User talk:Kingturtle

1. User talk:Kingturtle/Archive1 (~9 May 2003 - ~13 Jun 2003)
2. User talk:Kingturtle/Archive2 (1 Jul 2003 - 27 Aug 2003)
3. User talk:Kingturtle/Archive3 (~29 Sep 2003 - ~Mar 6, 2004)
4. User talk:Kingturtle/Archive4 (18 Mar 2004 - 22 Mar 2004)
5. User talk:Kingturtle/Archive5 (24 Mar 2004 - 5 May 2004)
6. User talk:Kingturtle/Archive6 (13 May 2004 - 29 Jun 2004)
7. User talk:Kingturtle/Archive7 (16 Apr 2004 - 7 Apr 2005)
8. User talk:Kingturtle/Archive8 (23 Apr 2005 - 10 May, 2005)
9. User talk:Kingturtle/Archive9 (12 May 2005 - 23 Jul, 2005)
10. User talk:Kingturtle/Archive10 (10 Aug 2005 - 11 Jan, 2006)
11. User talk:Kingturtle/Archive11 (18 January 2006 - 16 July 2006)
12. User talk:Kingturtle/Archive12 (7 August 2006 - 13 December 2007)
13. User talk:Kingturtle/Archive13 (14 December 2007 - 3 January 2008)
14. User talk:Kingturtle/Archive14 (3 January 2008 - 23 January 2008)
15. User talk:Kingturtle/Archive15 (23 January 2008 - 31 January 2008)

Please note: Most of my replies will be written on this talk page, rather than on your talk page.

Also note: It is my policy not to delete or remove dialog from this page. Everything will be saved and archived. Please don't later remove from here what you've written (although, if you do, I will respect your wishes and not restore removed comments.

Lastly, if I do not reply to you immediately, it is not because I am ignoring you; I might be in the middle of a project on or offline :)

---

lol

lol thanks for the message. ok, i will work on that :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheesepuffsaretasty (talk • contribs) 19:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor diversion

Hi! Here's a wee coincidence I happened to notice:

• Your first: 09:11, 26 November 2002 (hist) (diff) Camel case‎ (moved to "CamelCase") (top)
• My first (as an anon.): 09:50, 26 November 2002 66.46.163.14 (Talk) m Second Opium War (August 21 should be August 22) [embarrassingly, I reversed the dates in my edit summary - the edit was okay though]. Pinkville (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been a long time! :) Kingturtle (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Fer shure. :~) Pinkville (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Block typo

Apolgies. Guess it should have been July 2008 anyway (because of it being 6 months)... :) Regards, Rudget. 16:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Elephant in the Room

I saw you did not do anything to this page, although vandalism happens to this page about every other day. Do you think you could maybe put an anti-vandalism tag or something on there? I have noticed that wikipedia users have been doing it as well, and not just people with IP's. Y5nthon5a (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've placed a 3 day semi-protection on the page. Kingturtle (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry for bugging you about it. I will get back with you if it continues by users of wikipedia or if it continues after the vandalism tag is off. Y5nthon5a (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

no problem :) Kingturtle (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Help with figuring out where to post this

KT, I totally get that I'm generally supposed to post stuff in proper forums rather than asking any one individual for advice. But this is a tough problem that I've been working on for a while...and it's difficult to know where to post this without getting a response of "this isn't the right place". Could I ask your indulgence to read this and, based on your vast experience, tell me where you would post this in order to get a response? This is just one step in a multi-step process. I have already become one of the most active editors at WP:Robot and related articles, I adopted robots.wikia.com, I'm familiar with WV culture to some extent, I've read a lot of stuff that admins read....in short, I'm taking the "fill in the chasm" approach to solving this and other problems. I'm just having a tough time knowing where to post this kind of message and reaching the people I want to reach without annoying the ones who don't want to read it.

Request for a little wiki-love to help us attract more hobbyists to WP

This is a request for people to wander over to WP:WikiProject_Robotics#Moral_support and post a short message saying something like "I get it...I'm not involved with this project, but this stuff is hard, WP needs more of this kind of information, and I appreciate all the people willing to work on this project" (or, for minimalists, just put "moral support" and your name.) In a nutshell, the problem is that people with experience in technology in general and robotics in particular are, for the most part, staying in their own little communities and not contributing to Wikipedia/Wikia/Wikiversity. I have put a lot of time into chatting with communities of hobbyist and student roboticists (who, btw, tend to have fantastic wiki-values and are just the kind of people we want editing here), and trying to get them to understand the benefits of being brave and tackling the WP-and-sister-sites culture, and a lot of time chatting in WP-related irc channels and robotics-related WP talk pages. There is a very tough problem here of a cultural divide, and a little wiki-love would go a long way. Technologists in general, and roboticists in particular, are used to feeling rejection on a number of levels when they talk with people who don't have the same interests...and I'm convinced that's why we don't have more participation from them in Wikipedia.

Here's the problem: try posting a comment to a general audience somewhere saying that you've had some success with getting a robotic vacuum cleaner or a robotic toy to work better, and asking people to try it out and see if they like it, and roughly the first 10 responses you get will be dismissive in some way. This is not at all surprising...everyone has issues with everyday technology, everyone knows that all this stuff gets particularly scary if you look 20 years into the future (and these anxieties are reinforced every day by TV and films), and everyone expects people who are very technophilic to also be semi-autistic, not willing to play by the usual social contracts. All this discomfort tends to get dumped, without apology, on the heads of robotics-enthusiasts, and this has tended to make them clump together for their own protection and comfort. To translate to another context that you might understand better: imagine that you're the only black, or gay, or disabled person in a small town, and suppose every time you try to talk about what's interesting to you, people respond based on all their own stereotypes rather than listening to what you have to say. Get the problem?

Of course, WP isn't here to make the world better, we're just trying to build an encyclopedia...and this is exactly the problem. Wikipedia has coverage of most subjects in excruciating detail, but even the most basic questions about everyday robots aren't covered well in Wikipedia...and worse, you'll have to read 600 pages of stuff before you find out that what you want to know isn't here. This is a tough problem to fix, the subject matter is hard and changes every day, but it would be a lot easier if various hobbyist groups (I won't mention names here so as not to play favorites) did their thing on Wikiversity and Wikia (as appropriate), with the truly encyclopedic content migrating to Wikipedia. -Dan Dank55 (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

One way way around here to get help with a project on wikipedia is to create an an ad at Template:Wikipedia ads. Maybe that can help. Kingturtle (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

JamesonTai just did this for us today. I guess I'm asking which audience might be most receptive, or at least, least likely to get annoyed :) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to delete the banner when you've seen it...unless you want to promote us :) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Jamesontai added it to Template:Wikipedia-adnavbox, so now anyone who has chosen to have {{Qxz-ads}} on her/his userpage will see the ad (occasionally, since all the ads come up randomly). Kingturtle (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the info. The central question is still something I need help with, and of course I'm happy to go ask someone else, if you like. The problem is that there is a cultural problem that is very intractable here, and when I discuss it with people who I think would be sympathetic, I'm only getting reactions from one side of the divide or the other...I'm very surprised that I haven't found many people who immediately "get it", that there are a lot of guys who don't feel comfortable at WP, that we would benefit from having them, and we could make them feel more comfortable just with a little wiki-love. Where is a good place to discuss the problem from that perspective? In a sense, I don't want that argument to get too wild and hairy at WikiProject Robotics, that's "arguing in front of the kids", if you get my meaning. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Portal:Robotics would be a good place to start that? Kingturtle (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're right, I should say something over there. It's possible I'm being both impatient and over-cautious at the same time. I'll just continue to get the word out, and wait for the inevitable culture clashes and conflicts. But I may come running back here if I run into a problem I can't solve :) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

These things take time - sometimes years! :) Kingturtle (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I'm going to be bold and go post over at WP:AN and see what happens. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. I've gotten a lot of nice support for our project today, notably here. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Kandahar

It's not vandalism. It's sourced, read here: http://books.google.com/books?id=EIY2Qliz5SwC&pg=PA157&dq=gay+kandahar&sig=IzPxrwhzvfQq8s9baV22N_E8G0Q. It's like how San Fransisco is known to be like that in the United States but people in the east don't know that. Same with Kandahar, it's regionally known to be a city with lots of homosexuals. It is sourced after all and I can provide additional sources. StevenJacobs5874 (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for the warm welcome. StevenJacobs5874 (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

{{Geek-stub}}

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first!

In this particular case, I can see this template as being a bit of fun on a user page, and I certainly don't want to spoil that fun (there's no reason why you couldn't subst it onto your userpage or a subpage of that)... but as a stub template it's already being used on articles, and indiscriminate use of it there is likely to cause offence very quickly. Grutness...wha?

Can you please help?

I need your help on the Hazara people article. The article was nominated for good article status and it is very close to passing, but the reviewer has placed its passing on hold because first he wants some changes. He has listed the changes he wants on the talk page of the article. Please review them and fix the things that he requested. I would do it but I don't have time right now. We have 7 days to make these improvements listed. Thanks. Hazara898 (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Shikab

Shikab is not NisarKand. It is actually user: Khampalak. Hazara898 (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

When you people can't stand the truth being written you accuse people of someone else. In that case you are Nasir no wait you are Beh nam. How about that? Bunch of IDIOT! LAST WARNING DON'T PUT IN FAKE NUMBERS I HAVE PUT THE INFORMATION WITH THE GOVERNMENT SOURCE WHILE YOU ARE PUTTING FAKE NUMBERS. DON'T TEST ME! THE ADMINS AND MANAGMENT OF WIKIPEDIA IS KEEPING AN EYE ON EACH ONE OF YOU. I HAVE CONTACTED THEM AND BE PREPARED WHATS TO COME.SHIKAB--Shikab (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fielding Bible Award

There is such a thing -- see www.fieldingbible.com. However, I agree with its removal since I believe it is not sufficiently notable. --Nlu (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah! That's right. A Bill James project I had forgotten about. The process that James has created for voting is pretty interesting. It might be worthwhile to include the results. Step one would be to write The Fielding Bible. Kingturtle (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User:BaldBot

Hi buddy. Could you flag my Bald Bot ready for drilling? Its been approved. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BaldBot Thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done 11:32, 30 January 2008 Kingturtle (Talk | contribs | block) changed rights for User:BaldBot from (none) to bot ‎ (approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BaldBot). Kingturtle (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've been contributing to this encyclopedia consistently for a long time and have created around 14,000 articles on wikipedia, higher than anybody, and have previously requested that my new articles are automatically filtered but no one seems to be concerned. I have addressed this to several people but no one has taken it seriously when I said I was concerned about clogging up new pages even when I am adding general content (I;m not talking about the French commune stubs now. I refused adminship long ago but surely I am respected enough to be regarded as admin level in editing. I always add valuable content and most of my articles are referenced except such stubs. I have strong ideas about how this project should be developing and have helped set up more than 50 Category:WikiProject Africa projects and begin assessing them to address the problem of uneven quality and bias on wikipedia, .I;ve even creator perhaps a hundred or so missing locator maps for infoboxes so we can add locator maps and quality infoboxes to places anywhere in the world. Isn't it time somebody made a decision to help new page patrollers by helping them. I;ve contributed ten times more than many adminstrators on wikipedia (107,000 edits) who automatically have their page unmarked -shouldn't mine be the same on a permanent basis? I consistenly add new content to wikipedia which is generally referenced and useful content. Articles like Deforestation in Brazil , Cinema of Kenya and Haj Ghorban Soleimani etc is what I consistently create. E.g yesterday I added infoboxes to all Category:Cities in Kazakhstan and Category:Cities in Kyrgzystan. It would help patollers a lot. Any idea if you can help me receive permanent clearance? I would hope that my editing is trusted on here. I have no problems if you would be willing to discuss this with other bureacrats and make a decision between yourselves. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit unsure of what exactly you're asking for. Kingturtle (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking that when I create general articles with my normal account that my new articles automatically are patrolled like administrator new articles are. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 23:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, admin created articles do not get automatically patrolled. Kingturtle (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes they do honestly. If you look at the new pages - if you created a new article your new articles would be clear and others like mine would be higlighted yellow as unchecked. Some of the admins who regularly create new articles such as Charles Matthews or Punkmorten always have their pages automatically cleared and marked as patrolled as if being an admin makes them a superior article writer. I;m just trying to help new page patrollers and have them to recognize me as a trusted article writer too, rather than having to have each articles checked continuously and cause them unnecessary efforts to keep track of them. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a write-up about this in the namespace somewhere that you could show me about it? Kingturtle (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. All I would need is my normal account to be marked with a flag which would automatically marked it as patrolled. At present the BaldBot I was using has been disapproved again despite you setting it up. Really I;d rather my own account was flagged and it would save me having to use a different account as I do a lot of work on other areas of wikipedia, I;m not the only one who thinks this is the best solution. Here is what Jack said on the bot discussion page:

I wrote a short script to remove these entries from the new pages patrol. I strongly support giving this user User:Blofeld of SPECTRE the ability to create new pages marked with the bot flag. Out of 500 new page entries on the page, I was getting an average of under a hundred not-french-commune pages last week. JackSchmidt (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could post a comment at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BaldBot? I wouldn't mind if we got rid of that bot if my own account could be flagged on a permanent basis -it isn' a bot after all and was only created to help new page patrollers ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC) ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 13:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Still a no to flagging my account is it? Well there will be several thousand new pages created over the next weeks which could easily be unhighlighted automatically. You can't say it didn't try to take the most sensible course of action and save people having to check each and every one of them ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I never said no. I asked for you to point me to a namespace page that discusses the feature you are talking about. I am unclear on what exactly it is you need. Kingturtle (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Its been brought up here: here. To see what a mess the new pages create see here. With each page I create pther editors have to check each one to take away the ugly yellow highlighter. If my account was flagged as an admins automatically it would be white and programmed in as checked ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look here you;ll see the havoc the yellow highlighter creates on my new pages meaning each one has to be checked by other editors. Once it is patrolled in is clear and white. If an admin created an article it would automatically be clear and not highlighted you see ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

E.g See the new pages now. Because you are an admin they are immediately clear compared to others which are yellow and have to be controlled. ♦ King of Baldness ♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Jujutsu

Hi! I saw your revert. But they are irrelevant. I'm Japanese and know the language. Please take a good look at the difference of two words. The article is Jujutsu/柔術 and the word in Gembutsu/現物 is jujitsu. It's probably jūjitsu/充実, meaning fulfillment. Or it maybe a spelling mistake of jijitsu/事実/fact. I scanned the related articles in ja. WP but could not find jujitsu. Anyway please trust me and revert your edit. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I trust you. Could you please read Gembutsu and edit it so that it makes sense? Kingturtle (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw your latest edit. Thank you for trusting me. OK. I think it's jijitsu/fact and I am going to edit the article. Best regards. Oda Mari (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. BTW, your name is 亀王/kame Ō in Japanese. 亀 is turtle and 王 is king. Happy editing. Oda Mari (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

RBI vs. RBIs

Re: your edit summary, I usually see RBI plural written simply as "RBI" - "Runs batted in" - as per my earlier edit. RBIs I suppose would be "Run batted ins" which seems odd. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I realize that Runs batted in is inherently plural, but the pluralization of the the abbreviation is RBIs not RBI. The URL http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/rbi.html explains it simply.

RBI is an acronym. The pluralization of acronyms is to add an S. To quote Wikipedia:Manual of Style, "Acronyms and initialisms are pluralized by adding -s or -es as with any other nouns (They produced three CD-ROMs in the first year; The laptops were produced with three different BIOSes in 2006). As with other nouns, no apostrophe is used unless the form is a possessive." WeaponS of Mass Distruction, is WMD singular and WMDs plural.

Another example is the plural U.S. being U.S. States. Sounds redundant, and it is, but that's how it is written. See RAS syndrome for more oddities. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As good a place as any to reply to your message. I don't happen to agree that the pluralization of an abbreviation should add the "s" or "es" in this specific case but I do respect the reasoning and will yield to the manual of style. Thanks for pointing out the relevant section - I meant to look at one point, but never got 'round to it. Majorclanger (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand completely. I personally hate seeing U.S. States as standard usage. Alas. Cheers, and keep up the great work!! Kingturtle (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There are cases in which RBI is used as singular, such "the 100-RBI plateau" and "5 100+ RBI seasons". Kingturtle (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So why isn't "HRs" used as the plural of "HR"? BRMo (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It is. Anywhere you see it as HR for plural, it needs to be changed to HRs. Kingturtle (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

RBI and HR will appear without the S in cases of statistical lists, like the backs of baseball cards and encyclopedia listings. RBIs and HRs are when used in sentences. Kingturtle (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome. I have been active before but I deleted my old account when I lost control of the domain that used to host my old email address. It was easier to set up a new account. I have already read some but not all of the links you suggested. I'm getting around to it. Right now I'm just doing a few edits here and there on subjects I know well. The Abrams page something I found in the SCIENCE-BASED MEDICINE website http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=33#more-33 JRWoodwardMSW 03:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Shaker citation ref tag

It would be helpful if people using the ref tag would be specific about which portions of the article require referencing. The article is one of the better sourced articles and the use of the ref tag places or implies that the article is unreliable to a high degree. If you are going to place this level of standard of the article than you need to use a bot and Ref a more than healthy percentage of Wikipedia in this category. Again, which portions need the citation?

--jadepearl (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Super Tuesday on the GOP side

MY friend and I are going to be down on my computer most of the night on Super Tuesday. For whatever races are left on the Republican side, I will be happy to keep them updated. Please send me confirmation so I know what to do! America69 (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you very much :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User rights

Sorry to bother you, but I have a question about user rights. When you promoted User:Roger_Davies to sysop, he was already a rollbacker. You promoted him from rollbacker to rollbacker, sysop. Since an administrator has rollback rights, is it really necessary for his rights to be sysop and rollbacker? Thanks. Earthbendingmaster 21:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself. The Rollback rights is a new feature. I am not sure why it doesn't disappear once someone is made an admin. I'll look into it. Kingturtle (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. I have seen more than one like that. Earthbendingmaster 21:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

vandalims

The last edits of User:E104421 are certainly vandalism. He is removing obvious good faith edits and he is removing various reliable sources (i.e. from the Encyclopaedia of Islam).

This one, for example. Even someone who is not an expert realizes that this version of E104421 is much weaker than the re-written and corrected version.

His bad faith edit in Iranian peoples is even more obvious: [1].

Everyone known as the ethnic groups are primarily defined by language. That means that the Hazara are an Iranian people because they speak an Iranian language. Accordingly, the present-day Turkish people are a Turkic people by definition, although their phenotype is Mediterranean and not Mongoloid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.42.175 (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, Kingturtle. I'm undoing the edits by the banned User:Tajik & User:Beh-nam's sock/meatpuppets. Their puppetry is confirmed by the check-user. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tajik & Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Beh-nam. Regards. E104421 (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please also note the diffs: comment1, comment 2. E104421 (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The aim of Wikipedia is to create a good encyclopedia. If a user contributes to an article and adds constructive and reliable information to it, than it's a win for Wikipedia. What you are doing is general bad faith reverting to wrong versions. In Iranian peoples you are reverting to a POV version. In the article Timurid dynasty you not only deleted many academic sources (most of all quotes from the authoritative Encyclopaedia of Islam) but you also deleted the edits of 3 other users, including those of Kingturtle. Your latest edits in Turko-Persian tradition were also general bad faith edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.132.173 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Tajik, you're banned by the WP:ArbCom. Regards. E104421 (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahmad Shah Durrani

I know it can be frustrating when another editor just keeps putting in irrelevant, wrong and misguided material, but please try to refrain from bulk reversion when such an editor incidentally corrects spellings, or adds useful references. I disagree with much of what Anoshirawan did to the Ahmad Shah Durrani article, but he did fix a couple of things. I could not find two of his references with the little provided, I suspect transliteration problems. I hope I haven't done an injustice to the article by what I included of his. --Bejnar (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

re: The Purloined Letter Approach

Thanks for the encouragement! Now I feel all fired up to do some more writing, except I got nothing to write about... So it's wikifying time, I guess! - Scraimer (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

On CommerceNet Singapore

Horrors. Had got permission from them to take their web site text as starting article for non-profit free usage. Why didn't you check with them? Thanks.  :-) 8 February 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.95.205.150 (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't as simple as me checking with them. If they gave you permission, the onus is on you to provide the proof. Read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more information on this. Once you get the permission (which you may already have), follow the procedures listed on that article titled When permission is confirmed. Kingturtle (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing material

Why remove material and conclusions when there is an ongoing AfD? Now the material looks very dubious and poorly sourced. Even the primary source was removed from the inline citations. Copying a few paragraphs fall under fair use or it could easily paraphrased.Ultramarine (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

An article under AfD does not suspend editing on that article. That time, like all times, should be dedicated to making an article better. I was trying to make that article better. Wikipedia simply cannot have large, uninterupted amounts of copy-and-pasted text in an article. I am not opposed at all at having that information paraphrased - and I welcome anyone to do that. I hope that makes sense. Kingturtle (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Moving RfA comment

responded on my talk pageBalloonman (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Campaign against missile defence

Hi, can you help me edit the article I put together. It has a copyright vio. and needs a ot of other work to be done on it. I'm only learning! I'd like to reduce the scope of the article to just 'Polish campaign against missile defence.' How do I access and edit the article though? Thanks Ploughshares (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: nice work!

Thanks. I am thinking of moving that long list of places to List of Notable Places in Islamabad. I think that would clean up the article a lot and make its overall look more appealing. Thoughts?  UzEE  03:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, back into the lion's den

Kingturtle, I probably will be okay after the dust settles. But it would be really nice if you would read my latest post in WP:AN, and also the previous thread on the same subject that's linked there, and leave me a quick vote of support there, something like, "Please go a little bit easy on the WikiProject Robotics people guys, I don't have the same sense of them that some of you do." Or, whatever you want to say. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

your recent edits

In various article, you have not only reverted to a wrong version (for example in Timuird dynasty in which you reverted the edits of 3 different users), but you have also been proxying for the banned User:NisarKand. I think that you are not aware of that, so I just wanted to tell you. Please assume good faith and at least take a look at the versions your have reverted.

User:E104421 is actually vandalizing articles by deleting authoritative scholastic sources (such as in Barlas) and he is purposely reverting to a factually totally wrong version in Iranian peoples. Just compare this version with the one of E104421.

E104122 has not contributed anything positive to these articles. Neither has the sockpuppet of NisarKand (whose edits you seem to protect and support). In Demography of Afghanistan, he has deleted a reference to the Encyclopaedia Britannica with no valid reason.