User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive Nineteen

Al'Ilah Lol, I totally forgot: users can edit their own talk pages when they're blocked. Ok, sounds good. Khoikhoi 03:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Belated congrats Salaam Tariq and congratulations! Well done -- Samir धर्म 06:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Email FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 07:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Protest Warrior situation Hi. Since you were the admin who has placed it under protection and wisely requested discussions take place on the talk page I feel it appropriate to share my perception of the current situation: User:ShortBus, who ironically was the one who requested the page be frozen, has largely ignored my postings on the talk page as to why his edits violate policy. Rather than respond to me, he has instead posted some kind of "challenge" to protest warriors to write how the organization has influenced debates on the Iraq War or the neoconservative movement. To me he doesn't seem to be interested in discussing wikipedia policy let alone following it in his edits. Coincidentally, it is his edits (which I believe violate policy) which have been "frozen" in the article. Lawyer2b 13:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Legal threat Hi Tariq - I request you to please check out User talk:65.110.153.102 and his edits on Talk:Allama Mashriqi, where he issued a legal warning/threat. I've blocked him for 1 week as of now, but I request your input on the proper course of action in this regard. Cheers, Rama's arrow 16:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC) I'm sorry - on top of a false alarm, I made a mistake in blocking this editor. The threat was a quote from a website being discussed. Rama's arrow 17:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC) And why should I sign up for an account? Isn't wikipedia all about the freedom of editing... The freedom of NOT having an account? I mean, you really are taking the role of the hypocrite here... allowing the conveyance of the wikipedian motto "Inaccuracies over quality and let everyone contribute"? Yeah, thought so. Of course, I could allways switch over to dialup and annoy you on that regard... hmm... he he he. As far as I see it, the only point of having an account is for access to protected articles, and making crappy new ones. :p Warning: Following is a series of rhetorical questions. And even if you claim to disagree with the answer implied, don't respond And actually, what is vandalism? Is it the removal of text that I don't agree with? Or how about the addition of uncited information? Inaccurate information? Reversion of bad articles to their previously bad state? The merging of articles without general consensus? The deletion of articles because they don't suit your taste? (Excluding clear violations of WP:Policy). If I were to remove the innumerable amount of inaccuracies within wikipedia, the unreferenced information, the POV, the horrible mergers, would I not STILL be tagged as a vandal? The information that breaks WP: Policy also creates wikipedia, to remove it would drastically reduce article size, and although this would be done in all earnest, its appearances would be interpreted as hostility and vulgar. And thus, even if one were to attempt to truely help wikipedia, it would be impossible, for you are but 1 person, and there are masses of ignorant beings reverting your efforts in an attempt to preserve their ideals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.241.54 (talk • contribs) T:ITN Hi Tariq. Seeing as you are the man for these current events, could you please check my nom to see if Ian Thorpe deserves a run. He just retired today and won 11 World Championship titles - the most by an swimmer. Also won 5 Olympic gold and 13 individual world records. Of course, I maybe biased, as I wrote the article. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Do you have a link for the World Championships? Also, is there a way to clarify his eleven-time winnings? Is this multiple medals at just a few World Championships? -- tariqabjotu 02:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC) The link is #5 in the article. Also, there is a full WC medal table in his article, in the 2001 section. He won 2 in 1998, 6 in 2001 and 3 in 2003 World Aquatics Championships. His 2001 effort also made him the only one to get 6 in one championships. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC) I meant wiki-link. The best I could find was International Swimming Federation, but that seems to be more about the organization than the World Championship. Also, is this picture as bad as I think it is? It seems like it would be much more helpful if he were in a swimming environment, but ITN is in need of a change of scenery. -- tariqabjotu 02:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC) He did dye his hair black last year and went to TV Week Logies as a presenter and the launch of Sydney FC as a high profile backer of the new football club with a black mullet. The 11 that he won were FINA World Championships - Long Course, which links to the 2001 World Aquatics Championships etc. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Signpost updated for November 20th. The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery Volume 2, Issue 47 20 November 2006 About the Signpost One week later, Wikipedia reblocked in mainland China Military history dominates writing contest News and notes: Wikibooks donation, milestones Wikipedia in the News Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Cleanup I've posted a similar message on Zero's page. I'm not entirely sure what the protocol is for the request for sysop moderation here, but, hopefully, this might be it. There are irreconcilable viewpoints in Talk:Palestine, subsection Cleanup needed for the section "Demographics in the late Ottoman and British Mandate periods". This article needs moderation, and, hopefully, this is the right place to ask. Thank you Wood345 13:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC) I may help out later, but not at the moment. -- tariqabjotu 17:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Congrats I know I'm the late one, but congrats on your adminship! Every admin helps, especially in relatively less watched areas (such as WP:RM, where I've encountered you many times, but it's great because now you can actually move pages over existing ones!). Keep on partying with your new powers! —Mets501 (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Thanks. And on that note, the WP:RM backlog has now been cleared. -- tariqabjotu 01:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Question Hello!!! It is again me, this time with a simple question, but I really need your feedback. I am involved in a dispute in which some editors consider Paul Johnson (journalist), a conservative journalist who has a lower-second class degree in Jesuit method at Stonyhurst College at Oxford, to be more reliable than Bernard Lewis & Encyclopedia of Islam for the following reasons: Johnson's publications are have likely outsold those of Lewis by a wide margin Encyclopedia of Islam, Brill academic publisher, is a POV teritary source. In fact, the quotes from Encyclopedia of Islam are removed and quotes from Johnson is replaced. I would be thankful if you could comment about it. Maybe here on your talk page is good! Thanks very very much. --Aminz 01:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC) J. K. Rowling's books have outsold those of Bernard Lewis, but I wouldn't say she's a better source on Islamic topics. Given Bernard Lewis's credentials, I'd say he is more reliable than Paul Johnson. They do have a point about the Encyclopedia of Islam; it's not terrible, but I'm sure you could find better if you're trying to resolve a dispute. I would prefer to see the context of the debate, however. -- tariqabjotu 02:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Just a question: Each article in Encyclopedia of Islam is written by an scholar. What if it is written by Claude Cahen? --Aminz 02:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Please see [1] and [2] --Aminz 02:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC) And this is one of the edits in dispute [3] where Encyclopedia of Islam was deleted in favor of Johnson because Encyclopedia of Islam is a POV teritary source. --Aminz 02:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Also, BTW, in this dispute, the quotes from Lewis, Mark Cohen, Claude Cahen, Norman Stillman, etc etc are removed and replaced with Bat Ye'or, Johnson, etc etc. --Aminz 02:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Why don't you all just put both quotes in the article? -- tariqabjotu 02:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Could you please comment on the need for usage of Johnson, Bat Ye'or when we have those scholars. --Aminz 02:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Would you please let me know why Johnson is a reliable source. He is a conservative journalist who has a lower-second class degree in a college. Should I put it side by side with Lewis and Claude Cahen??? Just because he is a popular writer? --Aminz 02:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Joturner, as Admin User:Gren pointed out here [4], Dhimmi regulations have nothing to do with antisemtism. I have lots of sources which confirm this. But they are reverted by User:Beit Or; Slimvirgin; Humus spies and Jayjg. --Aminz 02:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC) In fact, I have studied this issue for awhile. I've seen only one notable writer who thinks Dhimmi regulation is related to antisemitism and that is Bat Ye'or. But this is rejected as a myth by Lewis and as a distortive picture by Mark Cohen. --Aminz 02:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC) I'm not the be-all, end-all source on reliability and suitability of sources. Regardless, I don't appreciate what appears to be you badgering me until I wholeheartedly agree with you. Like I said and implied earlier, I don't think being a popular writer is grounds to be sourced in an article if the subject is not his or her expertise. It is reasonable, though, to present different viewpoints. Some of those viewpoints may be more critical of Islam than others – that's just a fact of life. Lastly, why do you say Admin User:Gren? Being an admin is not supposed to give one's opinion more weight in these circumstances. -- tariqabjotu 02:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC) I am not badgering you. Thanks for your comment. --Aminz 02:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Ryūkyū Islands → Ryukyu Islands move Thank you for overseeing the Ryūkyū Islands move poll. As you noted, it ended without consensus. Nevertheless, the page was just moved as if ignoring the poll. That does not seem right. If you could, would you please comment on the appropriateness of that move. I started a new topic on the talk page there. Thank you. Bendono 02:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC) I moved the article back, and posted a message on the user's talk page. -- tariqabjotu 02:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC) The article name was Ryukyu Islands WITHOUT macrons until people started moving it without consensus on October 13 and beyond. The article name ought to be Ryukyu Islands, the name it was originally before all the "moves without consensus" began back in October.--Endroit 02:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC) I stand by my decision, and, like I said to Tokek, if you adamantly disagree, you can take it to the administrators' noticeboard. -- tariqabjotu 03:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC) It says there to take it to WP:DR. I'll follow suit unless somebody else doesn't initiate that move.--Endroit 03:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC) That works too. -- tariqabjotu 03:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC) I guess I'll have to take this up at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Ryukyu vs. Ryūkyū. Do you wish to be part of this WP:DR? Or will you just rest with this decision in Ryūkyū Islands, without being involved in other "Ryukyu" related articles?--Endroit 03:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Hi Tariqabjotu. I was just requesting move protection for this article, it's good that you acted ahead. Could you also protect its talk page? I would but admins are not allowed to protect pages that they were editing. Regards.--Húsönd 04:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Do you mean move protect it? I sure hope we don't need to do that, so I'll hold off unless someone – sigh – ends up moving that repeatedly. -- tariqabjotu 04:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Well, on second thought, it is unlikely that someone will try to move the talk page without the article. Meh. Regards.--Húsönd 04:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Well I moved the article to Ryukyu Islands to respect the no consensus result, pretty much as Endroit explains. I have given a longer explanation at User_talk:Tokek#Ryukyu_Islands_Move. I will be around for further discussions.—Tokek 05:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Please Help Hi jo, This is Mystìc here, I've been blocked as a sockpuppet account of user:Lahiru_k, you've known me and you know for sure that my account is not a sockpuppet account. Please help me please.. 222.165.157.129 08:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Unprotecting PLANS page Please note that the PLANS page is one of several that is currently in arbitration. That's why there has been little talk on the talk page there. If you're going to unprotect it, you may want to also keep an eye on it... just sayin'... Pete K 01:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Okay; I wasn't aware of the arbitration case. I'll keep an eye on it. -- tariqabjotu 01:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Thanks for semi-protection of Aaron Klein Recently User:MikeJason has removed the {sprotected} banner and the {cleanup} tag on this article. (See for instance [5]). It remains semi-protected so far as I know, he just took off the banner, with no comment on the Talk page. Isn't at least one of these against policy? The same user is starting to re-apply some of the same POV edits that occasioned [User:Robocracy]'s original request for semi-protection. EdJohnston 01:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC) I re-added the {{sprotected}} template because it is indeed still semi-protected. He may have thought removing the template would have actually unprotected the article, so I won't hold him for that. However, his insertion of the terrorist sentence is enough to constitute vandalism, especially since it appears likely that he is one or more of the IPs that was taking part in the vandalism prior to semi-protection. -- tariqabjotu 01:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Árpád Élő Hello again Tariqabjotu. You closed the move discussion on Talk:Árpád Élő as no consensus. However, someone had already moved the article to Arpad Elo. Thus, following your established result, should the article be moved back to Árpád Élő? Regards.--Húsönd 19:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Yes, that appears corerct. I moved to back to Árpád Élő. -- tariqabjotu 19:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Per Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Review_of_Arpad_Elo_and_others, I moved the article back to the Arpad Elo. -- tariqabjotu 13:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Bummer, I wasn't aware of that discussion. Well, so be it if inaccuracy is to prevail. Glad that at least it was clear that the other moves could not be tagged along. Thanks for your work. Regards.--Húsönd 16:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Protecting Thanksgiving Hi, I unprotected Thanksgiving earlier today because it's linked from the Main Page. In general, pages linked from the Main Page shouldn't be semiprotected unless the vandalism is getting so bad we can't keep on top of it. I don't think it was really that bad; maybe you'll reconsider protecting it. —Angr 19:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC) I just unprotected it, as you requested. I really only intended it to be for a short period of time due to the Main Page rule (see my comment on Talk:Thanksgiving). -- tariqabjotu 19:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Challenge X copyvio? Did you check to see if Challenge X was really a copyvio before you removed it from T:DYK? I was checking and wasn't convinced. It's good that you took it off just in case but I think maybe it should go back up. What do you think? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Yes, yes, I was in the process of doing that (I had to go get my A/C adapter, and I was distracted momentarily by some Black Friday browsing). I wasn't convinced either. -- tariqabjotu 02:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC) By the way, not to have copyright paranoia, but does having copyrighted logos on the car pictured in Image:IMG 0887.jpg invalidate its public domain designation added by the photo creator? -- tariqabjotu 02:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC) LOL, I hadn't thought of that! I'm definitely no copyvio expert - esp. to that degree - but my wild guess is that it would be fine. But please do consult someone more knowledgeable - and let me know the answer. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC) The original poster is pretty vehement about the copyvio. Xe put the {{copyvio}} tag back after leaving me this message. I rv back but maybe you want to discuss it with xyr. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC) © Q I replied on my talk page. – Quadell (talk) (random) 05:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Arpad Elo I have raised the issue of your closing of this for discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Review of Arpad Elo and others. Gene Nygaard 22:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC) 1996 Summer Olympics medals per capita Hi, I was in the process of editing this article when you deleted it. There are lots of reasons why this is not a valid prod, including the previous AFD for its 2000 counterpart and the stated reason of OR, which is belied by scholarly research on the topic. My edit recreated the article( unfortunately without the history). --JJay 14:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC) Alright; hold on a moment, and I'll restore the history. -- tariqabjotu 14:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC) Hercule debate "I reverted the move back to its original location, and move protected the article. Completely ignoring the outcome of a move request is not the wiki-way. Like Husond said, further move proposals should be taken to WP:RM (although I'm skeptical of any reasonable product coming from that). -- tariqabjotu 01:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)" We tried RM, and it failed due to a lack of consensus :) - Therefore, the article is where it is now. WhisperToMe 01:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC) One of your deletions are beeing reviewed Hi, a deletion review has been requested on an image you deleted (if you already knew, sorry to bother you, I just scanned your talk page quickly and found no mention of it). If you have anything to add to the debate (maybe expand on why you consider it a copyright violation) you can find it here: Wikipedia:Deletion review#Image:Beit HanounBlood.jpg. Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 09:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the block Thanks for blocking User:216.229.196.210. Why 39:49 though? --AW 19:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC) No reason whatsoever; it's just an arbitrary length that appeared appropriate for a school IP block. -- tariqabjotu 19:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC) Haha, fair enough --AW 19:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)