User talk:Kingturtle/Archive17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] User:Khowsti

I saw that you have insisted in putting sockpuppet notice on this user page [1]. 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)

[edit] 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. ..." [2]

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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Merger proposal

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


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)