Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Hi! Take a look at my updates on ], and let me know if you support my new, concise version of the infobox. Peace. --] (]) 00:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Take a look at my updates on ], and let me know if you support my new, concise version of the infobox. Peace. --] (]) 00:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
== Jiujitsuguy ==
It looks shocking that you indefinitely blocked the above user without any discussion and without referring to any Misplaced Pages policies. There was a discussion going on where you youself expressed scepticism that Jiujitsuguy's action warranted any sanction, but after receiving some info from an equally activist editor, you went as far as blocking indefinitely. If this was discussed anywhere please point me to that discussion. Jiujitsuguy made a lot of useful contribution here. Sincerely. - ] (]) 17:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Somebody was talking about the Jewish/Muslim day being spread over 2 different days. I was pointing out that any day is spread over 2 different days in any other calendar or time zone. Peter jackson (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, now I've thought about it a bit more & looked up some data, I can go further. To simplify things, ignore summer time & take the Jewish/Muslim day as beginning at 6pm & the Hindu at 6am. Then
When the 20th starts for Jews & Muslims in Kiritimati it is 11pm on the 18th in New York
When the 20th ends for Hindus in Hawaii it is 1am on the 22nd in Japan.
I am extremely confused as to what you're saying. There is nothing wrong with saying that a Jewish holiday begins at sunset on May 18, because no matter where in the world you are, when the sun sets there for May 18, the Jewish day will begin and, thus, the holiday will begin. The question was whether to mention these holidays on both the (Gregorian) day of the sunset marking the start of the holiday or the following (Gregorian) day, which is usually more associated with the holiday. Right now, the standard way is to mention the holiday on both days, and that's fine. From one location, a Jewish or Muslim day transcends two Gregorian days, from the sunset of the first Gregorian day to the sunset of the second Gregorian day.
Also I think you are confusing matters further by suggesting that the Jewish and Muslim calendars have similar numbering to the Gregorian calendar; it's the 20th day of the month now in the Gregorian calendar, but it's only the seventh day of the month in the Jewish and Muslim calendars. I'm not sure about the Hindu calendar, but I'm skeptical it's the 20th day of month in their system. -- tariqabjotu10:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I was just throwing out some interesting things to ponder.
Hindus, like Jews & Muslims, use a calendar where the "months" really are months, that is they're based on the phases of the moon. On the other hand, their version is more astronomical, starting from the moment of conjunction rather than the first visibility of the crescent, so I'm not sure whether they could correspond. Peter jackson (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Didn't this originally arise out of On this day? Does Misplaced Pages have some mechanism for changing that to fit the reader's time zone? Or is it only "on this day" always for people living in one zone? Peter jackson (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
2010 Fuzhou train derailment
I was in the process of making a couple edits to the layout when you posted on my talk page. Should have done those things in reverse order, though, consolidated and then posted, sorry. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
You responded to an AN3 alert concerning Richard Goldstone a week ago; the article's protection is due to expire shortly. I've been working on revising and greatly expanding the article in my userspace (see User:ChrisO/Goldstone) and will copy the new text over when protection is lifted. Hopefully it will move things forward a bit. However, I expect that a handful of editors will continue to push for the inclusion of problematic material, and this may cause further problems. I'd be grateful if you could continue to monitor the article and, where necessary, take action to resolve any problematic editing. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Just to point out that I had already annotated 2 of the 5 reports that you marked in this edit; you overwrote one of my edits (One Time) and unnecessarily duplicated a second (Louis Mountbatten), so I assume that you didn't get an edit conflict for some strange reason. (As it happens, I got an edit conflict with you when about to annotate a third report). So the situation wasn't quite as bad as you thought! Regards, Bencherlite23:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I did get an edit conflict, but I intentionally copied my version of the text over the present text at the time because it would have taken awhile to copy the notice one by one into each section again (and because the result would have effectively been the same). The duplication for the Louis Mountbatten occurred, I'm certain, because I just put the {{RFPP}} in on the last line without realizing you had placed one there just seconds before me. The situation is still as bad as I thought, though. You didn't protect any of those pages; the admins who respond to the requests should note that they have been handled so others don't waste their time. -- tariqabjotu23:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Well I agree with you there - I saw the call at AN or ANI (I forget which) for more hands to the pump at RFPP, turn up and spend my first few minutes trying to find an article that hasn't been protected! So you and I both spend time unnecessarily marking protected pages; although (of course) there is always the possibility that the admins in question saw the edit history through other methods e.g. through their watchlists or by direct request, and didn't realise that there was an unmarked RFPP entry. Bencherlite23:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Selected Anniversaries May 25
I don't understand why you changed the May Revolution entry. It is far more informative and precise in the previous version. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 00:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for protecting User:AshtonBenson as I requested! The content of the page which I asked you to protect contained criticism of an admin. That very same admin has deleted the content from the page you protected. Would you mind restoring the content of the page to its original state? I think it is blatantly and egregiously inappropriate for an admin to delete content which is critical of himself/herself (obvious conflict of interest there!). You may leave the block in place -- I am not requesting that you remove the block -- only that you restore the deleted text. Thank you very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.173.208.77 (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
You might also want to suggest to him what he needs to do, to be unblocked - for example "I would be prepared to consider unblocking you if...." FT209:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
London block
Hello, Tariqabjotu-
Regarding the "London" article, are you an/the administrator who has blocked all editing on the article? TWO editors have reverted Space25689's edit, which has taken a non-neutral stance and should really be discussed on the "Talk:London"page first. If the article is to be locked, it should be locked in the version prior to his original edit.
Thanks. The problem as I see it is that the other editor is in Russia, based on the location of the IP that first started the whole issue. I think he has adequate English skills, but I'm not convinced he understands the subtleties of the whole thing. I posted a long explanation of why his edits were wrong and the problems with them and he stopped responding and didn't edit. Then the next day, he forges on with his edits and when I posted again on Talk:Cher, he posted the same arguments he had the night before and all I could do was repeat what I'd said the night before. He didn't apparently get the basic idea that Warner Bros. UK is not the same as Warner Bros. US, for example. I don't think he really does understand the concept of consensus, that 3RR is a bright line rule and I have a bit of a doubt that he really "gets" it. When someone else reverted him too, he just kept right on. That's why I posted the "you DO understand" 3 reverts and you've done 6 sort of post to him, hoping it would gel. Since he reverted others too, I am sure he doesn't get it. I predict he'll be back and he'll do the same things again. In any case, thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Better Luck Tomorrow
Hi Tariqabjotu, could you revisit the Better Luck Tomorrow section at WP:RFPP. Talkbacking you since replies there tend to get missed. :) Cheers, Amalthea11:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I saw what you did there when I attempted to address the RPP request regarding the template, and I have to say it's a really tough call. Based on what I saw at the Better Luck Tomorrow article, there was no basis at all for the addition of the template, and the IP gave no reason for doing so. However, based on what he (very recently) said on the talk page, there appears to at least be some remotely understandable reason why that should be put in the article. Still, I just felt no pressing reason to upgrade the article to full protection. But, if you want I could change it. -- tariqabjotu13:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it would have helped if the IP had mentioned that in one of the early edit summaries. I'll just keep both pages watchlisted and see what happens. I'll expect that article to get one more reversion, but seeing that I already protected the wrong version of the template that's only fair. ;) Cheers, Amalthea14:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
You recently made a No violation determination for an edit war I posted about for Malta Boat Club. I understand that it is not a 3RR violation, but I am not sure how to proceed without violating the rule myself. Any guidance you could provide would be greatly appreciated. The entire issue can be viewed here in my attempt to contact the editor whose edits I found objectionable. Should I throw in the towel and allow the editor to obscure the club's connection to Mark Gerban or do I just continue to revert the edit until there is a bright-line rule violation?
Update: another editor reverted the problem edit here, but I still would appreciate direction on how to handle this when the content is deleted again. Ciricula (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what you're worried about; you're not close to breaking the three-revert rule at all, and I'd hardly consider what you're doing now edit-warring. You tried to contact him on the talk page five days ago, and he hasn't responded. So, it's not like you've done anything wrong. It's just that there has been very little activity coming from this user, especially in recent hours. So, as with some other forms of disruption, there's nothing drastic enough happening here for me to see a reason to intervene, and there's certainly no 3RR/edit-warring violation. -- tariqabjotu00:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Carl Levin
I have apologized to Steelbeard1 for edit warring. You were right to block me. Thanks for your intervention.
I am the Botendaddy17:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Your work has been undone -- please help!
Thank you very much for protecting User:AshtonBenson as I requested! The content of the page which I asked you to protect contained criticism of an admin. That very same admin has deleted the content from the page you protected. Would you mind restoring the content of the page to its original state? I think it is blatantly and egregiously inappropriate for an admin to delete content which is critical of himself/herself (obvious conflict of interest there!). You may leave the block in place -- I am not requesting that you remove the block -- only that you restore the deleted text. Thank you very much! — AshtonBenson (70.36.134.194 (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC))
As you're one of the three admins who responded to the earlier AN3 report concerning BLP problems on Richard Goldstone, I thought I should notify you that I have filed an arbitration enforcement request concerning ongoing repeated violations of multiple Misplaced Pages policies by four editors. You can read the request at WP:AE#Wikifan12345 et al. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Gaza flotilla clash
Greetings,
I have addressed your message at my talk page, as it's easier to follow the thread on a single talk page. Regards, ליאור (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Cyclone Laila
Hi Tariq. This is regarding my edit to captioned article that you undid. Cyclone names in Indian ocean region are not necessarily named after person's names. I am especially speaking for Pakistani/Indian names (myself being a native Urdu language speaker). Example in case are list of North Indian Ocean storm names; Pakistani contributed names in List 7 is Titli, meaning Butterfly, which is never used as a female name. Similarly List 8 has Bulbul, named after a bird (I don't know its english name). To further prove my point, please see the article on last cyclonic storm named by Pakistan, Cyclone Nargis. If you read the third paragraph, it says the name has meaning Daffodil, which is sourced from a news website. Therefore, I suggest that my contribution regarding the name meaning be re-added. I am not doing it myself before I have your approval. Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remukhan (talk • contribs) 12:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Gaza Flotilla Crash
User:Kasaalan is making multiple reverts to remove material about the political (Islamist) affiliations of the owner/sponsoring urkish organization of the ship involved in the fighting.Broad Wall (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
14:36, 1 June 2010 Kslotte (talk | contribs) (56,740 bytes) (→Ships in the flotilla: re-structure) (
] about half-way down the page, where the left hand column is entitled "Islamist links".
14:50, 1 June 2010 Kslotte (talk | contribs) (56,325 bytes) (revert; re-structuring to have proper layout) (undo)
] removing same material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broad Wall (talk • contribs) 15:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Tariqabjotu. You have new messages at Ciricula's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Can you review Ai 00's edits to the Gaza flotilla raid page?
I've once again removed the 'armada of hate' bit.
Not all the edits Ai 00 made are necessarily bad, but I'm concerned there may be a pattern of inserting NPOV language.
However I don't have a long history as a wikipedia editor and I don't feel that I'm qualified to determine if the edits should result in a ban as per the 1RR policy. Zuchinni one (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, but it got vandalized again
Thank you very much for protecting User:AshtonBenson as I requested! The content of the page which I asked you to protect contained criticism of an admin. That very same admin has deleted the content from the page you protected. Would you mind restoring the content of the page to its original state? I think it is blatantly and egregiously inappropriate for an admin to delete content which is critical of himself/herself (obvious conflict of interest there!). You may leave the block in place -- I am not requesting that you remove the block -- only that you restore the deleted text. Thank you very much! 24.15.171.123 (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Blocked
I wasn't edit warring against myself. Way to ignore the person who was reverting my changes and also broke 3RR. It really gives a lot of insight into the quality of your investigation into my behaviour and your overall tendencies as an admin. Thanks a lot. You're doing a wonderful job. Breein1007 (talk) 06:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
And FYI, aside from the many people you have blocked since 1RR was put in place, you missed a BIG handful of people who violated 3RR before. But since you carefully reviewed the edit history before you blocked me, I guess you already knew that? Breein1007 (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I am still waiting for your response regarding the user who was edit warring against me and violated 3RR without any consequences. Breein1007 (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The edit-warring was so flagrant -- I see four reverts in less than twelve hours -- that it doesn't matter what was said in those threads. -- tariqabjotu07:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
If I should be formally bringing things like this to a noticeboard, please tell me. User:Physchim62 seems to be violating 1RR (see history). Also, and perhaps I'm being unusually sensitive, I consider the statement "Get a brain, mate" to be a personal attack. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
In response to your query, I would say the issue still exists. Both parties directly involved in the dispute, DavidA and TheBalance, appear to be voluntarily disengaging from each other as a show of good faith while waiting for the mediation case to start. I can only applaud their mutual restraint and patience, and suggest that as a sign that they both consider mediation worthwhile.
I know nothing about you personally, and prefer not to form an opinion at this time, so yes I agree that it would be good to have you mediate the case. As I mentioned, the others have been waiting very patiently, so hopefully they haven't forgotten about the mediation, assuming they are still interested! BOZ (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. I was wondering whether you'd consider unblocking TreasuryTag and KnowIG and protecting the page instead. Typically, there's very little to be gained from blocking all parties in an edit war, as it does nothing to resolve the conflict. It's likely that they'll just go back to reverting when their blocks expire. I agree that the blocks are valid (both parties were edit warring and it was indeed pretty lame), but I think that what I'm suggesting may be a better solution to the problem. Thoughts? --Deskana(talk)14:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Blocking all parties in an edit war, especially when for a short time, is better than protecting the page as it doesn't penalize other editors who want to contribute to the article in a constructive manner. I don't see why you believe both parties will continue after the block has expired; realizing the matter is a blockable offense will, in my opinion, discourage further disruption. -- tariqabjotu14:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
It is my experience that people will quite frequently engage in behaviour that they know could result in them being blocked, and many users even make threats to do so in unblock requests. I will take this matter to the administrator's noticeboard instead. Thanks. --Deskana(talk)14:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
In which case, they ought to be reblocked. No dispute between two disruptive users needs to be resolved. -- tariqabjotu14:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The above statement was actually only in reference to one of them in particular. Anyway, it doesn't matter since I seem to be the only one with this opinion. --Deskana(talk)15:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. I am a bit unsure how to take the message you left. First, you said "Your actions during and since your block further assure me that the block was the right move" but I have not made a single article edit since my block ended. I have been trying to make sense of the block -- I've never been blocked before. More importantly, you said "You have also repeated the discounted point that you never made more than four reverts in twenty-four hours." I said that because I didn't make more than four reverts in twenty-four hours. Please provide Diffs if you maintain that I did. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Actions meaning your desparate attempts to get your block log expunged (as mentioned) and your irrelevant suggestions (as mentioned) as to why you were blocked. That's what that whole paragraph was about. No, I am not arguing you made four reverts within twenty-four hours (ugh, as mentioned); I am saying that it doesn't matter that you didn't, so stop bringing it up. Did you read any part of the comment I left you? -- tariqabjotu13:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi again Tariq and thanks for your patience. Yes I read your comment. You characterized my promise to not edit Caroline Glick pending comments from others as "worthless". (Where's the good faith?) Another admin, with whom I had no previous contact and who is far less invested in Israel-Palestine articles than you are or I, had supported my rewrite of a contentious section of the article, as had other editors in Talk. Yes, I reverted section-blanking twice in 24 hours. But it seems from the reasoning you made for my block -- "...I don't care what Shimeru has to say. As far as I can tell, she is involvedhere in this edit war, and she over-stepped her bounds my protecting a page where she was clearly involved in this dispute. Blatantly improper move." -- that you were pissed at the other admin and I made a convenient target, as you and I have had differences on I-P articles in the past. Do you think it might be useful if editors/admins less invested/partisan regarding I-P articles looked at this dispassionately? And let me say again I realize I could have behaved better when the edit-warring started. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Again, more unfounded theories and more deflection. No, RomaC, I don't think it would be useful to waste more people's time with this. It was a 16-hour block, for Christ's sake. And your unblock request during the block was declined. And now the block's over. Get over it. -- tariqabjotu15:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Tariqabjotu. Would it be possible for you to give me an explanation on why my report was not an edit war violation? As the other two editors involved on the page in question do not seem interested in any discussion about the content, would it also be possible for you to recommend where I should go from here? I am not sure what to do. Kind regards, VesaTen (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The three edits you mentioned in your report consisted of two reverts by the editor in question, spaced a week apart, and then another revert from a different editor. In the course of things, however, you reverted three times. So, I'm not sure why you expect me to block one or both of them, and not you. I skipped over reading your entire paragraph on AN3 as it was clear there was no violation, but I imagine -- if you really want to pursue the matter further -- you can open a request for comment. -- tariqabjotu14:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply Tariqabjotu. However, I am still confused as the definition of edit warring as given on the edit warring noticeboard is "Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute." I did not think the number or time of edits would need to be taken into account for something to be considered edit warring (as I thought such considerations would be only necessary for 3RR reports), but that improper use of edits (such trying to force a page revision without entering discussion more than once, and showing bad faith) would also qualify. Kind regards, VesaTen (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
About the Geography section of Istanbul
No the reverts I made are not an attempt of arbitration enforcement. Otherwise the same editions and reverts can apply to you as well.
I reeadded the Geology Flora and Fauna sections because of their relevance.
Any body has the right to contribute and is not vandalism.
I absolutely did not and do not intend any edit war. But the editions and removals of the subsections you made in the Geography section is downsizing and not enriching the article. It may not sound important to you personally, but the flora and fauna sections and its diversity are very important aspects of the city, and ecologically very significant and I added credible academic references and try to continue to find more credible academic references.
The climate is a borderline case between mediterranean in the south and oceanic in the north. And not just one climate type exists there. Tha is how the clkimate of Istanbul is classified by Turkish meteorlogists, who are obviously no amateurs.
No. You have a very clear restriction placed against you, a very clear restriction that is not placed against me. You violated it, and you likely will be blocked. As has been explained numerous times, you have been unwilling to engage with other editors, especially me, on the talk page of the article. -- tariqabjotu09:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately your reversions to the section of the article is done without any compromise and arbitration (I confess I did do the same as well nor talked beforeand nor afterwards to your talkpage as well) But you do not seem to be open or indeed tolerate any reversions and reeditions (In this case by me); however I now added more credible academic references and explanations to them. That is why I do not want to be rude, I hope I am mistaken, I think that you might abuse your status as an administrator, by not being flexible, just as was the case with me.
As I mentioned above even if it may not sound important to you personally, the (geology), flora and fauna sections and its diversity are very important aspects of the city, and ecologically very significant and I added credible academic references and try to continue to find more credible academic references.
There were so many accusations being flung in so many directions that I couldn't make sense out of them, and that diff I pointed at was one of the few I could unequivocally point at and say "no".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you message from user:hkwon for granting unblock request.
Thank you very much for granting my unblock request. You probably have taken lots of trouble reviewing all messages exchanged between me and others in order to make a fair decision. You gave me the faith that Misplaced Pages has the just and proper appeal process for users who were blocked or sanctioned unfairly/excessively. I would be certainly careful with my tone from now on, regardless of provocation. I would need to go back to the article kimchi to send my section draft to editors to keep my promise and, if necessary, to restore the opposing party's revert which was made during my absence without proper reasons. I am the one who initiated a consensus-gathering effort and requested a third opinion from other editors in this discussion. I will do my best to avoid another edit war. Hkwon (talk) 05:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this edit:
I realize that the FIFA World Cup has greater global recognition than most sporting events do. Having added it myself, I also realize that the ball is pictured.
However, such wording does not merely serve to specify the sport; it also is a means of linking to our article about the sport. If the sole objective were to identify potential unknowns, none of non-bold links (including one to 2010 FIFA World Cup) would be present.
Also note that we recently retained the "In tennis" wording while displaying photographs of French Open players holding tennis rackets on tennis courts (and have consistently acted in kind with other sports), so I'm not aware of any consensus/precedent for omitting such wording when the image renders the sport obvious. In addition to the aforementioned fact that identifying the sport isn't the only objective, we must keep in mind that not everyone sees the image (due to technical limitations and visual impairments). —David Levy15:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think my perspective is particularly unusual or otherwise difficult to understand, but the way you approach it suggests I have to state the obvious. Basically, what I have always thought is that we write enough to convey the news item, and then see which links fit in based on that wording. Hence, your suggestion that 2010 FIFA World Cup would not be linked under my logic is clearly absurd.
And I see no reason to believe that people believe otherwise. The item, for example, used to link to extra time, but because someone thought that it was not essential to conveying the gist of the news item, it was removed (along with the link to overtime (sports)). Similarly, I'm quite certain we have added "In American football" before Super Bowl items largely due to complaints that not everyone knows about the Super Bowl. Similar goes for the NBA finals, and several other sports. Others, like Wimbledon, are probably known by most people, but it's included anyway, I suppose just in case. But the World Cup is so well known, it doesn't need it and it seems rather condescending to elaborate like that, particularly when we don't elaborate other lesser-known pieces of information.
Including an unneeded phrase just to link to a broad article about a topic people probably already know about does not appear to be standard on ITN. The point about the picture only drove things home; even without the picture, mentioning the sport is unnecessary (hence, why I didn't include it when initially adding the item). -- tariqabjotu16:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
1. I'm a bit taken aback. My intention was to post a friendly explanation of my logic for adding the wording. I didn't wheel-war or rush to initiate a community discussion without consulting you. Instead, I came to your talk page to express my views, which I felt was the most courteous approach. I don't know what I did to provoke the above response, but I sincerely apologize if my message came across as some sort of attack.
2. I didn't mean to imply that "2010 FIFA World Cup would not be linked under logic" (which surely doesn't include the belief that "the sole objective to identify potential unknowns"). My point was merely that the added benefit of linking to a relevant article (even when its general subject can be presumed familiar) applies as much to the wording in question (assuming its presence) as it does to those other links.
3. As on prior occasions (e.g. 1, 2, 34), Tone performed that edit on the basis that "we never add results" (i.e. scores and other such specifics).
4. I don't assert that we should include such wording "just to link to" the article about the sport. I regard this as a significant benefit, but I also believe that specifying the sport is a sensible, clarity-conducive, harmless-at-worst practice (even when the event is widely known).
But I fully recognize the logic of your contrary position (as I tried to convey upfront) and certainly don't mean to suggest that it's strange or unreasonable. Sorry again for any offense caused. —David Levy17:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Could you please notify these two of the arbcom sanction and logg it?
"the Arab league?leaders who rides on camels with their national flag is not the world."
I'm not sure why you are deleting verbal's edit request. It is bad for to edit other user's comments. Directly responding seems to be the more genial approach. I've restored his comment. aprock (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't patronize me. It's not a "comment" that needs "direct responding" or a "more genial approach". It's a request for the article to be edited. When that request is accepted or rejected, it ought to be removed. That's the purpose of the template. -- tariqabjotu16:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not patronizing you. I'm asking you to conform to policy on a controversial article that is currently in ArbCom. Looking at Template:Editrequest, your updated handling appears to be sufficient. Thank you. aprock (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense. You acted like I was some big, bad admin abusing his power by removing somebody's "comment" and demanded I take some "genial approach". When I point out that you don't know what you're talking about, you say, "oh, my problem all along was that you didn't keep the little {{editrequest}} text on the page" (something that (a) is only a recommendation and (b) nobody does in practice) and removing the evidence of your folly on your talk page. You were wrong. You don't need to admit it, but don't act like you're some defender of what's right. As I said, don't patronize me, and if that's too hard for you, quit commenting on my talk page. -- tariqabjotu17:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand that you don't like people questioning your actions, but your characterisations here are more than a bit over the top. A more genial handling of these and related situations would be appreciated. aprock (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Tariqabjotu. I believe the block you imposed on user:Tariqabjotu is extremely unfair. The user was engaged in the discussion on Neutral point of view, and the user clearly was not editing against the consensus. Edit warring involves more than one editor, as any warring does. Even if the block itself could be justified somehow, the time of the block could not. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's what Pantherskin said on WP:AN3 in response to the report against him:
I care what other editors have to say, but I do not care what the usual partisan pro/anti-Israel editors have to say. As so far only the usual partisan editors have shown up (i.e. you, Zero and Nableezy)...
Yes, he may have gone to the noticeboard, but I don't see how that is helpful at all. Further, I am practicing what I preach; this conflict area has marked as an area of intense conflict and there should be no tolerance for persistent edit warriors. To say nothing of Nableezy or anyone else's actions prior to this case, in this situation Pantherskin was clearly the primary edit warrior, reverting against against multiple editors (Supreme Deliciousness, Nableezy, Zero0000). -- tariqabjotu18:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for responding my concern. I cannot agree with you on few points.
Pantherskin was absolutely right in the quote you provided. All mentioned users (Supreme Deliciousness, Nableezy, Zero0000) are "pro/anti-Israel editors." On the other hand it does not look as Pantherskin is a partisan editor. They are preaching almost the same things you do.
It does not matter how many users Pantherskin has reverted. Please take a look at Tag team characteristics. Besides, if you are to look at one of the article in question, you will see that other editor has reverted Nableezy already.
Are you calling admin Zero0000 a "tag teamer" ? Jiujitsuguy removed a quote from the Golan Heights article while adding "according to independent historians were of doubtful historical accuracy." the same thing as Pantherskin did. Pantherskin was asked at the talkpage where in the source it says "according to independent historians were of doubtful historical accuracy." and he did not reply, Jiujitsuguy is continuing Pantherskins editing against what the sources say and once again as Pantherskin did without explaining his edits at the talkpage, and without getting consensus for its removal. And that was only one part of Jiujitsuguys editing, he also without discussion the change first put the Hebrew before Arabic:--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
This comment above from Mbz1 is not describing the situation at all or what Pantherskin did. Not only was he edit warring against several editors removing sourced information which he had no consensus for, when he got replys at the talkpage he did not answer to them and continued to edit war removing sourced information while not bringing any sources at all supporting his view, although he was asked at the talkpage to provide sources. And then he claimed we needed a RfC to re add the sourced information while him removing the sourced information bringing no source to support his view apparently didn't need a RfC. Also notice that it wasn't until after nableezy filed the edit warring report that Pantherskin opened a thread at the npov noticeboard. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I wish you responded to me. I have done some research that has proved my suspicion about tag team practice:
wikistalk shows that Pantherskin and Jiujitsuguy have worked on a total of only two articles.
On the other hand Supreme Deliciousness and Nableezy worked together at around 80 articles in the mainspace alone.
. More than 100 articles for Zero0000 & Nableezy working together.
The three of them (Nableezy, Supreme Deliciousness, and Zero0000) have worked at 23 of the same articles. Besides as I mentioned above the time of the block is against the policy. Thanks. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Mbz1, please don't throw around accusations. I am interested in the A-I conflict, and so are many others. Are Breein1007 and Nsaum75 also tag teaming? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
If the policy/guideline says 24 hours is standard for a first block, 30 hours is not excessive.
Your results show nothing regarding tag-team editing. Rather, they demonstrate nothing other than the fact that Nableezy, Supreme Deliciousness, and Zero0000 are interested in Israel and Palestine. That's not news. -- tariqabjotu19:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so the block has expired and I think we can move on. I do not agree with the block, but I understand that this how Misplaced Pages works. Admins enforce what can easily be seen (reverts), and usually do not enforce what is difficult to see (WP:V, WP:NPOV). That in no way is a criticism of Tariqabjotu, but a critiscm of Misplaced Pages. And I do not have a ready solution. I appreciate your comments Mbz1, and I do not appreciate the comments by Supreme Deliciousness which are distorting the facts. Pantherskin (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Additional note: Supreme Deliciousness had already to acknowledge that he used a fake source to push his POV, see and . Pantherskin (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
That wasn't the Dayan quote. Almost the entire discussion at Syria was about the Dayan quote and the entire discussion at Golan Heights was about the Dayan quote. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
My talk page is not an extension of the article talk pages. Considering Pantherskin has come to terms with the block, I don't think there's anything else to discuss here. -- tariqabjotu21:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Noticeboard thread about RegentsPark
(Cross-posted to you and Basket of Puppies)
I’ve commented again in the administrators’ noticeboard thread about whether or not RegentsPark has misused his sysop powers. I’d appreciate it if you could continue to participate there, since it would bother me if this thread ends up being archived without any kind of resolution either way. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm somewhat bemused by your conclusion that Freakshownerd is exempt from 3RR simply because he or she invoked WP:BLP in six reversions during a 24-hour period. There was no BLP violation in the pre-existing text that I can see: text that has stood with minor alterations since at least 2005.
As documented by the sources (and others that could be provided on request), Johnson is both a creationist and a noted supporter of AIDS denialism. These verified matters were in the five-year-old consensus version of the lead until Freakshownerd deleted them last week.
Incidentally, referring to creationism or AIDS denial as out of the scientific mainstream, as evidenced by multiple sources, is not editorialising, per WP:FRINGE. To use an example I've used once already today, someone writing an article on a crystal healer would probably do well to note that crystal healing is not accepted by mainstream medicine. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Follow up
As per our last conversation, you might want to check User talk:Gwen Gale for the continued results of your very bad removal of the block that Gwen had given...it's now license to to be a WP:DICK, as opposed to just being a very disruptive editor overall. I don't usually disagree this much with my fellow admins, but the Verbal block on top of the block reversal - both with incredible amounts of valid discussion and information surrounding them - are a wee bit surprising. Hope you'll take a further look. (talk→BWilkins←track) 20:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Tombaker's first comment there is, yes, a bit dickish, but from my perspective, I don't see what's wrong with his follow-up comments. Obviously, I'm not familiar with the entire backstory, so perhaps there is something Tombaker has done that makes the block seem clearly worthy. That's the impression Gwen is giving off, and that also seems to be the impression you're giving off. But, I am not a mind reader. I cannot, for example, predict that upon unblocking him, Tombaker will make a dickish comment. And I cannot, for example, decipher "disruptive editing" to mean he did this and that and yada, yada for so long. I can look at his edits, and -- I know you'll say it -- I could have asked Gwen. But, Tombaker had asked for an explanation of why Gwen found him so disruptive. Gwen did not provide one. So, I see one of two things: either she was so intimately involved with Tombaker that she didn't feel it worth her time to provide an explanation, or there was no good reason for such a long block. Either, in my opinion, is worth an unblock, particularly after five days.
And let me say this for the record: I am sick of you analyzing every one of my admin actions and comparing it to this unblock. The editor had been blocked for five days; you're nitpicking about 24-hour and 30-hour blocks. I understand you're a talk page stalker, and maybe even a contributions stalker, and I understand you and Gwen may be buddies, but please stop beating the dead horse. No, I did not link incorrectly. -- tariqabjotu21:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Nice, friendly. By the way, no need to recopy things onto my talkpage: I keep discussions in one place, and watch them accordingly. (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
When I start a discussion, I stick around to contribute - that's the usual way. Doesn't mean I'm stalking, merely that I'm awaiting a reply - keeps things together. If you've read any of my essays, you'll know I have no "buddies". All of us have people who stalk their talkpage, especially to remove the regular vandalism; in fact, I'm sometimes surprised by who drops by to undo some loser's attempt at puerile humour...you likely have quite a few, based on your tenure around here. It's odd that we never ran into each other before - but twice in less than a week we cross paths twice, and not in what I would call a positive way. I typically support my admin colleagues in their actions - and if needed, maybe exchange e-mails if I have concerns - after all, we can all learn from each other. (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
*sigh* Yes, I know what's on my userpage. Hard to tell by your writing whether you were trying to be funny or not, as per the nature of the TPS page - based on your post immediately before that, there was no ability to assume pleasantness or humour ... (talk→BWilkins←track) 23:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
At least your above comment clarifies whether you were being sarcastic in your first edit summary and response. -- tariqabjotu23:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I know that aside from editing ITN and your work as an admin, you also have/had dealings with Media, Commons, Wiki-news and other trans-wiki projects so I figured you (also) might be the person to ask... (I also asked HJ, but that's all. I don't spam)
My question is this: Most of the stories either posted, nominated or blurbed on WP:ITN are stories dealing with foreign countries or policies of foreign governments (Foreign in the sense of countries not the U.S. or the U.K.), and while we strive to check our facts by sourcing, sometimes even the international media does not give a clear picture of the situation. Given that, I was wondering if it would be possible/feasible to compile a list of editors from different language versions of WP that are bilingual in English so that we could ask them directly and clear up common misconceptions of stories before they get posted.
Something of a wild idea I'll admit, but you can see an example of this under the nomination of the Bullfighting Ban in Catalonia. MickMacNee posted the info that several municipalities in Spain had already banned the sport, (sounds true, but hard to check), but a user named Vilar posted that indeed it is not quite true as (other than the Canary Islands) there are Anti-Bullfighting Cities, but not formal bans. His user page says he is actually from Spain and therefore he is most probably correct in this matter. To wit: if we had access to editors from different countries who were bilingual in English, then we could instantly check the accuracy of any story first-hand; not as an article writing tool, merely as a fact-checking mechanism.
Would this be at all possible or even advisable? It could certainly help us find sources on less-then-covered stories and would open up a new route for cross-wiki interaction. Thoughts? Cwill151 (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Obviously you don't want to respond and that's totally fine... I know you're busy and this was probably just a waste of your time. My apologies... (I'll delete this when next I have access to a computer as all I have now is an iPad and they don't delete partially). Sorry to take your time and space. Cheers! Cwill151 (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for revert ecko1o1's vandalism. You missed one his IPs (121.134.92.195). Elockid and I have dealt with a similar sockpuppet (Nangparbat). In Nangparbat's case, it was determined to long-term semi-protect all the articles they vandalized or smeared with POV edits. I think it might be a good idea to do the same to Asian American. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't quite miss it; I saw it was there, and considered a range block, but decided against it. I could easily semi-protect the page too, but I'm intentionally giving him an opening (not necessarily there). I want to see whether s/he truly has an intention to cease edit-warring. Another block evasion will simply lead to an indefinite block (and, of course, a closing of the loopholes). -- tariqabjotu01:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi there! Regarding your protection of Monty Hall problem for a month, do you think it would be possible to unprotect it? I see that most of the dispute surrounding the article has been resolved, and many improvements could be made. For your info, I have made a request at WP:RFPP. Thanks! -download ׀ sign!00:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Tariq. Thanks for looking into my request on AN3. I am, however, a little perplexed by the reasoning for your decline. I absolutely agree that the dispute itself is stupid, but the edit war is problematic. I've asked Til to discuss his request on the article talk page, which he refuses to do. As a result, at this point I'm left with two options. One is to allow him to make the change without establishing consensus (and against policy on date formats), or two, I can engage in an edit war. Considering Til has been blocked on 3 separate occasions for this behavior, refuses to engage in discussion, and has 4 reverts in 30 hours, I wasn't expecting a decline. Could you explain why an edit war violation (and violating the spirit of 3rr) isn't sufficient in this case? Thanks so much. Jess
"I've asked Til to discuss his request on the article talk page, which he refuses to do." As do you.
"One is to allow him to make the change without establishing consensus (and against policy on date formats)..." Wait, where and when did you get consensus? And how is your reverting in line with policy? On the contrary, it seems quite clear that policy would support the use of BC/AD, regardless of Til's additional motives so adamantly insisting it be that way.
"Considering Til has been blocked on 3 separate occasions for this behavior..." So?
"refuses to engage in discussion" Again, pot calling kettle black.
Well, I was just asking for clarification on the ruling, not trying to get into an argument regarding the content dispute, but ok.
I wasn't the initial revert, nor was I asked to discuss on talk. I'm planning to open discussion there anyway, but I wanted this to blow over first, since otherwise it'll serve to create drama and little else. In any case, when Til's change opposes that of two other editors, and he's asked to discuss before re-reverting, the appropriate response is not to ignore discussion requests and re-revert. This is unconstructive, and specifically what 3rr is about.
I didn't say I got consensus. I said there was no consensus for the original change. This is not Til's problem, but it's a problem with the article. The date precedent has been stable since at least 2006 as BCE, until it was recently changed this year without consensus. Another editor caught the change, and appropriately reverted it. It would be inappropriate to simply assume that, since Til wants it to be BC and is refusing to discuss, and I don't want to violate policy and edit war, we should just let him change it.
So, he is edit warring now... and has a history of edit warring in the past (including recently) which he's been blocked for on 3 occasions... I'd rather not explicitly detail how this is relevant, as it would be needlessly accusatory... but it seems pretty plain to me. Is there a reason previous blocks for continued disruptive behavior isn't relevant?
I covered this in 1.
I have 3 reverts in 30 hours, and was not the first revert. I provided specifics for my stance in edit summaries, including specific policies and revision IDs, and now (rather than re-reverting... even though it wouldn't be a technical violation of 3rr) I'm pursuing alternatives. To say that I'm not working constructively, or am violating policy, would be need some justification.
Again, I'm really not looking to discuss the content... just the basis for the ruling. I don't understand why "the dispute is silly" is a valid rationale for a ruling on edit warring. That there hasn't been a "technical" violation of 3rr is a valid rationale, but as explicitly specified on WP:AN3 and Template:uw-3rr, WP:EW can be violated without 4 reverts in 24 hours. 4 reverts in 30 hours certainly qualifies... so I'm confused as to why a clear violation of edit warring (not 3rr) was declined. I don't mean to sound rude, as I do appreciate you taking time to look into it... but the ruling was very much unexpected, and my actions going forward are kind of limited at this point. Jess
Where did you see a significant enough problem on that page to justify a two week complete lock? Theres a fairly involved conversation going on on the talk page for a while now on the neutrality of the article name vs other creation myths, but actual warring on the page isn't really a problem. Virtually all creation/evolution/pseudoscience articles have this level of reverts with requests to take things to talk page first. Thats common practice, changes like that generally require talk page discussion. I'd like to know what you thought was so bad to justify the lock before I take it to RPP for review. — raekyT18:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I do not edit Misplaced Pages 24/7. I have made all but three edits since you posted your request, and all of them were today. However, your secondary comment above ensures that no, I will not be responding to you. -- tariqabjotu22:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I previously edited (and reverted) the climate section...
I previously edited (and reverted) the climate section of Istanbul according to credible and verifiable scientific sources and websites.
I reverted the climate section of Istanbul to the edition I did, because the statistics about the weather are from two noverifable travel site (I did mot remove them however, but unfortunately there is no link to its original source, and in the other travel site it is not stated at all. Nevertheless I removed the number of days of snow, fog, thunderstorms etc. because numbers are subject to change and vary constantly; the important feature is the occurence of certain weather phenomenon in this case snow, fog, thunderstorms etc. and not the overemphasis on the number of days). I also added new revised data of the annual preciptation that has been released by the Turkish State Meteorological Service this year in 2010. Ultimately the reference from the World Meteorological Organization is based on climate data released by the Turkish State Meteorological Service (and from official meteorological websites in general).
I added references that are and should only be from official meteorological sources/websites - and not from dubious and unreferenced travel websites, from which the the statistics about the weather and climate of Istanbul were put.
When describing the weather of a city, plain and clear language should be used, not the overflowing langauge frequently used in travel websites.
Official data about the weather statistics and climate of is Istanbul are only taken from the weather stations of the Istanbul Regional Directorate within the city limits: e.g. Göztepe, Sarıyer which are quite close to the traditional city center (in the European side), due to the greatly varying precipitation and temperature levels in the city.
Here are the sources which I added from the Turkish State Meteorological Service about the Average Annual Precipitation and the Extreme Values Measured in Istanbul Regional Directorate (Göztepe) (In Tukish only):
What the hell are you talking about? It's your version, your reversions which keep introducing poor, unreliable sources. I keep trying to remove them and rewrite the section to sound more educated, but you keep insisting on reinstating this kindergarten-level English with choppy sentences and blogspam references. There is no excuse for it.
This is the English Misplaced Pages, and when there are reliable English sources which support a claim, they should be given precedence. It's very hard for readers to verify information not written in their language, and I can see from here that the sentence "The highest recorded temperature was 40.5 °C (105 °F) on 12 July 2000, and the lowest recorded temperature was −16.1 °C (3 °F) on 9 February 1927." is not supported by the source. An exception can be made for the Turkish Meteorological Authority, but the site you referenced contains no information about temperatures. Therefore, you are forcing the article to use two sources to generate the climate table. This simply leads to confusion, particularly because the Turkish Meteorological Authority suggests that the city gets 150 mm more rain than noted by the WMO, the BBC, and other reasonably reliable sources for weather stats.
If you want to rewrite the section so it's not as heavy on numbers, be my guess, but it is very difficult to cite "The weather in Istanbul is pleasant year-round." Average numbers are easy to cite and adequately depict the climate in a manner that isn't editorializing. If we were to go by logic, where numbers don't matter, we wouldn't even include a climate table. But, as I said, you are welcome to try. But quit degrading the article by insisting it employ one-sentence paragraphs and gutter references. -- tariqabjotu11:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for not responding to you sooner, because I do not visit Misplaced Pages on a daily basis, and the last time I logged in was in 2 August 2010 when I wrote in your talk page, about this topic.
The references I put are from the the Turkish State Meteorological Service (meteor.gov.tr), which is a professional academic Turkish government bureau that produces the latest meteorological and climactic data of Turkey. Their observations and classifications, are constantly revised.
As I mentioned above, the reference from the World Meteorological Organization is based on climate data released by the Turkish State Meteorological Service. The new revised data released by them in 2010 , is however only about the annual precipitation of Istanbul, which is the only edition I did in the climate graph of the city. This newly released information has not yet been updated by the World Meteorological Organization.
(Official data about the weather statistics and climate of is Istanbul are taken from the weather stations of the Istanbul Regional Directorate only within the city limits: e.g. Göztepe and Sarıyer).
Although my intention is to reference the statistics and data from credible academic sources, the problem is that some of the verifiable scientific sources I added are not in English. Unfortunately most of the data published by the Turkish Meteorological Authority is in Turkish (including the reference about the weather extremes), and the vast majority of readers will not be able to follow these information.
What is the Misplaced Pages policy on non-English sources even though they are from credible academic websites and can these sources stay?
Hi Tariq, Recent Coronal mass ejection#CMEs has been updated with a (albeit short) paragraph and it's not in the past tense because the expected aurorae haven't occurred yet, but the solar flares are (I believe) happening now and the consensus at ITN/C was to post now and expand the blurb later (hence the second half of the blurb in the hidden comment). If I've missed something, let me know, if not, I'd be grateful if you'd reconsider. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
After that edit summary, I realized the mistake regarding the tense, but the reality doesn't make my complaint any less relevant. It's three short sentences, and it's debatable whether some of them even constitute part of the update (i.e. the first sentence isn't exactly talking about this event, as the paragraph is ordered fairly illogically). It seems even you recognized that the three-sentence update was rather minimal (in one of your comments on ITN/C). The Israel-Lebanon incident was recently posted, so I don't see what the rush is. That update is way below sufficient; I'm not even sure why this is debatable. -- tariqabjotu00:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
*Tariq,
The blurb HJ added to MP about the CME series is only a partial. There is another hidden addition about the auroral effects, but HJ wanted to wait to post that until there was proper documentation. I have found numerous sources reporting spectacular aurorae as far south as Wisconsin, which I then updated the article to reflect... and even added a picture of it. I have posted on HJ's talk page requesting him to finish the blurb, but he has not responded and seems to be offline. Would/can you do it?
If there is a reason why it has not been finished that I am unaware of, then no worries and forget the whole thing. At any rate, and as always, thank you for your time and trouble and I continue to look forward to working with you in the future. Cheers! Cwill151 (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
You just blocked an IP editor for edit warring at Jason Leopold. It takes two to edit war, so are you also going to block User:Yworo? I cannot as I've recently edited the article, but if I were uninvolved I would block them. Fences&Windows22:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think so. Yes, if I were just talking about this edit war, then I would have blocked Yworo for edit-warring. However, it was really the IP's history, combined with his recent actions, that has been a problem. Notice the block was primarily for disruptive editing, not edit-warring. -- tariqabjotu22:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, just in case you missed it, there is an oppurtunity to get a free dinner this Tuesday August 11 and a chance to meet and hang out talk about Misplaced Pages:WikiProject United States Public Policy and WP:GLAM/SI. Sorry that this is so late in the game, I was hoping the e-mail would be a better form of contact for active members (if you want to get on the e-mail list send me an User e-mail ). Hope that you can attend, User:Sadads (talk)12:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Doncram
I believe your block of Doncram was inappropriate. His final edit was not to restore the disputed article, but to create the disambiguation page with more than two items that the other editor (Polaron) had been requiring before he would "allow" there to be a disambiguation page. Polaron himself had begun the third article to facilitate this. Seems kinda useless to block him for the edit where the two of them had finally worked things out! Lvklock (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Doncram's unblock reason doesn't seem to prove that. As far as I can tell, his evidence is based solely on the idea that Polaron didn't continue the edit war, rather than an actual resolution. Some remarks from Polaron would be appreciated. It's also interesting to note that Doncram's latest revert was also reverted again. -- tariqabjotu10:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you blocked User:ValenShephard for a 1RR violation at Gaza flotilla raid. I personally think that 48hrs is a bit harsh, considering that he is a relatively new user (I just taught him how to do citations today, for instance -- he is still learning Wiki policy), and might not have known to look on the Talk page first to notice the 1RR policy, or even if he did notice it, might not have understood it and assumed he had the normal 3 revert threshold. I'm pretty sure that if you informed him of what he did wrong, that he would not cause any problems, and would avoid editing Gaza flotilla raid for 48 hours, even if his block was removed. Thanks -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Everytime someone begins to make an edit on the Gaza flotilla raid article, one sees a message at the top saying "WARNING -- In accordance with Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks." Further, he had been warned three times about edit-warring. He, therefore, has no excuse for edit-warring on that article, let alone making two reverts within one hour. -- tariqabjotu08:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
No worries then -- I didn't realize he had been warned. In light of that, the block seems totally reasonable. Cheers -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 09:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Wait -- I just looked at the link you posted of the warning. That was for something different, and was for 3RR, not 1RR. A new user would very likely not know what 1RR was, and I think it would be fair to warn them, or at least give them a shorter block. As I suspected, he claims he did not know about 1RR and that a warning would have been sufficient. I suggest "time served", and unblocking him, with a warning not to work on Gaza flotilla raid for the remainder of his 48 hr block. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Jrtayloriv, as I said, there is an edit notice describing the restriction on the article and the consequences for violating it. It does not say "This article is under a 1RR restriction"; it says "editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours". No matter how new a user is, that explanation should be clear. Yes, those warnings were on other articles, but they were warnings for edit-warring nevertheless. If you want to go farther back, you see has been warned about edit-warring, and other disruptive actions, on this particular article. -- tariqabjotu15:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks -- I didn't realize that he'd been warned about that article in particular (several times). It seems that he does need some time to cool his head off about the flotilla raid, and he had ample warning. Sorry to be a bother, and thanks for taking the time to explain this to me. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
This editor is now requesting unblock. I have placed the unblock request on hold while waiting for comment from you; I would have accepted it but it's an arbitration enforcement. Seriously, though, it's possible to miss that message and WP:BITE comes into play here. His edits certainly seem constructive; it would be a shame to chase away such a new user. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The article has been under 1RR restrictions for a long time, since June 1 (the 1RR restriction should probably have an expiration, but it doesn't at the moment). While ValenShephard's recent edits may not suggest it, he has edited the Gaza flotilla raid article many, many times. I do not buy the idea that he did not know about the 1RR restriction. I'm not going to allow him to play the new user card here; he's made more than 1,200 edits -- many to this article -- and been around for over three months. He should know about this aspect by now, especially after receiving numerous warnings for disruptive reverting on this article and others. -- tariqabjotu15:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Tomáš Kaberle
Hi, and thank you for the semi-protect on Tomáš Kaberle - I was getting a little tired seeing it continuously pop up on Recent... ruins the variety of it all over there. ;-)
Hi. As a courtesy, I wanted to let you know about the draft RfC I'm working on, since I've mentioned your block of the involved editor in the evidence. Please feel free to contribute (or not) as you will. Yworo (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I concur with the removing pending changes, it's a noble idea but doesn't seem practical, at least not in this case. --WGFinley (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that normally the editors would enforce the 1RR restrictions on the article but I think some are afraid their revert to enforce it would be seen as a violation. I think that you're right, it's the only solution at present and will allow me to step back from constantly trying to curtail the warring. --WGFinley (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Tariqabjotu , you removed a part of my comment on AE. I am not going to re-post it of course, but in my opinion you are wrong. AE is kind of Misplaced Pages court of low. In any court of low any evidences might be presented to prove one statement. Of course, if the user in question behaved, and I would have came to AE with his real life articles only, it would have been a different story, but the user was brought there for a different reason, and IMO in this case I have the right to present other evidences as well. Why can't I? Is there any policy about that? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
To me, it appears you're outing him, presenting his real-life information so as to say "look, he's biased, and therefore he should not be editing these articles". Oh, dear... can you imagine if we knew the real-life identities of all the people who edit in the Israel-Palestine area? Can you imagine the pandemonium? And, more importantly, in what way does that help the articles? That's why we're supposed to comment on contributions, rather than contributors. I couldn't care less if the head of AIPAC were editing Misplaced Pages; so long as he's able to adhere to our principles of neutrality and verifiability, it doesn't matter. Same here; Mr. Hammond's activities off Misplaced Pages shouldn't prevent him from editing certain articles on it. -- tariqabjotu14:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. There was no outing there as I explained on AE, and I still believe, if the user's behavior brought him to AE,one should be able to use any evidences (on and off wiki) to make one case. In any case I am going of course to respect your decision on removing part of my comment. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Tariq. I brought this matter up with Tim Song. He agreed that a block was warranted per but asked that I refer the matter to another admin to carry out a sanction per his stated (and well-grounded) reason. I am referring the matter over to you since judging by Tim's talk page, you have some level of familiarity with the case and the previous sock puppets. Best--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Quick question, there was a recent change to the structure of the Gaza flotilla article whereby the casualties list was moved from a chronological position in the article to the very beginning.
There's a little bit of discussion on the talk page HERE and HERE.
Mostly I'm curious if wikipedia has any standards for how pages are layed out content-wise. I looked in the MOS and elsewhere in the wiki documentation, but I couldn't find anything.
Thought you should know that an apparent AGF edit has in effect removed the semi-protection template from Wiz Khalifa. I have left a note on their talkpage for the Wikipedian (User talk:Andrewlp1991) who did this edit so they can revert the template back to its 'live' status.
He did not remove the semi-protection template. When you put small=yes in the template, it puts a silver lock, indicating semi-protection, in the top-right corner of the page so that the template isn't obtrusive. That's generally done for longer protections, so the template doesn't constantly appear within the text of the article, but it's a matter of preference. Andrew didn't do anything wrong, and there's no need for him to revert his edit. -- tariqabjotu21:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, ok, thanks for the correction about the small=yes thingy...I knew I probably had to be missing something! (And I didn't mean to imply that something was wrong, just that I didn't understand the edit and that I don't like to possibly revert unless I make sure of things.) Shearonink (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
If you wish I can also provide strong circumstantial evidence of one account behind wikibias.com, though I don't think it is particularly important, that account has fallen in disuse. un☯mi00:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
It looks shocking that you indefinitely blocked the above user without any discussion and without referring to any Misplaced Pages policies. There was a discussion going on where you youself expressed scepticism that Jiujitsuguy's action warranted any sanction, but after receiving some info from an equally activist editor, you went as far as blocking indefinitely. If this was discussed anywhere please point me to that discussion. Jiujitsuguy made a lot of useful contribution here. Sincerely. - BorisG (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
User talk:Tariqabjotu: Difference between revisions
Add topic
