User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive Fifty

Merge discussion for Istanbul
An article that you have been involved in editing, Istanbul , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. İnfoCan (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: Saturday, December 4
Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have not failed to notice...
I have not failed to notice that the information you used from "Weatherbase" for the Istanbul climate section is obsolete, as it has not been updated.

For instance the website states the record high as just 37°C and the record low as just -8°C, both which are false because both records are higher and lower than that. Please look at page 2 from Meteor.gov.org (Alas in Turkish only), and in the English language websites Mid East Weather Otulook, Mherrera.org and Meteorologyclimate.com.

The overemphasis on fog is also not fully correct. This will (falsly) lead the outsider to think that the city is shrouded under a full fog cover for the 228 or so days. I just want to point out that the fog usually does not last the entire day and dissipates before noon. This is not San Franciso where I lived and where the fog stays the entire day and paralyzes the city's sea transportation. This rarely occurs in Istanbul where I now live and happens usually no more than a few days each year, usually outside summer.

And the overemphasis on the number days with certain weather types like snow or hot days in a very erratic and transitional climate like that of Istanbul is also questionable. The city's weather changes constantly (practically from day to day) and the number of snow (but does happen every year nevertheless) and hot days change from year to year.

At least you used the updated data of the (very erratic) annual average precipitation of Istanbul from Meteo.gov.tr which currently stands at 843.9 mm (and also shows the precipitation pattern for the past 40 years including the least and most recorded precipitaitons), because again, none of whom in the website "Weatherbase" have been updated, and the annual average precipitation still stands 640 mm.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.88.71 (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of Turkish spelling
Is there an established rule regarding the use of Turkish letters in the English Wikipedia? Regarding the article Hatt-i humayun, I am uncertain as to whether to spell it as "hatt-i humayun", "hatt-ı hümayun" or "hatt-ı hümâyûn" throughout the article. The first would be the spelling with English letters, the second is the common Turkish spelling, and the third one using diacritics is the more scholarly Turkish.

I get the following hits with Google-books and Google scholar: "hatt-i humayun"   , "hatt-ı hümayun"   or "hatt-ı hümâyûn". Of course not all sources are on the Internet.

What is your opinion? --İnfoCan (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Valued opinion
I've reworked the definition of this article's topic (first two sentences) and, as I value your content-proficiency, was wondering what you thought of my change and if you have any further suggestions. With respect,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  23:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * While I'm somewhat honored that you value my opinion on the matter, I am not going to comment on a content dispute I don't want to be involved in. --  tariq abjotu  03:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a content dispute and if it ever turns into one I give you my word that I will not use your reply here in discussion. I am requesting a generic editorial opinion that has no bearing on any dispute whatsoever. I don't have much experience in FA level articles and I wanted to get your thoughts on the definition changes I've made. Please.
 * Warm regards,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  11:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * p.s. there is a fairly collegiate atmosphere on that article's talkpage, btw. 11:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Careful
Hey Tariq, when editing main page FA blurbs, make sure you following the formatting conventions listed at Today's_featured_article/requests under "Suggested formatting". In particular, the only bolded part should be the link to the FA (and generally alternative names are to be avoided, although I saw the talk page thread). Raul654 (talk) 06:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Pantherskin returns edit warring
Tariqabjotu, do you remember this?:

You blocked Pantherskin because of his edit warring at Syria and Golan heights, he had repeatedly removed the Dayan comment without agreement at the talkpage, several editors disagreed with him removing it, Now Pantherskin has returned and once again has removed the exact same Dayan comment:. There has not been any new development at the talkpage to remove it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One new edit doesn't warrant any attention at the moment. --  tariq abjotu  18:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Three weeks
You said here three weeks instead of three months:  --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Corrected. --  tariq abjotu  18:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

What topic ban covers?
Hi Tariq. I asked you a question on AE, but I've got no response. So one more time: I was blocked for 48 hours for this edit. Please notice I was not edit warring as Nab was, I made only one constructive comment about wikipedia policies, and got blocked for 48 hours! My other block for topic ban violation was for this edit at Rothschild family. So could you please explain to me how two edits I got blocked for is a topic ban violation, and all edit warring Nab has done in the last few days is not. I am asking this question because I'm really trying to understand what does mean broadly-interpreted topic ban and what it covers. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your topic ban was for "all content and discussions related to the Israeli-Arab conflict". The first link is a comment on an AE request directly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The request against Roland was made in the context of the ARBPIA restrictions and it dealt with a controversial anti-Israel image. Clearly within the Arab-Israeli conflict.


 * The second link is less obvious, but I imagine you were blocked because the Rothschild family was instrumental in the Zionist movement. That's good enough for me.


 * One's topic ban does not mean they are subject to more restrictive rules (e.g. a 1RR) on articles outside the topic ban. As I stated plainly at AE, Nableezy's edits on List of Arabs, aside from being tangential to the area of interest (so what if Nasser was important to Arab-Israeli conflict; it's a list that contains no such information), are rather harmless. --  tariq abjotu  16:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to respond my question, but I cannot agree with your assessment. Let's start with Rothschild family please. This article has not a single word about any Arab country and/or Arab territory. Zionism has no more direct connection to I/P conflict than Nasser has to it. Egypt has a big connection to I/P conflict. When I think about Egypt I of course think about Moses and Exodus and about the pyramids, but I also think about 4 wars it fought with Israel. Of course Egypt should be covered by a topic ban much more than Rothschild family is. Now, if Zionism is connected to I/P conflict, Nasser is much more so.
 * BTW do you know that I was topic banned on I/P related article not because I violated any policy in those articles. I was banned as Sandstein stated this: "I am really concerned about these Holocaust soap DYK diffs provided by Mbz1. As Gatoclass says, these seem to reflect a bona fide content dispute about what the sources say, and Mbz1 brings them up here in a manner that gives the impression of having the intent to associate Gatoclass with Holocaust denial, and at any rate misuses the AE process for the discussion of a content dispute, which AE is not for. This has got to stop. While the soap issue is probably outside the scope of WP:ARBPIA, it being brought up here is part of a pattern of battleground conduct by Mbz1 mostly in an ARBPIA context." So as you may see Sandstein saw the problem in my comments about the Holocaust that had nothing to do with I/P conflict of course. I provided the link to show that behavior should be taken in the account, when AE is enforced.
 * Please let's keep it here in one place. I am watching your talk page. Thanks. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew you weren't going to agree with my explanation. I knew you were going to equivocate the articles you got blocked for editing with the ones Nableezy is being tried for. This was so predictable, I don't know why I even bothered responding. This is what makes this area of Wikipedia so frustrating. Most of the people editing Wikipedia do so because they enjoy the community or enjoy contributing what they know or just like writing. But people in this area -- you most definitely included -- edit Wikipedia because they see it as front on an Arab-Israeli information war. You've already made your allegiances clear and you're not suddenly going to switch positions because of something I or anyone else says.
 * So... what's the point of this? Mbz1, I'm not interested in providing you artillery for the next several times you complain at AE. I know this is difficult for many Israel-Palestine editors to do, but you need to drop this; the past has passed. I will categorically revert any mention of those past blocks on my talk page. --  tariq abjotu  19:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 97% of my edits (the images I upload, the articles I write) have absolutely nothing to do with I/P conflict at all. I am not, and never have been a single purpose account. I filed only 3 AE requests altogether that cannot be compared to SD and Nab activity there. Your sarcasm is absolutely unwarranted in my situation.
 * I brought up my last blocks not to discuss them, but to try to understand how the system works, because it does not work properly. Being or not being sanctioned should not deepened on what administrator imposes the sanction, on what mood this admin is in, and on what religious beliefs he/she decides to exercise at the moment. The borders of topic ban should be described clearly and the way everybody understands them. It is my right as an editor to understand how it works, and it is your duty as admin to help me with this.
 * Your response is an usual response of anybody, who has no better arguments. I knew what response I will get from you. I should not have asked you those questions. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Your decisions at AE
Mr Tariqabjotu, please re-read the Damour Massacre article. There is no way that any fair reading of that article does not put it squarely in the middle of the I-P conflict area, especially since I believe the wording of that topic ban is "broadly construed." It may not be immediately obvious, but it is generally understood that the Palestine Liberation Organisation and Arafat were the principle effectors of this event, which led to further events in which Israel was also involved. --  A Mr NoAccount
 * But.. you do realize that he didn't actually edit the article in any case? He simply gave evidence that another editor had been edit warring on it, in order to resolve an issue regarding that editor edit warring over Arab ethnicities, that seems less than absolutely damning. un☯mi</i> 05:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that was not clear in your comment. I was under the impression that an edit had been made to the Damour article under a topic ban. --Mr No Account

Tariq, something really should be done about the obvious socks using AOL IP addresses. They really should be treated as open proxies. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Addressing I-P at AE all at once
Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Israel-Palestine_Conflict. An idea for a nice, clear place to sort it all out. The editors named are not set in stone. Add or remove as you think appropriate. What do you think? --Vassyana (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiXDC: Wikipedia 10th Birthday!
You are invited to WikiXDC, a special meetup event and celebration on Saturday, January 22 hosted by the National Archives and Records Administration in downtown Washington, D.C. Please RSVP soon as possible, as there likely will be a cap on number of attendees that NARA can accommodate.
 * Date: January 22, 2011 (tentatively 9:30 AM - 5 PM)
 * Location: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), downtown building, Pennsylvania Avenue & 7th St NW.
 * Description: There will be a behind-the-scenes tour of the National Archives and you will learn more about what NARA does. We will also have a mini-film screening featuring FedFlix videos along with a special message from Jimmy Wales. In the afternoon, there will be lightning talks by Wikimedians (signup to speak), wiki-trivia, and cupcakes to celebrate!
 * Details & RSVP:  Details about the event are on our Washington, DC tenwiki page.

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"just a ploy to remove that comma"
Regarding this, I actually didn't notice that I'd done that until after I saved the edit. I then consulted our Serial comma article, which indicates that "it is less often used in British English" (which Pakistani English generally reflects), and a subsequent Google search corroborated this. That's why I didn't self-revert. —David Levy 05:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh. --  tariq abjotu  04:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

thanks
thanks for taking down the obscene and racist comment re Superbowl.μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for additional information
With regards to this edit, could you please respond at In the news/Candidates to a request for a more detailed explanation of your reason for removing the ITN listing. The purpose for this request is to allow any interested party enough information to work to resolve the issue. --Allen3 talk 14:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

ITN
admins have rules to follow before posting (see admin quide on the page), one of which means posting a note on the article page when its posted on ITN. And second is to give crdit to nominees/substantial contriobutors.(Lihaas (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)).
 * Don't patronize me. As a frequent ITN/C commenter, you should know that I frequently update ITN and, therefore, don't need you to explain to me what the procedure is. If I missed something, you should be capable of adding a notice to someone's talk page rather than being a dick about it. --  tariq abjotu  10:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * what are you talking about patronising. I was "adding a notice" as you suggest. If i was "patronising" there would be a far more visible anger or tempaltes (but we dont template regulars). And i wasnt the one who wrote "being a dick about it" which is a NPA that i never wrote.Lihaas (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you added a notice to my talk page, rather than to the talk page of the article or editor where an ITNtalk or ITNcredit is normally placed. And, yes, it is patronizing. You may have typed the message yourself, but it is effectively a template response -- precisely what you would have told a new admin who had just edited ITN for the first time. And, thanks for reminding me that I said you were being a dick; I almost forgot. --  tariq abjotu  23:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * yes of course, this was not patronising was it? Practice what you preach. Most people dont be "a dick about it" to have an adverse reaction and intentional NPA for the SECOND time. lighten up, son!
 * at any rate, lets cease this tiresome thread.Lihaas (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, are you sure that "Revolution" should be in upper case? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Block of 68.79.92.229
Hi tariqabjotu. I was just looking at your block of 68.79.92.229, and I've got to say it looks a little excessive to me. This is his first block, he had no warnings about edit warring/3rr (just disruption), he appears to be relatively new and the disruption occured about 18 hours before your block. He had appeared on ANI for a day and a bit, in a section that received little admin attention, before being archived. He did go over 3rr, so I do understand if you felt a block was necessary. I was wondering if you would look again at your block, especially the length, in light of these factors. Worm   TT   23:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

China overtakes Japan on ITN
The updated article is Economic history of modern China. The proposed blurb is as follows: Hope this is good enough now. Grey Hood  Talk  02:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, we indeed have several more items nearly ready for posting. This means that the chronologically older items have a strong chance to be featured on the Main Page for a very short time if all the supported nominations are posted and more follow up at a similar rate, bumping out older items. That's why we should try to post older items as quickly as possible. No need for rush, of course, but I just want to say that having a backlog of close-to-posting items is a reason to prompt the posting of certain items, not to delay. Grey Hood   Talk  02:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)