Hi Kingturtle - first, thank you for processing my username change request. That change, and the removal of some personal information from WP (in the wake of on-wiki harassment), brought me enhanced peace of mind. I just noticed this text....:

• Once you have been renamed, your old account will no longer exist and may potentially be recreated by a third party. This is true even if your old account pages have been redirected towards your new account. To guard against impersonation, you may wish to recreate the old account yourself.

...and would like to recreate my old account (just to park it and prevent impersonation), but I'm getting stopped by script that says my old username is too similar to one that had all of three edits in 2004. Is it possible to override this? thanks very much, Backin72 ( n.b.) 09:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Create a new account of any acceptable name, then notify me here of that account name, and then I can rename that new account to User:Jim Butler. Kingturtle ( talk) 15:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Fantastic, thanks. The account is User:Eaten90210bagel. You rule in the New Year, Backin72 ( n.b.) 09:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

 Done Kingturtle ( talk) 13:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello Kingturtle! Please excuse my inexperience with Wikipedia talk pages, but I didn't see any other way of contacting you. Back in 2004, with some encouragement from you, I granted full use of the images at my website, http://worldcoingallery.com for Wikipedia. Here is the reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kingturtle/World_Coin_Gallery

And here is the list of images being displayed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:World_Coin_Gallery_images

For a long time, there were more and more external links to my website from Wiki articles relating to world coins. For example, most articles on circulating currencies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_circulating_currencies

I now have a very comprehensive display of circulating currencies at my website at: http://worldcoingallery.com/countries/circ_sets/index.htm and would be happy to share those images with Wikipedia.

But now it seems all the External Links to my site have been removed. It seems to have happened sometime this past summer, and visits to my website dropped by about 1000 visits per day.

Since anyone can edit Wikipedia articles, I wonder if the owner of another coin site removed my links. I enjoy Wikipedia immensely and would like to contribute more coin photos, but wonder if my credits and external links will continue to be removed. Can you offer any advice? Can I add back external links to my site myself? Thanks and best wishes, Don Donnorris ( talk) 02:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Don, so nice to hear from you again. Unfortunately, my advice will not be what you want to hear. It is one thing to allow Wikipedia to use your images, it is another thing to use Wikipedia as a way to direct traffic to your site. 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. It is likely that an editor will interpret your edits as spam and revert them.

I suppose the first thing to do is to track down who removed the links and find out why. I've done a little searching, but haven't found any. If you click on the Page history button of an article you can look at older versions. If you can find some examples, please let me know. We can try to get to the bottom of when and why the links were removed. Sincerely, Kingturtle ( talk) 03:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I got the case wrong in my user name (Royleban) and it says you fixed it (to RoyLeban), but it doesn't appear to be fixed. Problem? Cache issue? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Royleban ( talk • contribs) 07:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Be sure you are logging into User:RoyLeban. As you can see here, the original edits of Royleban are now attached to RoyLeban. Kingturtle ( talk) 13:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Interesting, when I log in as "RoyLeban", I see that name and I see the edits, but if I try to login as "royleban", Wikipedia corrects it to Royleban, not RoyLeban, and allows me to login (this happened because Firefox autofilled the field for me as "royleban"). And there are two sets of edit records for RoyLeban and Royleban. RoyLeban and Royleban

So, it looks to me like (a) Wikipedia has a bug where those edit records have not been merged, and (b) Wikipedia has a bug where it lets people log in with the wrong case for a name under some situations. Or are there two user accounts, Royleban and RoyLeban? Or is there a cache issue?

Of course, this sidesteps the issue of case sensitivity being a poor design for user names [about the only thing that Visual Basic got right and other languages got wrong, but that's a discussion for another time :-] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Royleban ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I put images of new people in the Pashtun section. If you find it not important you may revert back and undo. (Dewan S. Ahsan 17:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC))

Hello Kingturtle. I notice you've edited some of the articles that are under discussion in this report, and you also opened the last RFCU on Tajik. Two IPs are proposed in this report to be socks of Anoshirawan. My inclination is to block both of them as socks of User:Šāhzādé, since they are in the right country for that. These guys are Pashtun->Tajik nationality-changers. There is an alternative hypothesis that they IPs could be User:Tajik, but the CU reports seem to indicate that Tajik is distinct from User:Šāhzādé. There have not lately been any CU-confirmed socks of User:Tajik. Do blocks of these two IPs seem logical? Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The computer I am using this minute is too slow for me to look into this. Give me a few hours to get back to you. Kingturtle ( talk) 17:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I have not found any particular evidence that solidly links the two IPs with Šāhzādé or Anoshirawan. I only have suspicions. Kingturtle ( talk) 22:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comment, which I included in the SSP report. The report is closed; the two IPs were blocked but their pages have not been tagged with sock templates. EdJohnston ( talk) 14:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Can you explain why you reverted my attempted edit, please? Illaunroe ( talk) 21:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC) reply

There was a formatting issue. But I've fixed it! Take a look. Kingturtle ( talk) 22:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you! Illaunroe ( talk) 14:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your message. It's my pleasure. I'm just sorry it's not longer, but time will put that right. Jack1956 ( talk) 13:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey there King, I'm just getting my feet wet at CHU, I noticed that you changed RJBERGMAN's name to RJ Bergman, despite no meaningful edit history under the original name. Is there a reason why you didn't have him create a new account? What was your thought process here? (Again, I am asking because I honestly want to learn... this is an area where I have little familiarity.)--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 17:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Just saw the note at CHU... that explains it.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 17:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The system prevents creation of new usernames that are too close to existing usernames. Cheers! Kingturtle ( talk) 17:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I had forgotten about that until I saw your note there... any advice on learning the rules surrounding USURP/name changes? I want to get my feet wet in both of those areas.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 17:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Read through the archives. Boring reading for some, fun-filled hours for others :) And then of course, participate. Cheers, Kingturtle ( talk) 17:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I've been watching for a week or so... if you have any advice or see me doing something wrong there, let me know... but I get the sense that it is pretty cookie cutter work... not too much to think about---at least for non-crats.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 18:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC) reply

for adding the relevant templates and cats to my little baby stub. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 14:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Not sure how to contact you KingTurtle, but you deleted our entry on Wikipedia, which has been up since November. You stated it was blatant advertising? But, it was only stating a fact of significance of the Internet's first smart alarm clock (sleep.fm) that wakes and speaks information to those who choose to use it. It is like the alarm clock in the movie Iron Man seen in this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXH2K2ZlrjQ . I backed up the significance of the topic via relevant media sources from major online publications. I did so, just as other web services such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop.io and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songza have done. How are these entries different from the sleep.fm entry you deleted?

ryan@sleep.fm

I don't see how this could be viewed as a vehicle for advertising? Only way someone might possibly read our wiki entry is to type in sleep.fm and even that was not seen until the 10th page of Google.

Appreciate you blunt honest feedback as to why you labeled our entry blatant advertising? Do you believe the alarm clock will not evolve into a device that wakes and informs you? That Internet alarm clock devices/apps will not become part of our lifestyles?

thanks, ryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaser7016 ( talk • contribs) 21:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I am not the first to delete it. The article (as Sleep.FM) was deleted twice in 2007. You are using Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote your product. Wikipedia is not the place for promoting products. Kingturtle ( talk) 03:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Prior deletions were due to the following, "Web content which doesn't indicate its importance or significance." The entry from November reversed that via referencing major online publications regarding our work. It stated fact and the significance of our work.

Our work is significant as we have taken the system of a many centuries old device and espoused with mankind's latest/greatest invention the Internet; in turn adding more functionality to this device that could not be done prior to the Internet.

Were in no way trying to promote our service using Wikipedia! Does not make any sense, as our entry was brief and did not appear on search engines..not until ten or 12 pages back!

Does this mean any and all further Wikipedia Sleep.fm entries will be deleted? Even when our work and or it's concepts start waking up millions or does then it become significant to you? Im just curious because many other Internet services have a Wikipedia entry and they are no different then what was posted for our work! What would it take for you to find our work significant, so you don't delete the next entry written by another party (a user)?

Thanks, ryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.2.141 ( talk) 05:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The "edit war" is no longer on, I have found intothefire's edits two days ago as enough of a compromise. I simply added more info. My edit comments are simply a response to his. I don't see why the latest edit would be reverted. 3swordz ( talk) 18:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for explanation. I've re-added your most recent edit. My apologies, Kingturtle ( talk) 18:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

No problem, I can see why you did that. 3swordz ( talk) 18:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

See my last on the talk page.
You play the uke and love Beethoven? Odd combo. Not that I should talk, I play guitar, bass, uke, mandolin, etc and love Beethoven. Oddly (I suppose). my fave is the 4th Symphony. •Jim62sch• ^dissera! 20:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The intro to the 4th is so wonderfully haunting. I love that symphony too. The 2nd was the first one I really learned - and the 7th is by far my favorite of any piece anywhere. Kingturtle ( talk) 20:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I had to decide between the 4th and 7th, but I went with the 4th as, it is, truly haunting and yet it is a piece of immaculate beauty (and to me there's just a bit of something missing in the 7th). I learned the typical first -- the 5th. In all honesty though, unlike others, Ludwig never wrote a bad symphony. •Jim62sch• ^dissera! 23:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Me and my mate were wondering if there is any way of taking over (becoming a bureaucrat) on this wiki: Data crystal , we are asking you because it has been inactive for a long time, and we were hoping to try and take over to help fix it up. I have tried asking people on this wiki but no one is ever on besides me, the only other contributions are random IP addresses that spam the articles (even more then they already are). If you could please reply on my talk page it would be highly appreciated, thanks (This message has been sent to most bureaucrat's). -- MỸŠŦЄЯỸЊӘҒҒ ( talk) 13:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Wilson-inaug.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) 04:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC) reply

thanks for starting the Pontifical Roman Athenaeum S. Apollinare article! Cheers, Kingturtle ( talk) 06:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC) reply

You're quite welcome! -- rmrfstar ( talk) 05:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Could you please take a look at what's going on in Pamir Mountains? User:Zandweb keeps re-inserting an unsourced etymology despite my fairly detailed edit comments and lastly a long comment on talk page. Your expert help and guidance in this situation will be much appreciated. -- Zlerman ( talk) 10:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I reverted Zandweb's edits and placed a request on the talk page for Zandweb to find useful, legitimate citations. Kingturtle ( talk) 15:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Much appreciated. Thanks. -- Zlerman ( talk) 16:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC) reply

• The saga is not finished. Zandweb reverted your changes without explanation (08:12, 13 January 2009). I reacted with a revert of my own, but the end probably is nowhere in sight. -- Zlerman ( talk) 09:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I reverted his edit again, and posted a message on his talk page. I warned him about edit warring, advised him to find better sources, and invited him to participate in the talk-page discussion. Kingturtle ( talk) 12:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi there, Kingturtle! Had an interesting note on my talk page today from User:Ptelea regarding a deletion to make way for a move and a move you had done back on 30 November 2008. You had deleted Ulmus parvifolia and moved Ulmus parvifolia 'Frosty' into its place, simply saying "fixing" in the edit summary. I've reverted and restored and was curious if there was a reason you could recall for the move. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Cheers, Rkitko ^{( talk)} 00:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

It was a simple misunderstanding about species name and Cultivar. I'm glad you have helped to restore the correct version. I'm sorry that Ptelea saw it as vandalism. It was an honest mistake. I am also sorry that Ptelea didn't come to me directly about it. I would have certainly obliged. Thank you for assisting in this matter. Cheers, Kingturtle ( talk) 03:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

That's what I had suspected. Agreed on all other points. Thanks for the kind reply. Cheers, Rkitko ^{( talk)} 12:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwRp3Cozhbo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc8dTzs5Ltg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ7h-eoEAhA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qor3jUwf7Y8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXg67oNCLsg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.222.85.32 ( talk) 12:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure why you shared these with me. Professional wrestling isn't really my bag. It's amazing what people will do for money, and it is amazing what mentally ill people will do. I prefer baseball, chess and croquet. Kingturtle ( talk) 13:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey King, I think you put your done comment on the wrong request. You marked a request as done about a minute after it was added to CHU, and I don't see that it was done.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 14:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

ok now it is coming up as done... guess you did make the change ;-) I had thought you had changed the one above it, but didn't realize the new request...--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 14:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

You can always check my log. You can see I did the change. Sometimes it takes a minute for things to get updated. Cheers, Kingturtle ( talk) 14:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC) reply

For adding to the presidential nickname list. Collect ( talk) 11:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi KingTurtle. I think there is a new sockpuppet of banned User:NisarKand: User:Alishah85.

Could you please check this?

Thank you. Tājik ( talk) 01:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I do not have checkuser tools. But I will look into it. Kingturtle ( talk) 12:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you. User:Afghan85 is also very suspect. Note the number "85". I guess that both are - at least - sockpuppets of the same user who may be User:NisarKand. Tājik ( talk) 15:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User talk:Raagio/Archive 3, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. 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. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: User talk:Raagio/Archive 3 was moved to User talk:Raaggio/Archive 3 by Kingturtle (u) (t) redirecting article to non-existant page on 2009-01-16T15:13:12+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot ( talk) 15:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your work in closing the discussion and for your helpful comments. Itsmejudith ( talk) 22:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi,

I'm a newbie and I've had my article deleted for copyright infringement.

I don't understand what I could have infringed, since I wrote the text myself. Could you let me know what the problems are and consider reinstating the page?

Thanks ab 13:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Andrew10266ab 13:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew10266 ( talk • contribs) 13:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC) reply

At the time, about a month ago, I found other webpages online that contained identical information and wording. I can no longer find those webpages, and I have restored the article. If you have time, it would be helpful if you could work on the article's formatting. Wikipedia:Your first article, Wikipedia:Writing better articles and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) would be useful to read. If you have any questions, please ask. Sincerely, Kingturtle ( talk) 13:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Kingturtle,

I do not think that this is what you had intended to do. I think that you actually wanted to revert to this version. Tājik ( talk) 16:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I fixed it. Kingturtle ( talk) 16:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Kingturtle, please see my comments on Afghanistani in the other section. Either we are going to invent terms and add them to Wikipedia, or we are going to use accepted terminology, of which Afghanistani is not. Please lets have a discussion about this as there seems to be much disagreement. Afghan25 ( talk) 20:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Afghan25 reply

As discussed at WP:VPT, I've uploaded an API version of the script to http://haza-w.site90.net/wdlh/ which hopefully works! I'm still waiting on the Toolserver account, unfortunately... haz ( talk) 18:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hmmm. The link isn't working. I wait on bated breath! Kingturtle ( talk) 15:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Curses, let's try again..! http://haza-w.site90.net/wdlt/ Still waiting on the Toolserver account, sadly. Hopefully, being able to access the database replica will make the process of obtaining the WhatLinksHere data sufficiently fast to lift the 1000-link limit. Let me know what you think of the tool! haz ( talk) 22:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Truly genius! I will use it often!! Beautiful work! Kingturtle ( talk) 00:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the barnstar! If you have any feedback on the tool – feature requests, recommendations, etc. – then please do let me know. All the best! haz ( talk) 17:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply

IP editor 71.107.11.87 has been making a large number of disruptive edits in violation of various Wikipedia polices, particularly with regard to ethnicity edits to articles on living persons without sources. I have looked at only a small portion of the 71.107.11.87 edits, but most of them have been reverted by named editors. Can something be done? -- Bejnar ( talk) 16:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I've been watching that IP. I'll keep a close eye on it. Kingturtle ( talk) 17:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi. I was recently unblocked, and I was wondering if you would like to help me out regarding an edit issue. One of the disputes I had become involved with involved the lead of the article Hed PE. The lead had been repeatedly changed by an anonymous editor to a version that I had felt was inaccurate, for reasons which I have explained on the article's talk page. For the reasons that I have explained on the article's talk page, I feel that the lead should be changed, but I wish to avoid implying another edit war, and because of that, I wanted a discussion of the issue to make sure that I can make these changes with the implication of good faith, and avoid a edit war. If you cannot help me out on this issue, would you be able to point me out to someone who can? ( Ibaranoff24 ( talk) 18:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)) reply

In what way would you like me to help? Are you looking to be pointed to policies or common practices? Or are you asking me to chime in on a talk page conversation? Just let me know how. Cheers, Kingturtle ( talk) 19:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC) reply

KingTurtle, we need to remove this term from the Demographics of Afghanistan page. Please look at the sources cited for this as a reason for its entry. They are ridiculous sources which are mainly from a few articles written by journalists in which they have incorrectly used a term. Furthermore, some of them are written by individuals with a political agenda. No one uses the term Afghanistani, either inside or outside of Afghanistan.

Furthermore, the whole second paragraph in which this term is brought up, seems very skewed in the way which it is written. It has nothing to do with the actual demographics of Afghanistan, and is more of an opinion piece on the ethnicities in Afghanistan and what they should be called. Afghan25 ( talk) 20:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Afghan25 reply

Tajik has said it best..."it is a legitimate, sourced information. We cannot write an encyclopaedia based on "official governmental" information." I endorse that opinion. Kingturtle ( talk) 21:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Kingturtle, you are mistaken. When you click on the reference and you go to dictionary.com different dictionaries are used for different words. For Afghanistani, the WordNet dictionary is used. The WordNet dictionary is anything but legitimate or sourced information. Please go read about the WordNet project and how words are added into there. It is hardly scholarly, and its focus is on the development of a language to assist in machine learning for being able to look up synonyms, etc. It is not a scholarly resource, which is why they claim they do not even have etymology on words. There is hardly any rigour applied to the addition of words. In fact, they have an option where you can send them an email to add a word. he reason for this is that its purpose is as a Lexical dictionary, and is more of a development project in machine learning theory than a source for scholarly research. This does not by any means constitute legitimate. Again, please read their own website.

As for the "official government" comment, which was taken out of context, that was meant to imply that Afghan is the name that the people of Afghanistan recognize but for a few individuals.

If you are adamant about Afghanistani being a sourced and legitimate word as you claim, and not concocted as I do. Please find another legitimate dictionary that contains this word. For instance, Merriam Webster, or any other source. Do not use sources where a few journalists have mistakenly used this word for lack of better knowledge or a source which can hardly be called a dictionary.04:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)~Afghan25

Well, there's wiktionary and reference.com. We could use one of those instead. Go ahead and change the reference. I'm a little busy at the moment. Kingturtle ( talk) 04:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Kingturtle, I dont know whether you have actually looked at the sources you cited, because if you had i dont think you would have asked me to look at them. Reference.com is but another name for dictionary.com which uses the same WordNet dictionary citation which I explained up above.

As for wiktionary, this is nothing more than a user added word, and is by no stretch of the imagination considered scholarly. In fact, there is a disclaimer on the wiktionary page for Afghanistani itself, which claims this is a misnomer and an invalid and invented term. Furthermore, the wiktionary page itself doesn't have any scholarly citation, so how can we use it ? We cannot use one incorrect source as the citation for another, this is not right. Please take a look at those references. If you have any other references which can back up your claim, please provide them, otherwise lets remove this term Afghanistani from sources relating to Afghanistan. Afghan25 ( talk) 04:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Afghan25 reply

Hey Kingturtle, I hadn't heard back from you, just wanted to make sure you had gotten my previously reply, and your thoughts.

KingTurtle, I still see no reply on my comments after 7 days, although you have been commenting to others on this page. I guess I am to infer your non reply as agreement, and I will go ahead and make those changes. Let me know if you feel otherwise. 91.73.196.188 ( talk) 14:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Afghan25 reply

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith ( talk), 22:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Denbot ( talk) 22:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi -- do I need to fill out edit summary for a post on the talk page, as a prelude to enacting an edit? Thanks. Aprilkissel ( talk) 20:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

April, You needn't ask in a talk page if an edit is okay, unless it is a highly controversial edit or if there is already a discussion in the talk page about the edit you're planning. You are encouraged to be bold. Go ahead, make the edit. Edit summaries are always helpful (also refer to the edit summary legend to learn some shorthand). Sincerely, Kingturtle ( talk) 20:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

was this warning was a mistake? looks like he reverted an edit. even if his reversion was to a prior version of nblp, your warning text should probably be a little different, no? shirulashem (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Although this was a revert, it reverted back into the article a great deal of unverified, unreferenced personal information for a BLP. What other text would you recommend? Kingturtle ( talk) 01:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Good question. There should probably a warning template similar to {{ subst: uw-revertvandalism}} that is for cases like this. shirulashem (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

84.59.202.75 needs guidance. I know that you have seen some of 84.59.202.75's edits. Unfortunately, 84.59.202.75 seems to have no control. I have written up just a few of the problems at User talk:84.59.202.75, but I really had more substantive edits in mind when I sat down at my PC today. It is the usual, ethnicity edits without citation, incomplete or undecipherable citations, trashing established Wikipedia usage, etc. The damage so far is considerable, I have not even scratched the surface. -- Bejnar ( talk) 22:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Šāhzādé. Kingturtle ( talk) 23:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello Kingturtle. I accept your decision at WP:CHU. Can I ask instead if it's possible for the "S" to be dropped from my username? Caden S ( talk) 16:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Why can't this wait until your edit ban has ended? If this is personal in nature you can email me your reply using the "E-mail this user" button on this page. Kingturtle ( talk) 17:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't understand you. What's the problem with me asking to drop a single letter? Caden S ( talk) 19:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply

You are under a topic ban endorsed by the community. You have also betrayed that topic ban, causing its end date to be extended. Changing your username even slightly may cause confusion in the community. It would be best to wait until the ban is over. What exactly is the harm in waiting until then? Again, if this is personal in nature, please email me your response. Kingturtle ( talk) 19:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Could you please stop treating me like a teenager who's broken the rules and has been grounded for it? I know all about my topic ban and how I betrayed it. It's plastered all over my talk page (not to mention there's a subpage devoted to it), so how can I possibly forget? Trust me I get it and I plan to follow my topic ban through even though I don't agree with it. I still do not see what the harm is in dropping the "S" from my username. An admin (Black Kite) has agreed with me that he too does not see any harm in it. Dropping a single letter "S" will not cause confusion in the community as you "claim". Editors around here know my name is Caden and that's never been a secret. Please reconsider. Thanks. Caden S ( talk) 15:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The postponement of the name change is not so you don't forget. It is to insure that all editors aware of the ban aren't confused and don't have to do extra work. Also, changing CadenS to Caden now will delay your future request to change to Sniper101. We don't change an editor's usernames often. In the meantime, you are welcome to customize your signature. Kingturtle ( talk) 15:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry but your reply makes absolutely no sense. How can all editors who are aware of the ban be confused when they already know my name is Caden? How will they have to do extra work if the "S" is dropped? You're making no sense at all. Caden S ( talk) 16:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Confusion could occur in thinking there was a sockpuppet or vandal involved. Unless this name change involves personal security, it is best to keep things as they are until the ban is over. Again, you are free to customize your signature accordingly. Kingturtle ( talk) 16:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Very nice - thanks very much for sharing. :-) I've always admired M. Diderot for his dedication to encyclopedic thought. -- User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 18:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, how do change my signature?, and thanks for your help reguarding changing my user name by the way! Whirl editing ( talk) 19:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply

You're welcome. For signature customisation, see Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing your signature. Kingturtle ( talk) 19:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi again. I'm trying to create a signature without 'talk' in brackets being displayed, and despite following the link above, I can't seem to find out how to do it. Any ideas? Thanks. -- Whirl editing: chat ( talk) 19:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't have any experience with signature customization. Ask User:MBisanz. He might be able to answer your question. Good luck, Kingturtle ( talk) 14:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Ok thanks! Whirl editing ( talk) 15:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Did this get completed? Wikipedia:Changing username/Archive55#Amspock → A M Spock, or did it get mucked up because they created their username manually? They seem to be still logging in to their old account, apparently causing autosign to not work, no surprise, but their history has not migrated. [1] Thanks in advance. Apteva ( talk) 00:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC) I see now that they are indeed logging in to their old account - the old history has been moved, [2] but now they are creating new history in their old account. [3] Apteva ( talk) 00:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the heads up. I think I know what's going on. But I have to do some checking first. Kingturtle ( talk) 14:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I do not know the details about changing usernames but it seems that instead of the old name being blocked the password was scrambled, but still had an e-mail address attached. I am guessing when they said they had to get a new password they simply had it e-mailed to them, Scratch that, they just recreated the old account when they could not login, oblivious of the fact that their request had gone through. Apteva ( talk) 03:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I see that they made a second request to change their username on December 29. If they do not log in as A M Spock in a day or two I plan on sending them an e-mail inviting them to try using their new username, and letting them know that merging the accounts is currently not available, that they should just continue on with A M Spock. Apteva ( talk) 17:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

RE: Wentz: Thanks for editing the page John G. McCaskey with a PDF link to Wentz. Please also do the same for the 101 Ranch Oil Company. Thanks: jcm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcmcapital ( talk • contribs) 01:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello, I noticed that you erased the edition I made on the page about Philippe petit (I added my credit under Philippe Petit photo). However, the photo used on Wikipedia showing Philippe Petit at the WTC is mine and nobody asked me for the authorisation to do so (I am the author and copyright owner of this photo). I could agree to let it be used on Wikipedia if the credit (photo Jean Louis Blondeau) is clearly stated under the photo and if there is a link to my web site showing Philippe Petit photos. Otherwise, I do not authorise anyone to use my photo on Wikipedia site. Please leave the credit I put under the photo and the link I added on the external links section of the article about Philippe Petit in order to solve this problem, or take out my photo from Wikipedia. Danobule —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danobule ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Danobule ( talk) 19:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

First let me say that I think you're an amazing photographer. Your work is very powerful, and I enjoy it a great deal. As for giving credit to you for the image, Wikipedia gives the creator of on image credit on the file page (in this case File:Philippe Petit 740807.JPG), but we do not give credit within an article itself. If you like we could rename the image to File:Jean Louis Blondeau.JPG . That might make it more obvious that it is yours.

When someone uploads their own work onto Wikipedia, they are in a sense giving it up to Wikipedia, or at least giving Wikipedia some rights to use it. If you are uncomfortable with this, then we should delete the image all together. We can still provide links to your website, and people can see the images by going to your site instead.

Please read the Fair Use justification listed on File:Philippe Petit 740807.JPG. If you like we can add your information to that File page. We just can't add your information to the Petit article. Or, as I say, we can also delete the image all together, and leave the external link in tact.

Let me know what you want to do. Sincerely, Kingturtle ( talk) 20:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for showing interest in my photographs, but your answer saying " we do not give credit within an article itself + we just can't add your information to the Petit article " does not go along with your appreciation of my work and does not make much sense to me. I put clandestinely a wire on top of the WTC in 1974 because I don't take "no" as an answer and your reply does not make exception.

I do not accept that you cannot put a credit/link underneath my photograph. Giving credit to the photographer underneath his photograph is the least one can expect if you claim "Fair Use". Arguing that Wikipedia's rules are not to give credit within an article is not a satisfactory answer. This is not a fair and respectfull practice. When the author is known Wikipedia should give the credit attached to the photograph. It is only fair to give credit where it should be given, especially when the artwork is used without financial bond. And when the author is asking for a reasonable request like this, I believe a positive respond is fair. As you suggested, I read the Fair Use claim from Wahkeenah and it is irrelevant because : - I am the author and copyright owner of this photograph - cropping it from a magazine does not transfer the copyright to the "cropper" and does not allow anyone to use it on Internet (or any another media) if the copyright holder does not agree - claiming that this photograph is historically significant is not a good enough reason to use it without the author's authorization - Danobule ( talk) 23:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)what Wahkeenah thinks of the way he uses a photograph cannot be opposed to the author's will, who is the copyright holder reply

I also do not understand why you take so much care erasing from the external links the link I put to my web site. Philippe petit is famous because of his WTC walk and the article is about that. This historical event happened because Philippe petit had this obsession of walking between the tower, but also because for months I had the obsession of planning this "coup", of organizing it and rigging the wire. I was on the North tower and was a big part of this event by pulling the wire alone and rigging it just in time before the "coup" would have failed. So believe me, I know much more about Philippe petit and why and how we did this "coup" than Wikipedia will ever say. Then a link to my web site showing photographs which document seven years of complicity with Philippe petit, particularly the Notre Dame and the WTC "coup", is at least as relevant as (for instance) a link showing a walk Philippe did in Vancouver in 86. So why do you erase my link from the external link and keep the others ? If you are into " building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect " (quote from Wikipedia project page) why don't you make it as easy as possible for everyone to find my site ? Making my web site (Philippe petit's closest accomplice) available to Wikipedia community helps to know more about this event and shows photographs from it and from Philippe petit at that time. As Wahkeenah says when deciding to use my photograph " it adds significantly to the article because it shows the subject of this article and how the subject depicted was very historically significant to the general public." I think you should consider this point much more than your rules before deciding to erase my link.

I am not asking for money to using my photograph on Wikipedia and I am not asking for being the center of attention of this article. I am just asking for a minimum of respect about my work (as it should be for every other photographer work). I just want to be credited at the right place (where the photograph is shown within the article). I want one obvious link to my web site attached to the credit (=> easy to find) and one within the external links. As author of this photograph, I do not agree with your rules, which provide a link that one can only find on a secondary page, after clicking on the phtograph and only if checking carefully the "Summary", and only if finding the little almost invisible "[1]" link. Meanwhile, it seems to me like it is of the Wikipedia community interest to leave easier access to more information when it is relevant.

So, as I told you before, I would allow Wikipedia to use my photograph only on these terms :

1. you leave the credit (photo Jean Louis Blondeau) like I put it underneath the photograph and you put a link to my web site attached with this credit

2. you leave the external link that I put to my web site

Otherwise, I do not agree with Wikipedia using my photographs and ask you to erase it immediately from the site. I hope you can understand my requirement, but if not please do not come back with another solution. These are my only conditions and I do not want to argue anymore about this matter to have my rights and my work respected. Sincerely. Jean Louis Blondeau.

That I admire your work plays no part in whether or not Wikipedia allows images to be credited in that manner in an article.

Ideally, we keep your the Website link in the External links section, and do not keep the credit and/or website link describing the image in the article. Your website should be included in the External links section of the Philippe Petit article. Would that solution suffice? Kingturtle ( talk) 21:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I guess my last (and long) message was not clear enough, but I have no more time to try understanding your motivation (power mania ? Wikipedia rules abuse ? Or whatever ?). Excuse the tone of my answer, but this is becoming quite unpleasant to me and I do not want to argue anymore.

You have your rules, I have my legitimate request. It is abusive that you do not hear my demand when using my photograph for free. I have been gracious enough to allow you using it on the condition that you would leave the links the way I want them to be. I think you could also be gracious enough by thanking me for that instead of erasing one link and keeping arguing. Other people have used my photo(s) on their blog (by the way asking for my consent before) and I did not have to ask them to put a very obvious link to my site. It comes naturally from them because this is a normal and elegant practice between people of good will. If you cannot understand that, too bad but there is nothing to "negotiate" here. It beats all that I have to fight with you when you use my photograph for free !

So here is the deal : - either you keep the 2 links I put and you can use my photo on Wikipedia - or you (or Wikipedia rules) do not agree with the links, then you do not use my photo, period ! It is as simple as that and I already told you that there is no matter for discussion here ! Whatever you will decide, I hope we can end this very disagreeable dispute here. Sincerely. Jean Louis Blondeau —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danobule ( talk • contribs) 19:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

In another attempt at a compromise, your credit in the caption has been reformatted into a reference. If this is not acceptable to you, then I shall delete the image from Wikipedia, as per your request. Kingturtle ( talk) 13:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply

This image is of a person who is still alive, and a public performer. It is not our last or only chance to get an image of Petit, nor is it something Wikipedia MUST have. Therefore, the image is not Fair Use.

Because we cannot comply to your demand that the image caption contain an external link to your website, because the image is not Fair Use, and because you want it removed from Wikipedia, I have deleted it. Kingturtle ( talk) 16:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Good, at last the problem is solved and I don't have to deal with it anymore ! I wish it would have been settled before. Meanwhile, I wonder if you can explain this to me (since it is impossible to know who Wikipedia administrators are and who is making decision here). I am curious to understand this :

- Usually, rules and policies are not stupid, they are meant for good reasons and I want to believe that it is the same for Wikipedia. - So tell me why you "cannot comply to the demand" of an artist who just wants his image caption to contain an external link ? It doesn't cost anything, it works fine, it is not disturbing, it makes access easier to complementary information for the Wikipedia community and it is a fair practice, showing gratitude to the artist who is nice enough to let you use his work. So what is the big deal about credit and external link ?

You know, the clandestine adventures which this article is talking about would never have happened if Philippe and I only followed rules and policies. May be you should think about that and learn something from your "encyclopedia" and its articles. Questioning rules and laws where the spirit of these adventures (incorrectly) described in Wikipedia. These adventures were about dreams, poetry, friendship, challenge, willpower, audacity, but certainly not about rules. Don't you think it is pretty ironic that you hide behind restricted rules and policies to delete the only photo which is the actual and most iconic illustration of a story of no rules and no policies ? Your rules are more important to you than agreeing with a legitimate demand from the guy who made this story happen. Don't you see how ridiculous this is ? If, as you say, you like my photographs and what we did 35 years ago, may be you should find some inspiration in it instead of blinding yourself with narrow minded rules and policies. But hey, if you think it is a smart attitude, good for you, stick to your point and enjoy it… I personally like freedom much better.

Everyone is allowed to think and to question rules when it is for good reasons, and so are you if you will. We are not just numbers and figures following rules, we are thinking individuals, changing or over passing rules when there are inappropriate, making exceptions, and this is how the world progress, not by sticking to rules for no other reasons than they are rules… Danobule Danobule ( talk) 01:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm all for questioning rules and laws and authority. That is the basis of civil disobedience, a political action that I hold with high esteem. I've questioned many policies here, and this particular policy I've come to understand and agree with. One of the missions here is to foster Wikipedia's growth. Just like any professional website, we want readers and editors to stay within the confines of Wikipedia for as long as possible (see sticky content). We don't want readers and editors to go elsewhere. The longer they stay, the more likely they will join in on editing, expanding and improving the encyclopedia. Improperly placed embedded external links take readers away from Wikipedia, and this is why we cannot comply to your demand. Wikipedia is not here as a directory of external links or as a venue to promote external links or artists' work. Wikipedia is not a clandestine adventure; it is an encyclopedia. Making access to your website easier is not our concern, and there's nothing narrow-minded about it. Indeed, we do have a policy to include in proper places a link to your site and full credit of your work - but you won't accept that solution.

As for the photo in question, which is definitely a fantastic, inspiring image, it is by far not the only image on Wikipedia which embodies the questioning of authority ( File:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg, File:Little Rock Desegregation 1957.jpg, and File:Birmingham campaign water hoses.jpg quickly come to mind) - and if we can't use your image directly, Wikipedia will still be a place people can come to for anti-authoritarian, anti-establishment, inspiration. Rigoberta Menchú, Sophie Scholl, David Dellinger, Mario Savio, John Lilburne, Joe Hill, Jackie Robinson, John Heartfield, Bayard Rustin, Hibiscus, Lanza del Vasto, Peter Cook, Stokely Carmichael, Midge Potts, Annie Londonderry, Auguste Piccard, Augusto Boal, Huey P. Newton, Víctor Jara, Olga Bancic, Philip Berrigan, Gayle Rubin, Susie Bright, José Rizal, Albert Bigelow, James Lawson, Jacques Mayol, Mother Jones, Sophie Blanchard, Lech Wałęsa, Hans Scholl, Bobby Seale, Harry Houdini, Eve Ensler, Ken Saro-Wiwa, Tristan Tzara, Aung San Suu Kyi, Ignatius Sancho, Ammon Hennacy, Christa Winsloe, Beilby Porteus, Angela Davis, César Chávez, Frank Zappa, Igor Stravinsky, Nhat Hanh, Dorothy Day, Robert F. Williams, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Hunter S. Thompson, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Andres Serrano, Marcel Duchamp, Louis Riel, Christoph Probst, Sunderlal Bahuguna, Fred Hampton and Penn & Teller are but a handful of inspirational people with marvelous audacity who challenged rules and changed history.

So far you've only used your Wikipedia account to argue about and negotiate the positioning of a link to your website, using the image in question as a bargaining tool. If indeed your mission is to promote a particular kind of spirit and approach to life, then I encourage you to stick around and get to work. Wikipedia could use your knowledge and energy.

Sincerely, Kingturtle ( talk) 22:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I hope its okay to be here. I am a novice with Wikipedia and there is so much info. I have posted questions in a couple of places and thought I would try to contact you again since you were helpful to me with a namechange. You handled a username change of Harry "Harri" Dennis to DA01. Thanks. I would like the signature to match my new username DAO1. Is that possible? Right now the signature is displayed as Harri.-- Harri ( talk) 04:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)22:08 29 Jan 2009 reply

Go to Special:Preferences and change whatever is in the Signature field. Uncheck the Raw Signature box if you would like to keep it simple. See WP:SIG if you want to customize your signature. Kingturtle ( talk) 04:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Firstly, thank you for your invite to seek your help.

On the February 1 page in the events section, Grand Central Staion is listed as having opened in 1913. It actually re-opened on January 2, 1913 according to the Wiki article, and the reference cited. Do I just edit and delete the event, or do I find the appropriate "undo" link? If the latter is prefered, is there an easy way to find the edit I would need to undo? Kentholke ( talk) 13:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply

If you have verified that the reference cited is correct, then simply remove the item from February 1 - and explain in the edit summary why you're removing it. It's that easy :) Kingturtle ( talk) 14:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply

P.S. If you are interested in such articles, you may want to explore Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year. Cheers, Kingturtle ( talk) 14:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Many Thanks! Kentholke ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC). reply

Why did you remove the school address here? Please explain. — xDanielx ^T/ _C\ ^R 18:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. Wikipedia is not the white pages. That is my reasoning for removing street addresses of non-historic buildings. Kingturtle ( talk) 18:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply

It's only reasonable to give the location of an institution that is based at one particular location. It's very much within the spirit of WP:NOTDIR since the information is specific to the subject of the article; it's not like the article lists several addresses of different institutions. I think you should refrain from making edits of this sort, as, frankly, your position strikes me as outlandish and I'm surprised to hear it coming from an editor who has been around for so long. — xDanielx ^T/ _C\ ^R 21:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm not sold on the idea that street addresses in this case are encyclopedic, and a policy conversation only a year ago had no definitive consensus on either side of the debate (see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_36#street_addresses. It is my opinion that addresses of non-famous structures are non-encyclopedia and turn Wikipedia into a directory. I'm happy to pose the question again in the village pump. That would give us both some perspective on the general attitudes. Kingturtle ( talk) 22:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Just letting you know, you forgot to remove the rollbacker flag from RegentsPark when you changed his rights. Thanks, — neuro ^(talk) 20:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply

 Done Thanks. Kingturtle ( talk) 21:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply

See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections/February 2009 — Rlevse • Talk • 01:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the heads up, mate. Hmm, usurp in process, but it might take a while. Yep, I started Wiki wayyy back when, then it dropped off of my radar. Came back a month ago, and want to get back on my feet. Luna Rain ^HowL _Cry 02:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Glad to have you back into the fold. Cheers, Kingturtle ( talk) 02:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Re: the article's just having been created, yes, I originally redlinked it from another page I created about a prison and was shocked that the article did not already exist. If you or any of your fellow editors are interested in contributing, please, please do, as I am not an expert in the subject. In the meantime I will read United Nations standards & norms documents on basic educational needs... If I have time I might like to try to build enough content to make it into a Did you know... plmoknijb ( talk) 14:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply

User:Kingturtle/Archive7 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Kingturtle/Archive7's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Kingturtle/Archive7! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, can anything be done about User:92.46.29.78, who persistently vandalizes Talk:Kazakhs and before that also Kazakhs? Thank you. -- Zlerman ( talk) 12:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I reverted 92.46.29.78's latest edits, and added a deletion warning (level 1) on 92.46.29.78's talk page. I have also added the article to my watchlist. Hopefully, it won't escalate further, but if it does, we can increase the levels of warnings, and then block the IP for a period of time. Sincerely, Kingturtle ( talk) 13:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the speedy response to the emergency. -- Zlerman ( talk) 13:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• Now it's User:92.47.184.88: he continues to vandalize Kazakhs, taking advantage of his dynamic IP. FYI. -- Zlerman ( talk) 11:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Your royal highness, please forgive me for addressing the King before he addresses me.

Thank you for your answer to my checkuser question (elections). Let me explain to you my concern. Two years ago, there was a very bad user whom a ban was proposed for making a legal threat. Many users supported banning but for different reasons. The stated reason proposed was for making a legal threat.

I thought that if the reason is a legal threat, we should identify which sentence constitutes a legal threat. This is not defending the user but it was seen as defending a user. A checkuser thought that anyone defending an evil person must be a sock. I am a simple person, not a computer geek. I simply use my internet connection and I am in a different region that that evil person. Still, I was banned as a sock. Only months later was I unblocked. The administrator who was very familiar with the evil person said all along that I was not a sock based on behaviour.

This was not the first brush with a checkuser. A checkuser has harrassed me before. I think it was because of one of my edits, which is reasonable, but not in agreement with the political views of the checkuser.

In another case, there is evidence that a checkuser was curious and did some fishing on their own, including looking me up. This is not ethical behaviour.

• So I have always been a reasonable editor and made some good contributions and no radical, POV edits. Still, checkusers have butted heads with me at least 3 times. This is why checkusers are of concern to me.

• Actually, the use of checkusers are far more common than is needed. Whether someone has good or bad behaviour can usually be determined simply by examining the edits. If they are pro-pedophilia or denying the Holocaust, there is no need for checkusers. Often, an editor doesn't like an edit and want to find a way to punish the person. The better way is to be polite and seek agreement. A good checkuser is not one who tries to show that he is a superdetective that can nail people and doesn't mind nailing innocent people (or who has tunnel vision so that they are looking for guilt or see a red herring and thinks it is a sign of guilt). A good checkuser is one that practices good ethics and refers cases for counseling (or similar) when needed.

I hope that a new checkuser agrees with me for the above two paragraphs (starred *). If there were a position of Wikipedia Improvement Counselor, I would be happy to be that, but I have no interest in being a checkuser. Chergles ( talk) 21:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry to hear of your experiences of guilt by association. In my experience tracing sockpuppets I have once in a while mistaken a non-related editor for a sockpuppet. In those instances, I have apologized to the non-related editor, and stopped my research activities of said editor. Mistakes can happen. But we should always own up to these mistakes, and learn from them. Cheers, Kingturtle ( talk) 17:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey Kingturtle, you handled my request at WP:CHU a couple days ago to change my username from User:Politizer to User:Rjanag. Right now my contribs don't seem to be fully merged; if I use toolserver's Edit and action count it shows all my contribs under both accounts, but if I use Contributions summary it shows Rjanag and Politizer as separate; same thing for wannabe kate's tool. Also, Special:Contributions/Rjanag only shows edits back to around February 5 (when I made the name change).

I'm just wondering, is there something that hasn't been completed yet in the reattribution of contribs to the new account (maybe the servers haven't had much downtime lately or something), or do these things just not get affected anyway?

Thank you for all your help, rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer) ^talk/ _contribs 16:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Continue making edits as Rjanag. There have been a few cases recently in which edit histories haven't been re-assigned to the new username. I'm investigating it, and I'll get back to you about it soon. Kingturtle ( talk) 17:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey Kingturtle, just wanted to let you know that my contribs have now merged (except for one interesting stray from the same day as when I had my username changed, but that's not a big deal)...so whatever the problem was seems to have been fixed, for me at least. Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/ _contribs 13:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Sure took a long time! Thanks for your patience. Cheers. Kingturtle ( talk) 13:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Kingturtle, you offered on irc to give a completely uninvolved opinion on the discussion at Talk:Masonic conspiracy theories: this is the reminder you requested. Thanks.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 19:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Sorry to bother you again, but we are faced with persistent IP vandalism to the article Kazakh. Today the IP is 92.47.192.40, yesterday it was 92.47.184.88, before that 92.46.29.78, but the pattern of changes is exactly the same. Perhaps Kazakh (and Talk:Kazakh) should be semi-protected until the storm blows over. Thank you. -- Zlerman ( talk) 13:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I believe you mean Kazakhs. I semi-protected it for 2 weeks, and warned the editor again. Kingturtle ( talk) 13:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Many thanks again. And yes, of course, I meant Kazakhs, but was too distraught to watch for typos. Sorry for the confusion. -- Zlerman ( talk) 13:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply

That I get busted for redirecting Dark Empire of Granbretan to the Dorian Hawkmoon page without specifying why (as an aside, I plan on working on it or killing the redirect - I haven't read any Moorcock in ages) by a user in Rochester, NY? I think pretty funny, given that I reside in zip code 14622...... Vulture19 ( talk) 01:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

You're not busted. It was just a friendly request....neighbor :) Kingturtle ( talk) 12:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Feel like fixing these? [4] DuncanHill ( talk) 01:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Take a look here Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Maintenance#Non-unique personal names if you like. DuncanHill ( talk) 05:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm on it. Kingturtle ( talk) 12:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC) Someone has already addressed it. Kingturtle ( talk) 12:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply

What looks like the same IP vandal (92.47.196.203) is now hitting Talk:Kazakhs. Perhaps you could semi-protect the talk page temporarily just as you did with the main article Kazakhs. Thank you. -- Zlerman ( talk) 14:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Editor warned; talk page semi-protected. Kingturtle ( talk) 12:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Firstly, Happy Belated Kingturtle Day! Sorry I missed it.

If I ad inline references throughout an article with a nofootnotes notice, do I remove the nofootnotes notice or is this someone else's responsibility? In the case I'm asking about, STS-82 is taken directly from two NASA mission pages. Kentholke ( talk) 15:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply

If you've added enough references to make the tag obsolete, by all means remove it. Cheers! Kingturtle ( talk) 15:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Again, many thanks! Kentholke ( talk) 15:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply

It is quite obvious that these new pages are slightly modified versions of the BR Bullpen pages. Much of the phrasing in the events sections and even the descriptions of individuals in the births and deaths sections are word for word copy and pastes. Although this content is made available through GNU free documentation license, it is considered good manners to at least acknowledge the source of the material. We over at the Bullpen try to acknowledge WP content whenever we are made aware of it, and I am hoping that the same can come from your end. Thanks. 69.68.238.142 ( talk) 16:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply

In what manner would you like the acknowledgment to appear? I am happy to oblige. Kingturtle ( talk) 18:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply

An example of how we give credit to Wikipedia articles can be seen at the bottom of this article: [5]. A similar line at the bottom of the article or on the article's talk page would be appropriate. At the very least, there could be a link to the Bullpen page under an "External links" section. 69.68.238.142 ( talk) 20:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Those are very reasonable ideas. Although I've decided to remove some of the information I've gleaned from the Bull Pen, and replace it with my own work. I think it is probably best that way. But I will still provide a link to the Bull Pen when necessary...which might be often. Thanks. Kingturtle ( talk) 20:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply

OK, i created Template:Bullpen - and you can see how it looks at the bottom of February 7 in Major League Baseball. Look okay? Cheers, Kingturtle ( talk) 21:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Looks real nice. Thanks. 69.68.238.142 ( talk) 21:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The February 2009 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 22:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Can you shed some light on this issue, since this guy brought your name up? [6] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply

See User_talk:Kingturtle#Philippe petit photos. Kingturtle ( talk) 18:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply

How do we know that he is, in fact, the author of that website? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply

In any case, he got tired of not getting what he wanted, so he made the change himself, which he could have done in the first place and saved this megillah. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

And thanks to the guy's pigheadedness, he loses a reference to his own page altogether. Assuming it was really him and not a troll. C'est la vie. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply

And in case it's not clear, I'm the one who uploaded it. It was a scan from Time or Newsweek, I forget which. The article is much better with the picture than without, but the guy had to have his way, and now he gets nothing. So it goes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Just so you know, I did get email confirmation that it was him and not an imposter. Kingturtle ( talk) 17:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I didn't think it was, but confirmation is good. And instead of a credit, he gets nothing now. I hope he's happy. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually, that's not true. He's in the external links. But that doesn't jump out at the reader the way the photo did. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I have likewise removed the two scans from The New Yorker, as they are merely decorations and are not discussed in the article at all. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Just wanted to thank you for carrying out the name change I requested on WP:CHU/U. I assume it'll take a little while for my contributions to be moved, as there are over 20,000 of them - but as far as I'm concerned, it's the name that counts. Thanks again, and happy editing. :) Robofish ( talk) 19:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I want to usurp the following accounts (to my global account)

• Main page is located on Russian Wikipedia.

Wikipedia:Babel
ru Русский — родной язык этого участника. en-2 This user can contribute with an intermediate level of English. fr-1 Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau élémentaire de français.
Search user languages

Userboxes This user lives in Russia. Этот участник живёт в России. This user lives in Moscow.

fr:Utilisateur:Melee ru:Участник:Melee

Main account: [7]

Thank you!

Make a request at WP:CHUU. Cheers, Kingturtle ( talk) 12:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The other day I was not automatically logged in, and by reflex typed my usual login name to computer systems, rather than OtterSmith. It said (of course) that I had a bad password. But I noticed that the name was red, rather than blue, and upon experiment, discovered that my long, long ago login (HTom) was hanging around, although not capitalized the way I do. I guessed for a while, and finally asked for the system to send me a new password. It said it had, but it hasn't shown up (I'll ask again tomorrow, now that I've resurrected some old mail accounts.) I don't want to change to HTom from OtterSmith, but I'd like HTom to be a dopplegang referring to OtterSmith, if possible. Who do I ask, procedure, ...? Many thanks! htom ( talk) 01:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, it is not possible to merge two accounts into one. The easiest thing to do would be to redirect the pages of the account you don't want to use to the pages of the account you do want to use. What exactly is the username you are referring to? User:HTom? Kingturtle ( talk) 01:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply

User:HTom --> User:OtterSmith, is what I'd like, if possible. (And assuming that it's not some other HTom's account, of course.) I don't remember ever making an edit using User:HTom, but I might have (mostly I think that because I don't think I would have signed up unless I wanted to say something somewhere!) Let it go until tomorrow, when the clock will let me ask for a new password to be sent to the old mail address again. htom ( talk) 02:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Let me make sure I get this straight. You want your OtterSmith account to be renamed HTom, right? If you can log into HTom, that will make things easier and faster. Just leave me a message here as HTom. Kingturtle ( talk) 03:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply

No, there's no renaming involved. I just want User:HTom as a doppelganger account that points to User:OtterSmith. I'll continue, whether or not it does, to use User:OtterSmith as my login, usually having it display as htom, as it does now. Mostly I want to unify HTom across MediaWiki (as I have now done with OtterSmith) to eliminate future name collisions. I suppose I could do the doppelganger thing myself, if I can manage to get the right old email account active, or remember the old password. htom ( talk) 04:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Kingturtle. Please watch Demography of Afghanistan where an IP (possibly that of a banned user) is adding POV to the article and is provoking an editwar. Tājik ( talk) 07:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I put a temporary protection on the article. Kingturtle ( talk) 12:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Tājik ( talk) 17:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi. That is not POV as both Pashto and Avestan are North-Eastern Iranian languages. (see http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/unicode/v7f6/v7f659.html) Also, the ethnolinguistic maps are wrong - many Pashtun regions such as Nimroz, Kandahar, Kabul, Kunduz and some other provinces are falsely shown as non-Pashtun. Heck, even Wakhan is shown as Tajik. Kindly correct the ethnolinguistic maps. 119.152.247.156 ( talk) 12:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply

		The Lonely Geek Barnstar
		This barnstar is in honor of your depressing, unloved presence on IRC on Valentine's Day, 2009. Roses and kisses work for some, but you, noble Wikipedian, have important things to discuss on the internet with people you barely know who you'll probably never meet. Here's to you! Flying Toaster 20:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply

There is trouble at the Muhammad of Ghor‎ article, probably slow edit warring. I don't have time right now to check sources to find out what's the beef and what is fantasy. -- Bejnar ( talk) 20:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Maybe I jumped the gun, but the stories about Prithviraj Chauhan and how Muhammad of Ghor lost his life keep changing. -- Bejnar ( talk) 20:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Desoto-hernando.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Papa November ( talk) 15:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Could you please renew the semi-protection on both Kazakhs and Talk:Kazakhs? We are faced with a new spate of vandalism first by User:Kaz Adm and now by IP user 92.47.184.195 (Kaz Adm's sockpuppet?). Thank you. -- Zlerman ( talk) 03:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi

You reverted two of my edits; I've undone both reverts.

• 1st revert - 08-08-22
• 2nd revert - 09-02-19.

Both edits had good edit summaries (removing 2pac/Tupac - the Tupac Shakur article doesn't suggest he was best known by either, and refers to him throughout as "Shakur" and Voltaire (musician) = born 1967 respectively), both reverts had no explanation. 210.4.103.246 ( talk) 09:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your explanation. I apologize for my quick judgment. Kingturtle ( talk) 17:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Ok, i'm sorry.. just a Wiki-novice. Please unbloking my account —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.46.4.191 ( talk) 12:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Your username I have removed the block from your account because you agreed to cooperate. Your username implies you are an administrator, which you are not. Is there a reason you chose Adm? I can change your username to a different name. What would you like your new username to be? Kingturtle (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC) _______________________________________ maybe - "Kazax", if reserved - Kazax_1

King are you gerl?? :-)) I have many soviets original books with photos about Cold War if you have interest tape me in soviet english ;-)

Okay, The user "Kaz Adm" has been renamed to "Kazax1". Thank you for complying. Kingturtle ( talk) 22:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC) P.S. I am not a gerl. reply

Username Help Information

My username is blocked, and I have experienced retailiation via e-mail due to the vandalism I was blocked for. My username is my real name. I am attempting to change that so it is not my username. Please help me. My username is Adamstanton and I would like it to be "Stntn" (last name no vowels) for personal protection. If you could delete my account completely, that would be better. I do not want to experience this retaliation anymore.

Thank you, Adamstanton ( User_talk:Adamstanton) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.57.197 ( talk) 20:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply

By the way, I am not logged into my account because I am blocked from editing, so I wouldn't be able to post this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.57.197 ( talk) 20:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I recommend taking another look at Special:Contributions/71.107.11.87's edits. They are part of the disruption at Muhammad of Ghor‎ and at Ghaurids where he/she blanked the page on 19 February 2009, not to mention his removal of cited sources at Mohammad Hussain Sarahang (22 January 2009), and other edits. -- Bejnar ( talk) 20:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Yep! It is on my list of things to do :) Kingturtle ( talk) 20:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for renaming me, even though you were concerned about my past sockpuppetry. I did promise to stop sockpuppeting (about a couple of months back really if you read my admissions at my case), and mentioned that my suspected sock puppets would follow me to my new name. Because they all still appear to be related to Almax999 (my old name), does this mean that I should go to each of my sock puppet's pages and change the name to my new one (DisturbedNerd999)? Besides that, my sock puppetry case is also under Almax999, so should the page be moved to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/DisturbedNerd999? Of course if I were to do that, I'd have to edit the page to replace Almax999 with DisturbedNerd999; however, a problem that could happen with that is that those kinds of pages with closed discussions typically shouldn't be edited. Assuming you've probably renamed former sockpuppeteers before, you'd probably know how I could fix this. Sorry to have to bother you with this, but I'm just trying to keep my word.-- Disturbed Nerd 999 02:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Sorry if I rushed to it, but I just changed all the sockpuppets and the case so that it's for DisturbedNerd999 rather than Almax999 (my old name). If I shouldn't have done this, then please let me know and I will easily revert them back to Almax999.-- Disturbed Nerd 999 03:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Having withdrawn from any further discussion in my BLP talk waiting on Sarcasticidealist, I am now ready to help. I know you have a lot on your plate, so if you want to assign some Article for me to work on, send me the link.

DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 22:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

You mentioned that you might have interest in copyediting. Here is a list of articles that are tagged for copyediting: Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit from February 2008. Maybe skim Wikipedia:How to copy-edit and then start copyediting. If you feel you've improved an article so it no longer needs to be tagged, simply remove the Copyedit tag from the article. And if you have any questions, let me know. Kingturtle ( talk) 22:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

P.S. I'll answer some of your questions later on about the Cormier article.

• I have found an Article that has been neglected, undeveloped and just waiting in Limbo for me to adopt it. This will be a real challenge for me, but I am equal to the task.

Cannabis_Social_Club

It´s a perfect fit for this:

Talk:Ray_Joseph_Cormier/Archive1#Cannabis_Culture_.26_Cost

I´m excited about the task, but there is much research to be done.

DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 22:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello, Kingturtle. Based on the templates on your talk page, I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. Note:Keep in mind that Squadron members officially state they are not inclusionists. ~~~~

Kingturtle, I am contacting you, as you are the bureaucrat-of-record for my usurpation request. I realized that my request was for a SUL consolidation, and that it should have been placed in a different venue. Should I remove the request and request in the correct SUL usurpation area, or am I committed to the standard usurpation request process? Thank you. Sapph42 ( talk) 19:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Kingturtle. Please take a look at this: [8]. User:Bejnar is falsifying sources by reverting to the version of a banned user (most likely User:Banigul) - the sources, however, are very clear. The same IP also vandalized/falsified the article Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA), and his edits are identical to those of the banned user in that article. Keeping that in mind, what Bejnar is doing is basically meatpuppetry for a banned user. This is not the first time, unfortunately. Tājik ( talk) 23:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I can login to my new name account, but it's in no way possible to merge both my old name and my new name? Sorry to bother you with this. Ken oostende ( talk) 08:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

It is not possible to merge two different accounts. The best thing to do is provide a link on your new userpage to User:Ken oostende with an little explanation. Kingturtle ( talk) 14:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you! Ken oostende ( talk) 09:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

There is a Wikipedia policy governing using the subject of a BLP as a self published source. I´d like to know your opinion and understanding of that guideline?

I am not sure what you mean exactly. Can you elaborate? Kingturtle ( talk) 20:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

• What self published material of the subject of a BLP can be included in the Article under what conditions?

DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 00:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

We should never use self-published materials for BLPs. That bleeds into the realm of no original research. Maybe you could have materials you've written be published by a notable publishing company? Kingturtle ( talk) 14:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

just thought i'd let u know that no one likes you or loves you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falford ( talk • contribs) 20:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the heads up :) Kingturtle ( talk) 20:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm beginning to get somewhat of a grasp. Your words helped. Please don't hesitate or be afraid to interject your opinion or questions. Two heads are better than one, three heads are better than two, four heads are better than three, etc. Kentholke ( talk) 22:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

You are definitely welcome. Keep up the continued exploration and growth - and ask if you have any questions. Kingturtle ( talk) 22:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Kingturtle, I have a question that needs your help. I used to have an account registered with a name "Jack". Then I change this original user name into "Jones". According to the renaming principle of wikipedia, all account name "Jack" in the edit history page should be converted into "Jones" . However, as I found, the origianl account name still appears in the edit history page. For example, it mays shows that "Reverted edits by Jack (talk) to last version by administrator". Here the origianl account still appears and I still can log in with "Jack". I just want to know, under such case, how could I make the old name "Jack" totally disappeared in all edit history page. Thanks very much. BigFatPigCa ( talk) 13:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Your username change was performed correctly. Sometimes it takes a little time for the servers to catch up to the changes. Don't worry about it yet. Just keep using the new account name. If it still hasn't resolved itself by Monday, we can look into it more closely. Cheers, Kingturtle ( talk) 14:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigFatPigCa ( talk • contribs) 14:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Lilya-Brik2.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle ( talk) 17:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

In the talk of the Article on Cana I just started a new section addressed to Editors who previously contributed to improving it.

The Subject, who never contributed before, just surfed in and undid my edits without any discussion in the talk. Is this proper? DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 19:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes. WP:BRD discusses how to edit articles. Hipocrite ( talk) 19:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

DoDa, it doesn't matter if the editor has edited the article previously - any editor may edit. Although Hipocrite did not discuss his reasons in your talk page, he did leave ample reasons in his edit summaries: "please don't insert your own the religious beliefs of random people from the internet into this article", "tags for unverifiable info, this whole section is garbage" and "I dispute the accuracy of this article." The proper place for you to start a dialog about these assertions is at Talk:Cana. Kingturtle ( talk) 19:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Also, Hipocrite acted in good faith by allowing your edits to stand, and by asking for citations. Kingturtle ( talk) 19:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi ... can you please shed light on the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jackal4 ? This is an issue that you have addressed wisely in the past. And Jackal4 is running around reverting me wherever I use the "s" to denote a plural. Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 09:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Note that this morning, when these attack accounts were renamed, JA/G immediately recreated them. Is there any way to stop this? NawlinWiki ( talk) 21:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply

One way is to create them ourselves and then ban them. Also, it should help when we indefinitely block the accounts with "Autoblock any IP addresses used" and "Prevent account creation." Another thing would be to contact a Checkuser and see if they can block an IP range for a while. Kingturtle ( talk) 21:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC) reply

{{ editprotected}}

• Replace File:Rochester100a.jpg with File:Rochester Centennial - Miss Rochester.jpg (moved to Commons).
• Replace File:Rochester100b.jpg with File:Rochester Centennial - First Log Cabin.jpg (moved to Commons).

-- Powers ^T 15:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply

 Done Kingturtle ( talk) 15:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I haven't edited in awhile because I had my original user name changed from User:Valoem to User:Liusion. Unfortunately I wasn't thinking this through properly. This reveals my last name and would be more comfortable with my previous user name. I was looking forward to creating new article and coming out of retirement for the last two years I was just wondering if I could get my name changed back to valoem. I will post the request on the name request page if this is allowed. 71.248.236.93 ( talk) 17:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Please sign in as User:Liusion and confirm it is you. Kingturtle ( talk) 21:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Confirming edit first edit in over 2 years :) Liusion ^talk 04:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello, can you unlock this article: " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhs"? I wanna uploading some photos for Wiki...

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalakazakh ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply

An article's protection does not prevent you from uploading images. You'll just have to wait until the protection is lifted before you can add the images to the article. Kingturtle ( talk) 21:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Could you please respond on my talk page to this, so I know that you've responded?

This user, AxMann, has the username I wish to use. Except, I want the m to be lowercase, unlike his name. When I registered, the server would not allow me to use the username "Axmann", because of this other user. I asked in the usurp page, they told me to go to the regular username change page. I did that, and THEY told me to go back to the usurp thread. I did that, didn't get an answer, and then recently, I posted a follow-up, and still didn't get an answer.

The person whose username I'm trying to usurp, " AxMann" (however I wish my name to appear as "Axmann", NOT "AxMann"), had a usurpation request posted on his talk page, which I have linked to as you see (he does not have a user page). Also, it has been 7 or more days since this request was filed on his talk page. It outlines that if he didn't take action on the usurpation in 7 days, the process would be automatically executed, and I could usurp the name.

Can you please assist me with this?

Thanks again,

- Axmann8 ( Talk) 18:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I responded to your comment on Wikipedia:Changing_username/Usurpations. The reason I am now requesting usurpation is because on his talk page, a time limit of 7 days was set for his response, otherwise he would be automatically usurped. It has been 7 days since that request was put on his talk page.

- Axmann8 ( Talk) 23:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Kingturtle. Just dropping by to say thanks for the welcome. Delicado ( talk) 15:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I keep stumbling over articles like Martin of Tongres, articles that have no content to speak of, no active editing, no references (in this case the one external link is dead), and are not supported in articles they link to. Because I have doubt on which action to perform, WP:DEL suggests I should propose the article for deletion with my reasoning rather than tag it for speedy deletion. Am I correct?

This is the support for the observance listed on June 21, which of course is no support at all. Kentholke ( talk) 15:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC) reply

You are correct that Martin of Tongres is not a candidate for speedy deletion, and if you see it fit, AfD would be the correct route. However, I think the article in question would survive an AfD and not be deleted Stubs are okay, even if they are inactive and don't contain references. Other options besides nominating it for AfD include: Add an {{Unreferenced}} tag to the top of the article, change the out-dated external link to an archived one using the WayBackMachine, and/or work on improving the article by finding references and adding them. Cheers, Kingturtle ( talk) 12:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

hi. i was randomly searching wikipedia (who doesnt) and found this page, Category:Technology and applied science infobox templates. if you look carefully, the list includes actual article pages. those pages list the template infobox category on their main article page. i have tried to edit them out, but i cant get to them. i dont know where they exist. i noticed that a "test" infobox from your user space is also listed. perhaps you know how this happened. mystery to me. im new to wikipedia. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 03:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

You may want to take your questions to User:Sardanaphalus. That is the user who created the category, and may be best able to help you. Sincerely, Kingturtle ( talk) 12:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I had to play with the file history of

• File:Manifestdestiny.jpg
• File:Gibralter2.jpg
• File:Kabul.jpg

can you check and make sure I got the licenses right? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 23:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Looks good. Those were uploaded over 5 years ago. Good catch. Kingturtle ( talk) 00:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Dear Sir or Madam,

Unfortunately, I have made a rather major blunder in an edit that I made to this user's talk page. My edit on the page was a breach of Privacy law, and reflects a serious lack of judgement on my behalf. Because of the urgency of this, I have not been able to contact User:Steve Stefan directly, so at this stage he is unaware of what is going on. Futher, due to the urgency, I have also posted this onto several SysOp and Bureaucrat's talk pages.

The people whose privacy I violated through this edit desire that my edit be removed completely from Wikipedia (including from the history, otherwise I would simply revert the edit myself), which is fair enough, considering what I have posted. Therefore, could you please delete the user's talk page and return the article to the state that it was in prior to my edit. I have a back-up of this page at User:Hunterd/123; the version stored here was a backup of the page as of 15:42 March 20, 2009 (WP time), without the comment that I posted.

If this is not possible, could you please refer me person that is capable of doing this.

I would greatly appreciate any help that you can provide.

Kind regards,

The Duke of Kingturtle 05:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC) PS: Could you please reply to this message on my own talk page? Thanks. reply

Hello Kingturtle, I noticed your username appearing in my watchlist just now, and I've been looking for a bureaucrat. According to the times, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/OverlordQ 2 is several hours overdue, can you please close it? Thank you. Acalamari 17:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I was just starting it. Cheers. Kingturtle ( talk) 17:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Ah, that was even better. Thanks! Acalamari 17:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Err.. wrong checkbox, dude. :-) You made him a bureaucrat. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 17:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I know you're probably loath to deal with this again, and for that I'm sorry. In December, we had all agreed regarding the caption on a photo on this article that a new photo would be sought. I contacted David Shankbone, who agreed to get one as time and weather conditions allowed. Meanwhile, you reverted this edit, which once again introduced the name Lars Jacob into the photo caption. That was done by IP 217.209.96.57. Today an editor, User:YeahManSwed, once again added the name to the caption and I reverted it, citing your earlier edit summary. Later today, IP 217.209.96.65 raised discussion at Talk:Mae West#Notable person should or should not be named in photo caption? and Talk:Mae West#Too many source tags in the text?. I haven't been able to find it yet, but at some juncture, a very similar IP was posting interchangeably with User:EmilEikS (who was the catalyst of initial issue. I hope you have comments for this. Thanks! Wildhartlivie ( talk) 23:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello! Yes, your comments are most welcome at talk:Mae West in a new section about the photo caption you helped out with before (no one wants to add anything about Demitz/Jacob to the article's text). Yes, some of the IP's are Swedish. Since Commons:Category:Southerly Clubs Image Archives was published last year, it has created quite a stir in Sweden and many Swedes have taken quite a bit of interest in all these old things (though Lars Jacob is also involved with several famous talents in Sweden today, as people here can see from the image files). I am an American linguist living here, naturally interested in these subjects (Swedes who have done well in my country), as many others are. Many more of us got to know each other during the election campaign last year. Wikipedia is so great because you can find so much interesting information so fast by following the links all over. More and more of us are learning that too. We think that's great, hope you do too. Some of us here have also begun to keep in touch by email. I really hope the fact that a few IP's located in Sweden are involved isn't going to start another huge ruckus like I read about from last year. But what can we do, these computers are registered in this country, like it or not. That doesn't mean 8 million people are ganging up on you, please believe me! 217.209.96.65 ( talk) 01:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Just to note - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EmilEikS related this IP to User:EmilEikS, who was determined to be using a sock puppet during this RfC, after which the sock was blocked and EmilEikS resigned from Wikipedia rather than participate. 8 million Swedes may not be ganging up on anyone, but one Swede did use sock puppets to try and vote-stack a consensus request at Talk:Mae West in order to coatrack the person in the crypt image into the article. Thanks. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 08:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Kingturtle. I see that you are a Wikipedia Bureaucrat. I'm a user doing a research project for UCSC and I would very much like to talk to you about your experiences and perspective on Wikipedia. Please let me know if that's possible. I would really appreciate it.

Thanks for your time. Rodomontade ( talk) 19:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Sure thing. I'm a banana slug myself. Kingturtle ( talk) 19:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Awesome! We've started the discussion already on my talk page. I'm not doing interviews, but rather an ethnography, so you're encouraged to just jump in and relate your own knowledge/disagree/expand upon all of the topics of discussion. Rodomontade ( talk) 04:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

The March 2009 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) 21:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Kingturtle, I humbly need you to take a look at something on my user (not talk) page. Once again, thanks for the offer that you so graciously made earlier on, it is highly appreciated and will be remembered. You rock, remember that! Edit Centric ( talk) 08:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry to read all that. You're a good person. Stay true to yourself. I hope you stick around. Cheers, Kingturtle ( talk) 23:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey, thanks a lot for changing my user name I've already gone about creating new articles. As a long time editor I was wondering who need to speak with regarding the ability to view deleted articles. I am interested editing a previous version of Joe's Shanghai and also willing to put it through a second AfD which it should pass now. The article changed drastically during the time it went through AfD and if I remember correctly the final version was very well cited. Some was initial votes were counted without seeing the new version which led to it being deleted. Valoem ^talk 16:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I'll post the references on your talk page. Kingturtle ( talk) 23:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Sorry to bother you again but is there anyway you could paste that previous version to User talk:Valoem/test/Joe's Shanghai? I remember that stub was fairly well written. Just as a side question are admins the only one that can view delete articles or is there some form of privilege that can be applied. :) Valoem ^talk 04:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Please check -- thanks. NawlinWiki ( talk) 18:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Kingturtle, I just wanted to say thank you for the barnstar and that I appreciate the appreciation! Camw ( talk) 23:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Kingturtle, I saw that you were editing - and since I've noticed that other editors appear to hold you in high esteem, I thought I'd like to introduce myself. My question posted here is about the lupin spell checking tool. Can it be forced to display the diff above the edit box? Thanks — Ched ~ ^(yes?) 03:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Sorry Ched, .css and .js issues are not my expertise. But it is nice to meet you :) And I hope I can help you with other issues in the future. Cheers, Kingturtle ( talk) 03:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but it seems that there is yet another sockpuppet of User:NisarKand (or User:Khampalak) around. --> User:Omidirani. Tajik ( talk) 07:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I am looking into it. Kingturtle ( talk) 21:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I have sent a similar message to other administrators, im assuming you are an administrator. Im looking for an explanation as to why my usernames were deemed offensive. I felt that they were light-hearted tongue in cheek humor. As I went through the appeals methods I was told, with no explanation, to stop "trolling" or I will be blocked. Apparently trolling means disruptive. I don't understand how appealing is disruptive. Every attempt to get an explanation has met with no responses. I would like to understand my original query, and then I would like an explanation to why I am not getting an explanation when asked. Could you help me? Racingstripes ( talk) 19:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Your current username Racingstripes is not offensive. User:Passedflatus and User:Diarrheachacha are immature and may be offensive to some. I unblocked your User:Diarrheachacha account to give you the chance to change it, but now that you've created Racingstripes, you should just go with that. As for Baseball Bugs, his username is not offensive. Part of your being reprimanded involves you disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Please read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point closely and you'll understand better.

My advice is to keep the Racingstripes account, forget the old accounts, and get back to helping improve Wikipedia articles. Kingturtle ( talk) 19:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for responding to me without simply blocking me, making threats to, or just ignoring me. I think that the username Baseball Bugs is not offensive at all. I just feel that the combination of his Bugs Bunny referencing username along with the bugs bunny catch phrase(which might be trademarked itself) What's Up, Doc? that he uses when he signs his updates violates some sort of Warner Brother's copyright or promotes a product. I also don't think that his comment that since I wouldnt answer his question, I'll stay blocked is very civil. Would it be up to him whether or not I get blocked or unblocked? Racingstripes ( talk) 19:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply

In regards to the what's up, doc issue, he's not making any money off of it, and he's not pretending he invented it. So there is not copyright infringement issue involved.

In regards to you being blocked in the future, read Wikipedia:Blocking policy. These are the types of things that could get you blocked:

• persistent vandalism
• persistent gross incivility
• persistent harassment
• persistent spamming
• edit warring or revert warring
• breaching the sock puppetry policy
• persistently violating other policies or guidelines
• persistently making personal attacks
• making personal, professional or legal threats (including outside the Wikipedia site)
• performing actions that place users in danger
• disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate)
• persistently violating copyrights
• persistently posting material contrary to the biographies of living persons policy
• accounts that appear to have been compromised, as an emergency measure

Just keep your nose out of trouble, be civil, have Wikiquette, assume good faith and the presence of a belly-button and stay cool when the editing gets hot and get to work on making our articles better. Kingturtle ( talk) 20:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply

None of that is a problem. That's why I'm trying to go through the appropriate channels. If that's the case regarding to the username, that's fine. Complaining about that username didnt mean much to me, what really does is that, at least i felt, he was rubbing it in that he turned me in both times as regards to my names. And that comment the user made about that since I won't answer his question I'll stay blocked. I really feel that that was not very civil and I felt that it violated the Newbies policy. Racingstripes ( talk) 20:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply

The user nearly trapped me into a 3RR situation on the Henry Morgan article, but I backed away and let him have it. If the user's current name is also some vulgar reference, it's obscure enough that I'm not seeing it, so no problem here. (However, his earlier "tongue in cheek" comment, juxtaposed with his previous user names, is not the kind of mental picture I was looking for today.) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Kingturtule, considering you had only 4 hours in awkward circumstances to rewrite the BLP of Ray Joseph Cormier you did a fair job. Thank you, and God bless you in some way for that effort.

User Talk: Sarcasticidealist, having more time and the original References in hand and more, has posted his 1st Section. I can hardly wait to see what comes next. It is good! Written from an true NPOV.

User:Sarcasticidealist/Cormier

Peace DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 21:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC) reply

It didn't take long... [9] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I noticed that you removed the afd tag and edited the talk page to show that the decision was to keep, but it appears you neglected to close the afd discussion. I assume you may have been distracted.

Thanks. BRMo ( talk) 20:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Kingturtle, please make sure to link to the correct article when referring to the Texas Rangers in the "...in baseball" articles. The correct article is located at Texas Rangers (baseball). Thanks, caknuck _° remains gainfully employed 21:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Will do. Kingturtle ( talk) 13:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I would like for an administrator (I am guessing you ARE an administrator) to review the main page of Harry Dennis (musician) because the headingsbefore the article reads a major contributor to this article appears to have a conflict of interest AND the article needs additional citations for verification. These headings have been on the page for an extended period of time. The article is written from discussions with the artist, artists I could access in the field, and a perusal of his work that was in existence on the internet and on audio discs. There have been no other citations offered by others to verify the information in the article. I have attempted to verify the artist content by providing links, references and a list of his published works. I would like the headers removed. Please provide feedback. Thank you. 10 Mar 2009 15:05 --DA01 20:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DA01 ( talk • contribs)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by DA01 ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Dear Kingturtle, please review my comments and request for removal of headings on Harry Dennis (musician) page. I am going to try the signature function again and hopefully, you will get a chance to respond. Thanks. 13 March 2009 18:55--DA01 23:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DA01 ( talk • contribs)

I removed the COI tag, because a lot of work has been done on the article. But I added a cleanup tag because the article could use some more work. Kingturtle ( talk) 22:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank your for your response and removing the COI tag. I am curious as to the more work comment. Is it grammer, content, or what exactly? I have compared my article to other articles on house musicians and my article is a little more than some and a little less than some in terms of length. Length, of course, is based on volume of work. Please send me your suggestions on the more work needed. This article has been posted for a little while now, and no other contributor(s) has added any information as I can ascertain. Thank you.--DA01 21:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)15 March 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DA01 ( talk • contribs)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Writing better articles and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) to get better ideas on how to improve the article. Cheers, Kingturtle ( talk) 12:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the encouragement. Stubs are great fun. :-) -- Bensin ( talk) 02:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Dear Kingturtle,

I thank you for your comments regarding my recent RfA. Be assured that I'll be paying more attention to how I can improve my skills on Wikipedia during the coming months. When the time is right, I'll apply again. Thanks, Matt ( talk) 07:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Can this user Enigmaman just erase my edits like that, and can I revert them? Racingstripes ( talk) 17:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

It isn't a good idea to get into an edit war over this. I am sure Enigmaman will elaborate on his reasoning in due time. Just be patient. Kingturtle ( talk) 17:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, I guess he isn't going to reply today. If you think it is imperative to your project that you revert his reverts, that is okay. But before you get too engrossed into your project, are you sure that that Category will be useful? Kingturtle ( talk) 18:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Looks to me like he's already too engrossed. There's a decent chance all his work is going to have to be undone, and he just keeps going on and doing it anyway. - Dewelar ( talk) 19:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Racingstripes, your category is being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 13. Kingturtle ( talk) 20:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Is there some reason you undid my month-old edit to this page? - Dewelar ( talk) 18:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Never mind...I had a [ where I should have had a { and broke the template. Fixed now. - Dewelar ( talk) 18:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I was going to ask you what went wrong with your edit, but you beat me to it. Cheers, Kingturtle ( talk) 18:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah, sometimes I'm a bit too quick and go on to the next page before checking the one I'm on. Thanks for catching it. - Dewelar ( talk) 19:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC) reply

FYI, Jackal4 has been blocked for the second time this month -- this time for a 30-day period. See [10].-- Epeefleche ( talk) 08:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

This user is accusing me of being a sock puppet. There is zero evidence to support this and there will always be zero evidence to support it. Can I just erase this thing from my user page or talk page as it says here Wikipedia:Sock puppetry/Notes for the suspect Racingstripes ( talk) 22:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I removed the notice on your userpage because the Checkuser determined you were not related to the suspected connections. Kingturtle ( talk) 22:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you Racingstripes ( talk) 23:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I see you are currently active so can you please have a look at the recent page moves to List of people on stamps of Ireland that was moved to List of people on stamps of the Republic of Ireland and again moved to List of people on stamps in Ireland? The move is not without controversy over the name of the state, which is being discussed elsewhere. There are no stamps for the Republic of Ireland, even though the main Irish state article is named Republic of Ireland and in Ireland is totally wrong. The stamps are not in Ireland! The List of people on stamps of Ireland is proper because it uses the state's official English name and there are no independent stamps for Northern Ireland, so there is no ambiguity in using the official name. Stamps issued specifically for Northern Ireland are known as Regional stamps and covered by the article Regional postage in Great Britain. BTW, throughout all of philately the term "Great Britain" is used instead of the official name United Kingdom. This was a totally unnecessary move and being controversial should be reverted until a consensus is reached, so can you revert it. TIA ww2censor ( talk) 15:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I moved the article back to its original title, and I blocked moves for 24 hours to foster dialog in the talk page. Kingturtle ( talk) 15:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I will post on the talk page my justification why the current name should stay. Again thanks. ww2censor ( talk) 15:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hey you realise you made OverlordQ a bureaucrat too? :) Majorly talk 17:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

His crat bit was removed by a steward. He needs +sysop now. :-) - Rjd0060 ( talk) 17:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Fixed. Kingturtle ( talk) 17:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC) reply

But you gave me +crat instead of +sysop. Crat's can't uncrat themselves, so eh? Q ^{T C} 17:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Fixed. Kingturtle ( talk) 17:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi. Another editor, NatureBoyMD, has come up with what I think is a good and thoughtful template and conditions for a "notable alumni" list for a minor league team that interests him. See [11]. I thought that before he finalizes it, it/he might benefit from you taking a glance at it, and giving him any comments that you may have, since I could see it being used for other minor league teams (its better than anything I've seen), and you are a baseball editor whose views I respect. Feel free to leave your comments on it for him on my home talk page at the above url, as that is where he and I have been discussing it. Thanks.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 05:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply

No problem! It's part of an FT I and Ironholds are working on. What's your interest in it? —  neuro ^{(talk) (review)} 18:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks a lot for sorting it out! I realise how annoying it must be to move all the subpages, so thanks dude! :D Onevalefan ^talk 22:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello Kingturtle~ I am a manager with CNN/Turner Broadcasting and I continue to remove this information because it is inaccurate. I will make an edit note. Thank you Fivhorizon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fivhorizon ( talk • contribs) 18:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC) reply

If it is properly referenced, then the information should probably remain. You can also use the article's talk page to discuss what needs re-writing or special considerations. Kingturtle ( talk) 18:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Kingturtle,

I'm looking to improve the article for e-Participation, an saw in the article-history, that you wants to clean up the article, since march 2008. Now my question, what especially is not correct or why does the article not meets the quality standarts of Wikipedia? thanks for your answer. 77.179.152.213 ( talk) 20:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually, it is much improved since last year. I am removing the tag. Kingturtle ( talk) 20:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, Kingturtle. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at a problem I encountered described at Wikipedia_talk:Changing_username#Name_reserved, and if you have any perspective/reccomendations to offer. Thanks much. Cheers, -- Infrogmation ( talk) 00:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I think the problem has been taken care of, though with a rather inelegant work-around as noted at the same link above. Feedback is still very welcome. Cheers, -- Infrogmation ( talk) 01:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I've removed a number of fair use images from this page. Per WP:NFCC #9, fair use images may not be displayed in userspace. This is an inviolable rule, even for temporary pages or works in progress. Thank you, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 17:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I re-added information you deleted that had nothing to do with the images. Please in the future be more careful about what you delete from people's projects. Thanks for understanding, Kingturtle ( talk) 12:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi. :) You tagged this one as a copyright problem, and I'm afraid I may be missing the obvious, because I have not been able to find infringement. (I certainly expected to, though; the text has all the markers you'd expect to see!) I even ran the article through a plagiarism checker I use, here, and didn't come up with anything other than wikimirrors, including bookwyrm.com. Older versions of the article undoubtedly follow closely on [12], but I haven't been able to locate any corresponding text to the current. Would you mind clarifying the concern? It's the last remaining ticket for the day. :) -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC) reply

For example, see this. Kingturtle ( talk) 12:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Hmm. I can't tell where the Doryoku search engine is pulling from. Is it possible that it's picking up Wikipedia? While there are links at the bottom of the page, I don't see that text on any of them. And Doryoku's " about" page says, "some data derived from the english version of Wikipedia, which is released under the GNU Free Documentation License." Perhaps it's a wikimirror? -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Because we cannot find it online does not mean it wasn't copied verbatim from another source. It has been my experience that when the first edit of an article is over 3000 bytes, has absolutely no wiki-links, and is grammatically perfect, that it has been lifted directly from another source. It may very well be lifted from Patricia True's The History of the New City Free Library. Kingturtle ( talk) 12:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Earlier versions of the article were clearly copied from the website. I can't find any evidence that current text is copied, though, and I spent quite a good time looking yesterday, since it is the last ticket from its day and I hate to see backlog. :/ I wouldn't be surprised if the material had been used elsewhere, since evidence would suggest it was authored by Director Charles (Chuck) McMorran ( http://www.newcitylibrary.org/about.html), but he might also be expected to be a fairly good writer, given his profession. :) It might be lifted from Ms. True's thesis, but since this apparently exists only in a bound version (much like my thesis, alas) I don't have any way to compare. Generally, when copyright is suspected but can't be proven, I will revise the article myself just to be on the safe side. However, I can't find any evidence at all in this situation. Since you seem to persist in your concern, maybe I should contact Mr. McMorran, since his e-mail address is supplied at the library's website. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I have no qualms if the article is revised to summarize what was there before. Kingturtle ( talk) 14:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC) reply

All right. I'll do that then. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Apparently, this isn't going to stop. He/she refuses to discuss the issue, but continues to delete. I have reverted it, but found this empty threat on another editor's talk page. ++ Arx Fortis ( talk) 13:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The current biography of Kyra Phillips is an obvious violation of the "neutral point of view policy" of Wikipedia. The article includes "criticisms" and "mishaps", but no references to opinions lauding her accomplishments. I have reviewed the history and can completely understand why editors have sought to balance this article several times by removing citations of "perceived" insensitivity and questionable sourcing of critical remarks. In short, the "criticisms" section of this article should be removed until such time as balancing perspectives have been included. I would be happy to provide those citations, however, the biography has been locked. ++ user: Columbiaprof —Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC). reply

I noticed that in the AFD debate for list of possible exceptions to the democratic peace theory you noted that you and your students used the page frequently. As you may have noticed if you happened to follow the AFD, the consensus was that a number of changes needed to be made to save the page. Overall, the structure and focus of the page gave it the appearance of being original research for several reasons. In order to save the page, a number of us have been trying to rework it from a slightly different focus. Instead of explicitly representing a back and forth over the democratic peace theory, we are trying to rework it simply as a list of putative wars between democracies, hopefully with each section giving a bit more overview of the war and offering a more concise description of the most important arguments for and against it being categorized in this list. In particular, we'd like to make sure that the discussion of each war is very well referenced and offers a succinct and accurate discussion. We'd also like to remove any wars that don't really fit the new approach and refocus the remaining discussions appropriately. I am supposing from your AFD comment that you may be something of an expert in this area. My feeling is that as much as we work on this, we are presently at somewhat of a disadvantage due to lacking extensive knowledge of the field, and as a result the revamp seems to be stagnating. If there is any assistance you could offer along these lines, it would be greatly appreciated. I think the article is potentially very informative, and I would like to do everything possible to save it and make it accessible to the average reader. Thanks- Locke9k ( talk) 06:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The April 2009 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 15:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC) reply

hi. I notice through what links here, that your Afghanistan pages link to articles that are mostly redirects. I have had a Merge tag on timeline of Afghnistan articles for some time, and am now in the process of moving them to 2002 in Afghanistan and others. Jez  t  e  C 08:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Just a heads up re this conversation as it could conceivably become An Issue at some point. (As I say there, there seems to be no crossover at all so hopefully it won't cause any problems.) –  iride scent 00:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I've added a little more substance to the Muhammad of Ghor article. Maybe Energyworm's effort to present two variations of Prithviraj Chauhan's death will reduce edit warring there, but I doubt it. -- Bejnar ( talk) 03:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I have nominated User:Raagio/monobook.js ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ra agg io 11:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply

With regard to this - does Seoul Guy not having a batter claim to the global username than the nlwiki claimant? — Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 13:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Not for a usurpation of a username that is already active and claimed as a home wiki. Seoul Guy might have a claim to overtake the username Seoul Guy on a sister project, but not to overtake a username he doesn't even have. Kingturtle ( talk) 13:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Okay, sure. I didn't know that; guess you learn something new every day. I don't mean to question you, but could you provide a link to the policy or guideline that prescribes such action in this situation? It's not mentioned on Meta's page on the subject. Or is it just common practice that remains undocumented? — Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 13:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Don't worry. I don't feel your questions are out of line. These dialogs are useful.

I suppose the only part of Meta that applies here is "#6: ...may reject a request even if it fulfills these criteria, but contradicts common sense." The username is question has a home wiki, and is active on that home wiki. It doesn't seem right for Seoul Guy to take over the name. Seoul Guy gives no compelling reason why such an overtaking should take place. Kingturtle ( talk) 14:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I see. See, for example, the latest request at CHU: here. Notice how the target matches the username of an account on frwiki with 17 edits, but that account has been inactive for close to a year. Negating my cratnote and the associated issue, do you think a rename would be appropriate if there were no other strings attached? — Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 14:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

If the target username's home wiki (nl.wiki) was inactive, unused in over a year, then Seoul Guy's request would go through. IMHO. Kingturtle ( talk) 14:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Right. So it somewhat hinges on activity levels, with a sprinkling of common sense. Thanks a lot, you've been very helpful. Cheers, — Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 15:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

2 September 2008. You welcomed me to WP. Today, I've become an admin. I feel as if you welcomed me yesterday! :-)

You do a lot of work here. Is everything going smoothly? Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift ( talk) 16:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Kingturtle. :-) AdjustShift ( talk) 16:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC) reply

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For fulfilling my recent request, and your tireless work renaming users (you've over 1000 renames!), I award you The Admin's Barnstar! (Since there's no bureaucrat's barnstar... =) – xeno ( talk) 18:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I'm glad I could help :) Kingturtle ( talk) 13:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

o great testudine, I believe that ACC, like rollback, is redundant to +sysop... Just for future reference =0 – xeno ^talk 14:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Kingturtle, I hope you are doing well. Could you please keep an eye on Pashto language? A new user, User:AdinaPur, sometimes using IPs ( User:116.58.100.78), is deleting information and sources from the article. See for example here: [13]. He has deleted the reference to " ABC NEWS/BBC/ARD POLL – AFGHANISTAN: WHERE THINGS STAND, February 9th, 2009, p. 38-40" 3 times. I am not sure, but he might be another sockpuppet of User:NisarKand. Thank you. Tajik ( talk) 06:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I left the user a warning. And I will monitor those articles. Kingturtle ( talk) 13:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I have nominated Comet for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt ( talk) 12:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I'd put a request to change my name from Ross Rhodes to T. R. Rhodes earlier, which you sorted, though for reasons of which I do not want to explain I'd like it put back to what it was. I did put a request in, though nobody has done anything about it. Ross Rhodes ( T C) ^Sign! 15:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you! Feel free to sign my guestbook if you haven't already. :) 90.241.219.157 ( talk) 15:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I filed a request for a username Usurpation in March, which you denied as the name is in use on other wikis, here, yet you have allowed a change in very similar circumstances here. Please could you clarify how this circumstance is different to mine? It is worth noting that I have no intention of editing on any other wiki apart from here (and commons). Jenuk1985 |  Talk 17:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

TPS'er comment: the nl Jeni made an edit just last month, so that's perhaps why K.T. did not want to permit you to negotiate yourself into a better claim over the SUL... Whereas the de.wiki Nathan hasn't edited since 2004... – xeno ^talk 17:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Is there any way I can state that I do not want a claim to the SUL, and never will. This discussion could be used in evidence if I ever try to claim it (which I will not anyway). All I want is to use the name here and on commons (less so on commons, as I'm not a big user there, I don't mind sticking with Jenuk1985) Jenuk1985 |  Talk 18:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi,

How can you be so sure about her year of birth ?

Best regards, DocteurCosmos ( talk) 13:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC) reply

She graduated in Sarah Lawrence in 1988. She was not 20 years old when she graduated. I went to bars with her in 1987, and she did not have a fake ID. Kingturtle ( talk) 13:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC) reply

You son of satan where does it mention his father being a Tajik??? You dumb asss fag,,,read this...it says his father was Afghan. http://www.whereincity.com/india/great-indians/freedom-fighters/maulana-abul-kalam.php His father belonged Qadiri Order and these people in Afghanistan were not Tajiks. Anyway fukk your mother you may write all the BS u want, only dumb assses like you follow lies. You are supporting nonsense that the son of bitch Tajik is inserting to articles, making people Tajiks when those people never heard of that shiity word before.

Kingturtle,

I'm puzzled by your deletion of "Non-punitive discipline" as (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: this should be its own article). This may well be true, but I merged the article with Child discipline in March 2008 (discussion: Talk:Child_discipline#Merger Proposal, edit: [14]). This was to fix what appeared at the time to be a number of unlinked content forks. Therefore your deletion of the redirect as lost the GFDL of text I merged into Child discipline and I'm not sure what the creation of a redlink is going to do. Edgepedia ( talk) 20:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Non-punitive discipline is not limited to children. It is applicable to adults as well. Therefore, redirecting it to Child discipline is incorrect. I am just getting a WikiProject for Nonviolence off the ground. Non-punitive discipline will certainly be one of the first new articles we tackle. Kingturtle ( talk) 20:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Per DANK -> DANK (usurped) ... thanks. There's also an account "Dank" with a single edit to the tutorial from 2005; would you like me to make a request at WP:USURP regarding that one? (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 12:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Can you give me a link to that user's userpage? I cannot locate it. Kingturtle ( talk) 13:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

User:Dank ... you'll see my userpage, but click on "user contributions" and it will show one contrib from 2005. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 13:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The user "Dank" has been renamed to "Dank (usurped2)". But now things look more complicated. Kingturtle ( talk) 13:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I can't log in as "Dank" using my current password. I can move everything around properly if the name change goes through. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 13:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I am not sure what you mean by "if the name change goes through." Can you explain it to me differently? Kingturtle ( talk) 13:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The user "Dank55" has been renamed to "Dank". Kingturtle ( talk) 14:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Perfect, thanks, I'll put everything on the right pages. - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 14:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I initially had the same argument as you, that if a game had violent deaths in it that it would still be considered a violent video game (I think I also argued minesweeper would be considered violent). But I think the article adequately explains why games in which the player's actions are nonviolent are considered nonviolent as well, even if violent deaths occur (i.e. Portal). See previous discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 6#Category:Non-violent first-person shooters, User talk:Thibbs#CfD and logic... – xeno ^talk 15:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I maintain that a nonviolent game teaches the use of nonviolence as a strategy, and also teaches nonviolence through alternate outcomes. But I will not press it. Kingturtle ( talk) 15:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Hmm I'm not quite sure I follow... Isn't disarming mines a strategy of non-violence? – xeno ^talk 15:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Disarming mines is a strategy of preventing violence. Non-violence is very different; non-violence is a strategy for social, political, and economic change that rejects the use of physical violence.. Kingturtle ( talk) 15:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Hmm I don't think that's really the scope of the article. Different use of non-violence I think. – xeno ^talk 15:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Then the article should be renamed. Non-violence is a very specific term, and there are games such as Foreign Ground, Food Force, and PeaceMaker (computer game) that explore non-violence. Kingturtle ( talk) 15:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Specific philosophical terms can also have more generic usage, but do you have thoughts on a more appropriate title? – xeno ^talk 15:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Dunno. Maybe nonagressive video games? Kingturtle ( talk) 16:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

That would certainly alleviate my concerns of several months ago that violent deaths would exclude from the article, but then it might mean that games like " Food Fight (video game)" wouldn't make the great because throwing food could be considered aggression =) – xeno ^talk 16:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Throwing food is a form of violence, and there for aggression. Kingturtle ( talk) 16:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Sorry, seems this is a red herring as food fight isn't in the article. – xeno ^talk 16:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Politically "non-violent" gamers are in the extreme minority of video game players. I think "Nonviolent video game" is what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. See WP:NAME#Use the most easily recognized name. - Thibbs ( talk) 16:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

As I said earlier in this thread, I will not press it. Maybe some time when I have the time I can figure out how to create a different article for truly nonviolent games. Kingturtle ( talk) 16:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

That would be cool. If you're interested in the subject, one good place to start might be with the serious game article. I think politically non-violent games would fall under this category. Cheers, - Thibbs ( talk) 16:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

best of luck with this, let me know if you need any copyediting help. cheers, – xeno ^talk 16:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Another important related question

On a related note, is there any special reason the page was moved to "nonviolent video games?" This is the only vg genre that takes this form of title. All other game genres take the "X video game" form (where X is the genre). (see Christian video game, Music video game, Puzzle video game, Adult video game, etc., etc.) - Thibbs ( talk) 15:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, I moved it because it is about video games, not a video game. And the lead sentence said games. Kingturtle ( talk) 16:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

I am Burning Flame in English Wikipedia, please move this account to Flamelky, thanks.-- Flamelai ( talk) 15:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Please make your request at WP:CHU. Kingturtle ( talk) 15:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for protecting the Smackoff article, that was insane for a few minutes. Faethon Ghost ( talk) 17:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

No problem. Kingturtle ( talk) 17:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi found some of 1996 presidential primaries results http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe1996/presprim.htm Ben1111au ( talk) 21:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you so much! Kingturtle ( talk) 12:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply

:| —  neuro ^(talk) 12:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Is this a trick question? Or is my dyslexia kicking in and I'm missing something? Kingturtle ( talk) 12:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply

On unsuccessful adminship candidacies. :) —  neuro ^(talk) 12:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes. I put May - I think....Was I wrong? Kingturtle ( talk) 12:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply

That's the point. Damn, this conversation was never supposed to happen. —  neuro ^(talk) 12:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh, I see! You're calling yourself out on this one. Forget it. No problem! Nothing worth a trout slapping. Kingturtle ( talk) 12:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply

— Oli ^OR Pyfan! 12:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Just a quick note that I reversed your deletion of Geschwister Scholl. The pair is mega-notable. The article just did them no justice at all. It will need some work though. Agathoclea ( talk) 13:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, could you please take a look at Kazakhs and the raging edit war over a photo with User:Kazax1 (who by my reckoning has already hit 3RR today). This is very frustrating for me and, I am sure, also for User:Otebig. Can you intervene or suggest a course of action, please? Thank you. -- Zlerman ( talk) 13:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Please stoping mr. Zlerman, he vandalizing my work for Wikipedia in article - "kazakhs"... Thank you. Kazakhstani_Admin ( talk) 14:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the welcome-- Zta ( talk) 00:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply

How extraordinarily delightful! Thanks a lot. decltype ( talk) 11:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Can't work out what that's about -- Dweller ( talk) 14:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Just a little housekeeping. See before. Kingturtle ( talk) 14:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Must have me styoopid 'ead on - still can't work it out, but never mind! -- Dweller ( talk) 14:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Dolphin Stadium changed its name to LandShark Stadium, FYI. Richiekim ( talk) 17:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello Kingturtle,

I want to alert you that User:Mosmof has tagged a number of images of ballplayers as {{ di-replaceable fair use}}, such as:

File:Lou Gehrig HoF.jpg

File:Joe DiMaggio.jpg

File:Ruthbatting.jpg

File:Frank-robinson.jpg

Image:Time-melott.jpg

File:Bob-gibson-1.jpg

File:Tommy-davis.jpg

Several of these are deceased.

In most cases, the uploaders have not been notified with {{ di-replaceable fair use-notice}} nor has Mosmof added {{ deletable image-caption}} to the image captions, so it is unlikely that Baseball Project members are even aware of these pending deletions.  JGHowes  ^talk 13:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Mass Rescue, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

No references, no verifiable notability, no verifiable anything in fact and no reason to have split from the parent article

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. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Surf Rescue, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

As with Mass Rescue, no references, no verifiable anything including notability, can see no reason why it was ever split out from the parent article.

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. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Tube Rescue, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

For consistency. Like Mass Rescue and Surf Rescue this article contains no references, nothing is verified including notability, and there seems no reason to have split this out from the main article.

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. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Team Relay Rescue, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Here's the set. As with Mass Rescue, Surf Rescue and Tube Rescue this article contains no references, asserts no notability and has no verified content. Can see no reason it was ever split out from the original IRB racing article

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. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 22:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC) reply

The May 2009 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.

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 06:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC) reply

not accompanied by edit summaries or else accompanied by offhand, sweeping rationales. What precisely is your objection to

1. a standard WP bio infobox?
2. vaious items of commentary by Kyi's lawyer/Yettaws family about his motives and actions?
3. details wrt the 2008 visit such as Yettaw's stay at the Highland Hotel and, while there, speaking to other guests about having visited Suu Kyi?

Thanks ↜Just M E here , now 16:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

My reply seems to have been lost in an edit conflict.

In regards to the infobox, I don't see how it helps the article. I think it is a distraction. But I can live with it. In fact, I've moved the image into it.

In regards to materials I have removed, I was trying to pare down the article, keeping only the most important information. Please re-add anything that you think shouldn't have been removed. I may copy edit it, but I won't remove it again. Kingturtle ( talk) 16:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oops! sorry for my getting jumpy sometimes; afterall, any citation I've added can always be re-added if(/when!) its particular detail proves to be of importance -- as determined by its being included in numerous, subsequent news reports. I'll work on starting doing cite templates. (We got the Suu Kyi's lawyer with the Mormon proseletizing angle, Yettaw's wife with the dissertation angle, a Burmese opposition website with the government-conspiracy angle -- involving Yettaw's having waltzed right in after flashing the guard detail some kind of red card, according to their interveiw with an anonymous taxi driver. It will be interesting to find out which thread or combination thereof turns out being the one coalesced around (if any)! ↜Just M E here , now 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I say keep all the versions :) Kingturtle ( talk) 02:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC) reply

You stated that you were interested in taking the FlyingToaster matter to ArbCom. Sandstein filed a request already, and I added the prior events, requesting an expansion of scope. Hopefully FT will resign before any of the other contingencies occur. Jehochman ^Talk 14:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

When I said I wanted it to go to ArbCom I meant it is my belief that this issue is not a matter for Bureaucrats or Stewards, but should be an issue for ArbCom. Through ArbCom the most fair process can take place. I did not mean that I personally want to take this to ArbCom, or to be on a team to do so. Kingturtle ( talk) 14:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Hopefully it will not be necessary. Should FT use sysop tools, I will immediately file a case. Jehochman ^Talk 18:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Kingturtle, I am trying to be nice again because I was calm during my first days here from 2008, but now, people are starting to get on my nerves and it is driving me crazy! I even tried apologizing to an user that I was mean to and I don't even know if he accepts my apology or not.

Infonerd2216 ( talk) 21:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Infonerd2216 reply

Would you consider reprotecting? It's a common vandal target. Thanks, Enigma ^msg 19:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

		Bookbound barnstar
		To Kingturtle, for extraordinary service as a Wikipedian, as exemplified by his sourcing of information and erudition within contibutions to the John William Yettaw bio.  — Justmeherenow 20:17 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Kingturtle ( talk) 16:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Before I post at WP:USURP, is Aditya ( talk · contribs) usurp-able? It's made 2 edits, so it might not be. On the other hand, it's just two edits, and way back in 2003, so it might. Cheers, Ant ive nin 17:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Edit: Both edits were removed, the first as a copyright violation, and the second was blanked for a redirect. Ant ive nin 17:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Aditya is usurpable. Make your request at WP:CHUU. Kingturtle ( talk) 18:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

It's done. Thanks. =) Ant ive nin 19:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

hello, i see that you are the guy that "usurps" names... i have a question: i already made my request, but only in english. should i also do it in spanish now or wait until you reassign my name in enwiki?-- Camilorojas ( talk) 15:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I am one of the Bureaucrats on en.wikipedia. Any one of us can make the usurpation when after the week's wait. There is no reason for you to wait for this Usurpation to become official. Go right ahead and secure the name in other wikipedia projects. Cheers, Kingturtle ( talk) 15:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

you are very kind, thank you.-- Camilorojas ( talk) 17:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:FDR-LBJ.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

 Fixed Kingturtle ( talk) 12:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

hi,
I don't plan on revealing my old account to anyone so there probably is no way for me to prove it. I was thinking of showing off my knowledge of Wikipedia that newbies wouldn't know, but probably not adequate. I have decided to wait to become an established user with this account but thanks a lot for the message. Pzrmd ( talk) 23:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh well the nomination was withdrawn like three hours after your message. Pzrmd ( talk) 23:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Cheers, – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 00:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your message!. -- EnCASF ( talk) 15:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the kind words! -- Skizzik ^talk 22:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply

The June 2009 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.

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 13:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the usurpation! =) Ant ive nin 19:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Why this? Ant ive nin 20:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I'd like to be able to prevent retirements, if possible. Kingturtle ( talk) 11:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

hi Admin, please help me to change username from user:gzhao → user:georgezhao. thanks. Gzhao ( talk) 21:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Please make your request at WP:CHU. Cheers, Kingturtle ( talk) 04:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the usurpation! i saw you said 'everything is in order 12 june', it is 12 june, but the account does not changed. thank you for your time. Gzhao ( talk) 03:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Viriditas ( talk) 09:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC) reply

- Dank ( push to talk) 14:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Did you get consensus for this change anywhere? Because as long as its in the infobox, I think _that's_ the place to start a deletion run.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I have left messages in talk pages of infoboxes and received zero response either way. So I am taking bold action. Phone numbers, fax numbers and email addresses are definitely not encyclopedic in these cases. Street addresses aren't either. Kingturtle ( talk) 18:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

O RLY? -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 18:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Hmmm...I know I posted it somewhere. It may take me a little while to dig it up. Kingturtle ( talk) 18:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

It is exactly that sort of attitude towards meby David Fuchs in completely unrelated discussions/situations that I hate this site at times. It makes me feel unwelcome. What was the need of David Fuchs to even mention me let alone humiliate me in front of people as an example of temperament? I didn't ask for my comment to be withdrawn. I asked for David Fuchs himself to withdraw his own comment with reference to myself which is completely not true and irrelevant to somebody elses RFA. Now we have an RFA in front of hundreds of users and a pure reason to oppose because the candidate is described by Fuchs as being like me. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I think it would be better just to have it removed, and to deal with this away from the RfA. Kingturtle ( talk) 18:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Otherwise it just turns into a game. Someone else's RfA should not be the venue for such a stand off. Kingturtle ( talk) 18:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree. But it was completely unnecessary of him to make such a comment so the request for him to withdraw his mention of myself in a derogatory way still stands. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes. It was definitely inappropriate. That is why it should be removed now, and not wait to see if he removes it. This matter can be settled elsewhere. May I remove it? Kingturtle ( talk) 18:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

If you remove his mention of me as his justification of why this sort of candidate should not become an adminstrator then by all means remove my comment as well. It is not fair on the candidate to bring up this subject at his RFC. He knows nothing about how I'm feeling and barely knows me to make such statements and if he honestly thinks a brief FAC was the only reason why I seriously considered leaving this site he is sorely mistaken. It is this kind of attitude I encounter towards me at evne the most unlikely scenarios that makes this a sometimes very unpleasant experience. Phew I'm trying to control just how annoyed it makes me to come across snide comments like that. Back to encyclopedia me thinks! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I have removed the comment and your request to remove the comment. I have also left a message on his talk page about the matter, and asked him to bring the issue to my talk page if he feels it needs to be discussed. Kingturtle ( talk) 19:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

OK thanks. How are you anyway? Any particular articles you are working on at present? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Have sent an email. Glad to see you also edit Uncyclopedia! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I just brought this up on WP/ANI. So far, WKnight supports you, and nobody's chimed in on my side yet.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 19:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I will use whatever examples I wish if I feel it demonstrates my point. Blofeld's own actions, ironically, prove my point better than I could expect. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^{( talk)} 19:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Nothing worse than the way you grossly mistreat people on here to make your point on a daily basis. How do I remain patient with people like this? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

You don't. You mangle their pages and complain IN CAPS at all venues. Rather than bring the issue to my talk YOU COMPLAINED ABOUT HOW THIS WAS AN OUTRAGE on the RfA itself. The only person I am evidently mistreating here is you; I'm not sure why you feel so victimized, but it appears it's not just my problem. If you have a personal issue with me, bring it to my attention via my talk or email. Don't shadowbox. And that's all I have to say; I'm not going to waste Sir King's talk page space any further. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^{( talk)} 19:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I rarely talk in capital letters. What are you talking about? I only speak in capital letters when I get annoyed with somebody. I did bring it to your talk page and and you removed my message and would persist in doing so however much I tried to speak to you. Most of my messages to other editors on here are positive ones. I only react when somebody makes some snide remark pointlessly in a completely irrelevant siutation. Again you keep making judgements about me on something you know little about. Vast majority of my time on here is spent working on the eneyclopedia and enjoying discussions with a few editors that make this site half decent. You may not "mistreat" editors but are excessivelly criticial of your fellow editors and articles and this is shown by the way you spend most of your time on here opposing promotion candidates at both FAC and RFA. When challenged you come off looking like a pompous, arrogant prehistoric dinosaur who is too stubborn to see how other people might view things. "I will use whatever examples I wish if I feel it demonstrates my point.." just shows just how stubborn you are. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

David, you will *not* use whatever examples you wish. RfAs are to evaluate the candidate at hand, not to make nettlesome commentary about a different editor. Kingturtle ( talk) 20:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply

And editor asked for an elaboration of an oppose, and I gave it, including a comparison that I felt was germane. I do not think you or anyone else have the right to be final arbiter over what is said. If Blofeld or another editor came to my talk page first, I would have removed it, but as it was you mangled my comments with little provocation. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^{( talk)} 02:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I am a bureaucrat. Bureaucrats are the final arbiters. Kingturtle ( talk) 02:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

B'crat is a technical position; you judge consensus, but nowhere does it say you are allowed to remove comments at will. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^{( talk)} 02:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

That is a major thing you are doing, why? SaltyBoatr ( talk) 14:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I am removing any fax number, phone number and contact email I can find, as they are not encyclopedic. Also, when I encounter other contact information that is there for sales or promotional reasons, I am removing that too. Kingturtle ( talk) 14:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Is your judgment as to what is "not encyclopedic" discussed anywhere? In a guideline or policy? SaltyBoatr ( talk) 14:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

See WP:NOT...specifically #3 under Wikipedia is not a directory. Kingturtle ( talk) 14:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I just want to thank you for granting my request. Also, thanks for moving my user pages I really appreciate it. MS (Talk| Contributions) 01:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

No problem. Happy editing! Kingturtle ( talk) 01:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi ... can you please give us some guidance as to your thoughts on the issue discussed at [15]?

In short, I input a sentence that pitcher x was leading the league in wins. That is mentioned in more than one article, and in fact the focus of at least one -- as reflected by its title.

A fellow editor believes the sentence should be deleted now. I am happy with it being deleted when out of date, but believe that deletion is not mandated now. Analagous to our having stats in infoboxes, that turn sour with time (and are replaced, in time). Many thanks.-- Ethelh ( talk) 00:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Nationalism/pov-pushing is rearing its ugly head again at Afghanistan. A little help, please? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Would you look at his recent contribs on Afghanistan? I don't think they're an improvement, and prefer the old version, but I don't want to knee-jerk revert him, either. Thanks King. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I am not a nationalist, if anything am very liberal and certainly don't impose. I am a Pakhtun, am interested in tribal people, Baloch, Pakhtun ect, am new to Wikipedia, have very little IT skills and am shocked at the hostilities displayed in the NWFP page, Pakistan page and even the Afghanistan page, towards our Pakhtun identity. Historically, perhaps because of our relatively nomadic life style combined with lack of education, others have spoken for us, written about us and often not very accurately. Our efforts to be assertive, make mends are met with extreme hostility in Pakistan and now in Afghanistan as our identity is seen as a threat (perhaps because of the area of land we occupy) and is it any wonder that extremism (with encouragement from outsiders) flourish in our lands. We are referred to by people with a negative/lazy attitudes to us, as Afghans by Arabs, Pathans by Indians/British or Pashtuns by Persians/Pakistanis but often not as Pakhtuns and yet Tajiks, Uzbecks are just as Afghans. Pakhtuns speak Pakhto with many accents, such as using "sh" sound in place of "kh" and this varies from area to area pending on how much exposure we have had to other languages such as Persian or Indian, but our race/major tribe is Pakhtun and our language is Pakhto. As an educational resource, it appears, Wikipedia is NOT playing neutral in this regard. Standardisation without prejudice (which is not absent in this case) is fine but for educational/historical/heritage reasons at least, native/natural names of a people, a language and places must be preserved/referred to. Should Pakhtuns NOT be empowered to be themselves? It's reached a level that even Pakhtuns are not sure that they are Pakhtuns. Can the English be nationalistic if they call themselves English in Britain? If you write an article on Wales, do you not say that they are Celts and is it nationalistic to do so? If Wikipedia is going to use Pashtun and Pashto than in brackets, Pakhtun and Pakhto should be added. i.e. Pashtun (Pakhtun) and Pashto (Pakhto). It appears that there are experienced, well tuned Wikipedia editors who are playing "monopoly" with the NWFP and Pakistan pages. This cannot be healthy for Wikipedia in the long run as inexperienced new editors can make valuable contributions even if their contributions comes across as vandal, in fact especially as knowledge is not just the abode of the professional editors. Further is it a copyright violation to select a quote from a named source and why do you label a new edit simply as vandal without checking. Also, why did you not block Carl too, we were both guilty or both innocent.

Hi Kingturtle, I just realized that the ethnolinguistic maps in Demography of Afghanistan are created by the banned user Beh-nam ( talk · contribs) and Pashto is for sure under represented. Can these maps be removed? Best regards. Massa Getae (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply

File:Map of Ethnic Groups in Afghanistan, by district.svg and File:Map of Languages in Afghanistan, by district.svg were created by Lokal Profil I believe. I am in correct? Kingturtle ( talk) 22:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Oh ok, thanks for clarifying. But Lokal Profil writes in source: Information and colours from Map of Ethnic Groups (in Districts) in Afghanistan.jpg by Le Behnam

The maps which are used as source are created by Beh-nam for ethnic groups and languages. See history of the original maps for ethnic groups and languages. Both the maps especially the linguistic one seem to contradict data from aims.org.af which is claimed as the source. Massa Getae (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Is User:Le_Behnam the same as Beh-nam ( talk · contribs)? User:Le_Behnam has never been banned or blocked. Kingturtle ( talk) 12:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, I think he is, because on revision of 14:56, 10 February 2007 User:Le_Behnam wrote on his user page: "I'm on the English Wikipedia and my account name there is Beh-nam" Massa Getae (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Okay, I'll look into it further. Kingturtle ( talk) 12:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I think there should be a map that corroborate the source aims.org.af. Thanks! Massa Getae (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I have brought this Beh-nam issue up at the Commons:Administrators noticeboard. Kingturtle ( talk) 17:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I had asked User:Lokal_Profil some time in February to re-check the sources and re-create the maps. He used official data provided by Afghanistan's government on http://www.aims.org.af. See my request here. The linguistic map shows the dominant language of the region, i.e. the language with the largest percentage.

I would also like to ask you to take a look at Pashto language. It seems that User:Massagetae is putting controversial information as well as a controversial (and inaccurate) map (which has been removed from various other articles) into the article. He is directly contradicting the Encyclopaedia Iranica. Tajik ( talk) 08:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about Pashto language to make any sort of content judgment. I apologize. Kingturtle ( talk) 12:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comment. However, I am not asking you to comment on the language, but on the sources used. Another admin has already explained to him that his source is not reliable, while the Encyclopaedia Iranica - in fact - says the exact contrary. I have explained this on the article's talk-page. Tajik ( talk) 17:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Kingturtle. Your help (and that of others) is really needed in Pashto language and Demography of Afghanistan. I've asked Massagetae ( talk · contribs) to stop his edit warring and POV pushing. Thank you. Tajik ( talk) 08:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I have blocked Massagetae for 72 hours. Kingturtle ( talk) 12:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Just offering my two cents here. I don't consider Massagetae to be any serious edit wars (only a minor scuffle with Tajik on Pashto language and Demography of Afghanistan, but I only see 1-2 reverts). For the most part, Massagetae was reverting an IP editor's unexplained removal of content and other disruptive behavior. I have blocked that IP for 3 months for his/her lengthy history of disruptive editing (in fact you blocked the account back in January). Nishkid64 _{( Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the information. If you feel my block of Massagetae should be reduced or lifted, please proceed. Kingturtle ( talk) 13:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Issues are present, but I think we can get the message across with a shorter block. Reduced to 24h. Nishkid64 _{( Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Dear Kingturtle: Would you mind taking a look at this article? I believe you put the cleanup tag on the article in February of 2008. Your evaluation would be appreciated. Yours, Famspear ( talk) 21:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I left a message for you at Wikipedia:Usurpations Pizzaman79 ( talk) 14:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I am looking into it. Kingturtle ( talk) 18:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks. If you can't find out or you're busy with other stuff, we could also just wait and see what the usurpation does, but i was just curious. -- Pizzaman79 ( talk) 14:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I found an answer to my question. I wasn't aware of usernames being case sensitive. That's why i couldn't find my edits. It's also why i couldn't find my german account i had made to claim the sul, and why i mentioned JA and ET accounts. My apologies for the confusion, i did read Wikipedia:Username and other relevant articles, but apparently my attention was lacking. Knowing this, i would like to also register/usurp Pizzaman as a doppelganger account, at least on the NL and EN wikipedia. How should i go about this? Perhaps I (or a translating bureaucrat) could start by politely asking the JA & ET users to change their name? The JA account is inactive for two years and the ET account only made one article edit. Pizzaman79 ( talk) 12:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Create a new account called PizzaManTemp. Then using that account, make a request for User:Pizzaman at WP:CHUU. Kingturtle ( talk) 18:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Done. Thank you very much for your time and advise. I'll log out now so as not to bother the usurpation process. Pizzaman79 ( talk) 10:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC) reply

You can continue your usual edit habits. They will not affect the usurpation at all. Kingturtle ( talk) 10:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you. The usurpation is done and also for the other request. Great that you could do this at once. PizzaMan ( talk) 10:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC) reply

You have got to be kidding me. I said I was going to contact another bureaucrat. What do you have against me? Pzrmd ( talk) 04:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Explain this section to me in you own words. Pzrmd ( talk) 04:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I admitted I had an old account; you trusted me. This is all I have to do. What if I didn't admit I had an old account? Is it policy to be required to admit one is starting fresh? I didn't read that anywhere. If I never did reveal this, I would never have to reveal my old account. I'm just another new user, with a background in Wikipedia. Pzrmd ( talk) 04:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply

As I said in my statement, it isn't your edits of articles that really concerns me, it is when you involve yourself in !votes. It is very important for a CheckUser to verify that your old account is no longer active. Kingturtle ( talk) 10:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Is it forbidden to copy text from a another website? How about books or magazines?-- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 19:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Copying text word for word is definitely forbidden. Summarizing is okay, as long is it is done correct. See Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others. Hope that helps. Kingturtle ( talk) 19:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply

How about fact books that are free to read online? Like Google books, is it okey to copy exact segments from them?-- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 19:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply

If it is in Public domain, then it is okay; for example, any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world is in the public domain and okay. Material on *.gov and *.mil are usually in the public domain. However, we'd still rather have such text summarized instead of copied. Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright can also be of assistance to you. Kingturtle ( talk) 19:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply

How about newer books, written a couple years ago that are free to read on Google books? -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 20:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Nope. Just books from before 1923. Kingturtle ( talk) 20:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm pretending that I'm here to thank you for filling my usurpation request, but my true motivation is just to try out the new signature. Steve Smith (formerly Sarcasticidealist) ( talk) 03:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply

nicely done. Kingturtle ( talk) 11:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply

A question, actually: my SUL is still under Sarcasticidealist; do you know if there's some way to divorce en-wiki User:Sarcasticidealist from that SUL (with or without replacing it with en-wiki User:Steve Smith)? It's just kind of annoying to get logged in here as Sarcasticidealist whenever I log in anywhere else, even if I was already logged in here as Steve Smith. Steve Smith ( talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Sorry about that... I got confused. I even checked the log. <scratches head> -- Dweller ( talk) 10:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC) reply

No problem. Thanks for covering for me on the other ones. It must be something in the mooncycle. I had to do the same thing for Bibliomaniac15. Kingturtle ( talk) 10:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC) reply

And I've done it myself before. It does confuse the heck out of me when I come across it. I've posted an idea at BN. Interested to "hear" your views there. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Check it out. Here's what happened. I *did* mark them as done and not done, and someone removed them. Kingturtle ( talk) 19:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC) How odd... I like the way it screwed up that username change request, too. Deliberate or cock up? -- Dweller ( talk) 07:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC) reply

The link is working now: http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/L/Joshua.M.Landis-1/

This is direct copied and needs a complete re-write: "It is widely read by officials in Washington DC, Europe and Syria. Dr. Landis regularly travels to Washington DC to consult with the State Department and other government agencies.

He is a frequent analyst on TV and radio. Most recently he has appeared on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Charlie Rose Show, CNN, Fox News, and has been widely quoted in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, LA Times, and comments frequently for NPR and BBC radio. He has spoken at the Brookings Institute, USIP, Middle East Institute, and Council on Foreign Relations." -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 14:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Off2riorob, the mention you made on Connolley's talk page was the correct action to take... was correct and is appreciated. Thanks. ( Off2riorob ( talk) 00:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)) reply

Could I have an immediate renaming for a non-controversial name? The name is NightmareBot, I own it, it is not a bot, could I rename it to something minus the bot? Such as Cake Stairs Thank You --- Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 12:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC) reply

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I'm awarding you this barnstar of diligence for your combination of extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service to wikipedia. South Bay ( talk) 04:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks! That's a nice way to wake up this morning. Cheers, Kingturtle ( talk) 13:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Now are you going to leave me the hell alone? or are you now going to suggest that I use this computer for this account, then my friend's or library's computer to gain more consensus with my old account. And you know my old account if you searched what I was talking about in the email. Pzrmd ( talk) 15:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm glad this is finally resolved by a CheckUser. Best of luck, Kingturtle ( talk) 18:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Kingturtle, I hope you are fine. I think there is a new sockpuppet of NisarKand ( talk · contribs): Larawbar ( talk · contribs). See for example this edit. Tajik ( talk) 09:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Kingturtle, Should you be interested, I've taken File:Lou Gehrig stamp.png to Deletion Review here.  JGHowes  ^talk 19:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Could you withdraw my RfA? Thanks, ceran thor 12:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I was not online when you made this request. Best of luck in your next RfA. Kingturtle ( talk) 19:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC) reply

KT,

I must question your edits to William Guarnere and Edward Heffron‎.

First of all, with William Guarnere your edit summary said:

"removing unverified birthdate"

But this is not what you did. Why would you say "X" and do "Y"? Makes it look like slight-of-hand.

Next, instead on both articles you removed an external link. In the edit summary to the other article you said "remove spam".

But, again, is this really spam? Did you try clicking on the link? It is just an audio interview with the two men. I found it very enjoyable and informative. The interview does not try to sell you anything, which is the purpose of spam. It is just an interview about these two men serving and surviving in World War II.

I never really thought of the American Veterans Center and Radio America as entities that "spams". American Veterans Center has an article right here on Wikipedia, and looks on the up and up to me. Am I missing something?

I would like to ask that you listen to the interview, and then see if you feel like I do, that it is not designed as spam? Also review the American Veterans Center article.

I must not be in the loop on something on this one.

> Best O Fortuna ( talk) 01:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Best O Furtuna, User:AVC User was adding external links to numerous articles. When a user does nothing but add external links all of the same domain, it is considered spamming. So I removed all of the links User:AVC User added. I then placed a level-one spam warning on User:AVC User's talk page. I hope that explains my actions to you. As for the "removing unverified birthdate", that edit summary was an error. I have a number of texts that come up when I type letters into my edit summary box. Unfortunately, my manipulation of the arrow keys in that particular case failed to select the proper choice..."removing spam." Kingturtle ( talk) 01:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I noticed that after renaming User:AllstarechoTEMP to User:Ase, that User:AllstarechoTEMP is still there. Should it have been deleted? - ALLST✰R▼ ^echo _{wuz here} 20:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply

User account "AllstarechoTEMP" is not registered. What you see there is just a redirect. It can be deleted if you wish. It doesn't really matter. Kingturtle ( talk) 22:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply

OK, thanks. I CSD tagged as U2. Thanks again. - ALLST✰R▼ ^echo _{wuz here} 00:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Why are you stalking me? Whenever something happens your immediately there. Pzrmd ( talk) 01:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC) reply

The record clearly shows that whenever "something happens" with you, I am not "immediately there." I address issues as I encounter them. The less somethings that happen with you, the less you'll hear from me. Sincerely, Kingturtle ( talk) 02:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC) reply

It's okay as long as you don't make useless comments like saying I will get a heftier block next time or not liking my style of formatting. Pzrmd ( talk) 03:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC) reply

It's easy to be in the clique and quote policy along with five hundred other editors, but it's not easy to fight for what is right here, as I have said on my talkpage. Pzrmd ( talk) 03:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Since you haven't responded to me to any of my emails I will ask here: do you know my old account? Pzrmd ( talk) 08:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Nope. I don't. I haven't even tried to figure it out. Cheers, Kingturtle ( talk) 17:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Would you mind confirming my request at WP:CHU/U is valid? iMatthew  ^talk at 22:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi there,

Sorry, but we had to remove the image File:1972olympiadCOIN.jpg from your user page;

"Fair use" images can only be used on articles, not in userspace, due to copyright issues. Sorry about that. See WP:NFCC#9 for more info.

Cheers,  Chzz   ►  03:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I commented it out because I didn't want to mess up your gallery. Hope you don't mind me messing with your userpage. Cheers. Thingg ^{⊕ ⊗} 04:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Why did you delete a huge chunk of factual material from the Jungle Karma section of The Jim Rome Show? This is an article that many new listeners go to to understand and enjoy the show better and you aren't doing them any favors. Please revert your edit. Faethon Ghost ( talk) 13:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I removed material that was based on anecdotal evidence, and therefore quite unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a fan site. Fans are welcome to go to Rome's official site or to other Rome fan sites to get all kinds of helpful information. Wikipedia is not here to do favors for first time callers. Out. Kingturtle ( talk) 14:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Then why bother having a section on Jungle Karma at all then? Why don't you just delete the entire thing? Faethon Ghost ( talk) 15:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Listing some of the common terms and phrases is okay, and even having brief explanations is okay too, but going in depth with anecdotal evidence simply doesn't fit and isn't encyclopedic. Kingturtle ( talk) 15:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I get your take, but this is all rather pointless as my original point was that Jungle Karma works only about half the time, thus it isn't even real. Romey interviewed 3 National League players yesterday, the NL blew it again, and one of the guys he interviewed was the LOSING PITCHER. WAR Heath Bell losing the game and WAR the American League dominating the NL for years to come! Late. Faethon Ghost ( talk) 15:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Your point is a great one. Rome holds no actual Karma power. In fact, if there really was karma, he'd probably be getting a big karma ass-whooping. Nevertheless, speculation and anecdotal evidence don't belong in Wikipedia articles. Kingturtle ( talk) 15:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Is there anyway to detach it.wikipedia.org and test.wikipedia.org from my SUL? Those two accounts belong to user:Javert (usurped), not to me. If there is some noticeboard that I should have posted this at, I apologise for bothering you and would ask you to kindly direct me to it. :) Thanks, Kingturtle. Best, Javért | ^Talk 14:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply

i'll get back to you on that in a few hours. Cheers, Kingturtle ( talk) 14:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Splendid. Thank you. Best, Javért | ^Talk 14:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Please check out the Raunak request at CHU. Happy for you to disagree with me - especially if there are circumstances I'm not aware of. -- Dweller ( talk) 13:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree with you. Kingturtle ( talk) 02:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply

If you have any references for this 100 Classrooms program could you post one or two? Thank you Jeepday ( talk) 00:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, I got that information from newspaper articles in January 2004. I don't have access to them anymore. Kingturtle ( talk) 02:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC) reply

[…] I don't know you enough to like you or dislike you. I do dislike your incivility, the way you bait people, and your disregard of talk page threads. Still, I do respect your sensitive information, and I will not reveal it. And I am working with a CU to verify that the old account you provided me was indeed yours. Kingturtle ( talk) 04:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I wish you were less stern…. Pzrmd ( talk) 04:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Then be civil, stop baiting people, and acknowledge constructive criticism instead of blanking it. Kingturtle ( talk) 04:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I acknowledged the criticism and I am not baiting people. Pzrmd ( talk) 04:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

And re-read Wikipedia:Civility closely, and start living up to it. Even if the people you interact with don't live up to it, you still should. Lead by example. Choose the higher road. Kingturtle ( talk) 04:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Well do you agree that it was quite overreaching and not his place to post that on EVula's page?; many of those users like Craftyminion, Roux, and especially Ryulong were way worse at times. Pzrmd ( talk) 04:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Besides, Roux called me slippery fish. How is that worse than Mr. Officious (alone)? Pzrmd ( talk) 04:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

It's not worse. It was an accurate description of what you were doing: avoiding answering perfectly valid questions about your increasingly suspicious behaviour. More to the point, however, the only behaviour you are responsible for is yours. There's a saying that's appropriate here, about motes and beams. You may wish to look it up. →  ROUX  ₪ 05:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Dude…I answered the questions, many times, and Mr. Officious describes what you were doing. Pzrmd ( talk) 05:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

As a matter of fact, you did not. It is a fascinating coincidence that someone who claims to be making a 'fresh start' just so happens to be continually stirring up minor trouble, e.g. asking for Tobias Conradi to be unblocked, purposefully and admittedly disruptively using a non-sig to make some sort of point, asking for an unblock of someone who hasn't edited in five years (although given the block reason and your recently-admitted sockpuppets, I suddenly see one of your motivations, though it's a bit of a chicken and egg thing). There is a pattern of behaviour here, and it strains the limits of credulity to think it's brand new since you began editing with this account. Which rather begs the question of whether or not your previous account was in fact in good standing. Generally speaking, those who need a fresh start have been involved in some kind of controversy.. which begs the further question as to why you are so assiduously involving yourself in high-drama areas. All of this put together indicates that it's not so much 'fresh start' as 'start over with a new account to buy some more time'. →  ROUX  ₪ 05:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Kingturtle, and possibly EVula and Versageek, can confirm everything I tell you about my old account. Ӵ ( talk) 05:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I have not yet confirmed anything. I am in the midst of verifying that the old account is indeed yours. Kingturtle ( talk) 11:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I JUST CONFIRMED IT TO YOU. You said yourself that a CU would just make it more "solid." Pzrmd ( talk) 11:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

You sent me the username, and I am having a CU verify it. Kingturtle ( talk) 11:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I confirmed it. Do you not remember? Pzrmd ( talk) 11:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

You sumbitted confirmation. It is now in the midst of being confirmed. Kingturtle ( talk) 11:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

So the confirmation is being confirmed? Pzrmd ( talk) 11:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes. The confirmation information you provided is now in the process of being confirmed. Please be patient. This may take a day or two. I don't know what the schedule is like for the CU I've contacted. Kingturtle ( talk) 11:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Let's confirm the conformation…. Pzrmd ( talk) 11:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

You emailed Versageek, didn't you? You act as if I don't know what's going on. And I think it's a little weird that your assuming I've logged into my account since my sockpuppet investigation without mentioning anything to me about it. Pzrmd ( talk) 11:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't mean to give the impression you don't know what's going on. Yes, I sent a request to Versageek to verify the information. I was trying to keep that information private. I was under the impression that you wanted this done privately. Kingturtle ( talk) 11:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I already mentioned Versageek's name; I don't think it matters to others what CheckUser does it. As long as it has nothing to do with my old account. Pzrmd ( talk) 11:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Okay, so all the above happened while I was still sleeping, so I'm wondering if I'm still in the loop now. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I'll send you an email about it. Kingturtle ( talk) 19:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

That's what I get for needing sleep, I suppose. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Send me a copy of this email. Pzrmd ( talk) 21:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Check your email. Kingturtle ( talk) 22:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Check your email now. Pzrmd ( talk) 01:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you so much. I appreciate it, and know I was a bit of a pain to work with. I should have just done this after Majorly's RfA. Pzrmd ( talk) 06:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I'm so completely torn over this one, though! I can't decide whether or not to add it back. I had a few reasons for the rename (it was going to be done the day after my 2nd WikiBirthday, iMatthew has tons of Google searches that are unrelated to me, I wanted to get my name out of my username, etc.) I think I'll stick with this one, but I really was growing to User:Converse. :P iMatthew  ^talk at 11:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I understand wanting to have a unified username throughout the entire Internet, and maybe you should still pursue the idea. But I really like iMatthew, and it is definitely your identity here. Kingturtle ( talk) 11:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I'm going to stick with it. ;) iMatthew  ^talk at 12:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Why did you vote against it being the featured article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red ( talk • contribs) 03:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply

In my mind, there's no way a topic so broad can have the scope for a featured article. Kingturtle ( talk) 03:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello Kingturtle

I, and others that fed the page with images before me, have worked at times as archivist for the artist who made the work in the photos and who provided the photos. There is no copyright problem. Thanks for writing.

Valueyou ( talk) 15:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply

If the artist approves of usage here, then please follow the steps laid out at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. I'm not questioning the validity of what you say; I'm just making sure the right procedure is taken now, so that many years from now, there won't be any questions. Sincerely, Kingturtle ( talk) 18:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply

OK. Will do.

Valueyou ( talk) 18:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply

The reason I placed the image on the left is that it fits better on most resolutions whereas with both on the right it interferes with the layout on all but the lowest resolutions. Perhaps something to consider. Biofase ^flame|  stalk  00:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I made the change because this is how it looked on my computer: File:Temp.JPG. Kingturtle ( talk) 19:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I see. May have another solution then. Biofase ^flame|  stalk  22:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi. :) I'm not very active in username and secondary account matters so I have no particular opinion on this one, but I do have the username policy watchlisted and just wanted to check and see if you were sure about this one. The reason I wonder is because it also says this is an acceptable secondary account purpose at the sock puppetry policy. I'm not sure when it entered policy, but I glanced back 1,000 edits ago at June 2006, and it's been there at least that long. If it is unacceptable, or has become so, you probably want to change both places. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the heads up. We do *not* want to encourage social experimenting on Wikipedia. Kingturtle ( talk) 12:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I would be inclined to agree with that. :) I would tend to think that anybody who wants to see what Wikipedia is like for a new user could simply observe a new user (as we get plenty of them), but, as I said, that isn't really my neighborhood. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, the non-free images are now gone from the gallery. But is a gallery really necessary for one image? Isn't it better to place it somewhere in the text, or even better, to replace a non-essential non-free image. Garion96 (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Sure thing. I'll get right on it. Kingturtle ( talk) 21:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks, looks good. Garion96 (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

The images that you have recently uploaded to Brancusi, Rene Magritte (d.1967), Arshile Gorky (d. 1948), John D. Graham (d.1961), and César Domela (d.1992) have an appalling yellow cast and should either be redone or removed from the articles. Unfortunately they do not add any significant value to those articles or to the artists work. The Gorky and the John Graham are atypical minor works and frankly should not be included in such short articles about important artists. The Domela, Gorky, Graham and Magritte's are probably under copyright as none of those artists have been gone 70 years yet, they appear to be in copyvio as pd. I would really appreciate your removing the yellowed pictures. Thank you.... Modernist ( talk) 03:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't see anything appalling about the images. But I will definitely try to tweak them. I wasn't allowed to use a flash, and that is why the lighting is that way. The Brancusi definitely bring value to his article. I think they should remain, until better versions of the pieces can be added.

Feel free to remove the Gorky and Graham images, although I view them as significant to the artists' growth and not "atypical minor" pieces.

As for copyright issues, from what I was told by members of the Art Projects, it isn't always the date of the painter's death that decides it, but the year it was painted. But I'd like more clarification on that from you. Sincerely, Kingturtle ( talk) 11:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Kingturtle, are the walls meant to be white rather than yellow? I could fix that easily and quickly if you would like. Camw ( talk) 11:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I very much appreciate your efforts by the way. From my understanding the 70 years begins after the year of death. I wish it were the other way around - although the year 1923 is significant because any work published (or exhibited) before 1923 is considered in the public domain. I will remove the Gorky, Graham and Domela; hopefully you can tweak the Magritte and the Brancusi's. I would advise you to enlist the aid of User:Tyrenius who is an excellent 'tweaker'.Thanks... Modernist ( talk) 11:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Camw, the walls are meant to be white. If you can tweak the images, that'd be wonderful. I'll be away this weekend and won't be able to do any real work on this until Monday or Tuesday. If you can't, then I'll contact Tyrenius later. Thanks, Kingturtle ( talk) 12:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• I gave them a very quick tweak, mostly to remove the yellow cast but also a couple of small things that were quick to fix. If you refresh them the changes should be showing up I hope. Let me know if they are okay or if there are any other changes I can help with! Camw ( talk) 12:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Oops, didn't notice there were a few more in the Brancusi article that wasn't linked, I'll do them now. Camw ( talk) 12:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Okay, I have done the 8 that were mentioned in the 5 articles above. Are there any other ones you want me to take a look at KingTurtle? Modernist asked if I can crop the frames off as well and just leave the paintings, I can do it, but wanted to run it by you first. Camw ( talk) 12:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Crop away. That'd be great. Kingturtle ( talk) 12:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

• Done for almost all the files from the 22nd/23rd (I think 12 changed in total, one looked fine as it was) - hopefully they all came out satisfactorily. Let me know if there are any more tweaks I can help with. Camw ( talk) 13:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Good job, they are fine now; both the Gorky and Graham have improved enormously too. Thank you... Modernist ( talk) 13:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your advice and help. Kingturtle ( talk) 13:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Wow, Camw, you did amazing work! Fantastic! Thanks a lot! Kingturtle ( talk) 18:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Based on your special knowledge of this user, would you care to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pzrmd? Blank (prior) block log or not, was there a history of conflict by this individual? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 13:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

My objective earlier was to make sure that Pzrmd was not socking. I negotiated with him to provide me with his old username so I could verify that it was no longer active. He agreed on the condition that I would not fish into his edit history to find wrongdoing. I agreed. I was able to verify that the olduser name was indeed his, and that it was indeed inactive before he began editing with Pzrmd. I can also tell you that his old account was never blocked. But I will not dig deeper into his edit history, as per my agreement with him. His behavior under his new name, however, is awful, and should be dealt with accordingly. Kingturtle ( talk) 13:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Personally, while he had a previous account with no block log -he makes enough edits with enough different accounts that it is entirely likely that he would have more than one previous account. It is hard for me to believe given his confrontational attitude and peculiar editing/posting habits that he has never been blocked before using this account. Btw, for the record, in an email he told me to "F#$% off" -that's it. . . two words in the subject line (2nd email -of 2 emails total- was an apology). Given his comments on the ANI page about editors who curse being blocked, well, he comes off as disingenuous -and not for the first time. The more you know, R. Baley ( talk) 14:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree. I've been in continual contact with a CU about this. We're working on it. Kingturtle ( talk) 14:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I do wonder if, under the circumstances, the 'avoiding scrutiny' provisions of WP:SOCK might apply. Without naming any names, was there any reason given for the change to a new account? In other words, was this a namechange to protect privacy after being outed (or some similar), or just a 'fresh start'? If the latter, it seems that the community's goodwill is being abused. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 14:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

"Fresh start" was the reason given, and I know that he has not right, per se, to keep any old information secret, I feel I need to honor the terms of the agreement I agreed to. He is definitely playing and gaming the system. Unless he changes his behavior drastically, someone is sure to apply harder preventative measures against him. Kingturtle ( talk) 15:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi KIngturtle, I hope you are fine. I am not sure, but could you please check if Ketabtoon ( talk · contribs) is a new sockpuppet of NisarKand ( talk · contribs) or Khampalak ( talk · contribs)?! His edits are very similar to those two, as are his political views and his writing style. Thank you. Tajik ( talk) 17:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I have no way of checking into sockpuppets. Contact a Checkuser. Best of luck on this, Kingturtle ( talk) 01:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Mellat

• Neutrality disputes and handling
  • Neutrality and verifiability

" A common type of dispute occurs when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included. In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality: it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be used in a way that is not neutral."

" Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles." and another interesting point that is mentioned there, " Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited."

The first part is the disputed part of the article:

The Afghan Social Democratic Party, more commonly known as Afghan Mellat (Pashto: افغان ملت - Afğān Mellat; "Afghan Nation"), is a Pashtun nationalist and self-declared social democratic political party in Afghanistan. The party was founded in March 1966 by Ghulam Mohammad Farhad, a German-educated Pashtun intellectual fascinated by some aspects of Nazi policy. Afghan Mellat looks after the interests of the Pashtun ethnic group and has its support only from them. The party favors the ideas of Pashtunization of Afghanistan and a Greater Afghanistan (i.e. it claims the Pashtun-speaking parts of Pakistan for Afghanistan). It has been called ethno fascist by its critics. Although the party describes itself as social democratic, it is not a member of the Socialist International.

The editors have provided citation for their claims, but are they neutral? Most of the political parties in Afghanistan are managed by a single ethnic group. For example: Jamiat-e Islami is a political party in Afghanistan dominated by Tajiks or Junbish Milli is an Uzbek political party or New Afghanistan Party is another Tajik party, but they are not counted as nationalist or ethnocentric political parties.

Afghan Mellat Party is very similar to a French Canadian, Bloc Québécois. Bloc Québécois is devoted to protect French Canadian's (Quebec's) interest while Afghan Mellat is devoted to protect Pashtun's interest. According to English Canadians, Bloc Québécois can be a French nationalist or fascist party the same way Afghan Mellat looks like a fascist or nationalist party to Tajis from Afghanistan. However, bloc quebecois is not labelled as a nationalist or ethnocentric party in wikipedia. Why?

Afghan Mellat party should be treated the same as the rest of political parties from Afghanistan or world. Afghan Mellat was started in 1966 by highly educated and intellectual Afghans. It is an academic party and it was never invovled in a civil war unlike other political parties in Afghanistan. Such negative and biased articles will only damage the credebility and neutrality of Wikipedia.

PS: The first introduction of the article was/is edited by a Tajik from Afghanistan. It is not a good faith edit. The editor is trying to give a negative image to Afghan Mellat party intentionally.

Thank you for your cooperation. ( Ketabtoon ( talk) 20:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)) reply

If one source claims that Afghan Mellat is not a socialist political party and it is ethno-centric, than there is another source which says this:

"Outside Afghanistan existed a moderate socialist organization popularly called Afghan Mellat (Afghan nation)." (Page 120)

Afghanistan - By J. Bruce Amstutz

The book Can be read here, http://books.google.ca/books?id=RUSNyMH1aFQC&pg=PA120&dq=afghan+mellat&ei=05VnStnXKKG8zgS1-sCXBA

Thank you for your cooperation. ( Ketabtoon ( talk) 21:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)) reply

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Capitalism Magazine. 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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capitalism Magazine. 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Images published before 1923 are not in copyright in the US (published for an artwork means a printed image available to the public, not just the exhibition of the work). Otherwise there can be some complications and there is a guide at Commons:COM:COPYRIGHT#Material_in_the_public_domain. However, it is usually safe to assume that, if an author has been dead for less than 70 years and if the work has not been published before 1923, then the work will almost certainly still be in copyright. This would apply to some of the images you have taken. You have the copyright to the photo, but not to the image within it, so those photos would not be eligible for Commons, and only under fair use on wikipedia. Ty 01:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Which images are you referring to specifically? Kingturtle ( talk) 01:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

It would certainly apply to images of work made by artists who had died after 1938. Modernist has named four above: Rene Magritte (d.1967), Arshile Gorky (d. 1948), John D. Graham (d.1961), and César Domela (d.1992). Ty 01:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply

So, I should remove them from the Commons, and add them to en.wiki as fair use? Kingturtle ( talk) 01:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree with adding them as fair use and removing them from commons... Modernist ( talk) 01:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I'll get right on it. Is there an easy way to move it? Or do I have to delete it and then reload it? Kingturtle ( talk) 01:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply

The easy ways I've tried turn out harder than starting from scratch usually. Maybe a Commons admin could advise? Durova does a lot with images. Ty 06:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply

When you find the PD source, put it on commons and let me know. It's a perfect candidate for commons:Commons:PD_files — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

MBisanz fixed it. I'll move to commons. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Already moved and tagged as PD reviewed. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Just in case you don't check your wp email often. Viridae ^Talk 10:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Fear not, I check it regularly. I've just sent you an email reply. Kingturtle ( talk) 13:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Please check your email. Pzrmd ( talk) 20:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Please don't ignore me. Pzrmd ( talk) 21:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

You need to relax; if you check Kingturtle's contribs, you'll see that the last time he edited was prior to your leaving this message. It's quite possible that he's simply not at his computer at the moment; you need to wait more than an hour before assuming he's ignoring you. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Pz, I am not ignoring you. Right atop this page it says "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 :)" I had to make and eat dinner. Kingturtle ( talk) 23:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I was on Gmail chat with him. Maybe I did overreact though. Pzrmd ( talk) 00:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

And Kingturtle ignores me a lot. Pzrmd ( talk) 00:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I neither ignore you nor do I stalk you. By the way, I don't accept gmail chats, so you're not going to get a hold of me that way. Email is always the best way. And if I don't get back to you immediately, I am not ignoring you. Cheers, Kingturtle ( talk) 01:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nude celebrities on the Internet, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nude celebrities on the Internet (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  –  iride scent 16:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC) reply

There is an ongoing ANI thread that may require your input since you were a part of a checkuser on the subject of the thread. If you would kindly post to the thread when you have time. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Might I suggest removing the user's rollback permission, just for good measure? Thanks. Vicenarian ^{( Said · Done)} 03:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply

 Done Kingturtle ( talk) 03:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• The line "Disruptive editing: came back from RTV with new account" in the resolved template on the AN post about Pzrmd are not my words. It is a direct quote from Gwen Gale from Pzrmd's block log. I just copied it and quoted it. I have reverted your change as it seemed like I had made the comment. I just quoted it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I had discussed the correction with Gwen and made relevant changes and edits. I apologize that it sounded like I was correcting you. That was not my intent. Kingturtle ( talk) 11:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi. You sent me a welcome message after a post I made to the I. F. Stone article's talk page. I tried to make a minor correction to the article but was reverted. Not wanting to have an edit war, I took the matter to the talk page. I believe I am clearly in the right, but the other party will not budge. Unfortunately, no one else has weighed in on the matter. Can you suggest how I should proceed? C76 ( talk) 15:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I have made edits to the article and a comment on the talk page. Take a look. Kingturtle ( talk) 11:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Actually, I am very careful in this regard, most of all since the edits can be checked by others, i.e. admins. However, do you think it's possible to lift at least this part of the rule: ... and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. I have no problems with the 1RR, but this part is really annoying. If you check my edits, most of my reverts were those against anonymous IPs and obvious falsifications (see Iranid race for example). It's been almost a year since I was unbanned and I did not have any problems since then. Take care. Tajik ( talk) 08:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I reported User:Inuit18 last night for vandalising topic however an admin said that he was not vandalising but it looked like content dispute. Take a look at his recent edits. All the user is doing is deleting sourced information in several topics like Balkh Province, Kabul Province and Ghazni Province. Or the user is pushing ethnic POV. I would appreciate a second opinion from your side. Thank you. ( Ketabtoon ( talk) 14:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)) reply

Related discussion. Alefbe ( talk) 20:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC) reply

User:Inuit18 is 100% a sockpuppet of User:Šāhzādé (a.k.a User:Anoshirawan), just compare his edit summary and behaviour. He is a very racist individual, I came across his racist uploads and racist comments in Youtube site, [16]. That ParsistaniTajik is him.-- 119.73.2.148 ( talk) 17:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC) reply

If you believe there is sock activity, take your evidence to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Kingturtle ( talk) 11:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I have much bigger things to do than to report losers, and I know that you're supporting these losers. That makes you one of them.-- 119.73.0.89 ( talk) 00:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC) reply

    7    ^{talk |  Δ |}   05:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• I don't understand, I'm Galician Wikipedia contributor, at en.wikipedia I only put interwikis from gl. Have I change my name in gl.wikipedia too?.-- Dougweler ( talk) 08:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Dougweller is an admin here. The concern is that people may confuse Dougweller and Dougweler, and accidentally go to you with admin related issues, or accidentally attribute Dougweller's history to you. This is strictly an issue regarding en.wiki. It does not bleed into gl.wiki at all. Kingturtle ( talk) 10:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, I see. No problem. Can you change for User:Dámenavista, dougweler is a family joke (I am Galician but with one grandparent from Wales). it is a combination of Galician word (dou: form of the verb dar, to give) and Welsh (gweler: form of the verb gweld, to see). Thanks. -- Dougweler ( talk) 12:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply

How about User:Dou Gweler then? Just an idea. I wonder how WP:SUL will work then? Does he have to manually login every time he jumps over to en.wp? Won't it just automatically re-create the Dougweler account again? Wknight94 ^talk 12:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• And If I change SUL account for User:Dou Gweler for all wikimedia projects?. It would be easier. -- Dougweler ( talk) 12:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, it is complicated because you've made edits to about 40 different projects. A simple route would be to forget the Dougweler's on all projects except for gl.wiki and en.wiki. Have your name changed to Dou Gweler (or Dámenavista) on gl.wiki and en.wiki, and then unify Dou Gweler (or Dámenavista) to all projects. Kingturtle ( talk) 14:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree, Can you change for User:Dou Gweler on en.wiki then?, I'm asking this change on gl. wiki.-- Dougweler ( talk) 15:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Before you request it on gl.wiki, let me run the idea by User:Dougweller. Kingturtle ( talk) 15:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure Dougweller would know this conversation is happening. Just FYI... Wknight94 ^talk 16:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I just left a note on Dougweller's talk page. I meant to earlier but I had some things to do offline. Kingturtle ( talk) 17:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks everyone for the help. And especially thanks to our Galician colleague, this is much appreciated. And pretty funny really when you think about it. Dougweller ( talk) 19:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Very strange. I wrote a message to you on your talk page, Dougweller, but it didn't take. Maybe there was an edit conflict that I didn't see. Anyway, would Dou Gweler be okay with you? Or does that still hit too close to home? Kingturtle ( talk) 19:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply

No, that's fine. I've had edit conflicts I didn't notice and then closed the page, maybe that's what happened. Thanks for your help. Dougweller ( talk) 21:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply

So Dou Gweler is okay? Kingturtle ( talk) 21:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Sorry, yes it's fine. Dougweller ( talk) 05:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I'd like User:Dou Gweler. Thanks.-- Dougweler ( talk) 11:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC) reply

 Done Kingturtle ( talk) 11:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Do you feel that all editors with 5,000 edits and a clean block log should automatically be given admin privileges? If not, why not? Aren't there enough checks and balances to keep rogue admins or 'crats from causing too many problems? Cla68 ( talk) 16:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I am opposed to any form of automated system. It would be very easy for any immature, incapable or bad-intentioned editor to figure out how to achieve any levels created for a bot to invoke admin privileges. Also, being an admin is not being a robot. A lot of being an admin involves interactions with other people. No automated system can determine the character of a person. Only the community can do that. Kingturtle ( talk) 17:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I can think of numerous editors which meet that description that would make terrible admins. Likewise, I can think of many who don't meet it yet would be excellent. Majorly talk 17:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I doubt that DumbBOT ( talk · contribs) would have any use for the tools. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC) reply

It doesn't have a clean block log though, so would be ineligable. Majorly talk 00:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC) reply

...thanks to Myanmar feeding tubes. ↜Just M E here , now 12:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC) reply

WP's making the exacting distinction here be an WP:OR quibble? Cf Googling of "hunger strike," "Yettaw". (Yes, showing that Yettaw himself insists he was not on a hunger strike, too --- ) ↜Just M E here , now 12:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC) reply

In a comparable news story wrt fasting, a doctor (Sidney Roberts) seeing to Fundamentalist Latter Day Saint prisoner in Arizona Warren Jeff said of Jeff's fasting (note that Jeffs also has been force fed by authorities and hospitalized for convulsions) (quote) that Jeffs was "drinking some but is not eating as he is fasting for 'spiritual strength,"' according to a copy of an e-mail made part of a court document (end of quote). Yet, here is the googling of "hunger strike," "Warren Jeffs." ↜Just M E here , now 13:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Despite Jeff's himself's not in any way making any demands for his fasting other from God, when Jeffs became force fed, the New York Times does (link) I'm going to copy this disussion to the NORB. ↜Just M E here , now 13:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Although some may call Yettaw's incident a hunger strike, it wasn't. He was not doing it as a political act. He was starving himself to try to have a vision. Kingturtle ( talk) 13:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC) reply

KingTurtle, I'd love it it you'd copy your take with regard to Yettaw (as well as some of the Gitmo prisoners and to Jeffs) to the OR noticeboard! I hope others chime in too. I think the question is very interesting. ↜Just M E here , now 13:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi. Perhaps I'm just missing it, but I don't quite understand why this was marked as {{ notdone}}. Perhaps you could clarify? Thanks, – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 21:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I misread that as Moved to WP:USURP. Kingturtle ( talk) 23:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC) reply

BTW, I'm looking for input on the new version of WP:ageism.--- Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply

You removed an image from Pedagogy because it gives attribution to the source. Can you point me towards the guideline your following? This isn't something I've run into before; usually I figure we want attribution for copyright purposes. I can understand removing the attribution from the caption, but why delete the whole image? I'm sure you have a reason, but it isn't clear to me. Thanks! WeisheitSuchen ( talk) 11:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

"free images should not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use..." If the credit is removed from the image, then we can re-insert it. Kingturtle ( talk) 12:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

See here too. Kingturtle ( talk) 12:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I've tagged the image for removal of its border; it seems like it would do little harm to leave it in the article pending said de-bordering. Powers ^T 13:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Ah-ha! I figured there must be some rule I didn't know about. Thanks for the clarification. I'm not totally convinced that a guideline for user-created media really applies to something from the German government, but the second link is on point. I certainly see no issue having the border removed. WeisheitSuchen ( talk) 14:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't have time today to remove the border myself. Maybe we can find someone to do it right away. Kingturtle ( talk) 14:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Earlier this month, you seemed to add and then remove content from the Werner Herzog article. Problem is, you left behind two empty ref tags. Are you sure you don't want to add these refs? They seemed like valuable sources. If not, could you remove the tags to clean up the Cite Error messages? Thank you, Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I fixed the citations. Kingturtle ( talk) 00:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I have proposed that the above article and its talk page, which you protected, might be unprotected so that unregistered users may edit them. -- TS 21:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I protected the article because Rome was encouraging listeners to mess with it. Kingturtle ( talk) 00:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, if possible can you help with this little dispute here at Talk:Laghman_Province.-- 119.73.3.105 ( talk) 21:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm curious why you made this edit when the file does not have a license template on it?-- Rockfang ( talk) 05:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I must have misinterpreted NARA-image as a license template. Kingturtle ( talk) 10:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Cream/Mixwell has a tradition of joke !votes on RfA's, and this is just the latest version. See the history for more information. Roux was just cleaning up the messytext so that it wouldn't bother other people; however he used his sig to do it, which is causing the bot to think it's a duplicate !vote. But still, I would think that it would do no wrong to still let that vote stand, no? (The RfA is sure to close soon.) In any case, I'm just explaining what the reason for that strange vote was. -- Soap ^Talk/ _{Contributions} 01:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, it comes up as a duplicate. Do we really have to have jokes in opposition !votes? Kingturtle ( talk) 01:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I was typing up a reply, but the RfA's over now, so I guess it doesn't matter. Anyway, I'd call that a bug in SoxRed's interface (though I can understand why it does that). -- Soap ^Talk/ _{Contributions} 01:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply

But what about the 2nd issue. Do we really need inside jokes involved in opposition !votes? Kingturtle ( talk) 12:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Not really. I dont think anyone would object if "Zalgo" writing was considered vandalism from now on. But even so, if I understand correctly, it was Roux's signing Cream's comment that made the bot think it was a duplicate, not the strangeness of the original vote. This is why I wanted to un-indent it. -- Soap ^Talk/ _{Contributions} 12:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Dear KingTurtle. RE: The "Introduction to Charles Karel Bouley." He is famous for more than getting fired at KGO. For instance, before KGO, : Karel Bouley who with partner Andrew Howard, broke ground as the first openly gay couple to host a radio talk show together. Their show, "Karel & Andrew," ran two years on top-rated Los Angeles station KFI-AM. "I'm sure there are a million gay (radio) hosts, but not many of them are open, and no one had ever appeared on the air as a gay couple," said Ron Rodrigues, editor in chief of Radio & Records magazine. http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117800645.html?categoryid=25&cs=1

Although it is mentioned later in the article. I feel this ground breaking achievement is far more appropriate in the Intro. There are other issues which you can see in my discussion with FeralDruid, whom I consider an excellent and fair-minded editor, who has been a big help to this inexperienced editor. As an over educated senior citizen, I thought I would be better at the detailing than I am. I know you are very busy and I hope this does not overstep my boundaries. If so I apologize.

Thank you for your consideration. JoyDiamond ( talk) 13:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Any objection to me unprotecting this? It's been a year now, and it's now a Featured list candidate. Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 19:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Please do. :) Kingturtle ( talk) 00:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I have nominated List of band theme songs, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of band theme songs. 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. TheWeakWilled ( T * G) 01:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I screwed up when I added a reference to the reflist on the Casey Jones article. On #4 how do you remove the word "template?" It is a book that I added to the reflist, and doesn't need a template. It has no ISBN number and was publised in Vaughan, Mississippi. Thanks. 206.255.97.67 ( talk) 04:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi Kingturtle, I hope you are fine. Could you please take a look at these edits. They are totally nonsense, POV, and unencyclopedic. We have an excellent reference article in the Encyclopaedia Iranica which is being ignored by the above mentioned user. I cannot simply revert, because of 1RR. Your help as an admin is needed. Tajik ( talk) 14:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Kapok Guitar requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, 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 indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{ hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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 confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.   — Jeff G. ( talk| contribs) 12:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww 3/Bureaucrat discussion

I've opened a bureaucrat chat in relation to this RfA as I don't think the outcome is particularly clear cut. If you have a moment, I'd appreciate your input. WJBscribe (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, thanks for the heads up. I received an email about this matter, and I will definitely take some time tonight to participate. Kingturtle ( talk) 21:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply

... for your calming demeanor and positive influence on the Kww 3 Bureaucrat discussion. I post here as an unabashed fan of your efforts, because as a lurker, I find your recent comments regarding the overall issue to be among the most cogent and centered I have encountered in Wikipedia as a whole. Study of your user page further inspires my admiration; knowing there is someone like yourself in the higher levels of Wiki-governance (for lack of a better term) is vastly reassuring, regardless of the decision to come. My best wishes, always, Jusda fax 05:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply

The article List of people living or working in Gdańsk has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This lists "people living or working in Danzig/Gdańsk without having been born there". There are many notable people that are living in Gdansk. This list is unnecessary. This implies that the people listed here is unified by because they are living (obviously, many in the list did not) in Gdansk but not born there.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{ dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{ dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JL 09  _{^q? c} 16:09, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Ray Joseph Cormier. 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 Wikipedia:Notability and " 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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Joseph Cormier 3. 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• I want to draw your attention to reference 10, The Globe and Mail, and Maclean´s Magazine, reference 16, both National Publications in the reference list before you edited them out of the current version. They are listed in the last entry of the Article Talk. Peace DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 17:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC) reply

...is quoted at Wikipedia:Etiquette#Other words of advice. Can you give any more information to link to, or at least the origin of this text to give as a reference (like I've done with the Sanger quote above it)? Thanks,-- Kotniski ( talk) 10:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply

It is something I've been piecing together since 11 Dec 2003. Since then it has expanded...see the latest version at User:Kingturtle/WikiPrinciples. Kingturtle ( talk) 16:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks - so would you mind if I replaced the version on the guideline page with a link to the current version?-- Kotniski ( talk) 06:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Can you explain your idea differently? I am not sure what you mean. Kingturtle ( talk) 15:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Only this. Revert or whatever if you don't agree.-- Kotniski ( talk) 16:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I stopped editing Wikipedia for couple of months and I have just now started editing again. Yesterday, my edit count was a little over one thousand. I got my username changed, and now it says that I only have five edits and I lost my auto-confirmation user status and my rollback rights. Can you explain or help out? Thanks.

• Nevermind, I just looked again and it is right. (by the way, my real username is Mìthrandir, but I just changed my signature between posts. Thanks.

GandalftheWise : Talk Page 19:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC) reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FDR-LBJ.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 17:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I once mentioned the fact that the template did not contain Chinese interwiki link on its talk page, however since then no administrators or bureaucrats has added the interwiki link. Hope you can add the link on the template, the link is: [[zh:Template:Recent changes article requests]].-- RekishiEJ ( talk) 15:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, thanks for your addition, but you added the interwiki link to the wrong place. It should be added to the template instead. Also you should replace the blue links (not including redirects) with red links which appear on WP:RA or WP:MEA, such as science of science, ethnoscience and Glenn Alan Gaesser.-- RekishiEJ ( talk) 20:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Is that the right spot? Kingturtle ( talk) 00:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, you forgot to add <noinclude></noinclude> tag to prevent the interwiki link from being shown from Wikipedia:Recent changes article requests, so that the Wikipedia namespace page looks odd because of many interwiki links. Also, you should replace the blue links (redirects not included) with red links from WP:RA and WP:MEA (the more important they are the more legitimate they should be included on the template). I recommend that you add more lines and more red links to the template and the Wikipedia page.-- RekishiEJ ( talk) 05:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

How is it now?...I used to maintain that list a few times a week, but I've been quite busy and don't have the time now. If I can, I'll make some updates to it later this week. Kingturtle ( talk) 07:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Well I understand that you do not have adequate time, but thanks for the syntax addition to prevent redundant interwiki links shown on the Wikipedia page.-- RekishiEJ ( talk) 07:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Never edited here before, but wanted to add the Ms Valerie Park Distro (msvaleriepark.blogspot.com) to the "List of zine distros" article, so started an account, but realized there's a semi-protection on it by you. Perhaps you could just add it for me? It distros more music than zines, but carries a fair amount and is active. Isabellecity ( talk) 09:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply

We have recently relaunched our website, and I was unable to change a link on the Helen Keller page as it is protected. Please can you change links to the Royal National Institute of Blind People website (no. 1 in the references) to the following: http://www.rnib.org.uk/aboutus/aboutsightloss/famous/Pages/helenkeller.aspx Many thanks

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Webber123 ( talk • contribs) 09:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC) 19:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply

 Done Kingturtle ( talk) 19:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply

An editor has nominated the Jazz Mellor article for deletion. If you have any thoughts on this matter then please add your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jazz Mellor.

Thank-you Unknown Unknowns ( talk) 12:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure why I am being called in on this one. I've never edited the article. Kingturtle ( talk) 12:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker ( talk) 08:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I noticed your comments about WikiProject Nonviolence and wondered what came of it. Did you create a project? If so I couldn't find it. I may consider joining. If not I may consider it if you try again.

On another note I posted a comment on the same page and wondered if you were interested in addressing it. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anti-war#Preventing_School_Violence

Thanks whatever you decide. Zacherystaylor ( talk) 18:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Asadullah Abdul Rahman. 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 Wikipedia:Notability and " 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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asadullah Abdul Rahman. 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi. I just noticed you removed the bot flag from HBC AIV helperbot at 16:50, 9 July 2008 with the reason "Bot operator retired."

I have un-retired and have resumed operation of this bot with its original purpose and authorization. I am running it on a dedicated server which has a monitoring system to make sure it is still running and notify me if it is not. The idea is that it can be the most reliable incarnation of this bot.

Could you please restore the "bot" bit to this bot as it edits rather often. ^Chillum 18:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply

The original approval is here: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HBC AIV helperbot. I am the same person who requested and received approval. ^Chillum 18:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your quick response. ^Chillum 14:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply

I am glad we could get it going again. Keep up the good work. Kingturtle ( talk) 19:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on WorldTeach, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{ hangon}} on the top of WorldTeach and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. MisterWiki talk contribs 21:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply

can you please vote again on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uwe_Kils_(3rd_nomination). Best wishes Uwe Kils 13:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello Kingturtle, this is 3swordz, and I am currently going through a procedure to move a page name which cannot be moved without an admin. I have waited the required 7 days to have "Ika Omkara" moved to "Ik Onkar," there seems to be a silent consensus on the talk page, though I have contacted users that will give support if need be. At this point I'm a little lost; if the time hasn't come for an admin to make the move, could you let me know what else there is to be done? And if it is done right, could you make the move, or get someone that can? thanks 3swordz ( talk) 17:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I'll work on this later today. Kingturtle ( talk) 18:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I have made the move. Kingturtle ( talk) 19:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Thanks for moving the article Kingturtle. I'm afraid the talk page still reads as the old title (it's minor), but thanks for approving. 3swordz ( talk) 19:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Tony Dokoupil (Newsweek) is truly a gifted journalist----but w/regard Yettaw, too gifted, in a way, able to swell up vague recollections by John Yettaw's former family members into an ostensible background for the man. Just one example (of scores of details of this nature): Dorris Brochu (Monrovia, California) says something to the effect of that former son-in-law John Yettaw was a no-good who lay about the house all day, his contractor's license an unused piece of paper...whereas chatter I have read indicates him to have constructed and sold a number of properties in Cali and also in Missouri! In any case, IMHO, just as the former WP article for Jeffrey Vernon Merkey could not pass muster with regard to "do no harm," repetition of vaguely researched gossip about John William Yettaw is not ethical, important to be covered, necessary to be read as part of WP's line-up of encyclopedically researched and verified biographies of living persons.... ↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 13:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply

(Also note that I've responded to your reference to the Google search of the phrase "Suu Kyi trespasser incidents" on my talkpage.)

Yettaw remains a mystery. For example, is he a Vietnam veteran? Wikipedia and Dokoupil say no (viz: "According to family members, Yettaw was a veteran of the Vietnam War with nearly two years of battle experience, and was once wounded in action. However, records from the National Personnel Records Center show that he was stationed in West Germany, not Vietnam"); whereas CNN's "American Morning" co-host/anchor Kiran Chetry says yes: "Motivated by visions, the retired bus driver and Vietnam vet wanted to do something to bring attention to the plight of the Myanmar people. But the plan met with objections from his family."

IMO Yettaw's background pretty much remains his personal business, its not yet having passed into anything approximating "verified and accurate, public knowledge" at all. Note the quote by the associate of Yettaw's that Dirk Vanderhart and Susan Saulny (The New York Times) used in the following: "Mr. Webb described him after the release as 'not a well man' but also added: 'I believe what happened was regrettable. He was trying to help. He’s not a mean-spirited human being.' ¶ Mr. Yettaw’s neighbors and friends said they had been praying for his safety, even while they do not fully understand what happened in Myanmar or why he went. Some thought the trip had to do with graduate studies in psychology, or perhaps a book Mr. Yettaw told them he wanted to write. ¶ 'I’ll be glad to see him back,' said one friend, Michael Assel, a retired Navy officer. 'I would not question his motives like so many people have done. In my opinion, it’s just his business. He got in trouble and for a while, it looked like he wouldn’t get home, but he did, so I’m happy about that.'" ↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 15:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply

December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Holidays!} 00:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply

The article List of Christmas Songs has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The content of this page can be found in better form at the List of Christmas hit singles article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{ dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{ dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fortdj33 ( talk) 15:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

The article List of secular songs associated with Christmas has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The content of this page can be found in better form at the List of Christmas hit singles article.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{ dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{ dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fortdj33 ( talk) 16:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply