User talk:KazakhPol

What is KazakhPol up to? What are the critics saying?

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, KazakhPol, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Academic Challenger 23:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The style of references seems fine. Someone who is really an expert on formatting references, which I am not, may eventually change the format, but generally it does not matter. As for your articles, I recommend that you try expanding them a little before creating more new ones. One problem is that the positions of these people may change periodically, so I hope that you continue to contribute so that you can update all these articles, as Central Asian politics is not one of our most active areas. Academic Challenger 00:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that all of your pages necessarily need to have 10 references, but if you add new information then there should be more references. These people are definitely notable and I am glad you are here to add more information about Kazakhstan. My only concern is that when the cabinet gets reshuffled, you may be the only person who is paying attention enough to update the articles. But I am sure there is a good solution for that. Keep up the good contributions. Academic Challenger 00:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That's becoming a great article! Here are some things to work on. The articles should be in the category Kazakhstani politicians. They can remain in the Government of Kazakhstan category for as long as they are in the cabinet, and when they are no longer in the cabinet they can be removed from that category but they will still be in the Politicians category. Also, most of your articles have no other pages linking to them, which is important in Wikipedia. Perhaps there could be a template for the cabinet of Kazakhstan which could allow all of the cabinet members' pages to link to each other. But for now at least they are all in the same category. I will try to help with these projects this weekend. Academic Challenger 05:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Kazakh pages

Thank you for invitation. I am not a specialist on Kazakhstan. As I am more interested about energy issues, my changes were related only to the KazMunayGas company.Beagel 17:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Template

That's a good template. Academic Challenger 18:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

People who are interested in voting go through the list of nominations. In fact, several people just voted in the last few minutes. Academic Challenger 03:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes you can. Academic Challenger 03:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

Next time try not to afd a front page news update. -Sidar 03:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh, it was done with all good intentions. (Not that I can disagree.) --Kizor 03:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're watching Fox news, you will see that I now seem to be right. The test was - according to Fox news speculation - unsuccessful. The seismic test indicates it failed, if it was a nuclear test at all. This is Wikipedia acting as a crystal ball. I say, leave that to the mainstream media. Until independent confirmation says the test was nuclear, the page should not exist. KazakhPol 04:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm on the wrong continent to watch Fox News. Anyway, the article doesn't say that North Korea tested a nuke - it's reporting what other news sources say. We're making quotes, not predictions. And regardless of the actual test, the claim and the media frenzy are most definitely noteworthy events. --Kizor 04:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Foreign minister of Kyrgyzstan

You created the article Alikbek Jershenkulov but there is an older article, Alikbek Jekshenkulov about the same person. Could you add the information from your article into the older article, which has many pages linking to it? Or is the older article under an incorrect name? Anyway they definitely need to be merged. Academic Challenger 04:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. For a lot of useful pages, try Wikipedia:Community portal. Academic Challenger 04:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Iran Freedom and Support Act

I reverted your revisions to a much earlier version of the article. Between my edits and your edits, a third editor made significant contributions and did not properly source his statements. I understand that why his claims were removed. However, the parts I wrote are supported by the links provided. The current version (also the old version) makes four statements: the act directs the president to provide financial assistance to pro-democracy groups; supporters hailed the act; critics claimed it was the first step towards war; the act prohibits the use of military force. Here are sources for the claims, all of which were already provided:

Financing democracy - Section 303 of the act states:

The President is authorized, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to provide financial and political assistance (including the award of grants) to foreign and domestic individuals, organizations, and entities that support democracy and the promotion of democracy in Iran.

Supporters hailed the act... - This should be self-supporting. The supporters of the act (all but 21 people in the house) obviously liked the bill, and democracy promotion was clearly their stated aim (I do not know if that was their real aim).

Critics claimed it was the first step towards war - The article by Cindy Sheehan states as follows (and clearly implies that she, as a critics, believes this to be the first step towards war):

...he is warning Iran that if it doesn't shape up the US is going to come and impose freedom and democracy on that country. The rah-rah, "yes, sir" Congress who has an easy job of approving everything that George Bush does, thereby eliminating critical thinking, debate, or any semblance of rational discussion has voted for sanctions that will lead to an attack on Iran which will be devastating for our troops in Iraq and for that poor region that had the unfortunate luck to be built upon tremendous oil and natural gas reserves. Only 21 Congress people voted "nay" on the Iran Freedom Support Act which is incredible considering what happened when they voted "yea" to give George Bush the green light for every sanction against Iraq and to invade it.

The act prohibits military action... - The link to the text provided states:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise approve of the use of the Armed Forces of the United States in carrying out activities under this Act.

Cheers. --Tjss(Talk) 03:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Chatham

Thanks for the response...to be honest, I'd rather just throw off the whole issue of personal attacks and incivlity and resolve the facts issue. I also don't see how we're going to be compelling an anon user to participate in Mediation... —lensovet–talk – 04:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Central Asia

Please note the creation of WikiProject Central Asia and consider yourself heartily invited to join! Aelfthrytha 07:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Government of Kazakhstan

Hi - all the articles you made about the current Cabinet of Kazakhstan are great, but they probably would go better in Category:Kazakhstani politicians rather than in the Government of Kazakhstan category. Aelfthrytha 07:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I never said you couldn't, I just recommended not doing it. My reason is that by your theory, everyone in the Kazakh government could be put in that category. Who is and is not involved at the moment can change. However, their status as politicians is more permanent, making it better for a category. If it is really important to you, I would suggest creating a category for Kazakh government ministers to put in the government category. Aelfthrytha 16:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The template serves half the purpose - first someone has to find one of the articles though. To find an article, you really need a category. Having both is important. Could you please answer my concern about the Government category? I'm still worried that if you put up every person who is involved in a government, it would fill the category to the point of uselessness. Aelfthrytha 01:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't explain very well. :( Let me try again. What I mean to say is that even if you restrict the category to everyone currently involved in the government, it could be huge. You could have mayors, Parliament members, ministers, judges, etc. Government categories have been traditionally for the government itself - the houses of parliament, the offices, the laws, and the constitution. Did I explain it okay this time? Aelfthrytha 02:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm really glad we finally understood each other! I never want to do anything here on Wiki without all involved authors working together and (if at all possible) agreeing. Sorry, I don't know enough about Terrorism in Kazakhstan to be useful. My not speaking or reading Russian is a bigger limitation for working with Kazakh topics than with the rest of Central Asia. Actually that's why I started the WikiProject - I wanted more accessible info in English. Aelfthrytha 04:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm back

I have returned from my trip, and have looked at the Terrorism in Kazakhstan article. You have obviously worked even more on it since you left me the messages, and I can't think of any major revisions that are needed at this point. Honestly, you have found more to say on this topic than I thought could be said about a country that has no terrorist attacks. By the way, referring to the discussion above about categorizing articles, I agree that they should be in the Kazakhstani politicians category. Whether they should stay in the government category while they are still involved in the government is debatable, but for now I will add the Politicians category to some of the articles, and keep in the government category. Academic Challenger 05:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I see it's already done. Academic Challenger 05:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Tip for Categorising

Your articles are really great but here's one thing to look at - when you categorise a person with a first and last name, you should pipe the category like this [[Category:Kazakhstani politicians|Altynbaev, Mukhtar]] . That way they will show up in the category under the first letter of their last name, not the first letter of their first name. Sound good? Aelfthrytha 13:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Non-notable wife of a terrorist."

Try to avoid using political statements in Wikipedia. --Haham hanuka 20:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

calling Amir a terrorist is a political statement. --Haham hanuka 20:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Muchas gracias

Hey KazakhPol, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 04:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing broken references

This is regarding your edit to Crazy (Gnarls Barkley song). Please do not remove content from Wikipedia just because a reference that was used for it is no longer online. Instead , if you find a broken reference, you might want to see if you can fix it yourself or, if you can't, put up a notice on the article's talk page. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 19:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think removing content just because references (which were there) are no longer there borders on vandalism. The things were right, and referenced in the first place, and you can't just remove them just because the references are out of date. Please read What to do when a reference link "goes dead" and stop removing valid content. Even if these statements were unsourced, there would be no need to remove them; See Tagging unsourced material, which reads "Don't be inappropriately cautious about removing unsourced material." and "If it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article, use the {{fact}} tag to ask for source verification [...]." And I doubt any of the things you removed were harmful. There are also some more specific tags for problematic references here. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, when I re-added the Nelly Furtado reference, it was the fixed link (which you then removed without checcking). --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

How is an article about a song a biography of a living person? And again, there is no need to remove the things as they are sourced (read What to do when a reference link "goes dead"). You wouldn't remove content because it uses an out-of-print book as a refernce, would you? Plus, the Discogs reference works, (and there really isn't any need for references in a track listing section; hardly any other song has one for that). The Billy Idol reference is valid, too, you just have to click on "Previous page" and scroll down a bit (it can't be direct linked because it's in Flash). And you just removed the fixed Nelly Furtado reference again! --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If there is anything wrong with the references, just let me know (either on my talk page or on the article's talk page) and I'd be happy to fix it, there really is no need to remove the content. If there is something you want to be sourced, just point it out and I'll provide a source. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifing that. I now found the direct link to the news article on his official homepage and corrected the link([1]) in the article. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 20:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Uzbek page moves

Please stop. I've never seen the naming style you're using. You need to discuss these changes before you resume. KazakhPol 18:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hm... Dear KazakhPol, it is not a transliteration. I use orginal Uzbek latin spellings. Latin script is now official for the Uzbek language, that is why we use original latin spelling, instead of different horrible transliterations. E.g. Islom Karimov (instead of Islam Karimov, Islyam Kerimov, etc.)

I've never seen the naming style you're using.

I'm awfully sory, but it is a problem of yours, not of mine. Maybe this is because you don't know Uzbek orthography. You can find rules of transliteration of the Uzbek cyrillic alfabet into the Uzbek latin alfabet here.

Or if you have never seen, you can simply see, just like this:

• Tohir Yo‘ldoshev (Toҳир Йўлдошев)
• O‘tkir Sultonov (Ўткир Султонов)
• Ulug‘bek Haydarov (Улуғбек Ҳайдаров)
• etc.

And I have a question for you: what kind of spelling do you use? For example, why do you name Rashid Qadirov as Rashid Kadyrov?

Don Alessandro 19:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

When responding to the comments of other users, it's customary to respond on their talkpages and not your own. The naming style I go by is what I see commonly used in either official press releases issued by the Uzbek government or the media. I do not refer to the Uzbek President by Islom because that's just silly. There's a reason his name is Islam. KazakhPol 19:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

...it's customary to respond on their talkpages and not your own.

OK, let it be.

The naming style I go by is what I see commonly used in either official press releases issued by the Uzbek government or the media.

Hm... Yes, unfortunately many Uzbek media use this transliterations from Russian, instead of the natural Uzbek names. IMHO it's silly to use u instead of o‘ or k instead of q only because in the now abolished cyrillic script this letters are similar (у and ў, к and қ).

There's a reason his name is Islam.

In the Uzbek language this religion is called Islom. You don't rename Ivan into John, or Ibrahim into Abraham, do you? That is why we should not rename Islom to Islam.

Whether or no, now I have no neither energy, nor willing to start a "war of edits" or a long discussion. So, you may revert if you want so.

Don Alessandro 19:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

My only problem is the lack of communication prior to your page moves. I, also, am not interested in starting an edit war. I believe we got off on the wrong foot, as both of us are trying to improve Uzbek-related pages. Regards, KazakhPol 20:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I have moved all of them to the most popular (by Google) variants. In some cases these are Uzbek spellings (Sodiq Safoyev) and Russified ones in some others (Tahir Yuldashev). And, of cource, I mentioned the less popular variant in brackets. Don Alessandro 14:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Atasu-Alashankou pipeline

Yes, I yeard about this pipeline. This is a main section of oil pipeline between Kazakhstan and China. The article about this pipeline is under the name Kazakhstan-China oil pipeline, so you could make an internal link to this. Regards, Beagel 16:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ethiopian Prime Minister statement

G'day Kazakhpol,

You reverted my changes to the story about the Ethiopian Prime Minister's statement in parliament. I changed it based on media sources. The story is currently unsourced contrary to guidelines. Could you please add a citation from a reliable source that supports the story. Capitalistroadster 01:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1.--Jusjih 09:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

al-Durrah

My pleasure, thanks for your note. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Feel free to revert him yourself. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Secretary-General

• I gave Nasrallah that title because that is his title in the Hezbollah article. I don't have much regard for him either but that is his title as far as I know. If it isn't, we need to change the Hezbollah article. Capitalistroadster 05:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Burgas-Alexandropoulos

Yes, these pipelines have several names and spellings. In Wikipedia they are under names Burgas-Alexandroupoli pipeline and Odessa-Brody pipeline. There are also some alternative projects like AMBO pipeline, Pan-European Pipeline and Kiyikoy - Ibrihaba pipeline (no wiki article yet) for same purpose. Also Samsun Ceyhan Pipeline project is related to the oil transport from the Black Sea bypassing Turkish straits. However, I don't think that all these pipelines will be built.Beagel 16:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Nursultan Nazarbayev

It is my pleasure. As funny as Borat is, I really wish people wouldn't vandalized wikipedia with his quotes.--Thomas.macmillan 03:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed that there has been a lot of vandalism recently on Kazakh topics, apparently because of Borat, which I only heard about because of the vandalism here. I will help check all the articles about Kazakhstan. Academic Challenger 06:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You told me to "Please stop omitting negative portayals of Islam as this violates the WP:NPOV policy. Thank you, KazakhPol 04:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)", after having deleted my revisions. Naturally this requires an explanation, because negative potrayals of Islam are themselves against any sort of neutrality. I have simply changed incorrect terms (which are offensive to most Muslims) like "Islamic extremism" to things like "extremist Muslims" to seperate the religion from the followers. (I assume you wouldn't have cared or been aware if I hadn't done so in the article on Kazakhstan.) Please clarify why going against other people's incorrect wording is "against the NPOV policy".

Wikipedia:Most wanted articles

Hi, thanks for the heads-up about Fiji at the 1996 Summer Olympics. A lot of those similar articles are "most wanted" only because of the links created from the use of the huge template {{NOCin1996SummerOlympics}}. My current project is to put standard infobox on all the "Nation at the year Olympics" pages (~3000 of them), creating stubs if necessary, so all those other "Most wanted" pages ought to be stubbed in the next week or so (depending on my edit rate...). Andrwsc 16:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

And thanks for the barnstar!! Andrwsc 18:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Kurmanbek Bakiyev - 2006 crisis

Thanks for that link. This is a very interesting story to follow. (Am86 19:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC))

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Greetings, thanks for contributing to this article. As you've not previously contributed to any large degree to the article would you kindly add to the talk page what your cleanup concerns are specifically? As it stands now your adding the cleanup tag seems to be a bit of a "drive by" edit. Thanks. (→Netscott) 01:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thursday

Yes, the 9th was Thursday. However, the current events page was showing that the 8th was Thursday. I don't care what part of the world you're in or what side of the international date line you may be on, the 8th was a Wednesday. Unless you're using some kind of a funky calendar, which I suppose Wikipedia may be using. Except for the fact that Wikipedia then fixed the current events page when the error was pointed out and now shows the proper days. 71.232.25.117 18:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: 82.18.125.110

Fair enough. I think you misread my intentions, there, though -- I saw that the user had made what I'd consider a veiled legal threat, and while I didn't want that to continue, I did want them to be free to pursue their dispute and hopefully reach an amicable resolution. My sole objective was that: stop the accusations being thrown around, and get a reasonable dialogue going. Unfortunately, by the time I checked back, a number of other editors had gotten involved, and it didn't look like I could do much good. Things got out of hand, and in retrospect, I might have done more to calm them down. I'll strive to do better in the future. Luna Santin 08:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

My failed RfA

Thank you so much (sarcasm) for your deeply unpleasant comments on my RfA. After months of working hard, following WP:NPOV to the letter, improving various articles and winning the respect of admins, not to mention working with the AMA, I feel that all my hard work has been thrown back in my face. I think it is now likely that I will stop editing Wikipedia altogether - the whole site is clearly run by a little clique of admins who attach more importance to edit counts than personality. I really don't care if you block me, call this a personal attack, or anything else - I think I've had enough of following the rules. Once again, thank you so much for destroying my confidence, ruining the one real diversion that existed in my life, and generally making me feel bad. Walton monarchist89 20:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for the above comment. I was in a bad mood at the time. In reality, I do understand why you voted against my RfA. It's true that I don't have a huge amount of experience and I may decide to reapply in the future. Please accept my apology. Walton monarchist89 20:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Will you accept my apology? I'm only human and was basically just feeling sorry for myself. I don't want to start another account - I do honestly feel I've done a lot of good work with this one, and if you check my record you'll see I've never before been involved in this kind of disagreement. Once again, I'm really sorry. Walton monarchist89 20:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Be more careful

Be a bit more watchful when deleting. When deleting Feasts and obesrvances (what I edited, now I added links) January 29 you have deleted by mistake all External Links and categories, also all the links to pages in different languages to the bottom. I fixed it.--80.203.33.200 21:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The nonsense articles

I deleted those nonsense articles. For the future, you should read Wikipedia:Speedy deletions which will tell you how how to nominate pages for speedy deletion, where they will be placed in a category that is usually monitored by several admins during all times. Academic Challenger 22:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input!

Thank you for taking part in my RfA. The RfA was not successful, mostly because I did a pretty bad job of presenting myself. I'll run again sometime in the next few months, in the hopes that some will reconsider.

In the meantime, one of the projects I'm working on is A Wikimedia Administrator's Handbook. This is a wikibook how-to guide intended to help new administrators learn the ropes, as well as to simply "demystify" what adminship entails. If you are an administrator, please help out with writing it, particularly on the technical aspects of the tools. Both administrators and non-administrators are welcome to help link in and sort all of the various policies regarding the use of these tools on wikipedia in particular (as well as other projects: for example, I have almost no experience with how things work on wiktionary or wikinews). Users who are neither familiar with policy or the sysop tools could be of great help by asking questions about anything that's unclear. The goal is to get everything together in one place, with a narrative form designed to anticipate the reader's next question.

A second project, related but not entailed, is a book on wikimedia in general, with a history of how various policies evolved over time, interesting trivia (e.g., what the heck was "wikimoney" about?), and a history of how the wikimedia foundation itself came about and the larger issues that occurred during its history (such as the infamous "Spanish Fork").

Again, thanks for your input on the RfA, and thanks in advance for any help you might be able to provide for the handbook. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 13:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Dalbury's RfA

My RfA passed with a tally of 71/1/0. Thank you very much for your support. I hope that my performance as an admin will not disappoint you. Please let me know if you see me doing anything inappropriate. -- Donald Albury 03:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

al-Durrah

Let's work this out on the article's Talk: page, there are a number of issues with your proposed change, some of which I've listed in my edit summary. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Dangherous's vote

It's not frowned upon to make clear that a voter in an RfA has deleted discussion material, possibly misleading closing bureaucrats. Although I trust Bureaucats to look into the history behind votes in an RfA they are closing, it is helpful to the process to make it more clear. Dangherous deleted discussion comments, and opposed for reasons which have been by the community in the past, which is why I called his reasons spurious. Best regards, RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 03:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Bird for visitors

Is this how you want the colibri? If you'd like to understand how to change it in various ways, I suggest consulting User:DVD R W, I believe he created the code. Bishonen | talk 14:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for your support!

A week ago I nominated myself, hoping to be able to help Wikipedia as an administrator as much as a WikiGnome. I am very glad many others shared my thoughts, including you. Thank you for your trust! Be sure I will use these tools to protect and prevent and not to harass or punish. Should you feel I am overreacting, pat me so that I can correct myself. Thanks again! ReyBrujo 19:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Prayer

Thank you for your third (or fourth) opinion. I will let you know if the list gets deleted. Biruitorul 05:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding an additional viewpoint here! For future reference, might I ask why you disagreed? This might be very helpful to the disputants as well. Also, you may wish to let Crculver know that an additional opinion was added. Seraphimblade 05:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I do still disagree (I tend to look more at tone, seems more encyclopedic to summarize and link to content), but I certainly see where you're coming from as well. Seraphimblade 20:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Zvi Tohar AfD

Apologies for not quoting WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF prior to your response on that AfD, but I felt it wasn't my place to make assumptions about your "war crime victim" statement before you responded yourself (my assumption was that you'd meant "perpetrator", but you never know round here!) I suspect Alansohn may not be quite using the objectivity about a given article required when making an argument on AfD. Regards, Tonywalton  | Talk 21:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, that's a very cool hummingbird. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Israeli-Zionist terrorism

Done. Next time, just tag the article you created with {{db-user}}, and an administrator will delete it soon after. Cheers! -- ReyBrujo 01:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism

Please do not make cut-and-paste page moves "When a cut-and-paste move is done, the page history of an article or talk page can be split among two or more different pages. This is a Very Bad Thing, because we need to keep the history with the content for copyright reasons." Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the hummingbird - impressively well done. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The same story about Zionism. Both these are sensitive topics, and long discussions ended up in consensus. Please do not make unilateral moves. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that you've attempted it more than once. This may be qualified as disruption. I suggest you proceed with caution. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me be more clear: Cut and paste moves are strictly forbidden. I would be sorry to have to block you to prevent it. If a page title is disputed, take it up on requested moves. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello? Do some research before you cease to assume good faith genius. (→Netscott) 04:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This is becoming disruptive. Now might be a good time to find something else to do, or take a voluntary break from editing for a few hours. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; It is a difficult area, and I understand your point. I will watch for the discussion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism

I will reopen discussion on this title at a later date, when I have finished working on a few other things. When I do I will notify you, though generally I am thoroughly annoyed with your editing. On a separate note, I hardly see "consensus" on the current name for this page nor any of the other religion and terrorism pages. This is political correctness and partisanship run amok. KazakhPol 04:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries, you're being bold and ruffling feathers. Your boldness and perhaps my stodgy-ness are bumping into each other... that's pretty much a normal part of operations around here... but do know that I strive to ensure a neutral point of view in my editing... which I suspect you might be mistaking for polical correctness. (→Netscott) 04:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Muhammad al-Durrah. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 05:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC).

Terrorism in Kazakhstan

Yes, go ahead. If you want create also a tempate which should link all those pages, something like Template:Hezbollah --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a great article, will you be creating ones for Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan like your talkpage seems to suggest? What about Turkmenistan as well? Chris 07:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight, unsourced, etc.

The quote "...black South African, and if I were to change the names, a description of what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank could describe events in South Africa etc..." has been unsourced for weeks, as Kiyosaki well knows. Unlike your headline, Tutu never talks about the "Jewish lobby", and finally, Tutu is one of the most famous anti-Apartheid activists in the world, yet fully 1/4 of his biography is devoted to some offhand comments he has made about Israel - this violates WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. People shouldn't be using the Tutu biography to promote their own views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you very much for your support. I highly appreciate it. Biruitorul 23:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Oh, the humanity! I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for yours, and I hope I'll still have it the next time around. Kafziel Talk 14:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Somali Civil War (2006 - present) referencing

Thanks for helping out with all the references, but why did you remove all my br clear="both" tags? Now I have to go and add them all back in again... --Ingoman 00:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

also, why have you done mess with the infobox? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Stubs

On a minor note, please leave stub tages at the bottom of the page, not above the categories, as you recently did. Thanks!--Thomas.macmillan 14:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: 209...

I blocked it. Academic Challenger 22:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Borat song

What part of my deletion of the lyrics was unexplained? Lyrics are not fair use and the video that the link showed is currently being sold as a part of the Ali G show DVD. I'm sure Sacha Baron Cohen's lawyers would not like something that should be giving him profit being given freely on an informational site. Gdo01 04:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

How does that justify putting it there? Directly from WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking:

"Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement."

and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works:

"If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, please don't link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry).

Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors."

How does putting the link and lyrics not violate the above policies? Gdo01 04:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Zhaksybek Kulekeyev

All info from the same source at KazMunayGas website [2]. Added this as external link. Beagel 17:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Kazakhstan stubs

Thanks for the appreciation with regards to stub sorting for your future reference there are three stub categories relating to Kazakhstan these are

1. {{Kazakhstan-stub}} for general articles relating to Kazakhstan.
2. {{Kazakhstan-bio-stub}} for articles relating to people from Kazakhstan.
3. {{Kazakhstan-geo-stub}} for articles relating to the geography of Kazakhstan.

using these will mean that articles get sorted into the correct places and make it easier for editors to find them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Waacstats (talk • contribs) 19:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Wikipedia:third opinion

Where are we supposed to go for Wikipedia:dispute resolution if a request for clarification is ignored by the arbcom? Your suggestion has been tried in vain. Andries 20:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The arbcom did give a verdict on matter Sathya Sai Baba but my request for clarification reg. Robert Priddy was ignored without giving a reason. Andries 21:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I can understand that you do not understand because I realize that my explanation is insufficient. Forget about third opinion for the time being. I reported myself for violation of the arbcom decision. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:Andries and I think that is better, at least for the time being, than third opinion. Andries 21:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voting

File:In-the-dark.jpg

Thank you for voting in my RfA which at 51/20/6 unfortunately did not achieve consensus. In closing the nomination, Essjay remarked that it was one of the better discussed RfAs seen recently and I would like to thank you and all others who chose to vote for making it as such. It was extremely humbling to see the large number of support votes, and the number of oppose votes and comments will help me to become stronger. I hope to run again for adminship soon. Thank you all once more. Wikiwoohoo 20:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Iraq Survey article

Thanks for the heads-up. I think you did a good job, and can't think of any improvements, off the top of my head. But I will take another look, later today.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 21:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Islamic extremist terrorism

You're making valid points. You might want to add Christian extremist terrorism to your list. As far these parts, " Zionist political violence, which should be Zionist terrorism, and "Allegations of Israeli apartheid," which should be Israeli apartheid." do you honestly think that's liable to ever happen? (→Netscott) 03:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Very doubtful but I do appreciate the balance you've expressed in the AfD. (→Netscott) 03:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Kazakhpol, I would caution you about mass posting messages to users about that AfD. Doing that is generally frowned upon. See Template:Canvass. (→Netscott) 04:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Normally folks use Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting towards such ends. Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Islam. (→Netscott) 04:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me the heads up on this one on my user talk page. I think the title "Islamic extremist terrorism" is appalling, but it's going to be a hard slog to change it given the degree of ignorance and delusion that exists in society on this subject. I did however suggest a radical rethinking of the other article you mentioned, namely to change the name and content of Allegations of Israeli apartheid to the broader one of "Israel and Apartheid". I'd be interested to hear what you think of this. Ireneshusband 08:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Movement of Turkestan

Just to say thanks for your edits to the above page getting those refs sorted out! AndrewRT(Talk) 21:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused

You made a comment on my talk page that I think you meant for someone else. I certainly don't understand it. --Ronz 00:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Notable?

You said here:

week Keep Im sort of straggling between whether this is notable, but when in doubt... keep. KazakhPol 22:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain how these lists are "not notable"? Its a list of Notable people. How is the list not notable then? --Matt57 01:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism in Kazakhstan template

I think I fixed the no include problem. Apparently there should be no spaces between the words, so it should say noinclude instead of no include. I can't really say anything about the largeness of the space because I'm visually impaired. Everything else seems to be great. Thanks for all your work on these topics. Academic Challenger 05:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Rania al-Baz

You have declared the article to be POV. Can you please proide reasons on the article's talk page tos editors can work towards making it NPOV.Bless sins 02:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Perceived POV in Minors detained in the global war on terror?

Greetings,

You recently instantiated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minors detained in the global war on terror, based on your perception that the article was written from a biased POV.

My comment was to point out that a perceived biased POV is simply not grounds for deletion. If you still feel the article is biased I encourage you to be specific about the aspects you think are biased -- on talk:minors detained in the global war on terror

I'll draw your attention to some other comments.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 15:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third Opinion

I agree with HighInBc's comments. The previous item as listed is not appropriate for WP:3O. Grouse 19:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what text you saw when you went to give a 3rd opinion, because Jayjg kept deleting my text from the talk page and anything in the article. I will request your opinion again, or you could follow up if you like on the new section which several people agreed was needed on the Zionism page for "Modern Zionism". THere is tons of history but little about modern day events. Pco 01:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Third opinion

Fair enough, no objection there. Seems you're likely to have a friendlier relationship with him/her, so separating the threads is probably wise on that count, as well. Going by the same scheme, I thiiink you may want this one to be a seperate thread, but it's your talk page, so refactor as you like. I'll think about the discussion at WP:3O's talk and see if I can figure out a proper opinion. :) Luna Santin 20:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Redzee

Thanks for the third opinion, but seems our IP friend would rather edit war. Can you please help intervene? I don't want to violate 3RR. thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Zionism (modern zionism)

The content I posted today was never reverted by anyone. There was only one citation that is the same from yesterday and Jayjg never said why he kept reverting it, he just did and turned out to be lying to people and deleting things that he had no business deleting on talk pages and elsewhere.

The only objection was to how I stated what one article meant and that has been restated so I don't see why I can't post it because it is all new and no one is discussing it. I don't mind waiting, but it doesn't seem to be the policy to wait on something that has never been posted. The only thing we discussed and confirmed was that Kendrick, Jayjg and I all determined that the "modern zionism" section was needed. It is all new content. Can I post it or not? How long should I wait to see if anyone objects on the talk page? THanks. Pco 21:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Islamic comparative religion

I don't think you should nominate it again unless there is an extremely compelling reason. Personally, I think it's a pretty good article. Anyway, if you still feel uncomfortable with it in 6 months or so, you could nominate it again then. Academic Challenger 03:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Put the phrase "second nomination" after the name of the page. Or if it is nominated more than twice, use the phrase third nomination, fourth nomination, etc. For example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic Challenger (second nomination). Academic Challenger 03:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents in Pakistan

Would you be alright with merging the article you started on List of terrorist incidents in Pakistan into the article Terrorism in Pakistan? KazakhPol 22:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I am okay with the merger.Shyamsunder 21:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that.

Actually, now I am in the sandbox.Goodnight, Gentlemen 19:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

911 Conspiracy Theories/Alternative Theories

Why dont we focus on identifying individual points of objection at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Why_dont_the_Oppose_and_Agree_camps.3F instead of having long winded debates that cover 2 or 3 subjects The we we know everyones objections either way, we can work out a compromise on each point with a view to reaching a consensus. "Snorkel | Talk" 09:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Islamic comparative religion

I see you tried to nominate for deletion a couple of days ago. Even though it was nominated before, I don't see any reasons why it cannot go through the afd process again. If the previous afd discussion is any guide, people voted to keep on the assumption that would be improved. It didn't progress a iota since the last nomination and chances are it will stay in its current awful shape forever unless deleted. Beit Or 13:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

T

• [3]: FM spokesman: Ilyas Omarov, Terrorism in Central Asia
• [4]: Foreign relations of Kazakhstan, Foreign relations of Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan-Kyrgyzstan relations
• [5]: Kairat Lama Sharif, Ambassador of Kazakhstan to Saudi Arabia
• [6]: China-Kazakhstan relations, Foreign relations of Kazakhstan
• [7]: Foreign relations of Uzbekistan, Foreign relations of Turkmenistan, Turkmenization
• [8]: Terrorism in Uzbekistan, Terrorism in Kyrgyzstan

Saparmurat Niyazov

(quoted from User_talk:Espoo#Saparmurat_Niyazov) Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. KazakhPol 22:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems you don't know how to use the history log. These are my simple copyedit changes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Saparmurat_Niyazov&diff=95992685&oldid=95992598

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Saparmurat_Niyazov&diff=95993352&oldid=95993137 --Espoo 22:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

At least according to the edits around that time by others that i've seen, it seems you also don't know what vandalism is. --Espoo 23:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

See results #3 and 4 here. If you find these unreliable, feel free to remove the "Jewish" adjective. Biruitorul 03:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

He was a good Soviet, I guess. Also, marrying her may have helped him move up in the Party hierarchy. But maybe she doesn't practice Judaism - and anyway she lives in Moscow. Biruitorul 03:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, information is obviously somewhat lacking, but it does seem as though, in the short term, a) no major changes are to be expected and b) Russian influence will grow. It will be interesting, though. I'm sure you're familiar with them, but registan.net has lots more coverage. Biruitorul 04:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Speaking of which, this could use some cleanup! Biruitorul 04:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting article

Have you seen this, by any chance? Khoikhoi 06:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I enjoyed reading Turkmenization by the way—it was well-written. Cheers, Khoikhoi 06:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Absurdistan

I've nominated the article Absurdistan for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Absurdistan satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absurdistan. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Absurdistan during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. —Psychonaut 09:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Reversions on Saparmurat Niyazov

I noticed that your recently reverted my revision to this article. I'm afraid that I don't see why my edits were cause for reversion. I was simply attempting to reformat a section of the page. If you believed that my edits were unhelpful, I would have appreciated it if you would have discussed that on with me before you changed it. Quaerere 16:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The new great game

Excellent work! One question: is "The new great game" or "New great game", or even "New Great Game" the best title? Is the phrase used outside Kleveman's book? Biruitorul 18:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Saparmurat Niyazov

Good job on removing the Borat stuff on Niyazov's talk page. Not many people realize that Borat is "from" Kazakhstan, Niyazov led Turkmenistan. This obviously shows the ignorance of my fellow citizenry. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Revert wars are unproductive and are not tolerated. Blocks are issued to prevent future problems user:Halaqah has been blocked once, reecntly, for violating the 3RR policy. Even so he's returned to engaging in revert warring. In the past I've usually given 48-hour blocks when there've been 2nd violations. I consider the 31-hour block to be a more moderate remedy. If the editor writes to me that he won't engage in further reverts then I'll shorten the block further. -Will Beback · † · 20:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Halaquah is not a new editor. He knows the rule, having been warned in October and blocked once two weeks ago. We don't have very many hard-and-fast rules on Wikipedia, but this is one. If the editor acknowledges his mistake and commits to not repeating it I'd be happy to reduce the block. -Will Beback · † · 21:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, i will remember you.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 21:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

New Great Game

I so totally want to see this when you're done-I lived in Bishkek 1995-1998, and asked then-ambassador Eileen Malloy (that would be an article!) why we Americans were no longer the good cowboys in the white hats. She said we still were, and ignored my skeptical look. We took the best chance for a model in Central Asia which would be progressive, democratic and built on the wishes of the people themselves, and blew it. :( I was at Issyk-kul the night Akayev's son and Nazarbayev's daughter got married, the next day they cancelled social security for the year. Thank you for posting that youtube clip-Bishkek yesterday, Ashgabat tomorrow. Chris 07:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

as per redirects-cool, I see what you did! I never would have thought of doing that! :) Chris 07:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks yet again! Chris 08:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Going to bed, good night and Merry Christmas! Chris 08:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I so admire your cool under pressure-I have two flamers now, and it's driving me mad. Chris 07:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Help needed on racism

we need to see if racism lives in Israel, i would appreciate if more voices could be heard. I believe under the wiki policy i can request voices on these touchy well protected topics.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 21:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Islam in Mozambique

Hi KazakhPol, First off, thank you for tidying up this article. I just kindly ask that in all articles you write, please put your stubs below your categories, as this is the proper way to stub an article. Thanks--Thomas.macmillan 08:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, I ask you again, please keep stubs below the categories, as you changed this again on this article.--Thomas.macmillan 02:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Then it will be the way I continue to change to the common style.--Thomas.macmillan 02:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Thank you for your support in the RfA on my behalf. It is an honor to have received your expression of confidence. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. It is my wish that I will continue to deserve your confidence. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 19:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael Perham

Surely significant BBC coverage (external link included) counts as significant external reference! I think your claim for need for reference is inappropriate. --Alastair Cutting 00:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Your note

The word "reestablishment" is already in the lead. Saying it twice causes the flow to deteriorate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Also, please discuss the article on the article talk page. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ayham al-Samarie

I would like to tidy up this page and noticed the tag you put about it being NPOV. I wasn't quite sure what this referred to - could you point me in the right direction? Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 21:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me, but I'm still confused. Nearly all of it is referenced to press articles - apart from a couple of paragraphs in the middle. Is this what your referring to? I realise nearly all the press is from the west - do you think there should be more Arab press cited? AndrewRT(Talk) 21:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back. These two paragraphs fail to cites any sources, dont appear particularly NPOV and are possibly Original Research. After a quick google I couldn't find any corroborating sources so I've deleted them both. Are you ok with me removing the tag now? AndrewRT(Talk) 21:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Administrative

A Wikipedia:Third opinion Revert

Hello, KazakhPol. You recently reverted an editor's request for a third opinion, citing that disputes can only be between two people. You might have read the talk page, where I had left a message. I was not involved in the dispute, however. Thank you for your vigilance, though. (If I have made some sort of mistake here, or overlooked something, please tell me.) Cheers, PullToOpen^Talk 03:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for removing the sockpuppet. I have no idea where it came from. i think someone just got confused.

how were you able to remove it, are you an admin? --Yeshivish 19:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, problem is solved

Samnang Kok

Why have you put the article Samnang Kok up for deletion? The article states its sources and shows that it is a current event. What violations are in this article?

--Jacrio 16:54, 3 January 2007 (PST)

Reply to KazakhPol's message on Talk:Jacrio-

How is this article "so obscure"? Please elaborate with details so that I can fix these problems and make the article suitable.

Sorry about that

Sorry about the confusion at WP:AN/I. It wasn't the move that lost your section, but the original addition using the + at the top. I'll be more careful, in any case. No need for a reply. CMummert 03:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

New Great Game and Central Asia

History of Central Asia

Hmm, looks like a long and hard job. I'll do what I can in a few days after I finish writing a paper for school. I do like this sort of work and it's right up my alley so I'll do what I can. I hope the review can be extended into the new year. I'll be in touch. Ciao. Tombseye 03:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Google Books

I think it's fine. I've never seen a Google Book cited here before, but I've never seen any objections to it either. Academic Challenger 06:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

New Great Game

No problem :)Yeanold Viskersenn 19:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Kazakhstan specific

List of Presidents of Kazakhstan

Hi - I re-added this to the article request list. Although there has been only one president since independence as you correctly noted, there are several former presidential candidates listed on this page without articles. Perhaps you'd be the ideal person to create them, given your interests? Aelfthrytha 17:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Some help

Hi KazakhPol I wondered where went the photos? Yesterday I’ve uploaded them, and seemed okay, today? It seems copyright problems? rahmet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheltoqsan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oscar Jet (talk • contribs) 21:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Предмет спора

Здравствуй уважаемый KazakhPol Предмет спора http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zheltoqsan#Kolbin.27s_ethnicity

Насколько я понимаю, если страничка англоязычна, значит и англоязычные источники принимаются в первую очередь.

Если он потащит на эту проблемку на всеобщий спор, Wikipedia чью сторону примет? Я хочу чтобы “russian” остался, при нынешнем положении вещей и источников, это возможно? Думаю, правда, за мной, у меня ведь 2 “сильные” ссылки + 1 “так себе”

Что мне делать с этим типом [9]который уже выходит за рамки приличия “And why is a Kazakh more trustworthy than a Russian, may I know?”

Буду признателен за ответы

Предмет спора

Здравствуй уважаемый KazakhPol Предмет спора http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zheltoqsan#Kolbin.27s_ethnicity

Насколько я понимаю, если страничка англоязычна, значит и англоязычные источники принимаются в первую очередь.

Если он потащит на эту проблемку на всеобщий спор, Wikipedia чью сторону примет? Я хочу чтобы “russian” остался, при нынешнем положении вещей и источников, это возможно? Думаю, правда, за мной, у меня ведь 2 “сильные” ссылки + 1 “так себе”

Что мне делать с этим типом [10]который уже выходит за рамки приличия “And why is a Kazakh more trustworthy than a Russian, may I know?”

Буду признателен за ответы --Oscar Jet 01:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Move

dear KazakhPol I moved the page to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeltoqsan --Oscar Jet 03:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Kazakhstan

Dear KazakhPol, I created the Kazakhstan Portal and need help in the completion and maintenance of it. Thank you. Boguslavmandzyuk 07:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies

Hmm.. Funny that you were lecturing me about Wikipedia policies, how I was a new user (when you were a new user compared to me) and how I needed to read them etc etc. See what WP:V really is. You seem to be throwing around all those WPs around, but know that I have read every single policy from back to front. On a side note, the content of those WPs do not back up what you try to imply that they do. I suggest that you read them before throwing them around. Cheers! Baristarim 04:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to what you might think, I am not out to get you or anything. If there was miscommunication, so there be it. However, I don't appreciate being belittled either. Please take a look at Wikipedia policies, you will know what I mean. Unfortunately I have to run, so let's continue some other time. Baristarim 04:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok then :) Baristarim 05:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism

I saw you removed the text of one section of the article Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism. Would you mind returning to Talk:Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism.

I didn't know anything about the Tablighi Jamaat except what I read here on the wikipedia and what I read in the DoD documents. The three letters prepared for Murat Kurnaz's Administrative Review Board compiled by his lawyers at Seton Hall University's law school, very useful. I didn't take that long a look at the USIP article. It seemed fair, and another wikipedia contributor suggested its inclusion.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 07:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool

Concerning the Masmimov edit, cool. I'm totally new to editing Wikipedia but would like to learn more about contributing so I learn when people come and clean things up. Entropy Rising 04:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Heya; I'm not Central Asian, I'm an American of Filipino descent. However, I'm really in love with Central Asia and interested in Central Asian affairs (specifically Xinjiang and Uyghur-related stuff), and I figured the best way to stay mentally alert on Central Asian matters is to gradually become involved in the Central Asia wikipedia community. Regards! Entropy Rising 07:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism in Kazakhstan

Yeah, I know. I was just trying to see what you guys would think of it. Anyways, IMO, we shouldn't add the category because it seems like other countries should be added as well—and then it would cause the page to have too many categories... Khoikhoi 06:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds alright, but wouldn't this still violate WP:WTA? Khoikhoi 07:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Xinjiang raid (January 2007)

Because it's more notable than Operation Swarmer, Operation Iron Saber and other similar articles which do exist. This is the first major clash in Xinjiang I have heard of, and is an important development in the WoT series. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Dated templates

Just to let you know the -date templates are on their way out, as the standard ones now take MONTH YEAR default parameters: cleanup-date => Cleanup, wikify-date => Wikify, linkless-date => Orphan, unacat-date => Uncategorized. Rich Farmbrough, 21:02 10 January 2007 (GMT).

Kazakh political shakeup of 2007

Great work on that article, and updating the articles on all those politicians who now have different jobs. I hope that these shakeups won't occur too often! Anyway, the main improvement to this article would be providing analysis about how the new government's policies might be different from the old one. From the little I have read about it, it appears that this government won't be very different, but there are probably some important differences which are not caught by many western news sources. Academic Challenger 00:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Kazakh PM

I wasn't speculating. I know the resignation came without explanation. I never speculated more than the analysis which followed the entry (why may it have been?). My point was simply that no reason was given and this does not mean that no reason will ever be give. My extra two words did not hurt the text or remove vital information from it. Evlekis 09:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello

"Itaqallah refuses to provide a rational for his edit warring" that is an incorrect edit summary, per the justifications i provided when i first removed them. unless you simply reverted without reading what i wrote, you would be in the full knowledge that i provided a rationale, and a perfectly valid one at that. as the premise of your revert was incorrect, i would encourage you to self-revert and respond to my claim. thank you. ITAQALLAH 06:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

alright, feel free to add a citation after "Islamic terrorist" to ensure nobody perceives it as original research. ITAQALLAH 06:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Anti-Judaism and Religious anti-Semitism

Got your message; thanks for you offer of support. For a while now, I have been eager to get away from any topic dealing even remoting with Israel so as not to cross paths with a few of these hard-headed editors again. I'd much rather be working on some medieval Christian heresies and related articles. But, like Al Pacino's character said in the Godfather Part III, "Just when I thought that I was out they pull me back in." -- Kendrick7^talk 20:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Spelling

Please don't keep changing an article on a public figure in Britain to US spelling.--Zleitzen 00:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style which states:

"Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country."

--As I have no knowledge that Bakri has ever had an association with the United States, I see no reason why US spelling be used as opposed to British/International English.Zleitzen 00:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Huseyincan Celil

Because it doesn't belong in the intro; it can be mentioned further down below in the body of the article. Khoikhoi 21:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? How is it not a reason? Khoikhoi 22:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sufi Order of America

Done, and I deleted the picture also. Academic Challenger 04:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted that one also, although it he is somewhat more notable than the Sufi order. Academic Challenger 04:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Islam in Asia

Is it allowed to cite foreign language books as sources? I would like to cite some Polish books for this article. Kkrystian 12:16 (UTC+1) 21 January 2007

Thanks for the heads-up

Thanks for the heads-up. I created Tajik captives held in Guantanamo.

Are Tajik and Tajiki real terms for people from Tajikistan? Or is Tajikistani the only valid form?

Thanks! -- Geo Swan 06:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Salman

He is very young, if I remember correctly, with no real academic training and no understanding of why it's wrong to add copyvios to Wikipedia. He's been doing this since he arrived at WP. He's not mean, but he's persistent and utterly resistant to remonstrance. I think that all we can do is start adding copyvio tags and keeping track of what he's doing, file an RFC, and invite administrator oversight. The last resort is an arbitration, which is a time-consuming process that leaves everyone involved covered with slime. I wouldn't do it lightly. Let's try the other stuff first. Keeping track of all his copyvios is the first step.

It's too bad that he doesn't realize that he's doing the Shi'a, as a group, no favor with this sort of behavior. Zora 06:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Jewish missionaries"

Sorry, I didn't realize that was where it had come from. The term is still not only undefined, but incomprehensible. Would you be averse to placing "Jewish missionaries" in quotemarks? Tomer^talk 03:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Kanat Saudabayev

Several sources already list this, including the Wikipedia List of Foreign Ministers and one of the sources already provided on the page (his biography on the Embassy site). This is now the third time I have put something up and you have deleted it for no good reason. If you wonder about something, perhaps research or discuss it before simply deleting. I wish to be polite, but it is starting to get very annoying. - Otebig 06:35, 24 January 2007

Nevertheless, you should not be deleting without mentioning something first. If there is something to be fixed, it can be fixed without getting rid of the other work. The way you go about things is rather rude. - Otebig 07:29, 24 January 2007

There is a difference between enforcement and rudeness. I will not edit any more pages you are working on, as I am tired of your so-called 'enforcement', even when that is not what you are doing. Well done. - Otebig 08:17, 24 January 2007

Iraq and WoT

As a part of the Terrorism and Counter Terrorism project, I invite you to participate in discussion on the topic of the relationship between the Iraq War and the US-led War on Terrorism campaign at this location. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hasan Mahsum

If you have a problem with the content or writing of a referenced paragraph in an article, please do not unilaterally delete said paragraph, as you did in this edit. Deleting sourced content from an article may be considered vandalism. Try the talk page. You seem to have this problem a lot on terrorism-related pages. cab 14:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Feiz Mohammad

Thank you for your message about Feiz Mohammad. I feel that here on wikipedia needs more influential muslims in all aspects of life. To show that Muslims have different political ideas as do Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus.06:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

David

Hi! This being the English Wikipedia, it would be very much appreciated if you would use English-language content. Thanks! --Shirahadasha 04:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? KazakhPol 05:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If I was mistaken I apologize. --Shirahadasha 09:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion please...

Could you take a look at this colloquoy?

Cheers! — Geo Swan 18:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Migration to Abyssinia Muhammad al-Yaqoubi Fatimah bint Amr Ibn Warraq Muhammad al-Taqi Islamic studies Musa al-Kazim Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi Hasan al-Askari Sawm Abdullah Manaz Zainab bint Muhammad Umamah bint Zainab Kalam Zaynab bint Khuzayma Najd Targum Onkelos Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism

Cleanup Salma bint Umays Zakat Tawhid Merge Historic background of the Sunni-Shi'a split Shah Waliullah Islamic conquest of Afghanistan Add Sources Sunnah Battle of Bassorah Zayd ibn Harithah Wikify Ali Akbar ibn Husayn Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan Tahajjud Expand Ubayd-Allah ibn Jahsh Ja'far ibn Abu Talib Islamic art

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 20:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Honorofics

Good work! Thank you.Proabivouac 23:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Islamic dress controversy

Please list the NPOV problems with the Germany section, I tried to keep the article well referenced given the controversy.Paul111 12:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert of Felix Kulov

You revert my edits and a couple of others in Felix Kulov. As explantion you gave "rv to my last version. Please refrain from adding Cat:Kyrgyz politicians as that is already encompassed in the current categories." My edits were simply a unification of the format of the references.[11] Am I correct in asusming that it was simply a misstake? My edit summary when I reverted back was a bit rude so I thought it would be best to explain it. Jeltz talk 21:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, some references were lacking information so while correcting that I decided to clean them all up. A weak reason for changing the style, I know, but the real one :) Jeltz talk 22:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Socks

You need to report the sockpuppets to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets - it's not something that can be acted upon unilaterally. Thanks. 〈REDVEЯS〉 22:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Bundu dia Kongo

I have deleted it, and may post a new article using the same reference with different wording when I have the time. Academic Challenger 22:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am reluctant to delete that one because it has so many edits. But the leading editor of that article has also written several other suspicious articles, which I will nominate for deletion. Academic Challenger 22:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Shahawar Matin Siraj

I noticed you deleted my references in the article. It makes no sense why you did it, because I used actual newspaper articles and cited them, and you erased them, most of the time either replacing them with weblinks or nothign at all. Explain why, because I don't get why you did that. -Screwball23 ^talk 16:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi

I have a question for you. I want to send you an email; but you have not signed up for Wikipedia email. Could you send me a message (to sokolov47@yahoo.com) if you have time? Thanks. 172 | Talk 06:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

battle of Najaf 2007

edit summ. "I contest the factual accuracy of this entire article, so this other template is superfluous" Please outline your concerns about this article on the discusion page. SmithBlue 04:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Have found an article that parallels your claims about Azzaman. G.I.'s Padlock Baghdad Paper Accused of Lies March 29, 2004 By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN The New York Times. viewed at http://nucnews.net/nucnews/2004nn/0403nn/040329nn.htm#451 SmithBlue 03:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Celil

Hi. It just seemed kind of redundant to me, since that info was already mentioned below. Also, I'm a bit confused in the last thing you said. Category:Designated terrorist organizations is a category, not a policy. Am I missing something here? Khoikhoi 06:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

KazakhPol, continuing a revert-war in exactly the same way immediately after a block expires is a very bad idea. I've blocked you again, this time for 31 hours. You've again run up to 2 new reverts within a few hours of your previous block, and together with the last ones from before the block that still makes 5 within a 24-hour period. You also seem to have been revert-warring on Terrorism in Kazakhstan (3 reverts in 3 hours, not counting the last one which was a legitimate technical correction.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Note by blocking admin: Huh? I never "acknowledged" you didn't break 3RR. You did break it. I count 4 reverts in the 24 hours preceding the first block, and 5 reverts in the 24 hours preceding the second. The fact that you also sat out the first block during those same 24 hours, and that I've counted three reverts both towards the first and the second case, doesn't change anything. The purpose of the first block was not for you to "pay off" the preceding reverts so that you could afterwards continue afresh with your 3RR counter reset to zero. The purpose of the block was to stop you from revert-warring.

Leaving the unblock request on for other admins to review. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Request accepted. The person with whom he has been edit warring has been warned by other users, and he did not violate the 3-revert rule after the last block. Academic Challenger 23:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if that is a nice reason for an unblock. But KazakhPol has shown good judgment in the past. However, getting back to revert-warring after coming back from a block is not what I would call good judgment. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick 14:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You said, "I cannot figure out if Shanjiang and Dilaver are supposed to be the same person or not". Shouldn't that info be removed then? Khoikhoi 07:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer it if was Category:People accused of terrorism or something like that (based on the article you provided). To me, having Category:Terrorism in China implies that we're saying he's a terrorist. Khoikhoi 08:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sayyid Muhammad bin Sayyid Hasan ar-Rida al-Mahdi as-Sanussi

Thanks for your kind words on the Chadian-Libyan conflict, they were much appreciated :-). Regarding your request for some help with that article, I will be happy to comply, only I will need some time, because at the moment I'm involved with Toyota War and the not completely finished Chadian-Libyan conflict. BTW, don't you find the name a bit too long? If you don't have objections, I would move Sayyid Muhammad bin Sayyid Hasan ar-Rida al-Mahdi as-Sanussi to Muhammad ibn Hasan as-Senussi and his father Sayyid Hasan ar-Rida al-Mahdi as-Sanussi to Hasan as-Senussi.--Aldux 23:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Autoblock

Found and lifted. Teke ^(talk) 03:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Attribution

Careful, KP, you just said something nice to me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocking again

KazakhPol, I didn't agree with your unblocking yesterday, and I now find I was probably right. You have been revert-warring again immediately. I count 5 reverts on New Great Game ([12], [13], [14], [15], [16]). I also find that you have been labeling almost all your reverts as "rvv". But none of the edits by Cs and Aaliya that you have reverted are simple "vandalism" by any stretch of the imagination, for all I can see. Besides being a breach of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, these random vandalism accusations also do not give you a free ride in terms of 3RR. I'm therefore blocking you again, this time for 48 hours. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

KazakhPol (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Reverting what is obviously vandalism is not revert warring. If you cannot tell the difference between a content dispute and vandalism then perhaps you should not be blocking users. In fact even using your logic I have not violated WP:3RR because Cs already had and I reverted his violation of the policy. So no matter how you spin this, I did not violate WP:3RR.

Decline reason:

You were definitely not reverting simple vandalism. -- Yamla 22:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note: I'll check for Cs, didn't see that previously but will have a look. But even if he did violate the rule took, that does not give you a free ride. Exceptions to the 3RR are only: obvious ban-evasion, obvious simple vandalism (which does not include POV pushing, even disruptive POV pushing), and violations of WP:BIO. None of these exceptions apply here. Block decision upheld on my part. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Of the four edits Cs made to the page today, I can see only of two that they are reverts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC Cs

Hi KazakhPol. I am sitting this one out. I have 3 months experience at Wikipedia, and to me this editor looks like they're maybe a newbie. Which wouldn't make me much help. regards SmithBlue 06:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Hi KazakhPol. I have had more than a few occasions where my attempts to clean up articles on early figures in Shia Islam have been reverted by another editor. You have also attempted to clean up at least one of those articles [17]. My attempts at trying to engage the editor in question have been repeatedly stymied, and I feel constrained.

Since you seem to have already offered to help another editor bypass WP:3RR [18], I was wondering if you thought it a good idea for us to do the same for the article Ali Akbar ibn Hussain? Park3r 08:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

en:User:CroDome

Hello, I do not understand why you stated that my comment should be ignored. I did not remove/revert any contribution of said user, nor did I alter their userpage. I simply called certain things to their attention, being very specific so the user understands my concern. The user might not understand why their edits keep getting reverted and why their userpage (as you can see) has been altered significantly. Please do not try to diminish the attempts of Wikipedia editors who are trying to help others. Thank you Stop The Lies 04:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

As a wikipedia user who seems to know the ropes, you should know to always assume good faith. I used courteous language and as I said, did NOT revert any changes made by this user, so you have no right to accuse me of 'intimidating' anyone. In fact, I encouraged the user to keep contributing once he realized his errors. If I were trying to intimidate him I wouldn't have taken all that time to point out what is considered wrong about his contributions, as I and other wikipedia users see it. I would have simply said "Stop vandalising/defamating/insulting etc. or you will be blocked," although I have never resorted to such threats. Stop The Lies 04:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Oh really, you don't think any of the user's edits were vandalism??? How about when the user tried to pass of Montenegrins as Croats (with an edit summary saying that any idiot knows this)!?!?!?! If you don't see this as vandalism, then, my friend, you have issues. Stop The Lies 04:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Stop_The_Lies

Thanks. I'll behave. I think that Stop the lies' a Serb though.

RfC

You may respond to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KazakhPol under the response section. cs 21:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan

Hi, I saw your comment here, and I want you to know that it is not that simple. It confuses readers with no knowledges of the Chinese history. So I just want you to know that I am not totally wrong.--Jerrypp772000 01:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes we are not, or even cannot, be completely obligated to follow a specific policy or guideline and discard other inputs. If that means intervening Wikipedia's goal to make it more accessible for a general audience, we must take some balance from every related guideline. As it turns out, not many people know the political complication between governments in Taiwan and China. Therefore solely following the Naming convention would be inadequate for those who does not fully understand the political status of Taiwan.

The problem of incivility is more complicated than you might assume, as it takes way back to when Nationalist made his first edit. It is shown that many other editors are generally annoyed by his disruptive editing that is covering over articles related to political status of Taiwan. With Jerrypp772000, Edit wars were taken place, 3RR being broken, and the matter worsened to the extent that blocks could not pacify the chaos. Note that there are other editors who have also objected his "POV pushing" behavior with reverts. By now, the main problem is not really about the Naming conventions and other guidelines, but about the fact that Nationalist would do virtually anything to protect his own edits from being reverted. By making himself blocked five times with a total duration of 1 month and 144 hours for breaking 3RR, profanity, personal attack, disruptive behavior in Wikipedia with sockpuppetry, and yet another worsened personal attack (evidences are in his RfC) but still not willing to learn the lessons and give up, this kind of incivility continues to enter into higher levels. Vic₂₂₆ 06:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

you are stretching!

You think every free-roaming IP on Wikipedia belongs to my sockpuppets, dont you? That must be an awful feeling :) Instead of spending your energy on accusations, which can easily turn against you, go ahead and prove them. That user looks like a sockpuppet. Why dont you prove your case? I don't think that the IP you are referring to is in the same country with me. But, I do travel internationally, you may need to check airline tickets, or ask cooperation from Interpol.cs 17:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Friendly info

Hi KazakhPol, just a friendly reminder that article talk pages are not the place to report WP:NPA, WP:CIV or Wikistalking. Some of User:Aaliyah Stevens comments on the WP:WTA talk page struck me as uncivil and potentially personal attacks. I would suggest you two discuss it directly on your talk pages, then follow Wikipedia:Resolving disputes if you can't work it out. Thanks! Dreadlocke ☥ 03:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That sucks. Have you reported the editor for wikistalking or any other infractions? Disputes like this are bad for Wikipedia as well as the involved editors. Now it's spilled onto the WP:WTA talk page, which diminishes both your arguments. Dreadlocke ☥

Good luck! They say ignorance is bliss, but ignoring a Wikistalker may be an entirely different ballgame! Dreadlocke ☥ 04:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI guys, look up the definition of wikistalking, and you will see I was doing nothing of the sort. I have been accused of being a sockpuppet, a wikistalker, a memeber of a "terrorist" group, of being a man (shock horror), of vandalism, and many other uncivilities, please don't accuse without reference and proof to a specific policy, which is qualified by evidence. I have asked a number of times to have these claims substantiated, and asked to be "taken to the cleaners" if they are true. I am increasingly getting frustrated with constant multiple accusations from one person, to subvert the point of my edits which is actually related to the fact that you cannot call organisations terrorist using the narrative voice Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism, just because a random think tank says so. Aaliyah Stevens 15:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Aaliyah Stevens has removed her comments about you from Wikipedia_talk:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism_section, which is a great WP:CIV move. I highly recommend you remove your comments about her from there as well, as a showing of good faith!

Aaliyah, I did not mean to imply or accuse you of Wikistalking, I was merely trying to tell Kazakhpol how to go about reporting any such experiences. My apologies if I seemed to accuse you of such. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Aggressive editing on Omar Bakri Mohammed

Can I ask you to end this aggressive editing and reverting immediately please and address issues on the talk page.-- Zleitzen (Talk) 14:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You can ask it. KazakhPol 14:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Wiki as external source on HT website

Sorry, fair point, have a look now. Aaliyah Stevens 15:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Put a "citation needed" in the NPD article if you doubt it Aaliyah Stevens 15:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Template

When a country has had more than one head of state (or head of government), succession templates are standard practice. However, I won't protest vigorously should you decide to remove it. Biruitorul 20:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Incidentally, if you happen to know Niyazov's predecessors as First Secretaries and we put those in, then its usefulness would increase. Biruitorul 20:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you added in Babayev. That's good, but do you know if a more complete list is available? Also, I would structure it more along these lines, showing clearly the demarcation between the SSR and the independent state. Biruitorul 22:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've reworked it a little, also putting in Niyazov, as he was First Secretary for six years. By the way, I wonder if we'll be getting any Turkmen Wikipedians now. Biruitorul 22:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice! Thanks. I don't mean this sarcastically, but are you still contemplating an AfD? Biruitorul 23:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

All right, just checking... Biruitorul 23:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Zahedan bombing

Sorry. I initiated the article my self. I thought the story is now almost over. Apparently I was wrong. Take care. Sangak 22:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC/Cs

I have deleted this RfC as it has been more than 48 hours (actually more like 5 days) and it was still not certified by two users who tried and failed to resolved the dispute. The RfC was removed from the certified section by an admin earlier and reverted by you, and properly removed by Cs and again reverted by you. You should not reinstate the debate again unless you have a new complaint and can get certification of trying and failing to resolve the dispute from at least one other user. Mangojuice^talk 14:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

ruhnama references?

Hello,

You added an template:unreferenced tag to ruhnama. What statements are unsourced? It looks like there's a pretty healthy list of sources in the external links. Sorry if this is a stupid question; I'm still getting started here. Thx! Potatoswatter 18:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Third intifada

I've nominated Third intifada, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Third intifada satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third intifada and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Third intifada during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Sandstein 07:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Zahedan bombing

Thanks for expanding the article. Well done! Sina Kardar 19:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk for you on Foreign relations of Kazakhstan

There is a message for you on the Talk page of the Foreign relations of Kazakhstan article. --DieWeibeRose 05:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

NGG

Thanks it looks fine now. The OBL part was out of place, and now it looks ok. -Ste|vertigo 00:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Huseyincan Celil

Thanks for your message. I'll give myself a few days to cool off and not edit that article more for now. cab 04:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Tidying" of 3 February 2007 Baghdad market bombing

Hi, I noticed you converted all of the references in the 3 February 2007 Baghdad market bombing article to horizontal format as "tidying". However, this makes editing rather difficult (and increases the possibility of accidental deletions of reference information). Consider for instance the text:

The suicide attack killed at least 135 people and injured 339 others.<ref name="Washington Times">{{cite news|title=Terror takes toll on market, vendors|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20070206-115808-3925r.htm|work=[[The Washington Times]]|date=[[2007-02-07]]|accessdate = 2007-02-07}}</ref> The bomb, estimated to be about one ton in weight, brought down at least 10 buildings and coffee shops and obliterated market stalls in a largely [[Shia Islam|Shi‘ite]] enclave less than a half mile from the [[Tigris River]].<ref name="NY Times">{{cite news|first=Richard A.|last=Oppel, Jr.|coauthors=Qais Mizher|title=Dozens Killed in Baghdad Bombing|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/world/middleeast/04iraq.html?hp&ex=1170565200&en=59fcaa94aad23546&ei=5094&partner=homepage|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=[[2007-02-03]]|accessdate=2007-02-03}}</ref>

It is quite difficult to distinguish between the actual text and the hidden references (titles, names, etc.). I don't think there is any guideline for this, but I think a vertical format (although it consumes a little more space) is more edit-friendly. I'd be happy to know what do you think. Cheers, Black Falcon 04:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

KazakhPol did the same thing to some of my edits. I haven't said anything until now but I agree the vertical format is preferrable. --DieWeibeRose 11:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RM request

I have not initiatied your requested move because you did not discuss it on Talk:Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedow as requested in the instructions on WP:RM.

• Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedow → Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov - This is how everyone refers to it. The user who created the article used the phonetic transliteration rather than the more common Western rendering of the original Turkmen. KazakhPol 13:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

But I have deleted all but the last redirect in the history of "Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov" so you can make the move yourself if you still want to. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-19_Inayat_Bunglawala Zeq 08:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your comments on RfC/Jobstbrandt

I posted some followup info. Thanks for your input. Izaakb 14:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up

I'll update their articles later today. Thanks!

My work was hit by a vandal, in a really embarrassing way, I am writing about it on my main page.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 05:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Huseyincan Celil

I read the chapter of WP:WTA, and it allows use form like X says Y. Please see the talk page, thanks. Dongwenliang 16:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Your response here

I'd like your response here.Bless sins 21:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

Is this accurate? Specifically, I mean the post-Soviet part. On the one hand, it's a presidential republic, but on the other hand, the president does chair the cabinet of ministers, so he is at least de facto PM. So do we leave it like this, or put in Niyazov and GB as well, maybe with a de facto note next to their names? Good luck with your RfC, by the way - I find it rather preposterous, but some people have nothing better to do. Biruitorul 01:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good - I did add a note. With that, we now have two templates apiece for all five Central Asian republics, covering the Soviet and contemporary periods. Biruitorul 01:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Omar Abu Omar

It would make sense to move that page to Abu Qatada, but there is clearly not a consensus at this time, so I do not feel comfortable moving it at this time.

By the way, it would be a good idea to archive your talk page soon. Academic Challenger 05:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for 3RR violation at Pan-Islamism for a period of twenty-four hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 21:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User page vandalism

KazakhPol, the vandalism wasn't exactly what one would call "blatant" (ie: YOU SUCK! or the like). I warned the IP editor myself as did another editor and the IP editor stopped. As far as your comment about User:Slim Virgin being the person doing such editing I'd have to say that you are no doubt very off on that estimation of the source of those edits (at least on your user page... unless you've got a diff from your talk page that backs up your contention). Such commentary about other editors isn't taken lightly so unless you've got some proof I'd recommend refraining from such language. (→Netscott) 03:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Noticing your talk page edit summary please be aware that I did not expressly change your formatting and can only surmise that that was done as an effect of my browser... (it may just happen again when I submit this). Forgive me for saying so but your sudden appearance on Peace be upon him (Islam) an article that I was editing just prior to your own edit was a bit surprising particularly given your mentioning of behavior of a somewhat similar nature by that IP editor. I admit that I didn't do a more profound search into the edits of the IP editor but I trust your characterization of what happened. Honestly despite the diff you provided on the AfD I still highly doubt that User:Slim Virgin would waste her time anonymously vandalizing the user page of an editor she's been in conflict with. (→Netscott) 05:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As you likely noticed my edits removing Islamic honorifics please note that it is generally acceptable for articles to read "Islamic prophet" prior to names like Muhammad. The reason this is so is that such a stipulated phrasing maintains neutral point of view. (→Netscott) 05:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually your logic about Ahmadi and Baha'i isn't well founded based upon the WP:NPOV#Undue weight clause of NPOV policy. Relative to the population of Islam the populations of those other groups do not even register a blip (ergo undue weight consideration). Again it is perfectly acceptable that articles read "Islamic prophet" Muhammad, etc. if another editor reverts your removal of such language I would advise you to not edit war over it. (→Netscott) 05:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Likewise. (→Netscott) 05:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-19_Inayat_Bunglawala#Discussion Zeq 05:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD

You're right, but I would suggest a page move, as not all of the groups are universally considered terrorists. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I have a bit of a cold, and made the mistake of scanning instead of counting it, and somehow thought there was a slight consensus for delete, that the title and so on pushed over the edge. Sorry. As you may have seen, just became an admin, and may make a few mistakes. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Pan-Islamism

Hi, I am confused as to why I was blocked for violating WP:3RR when I had already done a self-reversion of my edit to that page. Please explain the block as I did not believe I had violated WP:3RR, with or without the self-reversion. KazakhPol 05:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

See SlimVirgin (talk · contribs)'s evidence presented at the 3RR noticeboard (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:KazakhPol_.28Result:_24hr.29). -- tariqabjotu 05:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That does not answer my question. The NPOV and TotallyDisputed templates are different, and adding the NPOV template is not a reversion. Please explain. KazakhPol 20:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

They're pretty darn close; the effect is almost exactly the same. I consider it a fourth reversion. -- tariqabjotu 21:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you point me to the clause where it says making similar edits counts as a reversion? I am also confused on whether re-adding a template without going to an earlier version of the page counts as a reversion, especially when the use of the template is not under dispute. KazakhPol 21:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

(a) Editors may still be blocked even if they haven't made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behaviour is clearly disruptive. (b) Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any edit warring, even if they do not exceed four reverts on a page in 24 hours. You're even counting the number of reverts you're making in your edit summaries, reinforcing the idea that you're trying to take advantage of the concept of the 3RR. Regardless, the {{NPOV}} and {{TotallyDisputed}} tags are very similar; I'm pretty sure you were aware of that when you made your edits. -- tariqabjotu 21:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)