User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive Fifty-Four

The Signpost: 21 November 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot;Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

In_the_news/Candidates
Hi. I feel the importance of this piece of news is overstated. Elections are far more important. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 21:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

ITN country links
Greetings. I linked Pakistan because of the effect on international relations therewith ("Pakistan termed this friendly fire attack an 'unprovoked and indiscriminate firing', 'irresponsible act' and 'flagrant violation of its sovereignty'. ... Pakistan retaliated by suspending all NATO supplies to Afghanistan and ordered the US troops to vacate the Shamsi Airfield.") I linked Turkey because the apology was made on its behalf. —David Levy 16:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 December 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 19:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 December 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me?
I did look at ITN/C first, that's the first place I went. Did you? The Moose  is loose ! 03:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry; I misspoke. I meant to say that you didn't read ITN/C first. --  tariq abjotu  03:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're all sorts of helpful. Killiondude (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What's that supposed to mean? --  tariq abjotu  03:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I never provided an explanation to you, so I've posted one here. Feel free to add whatever you'd like. The Moose  is loose ! 08:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Kim Jong il
It seems that the current blurb wasn't what was approved, and a "new article" with recycled content was added to the repertoire and linked in the blurb. In light of the problems with the Death and funeral of Kim Jong-il article, I suggest that you reverted to that blurb on ITN. Cheers, -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 02:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Problems like what? There was a paragraph that you didn't like, but you removed it. So, what's the problem now? The alternative is that the lion's share of that information will be squeezed into the Kim Jong-il article, which may or may not be okay. But, how the parent article is now, at least -- with a splintered section -- is worse than how the daughter article is. --  tariq abjotu  02:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 December 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Re:File:Bizansist touchup.jpg in Istanbul
Hallo Tariqabjotu

sorry, but the image depicts Constantinople in the byzantine times. If I understand you well, your problem is the position of the image inside the "first settlement" paragraph. Am I right? Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 07:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. Images are placed in the sections they are depicting. As I said the first time, that image does not depict that time period. --  tariq abjotu  19:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not erase the twin city section of Istanbul
Please do not erase the twin city section of Istanbul. Every city (even small towns) with twin cities has a section about twin cities.

This is not helpful for readers if any reference (even a wiki link) about twin cities is completely removed.

This is definately not about the manual of style. If a section in an article becomes too long, a separate article has been already created as a result, in this case for all the twin cities of Turkey, including Istanbul, because there are many and a section in the Istanbul article would be too long.

And importantly to save space in the Istanbul article, the twin city section has been reduced as an internal wiki link to direct. So please do not erase it. Readers will not automatically assume that there is an article about twin cities of Istanbul and may not realize it.

I urge that you keep the "Twin towns and sister cities of Istanbul", but reedit it in such a way that it is compatible with the "manual of style" and importantly that the readers will be informed that a such a topic and article exists and that the readers can also be redirected to the separate article "List of twin towns and sister cities of Istanbul". But completely erasing it is definately not the solution.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by88.254.133.114 (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Fine. Just leave it. I really don't care. But when I put this article up for a peer review or featured article candidacy and the reviewers inevitably say to get rid of that section, please keep your opinion to yourself and don't re-add it. It is 100% against Wikipedia Manual of Style to have a section of the body of an article with just a single link under it. No prose, nothing. Find me a single featured article promoted in the last year (or, frankly, ever) that includes such a junk section, and I'll concede that point. But, you won't, and I shouldn't even have to point you to the Manual of Style to tell you that is not acceptable. If this fact is not common sense to you, you have a lot to learn before editing articles, especially high-quality ones like Istanbul.


 * And it is not true at all that every major city has Sister cities links. The trend now is to omit them from articles where nothing but a list can be provided. For example, San Francisco, a featured article, does not mention its twin cities (among them Haifa). Kent, Ohiohas a section, but it provides a paragraph on its relationship. Cities like New York, Paris, and Rome (none of which are featured articles, by the way) keep them, but they are officially listed and have significance.


 * But, as I said, I have more important things to do than go back and forth with you about this. When I get down to the end of that article, and that section, I will delete it without blinking an eye. So, you have a couple options: write some well-referenced prose about Istanbul's sister cities, move the link to a fledgling "See also" section, or delete the section as I already did. Or, you can just hold your position, and I'll clean up your mess sometime in January, when I decide it's worth my time. --  tariq abjotu  19:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * While communicating with other people you have to be polite and diplomatic. I wrote to you about my request in a civil manner. Your tone is not only tactless but the language you are using is rude and offensive. You should anwser diplomatically with others users when they write to you in a civil manner, even if you do no agree with them and state your points and cases (unless they are attacking you or insulting you). My request and the language I used was absolutley not rude or written in a way to offend you. I would expect the same as I am sure you would too from other users.


 * You suggested to put the internal wiki link in the "See also" section of the Istanbul city article. This is a very good suggestion as completely I forgot about the See also section.


 * If I relocate it there for the other readers to see it and thus safeguard the quality of the Istanbul article will you finally accept this?


 * Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by88.254.133.114 (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I write to match the initial comment. Upon receiving a message from someone who so brazenly thinks the aforementioned junk section is in line with our Manual of Style, that is the kind of response I will give. Always. If you thought that was "rude" or "offensive" or not "civil", you need to grow some skin. Again, further evidence that you're not ready to participate in articles, especially in the revert first, ask questions later manner you have expressed so far.


 * I have said all I need to say. I'm focused on improving the article, not arguing about points that are easily verifiable and altogether unimportant. What you do with that link is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic&mdash;little to no consequence. -- tariq abjotu  20:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Death of Johannes Heesters
Per: this. The majority of voters is in favour of posting this news fact with the changed blurb. But it still has not been posted. Could you perhaps do the honour? It'll go stale otherwise.Swarm was so kind to tell me you are the one to ask. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A slim majority, and only through endorsements which should be ruled out. No rationales have challenged oppose votes. Wikifan Be nice 23:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, I've read good arguments for both the support and oppose votes. Also, take note that of the only three opposing votes, one is just a "weak oppose". There are seven support votes. Now that's not the most impressive consensus ever, but it's still a (slight) consensus.Mythic Writerlord (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 December 2011

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 January 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Damn it!
I just spent time cropping Victoria Azarenka. --  tariq abjotu  02:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Pls go ahead and post the pretty gal's picture. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Homs bombardment

 * Hello. I am still seeking the reason of pulling the news of Homs bombardment, can you inform me please which part is unneutral? all the guys here keep saying all the time that it is unneutral and POV etc.., but they don't say anything real about which part is biased, i see that we are now biased to the regime rather than the opposition, this is not neutrality, this is further beyond.. --aad_Dira (talk) 06:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Please answer me as soon as possible. I tried to contact one of the two users who refused the last version posting on the main page, but he simply ignored me, so far everything seems like there is people (Or certainly person) who just wants to prevent the posting of the news on the main page without any clear reasons, so please cooperate a bit with me to resolve this problem --aad_Dira (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Thank you so much for solving the problem finally :) --aad_Dira (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC).

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion (4th time)
I'm trying to get this article deleted, List of former atheists and agnostics, please consider entering the discussion!Ncboy2010 (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear Tariqabjotu,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

ITN
I hope you haven't stopped answering queries, because I still have doubts. It would be good if you could also invite another experienced ITN editor to discuss this matter. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I responded again, but this will probably be the last. It's almost 2am here, and I don't see any reasonable formulation. -- tariq abjotu  09:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Fine with me, but I would be happy if you could point out the name of any editor who would continue this discussion. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PUFresolved
Template:PUFresolved has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)