User talk:Kingturtle/Archive6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Mero

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

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


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 !


[edit] 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)

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


[edit] 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)

[edit] Mirv on WP:RFA

The page in question is [1]

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

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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."
  4. It was I who added the images for the chair comparison (and here too)
  5. 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."
  6. It was I who supported re-adding the link to Charles Horman.
  7. 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.

  1. You accuse me of making ridiculously POV changes. Can you be more specific and exact in this accusation? Which edits are you referring to?
  2. You accuse me of making unsupported claims. Will you please tell me exactly what my unsupported claims are? Which edits are you referring to?
  3. 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?
  4. In which of my edits have I tried to "convince other people that this hoax is real?"
  5. 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)

[edit] 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. VV 07:56, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

  • 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)
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.) VV 08:11, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/i/n/User_talk%7EKingturtle_Archive6_aff2.html"