User talk:Kingturtle/Archive15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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%.[1] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [2] 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)

[edit] 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)