User talk:Kingturtle/Archive2

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Hi. Why have you moved pages on pieces by Beethoven from things like Symphony No. 5 (Beethoven) to things like Symphony_No._5_in_C_minor,_Opus_67 (Beethoven)? As far as I can see, this just makes it harder to link directly to these articles (I for one don't know the opus numbers of pieces without looking them up) and brings no compensatory benefit. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pieces of music). --Camembert

I've thought about it for a bit, and I'm just going to move them all back and change the linkage at List of works by Beethoven (see Talk:List of works by Beethoven for my thinking on this). I know this just undoes what you did, but article titles should be as simple as possible so long as they accurately convey what the article is about and are not ambiguous. I really see no point in moving Fidelio to Fidelio, Opus 72c (Beethoven), for example (especially when other operas and pieces by other composers are not named this way). --Camembert

Al Gore

Hello, I will be making edits to the Gore page very often. I happen to know Mr. Gore and own a website that covers him, so it will be updated very often and will inform you of what is being edited: http://www.algoresupportcenter.com/ ChrisDJackson

IRC

I don't do IRC, so I have no idea what's being said about me, but I can just imagine. RickK 04:21, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Genealogy wiki

I noticed your comment at Talk:Genealogy. A family history wiki seems like a great idea, doesn't it? I don't know how to set up a wiki, but I thought I'd let you know I'm interested in the idea and I'd most likely participate in one! --Sam

Earwax

You've something against it, have you? "add newer articles at the beginning, delete from end". -- user:zanimum

Christine Todd Whitman frisking incident fulfilled

I added a paragraph on the subject as per your want ad on WikiMoney and I wanted to get your approval before I collect on it. Kent Wang 01:06, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I reverted the changed you made to the requested articles page, w/ respect to the geography requests. It was decided on the talk pages to have as few subpages as possible. →Raul654 00:32, Jan 18, 2004 (UTC)

Where did you get the number of 22,000 US wounded in Iraq? RickK 04:31, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting my vandalism. Sorry, I was being an idiot. I shan't do it again. :(

Oops... I must be going on an "illegal protected pages editing streak"... revert my typo edit in your user page if you'd like, I did not realize it was protected, sorry. ugen64 02:35, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

Lost Sheep Department

I got your note re: user:Lir. *sigh* And he was doing so well...

Guess I'll have to look into this. --Uncle Ed 15:30, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Main page

Hehe, I did a couple of page previews trying to get it right and that was the best I could come up with. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:04, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Featured articles

Thanks for re-nominating U.S. Electoral College. :) Maybe I should have more confidence in my nominations. I still think the article could use more history, but what's currently there is very thorough. --Minesweeper 08:52, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks...

Thanks, Kingturtle, for supporting my adminship nomination and for your very kind comments... - Seth Ilys 15:37, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I just gave you two of my WikiThingies because you make good use of them and ran out, and generally do an all around great job. -- Infrogmation 16:51, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Kingturtle, I just wanted to make sure you noticed that one of our anonymous Bostonians has returned to Talk:Curse of the Bambino. I've fought my fight there, and have gladly deferred to your opinions about the article: I trust you're up to defending it from vandalism, should that occur again. Once was enough for me. :) I wish you luck, Jwrosenzweig 17:04, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You wrote:# The question at hand is steeped in POV rhetoric. I can barely decipher what it is intending to say. Kingturtle 01:06, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To answer your question, it is intending to ask exactly what it seems to be asking. Your remark seems intended to suggest that my question is impossible to take at face value, and I object to this. Perhaps what you mean is that the question is designed to serve a particular political agenda? Fair point. Or perhaps you mean that it is a trivially simple question, because the answer not only strikes you as obvious, but also useless, in the sense that you see it as impossible to objectively determine whether a person is "notoriously obstinate and uncompromising"? One could make that argument. Well, so go ahead and state the point and make the arguement. I don't mind if you or anyone wants to express opposition to my project. I just find a lot of people are doing so in ways that I regard as insidiously and unfairly damaging to my reputation. 168...|...Talk 01:42, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Red" is POV. "Up" is POV. "Cold" is POV. "Assume a perfect sphere" is not POV. "POV" is not helping to say anything here. From my POV, people here throw that term around much more than is conducive to good communication, not to mention it's a slur in Wikipedia culture. When you said the words I wrote are POV, I think what you meant was what I wrote above in elaborating "trivial."

"My project" is to soften the ideology here, to get people to see the rules as evolving guidelines instead of the articles of a constitution, to get people to notice the inconsistencies between our values and the particular articulation of certain rules that we have now and to move the organization in a direction that enables it to either get rid of or reform people like Lir, who waste enormous amounts of person hours, cause enormous amounts of aggravation, scare enormously valuable people away, enormously diminish the quality of articles and enormously slow the pace of the production of a high quality encyclopedia. Somewhat paradoxically, I would also like people to see the susceptibility of this system to mob psychology, rash and unfair judgments and the mistreatment of individuals. 168...|...Talk 02:30, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

WikiEN-L

I don't think that you were at all misguided about objecting to decisions being made on WikiEN-L, when they should be made much more transparently and openly on the Wiki itself. Although it's not a huge issue, the current situation certainly creates the impression of a cabal of decision makers who act and move above and outside the rest of us... (not that I believe that's what's happening, just that that's what it might look like). -- Seth Ilys 04:30, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you so much for bringing up the issue of WikiEn-L. I have been frustrated for quite some time with the mailing list, and more recently with the IRC channel. These have together become the only places where project-related decisions are being discussed and made. Some prominent users have gone so far as to delete or move any sort of project-related content placed on the wiki itself. The official line is that the "meta" is the appropriate place for such discussion, but since few active sysops follow the meta, it is difficult to have meaningful discussion there.

The trouble with the mailing list is twofold. First, as you point out, it is not practical to participate casually for many people, particularly those who do not have an e-mail address that is suitable for such use. I have tried to partcipate via hotmail in the past, and it is such an enormous nuisance that it's hardly worth it. Second, the list is very time consuming to follow. At this point there are roughly 20 useless posts for each insightful one. This is an inherent problem in large mailing lists and has occured on each of the dozen or so lists I've participated in over the years.

So, I agree that the list is bad. Shutting it down won't help; what is needed is a better place for the discussion to move to, such as a prominent wiki; even the meta would work if a consensus were reached that it should indeed be the focus of discussion.

And thank you for removing your request from the "requests for arbitration" page. We at the arbitration committee are not empowered to address policy changes, which is what this is. They are, for good or ill, the responsibility of the community.

Best wishes in this endeavour, and let me know if I can help. UninvitedCompany 15:29, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Did you really mean to unprotect those pages....seems that the protect notice has been removed while the pages are still protected. There has been next to no discussion regarding the pages...might be better to leave the protected till the discussion happens OneVoice 02:55, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Congo Free State has been cleaned up. Would you be willing to change your vote on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates? 172 09:18, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Peerage has an extended introduction. Please inform me if anything further is required. -- Emsworth 21:53, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

168

Hi, you voted on the issue of whether 168... should be desysoped. Following this, he was temporarily desysopped. Please participate in the new vote as to whether that temporary desysopping should now be reversed until the committees can deal with it properly. Thank you. Angela . 00:45, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Press release quote

Hi,

I've added a testimonial from you to Wikipedia:Press releases/February 2004. If you would prefer to be quoted by real name, or if you would prefer not to be quoted at all, please edit accordingly.—Eloquence 05:03, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson Pic

It is much better quality than http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/a/a2/Tom_jefferson_color.JPG--I agree, but Tom_Jefferson_color.JPG is not on the Jefferson page, except as a link. Did you mean to suggest replacing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Thomas.jpg? jengod 05:33, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

You are welcome to make that change, but it's not something I would like to implement myself, although I won't revert either. I think Jefferson looks ugly in that pic--shaggy and aged. jengod 05:42, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

In a belated response to User_talk:Darkelf#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration, could you please tell me what you mean? I am involved with that page both as a possible defendee (Wik vs Darkelf), and as someone who is providing data against User:Wik. What formal request should I make? Thanks, Jo r 19:45, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Quayle Pic

As I have said in the image info and other places I have gotten permission from the photographer via email. -20:00, 25 Feb 2004 ChrisDJackson

Friendly helping hand ?

Hi, Kingturtle ! Care to offer me some advice on the current arbitration against me ? - In any event I wish you well and remain a Hustler-aged dirty old man, passionate for matters of truth - Happy editing - irismeister 00:27, 2004 Feb 27 (UTC)

Re today's main page: "battered" is no better than "assaulted." If Johnson abused or shouted at or argued with Pearson, then that is what the page should say. "Battered" means "pummelled with his fists" (or "covered with batter"). Adam 02:13, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well no, because "to batter" has a specific meaning, it means "to strike with the fists." If LBJ grabbed Pearson and slammed him into a wall, then he "assaulted" him or (better) "physically assaulted" him. I think this needs to be made specific because it is rather unusual for heads of government to physically assault each other. Adam 03:03, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The community information backlinks are deprecated because the new community main page makes the community information directory obsolete. See Wikipedia talk:Main Page. --Michael Snow 23:20, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Bureaucrat

You have been given Wikipedia:Bureaucrat status. -- Infrogmation 16:41, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Hi Kingturtle, is there any reason you removed the (plus those supporting "all sysops" in the above category) notes from RFA? I only voted in the all sysops category. I don't want to have to vote in every other category as well, but now this note is removed, my vote might not be counted. Angela . 03:46, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

Width of images

You should probably keep images to 300px at most, since 400px will occupy more than half the screen in 800X600 browsers. --Jia ng 02:09, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Re: Requests for Adminship/Francs2000

I nominated myself: surely that counts as me confirming I want sysop status? -- Graham :) 08:16, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Re - you are now an admin... Woohoo! Thank you. -- Graham :) 16:49, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mailing list poll

Please come vote at the new poll on Wikipedia_talk:Mailing_lists. -- Seth Ilys 21:46, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Everyking behavior

Relax a bit. His first registered contribution was on Feb 20, he has been contributing for 11 days only. You might want to talk with him privately on his talk page. Take a deep breath and re-read Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. :) <3 --Maio 02:49, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Image structure replacement on Rhode Island

Though I appreciate that the 'thumb' format is a de facto standard by virtue of being the one coded in, I don't think that it looks anywhere near as good as the structure you replaced with it. It doesn't fit with, well, any of the pages, and certainly not Rhode Island (and all the other countries/flora/fauna/vehicle/&c. pages with a standardised info box), where a thin black border around a white box is established as a standard.
However, I won't just revert to the previous version, as such action would be rude, especially so due to this being a diversion from established policy... Instead, I seek your comments. Thoughts?
James F. (talk) 11:59, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Second Treaty of Thorn

Second Treaty of Thorn is still protected from editing. --Minesweeper 07:34, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

hello. Yesterday, i was looking for you on irc, because I wished you to explain to me why you unprotected DNA. There is no chance that this goes in the right direction. No agreement has been found on the talk page or privately; All I fear is a new edit war or that one of the sysop makes a new wrong move. I regret to say that the unprotection is likely to be the way toward more problems. I fear that me saying "we ought to do something" was interpretated by "we should unprotect the page". Nothing was farther from my feeling :-( If you see that it goes in the wrong direction, please protect it again. If you need a request from someone, hell, I request its protection. ant

Thanks for image info, KT. Incidentally, this page is at 40K now Jim

Anthony

Kingturtle, if no one else is going to try to stifle his actions, I have to. He is singling me out and it is very irritating. It seems that there is no one that will try to contain him. Look at all the edit wars he has caused. Plus he has done this to you along with others. I think the word prick is precisley what he is going by the first definition on here: http://www.google.com/search?q=define:prick

Why will no one ban him or do something for his irritating behavior? ChrisDJackson 01:26, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Chris, there is a possibility that Anthony's case will be heard by the newly formed Arbitration Committee. I recommend you state your case at Wikipedia:Matter of Anthony DiPierro evidence. Do not state your case emotionally. Use tact, evidence, honesty, and eloquence. Kingturtle 01:29, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Earth in the Balance

Kingturtle, Anthony continues to disrupt the Earth in the Balance page by removing an important link. The link is to a chapter by chapter compendium of the book. He also keeps reverting the RFK page which the material I used is not copyrighted. Help!ChrisDJackson 23:43, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi! I think the 1729 (number) business has gone on long enough, and I reckon I'm the Wikipedian (and certainly the sysop) with the best background on this. So I'd like to 'impose' a solution, that seems to me most 'encyclopedic'.

Charles Matthews 12:06, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

By all means, please remove the protection and help shape the article. That would be terrific. Kingturtle 17:25, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That worked well - briefly. A hornet's nest. If you could 'take back' the protection for 1729 (number) and 1729 (anecdote), that would spare me some questioning of my actions, admin-wise.

Charles Matthews 17:12, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Please try to avoid using copy and paste to move pages, as it loses page history. I've sorted out Great Mississippi Flood... Morwen 20:14, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

Ack, I am sorry. It was not intentional. I knew the correct way to do it. Somehow I did it the wrong way. I just wasn't thinking. Strange how the mind can do that sometimes. thanks for fixing it! Kingturtle 20:19, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Gadzooks, sir! I found the article on Issei Sagawa and moved to edit it, only to discover you'd already done so. You move quickly, and I applaud your capable scissors. Denni 23:01, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)

Glad I could help. I try to be bold. Kingturtle 23:03, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Kingturtle. We deleted it accidentally! Owen&rob 23:52, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

please refrain from baiting and insulting other users. please review Wikipedia:Wikiquette. thank you, Kingturtle 03:18, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Have you posted the same message on Stevertigo's page? Marcusvox

No. I did not post the same message on Stevertigo's page. Kingturtle 03:24, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC) P.S. However, I did act fairly and post a similar message to Stevertigo before you asked me that question. The message was not the same message, however. It was a different one, but made the same recommendation. :) Kingturtle 03:39, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you - I was just consulting the proposed Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks article, at which I delivered an incantation. I will go purify myself now by doing minor proofreads, and drinking the other recommended 7 daily cups of water. ;) -SV(talk) 03:27, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Have some for me too! Kingturtle 03:28, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ain't this cosy? I thought as much. Kingturtle and Severtigo are pals. Again, the no surprises keep on piling up. Marcusvox

Buckinghamshire

The article has been altered as per your suggestion on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. What do you think of it now? Please make your comment on the W:FAC page to keep things neat. -- Graham :) 22:23, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, I'll see what I'll do about it. it 02:18, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Chris has not gotten better. Nearly every one of his submissions is blatant plagiarism. Anthony 04:29, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

See what I am talking about. He thinks that if I add a paragraph that is in question he automatically says that it is plagiarism. ChrisDJackson 04:36, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, when you copy a paragraph from somewhere without identifying your source that is plagiarism. Anthony 04:49, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pep talks

Thanks for the pep talks all around. You are helping the situation a great deal. Thanks - Texture 04:29, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wish us all luck. Chris is ok with non-copyright wording on this first disputed paragraph (or two) and Anthony has not objected. (Although I have not received any reply from repeated requests for comment, changes, or his own alternative.) I am going to unprotect it, ask Chris to move those (or similar non-copyright text) into the article, and ask him to add the next section of interest to the talk page. Any advice? - Texture 04:48, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'll be around for about an hour. So I can help you monitor it. Kingturtle 04:54, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate it

Thanks for noticing that I'm working away. :-) I tend to be so focused on what I'm doing that it's hard to look up and see what's going on out there. You made my evening by being someone who does notice. Nice to hear from someone else who started out in upstate new york and ended up out here in CA. Sleep--huh--sounds familiar--my current insomnia regimen actually prohibits me from climbing into bed until... golly, 11:15! That's 6 minutes from now! I'm outa here. Elf 07:09, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Vandal alert

Wow! That Bird charactar seems to causing a lot of trouble. Unfortunately, I went to bed before I recieved your firefighting message. I did, however, revert a vandalism this morning (don't know if that was related to bird). Thanks for the notification and keep up the good work! Perl 15:54, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Re: Volunteer Fire Dept

I got your message about the fire department. Sorry about not responding - you posted it at 1:24 AM (EST). I went to bed earlier than usual last night, so I didn't get the message until 9:30 this morning, by which time the crisis had passed. If I had been around, I definitely would have helped. →Raul654 18:04, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)

Careful with updates

Hi, King T; you just moved my RfA vote from Wesley to pfortuny in the course of your page-long update -- pls be careful. [1] +sj + 23:01, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)

Ack, my apologies. I was going to double check that in a minute. Thanks for beating me to it. Kingturtle 23:08, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- No problem. I figured I was the cause of an edit conflict; thanks for being a gent and trying to reinclude my edits. peace, +sj +

You put your second message on the wrong user page. Anthony 23:50, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Which message? Which page? Kingturtle 23:53, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Stop adding this. Anthony 00:09, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Anthony, all content belongs to wikipedia. the content is not yours. It is part of a historical record. Feel free to use the strike text syntax, or feel free to simply answer my questions, or feel free to ignore my questions. Kingturtle 00:12, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - I don't understand what your problem is. I want to remove it. It's a simple request, and I don't see why you can't grant it. Anthony 00:16, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - I keep a record of all my dialogs, best I can. If you have decided the conversation is over, you can strike your text, ignore what exists, or say "nevermind" or something like that. Kingturtle 00:19, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      - I didn't realize that when I contributed this, so I'm making a request to remove it. Anthony 00:21, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - I prefer to keep it. i find that i get confused when i review my past dialogs if parts have been removed. it is difficult to sift through edit histories. talk-page texts can be very useful to arbitration committee investigations. Kingturtle 00:24, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      - Can you at least link to the history, rather than put it here? User:Anthony DiPierro 00:25, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - No. Kingturtle 00:26, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      - Why not? Anthony 00:27, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - Read my reply to you dated 00:24, 11 Mar 2004. Kingturtle 00:30, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      - A link to the history page would address those concerns. Anthony 00:31, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - Leaving it alone is easier for me. Thanks for the suggestion, though. Kingturtle 00:33, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      - I'll do the work for you, if you'd like. I see you added a warning to your page now. That's good, but it wasn't there when I wrote this. Anthony 00:40, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - Thanks for the offer, but I am going to keep it the way it is. Sincerely, Kingturtle 00:42, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      - So basically you're just being intentionally difficult. Anthony 00:45, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - What exactly are you afraid of? Kingturtle 00:52, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Time Zone arithmetic

Kind of jumped the gun on Wesley and Pfortuny, didn't ya? By my reckoning, 17:12 UTC is still 3 hours in the future. On second thought, never mind -- <grin> -- they were both unanimous! :-) --Uncle Ed 18:25, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ack, I jumped the gun. I did my math wrong. But I was close :) I'll go do 4 hail-marys and then copyedit 4 random articles! Kingturtle 19:24, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, tortoises are slow so the hare has to give you a head start ;-) --Uncle Ed 21:18, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks! I needed a smile today! Kingturtle 22:41, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Kingturtle, just wanted to mention to you that you cut a comment of mine at RfA in voting on Academic Challenger--I'm sure it was unintentional, but I know when I do these things, I like to be told as a reminder to doublecheck things. Anyway, I've restored it, so not a big deal. Hope your day has gone well--thanks for all the work you do here, both in editing articles and helping to shape policy. Jwrosenzweig 01:06, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that you did it. I had tried three times to make that post, and each time there was an edit conflict. So I started to feel rushed. Thanks for helping. Kingturtle 01:08, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi, on the coin pictures should I email him myself for the images I use or are you going to do it all in a block? (I'm probably going to be grabbing a lot of the British ones this evening.) - Hephaestos|§ 02:06, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I suggest sending a bunch in a block, at the end of a long day :) Kingturtle 02:07, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC) P.S. yes, please feel free to send the email yourself.

I see in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates that you feel Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius needs further editing, but I have no idea what you would like to improve about it. Can you give me some indication, preferably on its talk page? -- Jmabel 07:41, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I gave the article a spot edit. and i posted comments on its talk page. Kingturtle 21:34, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I've done my best to deal with the 15 issues you raised. Most of them I feel I've fully addressed, some maybe not. The edits are in the article, and I've tried to summarize in the talk page how, and to what degree, I've addressed each point. Thanks, your questions really helped me strengthen the article. Let me know what you think. -- Jmabel 05:15, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I've tried to address your more recent comments as well. Because there were several rounds of editing, and comments are all interspersed, it may be easiest tto use a "diff" to find my recent remarks. In particular, please have a look at my latest response to you question number 7, where I'm asking you something back. Also, please see my remarks on the Ulysses article you give as an example. Other than that, I think I've addressed everything you've brought up except for trying to get a more recent citation on how much this has been reprinted. I don't see any online way to do that, and we don't have a good Spanish-language bookstore in Seattle, so it will probably be a while until I have a current citation. Still, I think 15 editions in the first three decades is enough to substantiate this being a much-reprinted work. I would confidently say that "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius" is one of Borges's dozen best known works (though probably a little less read than some which are easier reads), but I don't have any citation for that, so I've refrained. Thanks again for engaging on this, your questions have almost all strengthened the article. Do you still feel that it is not up to Featured Article status? -- Jmabel 06:05, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks re DYK

Thanks! You did great swapping out the stub on DYK. Just wanted to let you know you did good. jengod 00:29, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)

Redrwan awards

They are going to be as famous as the Razzies and i am proud to have inspired them... Muriel 00:21, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ha! I needed a good laugh today :) Kingturtle 02:22, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dagestan ban

Hi, when you get a chance could you take a look at my comments on User:Dagestan? Thanks, Isomorphic 19:06, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I posted my reply there. Kingturtle 23:13, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have confirmed my suspicion that User:Dagestan is the same person as User:Daniel Nagy. I'm confused by what he says, though. He told me he created User:Dagestan after User:Daniel Nagy was blocked, to see if he'd be able to edit under the new account. The block log doesn't show that - he created User:Dagestan before any block occurred.

Anyway, it sounds like User:Daniel Nagy is currently IP blocked because of the ban on User:Dagestan. Unlike his sock puppet, Daniel Nagy has a record of useful contributions (on Dagestan and other articles.) I will take responsibility for unblocking Dagestan so that Daniel can return. I don't think this will cause any problems. Isomorphic 10:38, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok. I support you in your efforts. Thanks working so hard. Kingturtle 16:01, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So it's OK to trust the judgment of admins, but not that of admin-developers? So you don't want "vigilante groups" (really an open quick consensus finding process) but you accept admins as a "vigilante group"? Please read the proposal again. There's nothing in it about waiting 24 hours. As soon as the required number of votes has been reached, and there's at least 80% agreement, whatever remedy has been proposed can be implemented. This can happen within minutes.

Let's say this proposal had been made by User:Jamesday (who in fact insisted on using a polling system), with the rationale "We need a system to deal with people like —Eloquence who will otherwise engage in vigilantism". Let's be honest here: Would you have opposed this proposal under such a scenario? And if not, would you kindly end your personal vendetta against me?—Eloquence

Eloquence, you have misunderstood me. I have no bone to pick with you. Although our views have been on opposite ends of the stick lately, that is not because I have anything against you. I fully respect you as a Wikipedian and as a human being. I have no vendetta against you. I consider myself on the same side as you...not on the same side of all the issues, but on the same side of seeking fairness, seeking quality articles, and seeking a positive environment. When I mentioned vigilante groups, I was not referring to you at all. I just forsee the potential for a French Revolution-style mob scene, in which the be-headers are eventually be-headed. Again, let me emphasize, I have no vendetta against you. We have different views, but I have never had anything less than complete respect for you. Kingturtle 00:24, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- P.S. Yes, I trust the judgment of admins. I can count on ~~one~~ two hand the number of times an admin has taken an action I disagreed with. Therefore, I don't see a need for this extra step in the process. Kingturtle 00:27, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that. In that case, I do not understand why you so strenuously object to my allegedly "out of process" desysopping of 168... (not really out of process - I've desysopped other users before), who repeatedly violated the protection policy and quite clearly said so, while entrusting sysops with 24 hour bans (a much more drastic measure) without a need for prior community consultation.—Eloquence 01:19, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

That desysopping is one of the rare examples in which I did not agree with the actions of a priveleged user. In my mind, desysopping is much different than a 24-hour ban. A formal process takes place to graduate someone to being an admin, and therefore a formal process should take place to demote someone from being an admin. Maybe a 24 or 48 hour desysopping, I would have supported - but as far as I could tell, the desysopping of 168... was indefinite. Again, although I objected greatly and vocally to your action, I still have complete respect for you. I respect you thoroughly. Kingturtle 01:29, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A formal process takes place to graduate someone to being an admin, and therefore a formal process should take place to demote someone from being an admin. - like, say, a quickpoll? ;-) —Eloquence

Touche ;) Kingturtle 01:41, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dear Kingturtle, can you watch over Anthony, i am going to sleep. See his latest edit to his evidence and he remove your comment from the talk page. I am starting to get sick of him. He is probably comming here to see what i wrote and add something... well. Cheers, Muriel 01:57, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Muriel, thanks for all your hard work. I'll see what I can do to monitor the situation. Kingturtle 01:58, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Conversation (of sorts) with Anthony

Please do not use reversions as a threat. Please do not use the threat of reversions as a ploy to blackmail another user into saying or doing what you want them too. I am referring directly to you saying to ChrisDJackson "state your sources and i'll stop reverting you." - Kingturtle 01:57, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Anthony DiPierro: "I'm not using reversions as a threat."
- Yes, anthony, it is an intent to force a user to say or do something, with you threatening to revert until he submits. Cut it out. - Kingturtle 02:01, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - Anthony DiPierro: "again, I didn't threaten reversion, I told him I'd stop reverting if he stated his sources."
    - You did not simply say "state your sources." you said "state your sources and i'll stop reverting you." that is a cause/effect statement. stop using reversions as a tool. - Kingturtle 02:15, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please look at Anthony's evidence. He has a point.—Eloquence

Anthony very well may have a point. My concern here is that Anthony is using reversion as a tool and as a form of intimidation. Anthony's end (discovering a possible instance of plagerism) does not justify his means (reversion and threat of further reversion). Kingturtle 02:25, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with reverting plagiarism. And I did not threaten to revert. I promised to stop reverting if certain conditions were met. There's nothing wrong with that either. Anthony DiPierro 02:38, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wait a second. Protecting Wikipedia:Matter of Anthony DiPierro evidence is absolutely unfair. Ban one or both of the people fighting over it, but you can't protect that page. Anthony DiPierro 02:37, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

He can protect anything he wants. This will just add to your list of contributed edit wars. You have a great track record, really. ChrisDJackson 02:39, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Anthony, I just unprotected that page. I didn't realize there was a special rule for Wik in effect. Kingturtle 02:43, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - You apparently reprotected it. Anthony DiPierro 11:06, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    - Someone else beat me to it moments earlier, so when I clicked on what I thought was the "Remove protection" button, it was actually the "Protect this page" button. The buttons appear in the exact same spot on the page, and there is not fail safe such as "Are you sure?" Kingturtle 14:37, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would love to take some actions here, but my hands are tied. Are you still sure you object to that quickpolls idea?—Eloquence 02:41, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

you make a strong argument. i am very close to jumping onto the side of the YEAS. Kingturtle 02:43, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

168 de/resysopping

Hey, how's your journey through the bureaucracy going? ;-) I hope you understand my position a little better now.—Eloquence

Stage names

Thanks, but my edits pale in comparison to your edit list. Iam 02:08, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

Missing ?

Hi KT, at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians you added User:Tucci528 (better known as User:TUF-KAT) and User:Vera Cruz (better known as User:Lir). Neither one is really missing. Maximus Rex 05:32, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ha! What do you know! You learn something new everyday! :) Kingturtle 05:33, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Possible arbitration

As you have now lost the vote, I am considering using arbitration to investigate whether you disobeyed the rules of wikipedia in calling for the vote (via Quickpoll). You never warned me or reiterated the three revert rules to a first time violator-so I will repeat a formerly asked question.

Do you feel you violated the rules of Wikipedia in creating the quickpoll? (why or why not)

If arbitration occurs this will be used

GrazingshipIV 03:58, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

No. Kingturtle 04:12, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Would you please explain why? GrazingshipIV 04:14, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

No. Kingturtle 04:20, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I must announce my disappointment. I find it hard to resolve this problem if you refuse to communicate in any meaninful way with me. GrazingshipIV 04:24, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Well, if arbitration occurs, I'll tell them :) Kingturtle 04:28, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As you wish ;) GrazingshipIV 04:30, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Last night in an email to me, you insulted my soul. Please don't suddenly feign moral superiority 24 hours later. ;) Kingturtle 04:32, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am not feigning anything, I am attempting to resolve this and you are refusing to answer any of my legitimate questions. What would you have me do other than take you to arbitration? I admit I was upset when I wrote that e-mail and apologize if I offended you. I was upset because I then (like now) was not made aware of what I had done wrong nor given due process. GrazingshipIV 04:36, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

You prefaced your first question with the comment "If arbitration occurs this will be used." Therefore, I choose not to answer you. If arbitration occurs, I will answer their questions. Kingturtle 04:40, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) P.S. Genuine apologies never contain the word if.

I used if because I do not know whether you were offended or not, I can't know whats in your heart. It was not meant to be offensive it was meant to express how I felt.

Here is the deal I would like answers to the basic questions that I have previously asked. I would like those answers so I can better understand what happened. I do not want to go to arbitration to get them or to understand why you took actions that I see as wrongheaded. Just explain your reasons for doing what you did please. GrazingshipIV 04:47, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Then what is with all this "If arbitration occurs this will be used" language? Kingturtle 04:49, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It was a courtesey warning that if we could not resolve this anything you said would go along with my case to the committee. It was more of a 'heads up' then a threat. The title of the conversation is possible arbitration. I prefer mediation over arbitration any day of the week but, if need be I will submit the case.GrazingshipIV 05:03, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

You give me a heads up for the possibility of arbitration, but then when I say I'll tell it to the arbitration committee, you say you don't want to go to arbitration. I am a bit confused. Kingturtle 05:07, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution recommends meditation before arbitration. Unlike some, I prefer to follow the rules. GrazingshipIV 05:13, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

To which "some" are you referring? Kingturtle 05:19, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm referring to those who engage in vandalism, like the user I was trying to stop (in this case Anthony Dipierro). And after trying to stop him I was subject to, in my opinion, an illadvised vote that did not correspond to the stated policy.GrazingshipIV 05:26, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

This is my final attempt at mediation. Can you please explain to me the reasons you listed me on quickpolls? If you can just explain why you did it I will withdraw all matters that would be put before the committee. I think this is fair to ask of you and I think others will too. GrazingshipIV 17:16, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

As it is clear we cannot work our problems out one on one on suggest mediation.GrazingshipIV 03:55, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

How is it clear we can't talk? I am happy to talk to you on my talk page or in mediation. Although, I am unsure what we'd discuss in mediation. Kingturtle 03:57, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I would feel mediation in IRC chat would be best as I need real time in order to work out our obvious differences. This is within your capability. GrazingshipIV 03:59, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

I prefer to have such discussions in the Wikipedia space. Have you contacted the Mediation Committee? Kingturtle 04:03, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As requested the mediation committee has been contacted. Please come with an open mind when it eventually happens. Although I would still prefer a private chat on IRC chat. GrazingshipIV 04:15, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Private chat is not an option. I am happy to participate with the Mediation Committee. Kingturtle 04:17, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I am unclear why the only options are an IRC chat, Mediation, or Arbitration. Why is a dialog on my Talk Page not acceptable? Kingturtle 04:24, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dude my computer sucks this takes forever. I am constantly getting edited over because of this computer.GrazingshipIV 04:28, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

You and I are the only ones presently editing this page. Kingturtle 04:32, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

groans: Fine. I am going to blank my page (don't report me for vandalism I will revert it when we are done) come to mine and give each other 3 minutes between each response (so I can catch up). ok? GrazingshipIV 04:36, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Why go to all that trouble? We are already having a conversation here. Kingturtle 04:38, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Will you just come on already and stop being difficult. You want to use a talk page Let's go.GrazingshipIV 04:41, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

I have said from the beginning, I want to use my talk page. I don't see why that is a problem. We've been talking here for 40 minutes. Kingturtle 04:45, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Can you at least compromise a little? I have compromised every step of the way. You say you do not want intermedaries then you refuse to compromise on anything. Lets do it privately on chat-No, Lets do it through a mediator on chat-NO, I want to do it on a talk page-OK how about mine where I can actually work from?-NO what gives? GrazingshipIV 04:49, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Er...i have said yes to talking on my talk-page, yes to mediation, and yes to arbitration. I have said no to using chat. Kingturtle 04:53, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am being vandalized by thebam right now so I cannot continue this conversation here. please go to my talkpage. GrazingshipIV 04:59, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

That user made one post on your page, and it was not vandalism; the user has nominated you to be an admin. Thebam's post in no way creates edit conflicts with this page here. Kingturtle 05:03, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I did not say it did created conflict here. I said I was busy with it so I could not respond. I am still trying to investigate. If you would come to my page I would be made aware everytime you said something while investigating. thebam's intentions were more than clear. GrazingshipIV 05:07, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

We've been talking for an hour now, and you've yet to broach whatever topic it was that you feel is so vital to discuss immediately. Are you just baiting me? Kingturtle 05:12, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Baiting you for what? I am not going to open discussion until you make a concession, namely to discuss it on my page. If you do not want to discuss it fine. But I have offered you a chance mutliple times now to come and discuss this and you flatly refuse-come to my page please. GrazingshipIV 05:15, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

I have made my terms explicit since the beginning. Either we talk here on my talk page, use mediation or use arbitration. I am happy to do any of those. I've given you an hour here. Do you have anything else to discuss? Kingturtle 05:23, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have never seen somebody so bent on third part intervention but there it is nope. good night. GrazingshipIV 05:24, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

IRC

No, I don't use IRC. I hate having it pop up all the time when I'm logged on. In fact, I've never set up IRC on any computer I've ever used. RickK | Talk 07:00, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please check Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Hcheney so you can make an informed decision on my Request for Adminship --Hcheney 17:37, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

returning spam

Hcheney has come clean with some truths regarding GrazingshipIV. You may want to reconsider your Quickpoll vote. Kingturtle 00:01, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A Quickpoll is being held in regards to edits you recently made on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Kingturtle 05:04, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Looks like Graz made a slight mistake

See Wikipedia:Quickpolls/archives. Looks like Graz was posting as himself while using his User:Information Koopa sock puppet. Which probably means User:TheBam is also him. I mean, who else is going to talk about "junta style attacks"? RickK | Talk 06:06, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. Information Koopa loves the game Super Mario Bros...and tonight in IRC, Graz said to me: "I thought your name rang of super mario brothers." Kingturtle 06:09, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yeah I am going to attack my own page. Guys get a clue. I have already tried to come to the peace table which proves fruitless so I guess petty games is the order of the day huh? I do not create sockpuppets and once more you know that. At least your not accusing me of being one for Hcheney anymore. If you think either were me please take it to a developer. Juntaism is also smearing someone publically rickk. GrazingshipIV 06:18, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

The only person who ever accused you of being a sock puppet for Hcheney was Wik. RickK | Talk 06:19, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Try anthony and I beleive others voiced suspicions rather than accusations. GrazingshipIV 06:22, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

I have read through your discussion here after seeing the request for mediation. As I understand things, you are both willing to accept mediation but can not agree on the method? Is your only option using this talk page? Do you have any opinions on who should mediate? Tuf-Kat 20:26, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

I am happy to utilize mediation to address our conflict. IRC is not convenient for me. My schedule varies. I cannot predict when I am online. I cannot predict when I am at a workstation that has IRC software or access. I suggest either using email or using a dedicated metapage in wikipedia. I have no qualms about this being a dialog made in public. I respect all the mediators. I have no preference for whom should mediate. Kingturtle 23:08, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

--- Hello, King, I wish to act as Mediator between you and User:GrazingshipIV, because i really want to assist both of you in resolving your dispute, thank you --Plato 05:48, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are not a current member of the mediation committee. I'd prefer to be mediated by Angela, Bcorr, Cimon Avaro, Dante Alighieri, Ed Poor, Ldan, llywrch, sannse, Stevertigo or TUF-KAT. Thanks, Kingturtle 06:25, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I just messaged Bcorr in resposne to your statement. I can do it today (26th) in the afternoon if you can. GrazingshipIV 06:31, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

You can do it? Do what exactly? What is it that needs to be scheduled? As I said to Tuf-Kat earlier today, I suggest either using email or using a dedicated metapage in wikipedia. Kingturtle 06:34, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi Kingturtle -- I would be happy to work with you two. I want to propose that I create a topic (thread) on the mediation message board -- I think it functions better for this sort of thing than a wikiwiki does. If that is acceptable to you please leave a message on my talk page. I will be out of town for the day, but will be back late evening (~13 hrs from now), and assuming both of you are amenable, I will get things going and be in touch then. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 12:55, Mar 26, 2004 (UTC)

BCorr, that sounds great. thanks for putting in the time and effort. Kingturtle 14:41, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why did you revert the arbitration page? The message board has no meaningful content and has a prominent notice on it stating that it is inactive. UninvitedCompany 18:45, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Because it is useful. Kingturtle 18:47, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Mediation page established

I have established a topic on the Mediation board to conduct the mediation here: http://boards.wikimedia.org/viewtopic.php?t=66

Please read through what I have posted and reply so that we can begin the process. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 04:29, Mar 27, 2004 (UTC)

One-hit wonders in the United States

Hi. I was just wondering about your revert in One-hit wonders in the United States. It wasn't just one person's edit that was affected by it and I was wondering what was the invalid data. Was the Dashboard Confessional edit? The Cathy Carr edit? or the Debbie/Debby Boone edit? Thanks.

You had removed a legitimate entry and changed Boone's name to the wrong spelling. That is why I reverted it. Kingturtle 08:09, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I did not. The only edit I did at the time was adding in Dashboard Confessional.
  - My mistake. I just looked at the history. I'm sorry.
- No problem. No need to be sorry. Keep at it! maybe consider getting an account :) Kingturtle 08:14, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Stub machine

What is it with 209.86.5.214 making a bunch of actor stubs and leaving them for us to clean up? Can we do anything about this? DryGrain 09:09, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It appears that the activity was due to ignorance of our standards. As we make fixes to each stub, the user seems to be learning. I placed a welcome message for the user. I think what we need is patience and to keep teaching him/her. Kingturtle 17:23, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Admin request

I enjoyed your negative on my admin nomintaion. First time in a while I've been "praised with faint damns." ;-) Best, Cecropia 18:08, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please don't take it personally :) I try to be fair in my support, so I have set some bars regarding time here and number of edits made. I will surely support you another time (if necessary)...and it looks like you still have a lot of support :) Kingturtle 18:12, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Understood. I just thought you did the turndown in a nice way. Much better than "well, I support this guy, but we better keep an eye on him." And right now, Anthony DiPierro is picking on me with an "abstain" that feels like a "no way!" :) Cecropia 18:47, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

FYI

In order to comment on the mediation page bcorr created you must first "register" use your name "kingturtle" and whatever other information you wish to disclose. After registering you simply log in and post your statement. GrazingshipIV 18:59, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

McFly

As someone who protected it, can you tell me what is going on with this page? I couldn't really figure out what the deal was from Talk. The links looked fine to me, but Wik wants them gone and deletes them on site. I assume his objection is the website, but it seems entries for other Wiki projects are de rigueur for Wikipedia, regardless of perceived quality. I wasn't really trying to involve myself in a conflict, but it looks like I did. -- V V 00:11, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I figured you did not have an agenda in reversions. I am not fully sure of Wik's motives, but the answer might be contained in Talk:McFly under the Why? discussion. Kingturtle 02:13, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Atlantium

Is the page important enough to justify protection? I find the editing pattern on the unprotected page to provide fascinating insight for the personalities involved. :-) -- UninvitedCompany

The protected page forces the issue to be further discussed in TALK. You can still watch the edit patterns and glean insights by watching the TALK page. :) Kingturtle 23:04, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Provinces of Afghanistan

I am away until Sunday - shall look into it then. Morwen 06:41, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)

Redirects for deletion

Please remove your listing of Wikipedia:Offensive User Names Havers Club from WP:VFD and place it on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion instead.--Jia ng 20:51, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Delete

Please delete Systems Thinking. Thank you. - Woodrow 22:08, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, there is no reason to delete it. It is a legitimate redirect. :) Kingturtle 22:18, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It wasn't before Jiang deleted it. But tell me: why the colon? - Woodrow 22:20, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It probably doesn't make any difference anymore. I think a long time ago, if there was not a colon, the redirect would show up on Wikipedia:Shortpages. It might not be the case any longer, but I am still in the habit :) Kingturtle 22:24, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Handballing delation

Your deletion on the Kevin Smith reference was sort of where I was heading in my edit to that reference. I was certainly struck that handballing was in fact public knowledge well before the movie, hence my edit to say it entered modern pop culture instead. Upon reflect (prompted by your deletion) I concur that it is a POV and I should have removed it myself, instead of modifying it and trying to make it less a definitive statement about it entering public knowledge (which is demonstratively false). Good call. Lestatdelc 23:51, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)

Vandal Zap moving Wikipedia Pages

Kingturtle, if you're still awake User:Zap! is moving around a bunch of pages like Wikipedia:Cleanup -> Wikipedia:Antiguck. Cecropia 07:05, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You have warned the user. If it continues, create a QuickPoll and call for a 24 ban of the user. Kingturtle 07:13, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I understand why you blocked the Karl Marx page. However, if you look at the talk pages I think you will see that resolution of the problem on the talk page won't happen. Basically, TDC is taking a point of view taken by no historian who specializes on Marx. There has been lengthy discussion of why, which he has ignored. He added his views -- his personal views, I believe -- to the article. I added the views of most scholars, and cited two authoritative biographers of Marx. TDC deleted what I added, which initiated the revert war between him and 172 on April 4. Although I was not involved in that I want to point out that 172 was merely restoring content I had added, that TDC was deleting against the bulk of discussion on the talk page. I have asked Mav to consider blocking TDC, personally I think he ought to be banned (he also wrote a vulgar attack of me on my user page; so I know I have a personal bias aside from my problems with his contempt for scholarship or dialogue among contributers on the Marx page). I ask you to consider this as an alternative to protecting that page. Slrubenstein

Consider having TDC temporarily banned by running a Wikipedia:Quickpoll. Kingturtle 03:53, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Admin

Thanks so much for the admin nomination. You might have noticed by now that I declined this time around. I am delighted, though; there are so many users and contributors here and I usually feel so anonymous (which in some cases might be a good thing, I suppose). It's nice to be noticed, appreciated, and trusted! Elf | Talk 05:29, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

80,250

In case you haven't noticed already, I hope I've answered your question appropriately at the Reference Desk :) HTH Dysprosia 05:51, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Did you know vs. In the news

You expressed interest in the front page layout on Talk:Main page. Could you please vote in the poll there? Thanks, silsor 07:25, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

speak and type?

Hi, I moved your question here in case you hadn't seen the response yet as the village pump was a bit overcrowded. Angela . 00:03, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone know a good program that will type into a text program the words you speak into a mic? Kingturtle 02:09, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)~

I've heard that IBM's ViaVoice is supposed to be good. There's a Speech Recognition HOWTO if you happen to use Linux. -- Wapcaplet 02:29, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

d'oh!

Ah, poor KingTurtle! King, are you a merrikin? West Coast or East Coast? Because I bet that has something to do with us stepping on each others' toes. It's amazing--I think it's twice now--that we manage to be doing the exact same thing at the exact same time! (And coming up with totally different stuff!) :) Stupid edit conflicts! :) jengod 17:46, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

I am in california :) ...no worries. Keep up the good work. Kingturtle 17:48, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, see, me too. We're both doing it when we get to work or when we leave...hmmm...I'll have to think on this. Maybe there's some way to avoid these better... jengod 17:55, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Constitution proposal

I agree. However, we can at least try to keep I am sexy from trying to arbitrarily define policy towards its own benefit when it gets unblocked later tonight. - Woo d row , Emperor of the United States 19:27, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My talk page/Signature

Hi. I'm sorry you don't like my new signature. (No sarcasm or condescension - just wanted to make that clear) I am very fond of it. I don't see your difficulty in clicking on the talk page portion as a good reason to revert since the former signature had no talk page link. I'd suggest that you feel free to click on any portion of the signature as if it were the former standard signature that puts you only on the user page and then you select "Discuss this page". Ok? - Tεx τ urε 19:41, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Suikinkutsu

Hi. Thanks a lot for featuring my Suikinkutsu article on the main page (in the section "Did you know ..."). You completely made my day when I went online to check Wikipedia! Yeehaaa! -- chris_73 00:58, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Congo Free State

Hi, can you see your way to supporting Congo Free State as a featured article? I've done some work on it since your last comments. Thanks. Markalexander100 03:43, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Could you please put User:Augusta (a sockpuppet of Cantus) to a quickpoll, he reverted Shnorrer 4 times in a few minutes. --Wik 08:12, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

Addendum: Cantus himself now reverted Mongolia 4 times. Quickpoll him too. --Wik 08:20, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

I have placed a warning on each user's talk page. This must be done before a quickpoll is made. Let me know if their behavior does not change. But also keep in mind that I might not be around. Kingturtle 23:38, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Max Schreck

This was the first article I posted. You rewrote it within hours. Thanks. The style manual etc have the theory you showed just what the theory means and how much padding I was using. But I am a politician - I'm used to using lots of words to convey a little information.

garryq 11:54, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Selected anniversaries

Hail King of Turtles! I see you added Galileo to Template:April 12 selected anniversaries. However, the event you mentioned does not appear in the Galileo Galilei article. That article in fact says that his trial started on June 22, 1633 - yet Template:April 12 selected anniversaries says that he was convicted on April 12, 1633. Could you sort this out and update the pages that need to be updated? --mav 22:46, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mav, I see the error in my ways! I lifted that bit from the April 12 page, assuming it was correct. But it is only partially correct. I will make the necessary corrections. Here are the references I am using:

Sincerely, Kingturtle 23:20, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Admin Nomination

Hello, I would appreciate your help by earning your vote as an admin. I have been here about 5 months now and have been nominated. I have made many contributions and have improved on my editing and behavior. I take this seriously, that is why I have gotten into it with Anthony so much. You can look at my user page yourself and see my contribtions. I would appreciate a vote in the yes column if you agree. Again, thanks for your time and help. ChrisDJackson 02:34, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Turning Japanese

It appears to have hit the U.K. charts in March 1980. One would not expect it to have reached the charts in the U.S. until after that. That would make it a hit of the 1980's. -- Dominus 18:44, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Congo Free State feature

Please see Congo Free State on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Your comments on the article's talk page seem to have been addressed. Thanks, 172 22:14, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Jim Thorpe

Hi Kingturtle, thanks for your reaction on the Jim Thorpe nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates.

Could point out which parts of the text you consider to be POV? I'd like to work on improving the article. Jeronimo 06:49, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've tried to address the issues you mentioned on my talk page. Can you have a look? Thanks, Jeronimo 09:50, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Kingturtle, could take a look at the article again? Currently, you are the only Wikipedian that has objected to this article becoming a featured article. I'd like to know if the changes made have resolved your objection, or if it still requires work. Thanks, Jeronimo 10:20, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Corrections

Dear Kingturtle:

First at all, I would like to thank for your help in cleaning up my baseball collaborations. Right now, Chico Carrasquel & Tony Armas looks better after you did it.

In addition, you advised me that I should get some Wiki standards. It's right. I started editing Wikipedia on March 30, 2004 (Wallace Davenport), so I'm a wiki-one-month-old almost, but I'm still learning and working in it.

Basically, I am a reader, not a writer, and my main language is Spanish (some Italian and Portuguese too). Due to this, I know that sometimes my English looks some strange, but no problem. If necessary (a friend hand always is necessary) "someday someone will come along and make that new article", according your own words.

At this point, I'm sorry about disturbing some people that used intimidating advices about my collaborations. I know that some of the pages I've worked need a help. If you know anything about these subjects, please lend a hand. These are generally things I just don't know enough about to edit in English. If you can fix one up, please mention it on my talk page. I can remember that the baseball philosopher Yogi Berra said "The game's isn't over until it's over." The wiki articles neither. I try to do the best I can. Reading your note is like having a conversation with a friend.

Thanks for your fast and polite response. MusiCitizen 14:57, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my nomination as an admin...

...I appreciate it. Dpbsmith 10:21, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

RfA

I originally typed my reason, but then censored it before I pressed save. I don't think it's appropriate to say what my reservations are but equally, I thought I should say I have some. If you can think of a way of rewording it to make that clear, please do. Angela . 19:49, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

"Support, slightly tentatively, but I think he can be trusted with admin powers" would have sufficed. Kingturtle 23:47, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for your suggestion. I've reworded it following what Wik said anyway. I shall bear your comments in mind for next time. Angela . 07:09, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

It's weird coming back after 6 months... so much new stuff to get to grips with. You seem to have most of it on your user page, so thanks again! -- Jim Regan 06:05, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Talk:2003

Go to Talk:2003. Look at the bottom. At the rate it is currently going, it should be down to 0 by the fall of 2004. Am I correct?? 66.32.69.46 22:51, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

GWer

Sorry I had to list your article for deletion, seems completely irrelevant and not inherently not neutral to me. Also, I think that GWB has committed such serious crimes that attacking him for his language is ridiculous. Get-back-world-respect 18:02, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Required number of edits

Hi Kingturtle, I was looking through Requests for Adminship earlier and saw that you have opposed a few people for having too few edits. I was just wondering what you think is an acceptable minimum number of edits, or minimum edits per time period or whatever for someone to be considered for adminship? On RfA Meelar asks the same question but I can't find an answer on your or their talk page or on the talk page for RfA, although by now your answer could of course have been archived.

Cheers -- Ams80 10:17, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in my opinion, one should have at least 2 1/2 months here and over 3,000 edits (not including talk pages) in the last six months. I feel this gives enough breadth of a history to judge the person's capabilities and capacities. Kingturtle 17:05, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for processing my adminship, even though you didn't support it :-). I certainly see where you're coming from with your views. Most people support some lower limit to the number of edits - your standard is just higher. 3000 is pretty high, but those who meet it would certainly be excellent candidates for admin. It is a standard that you yourself meet. Even though you didn't side with my adminship, thank you for caring. --Brian Rock 23:57, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
  - Brian, it was nothing personal against you. I have just made an arbitrary bar in my mind. Keep up the good work! Kingturtle 00:14, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  - Understood. Talk to you later! --Brian Rock 00:26, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the answer Kingturtle. I've just been looking at the images on your user page, it's nice to see such high quality images making their way into Wikipedia. Good work! -- Ams80 09:22, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a lot of discussion regarding your 3000+ standard for adminship. I don't agree with your standard -- but if you believe it's an appropriate bar, then I encourage you to keep voting according to that belief. I don't think you should conform your standards to match the majority, in this case; I think the presence of distinct opinions ensures that the process surrounding adminship remains a lively discussion, and not simply a "confirmation hearing." More often than not, you and I will probably be on opposite sides -- but I encourage you to vote according to your beliefs. Cribcage 23:26, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Ghruaib

Please stop redirecting the page. I'm trying to create a disambig page to distinguish between the current facility, the Saddam facility and the town of Abu Ghuraib. Please leave the page alone until I'm finished. AndyL 23:08, 2 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Reagan

and the only President to have married a pregnant woman.

Do we know that for a fact? ;) Rick K 03:01, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

We do know for a fact....unless one of the first ladies had an abortion we don't know about. the proof is in the pudding. Ronald and Nancy were married March 4, 1952. Patti was born October 22, 1952, and she was not a premmie. Kingturtle 04:09, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I did some checking and asked my boss. First, see Goering's defense summarized in Persico, p. 271. Also, Telford Taylor's The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials is supposedly the best book out there. I am taking it home with me tonight. Let me know if I can find you any more information. Danny 14:16, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

The arbitration committee has referred the issues of Anthony's reverts and alleged trolling to the mediation committee. It's been suggested that you may have an interest in this matter so, if you would like to be involved in mediation on these issues please leave a message at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Regards -- sannse (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2004 (UTC) (mediation committee).[reply]

Nick Berg

removed external links to OP-EDs. that is NOT encyclopedic

Sorry about that -- it was an edit conflict. You fixed it before I realized. (Hate edit conflicts.)–Hajor 00:32, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. thanks for the explanation :) Kingturtle 00:35, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the reminder. I did know of those messages, but it's just that I didn't think of them until I had made most of the edits. Dori | Talk 04:06, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

Mero

Kingturtle, can you resysop User:Merovingian; he's back from his little vacation. -- Seth Ilys 02:57, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Good and bad feedback

Good feedback: You did a good job mentioning a radio station at WSSU

Bad feedback: Your link is WSSU (radio), not WSSU-FM or WSSU-AM. Please change it to whichever one of these it is. 66.245.117.53 23:45, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It is an FM station. Feel free to make the change yourself :) Kingturtle 23:57, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Astronaut Articles

Sorry, didnt mean to ignore you. I just think that its more important that the information is availible, than that the format is correct. one of the great things about wikipedia is that many hands make light work. Some people enjoy formatting, others enjoy writing articles, I enjoy working on space related articles. Its better for somone to find an unformatted arcticle that contains the information that they need than to find nothing at all. Also, if you look over the articles that ive posted, youll see that a good portion of them have been wikified. See list of astronauts by name

Theon 04:09, May 16, 2004 (UTC)

It's okay - I wasn't offended. We clearly come at the question of "what is appropriate to be included in Wikipedia" from widely different perspectives, but it's probably a good thing that people come at this from different perspectives. I will admit that as a user of Wikipedia, some of my greatest enjoyment has come out of reading articles on silly things like the Official Monster Raving Loony Party as much as from the more academic stuff. But I still think it's important to prevent wikipedia from becoming full of insignificant vanity articles. YMMV - Atlantium, at least, probably falls into a gray area. john 06:05, 18 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible Pink Unicorn

Your addition of a picture San Juan, Puerto Rico was most appriciated. If you have any other sigtings please share them with us. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:27, 2004 May 18 (UTC)

Actually, could you provide a more descriptive caption? Who made the sighting? +sj +

Do you want to make some comments at Talk:Augusto Pinochet#Another poll? 172 15:15, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency, Mayday, Wiki Wiki
Mayday! Dear Kingturtle, the WikiRepublic is in danger! Wikipolice make their coup d'êtat! Please add your voice and come help John here wiki wiki. Thank you ! - Yours, - irismeister 17:25, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

PS - The images are just amazing. I have a collection of two hundred more portraits (mainly ophthalmologists, granted) at various resolutions. Bravo !

Nick Berg inconsistencies

You have -again- deleted important, verifiable, reasonable information from the Nick Berg page, referring visitors to the conspiracy theory page. You have done this without justifying yourself, without adding any comment on the talk page. There are two things which must be in the main article, and must not be labelled as conspiracy theory:

Nick Berg was almost certainly dead when the decapitation occurred
al-Zarqawi was most likely not the person who decapitated Nick Berg because of the prosthetic leg inconsistency.

I am a reasonable person. I try to avoid edit wars, and always look for compromise solutions. I have no time for conspiracy theories. And I deplore the unilateral, uncompromising and unaccountable way in which you made these edits. Please explain yourself. pir 20:47, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Pir, I too am a reasonable person. My actions were not uncompromising. My edits are fair and are not final.

I will put back some of the language. But you are going to have to back up the some experts with actual names. You say the experts are verifiable, then verify them.

As for the conspiracy theory, if Berg was killed differently than proported, then there is a conspiracy. Kingturtle 21:05, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but why did you not participate on the talk page when we have been discussing this for several days?

What is a conspiracy anyway? If both of us try to find some compromise here and plan on how to move on, without other Wikipedians being aware of it - is it a conspiracy?? Conspiracy is a pretty useless term, because it fits any situation where people plan something without it being universally known.

The point is not wether it's a conspiracy, the point is wether it's a theory, i.e. "an idea formed by speculation". The statement that Nick Berg must have been dead when the decapitation occurred is an inference, based on observation of what happens in the video, plus very elementary data of human anatomy. To say that al-Zarqawi did not decapitate is an inference from our knwoledge that, unlike the person in the video, he has a prosthetic leg. These are not theories. They are incontrovertible conclusions. By "verifiable" I was not referring to experts, but to the observations which these conclusions are based on.

It's completely different from saying "the CIA did it because he had a U.S.-issue prison jumpsuit and the chairs look like those in Abu Ghraib" - which is just complete BS, nothing but speculation, and shouldn't even be in an encyclopedia if it wasn't for the entertainment value of such conspiracy theorists and their trivia. - pir 21:32, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for adding back the two bits of info. pir 21:33, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

John Kerry and learning project

Hi Kingturtle, good work with the Kerry article. I think you deleted a lot of non-encyclopedic stuff, which is good. I would not have dared to do it because some here feel so hot about that article that they even reverted me several times when I tried to bring some reason into the section about the wounds and reduced the mentionings of Brice Lalonde and opium to an acceptable number.

Something else, would you be interested in a project about learning that I describe on my page and that is discussed on my talk page? Get-back-world-respect 13:04, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Mirv on WP:RFA

The page in question is [2]

In the section "Outside Views," User:Danny wrote: "This is ridiculous. Censuring someone who actually knows the material because some ignorant fuck who has never read a book in his life doesnt approve of it and wants to post his own ill-informed opinion will be the death of Wikipedia," and signed. User:Hephaestos signed under the text "Users who endorse this summary", and then User:Mirv signed below Heph, though his sig appears as "No-one Jones."

HTH. It seemed out of character for Mirv, but perhaps he was emboldened by the previous two sigs. Regrettably, I've said similar things, both here and in real life, as have most people, and I don't think it's a serious enough mistake to merit the degree of attention it has already received. After all, no one seems to be taking Danny or Heph to task over it. - UninvitedCompany

Kingturtle Your Constant Abuse of Entries Must Stop

- - Kingturtle, I strongly urge you to stop vandalizing the Nick Berg conspiracy theories page. Over and over again you have done reverts and had reverts done on your behalf, at least a dozen times yesterday, which is a clear violation of wikipedia policy. Why are you so unwilling to compromise? Why do you insist on slandering Arabs by saying they wipe their ass with their hand? Have you no shame, Kingturtle? Why are you making a mockery of wikipedia? How are you in a position to not only get your unsupported claims into that page, but then to get the pages protected after you are humiliated in the talk pages? Kingturtle, you need to grow up and quit playing this childish game. I'm sorry you were fooled by the hoax, and you can not admit you were fooled, but give the rest of the world a chance to make up their own minds, don't try like hell (as you have been doing) to convince other people that this hoax is real. If you can't let the evidence stand on its own, then why the hell are you here? Is this entry just your place to show your ass or to show how gullible you are or what? Energybone 14:42, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Kingturtle, just to let you know that I moved this into Talk from your User page, which is why the edit history will show it as posted by me - I neither endorse nor reject the claims, not having been following the page in question.--ALargeElk 15:48, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to Energybone

Energybone,

I can’t believe I have to take time out of my day to build a case to defend my actions regarding Nick Berg conspiracy theories. You obviously have not looked closely at my edits. If you took the time to exam my edits of this article, you would see that:

I CREATED the Nick Berg conspiracy theories article! I did so because I feel there is validity in the concept of a Nick Berg conspiracy theory; I feel there is a need to have an article in Wikipedia dedicated to the elements of this issue.
Before anyone else added any information to this article, I had already listed twelve inconsistencies in the video, brought up issues of sound-dubs and time lapses in the video, questioned the validity of the company in question, and broached to story that he was employed at the prison.
Later, it was I who added that "lips cannot be seen moving" and that "The website at http://www.al-asnar.biz was shut down after conservative news outlets like CNN and Fox News were notified, but before Arab outlets could retrieve the video."
It was I who added the images for the chair comparison (and here too)
It was I who mentioned that "A person with a (U.S.?) military cap pokes into the video (frames 9306 through 9368). His neck, left ear and part of his cap and visor can be seen."
It was I who supported re-adding the link to Charles Horman.
It was I who added the vow to raze Abu Ghraib prison

In regards to your questions, here are my answers:

Q. Do you believe in Nick Berg conspiracy theories? A. I believe there is more to the story than we are being told by the U.S. government.
Q. Why is this entry now protected? A. It was protected by Cimon because of an edit war. You can ask Cimon to get a more accurate answer.
Q. What other wikipedia or any encyclopedia articles anywhere state, "this page is for blah blah blah"? A. I agree. That phrase is clunky. So lets change the phrase. Lets not remove the entire paragraph.
Q. Why do you repeatedly excise factual information from this entry only to fill it with your nonsense and patently POV mischaracterization? A. Can you please be specific. Where have I removed factual information and replaced it with nonsense or with POV mischaracterization? Get specific. Point to the actual edits.
Q. What's a theory about a conspiracy? A. I am not sure what a theory about a conspiracy is. I am also not sure why it matters. The first sentence of this article points to conspiracy theory. I am not married to the term. In fact, on May 2004 I suggested that the title of this article be changed.
Q. What, exactly, is your motivation for helping to perpetuate this hoax and this idea that Nick Berg is dead? What I wrote says "It is also alleged that he was captured and later beheaded, with the killing recorded and later shown as a video on the Internet. There is controversy over the identity of the alleged killers and the circumstances surrounding the alleged killing." I am not perpetuating the idea that he is dead.

Now I have some questions for you. I want each one answered with statements. Do not answer questions with questions. Do not give one word answers.

You accuse me of making ridiculously POV changes. Can you be more specific and exact in this accusation? Which edits are you referring to?
You accuse me of making unsupported claims. Will you please tell me exactly what my unsupported claims are? Which edits are you referring to?
You claim I was fooled by the hoax. Judging from the long list of my edits that I’ve supplied above, how was I fooled?
In which of my edits have I tried to "convince other people that this hoax is real?"
You accuse me of vandalizing the article. Which edits are you referring to? (Be specific)

Lastly, you say that I reverted the same article "at least a dozen times yesterday" – when in actuality, I reverted three times yesterday, which is within the limits of Wikipedia standards.

Cheers, Kingturtle 22:59, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Please find other ways

Hey Kingturtle, I noticed you put this note on my page but not 172's. Is there a difference you perceive which warrants this? Also, please see my comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/VeryVerily for an explanation of my view on such edit wars. V V 07:56, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I get similar responses from tenth graders that I teach. If I see two kids arguing and I say to one of them "Please stop it," the answers invariably is "I didn't start it." I respond with "I didn't ask who started it. I said please stop it." ...In other words, someone else's bad behavior does not get you off the hook. Be a role model. Kingturtle 08:02, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying there was or was not a difference you perceived which warranted that? That was my question. I didn't say anything about letting anyone off the hook. (And "I didn't start it" is a valid defense in many cases; see self-defense.) V V 08:11, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying, please stop participating in so many edit wars. I don't care what the circumstances are. Kingturtle 08:12, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

VeryVerily reappeared after an absence for a day, reverting work mostly by Eloquence, who made progress toward unprotecting Augusto Pinochet and expanding the intro while VeryVerily was gone, right away upon return. He also provoked an edit war on My Lai Massacre, which I had been trying to prevent by linking both the VC and NLF to the article. He even reverted an entire section I had added to History of Chile, an article he had never even touched before, without comment, thus provoking an edit war. And watch him turn around after I make these comments and play the victim. 172 07:59, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Adminship

Hey Kingturtle, it has been a couple months since the last nomination. I have worked hard and have done good work without having any edit wars. Would you nominate me now? Thanks for you concern!

ChrisDJackson 23:50, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not busy.....

Hi KT, an admin needs to look at the contribs from User:168.103.232.64 made over the past couple of days. They indicate copy vio. I left a query for him about it on User talk:168.103.232.64 but he hasn't responded (but subseqently edited the item I was referring to, Bullet Joe Rogan). Cheers. Moriori 02:08, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I gave that user one final warning. If it happens again, let me or any admin know, and that IP can be banned for 24 hours. Kingturtle 02:47, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

He ignored attempts to communicate with him, and has now changed his user name to User:Felix F. Bruyns. He may well be that person, but the entries he has made here over the last couple of days come from sites which clearly state they are copyright. For instance, the Turkey Stearnes entry is a direct steal from The African American Registry® Copyright 2004/2005. Perhaps if we list all of his entries for deletion he might be encouraged to actually communicate here and advise the status of these articles. Moriori 21:37, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WP:FAC - Zeppelin

Hello Kingturtle, on May 22 you objected against making "Zeppelin" a featured article. I have tried to address the issue you brought forward, but your negative comment has remained unchanged and is still counted as an objection. Would you please consider to review the article and update your judgement, so that the article can either be further enhanced, or become featured? Thanks in advance. --J.Rohrer 22:29, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

About Moriori (Again)

Moriori is lying to you as he has to nearly every other user I've come across, probably because of a political disagreement that we had. Please read the African American Registry's article on Turkey Stearnes and you will see that there is actually very little similarity between their article and mine. Thank you. User: Felix F. Bruyns

Genealogy

Hello. I've replied briefly to your query from last year, but you may have moved on from there (though I don't see it among your interests). Happy hunting! Robin Patterson 20:11, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Smoking out

This is pretty funny. Maybe this is cause for some original research? ;) Mark Richards 01:07, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Did you get a chance to take a look at this? Thanks! Mark Richards 16:03, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Very good ;)!Mark Richards 14:24, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Message for you at Wikipedia talk:Vandalbot log entries -- Tim Starling 01:27, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

Kerry Links

I see you removed the pro/anti/satire Kerry links, and I agree with your reasoning. Shouldn't the same be done with Bush links? -- Cecropia | Talk 00:55, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes. I agree, they should be removed. I did not know they were there. Kingturtle 01:10, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hate to be the bearer of bad news...

The photo you uploaded for Jake Beckley (the baseball card) is for the wrong player; I couldn't help thinking it didn't seem like a really appropriate image anyway, lacking his famous mustache - and the fact it was dated 1911 (after he retired) really got me looking further at it. It seems you accidentally picked a card for Jack Beckley (a minor league player), who's listed adjacent to Jake in the source archive you used; the two cards they display for Jake are really grainy and longer shots, not really useful here. I'll drop the image from his page, though I'll leave it to you to decide how to handle the image page itself. MisfitToys 00:37, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

Good catch! I created Jack Beckley and placed the image there. I searched all over the internet for info on Jack, but found nothing. Mostly what I found was stuff about Jake, but with the wrong name Jack listed. Kingturtle 01:03, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm...

I can't decide if your calling me "competent" is a simple statement of my ability to perform the fairly automated task of promotion to admin, or a more subtle "damning with faint praise". :-) I know we have widely differing opinions concerning who is and isn't qualified for admin (though I certainly respect and understand your position, and I hope I've never bashed you publically for it). I just wanted to make sure there isn't anything you're concerned about. Perhaps my private definition of competent ("C average" ability...simply adequate...not remarkably able in any way) is a little harsher than yours. :-) Thank you for the vote of support, of course -- I just want to be certain that you don't have any reservations you're holding back. Have a good day, Jwrosenzweig 17:04, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It was fully and only a compliment. I've never seen you foul up :) Kingturtle 19:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks. :-) Sorry for my mild paranoia. Jwrosenzweig 19:18, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi. Just wanted to thank you for the major revision on terrorism. That work had been needed for a long time, but I could never get up the energy and enthusiasm to tackle it. The article is much improved now. Isomorphic 01:22, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean. I've been wanting that change to take place for a long time. but it was a daunting task. I suddenly had the right energy and two hours of free time. Glad to read your note. Cheers, Kingturtle 01:40, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Paul is dead, again

I see the Paul Is Dead vandal is back. I already banned his previous address (briefly - it's an AOL proxy) as it also did some obvious vandalism, but there doesn't seem to be much point in blocking him again. As I'm off on holiday for a while, could you keep a weather eye on that page, and make sure Paul doesn't remain too dead for too long. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:38, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why, is there something you wish to discuss? Lirath Q. Pynnor

Thank you for your support

Hi there! Just a short note to let you know that your vote in my favour in last week's sysop election meant a lot to me. Wikipedia is the most exciting internet project that I've ever touched, and I have great dreams for its future. I feel honoured to be able to participate in a small way in building it. Thank you so much for voting for me. David Cannon 10:39, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipolicewatching

It does NOT an anti-Wiki-Thought-Police Thought Police Make!

"I'm having my own network of friends off-wiki who monitor the Wiki thought police quite closely"...in other words, you've created your own thought police. Have you become what you fight against? Kingturtle 23:21, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Negative :O) Watching the police is not policing the police ! Police should only know that every single gesture of brutality they commit is monitored, filmed, documented and deposited in trusted archives for later times and better times of full accountability. Truth is ALWAYS the LAST thing to appear, but it DOES appear EVENTUALLY. If they care to think this monitoring activity is thought poolice, they either can't read or they can't understand the word watch. Anyway, how they choose to solve the quies custodiet ipsos custodes apparent pseudo-fallacy is their own problem now. But Kingturtle, I much appreciate your subtle, ponderate, free attitude. This proves what I see here that institutions that are lousy as a group can have extremely wonderful and valuable individuals working for them. Without you, and a few other true believers, the Wiki ship would sink the very next day. I am banned (perhaps by mercy, as not to see it happen :O). So now, it's up to you now to maintain, issue, reinforce or only contemplate a "Do not ressuscitate" order from the Wiki Hospital's select committee on ethics :O) - irismeister 16:40, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)

How about a rename for ...

I am searching for the correct person to address this issue: The infobox on terrorism lists Islamic .. rather than Islamist .., which I believe is a more precise and respectful label. That way it is possible to distinguish the adjective ( Islamic ) for a religious group from the adjective (Islamist) for a political group with an agenda. That puts the label more in line with the ism article as well. I realize that involves some page moves as well. Ancheta Wis 18:56, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I took the initiative and put your suggestion into action. I changed the name of the article in question, and I posted my reason in that article's talk page. Cheers, Kingturtle 19:58, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you. Regards, Ancheta Wis 04:50, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Request for trouble-shooting

Maybe you can help find a problem here - Mattingly23 has been adding a number of bio articles for baseball players, but for some reason the pages seem to link to themselves (they're always listed under "What links here" for their own pages). Neither of us can figure out what he's doing to cause this, but it's somewhat annoying. Any ideas on what the problem is and how to prevent it? MisfitToys 23:41, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Strange. I deleted it and re-created it, and the same thing happens. I have no idea why. Maybe Tim Starling could take a look. Fortunately, this strange occurance is causing no harm. Kingturtle 23:09, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the look. MisfitToys 23:46, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Note: I got a bug in my head and removed the {{stub}} notice on Jimmy Archer. For some reason it appealed to my antique programmer's brain that that might do the trick and it did! No more self-link. Go figure. -- Cecropia | Talk 08:33, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Deep Throat

I've posted a reply to your question about revealing Deep Throat's identity at Talk:Deep Throat (Watergate). Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 15:58, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Deep Throat

I've posted a reply to your question about revealing Deep Throat's identity at Talk:Deep Throat (Watergate). Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 15:58, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Protected pages

Alright, sorry about that. I thought that only applied to content - I merely moved about the whitespace. Newbie admin mistake. –Andre (talk) 00:51, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No problem :) . be well. Kingturtle 00:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Survey

There is a survey regarding a disputed paragraph in the PNAC article that you might be interested in. Kevin Baas | talk 19:31, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 23:46, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

AINA

Aloha. I am the process of disambiguating AINA, and trying to fix what links here. The link on your User page should be changed to AINA (ngo). Thanks in advance. --Viriditas 05:46, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ack! I knew I forgot something! Ok, instead of having an admin merge the two histories, and since there aren't any updates yet, I have merely moved to a new disambig. You will find your history preserved at AINA (organization). Sorry about that. I will fix all the links. --Viriditas 01:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

September 15

Hey! I'm not sure why you reverted my changes, but I didn't touch anything substantive that you did. I just erased the top of the article, which was nothing more than a repetition of the septembercalendar section and about 15 events that were duplicative. I've re-erased them. Katefan0 22:21, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Presidents of the United States

Why did you revert the recent additions on numbering in this article? After looking at whitehouse.gov and carefully counting the names a few times, it appears that this information is correct. Our article on Grover Cleveland even seems to say the same thing. - RedWordSmith 04:33, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Revert on Ralph Nader

Why did you revert 151.200.182.26 vote tally update on Ralph Nader? I ask because s/he also updated Green Party (United States) and U.S. presidential election, 2004, so if his numbers are wrong, those should be looked into as well. RadicalSubversiv E 07:23, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Linking dates

Sorry about the edit war brewing at Dimebag Darrell but it is correct that all dates should be linked. To quote the page you mentioned in your last edit summary (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)):

Note that linking dates like [[25 March]] [[2004]] permits the date preferences of the reader to operate. Both day-month and year must be linked for the preference to work correctly.

To allow users to choose their date preference all dates should be linked, overriding the standard rule of not linking the same thing repeatedly. violet/riga (t) 22:16, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is a development that I was not aware of. I've made a slight edit to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) to make this newer rule more obvious to readers. Please refer to the change i made, and if it needs to be re-worded, please do. thanks, Kingturtle 22:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Looks good to me - nice work. Cheers. violet/riga (t) 22:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Villain quotes

Have the quotations removed from Villain been incorporated into Wikiquote? I don't know a great deal about editing Wikiquote myself, or how the cross referencing system that perhaps should be there ought to work; but if it is possible to put one of the tags that says that Wikiquote has a set of quotations by or about villains, it might be valuable to put it on the Villain page itself. -- Smerdis of Tlön 02:45, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how Wikiquotes works. Feel free to create an article over there. Kingturtle 03:36, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

References

See Wikipedia:Cite sources. :-) Johnleemk | Talk 09:44, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Partial-Birth Abortion Image

I added the section explaining the procedure, which nobody ever seems to be able to do fairly. I feel an image is important to explaining any complex procedure, and it's so rarely found in any objective literature on the subject. You removed the "POV" image as biased because it shows the baby as normal and healthy. I don't think that's true (the image is pretty simplistic, the most I could tell was that it was a fetus, a catheter, a birth canal and a doctor) but I rooted around trying to find an image. Unfortunately all of the abortion provider sites neglect to provide such images (it would be a bit like a meat pacvking company showing us how sausage is made or how chickens live) and it's difficult to find an unbiased abortion opponent's image. I found a heavily cropped version on somebody's home page, and I'm adding it in.

Please do not remove the image; please simply replace it with one more to your liking if you find this one unacceptable. Hell, draw your own if you want. I feel our inability to deal with the images of abortion maturely and objectively is linked to the controversy itself and I'd like if wikipedia offered a thorough, rigorous view on this and every subject. It's aggravating enough having to deal with pro-choice people who often want to ignore the science and pro-life people who rarely address the science in objective terms.

Please work with me to add an image you find appropriate. I'd like to take away the subject from the screaming fanatics on both sides and explain it in a direct, scientific context. Cwelsch 13:44, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I will gladly track down some images of the procedure that are more realistic. the problem with the image in question is that it portrays a healthy and cute looking looking fetus - which creates a POV that the procedure is used flippantly. Kingturtle 15:42, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pardon me for butting in, but perhaps you can also find an image that doesn't create the opposite POV that something human is not being killed. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps there could be a series in a gradation of gruesomeness? I take Cecropia's point, of course, but there's no way out of the problem. No picture is POV, picture is POV. This picture is POV, that picture is POV. Perhaps there could be two or three photos, illustrating the different sorts of late-term termination?Dr Zen 03:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lincoln

Hi, I was wondering why you removed Abraham Lincoln from the debated section of List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people. Another user has restored him to the list but I was wondering if you actually disputed the fact that his sexuality is debated. There is a section on this in the article about him.

List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people

I'd like to thank you for what you've done with List of famous gay, lesbian or bisexual people. There's a difference between "rumored" and "debated", and that list should reflect that. -℘yrop (talk) 06:05, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject New York City

Hello, I've started WikiProject New York City, and from your edits it seems you might be interested. See its talk page for the beginning of a discussion on the standardization of neighborhood names, and bringing New York City up to featured status.--Pharos 13:44, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Chickenhawk

Thanks for your kind note. If you have time, we need to check all the article links to Chickenhawk to see which should be changed to avoid the dab page. I'm starting at the top, so if you want to start at the bottom and work up, we won't trip over each other. JamesMLane 23:01, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Addendum: Well, I got to the end of the list, changing all the article links except the one in Vietnam War. I'm not familiar with Mason's book, so I think it's safer to let that reference link to the dab page, so the reader can see the possible meanings. In titling his book Chickenhawk, Mason may have intended some ambiguity. JamesMLane 23:40, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

About Rod Kanehl

Thanks for your motivation. I wish you enjoy it. Good luck, and have you a happy new year. MusiCitizen 05:04, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)