User talk:Kingturtle/Archive18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] arudraraju

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

[edit] 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!

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [1] and [2] as being experiments. Kingturtle (talk) 13:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Good save

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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!

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 BC 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)

[edit] Confused

See [3]. 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)

[edit] 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)