Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:09, 12 June 2015

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Welcome!

Hello, Krakkos, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Misplaced Pages articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Misplaced Pages also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Go Phightins! (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Vangio and Sido, Krakkos!

Misplaced Pages editor Falkirks just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I have reviewed and passed your new article. Great Work!

To reply, leave a comment on Falkirks's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Desperate vandal is still active

This user is new sock of Tirgil34. This time, he represents himself as Kurdish (remember in the past he behave as if he was Hungarian, German, even Ossetian). Just like Mirliebeip and Kleropides, he try to de-lranification Kurds. Of course there are Kurds with the same agenda but these Kurdish nationalists never make such contributions: 1 2 Also he knows Turkish. Same manner, same talking style. See this.

Additionally, he OUTLlNED his Kurdish identity in his user page. (Similar to Radosfrester, Tirgil34,...). Remember Mirliebeip also made the similar thing. Other socks:

• RobertSKP (talk · contribs)
• 67.160.137.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 78.250.21.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 46.16.193.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) -A proxy-not surprisingly. Similar edits...Also denied the Armenian Genocide. The last contributions regarding "Dulo clan" and "Bulgarians" are also interesting-i think you get the message.
• 149.62.243.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)-might be.
• 78.159.147.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)-another proxy again.
• Karak1lc1k (talk · contribs)- Obviously the same edits plus the account edited articles such as Cevat Yerli who is not much known among Turks except Turks of Germany. Further, the account tries to cooperate users who have similar ideology with him such as banned user Madyas. Remember, Tirgil34 did the same thing before. (Check the Hirabutor's contributions). Also he said that, they want to create a "Turkish" group in order to edit en.wikipedia and asked the Madyas if he want to join them (Translated from Turkish)
• Ak Kanatty (talk · contribs)-active in Turkish wikipedia. See his edits there.
• Bılgamış (talk · contribs)- active in Turkish wikipedia
• Okurogluselo (talk · contribs)- active in en.wikipedia. this account's edits, even edit summaries are extremely similar to Bılgamış's.

Also see the history of Turan to see other socks.

Note: User Barefact(Tirgil?) is not a Bashkir as you thought. He represented himself as an Azeri, see his contributions. But it is also may not be accurate. According to me, he is neither Bashkir, nor Azeri or Turk from Checenya(as Kipcak Hakan represent himself). He is just a Turkish whose grandfathers immigrated Germany from Turkey as work forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.219.161.43 (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion

Hi. I saw your SPI was closed without result. My suggestion: Your spi cases are too long and have many related and unrelated reported users. It's better to write short, direct and clean evidences. Also only report active and most suspected ones. I've reviewed Tirgil34 case archive, then I've found this report as a good example. Regards. --Zyma (talk) 05:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Zyma: Yes, Zyma. You are right. The previous investigation got completely out of hand. I have conferred with admins, and will refile the Tirgil34 SPI in a more effective way when i have time. Krakkos (talk) 00:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The earlier report you're linking to was indeed successful. It was initially endorsed by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, who checked one of them and then endorsed all the others. Which users who conduct the reviews and checks seems to be critical for the outcome of sockpuppetry investigations. Krakkos (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Look at this editor. Similar case. --Zyma (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Zyma: I'm not sure. PavelStaykov edits the Bulgarian Misplaced Pages, where he is blocked. Tirgil34 speaks German and Turkish, i doubt he knowns Bulgarian. Krakkos (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe he's not related but did you see what he spams on articles and talk pages? That "s155239215.onlinehome.us" (home of Tirgil and his friends). --Zyma (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Zyma: Interesting, this is Barefact's personal website for fringe theory promotion. Barefact is a Bashkir from Russia so i'm not sure if PavelStyakov is related to him either. It could be a coincidence that PavelStyakov is citing him, but i'm not sure. PavelStyakov is still a disruptive editor who treats the talk pages as a personal forum, edit wars and cites unreliable sources. Perhaps admins should be notified about his behaviour. On a side note i would like to ask you a question. Last year Tirgil34 sock Greentent and IP's starting with 149.140... and 176.219... were targeting Karasuk culture and talking with Greentent. The IP's belong to Vodafone Turkey and locate to Maslak, Istanbul. Do you think these IP's belong to Tirgil34, or is someone else behind them? Are the IP's the same person or two. Who could they be? The same 176.219... and 149.140... IP's are also accusing others of being Tirgil34 socks. Also, Madyas is definately a sock of another turanist sockmaster EMr KnG. Krakkos (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kushan Empire may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Britannica Online]] |publisher=] |access-date=29 May 2015 |quote=)}}</ref><ref name="EPAO">{{harvnb|West|2009|pp=713–717}}</ref><ref>"They are, by almost unanimous

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Avars and Iranian people

Hi, I saw your recent positive edits on Pannonian Avars (and Avar Khaganate), and Iranian peoples. However, as am working on the Pannonian Avars article the inclusion of Altaic-Turkic or Indo-European tribes among Iranian peoples according linguistic influence (not ethnogenetic and cultural), which are also really minor scholar considerations, insufficient for such claims and inclusion (per WP:NPOV). Of all sources about Turkic peoples which found until now, personally consider the best (also as a criterion), with quite neutral and serious POV and research, the book by Peter Benjamin Golden An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples: Ethnogenesis and State-formation in Medieval and Early Modern Eurasia and the Middle East (1992). In the section "European Avars" is clearly stated, besides their possible heterogeneity which was common in steppe nomadic confederation, the unambiguous anthropological and linguistic (personal names, military titles) evidence they were of Mongoloid or Altaic-Turkic origin, at least the ruling elite caste. In conclusion, there is some scholars debate about the Pannonian Avars heterogeneity, but generally is considered that at least the ruling elite, which we consider as Avars, was of Altaic-Turkic origin. Think that the previous revision of the Avar Khaganate introduction "It was a confederacy ruled by a group of medieval equestrian warrior nomads of Altaic-Turkic extraction known as Avars or Pseudo-Avars, and which included Slavs and other Pontic–Caspian steppe tribes." somewhat most accurate and neutral. --Crovata (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Crovata: Thank you, i've seen your positive edits at various Misplaced Pages articles too. The edit about Altaic origins was probably added by an IP sock of Tirgil34, see WP:Tirgil34 and Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34 BöriShad section. Sock's edits should be removed as per WP:EVASION and WP:G5. The Altaic languages is also according to Misplaced Pages "widely discredited". It does not belong to the lead at Avars as Tirgil34 inserted it. As explained in the sources, the origins of the Avars is uncertain, some view them as descended from the Rouran (probably Monglic) or the Hephthalites (probably Iranian), and there are many theories on their linguistic affiliation. There is an whole army of turanist sockmasters adding "Turkic" to the first sentence of every article about Central Asia. This is a major problem. Since there are various theories and there is no consensus, each of them should be given due weight. Krakkos (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, after being for some time an editor of Misplaced Pages was quite surprised of the amount of suspicious activity. Those two or three sources (4, 5, 6) weren't quite the most notable and reliable. The Altaic-Turkic is often used as a broader term in ethnogenetic sense, not just linguistic, meaning Mongol-Turkic. The Rouran or Hephthalites, and other geographic and time ancestry is indeed scholars speculation, very uncertain and hardly more than that. However, as already said, at least there is some consensus, ie. the most prevailing consideration is the Altaic-Turkic extraction (not exclusive and only ethnogenetic, but at least the most prominent cultural origin) of the European Avars elite caste in Pannonia. Think that the turanist activity shouldn't be taken as reason for not using that term in the introduction. Whether could be somehow mentioned in the intro both the uncertainity and the specific extraction?

For example, the article on Bulgars, the same period nomadic tribes of similar culture, points out the Turkic exctraction of the tribes (due to linguistic, cultural and politic-structural traits), but in the "Ethnicity" section is explained the complexitiy of ethnogenesis of those tribal confederations due to the often public misunderstanding (that it means Mongoloids) of the ethnogenesis meaning of the term "Turks". While among the Bulgars and their graves is low percent of Mongoloid anthropological types, it seems that among Pannonian Avars was in much higher percent and that explains the Altaic-Turkic cultural traits (for example the different titles from the Bulgars, except khan or qhagan). Similarly would do with the article on Pannonian Avars as already has that emphasize. Sorry for a long reply, but it's nice to see from time to time polite and constructive discussion, both for Misplaced Pages and personal knowledge.--Crovata (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Crovata: I agree, finally a constructive discussion. Seems to be rare these days... I added a citation from Christopher I. Beckwith's Empires of the Silk Road to the Pannonian Avars article. I you're interested in Central Eurasian history this is a very useful book, which can be accessed by free license here. I wish you good luck with your work on Pannonian Avars and other articles. Krakkos (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, will take it into consideration, and good luck as well. When will finish it gladly review it (ps. and its grammar as am not native English speaker and sometime make few mistakes).--Crovata (talk) 09:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Overcitation

Regarding your recent edits in Wusun, please note the Misplaced Pages guidelines on citation per WP:OVERCITE. Too many cites in a single sentence makes an article hard to read, and the lede of the Wusun article falls into the extreme end of overcitation. There is really no need to give excessive number of cites when a few well-chosen ones would do, for example, by particularly noted scholars in the field, or from a noted publication. I understand that sometimes people demand sources for a particularly contentious viewpoint, in which case the cites can be bundled into a single one. Also, the lede is just a summary of the main text, and as such most the citations can go into the body of the main text rather than in the lede. Hzh (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Hzh: Yes, i became aware of this after your recent improvement at Wusun. Nice work. As you're probably aware of i expanded the article quite significantly yesterday. There is indeed a large number of citations on ethnolinguistic affiliation. WP:OVERCITE however instructs us to leave out medium-quality sources in favor of high-quality sources. The sources used are all of high quality, and deciding which to leave out was difficult. The David Durand-Guédy, Joseph Kitagawa (religious scholar), and Encyclopedia Britannica sources are perhaps of lower quality than the rest. Regarding the insertion of sources in the lead i agree with you, but there has been persistent sockpuppetry by Tirgil34 on Wusun for many years, who fraudulently removes facts from the intro as "unsourced". I felt compelled to add the sources to the intro to make things clear. The sources are however all in the "ref name=..." format, so that removing them won't be of impact the sourcing in the body. Krakkos (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think adding lots of sources would help, it in fact made it look like a contested fact (we often see huge number of cites after edit warring, people trying to shore up their argument with large number of cites). As far as Wusun is concerned, I don't think there are many people who would claim that the Wusun did not have a significant Indo-European component, even if their actual ethnic origin is still something debatable (this is noted in the UNESCO book, among others). When there are multiple sources, you would really only need to use acknowledged leaders in the field such as Pulleyblank, Golden, Sinor, Mallory, Mair, etc. For example, you added a source citing Sino-Platonic Papers in the lead, while that isn't a bad journal, it is not among the best (because the policy of the journal is to encourage people who are not well-established in field to contribute). It can certainly be used as a source, but when there are better sources, it is also an unnecessary one. The edit you cited was trying to push a point of view (admittedly a view held by some scholars), but what we try to do is to give a balanced view, and that edit can be reverted for simply doing that. I would also not use the online Encyclopedia Britannica because it seems to be adopting the Misplaced Pages practice of using contribution from the public, I have seen articles where the content changes every time I checked. The information that you think is there might not be there next time someone else looks at it, which makes citing it problematic. In any case, thanks for the good work. Hzh (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Hzh: I've removed all citations from the lead of Wusun. If you deem it necessary to remove additional redundant citations from the body of the article then feel free to do it. I won't object. I'm inclined to propose Wusun for good article nomination. Do you have any other recommendations on how to improve the article? Also, your opinion on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Uysyn could be useful. Krakkos (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the article is quite ready for nomination for good article yet, but the best way to gauge is to start a peer review process first here at Misplaced Pages:Peer review and invite people from WikiProject Central Asia and WikiProject China to comment. Personally I feel the article still looks messy, and may need better organisation (for example I think the History section would be easier to read if separated into a few sub-sections, but I'm not really quite sure how to do it). Someone is going to complain that the lead is now too small and does not summarize the article. As for the Uysyn article, I think it needs to be completely rewritten rather than deleted. Hzh (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Hzh: Alright, i've done as you recommended point for point by splitting the history section, expanding the lead, creating a peer review and notifying WikiProject Central Asia and WikiProject China. If you have any further recommendations please share them! Krakkos (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Suspicious edits

This user seems suspicious/her various edits on Bulgars and other various articles. He/she embodied Turkicness of various people and deleted lranian theories by labelling them as "politically motivated". But interestingligy, he/she added informations from well-known Turkish nationalists (e.g. Osman Karatay) that are " politically motivated". There is an inconsistency here. Also his targeted articles shows almost a perfect paralellity with Tirgil34's. Karatay was Tirgil34's favourite scholar(!) and plus, the user is also actively using Russian sources for his pro-Turkic edits-just like Tirgil34. And finally, a Crovatian who bothered the word "lranic" and favours instead "Turkic". Another Bjorn Lenes? OssetianRealm? or Pan-Turkist " German"? l am not sure but there is something "weird" here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.216.34.145 (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Krakkos, I removed "<" from the second reply in "Overcitation" discussion and edited statement as "ref name=..." as this discussion, and previous as well, didn't show normally. This IP user false accusations, and tracking of my contributions, are seemingly related to the User PavelStaykov who previously vandalized Bulgars article, and most recently of the Dulo clan, where showed clear disregard of Turkic origin of the Bulgars (considering it a part of some Soviets propaganda, it's a long story...), and the imposing of his own personal POV and OR. You can freely consider his comment as vandalism of your personal talk page and remove it.--Crovata (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

lf accusing someone for socking is "vandalism", then you did it too-but yours funny. The point has nothing to do with " disregarding", the point is a Croatian user who interested in specific Turkic related articles with the ips from Germany after the most socks of Tirgil34 were blocked. And than, deleting sources that mentioned iranian theories by labelling them nationalists-as Tirgil did many times before and adding pro-Turkic ones that are written by dubious authors such as Osman Karatay-neither famous nor reliable Turkish nationalist whose sources were used by Tirgil34 socks (see the history of Bulgars and similar articles). According to me, the notorious sock master tries to play good police-bad police. User Krakkos will decide about you, do not panic.

Just...? You failed on so many levels is indeed funny, or not, as am accused for pure vague lies. A simple search of my contributions, specific interest, language and date, disapprove your accusations. Yes, Krakkos will decide how to deal with you, and it's just incredible how the more we work, and do good work, do more stumble upon editors with symptomatic behaviour. Note that the typical trait of User PavelStaykov was his lack of signature use at the end of replies since his account creation. Maybe I am wrong to relate it with the specific user, is this IP user language resembling someone?--Crovata (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hahah..."Lack of signature"...Excellent finding Holmes! Plus your last contributions and efforts after accusation have made you more suspicious-e.g.discrediting Karatay after accusatinos. l don't expect you to admit of being sockpuppet and your conterattack clearly shows your iq level. Thus i dont wanna keep replying to you. l have informent Krakkos and he is free to take into my arguments consideration or not. End of the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.219.164.84 (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Well....

I will probably get blocked for it! --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice one Kansas Bear. As a bulwark against turanist fringe theories you're one of the unsung heroes of Misplaced Pages. Juding by the moronic behaviour of Qara xan, i'm quite certain he will return as a sock. The number of turanist sockmasters is growing by the day, so identifying which sock belongs to which master is getting difficult. Be sure to notify me if you notice anything suspicious. Krakkos (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

possible socks

protect Talk:Bulgars Talk:Huns Talk:Dulo_clan Talk:First_Bulgarian_Empire