User talk:Kingturtle
- Please note: Most of my replies will be written on this talk page, rather than on your talk page.
- Also note: It is my policy not to delete or remove dialog from this page. Everything 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.
- Lastly, if I do not reply to you immediately, it is not because I am ignoring you; I might be in the middle of a project on or offline :)
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)
- I sent you a mail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.229.175 (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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. 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 already.
I will do a checkuser on him soon and you'll see.