User talk:KazakhPol

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

Archive

As of this posting I have made 17, 279 edits to the English Wikipedia, 7497 of which I made with this account. KazakhPol 05:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

In response to your note on my talk page - I doubt they would try to block you for pursuing an Arbitration case, and you shouldn't have any trouble getting unblocked if there isn't some sort of justification for the block. That said, I'd suggest discussing the matter with them or pursuing a request for comment first. The arbitration committee generally rejects cases unless there have been extensive efforts to resolve the dispute previously. On the BLP issue, the prohibition against unsourced info actually does extend to talk pages, but it seems clear that is in the sense that you can't say 'It has been proven that this kid is alive' on the talk page any more than you can in the article unless you've got reliable sources to back it up. I agree that extending it to suppress statements of personal opinion is a stretch. If they actually were concerned that the statements were BLP violations (that is, instances where Wikipedia, rather than you personally, was claiming something unsubstantiated) the proper course would be to remove them. That being said, the statements they are objecting to were deliberately inflammatory and that's a bad thing. When you call the kid and his mother fakes or the other user keeps comparing a source on the page to different holocaust deniers you know that these are things which the 'other side' is going to find intensely distasteful. It's deliberate provocation and you shouldn't be doing it... any more than Jayjg should be pulling that snide nonsense about being too horrified to believe you are a native english speaker. Nobody comes out of it looking particularly good. State your case, cite your sources, and just stay away from the nastiness. There is no need for it. You can do everything you need to do here without calling the kid and his mother fakes. Doing that serves no purpose except to annoy other people - and any time you find yourself doing that you're working against the goals of the project. --CBD 00:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beren

I added the info based on the only source already cited, since there was more information there that was not included. --otherlleft 16:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome and the extremely helpful links! So far I'm mostly into proofreading; I only add information when it's easy to find like in this case or when I actually have a clue about the topic! --otherlleft 16:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious

I guess it means "back off my turf." ;-) Khoikhoi 23:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debolding

Normally, I would not, however, some non-Latin scripts do not show up very well in bold, and probably should be debolded unless they are in a large font size. Lexicon (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I did. I know I should have written earlier and thanked you. I recreated my page and did a lot of "lifting" last weekend. Once again Thanks. Prester John 03:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beware the wrath of Australians having their spelling changed to US format. They take it very seriously and may even 'martyr' themselves over it. :) Prester John 04:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam Karimov

I saw De Wikiman changed his name back to Islam. I do not understand how you see his Russian name as Islam and his Uzbek name as Islom. Neither Islam nor Islom are Russian or Uzbek. They are transliterations of how his name is pronounced. Google and Yahoo get way more results with Islam than with Islom. KazakhPol 16:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islom Karimov is his Uzbek name. Uzbek language uses the Latin alphabet, so there is nothing to "transliterate". Only names from languages written with another alphabet are "transliterated". His name is Islom Karimov and that's all. There is no more need to transliterate Islom Karimov than to transliterate Lech Wałęsa or François Mitterrand. And you'll remark that O‘tkir Sultonov or Shavkat Mirziyoyev's names are given on Wikipedia in their only correct form, without any "transliteration" from the Latin alphabet to the Latin alphabet.

My remark about the mix was because De Wikiman changed Islom Abdug‘aniyevich Karimov into Islam Abdug‘aniyevich Karimov, thus changing only the given name (with no explication and no discussion) and not the patronymic name. But Abdug‘aniyevich is the Uzbek spelling of it. So the spelling Islam Abdug‘aniyevicch is an inept mix of his Russian and Turkmen names.

And I absolutely don't care about the "it's-the-most-often-found-form-of-his-name-argument". This kind of arguments has no place in a serious encyclopedia. An encyclopedia must give exact facts, not most common received ideas. It must then give exact names with exact spellings, rather than most commonly found spellings.

Švitrigaila 10:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I copy and past this discussion on Talk:Islom Karimov. Švitrigaila 10:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Yeah, the criticism you collected surely beats my meagre criticism section. Then again, I don't collect diffs, all the criticism has been posted to my talk page by those users themselves. I infrequently offer others to tell me of their complaints, and I actually ponder over what they say. If any pattern evolves within those complaints, chances are it has got something to do with my own behaviour. —Alde Baer 14:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Khujand prison riot

Well, no problem... There's also one more thing I noticed, and I thought I should contact you about: it appears that one of the references (tagged "PROTEST") in your article is missing. You're the only person who can fix that... :-) GregorB 19:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]