User talk:A baby turkey (citation needed)

User talk:67.194.202.113

Don't do things like this. It's immature and petty. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Now given, I may have done immature things, maybe you don't appreciate the allusion to Porky Pig, but petty? What is petty? I'm just letting them know that I am now using an account, so there is no need to continue that (weird) brawl at my talk page. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"some users don't like friendly language like "fella"" - When you are not being friendly, it isn't friendly language. It is an insult. All the best.sinneed (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I could say the same thing about "all the best" coming from you. Is it enough for you that I have stopped? I don't plan on being light-hearted in any of these disputes anymore, and I will avoid colloquialisms that may be seen as "too friendly." A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Avoid the colloquialisms and avoid the snide comments about what others are doing, ok? That's all I'm asking. I don't think it's too much to stop with that stuff and actually pretend like the other side actually has a point. If you want to continue to ignore them, fine, I really don't care. Stop warring on the talk page and use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution then. Getting a third-opinion can be really helpful. Also, please don't complain to me that someone is using "fella" when you are using words like "honey-chile". It's insulting and frankly it's uncivil enough to drive others to blocks. I've offered a compromise at Talk:Indira Gandhi assassination if you are interested. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I can avoid the colloquialisms, no problem. You said: "Also, please don't complain to me that someone is using "fella" when you are using words like "honey-chile"" - where did I complain that someone used "fella?" I mentioned that people did not like that I used "fella" and "honey-chile," I didn't complain about anybody else using it. Honestly, I wouldn't care if someone called me fella, buddy, or honey-chile.

"It's insulting and frankly it's uncivil enough to drive others to blocks" - I did that?

Anyway, getting a third opinion (or opinions beyond that) may prove helpful. I'll look around for editors who seem knowledgeable about India. Thank you very much for the advice. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I love your user name, and the lesson in the picture and name.

I hope you will apply that lesson to your edits. sinneed (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It is from a big discussion I was in at Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini. I was accused of legalism for asking that we not set items next to each other as examples of a "controversy" unless reliable sources do so first. Not only did it violate original research, but even using my own judgment there was no clear "controversy" between the two items. Fortunately the user dropped his desire to include that particular item original research in the article, the tense moment passed, and we eventually agreed on a revised lead which is really quite good. Isn't it refreshing when opposing sides that work to a good conclusion? If only that could happen with all this Sikh stuff... A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sikh terrorism

I noticed you're going through on this article what I went through a while ago. When I was working on the article, I spent over a week trying to promote WP:Good faith. I went as far as to create a sandbox. I only used two sources, that's all, two sources, two sentences. I agreed with them prior to this that if they had a problem with some sources, I would have no issue finding other sources, because if we couldn't, we'd be breaking WP:UNDUE by depending on a single source. I spent an hour looking for just these two sources. But then my work was attacked on the talk page and I just simply gave up. I hope you can stick in here and give it a good fight.

By the time I finished writing this, I noted your name, I remember someone saying that on Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini partially since I posted it on my friend's talk page, and then I realized it's my anonymous IP friend. Sorry, you've probably heard my complaints before! --Enzuru 04:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is proving a tough nut to crack, and the one administrator who has become involved seems to have sided with the whitewashing crew because of Satanoid's antics. If Satanoid hadn't acted so poorly, the administrator might have taken a more careful look at the dispute, and realized what Sikh-history and Roadahead have been doing. He has recently claimed that I am "starting down the same path" as Satanoid, but hopefully he will reconsider his approach, reevaluate the situation, and take action against the users who are grasping at anything they can to avoid what most reliable sources say.

You know, I actually joined the dispute because I had seen that you were driven away, and noting that you are a constructive, well-meaning editor, I figured that there was something bad going on at the Sikh articles. I introduced basic items taken explicitly from reliable sources, but soon found opposition, usually upon rather flimsy grounds, or even without clear reasoning at all. I've seen downright dishonesty, original research, unreliable sources, undue weight, refusal to recognize reliable sources, and of course much dragging of the feet and moving of goalposts.

In sum, I can see why you gave up, it is crazy frustrating, but I'll try to keep going. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

and what exactly have I and Roadahead been doing? Challenging the validity of the articles you present? The undue weight you placed on 1 article on the Indira Gandhi article? Put your ego to one side and concentrate on the facts. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 09:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You have been recently been challenging the validity of articles based upon their content rather than their origin and author. Hence, Roadahead asks for a "neutral" source that lists what it thinks is Sikh about the terrorism, why it thinks Sikh terrorism is religious, and so on. These are not real requirements on my part. These are not valid ways to challenge articles. It is also invalid to attempt to push aside tons of reliable reports because you believe that their headlines are "sensationalist."

It is curious that you suddenly start to care openly about undue weight. However, there aren't many sources contrary to Hardgrave's assertion (and I could find more explicitly supporting it, too), unlike the Khalistan dispute, where many more sources say "theocratic" instead of "democratic." A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Not supporting it at all. Just exposing your double standards and lack of understanding of Sikh History. Fact of the matter is Khalistan does not exist and never will. All the proponents of Khalistan say it will be democratic, yet all your sources say "no it will be Theocratic". Records from 1947 (Dr Gopal Singh) show that a "Constituent Assembly" was proposed for a Sikh Homeland. Even the "kranks" at the Khalistan.net say "theocratic-democratic" or whatever that will be. Even Dr Chauhan, the self styled President, recorded in Congressional records says it will be democratic, but no Turkey man knows best. Lets take Indira Gandhi's Assasination. When she was shot BBC reported she was shot be extremists (which was wrong), and this was retracted by the BBC, as it emerged she was shot by her own bodyguards for revenge (not extremists beliefs). The court trial found and records (which I will try a get), showed no extremist beliefs. Infact one of the co-defendants an Uncle is the subject of many dissertations on mis-trials (simply because one idiot described him as being extremist - which he was not, as it was proved later). It is becausse of people like you who use the term "Extremist" in a broad brush manner innocents get hanged. Saying all this I have complete faith in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has seen of extremist Sikh elements in the form of HariSingh, and they will do the same for people on the other side of the spectrum. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you previously said that the court found no connection to extremist organizations... now you are saying it found no extremist beliefs. Did the court records change since our last discussion? I have rallied many articles describing Khalistan as a planned theocratic Sikh state; I need nothing more. Your claim that I lack understanding of Sikh history is irrelevant. Chauhan was one of the Khalistan proponents who was considered a moderate and urged a democratic, European Union-like setup, but he was not the sole voice of the planned Khalistan; people termed extremists wanted a theocratic state, according to the sources. "All the proponents of Khalistan say it will be democratic" - this is not true, hence the reports to the contrary, though a good number of the extremist leaders were killed.

Also, it is very inappropriate to compare me to people who get "innocents hanged." It is a hurtful attack, and you know better at this point. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I said in my other post, I really cannot be bothered with this as I am better than this, and what you have said about Khalistan just sums up how much you are out of your depth. REgards--Sikh-history (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

In case you're getting bored

In case you wanted a fancier signature... (where "a baby turkey" takes you to your user page, and takes you to your talk page) like this:

A baby turkey^{[ citation needed ]}

Just put this code:

[[User:A baby turkey (citation needed)|A baby turkey]]^{[ [[User talk:A baby turkey (citation needed)|''citation needed'']] ]}

...in the signature box under "my preferences." Check "Raw signature" underneath it. --Enzuru 23:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice, it works, thanks a lot! A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 01:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Help needed on this page

On Discrimination against atheists an editor refuses to believe that using verses alone to prove discrimination against atheists is WP:original research, and he says it is trivial to cite that is what the verses means since it is obvious to any reader of the English language. He's also made several insulting comments towards me. Mind helping? --Enzuru 03:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Right now it looks like a blatant attempt to misuse primary sources to push a view; this original research is best left to experts, not Wikipedians. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 05:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll help you when I see openings to jump in. I've alerted two administrators but they haven't come yet! --Enzuru 08:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Coat of Arms

You are absolutely correct about thye ciat of arms. Its the same symbols but done in a modern way. There maybe be a contemporary picture in "Warrior Saints". I know there is a picture of a Sikh Battle standard at Lichfield Cathedral (UK). I will have a search. Thanks for that. Also thanks for the grammar checks on my page. I have been busy of late with some Sikh extremists trying to push a POV lately so it may take some time. --Sikh-history (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

User:74.12.251.168

This user is very clearly not vandalising, so please don't issue vandalism warnings on his talk page or report him on AIV. I understand that it's frustrating to edit against someone who won't come to the article talk page, but you must try engaging him in dialog rather than template him with warnings (which pretty much guarantees that he will not want to speak with you). Theresa Knott | token threats 02:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. Feel free to modify as necessary if you'd prefer the conversation be kept over here. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 02:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Laughs I responded on my talk page but do think it's good for my stalkers to read my conversations in one place with minimal effort so I'll copy my answer here.

Maybe he thinks its irrelevant. Everyone studies maths geography etc in childhood so why state it in the article? The point is he is disputing the content not vandalising the article. I have seen plenty of vandalism in my time and this isn't it! Theresa Knott | token threats 02:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if blanking vandals have ever been defended similarly. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 02:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying but I do not see him as a "blanking vandal" at all.Theresa Knott | token threats 02:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, a blanking vandal could simply be taking the same approach, except applying it to entire sections of articles. Though the vandal was never courteous enough to, oh, explain anything, maybe we should assume that he considered the section irrelevant or something. The situation seems little different here, except the scale is smaller (material over a few sentences instead of an entire section) and the semi-legitimate lead dispute is attached to the entirely inexplicable edits to the education. I wonder, if I reverted just the unexplained education changes, would IP still revert me? A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 02:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know but strongly advise against edit warring with him. I note that you haven't gone to the article talk page, not have you taken my advice to engage him nicely on his talk page yet. Both would be better than getting into an edit war. Theresa Knott | token threats 02:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

My approach is largely about saving time. Every once in awhile an IP will come along with an objection along the lines of "this not factual and against NPOV," and to make the article "NPOV" will remove whatever POV he doesn't agree with. With regard to "beloved," objections are common because people who do not like Khomeini would like to deny that many did/do like him. Again, MPOV. This helps explain why the IP removed the material even after I bolstered it with two references - he simply does not consider it "factual" that tons of people like(d) Khomeini regardless of what RS say, and is only willing to consider the article "NPOV" when it is reduced to representing his POV alone. Hence the user did not object to other material in the lead describing Khomeini negatively, such as "fanatic whose judgments are harsh, reasoning bizarre and conclusions surreal" from TIME, even though this is, technically, a POV.

We crafted the lead after long discussion in hopes that it would provide a balanced perspective by including both positive and negative opinions as carried by RS. I try not to waste time on each IP that drives by with the belief that his POV is the NPOV. Hence, you don't regular editors create a new talk page section for each complaint, particularly when the merit of the objection is not obvious. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 03:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Simply put, at most if we assume WP:good faith, he is deleting cited material, and that is something to be dealt it. We have satisfied WP:reliable sources, so WP:burden is off of us. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 04:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Beloved is certainly a strange word to put in an encylopedia article! I don't think it is at all common for us to describe political leaders in that way and certainly see the IP's point about it sounding like propaganda. Having said that I don't particularity want to debate the merits of including or not including it in the article, that is for the article talk page. All I was saying (and am still saying) is that the IP was editing in good faith, and not "vandalising" the article and that this is a matter for discussion not vandal warnings. Stating "he refuses to go to the talk page" when no one else has done so either isn't assuming good faith in the least bit. But I have said my piece. I'm not willing to block him for vandalism and I would be surprised if any other admin would too. What I will do though, is go to the talk page myself and set a discussion in motion. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

done Theresa Knott | token threats 08:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll provide my response within the next few hours. Thank you, A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 20:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for improving my userpage. It's always nice when people copyedit it, BTW I forgot to say in the discussion above that I simply love your username/page/sig combination. How did you think of it? Theresa Knott | token threats 18:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Back when I was an arguing IP myself, it came up in absurd attempt to defend myself from charges of legalism, see Talk:Ruhollah Khomeini#Adjustment of the introduction. That argument became quite tense, but happily both sides eventually agreed upon a new lead. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 20:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)