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]

New pipeline

Thanks. There is already an article about this project, but as usually in this phase of planning, the project has several names. I made redirect from the Southeast European Oil Pipeline to Pan-European Pipeline, which is actually same pipeline project. Beagel 15:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail Yusupov Ethnicity

Thanks for you edit to the article on Ismail Yusupov. I have just done some library research (not original research), and it does seem that Ismail Yusupov was a Uyghur as Spring01 had suggested on the talk page. I have posted the most conclusive item on Talk:Ismail Yusupov#Ethnicity. Shall I change the sentence in the article to read: "was a Uyghur Soviet Communist political figure" or to the undoubtedly more to Yusupov's liking, "was a Soviet Communist political figure in Kazakhstan." and put his ethnicity somewhere below in other text? Other ideas? --Bejnar 23:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)User talk:Bejnar[reply]

Allah v God

Thanks for the note a couple of days ago. I must however disagree with you in describing Allah and God as the same being. There are countless scholars (many of whom pass the wiki reference notability test) who describe Allah as Satan. It is POV to describe Allah as God. The only solution is to use the term Allah whenever it is used by its associated reference. Prester John 19:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huseyincan Celil

Please take a closer look at the edits I made to Huseyincan Celil. I added a missing quote to the end of the paragraph on Harper's comments to the press, and removed a citation that didn't even have the quotation mentioned. This is certainly not vandalism by any stretch. A new citation is needed for that section of the article - the current one is quite poor besides being irrelevant (for example: "warned a senior Chinese official said."). Ciotog 03:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're quick! :) Ciotog 04:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Islamophobia unprotection

Done. Academic Challenger 21:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

You can either delete or rewrite the portions that appear to be a copyvio. I only wrote the election paragraph, and that part is fine. Everyking 03:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liftarn and Limboot

Please explain why you decided to block Limboot, but not Liftarn, when they, as you acknowledged on the 3RR noticeboard, both broke WP:3RR. I also do not understand how there is not a conflict of interest when you were already involved in reverting Limboot on the antisemitism article. KazakhPol 03:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the block log. Another admin performed all blocks. I specifically recused myself, as I wrote on the 3RR page. I then asked an ArbCom member if I would have been allowed to block in that situation, and was told that the block would obviously been a protective block, and would not be considered "blocking to gain an advantage" since the violations were so obvious (and in my opinion egregious). Regardless, all I did in this case was to update the 3RR page, and leave a courtesy message for user:Limboot so that he could request an unblock if he desired. -- Avi 04:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

2005 civil unrest in France

There has been no discussion on the talk page since before Christmas. I suggest you you rewrite it the way you think it should be, and see what people think of it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read your reply on my talk page, and I stand by my suggestion. If you do not like the section, use the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to fix it. Indefinite tagging is like putting up a sign saying 'rough road' instead of fixing the road. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huseyincan Celil

Thank you very much for your information of deletion, I have restored it. Dongwenliang 03:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

KazakhPol, it seems that you are still edit warring, despite your extensive block log. Three reverts [1], [2], [3] in the space of four hours at Huseyincan Celil, plus a fourth one the next day [4] is unacceptable, and more so considering you r wer blocked for edit warring at the very same aricle in February [5]. Furthermore, repeated reverts like you've done at Mohammad Amin al-Husayni and Abu Izzadeen with no attempt at discussion [6] [7] is similarly disruptive. Please reread my comment here not so very long ago: [8]. You have been reblocked. Dmcdevit·t 21:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:

The Abu Izzadeen reverts were because the same vandal (71.198.243.95) has been changing his birthdate and adding nonsense repeatedly. Did you not see that all of his other edits have been reverted? Do I really have to explain my rvvs to you? Between March 29 and today I have reverted once on Abu Izzadeen so dont give me crap for "edit warring" on that page. Tarc has reverted as many times as I did on Al-Husayni (3 times) and insults me while he does it. I did not violate 3RR on Celil so you have no grounds to block me. Funny how you accuse me of edit warring on Celil, but not Dongwenliang who has reverted (re-adding the same passage of text) 12 times. KazakhPol 02:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Decline unblock. Mainly, due to the "If I was interested in your excuses I would have asked you to comment" edit (sorry this template field cannot parse diffs, and it's been all messed up. Oh well. ). El_C 04:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Closing unblock request declined by El C; see request field above. — Sandstein 07:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Oh, and Dmcdevit you might want to revert Special:Contributions/86.132.105.177's lovely BLP violations. Or not. I guess you would want to 'discuss it on the talkpage'. Hint: That's who I reverted on Abu Izzadeen. Once. KazakhPol 02:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for help!
Ask your question below. You can also check Help:Contents and the FAQ, or ask at the Help desk or the Teahouse.
Users who monitor the category Wikipedians looking for help and those in Wikipedia's Live Help have been alerted and will assist you shortly. You can also join the chat room to receive live Wikipedia-related help there. You'll be receiving help soon, so don't worry.
Note to helpers: Once you have offered help, please nullify the template using {{Tl}} or similar, replace with {{Help me-helped}}, or where {{Help me|question}} was used, use {{Tlp}}/{{Tnull}}

Blatant vandalism on Robert Mugabe and that anonymous user has re-added the same BLP-violating passage to Omar Bakri Muhammad. Oh, and I've yet to see a single diff showing any Wikipedia policy violation on my part.