it. It's kinda fun, really.

Hope that helps. Ask if you have more questions. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

All Grown Up Whovian has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for changing my user name :-) All Grown Up Whovian 10:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Images Copyright and Free

You have advised me not to edit my article, which is not forbidden, but discouraged. I agree 100% with this idea.

You are aware of the vigorous discussion over the two FUR images deleted from the article. I am Canadian/Universalist. I would have hoped some intellectually curious Wikipedians would have wondered why Canwest Global Communications Corp., having a monoploly on Canada'a daily newspapers referenced in my article, would go to the trouble of sending a lawyer's letter to Wikipedia requesting the images be removed?

I politely asked for permission from The Ottawa Citizen having the copyright, but they said No! Absolutely! There was no option offered to pay a fee for their use. The images are 31 years old. There is absolutely no residual commercial value in them, buried and forgotten. Is is a matter of simple, selfish possessiveness? Is there an element of subterfuge involved? The Administrator who created the article posted them anyway with the FUR tag. I didn't know what FUR was.

I have to question Wikipedians depth of commitment to creating a "Free Encyclopedia" when they caved in immediately on receiving a lawyer's letter. A consensus had been reached on keeping the image '2nd Police warning 4 God's Emissary'.

I have been pleading with you and any user to post this image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MacLean%27s.jpg to the article. It is the copyright script of Maclean's Canada's National Magazine Reference 11 in the article. They were gracious enough to write this: Original Message -----

From: "Jessica Allen" <Jessica.Allen@rci.rogers.com> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 3:55 PM Subject: Maclean's Permission

Hi Ray,

You can certainly reprint the text referring to yourself from page 40, Maclean's Magazine, August 31, 1981. There is no charge for this.

Unfortunately, we can not allow you to reproduce the cover.

All the best,

--- Jessica Allen Editorial Assistant Maclean¹s Magazine

It confirms unequivocably this statement from the article: In 1981, Cormier hitchhiked from Ottawa to Whitehorse, Yukon to symbolize the White Horse in Revelation 19:11 [1]. Newspapers across the country chronicled his journey. [7][8][9][10][11] It is an historic image and you don't even have to use the FUR tag.

If I have to post it myself, will I be cautioned again about editing my own article? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 13:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

DoDa,

Wikipedia has absolutely no way to override a decision of a copyright owner to prevent its use on Wikipedia. It is quite rare for a major corporation to release something they own into the public domain. These are the way copyright laws work, and Wikipedia must abide by them. There is no copyrighted image in the world that is significant enough for Wikipedia to fight for using.

If you want to paraphrase the text of Image:MacLean%27s.jpg then make sure you cite it with the appropriate citation syntax. Kingturtle (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• The image has been released by Maclean's into the public domain. It is already appropriately tagged. It's only a matter of posting it to the article. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The image itself brings nothing to the article. It should not be shown in the article. However, the text may be useful to paraphrase and reference. Kingturtle (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• By your words above it is a rare image since a major corporation in fact released it for free. By your own words it does bring something to the article. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

White Horse, Yukon, as a symbol from Revelation? And here I thought the "Four Horsemen" were the offensive backfield at Notre Dame! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Most people don't think beyond the apple tree. In reality, it's the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We have all had a taste of that tree. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Some people can read War and Peace and think of it as a simple adventure story. Others can read the contents of a chewing gum wrapper, and unlock the secrets of the universe. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ain't that the truth! Everything is possible. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Trisecting an angle with straightedge and compass is not possible. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• What aboutChaos theory, do it enough times and you will get it right eventual, so long as the universe doesn't end first...
• Back on topic if, sorry if I missed this but what is the relevance of the missile path picture? if that's relevant then I say use it, its free so why should we not include it? --Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• In the confusion of a declining economy and resources, the War on terrorism, the U.S. insistence of erecting the anti-missile system around Russia and the test of Will with Iran, mistakes can and will happen. Armageddon is understood as an event, but the actual physical place on this world is in Palestine near Jerusalem where Christ was crucified by the powers of this world. The missile pathway will be part of the Armageddon finale. The Bible refers to this end as 'fire from heaven'. It hasn't happened yet so there is still hope the people will awake before it is too late. The image is free to use. If any of you remember the 1983 made for TV movie 'The Day After' about a Soviet nuclear missile destroying Kansas City, the last frame of the movie is the exact same frame in the November 2, 1976 report from The Kansas City Times on me headed 'Prophet Plans Appeal of Conviction' seven years earlier. The reporter made a mistake in the interpretation of information in the earlier report of September 13, 1976. This reference is not in the article yet since no editors/contributors have come forward to develop it as yet. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

DoDaCanaDa asked me to take a look at this discussion- my thought is that, even if the image is free, (I'm not sure that "you have permission to reprint the text" equals "a scan of this article is in the public domain", but I am sure there are people in this discussion more qualified to make a judgment on that issue) I don't see what adding it to the article would achieve. It would be useful as a convenience link if the article is being used as a reference. As for the other dispute- I always said the images should be removed, even before we received the email; we're trying to create an encyclopedia with content that others can use. This is our main aim. If people are not happy with us (a well known charitable enterprise with what the majority of the world would call noble goals) using it, imagine how they would feel with others using it? How can we honestly say that our content is free for others to use when we have people making perfectly coherent legal claims challenging our right to use it? J Milburn (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• I appreciate your opinion and thanks for replying, J. In the first part of your answer, we see it eye to eye. Maclean's specifically grants permission to use it in Wikipedia, but not in legalese language. Of all the human types on the planet, Jesus singled out only three for special criticism. Religious Leaders, lawyers and the rich. Makes sense to me in today's world. He said words to the effect hookers could get into the kingdom of heaven before some religious leaders. Makes sense to me in today's world. That's some POV he has. Know the Truth and the Truth will set you Free.

On the second part of your answer about lawyer's letters and noble goals and trying "to create an encyclopedia with content that others can use. This is our main aim." The dispute over the images 'Second Police Warning for God's Emissary' is over from my POV. Raising it again had two other purposes.

1. I don't know how many Wikipedians there are, but having discovered my biography on line, and developing it with peacock terms and other obvious deficiencies to me, I reached out to more experienced editors for help and they removed 95% to history so most visitors, not being Wikipedians, and not being familiar with the buttons and links could see the facts. That was not the help I hoped for, but I have adapted. Truly, I had hoped hundreds of editor/contributors would be re-working the raw information by now. To date, it's been me and only the four of five of you editing out, but not contributing, with an occasional comment by someone passing through. Having already had a vigorous discussion over the deleted copyright images, at the opposite end I'm getting the same dispute over a free image. I am perplexed.

2. Indulge me in re-introducing this here again: I politely asked for permission from The Ottawa Citizen having the copyright, but they said No! Absolutely! There was no option offered to pay a fee for their use. The images are 31 years old. There is absolutely no residual commercial value in them, buried and forgotten and obviously Canwest Global with it's news monopoly wants it that way or they would not have sent a lawyer's letter to Wikipedia demanding their removal from the article. Why? Is is a matter of simple, selfish possessiveness? Is there an element of subterfuge involved? This is a matter for discussion, if not on this talk then on another talk page concerning media censorship and freedom of the press.DoDaCanaDa (talk) 11:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I am also commenting at DoDaCanaDa's request. Broadly, I agree with J Milburn. I have seen no evidence at all that the image meets Wikipedia's requirement of freedom; the most reasonable interpretation of the e-mail from Maclean's, as far as I can see, is that they were granting you permission to use the image in the Wikipedia article, which is of course not sufficient for our purposes. Besides that, I don't see the relevance of the missile path picture. The clipping probably is relevant, but appropriate portions of it can be quoted and cited if needed; I don't see any reason to just drop the scan into the article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I also agree, no reason to have a scan of a newspaper clipping in the article. --Leivick (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Those who glance, will not see. Those who skim, will not understand. Is the objection only to including the image of the missile strike path and it's relevancy? If that was removed, would you have further objections? If this article is about a self proclaimed or ordained prophet or emissary of God that is yet to be determined, it appears to me all information that might lend support or verification to the idea has been removed. Of the prophets it is written: God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders (Hebrews 2:4) [29]. Lets discuss signs and wonders.

1. November 2, 1976 The Kansas City Times prints a report with an image of me standing at the base of the pillar at the Liberty Memorial in Kansas City.

2. In 1981 Canada's National Magazine reports I hiked 4000 miles to Whitehorse to symbolize the White Horse of Revelations 19:11.[30] Armageddon is mentioned, showing a missile strike path to Kansas. If the world is brought to the grand finale, those missile strike paths are already fixed in the mind of the public domain.

3. Seven years after the image of me in the Kansas City Times report, the TV movie "The Day After" appears in the public mind following that very missile strike path, ending at the exact same frame as the newspaper report except I wasn't in the movie.

I would expect there is some clever editor/contributor who could take this raw information, knowing how to use references and citations and make it encyclopedic. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 11:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

After reading the explanation I can see why the image at least is relevant & attaching the story is reasonable. It then comes to checking if the image and text are in the public domain, the I'm not sure of the legalese but if that can be clarified, i.e. that it is Free and released from copyright then I would think it should be included. If not then the image showing the path can be recreated by someone else, as the is no restriction on the idea shown only on that spesific drawing so fiar use woudl nto be satisfied. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 07:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Gul Agha Sherzai

Hello. An IP just re-added [31] the same image you removed from the Gul Agha Sherzai article. If you can help me understand why you are removing the photo from the article, I can assist in keeping it clear. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

IPs on these topics that begin with 119.xx are done by User:NisarKand, who is blocked indefinitely. I revert all edits I come across that are done by that user. If you want to add that image, that is ok with me. I won't be reverting any of your edits - only those of NisarKand. Kingturtle (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Lou Gehrig

Hi, Kingturtle, I would like to request your opinion and advices regarding this recent GAN. It was failed, in part due to confusion about the reviewer's asking for a second opinion. See my protest and the archived GAN. I am wondering if this article merits being taken to GAR for community review/assessment? JGHowes ^talk - 01:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back from vacation. Not to be a pest, but can you let me know or should I ask someone else? JGHowes ^talk - 17:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I will not have (for the next few weeks) the proper sort of free time to give this article the proper reading and editing it deserves. If you need a more immediate opinion, you will need to find someone else :/ Kingturtle (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorry to bother you. I've taken it to GAR here: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Lou Gehrig/1. JGHowes ^talk - 19:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's no bother at all :) Kingturtle (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Moshin → M_Miah

• Current name: Moshin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google) (ping user)
• Requested name: M_Miah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
• Previous renames: current user, target user, Queue: open req, closed req
• For global renamer: rename user
• Reason: Not to be recognized by others, real actual name. Moshin 12:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)*
• SoxBot has evaluated this request, and renaming appears to be possible. SoxBot VI (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note: User Moshin has been migrated to the unified login system. Renaming it will cause the local user to be detached from the global one. Will that be ok with you? Kingturtle (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, that will be OK please, Thanks. Moshin 09:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The Article Rescue Squadron needs you

Hello, I noticed that you recently signed up to be part of the Article Rescue Squadron at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Members.

If you have not yet added this template to your user page, please do: {{Template:User Article Rescue Squadron}}

There is a whole list of articles which needed rescuing now:

...can you please take the time and rescue one?

And please watch Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron for ongoing new developments.

Thank you, Article Rescue Squadron member, Inclusionist (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC

I've probably had more 2-cents-worth than anybody besides the RFC'd user. Should I weigh into that page, or am I too "involved"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

For now, simply endorse what you feel you want to endorse. Let's let some objective non-participants read through it first. Then later, maybe we can add more. Kingturtle (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I should simply sign my name and omit any commentary. Will do. In fact, I think the issues have been summarized well enough. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

John Kerry

Did he suspend his Senate re-eleaction campaign?--Dr who1975 (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Bait

He made a false characterization about what I said, in the talk page for the RFC, and I felt it was reasonable to clarify the matter. The RFC is in place, so I intend to let it be... unless he misquotes me again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Kingturtle (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Note this comment [32] in which he claims he found the Elias book in a bookstore. Well, as far as I know, it's not available in bookstores, or at least Barnes & Noble was unable to order it, which is why I had to go to the website to get it. I think he's basically mocking us. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Solar System

I noticed your recent interest, and would like your contribution to the talk page on Talk:Solar_System#New_List. -HarryAlffa (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of Street Address in Infoboxes

When you removed the street address in the Terrebonne High School article you cited your reasoning as wikipedia is not a directory. however according to the page on wikipedia not being a directory, there is no regard for listing the address of something. Also, in the specific what not to include for the schools wikiproject, listing the address is not on the DNI list. The only reason I included the street address was because it is a category in the staderdized schools infobox. If there is something wrong with the infobox, we should probably take this discussion to the infoboxes talk page. I'll be checking back here before undoing the removal of the address to see if you can better explain the change to me. Curtbash (talk) 05:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT specifically states Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. The school related infoboxes really need to drop address and phone information. There are about 50 infoboxes regarding schools (see Category:Education infobox templates), and I have left messages on some of them discouraging the use of street addresses and phone numbers (for example Template_talk:Infobox_University) ElKevbo removed telephone from Template:Infobox Secondary school with good reason. Address should be removed from the Location section of that specific template. The other 50 templates should be advised and changed too. Kingturtle (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

After reading ElKevbo's reasoning, I can see why he removed telephone from the template and it's not far of a jump for this reasoning to include addresses, it just isn't necessary. I'm sure if the template were changed no one would have a problem with it. i'm not familiar with editing the templates for infoboxes (can regular users do this?), but i think someone should remove it from the template because as more schools are added, inclusion of addresses will be viewed as something needed (if the address is deemed important, however, the writer can just include it in his infobox). But in regard to wikipedia not being the yellow pages, i always held this to mean that wikipedia is not a listing site (for example, looking up hospital would give you information on hospitals not a list of all the hospitals in the world) so I don't think it's a valid argument because including the address on an article about a specific hospital doesn't make it a yellow page listing. Curtbash (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahmad Shah Durrani

You have reverted the Ahmad Shah Durrani article to the banned User:Beh-nam's version. 64.229.18.84 is one of his IP range from Toronto, Canada. Why are you supporting that racist vandal who is constantly vandalising Pashtun articles? Are you also an anti-Pashtun? Why are you racist against Pashtuns? What have they done to you? Leave these people alone and stop supporting racist vandals because I will start reporting you all over to other administrators. You have also reverted Sher Shah Suri to the banned User:Tajik's version, and that guy from Germany is another anti-Pashtun vandal. Racist people will end up in hell in the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.79.159 (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Educational Therapy

I am trying to sort out the copyright issues from my Educational Therapy page you removed. I need to identify whether I included text from any pages other than www.caspari.org.uk/aboutet.htm. Is there any chance you could email me the page before it was deleted (email to peter@duncan-davies.co.uk) so I can get the Caspari board to give GDFL permissions for the required pages. I doubt they would want to give permission to copy the whole site, but specific pages will be fine though it has to go to the Caspari board of course (I am just the Caspari webmaster). Thanks. Technopete (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Kingturtle (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding War in South Ossetia (2008)

Hi, I noticed your active in the named article and wanted to ask you if you could perhaps take a look into [33] Im trying to insert this fact in the article but dont know how to do so exacly. Perhaps a new subtitle? Could you help me with this. What do you recommend? Baku87 (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds August newsletter

The August 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. MeegsC | Talk 01:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

response to your post from 18 June 2008

I just came across your post from June 18-- sorry, I didn't see it earlier. Apparently posts on User subpages don't trigger the New Mail message.

Anyway, thanks for the kind words. As to the camera, there are three-- the oldest shots were taken with a Nikon Coolmax 900 (I think that was the original Coolmax, if I remember correctly). Later shots were taken with a Canon 1S IS, a nice little superzoom. This summer I got a Canon 5S IS, probably not the best superzoom out there for the money these days, but not having to learn a completely new camera made it seem worthwhile. I would love to spring for a DSLR someday, but I take a high percentage of my stuff while hiking/canoeing/kayaking, so keeping size and weight down is an issue.

Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 00:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of ABC-DEF-GHI

An article that you have been involved in editing, ABC-DEF-GHI, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABC-DEF-GHI. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 19:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

IMAGE RELEVANCE

What a difference a day, a week or a month makes! As you may have noticed, I withdrew from further discussion from this site after the disputations over this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MacLean%27s.jpg that you removed from the article.

World events will now bring into clearer focus the relevancy of it. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm a little puzzled by the Spam section you started in my talk concerning this entry. It is not canvassing for anything nor indiscriminately cross-posted. It was posted only to those who involved themselves in the discussion concerning the image above, most of whom do not share my POV. It is in fact a friendly notice of how quickly events can change in our world. The dispute over the missile strike path in the image was deemed irrelevant just weeks ago as the Soviet Union was relegated to the dustbin of history according to Ronald Reagan and the West in general. After the demise of the Warsaw Pact, NATO continued its expansion to the borders of Russia. In my view, Georgia would not have attacked South Osseita without winks and nods from the USA and now the Russian bear will resist. From my POV the world is in the preliminary stages of a Hot War and the missile strike path from the disputed image is totally relevant for discussion. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Equality Ohio

King Turtle, I am trying to make objective posts to the Equality Ohio page with information from the Equality Ohio website and you keep deleting my edits and reverting them to an old out of date version with incorrect information. Can this be left alone so I can post historical information on this organization? Thank you Colemand (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Please try again with your edits. But please try to adhere to the established styles and formats. Here are some links that may help you:

• Manual_of_Style
• Your first article
• Avoiding common mistakes
• Writing better articles
• What Wikipedia is not
• Neutral point of view

Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Territorial changes of Germany after World War II

An article that you have been involved in editing, Territorial changes of Germany after World War II , has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ Territorial changes of Germany after World War II . Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Skäpperöd (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Email

Sent you one a few days ago, dunno if you've seen it. Maxim (☎) 19:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Maryline Blackburn

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Maryline Blackburn, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Cogswobbletalk 16:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of User:NimiTize/Picture

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on User:NimiTize/Picture, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because User:NimiTize/Picture is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting User:NimiTize/Picture, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 08:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Reconsideration of our conversation from 11 April 2008 on my talk page.

Hello, Kingturtle. I was just organizing my talkpage archives, and I saw an old conversation that you and I had on 11 April 2008. I wanted to apologize for the negative and sour tone of my posts there, and the general bad attitude I displayed. On reviewing some of the discussions before it, I understand why I was in a bad wikimood, but I do not feel this excuses my actions. I just felt compelled to stop by and apologize. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Help with Malibu Rehab Model article

I spent quite a bit of time trying to clean up this article, which is about an informal term which may not even be deserving of a wiki article. The article had been heavily POV and promotional, particularly of one small rehab center (Stone Eagle Retreat). When one of the earlier contributors reverted all of my edits, you reverted them back. However this person reverted your revert. I suspect that this editor, Dacacci might be a sockpuppet for Reagan0005 who created the article as well as the Stone Eagle Retreat article. 72.211.223.181 may also be the same person. I further suspect this person could have a conflict of interest with some of the articles edited.

I have not been able to do a simple revert to restore the "Malibu Rehab Model" article back to just giving the basic sourced information absent all the unsourced POV and promotion, nor do I know how to go about checking the sockpuppet issue. See also a new, overlapping article created by this editor, Holistic recovery. Thanks for any assistance with these issues. Toounstable (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting to hear a response from you. Toounstable (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear Kingturtle, thanks! I'm new, I want to learn. Please help. AdjustShift (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MAL01159

Hello. Just to let you know that this RfC has been closed. You are welcome to read the conclusion established at the page. I am notifying you since you certified the basis for the dispute. Wizardman 15:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Query on Neutrality(?) policy

As I can recall wikipedias policy is to refer to countries under their legal name as it is accepted by the UN. however if one looks at the todays 7/9/08 first page/on this day section on will propably see "independence day of Republick of Macedonia"... however there is no such state as this. THE OFFICIAL NAME IS: Former Yugoslavic Republic Of Macedonia F.Y.R.O.M. May I remind you also that the are currently negotiations taking place for the removal of continuation of the "Macedonia" bit in the name. Wikipedias neutrality policy dictates that the temporary official name should be used.... If so possible I propose the creation of a bot to undertake the job of fixing this isue. As unimportand as it might seam to you: 1)it is a breach of the wikipedias neutrality policy 2) it is malinforming and incorrect 3) it means a great deal for the current countries in the dispute 4) it is disrespectfull towards the citizens of those countries and the UN thank you very much for your attention 79.166.26.188 (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox actually is an article

Hi Kingturtle. This move created an odd situation. Rather than being a sandbox, Kennett High School (New Hampshire)/sandbox is an article named "Kennett High School (New Hampshire)/sandbox". Would it be approproate to move it to a user page? Suntag (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you assist

Kingturtle, you graciously helped cleanup the HardRadio article a while back. It seems a rogue moderator/editor has taken it upon himself to edit several related articles. If you might assist the HardRadio article once again it will be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HMradio (talk • contribs) 06:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of No original research

I have nominated No original research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 20:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

KIX

I noticed you created the page KIX, so that Kix redirects to it. Thanks! Could you also do the same thing for Kix, making it KIX? 76.227.110.225 (talk) 05:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahmad Zahir

That page is rife with complete lies. Absolutely disgusting. Nice job keeping things straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoonWoz (talk • contribs) 14:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:PhilsBunning.PNG

Hello, I am puzzled as to why this image of Jim Bunning's retired Phillies number is not displaying - a check of the history doesn't show any recent blanking or revision. I know his article is rather contentious because of politics, but if this image has been vandalized it's not apparent to me. Perhaps you can figure it out?  JGHowes ^talk 00:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've have that problem with an image from time to time and have never figured out why. Purging doesn't work but when this happens it almost always displays if I call it up on a different computer. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've tried it on 2 different computers but no joy, how about you -- are you guys seeing it OK? It's still blank for me.  JGHowes ^talk 15:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see it either. Try uploading again with a different name. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried on two different puters too, so my guess is the image is messed up since this happens with more than one person. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Msg left for the uploader (User:Killervogel5) here.  JGHowes ^talk 17:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You saw it here first

Kingturtle, This is just a friendly notice since you involved yourself in the discussion of my biography in Wikipedia.

Finding my biography in Wikipedia two years after it existed, was a great and joyous surprise for me. It is in fact my first foray into the Public Domain in 11 years, since my last attempt at elective office. Everything I have contributed to this site, all the discussions with all the Administrators, is self published material in a public forum.

The mainline media, CNN in particular, is portraying the current economic crisis in Apocalyptic terms and totally unexpected. The record bares witness that on July 3 I made this statement in Ground Zero talk:

The global system is just entering the time when this line from Rev.18 will be seen and believed: And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buys their merchandise any more.

This is the financial crisis.

Peace

DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

IP

I saw this revert and subsequently these IP edits and this one. I wonder? SGGH ^speak! 11:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Tajik

This may be of interest to you for the future Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Tajik#Tajik-13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irozee (talk • contribs) 23:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nisarkand. Just for the record, Kingturtle, Tajik has emailed me to say they're not his socks, FWIW - Alison ^❤ 00:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

October Baseball WikiProject Newsletter

The Baseball WikiProject Newsletter Issue III – October 2008

"If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving a baby's life... she'll save the baby without even considering how many men are on base!" — Stephen King (The Dark Tower) News and announcements The Baseball Project promoted 13 lists to Featured status in August and 8 more in September. Amazing job! A combined eleven articles were promoted to Good Article status in August and September. Featured content In September, WikiProject Baseball has had the following articles promoted to: Featured Article status: Nashville Sounds Featured List status: List of New York Mets Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Colorado Rockies Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Florida Marlins Opening Day starting pitchers, Nashville Sounds seasons, List of Tampa Bay Rays Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Seattle Mariners Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Boston Red Sox Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Arizona Diamondbacks Opening Day starting pitchers, New York Yankees seasons Good Articles of August and September: All the Way (Eddie Vedder song), Cy Young, Dan Brouthers, Harmon Killebrew, Rickey Henderson, Billy Pierce, Kinston Indians, Three Rivers Stadium, Bill Lange, Calgary Cannons, Hugh Daily, Homer at the Bat This month's newsletter was designed and written by Wizardman, jj137, and Blackngold29. If you would like to contribute to future newsletters, please contact the Baseball WP outreach dept.

News from the diamond The 2008 opening round playoff matchups with be: Boston Red Sox vs. Los Angeles Angels Milwaukee Brewers vs. Philadelphia Phillies Los Angeles Dodgers vs. Chicago Cubs Chicago White Sox vs. Tampa Bay Rays Help to keep the articles of the postseason updated From the Editors We apologize for not sending out our August newsletter, we have tried to cover some events of the month in this issue. The playoffs have started! The Dodgers and Phillies have won their respective Division Series and will face off in the NL Championship Series. Both series in the American League have yet to be finished. Show your support for your favorite teams by keeping up with their season pages!

--  jj137 (talk) 00:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds October newsletter

The October 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of User:Princess Rebel/Pokeynuts

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on User:Princess Rebel/Pokeynuts, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because User:Princess Rebel/Pokeynuts is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting User:Princess Rebel/Pokeynuts, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

re: edits to List of Major League Baseball RBI records

Heya King!

I noted that you recently reverted a section of this list.

That part of the list was included because there are numerous sources that do not recognize records set before 1901. There are historians that do not recognize those records. That listing was a compromise between the various sources as a way of heading off challenges that may be posed by many well-meaning editors using sources that do not include pre-1901 sources. Not to mention, many historians do list separate records.

I hope you would consider relisting your deletion. I think it is a great compromise that is both informative, true to current trends and research in the field. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Most edits

I have nominated Most edits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

NisarKand

Hi Kingturtle. Is this guy a new sockpuppet of User:NisarKand?! Can you check that? Thanks. Tājik (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not have checkuser powers. Kingturtle (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

File a report at WP:RFCU or WP:SSP. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Stone femme

I couldn't find much on the concept of stone femme that wasn't a simple dictionary definition in Google Books/Scholar, so that was why I suggested the entry here be transwikied to Wiktionary. If you can add any good information on the concept that would make it be more encyclopedic as opposed to dictionary-like, I'm not opposed to removing {{Copy to Wiktionary}}. -Malkinann (talk) 05:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Abortive flower

A tag has been placed on Abortive flower, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Kanata Kid (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Adam's profession"

A page you created, Adam's profession, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is nonsense or gibberish.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. JaGa^talk 19:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Metros rename

Kingturtle, I've responded to your question about my renaming at the request page. It's totally fine to rename it, Metros (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done Kingturtle (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, i am having problem, because I added a reported apparition that happened on my city and a guy on wiki keeps removing my post. Even after i gave some sites that make reference to this apparition, he keeps removing it. I am disapointed with this. Wiki is free and open. There is nothing against me adding this apparition. I added the same report on other wiki languages and some persons even helped me to o a translation of some words. But in the english version i am not feeling confortable, i feel like automatically disaproved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_apparition

I used the table format as other in list.

Nossa Senhora Mãe e Rainha das Famílias (Our Lady, Mother & Queen of Families)

Apparitions of Our Lady, of Our Lord Jesus Christ, St. Michael the Archangel, St. Gabriel the Archangel, and three messages from God the Father, to Fabiana Oliveira.

From 1996 to 2004. Vitória da Conquista - Bahia - Brazil.

http://www.getway.com.br/nossasenhora/

---

Page protection

Hi Kingturtle, thanks for protecting The Audacity of Hope. Could you also give the same level of protection to Dreams from My Father? It's also a book by Barack Obama that is getting hit by the same vandals, and at the same time as the other book was. Thanks, ~ priyanath ^talk 01:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Am I a Spammer?

I noticed that my edits were reverted. I want to apologize, as I don't think I get quite how this all works. I thought that I could add an external link to a relevant page.

When I looked at your contribs, I noted my name, Dotlaunch with the word (spam) next to it.

I wasn't intending to spam, just add our site as a relevant link, since there isn't much information about the subject on wikipedia.

Where should I go to read about the exact ways to contribute?

Thanks!

Dotlaunch (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Dotlaunch

I posted a Spam notice on your talk page because the only edits you've made all involved adding the same domain links to articles. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. The focus of our efforts is on the development of article content, not on the proliferation of external links. Please review Wikipedia's guidelines for external links. If you have more questions, please ask. Kingturtle (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for processing my name change so quickly Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Michael Froman

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Michael Froman, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.newschool.edu/cepa/board/MichaelFroman.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Farsiwan

When you get a chance, could you take a look at the Farsiwan article, and recent history. In English, and even in the demographic section of the Encyc. of Islam the specific meaning is the important one, even though the word originally meant simply Persian speaker. Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 05:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking into it now. Kingturtle (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Status

Hello Turtle, do you have to collaborate or take part of an article in order to ask that it be nominated for Good Article Status? --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Anyone can nominate an article for GA status. Go to Wikipedia:Good article nominations and read How to nominate an article. Cheers! and if you have more questions, please ask. Kingturtle (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thank you very much. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hou Tu

Glad to help. : ) --Cerebellum (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Kabul University

If you insist on ignoring the university's website, then perhaps you should refrain from reverting the article to an incorrect version. The change you reversed was a perfectly legitimate edit based on the most authoritative source. The university has "Da Kabul Pohantoon" written on it's emblem, as well as on it's buildings, including the office of admissions and office of the provost. "Daaneshgah-e Kabul" is not stated anywhere except on this stupid article. Don't be an idiot. And please stop assisting certain people in carving out an alternate reality here on wikipedia. You look foolish in doing so. --KoonWoz (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thuringowa High School

Hi the website that you are talking about is my website so there is no copyright issues with this page, thanks for being on the ball. Thuringowacityrep (talk) 03:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Terrific! That makes it a lot easier. Please follow the instructions that I posted in your Talk page to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds November newsletter

The December 2024 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by TinucherianBot (talk) 07:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Thanks! And I'm greeting you too. I hope, there aren't too much translation errors in my contributions. If so, please excuse it. --Taxiarchos228 (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. Ann arbor street (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Hello Kingturtle, further to your edit diff I am not sure where and how you suggest he meets such criteria. Please comment here or on the relevant talk page. It is not that he is not mentioned, it is just that the facts that he is mentioned about are not sufficient for notability for an iskcon leader, which normally are quite demanding. Wikidās ॐ 14:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

In my judgment Sankarshan Das Adhikari has enough of a presence to be notable, but I completely understand your arguments, and I will not protest your re-adding the notice. Kingturtle (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I just want to make sure some sources to that effect can be added if this is the case. I am still not sure what you mean by the 'presence'. Wikidās ॐ 14:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

By presence I mean that he is in the media enough for my standards. By presence I do not mean anything about his personal appearance or his supernatural spirit. Kingturtle (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

License deprecation

Thanks for the heads up. Weird term, "license deprecation". Only on Wikipedia. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 14:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

2008 World Series

I am reverting editors who are refusing to participate in the discussion already in progress. How can this be considered a violation of WP:3RR? In addition, I've only reverted twice, so there's no violation here. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There are exceptions, see: Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions. Just please proceed with caution. There are other editors around who can help. Kingturtle (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware, but one of the editors actively involved with this article is currently not around. I'm doing my best to keep this article in good shape before we go forward with a peer review and GA nom. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The article's success does not live or die solely on the quote in question. You can let that issue rest until other editors can assist you. Also, it can be helpful to summon editors who are not involved. Just food for thought. I'm sorry that the 3RR warning is written so harshly. Kingturtle (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

I have filed an RFCU on User:Sap ip regarding the Sonal Shah issue [34].Zuppeandsalad (talk) 06:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Excessive links

Woops, I just saw your addition of an excessive links template to Pine Middle School shooting. I recently added all those references because the article was recently at AfD for lack of notability and I wanted to prevent that from happening again. I'll try to expand the article a bit and use each of those references and then I'll take the template off. If you have a problem just ask, thanks. --Banime (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay I improved the article and removed it, thanks. --Banime (talk) 17:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, nice work! Kingturtle (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Protect article

Hello and good evening friend,

please protect the Khalji article from vandalism. ty--84.59.195.193 (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup: Winchester Model 52

Thanks- this article is certainly a work in progress (esp. since I haven't even written the Design section yet)- could you suggest what other tweaks I should give it? (Besides images: finding PD photos of any but the earliest (pre-'23) versions is not easy.)--Solicitr (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Turtle: Please reconsider the deletion of the entry. The entry is a legitimate bio of a published author and descriptor of a new book which is legitimately displayed on amazon and barnes nobels. If anything in the entry is 'blatant', please let me know what should be deleted to allow it. Like any author and thought leader, I think I have the right to appear. It is not an attempt to advertise but to inform. Will consider revision as you recommend.

Saved by Zero

Hi. I noticed that you protected this page, due to some irregular edits. I looked into the history a bit, and it seems that there is some sourced material that was improperly removed, and I'd like to re-add it, in a properly formatted and cited manner.

Since you're the protecting admin, I'm letting you know about my wish to edit the article, taking responsibility for my edit, and requesting your okay on unprotecting the article, with the understanding that I'll help keep an eye on it for any shenanigans.

Thanks, GTBacchus^(talk) 06:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It is protected only from anonymous users. I encourage you to work on the article. Kingturtle (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Hair-punishment.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Hair-punishment.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Hair-punishment.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Guy0307 (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Unified login

Hi Kinggturtle,
I am a busy user of German WP. Now I heared that I could unify my logon. The only problem ist that, someone uses the username "horge" I use in germany in the English WP. This user has no edits. Before I heared about the unified login, i created a account as "horge_de". Could you help me end remove the en horge? Thanks and best wishes from Germany --Horge de (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As the account has no edits, it can be usurped; to do so, place a request at Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. The process is fairly easy, but if you have any trouble, let me know. Kingturtle (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Help on Mae West Article

Please see my recent note in Discussion on the Mae West page re references. An editor named Wildhartlivie watches this article like a hawk along with some friends like User:Pinkadelica. They insist on having the unsightly reference template at the top of the article forever no matter how many references that are put in. It seems to me that there is some sort of personal policing of this article going on and that certain editors are hell-bent on controlling the content 100%. Reading correspondence between Wildhartlivie and Pinkadelica on their talk pages supports that suspicion (not very nice reading either, by the way). Its this allowed? I thought I made a reasonable point in Discussion just now, but it only took 4 minutes for Wilhardlivie to intercede again. We need an objective administrator's help here to get that template out of there one way or another. Would you please help or forward this to someone who can? EmilEikS (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, this continues to be made a personal issue, which all began over the last weekend because I removed a US flag icon from the West page. Please see Talk:Mae West#Flag Restricted - No Way for Mae?, User talk:Fiandonca, User talk:EmilEikS, and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#Do not use flags to indicate locations of birth and death???????????. In trying in good faith to bring the article to a well referenced state and reduce POV, the opposition has been ferocious to even minimal issues. I object quite strenuously, once again, to the personal attacks by this editor. So I monitor my watchlist and address issues I see. I object to the statements above about "watching it like a hawk" and trying to control the content 100%. An article full of unsupported facts is going to get tagged, there is nothing personal involved. I was even attacked for bothering to be about the only WP editor who bothered to answer inquiries on the talk page. Enough personal attacks. That I work well and discuss articles and issues with a handful of other good editors who are also interested in this genre of biographies is the ideal, and it certainly doesn't indicate some sort of personal agenda. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no personal attack in my stating what anyone can safely surmise by reading the talk pages of these cooperating editors about Mae West (Pinkadelica's has just now been archived) which have been read by me and several of my office colleagues with amazement. How do you feel as one of Wikipedia's most experienced administrators, about the current look of the Mae West article as adjusted since you wrote on the Discussion page there? The editor in question has just added no less that 78 "citation needed" notes throughout the text, if my quick count is correct. What does this tell a newcomer about English Wikipedia (compare e. g. sv:Mae West) looking for information about one of America's best known entertainers? When Wildhartlivie changed my "Through her world famous sense of humor, Mae West has become one of the most legendary of all American entertainment personalities" just now to remove the sense of humor, she removed the whole point of that author's book (the one the reference goes to). And why is "References" OK as a heading for every other article I've seen, but W won't have it here, insisting on "Notes" alone. If I am wrong about some negative personal editing and exaggerated policing of this article, I sincerely apologize. We cannot help continung to react naturally to what the evidence strongly suggests. EmilEikS (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As was requested, facts and quotes needing citations (including statements about box office failures/hits, references to convictions, pen names, claims about things done, felt or stated, blanket statements about controversy, etc. etc.) were added and some POV comments edited. It is unproductive to compare this article with one on another WP version. That copious references are needed is an issue with the article's sourcing. Finally, I've twice corrected the section title "References & Notes" as not in accordance with MOS. Working cooperatively with other editors to bring articles to a quality standard is the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia. It is not wrong, nor is it objectionable. Stop making it personal Emil. Removing templates and fact tags/citations need tags doesn't improve the quality and verifiability of the article. Adding adequate sourcing does. As it states below the edit window, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly...do not submit it. I apologize for it spilling over to your talk page, Kingturtle. I simply don't care to let such allegations go unanswered. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There is some confusion about who "submitted writing" to be "edited mercilessly" here. My contributions to this article have been miniscule and very recent. What I have reacted to is how much contentiousness and argument and radical revision there has been since it was first entered almost six years ago, and particularly several of my associates and I think it is sad that an article about one of America's most appreciated entertainment people still today is found in this embarrassing shape when looked up on English Wikipedia. I'm sure thousands, including potential donors, have been surprised and disappointed over the years by that fact. It is my experience that too much fighting over something keeps it from ever getting fixed. I won't be fighting anymore about this one, just hoping to see something finished and nice looking soon. EmilEikS (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Report re: Vandalism and/or Personal Editing

Please see false templates entered at Jacob Truedson Demitz and Wild Side Story and please help! EmilEikS (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear sir: please have another look at what is going on at Jacob Truedson Demitz. This is excrutiatingly embarassing and makes all the work I have done recently, which I just thought was complete and something to be proud of, feel like foolishness. EmilEikS (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. If you too are monitoring certain articles and talk pages involving me, perhaps you have seen the Jacob Truedson Demitz discussion recently. I have tried several times to calm things down and have apologized for everything thinkable that I may have done to cause trouble. I am willing to apologize for anything more that I may need to apologize about. When claiming that there is a lot of badmouthing going on, I get replies amounting to the fact that I am oversensitive. Now, a new editor in this drama has entered a C-quality template on the Demitz article. I would like it removed, please (see below)! I am also asking you to use your influence as an administrator to put a stop to things such as this (just copied from talk of User:Momoricks who entered the C-tag):

"I have been watching Werdna. He's gone bye-bye. It is telling that the only reason he says he won't do it again and admitted that he was wrong is to get the block lifted. I'm sure somehow, it will always be my fault. It was all about Dahmer, you know. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet, none of it was as bad as it was on Talk:Mae West, User talk:EmilEikS, User talk:Fiandonca, Talk:Jacob Truedson Demitz or Wild Side Story. Where is good faith? Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Try a C class and low priority. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought about Wikiquette or AN/I but apparently I hate him already. It doesn't have to happen immediately. There's also that incipient COI that can be verified. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, steaming pile of poo is one description. Another might be a seminal horror/slasher film that opened the door to a plethora of even worse slasher films. It was fairly scary, but unfortunately, deteriorated into contrived storylines in sequels. I'd liken it in impact to Psycho, Night of the Living Dead and perhaps the original Halloween. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)"

Will you please help or find someone objective who will? PLEASE!EmilEikS (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but since when is it appropriate to copy talk page content to another person's talk page? This has gone on long enough. It is time that User:EmilEikS learn that 1) he does not own the article(s) in question, 2) cross-posting and gaming adminstrators for support is inappropriate, and 3) it would benefit him greatly if he had actually read both sides of the conversation which he obviously did not to see what the actual conversation was about. The majority of that conversation was about a now blocked user and a huge uproar over his racist/homophobic/biased edits. Not the editor who posted this. The steaming pile of poo comment was in fact about the film Texas Chainsaw Massacre. And the recommendation for the article assessment is spot-on by the criteria of the guidelines. Cross checking talk pages and posting content from it as this was done is wikistalking. It is time for this to stop. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Quote Wikipedia re: Wikihounding: "The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases". EmilEikS (talk) 09:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Wild Bill Donovan

Thanks for taking care of this for me. It's about the only thing I can't do on Wikipedia that I wish I could :) . -Dewelar (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered becoming an admin? Kingturtle (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have considered applying, but I always felt like my tenure here isn't long enough (I've only really been active since July) and my range of contributions too narrow (95% of my edits are baseball-related) to pass muster. -Dewelar (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Dear Kingturtle, thanks for your kind note. I don't have any questions or concerns. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Henry III of England

Can you go back to this article, which you visited recently? Look at the contributor's opinion of Henry as a failure, politically and militarily (yet the country prospered). I understood that opinions were verboten in Wikipedia. If not, then at the very least this opinion should be backed up by 'serious' commentators (pereferably Oxford or Cambridge) and firmly cited and referenced as such. I think 'Citation needed' is the minimum order of the day. --JHB (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Kingturtle, I have posted an incident report regarding User:EmilEikS, which is located here. I invite any comments you may have. Best regards, mo ^talk 04:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

List of rulers of Kabul

Good question - and a pertinent one. All such lists should state why the list ends where it does. I omitted this information and if I get time, assuming no-one beats me to it in the meantime, I will amend the data. --JohnArmagh (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Username Change Request

I attempted to get my username changed on Wikipedia:Changing username from Juthani1 to World but it is no longer on the page. I was wondering if you could do such a task. This is needed because my username is too personal and to difficult to remember. I want All of my subpages to be moved in this process and the username to change on my SUL Account. Please reply before changing my name. Thanks    Juthani1   ^tcs 21:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, it would be nice if you could reply on my taklpage as well as on yours    Juthani1   ^tcs 21:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The SUL owner of User:World on ja.wikipedia.org. You will have to find a different username. Let me know what you pick and I'll change it. Kingturtle (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes more sense. The user was a sockpuppet though. Is there any way you can give me that name by going over that    Juthani1   ^tcs 22:03, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You can try to usurp it. Place a request at Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. Good luck! :) and let me know if you need further assistance. Kingturtle (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't exactly get how it works. Does a panel of bureucrats look at it or does one? I don't understand what I need to type in    Juthani1   ^tcs 22:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Follow the instructions on that page, where it is marked Instructions. If the owner of the target account does not object within seven days, a bureaucrat will fulfill your request provided other requirements are met. Kingturtle (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you leave a message on the User's talkpage, I can't find it. Thanks    Juthani1   ^tcs 21:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The request needs to come from your account. Place it on User talk:World. Kingturtle (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your help.    Juthani1   ^tcs 20:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

One more question. Will all of my subpages including those of talkpages be carried over?    Juthani1   ^tcs 20:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes :) Kingturtle (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

With Thanks

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For you help with username changes, mine and many others, thank you. Joe Nutter 02:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Kingturtle (talk) 07:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wakhan corridor

hi could you please remove the disputed sentence from pakistans wakhan corridor or at least add it to indian territorys e.g baramulla rather than just bullying pakistans territory into a administered and disputed sentences its not fair and bias must be stopped!!!!!!!! cheers 86.156.211.85 (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

^This user is a sock of a banned user User:Nangparbat. This sock is guilty of ban evasion to the nth degree. They need to be banned the second they are seen in most cases. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Readding photo credits

I have gone through all the Wild Side Story article edits and found that no one has ever readded any photo credits or reverted any of your edits. Personally I appreciate any and all help I have gotten from you and from any other constructive editors. Sincerely, EmilEikS (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Let´s start again from the beginning friendly

Hello kingturtle,

sorry for some bad and aggressive words of mine toward you. Now, I want to tell you that I excuse myself. I know, that we had a bad connection to eachhother in the past and I do not want that. Hope you agree with me. Hope, you will accept me as a new friend :). Bye--84.59.198.100 (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The above statement using IP is User:Šāhzādé[35] He is the inferior-tajik guy trying to use a different style of writings to fool admins. --User:Kirabono

Kentucky Hotel

Thanks very much for your kind comments about my Kentucky Hotel NRHP article. I spent T'Giving in Lynchburg and my hosts kindly trucked me around to most all of the NRHP sites in the city so I could get pics. It provided a nice diversion for our holiday. Best wishes ... Ted--Pubdog (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

John Shebbeare.

Thanks for your note about this article. I am slowly working my way through the list of missing DNB articles.By dumping the (public domain) DNB text into Wikipedia and then linkifying it. This was my sixteenth such article, and I was wondering if anyone except the other few guys on the DNB missing articles project had even noticed.

This approach has serious drawbacks, most notably the text reads as if it was written over hundred years ago--because it was. My reasoning is that it is a great deal better than not having an article at all, and someone who cares can come along later and re-write.

We still have 101 articles on the high-priority DNB missing articles list, and perhaps 75% of them can be addressed using the old PD sources. If I remain the only one using this approach, and if I don't get discouraged, I'll finish in about four months. After that, I can then start on the next set of DNB articles. There are 30,000 or so in all. -Arch dude (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

User:PakistaniNisar is Use:Beh-nam

You have showed me that you are a devil worshipper, you turn blind eye to the known vandals and your fellow devil worshippers (Beh-nam and Tajik)[36], [37] and decide to mess with my faithful work. You do this because obviously you are worshipping a devil (the wrong doer). --User:Kirabono

User:Šāhzādé

User:Šāhzādé is a sockpuppet of User:Draco of Utopia, who is also User:Germany2008 and all these are really sockpuppets of User:Tajik. Tajik has changed his way or style of writing to fool admins.

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tajik --User:Kirabono

Hello dear friend,

I saw that you was writing or editing on my profile without any reason. Please stop it. And the claim of the User above is just pathetic. A User-Check will show that. I am neither User:Tajik nor User:Draco of Utopia. Good night.--Šāhzādé (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry!

Sorry about jumping the gun and warning User talk:9er 9er‎. I did'nt realise that you had beaten me to the revert. Happy editing :-) JS (chat) 20:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Better to have more fighting vandals than less. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Help

Help, see here. [38] Never was a disambiguation page, before see[39] I wanted to add more information to the word Never, about funny sayings which express the notion never in different languages, like for example: When hell freezes over.

The page would looked complicated otherwise.[40]. I thougt I create a separate article for the word and keep the rest as a disambiguation page

About the article never, people agreed on that it was ok to expand it, see my talk page. I did not wanted to make a dictionary of it, I just wanted to add funny sayings. .

Warrington (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you want me to help. Please explain. Kingturtle (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to waste your time. I had some uncertain idea about that since you were in the Article rescue category

you might have some useful household tips... But I hope that the matter is solved now.

Thanks for asking

Warrington (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You're not wasting my time. I am just wanting to know in what way you need help. Kingturtle (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

An article about sayings, Never (word) was about to be deleted and I wanted to find a way to rescue the content. Now I hope that it will be included in the Wiktionary instead.

That is all.

Warrington (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fordstheater.jpe listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Fordstheater.jpe, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Rename of The Mary Pearl Willis Foundation (talk · contribs) to Dembravesfans (talk · contribs)

Hi. Something about this rename seems not to have worked, see [41]. As the renaming bureaucrat, could you take a look? Thanks,  Sandstein  06:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank youThe Mary Pearl Willis Foundation (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The change went through, see: [[42]]. Try logging into User:Dembravesfans. Did you create a new User:The Mary Pearl Willis Foundation account? Kingturtle (talk) 11:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thank you! I will login as Dembravesfans. No, I did not recreate the user name The Mary Pearl Willis Foundation.

Image:Ghwbush.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ghwbush.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• 'Tis here. Just use their search box :) Kingturtle (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Phot047q.gif

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Phot047q.gif, which you've sourced to http://memory.loc.gov/music/fine/phot/phot047q.gif/. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The image is from the Irving Fine Collection; Music Division, Library of Congress. Rights information is here: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/fine/ifres.html . Kingturtle (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I Love You

Thank you so much for blocking Dshibshm. That guy hasn't made a beneficial edit in his entire life. :)

Alexander Mountain Estate

Hi. :) Other issues with this article notwithstanding, I just wanted to point out that as the talk page indicates, this material seems to have been rather thoroughly released. The external site, [43], says "Please note: re-use of material on this site is permitted under the GFDL and is released into the public domain." Not exactly standard language, and certainly highly odd to both license it under GFDL and release it into public domain, but the intent seems clear. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Šāhzādé is User:Tajik

Please do not be fooled by the disruptive user:Tajik, like how admin User:Alison was fooled by him in the last CU. These 8 edits by IP 84.59.205.77 will prove that user:Tajik is behind all these sockpuppets. In this edit, he writes like User:Šāhzādé then, hourse later, in this edit he writes like User:Šāhzādé and User:Tajik combined. He writes "Le[t´s] see here"...in the beginning and then changes the style to "But despite Zalmay Khalilza[d’s]"... "Afghanista[n’s]"... To top it off, user:Tajik did this edit and wrote in the edit summary "info + sources added according to talk page", which is letting us know that he was the one who wrote in the end of the talk page of Zalmay Khalilzad.--Roge from What's Happening (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

My username change was successful. I have another question. Is there any way, that my old username "Juthani1" can be changed on all of wikipeda including talkpages, project pages, and pages where the userboxes I created become "World" Please answer this on my talkpage. Thanks    World   ^tcs 18:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Has this been fixed yet? Kingturtle (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

on the history pages yes, but I was wondering about the links. For example, I have made many ubxs which appear as a redirect sign on other userpages.    World   ^tcs 00:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Khost (Matun) district

Actually I can't tell you why. This is the name given by AIMS. As you should have seen I am not an Afghani, but a Bulgarian.Drjmarkov (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by anon

Could you please take a look at the edits done by anon 67.167.12.8 in Uzbek-Tajik related subjects (Tajik language, Tajiks, Uzbek language, Uzbekistan)? Can you do something to stop this user for continuing his disruptive editing? Thank you. --Zlerman (talk) 05:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as the editor in question had been warned and yet continued to make the disruptive edits, I have blocked that IP for a few days. Kingturtle (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome

You are welcome in the Therese Zenz article. Why are your interested in her if you don't mind my asking? Chris (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know much about her. I help maintain Wikipedia:Recent changes article requests and that article was listed there. Thanks again! Kingturtle (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible Article for Deletion

When I discovered my biography April 19 after it had been online for over two years, I started developing it as an autobiography http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ray_Joseph_Cormier&oldid=220975243

Realizing on my own it was not appropriate, it was I who reached out to more experienced Administrators for help to make it conform to Wikipedia BLP standards. You, along with a few others, reduced it to a shell of what it was, and while I was disappointed, I understood and accepted why it had to be done.

At that time I promised you personally I would not edit the article itself, and I have kept that commitment. I have added some references, and there are many more I could add. Those references can be seen here: http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2003596&l=16beb&id=1294974109

You stated then you would not nominate it for deletion, but you added a tag yesterday which I interpret as a preliminary notice to deletion. Would you please explain your change of heart after all these months? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

After extensive research on the article, I have come to the personal belief that the article does not merit notability. However, rather than nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD, I put a tag on it to see how other editors felt. Kingturtle (talk) 14:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• That´s interesting. Would you care to elaborate on your extensive research? DoDaCanaDa (talk)

See WP:GNG. I don't believe the article has significant coverage. Also the events in the biography (running for office, getting arrested, traveling across country) are not significant enough to warrant an article. These events are minor news stories. That is my opinion. Kingturtle (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• I suppose the Court ordered probation ¨not to attend on the Sparks Street Mall or any other Street in the City of Ottawa for the purpose of speaking or shouting"is routine where you come from?

I suppose the following references in the article are normal and standard for anyone to accumulate as well?

References

  1. ^ "Preacher Arrested on Mall" Ottawa Citizen 3 September 1977
  2. ^ Dave Rogers, "Second police warning for God's emissary", Ottawa Citizen, 10 September 1977, A2.
  3. ^ "Emissary from God undaunted", Ottawa Citizen, 22 October 1977, pg 2.
  4. ^ "The self-styled prophet hauled off Mall again", Ottawa Citizen, 3 November 1977, pg5.
  5. ^ "Mall 'prophet' jailed again", Ottawa Citizen, 5 November 1977, pg 5.
  6. ^ "Prophet hauled out of Commons gallery", Ottawa Citizen, 18 October 1977, pg 3.
  7. ^ "Gagged protester gets heave-ho", Ottawa Today, 18 October 1977.
  8. ^ "Masked protester returns", The Ottawa Citizen, July 15, 1978
  9. ^ Jane Taber "'Prophet' fined for shouting at Nov. 11 service", Ottawa Citizen, 3 January 1986
 10. ^ "Anti-war speech costs man $250", Globe and Mail, 3 January 1986
 11. ^ "Cormier condamné", Le Droit, 3 January 1986
 12. ^ Steve St. Laurent. "Visiting 'prophet' no average preacher", Calgary Herald, 18 July 1981, A11.
 13. ^ Cathy Lord "Visions compelled search for God", Edmonton Journal, 25 July 1981,G13.
 14. ^ Leslie Cole "Self-proclaimed prophet: Showmanship not his style", Whitehorse Star, 26 August 1981, pg 3
 15. ^ Nicholas Read "'Divine gifts' inspire ex-executive to tramp the land with a message", Vancouver Sun, 3 October 1981
 16. ^ Maclean's Magazine, pg 40 31 August 1981, People Section.
 17. ^ Richard Caron "Raymond Cormier sillonne le pays pour precher Dieu", Le Soliel, 28 July 1986
 18. ^ Elizabeth Hanton "Prophet sees Canada as the new Israel", The Halifax Daily News, 11 August 1986
 19. ^ Sylvia Reddom "Shares Faith With Canadians - Religion More Than Going To Church Says Travelling Born Again Christian", The Charlottetown Guardian, 20 August 1986
 20. ^ Emily Dyckson "Wandering prophet shares his faith", The Weekend (St. John's), 30 August 1986
 21. ^ History of Federal Ridings since 1867
 22. ^ Kernaghan R. Webb Focus Magazine September1984 'RJC: Cormier makes people nervous. Especially authorities.'
 23. ^ Elections Canada On-Line | General Information
 24. ^ Kathleen Patterson "Prophet Chooses Park for Vigil" The Kansas City Times pg. 3A 13 September 1976
 25. ^ Robert W. Butler "Prophet Plans Appeal of Conviction" The Kansas City Times 2 November 1976

I realize there are a lot of references - but are the stories notable enough to warrant an article? I'm not so sure. Kingturtle (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Are you violating your own policy by removing my continuation of this discussion?

Also note: It is my policy not to delete or remove dialog from this page. Everything (except some spam) will be saved and archived. Please don't later remove from here what you've written (although, if you do, I will respect your wishes and not restore removed comments.) DoDaCanaDa (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No, because all I removed was something you spammed onto my talk page. I've already read all that elsewhere. Kingturtle (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• I read the Wiki page on spam and in my POV it wasn´t. You started this new discussion by placing the tag in the article without making any entry in the article talk page so the discussion must be in your talk.DoDaCanaDa (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This information I removed was text you had cut and paste from here. In the future, if you'd like me to read something that is already on another talk page, please point me to the talk page in question. Kingturtle (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Dear Kingturtle, I am trying to reach understanding and consensus with you, but sometimes it appears the rules are always changing. At the top of this page you set the rules. Please note: Most of my replies will be written on this talk page, rather than on your talk page.

So it´s reasonable then, since you started this new discussion by placing the question of notability in my Biography without an accompanying new section in the Talk page, ALL discussion should be on your talk so that everyone viewing your talk can see for themselves. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss my position here and I have. But please do not cut and paste lengthy threads that already exist elsewhere.

To reiterate, I did not nominate the article for deletion; I put a notability tag on the article. This gives others a chance to bring the article up to snuff. On the talk page of the article in question I will post a more specific list of notability issues. Kingturtle (talk) 12:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for placing your objections in the Article talk where they belong. I can only hope a consensus will emerge that does not share your opinion. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Having thoughtfully read the questions you posed concerning the suitability of my biography in Wikipedia, I have to admit they are perfect questions. Well done! I will answer each point in due course. In the meantime I hope other Editors have an opinion and state it after reading the whole discussion. ALL that I wrote IS part of my biography. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Concerning the notability issue you raised and the ongoing discussion about it here Talk:Ray_Joseph_Cormier

What do you require before you remove the tag? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Realist2

I am suprised by your response to my question in your support (which has now been responded to). It seems clear to me you did not read it fully, or if you did you failed to read it correctly. I see nothing wrong with asking how a candidate feels about an IRC issue, particularly when it relates to them, and by couching this in terms of a more general question on the use of IRC (which I have grave concerns about generally) if feel it is perfectly acceptable. It also allowed the candidate an opportunity to perhaps defend against off wiki collusion, if they wished, which the nominators had not done. Pedro :  Chat  15:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I read the questions clearly the first time. Kingturtle (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies I meant to type It seems clear to me you did not read it fully, and was ec'd by your reply Pedro :  Chat  15:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

And now he's withdrawn his RFA - that you supported - because of the very IRC issues I hoped to head off with my questions. I doubt you feel proud of yourself, but in this instance I'm going to pile on. Your lack of good judgement and awareness of issues here was astounding. Consider your position please. Pedro :  Chat  21:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Er...he resigned because I thought your question wasn't useful? If your strategy was to head something off, the strategy didn't work.

It is awful that he dropped out of the running and I hope he tries again. Kingturtle (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

He didn't resign. He withdrew. Complex stuff, obviously. You fail to understand (as usual). My question was meant to help head of the IRC issue. You, with your 'crat head on, challenged it, and then, as I expected, shrugged of my polite request above to recognise it for what it was. You clearly have no clue about the wider issue. Will you reconsider your position in light of you lack of awareness and demonstrable lack of judgement? Pedro :  Chat  21:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have a vendetta against me. Cheers. Kingturtle (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think that. I don't. If your best defence for your mistakes is that I have a vendetta against you (for no reason I can think of) then you really do need to think long and hard about your comment at Realist's RFA and your actions (and lack of interaction) since. Pedro :  Chat  21:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, nothing productive will come. Apologies. Agree to disagree? Pedro :  Chat  22:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree to disagree. Kingturtle (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Mae West Grave

It would be interesting if you would kindly put an administrator's comment on the discussion page of the Mae West article so some of us that are interested in the quality and looks of same can see there how you feel about the changes made recently to a valuable photo of her grave that has been left alone until recently. Can you justify the latest "crop" where the rest of the West family grave has been excluded (father, mother, sister, brother in vaults under Mae plus gate that is a part of it)? By an editor who according to edit history has tried to remove the whole photo once and then chipped away more and more at the caption content? Personal agenda? Just interested in your expert opinion that's all. / Anonymous

I posted my reaction to the cropping here. Kingturtle (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It didn't help. Some more specfic action on your part would, and would make Wikipedia look good, unless you agree with the editor's latest argument. If not outright vandalism, this looks like just a touch of spite to me in any case. Suppose you do not see (?) a personal agenda shining through the repeated objections to the "person" in the grave pic. The whole article looks odd enough as it is, if you'll pardon me and my friends thinking so. And going on 6 years now to get a decent Mae West article published?!?. More and more stuff like that on its talk page doesn't help. I know people who are seriously shocked at the poor quality of English Wikipedia in this particular case. Needless to say. Someone should investigate the whole history of the article and look for causality. A rather glaring clue would be the latest subject on the talk page, between editors who look like they are approving each other's candid input but who actually cooperate closely in a little cabal with very strong personal views, as shown (re: them) in many other places. /Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.96.57 (talk) 15:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct. I do not see a personal agenda on anyone's part against the person in the grave pic. I prefer the uncropped image because it provides better depth of field and reference points. Others prefer the cropped image because the name can be better read. If you and your friends want to make arguments for a particular image, please do it cordially and without the use of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. I am sorry that you don't like the consensus that has been reached on the article. Sometimes you'll find yourself in the minority. It doesn't mean that there's a cabal or a conspiracy against you. Kingturtle (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting to me that this IP, from Sweden, who calls himself "Anonymous" although the IP is clearly available, has popped up since the departure of User:EmilEikS, also from Sweden, to edit the same articles as Emil, make the same bad faith accusations as Emil, including editing as vandalism, accusations of cabalism and disruptive collusion, charges that an article isn't "finished" and that it is because I have held up an article for 6 years (although my involvement on the article has been the last most recent months), the same thing Emil said, to defend the same article subject (the person in the West grave photo) that Emil did, the same vague references to his friends agreeing with him that Emil made. For the record, I removed the image, but the subsequent change to the caption wasn't made by me, but an entirely different editor who came up with the compromise, which had left it at "A fan leaves flowers at West's grave in Cypress Hills Cemetery", this same IP "Anonymous" actually was the one who changed the caption to "At West's grave in Cypress Hills Cemetery July, 10 2007" with the edit summary rationale of "seems irrelevant whether or not man leaving flowers was fan or friend or relative, date can be relevant to grave history/Anonymous". I had nothing to do with chipping "away more and more at the caption content". Now he's claiming a bias against the man leaving flowers? Give me a break. One cannot tell, either from the original image or the information from the original image page that there might be family members or a special gate. In fact, that's never been mentioned anywhere that I can see, although the original uploader (who was Emil) might have that information. This has gone on long enough. A new approach to attacking me doesn't minimize the obvious. The article is about West, the image didn't clearly show it was West's grave, it was cropped to enhance the recognition of that. A article is never "done", so the accusations that there is something wrong with the history and status of the article is subterfuge, the article was created 6 years ago, few articles are ever "done". It all started because he didn't like that the flag icon was removed from the infobox on this article and has not abated. He's still trying to game adminstrators and the petty attacks need to stop. He left rather than participate in a request for comments. It is time to move on. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kingturtle: Now how is that for personal?. I am NOT Emil Eikner. As stated before several of us use this computer which is located in an office and is owned by an organization. Emil Eikner no longer has anything to do with English Wikipedia, nor does Fiandonca, who also got scared half to death by this editor. These badly bitten newcomers, who asked for help and got none, won't be back. Personally, I do not scare easily but I would still never identify myself here. This editor's reprehensible theories do not interest me. All this personal stuff, that goes on and on and on and on, should interest the Wikimedia Foundation, the repuation of which suffers considerably from stuff like this and from the atrocious condition of such articles on English Wikipedia as Mae West. All the false information spread around all over, and all the vicious invective, should also interest the Wikimedia Foundation for the same reason, reputation. Such as the the martyrdom of having been "accused" of being responsible for the whole history of the Mae West article (no one has ever said that but this editor herself). We have collected quite a file on this editor and her cohorts - it is pretty nasty reading - and will continue to do so until she "moves on" as she suggests herself. That is she and her little cabal of negative, personal editors stop showing so much interest in persecuting Emil Eikner and the other users of this computer. This editor is so powerful that she has managed to get Emil and Fiandonca unfairly assessed as "sock puyppets" by an administrator who showed heavy bias in doing so. The questions are, why is she that powerful and should she be? Please revert the Mae West grave photo edit back to the full picture as per your own opinion on it! / Anonymous at IP 217.209.96.57 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.96.57 (talk) 11:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I will not revert the Mae West image. My opinion on the matter holds no more weight than anyone else's. It seems that there are more opinions opposed to the older image, and so I'll live with that result. It is wishful thinking on your part that there is some sort of cabal conspiring against you. Moreover, saying things like We have collected quite a file on this editor and her cohorts makes it sound like *you* are part of a cabal. Please read Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. Kingturtle (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This speaks for itself. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kingturtle: So does this [44] and it might be able to help a responsible administrator or two, who cares about your whole organization's reputation, to identify cabal members of whom I wrote above. These folks and a few more regulars are all over the articles and discussions there has been so much contention about, and it goes on and on and on and on and on. Emil Eikner stopped contributing on Dec 1 already. My input has been minimal, as you can easily find out, and all contributions constructive. But we fear all of Sweden will be under investigation, soon, as you can see here [45]. /Anonymous at IP 217.209.96.57 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.96.57 (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no cabal. What you are feeling is the sensation of being on the minority-side of an opinion. Learn a lesson in that you are no always right. And it is okay. Learn to deal with such rejection maturely and responsibly. Learn to deal with such rejection by not going on the offensive, by not feeling defensive and by not personally attacking others. Kingturtle (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Now that I read this, it is very much like how I feel about Kingturtle and the small group of Editors with no other contributors, who have zeroed in on my article. I just didn´t want to be so direct about saying it. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of cabalism is a serious accusation and is a bad faith thing. This last entire discussion posting is a personal attack upon myself and a few other editors who have actually found that it is quite easy to work together, discuss issues, and perhaps, if needed, discuss the need to open sockpuppet/meatpuppet inquiries. That is working together, not cabalism. It is even more serious to admit you are using the same machine as Emil and Fiandonca, confirmed sockpuppets, then engage in a character attack upon other editors in the same way, using the same allusions, and casting aspersions upon the Wikipedia project, such as Emil/Fiandonca did. It has been raised to the administrators who originally confirmed the SP and placed the block. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kingturtle (I continue writing to you, not to others on your page): If the editor above can show us one single instance where she has had a disagreement with Pinkadelica, Rossrs or Momoricks about anything at all then I can easily show you how often Emil Eikner, the woman called "Fiandonca" and others in our organization (all 25 of whom are free to use this computer whenever it's available) disagree and use constructive criticism of each other to do good work. I will need your email address to do so, however, and will identify myself to you in confidence if so. Mr. Eikner criticized "Fiandonca" several times in these discussions before he left English Wiki. Administrator Jehochman has recently expounded very well on issues surrounding cabalism under a heading called My two cents on his talk page. Excellent reading. If you, Kingturtle, on the other hand would like us to get off your talk page with all this destructive bickering, just say so! I will be glad to, can't speak for anyone else. /Anonymous at IP 217.209.96.57 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.96.57 (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no need whatsoever for "the editor above" to do anything of the sort. There is a need for you to stop pestering other users simply because you don't get your way. Kingturtle (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't plan on links being posted. Editors who work together may not always agree, but they also don't use phrases like "reprehensible theories" and accuse one another of being matyrs, or launch headfirst into contention. You wouldn't accept our differences in opinion as such. The editor who blocked Fiandonca has stated his view on the sock issue. Your persistence is decidely Emil-like. The sock/meatpuppet connection issue is covered by WP:SHARE. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Kingturtle, I noticed that you have a Wikicovenant outlined at WP:EQ#Other words of advice and hope to see a response from you here. Thanks, momoricks (make my day) 03:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kingturtle: Have you seen this [46] which has been there since 12/1? I have looked for evidence to support this cruelty toward Emil Eikner and have not been able to find anything substantial that could warrant it. Had there been anything, I would have been in a position to discipline him and would have done so. This, along with the embarrassing template on the former user page of "Fiandonca" naturally has hurt feelings rather badly at our organization. Our only objective has been to supply English Wikipedia with good material, albeit tempers have flared too much, in response to pompous treatment, then outright tantrums, from experienced editors (it's all there for anyone to read). Is there any way, for better history, to remove that embarrassing template and restore "Fiandonca's" user page to its more neutral appearance the day she quit? She has been "blocked" which is fine. You can "block" Eikner too if you want. That should satisfy everyone involved. Neither of them will be contributing again, in any case. Sincerely, /Anonymous at IP 217.209.96.57 (Eikner had logged in hours ago to Swedish Wikipedia and I did not notice until it was too late that that had him logged in here too. He did not enter this comment, I did. /Anonymous.)

Dear IP: Jehochman has asked that you be directed to the ongoing discussion about this to User talk:Jehochman#re: EmilEikS, rather than here. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think and hope we now have reached a viable compromise on the photo, which is good for the article, with that objective only. Any and all constructive input made to this article, by anyone, is to be commended, as is any constructive collaboration in that work, no matter by whom. Sincerely, /Anonymous at IP 217.209.96.57 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.96.57 (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! Rossrs requested the personal connection in discussion and I thought you and the others were in on that. Your first input there also seemed to lean toward leaving the name of the person and the link in the caption. I was only trying to help accordingly. Really! /Anonymous at IP 217.209.96.57 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.96.57 (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Raúl Ibáñez

Can you please remove the protection page on Raúl? – Michael (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I've asked a neutral party to review the protection level of the article. Kingturtle (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Tajiks

You have placed a protection on article Tajiks, thats ok. But why have you removed the picture of Ahmad Shah Massoud a prominent ethnic Tajik from Afghanistan. What was the reason? can please reinstate that picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.81.60 (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Jalaluddin Balkhi.jpg image because it does not exist. Kingturtle (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Is not this reply a contradiction in terms? DoDaCanaDa (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes! The sentence sounds funny, doesn't it? What I meant was that I removed the dead link to the image because there was no such image. Kingturtle (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

_David^WS _(contribs) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy holidays! _David^WS _(contribs) 19:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Need help in moderating Hinduism and Buddhism article

Could you kindly keep an eye over Hinduism and Buddhism article on the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buddhism_and_Hinduism&action=history

The other editor Mitsube appears to be very aggressive and is undoing edits without properly discussing them. He appears to be biased as he continues to suppress well referenced edits which do not seem to agree with his thesis.

I have been trying to avoid an edit war and would appreciate some moderation. Thanks.--Satyashodak (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I will definitely monitor the article. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Future stuff

I see these adds or similar all the time on wikipedia when a TENTATIVE deal is reached.-DANO- (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

When you see them, you should remove them with a kind explanation in the edit summary. And you should stop adding tentative deals yourself. Please? Kingturtle (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Gaillimh --> Ocee

 Confirmed gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 01:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed ocee^{Conas tá tú?} 01:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

tb

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

KROQ Calendar & New Music deletion

I am JokestrMike89 and I created the said article, but it was recently deleted, and Fabrictramp has informed me that you were behind the deletion process. I was wondering why it was deleted. It has specific references, and a usefulness to KROQ listeners, and fans. Aside from that, I discussed the matter with Fabrictramp and another user, and they agreed if I was to merger the articles, it would be more efficient and they would allow them to continue existing. Can we talk about this? JokestrMike89 (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason I deleted KROQ Calendar & New Music is because it was promotional and a calendar. I have restored it by renamed it KROQ New Music. You may want to fix the redirects. I am concerned that this is being used as fan site. Please use your own personal webpage for promotional information. If you have more questions, please ask. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Kingturtle (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

When I was open-minded and wrote good articles (f.ex. see on Khalji Dynasty), you dirty fucking bitch, son of a dirty whore i have fucked million times, were blocking or editing them. Ok, that was not much bad but when you were working with motherfucking Pashtun nationalists together and accepted their dirty wrong cites, arshole, than what should I do??? Fucking bitch, stop be so much controductary. The most articles that still on wikipedia, related wth afghanistan and still exist as a perfect article, based on sourcs, were started first by myself, arshole. You ban people without any reasons and without any knowledges. Arshole, get some education before you try yourself on Afghanistan or related things. Clean wikipedia from socks of Nisarkand, your father-in-law who also fuck your mother, son of a whore. I was even asking you for a new and better starting and friendship. -88.68.215.61

License tagging for File:JohnSchrank2.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:JohnSchrank2.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed Kingturtle (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for File:SmokyJoe3.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:SmokyJoe3.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed Kingturtle (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: name change request

For the name change from Mas0playa to SuperSam,, the commas are not typos and are part of the request. Mas0playa (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats

Hi! As a bureaucrat on Wikipedia, I'd very much appreciate it if you would fill in your details on the newly updated Bureaucrats page. Thanks! Majorly ^talk 14:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Beat you to it :) Kingturtle (talk) 14:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Tajik

You'd be interested in RFCU on Tajik results, see section's 14 and 15. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)