User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive Fifty-Seven

Not sure if you saw this.
Just want to make it clear you wont have to deal with such silliness again from me. Regards, --Τασουλα (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw that. Thanks for ultimately being such a good sport about the ordeal. --  tariq abjotu  19:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah I do have my moments...I'm trying to get more and more calm in regards to my conduct around here. Yesterday I was the victim of some pretty strange harassment/abuse from an editor who was quacking like a duck whilst claiming to be a new editor. I gave myself a pat on the back for handling the situation pretty well! - A side note, I don't get why so many people have an issue with English variations here. "What's a movie theatre"? Pffft. Seriously. The amount of American TV that gets shown in the UK (And Ireland...as that's where the IP is...), along with considering how popular it is would make one think British-English speakers would all understand it. Lets hope it IS trolling :P--Τασουλα (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I was being nice to you, and civil, and have actually kept my tone civil across the site since our spat... but if you're going to nit-pick over an edit summary which was not targeted at any editor then I have nothing to say to you other than stay away from me. Seriously.--Τασουλα (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No. As long as you keep making remarks like that, I will not stay away. You may think it's just a minor thing, but that's obvious taunting with no relevance to the discussion at hand. --  tariq abjotu  16:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Taunting? Taunting who? Name the editor I was taunting. I wasn't taunting anyone. And it amazes me how you can have such a problem with that edit summary when you have content of a certain nature on certain users talk pages as we have talked about in the past. Unbelievable.--Τασουλα (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No one particular editor, many. Particularly Muslims. Please don't make this more difficult than it already is by playing dumb; the edit summary was designed to taunt the religiosity of Muslims. --  tariq abjotu 17:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * HA! It's a common side-joke among Atheists. You think this was about Muslims? No, it was about that almighty bearded guy in the sky Christians and Jews and Muslims and various other religions believe in. I would have said the same no matter what religion it was. Allah is just the arabic word for god, he is NOT the "Muslim God" as so many erroneously try to claim. My god. This is silly as hell. You've read far too much into my words.--Τασουλα (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh-huh, sure. But, if you want to play that game, then fine, then you were taunting religious people. There's really no way around this. -- tariq abjotu  17:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to say anymore to someone who calls me a liar. You use the word taunting as if I was specifically targeting someone here which I was not. I have not broken any rules.I'll admit I don't like Islam. I especially don't like Muhammad. Just like certain people do not like Jews or Judaism here which they make very clear. Leave me alone. --Τασουλα (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Rajesh Khanna 1 cropped.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Rajesh Khanna 1 cropped.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and itssource. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page oncopyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 July 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 10:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

English source
Hallo Tariq WP:NOENG says "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available". This is one on these cases. The book which I used in the citation about Levantines is by far the most important work appeared on this subject. As far as I know, Schmitt is the first scholar which did research about this topic at this level (and got a university chair mainly because of this book). By the way, speaking always about Istanbul, the same happens for the byzantine Age. The reference works about the City are often German (Müller-Wiener) or French (Janin). I think that these kind of citations raise the level of the article, since it shows that contributors come from different cultures and - above all - know the subject. Alex2006 (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: FAC
Thank you very much for the kind post, and I very much forgive you. The unfortunate things about arguments on Wikipedia is that they're simply through text (so wording can becoming amplified in our head) and that they are time-delayed (so that you might not see something I wrote until hours later, and I might not be able to reply back until hours after that). In my seven years on Wikipedia, I've had several little spats between myself and another editor, and all of them ended amicably whenever the other editor was a fairly prolific article-writer.

Personally, I blame you being on vacation :P I'll admit, if I had a FAC that was up for a while, and then when I was on vacation I got a ton of comments (some of which I disagreed with), I might be a little annoyed too. To be honest, I was a little facetious when I said I wouldn't be continuing to participate on future FAC's. I mostly just said that to mimic what you said, and so I do apologize and take back those remarks. I've retired Wiki twice, gone on several Wiki breaks, and gone through a lot of other stuff here on Wiki, so don't worry, you're not going to be the cause of me stopping FAC reviewing. That's fine if you disagree with some of my comments - it's only one user's comments out of millions. If you do put Istanbul up for FAC again, either some of those comments will come up again, or no one will care about them, in which case, hopefully no significant harm done. I do suggest you put it back up for FAC at some point. It is a fantastic article, and you deserve the star after your years of work on there.

Good luck with your future wiki endeavors, and if you feel like getting revenge, I have an FAC up too :P (hence why I reviewed yours in the first place) --♫ Hurricanehink( talk ) 15:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and perhaps your analysis of the situation is correct. I'll probably wait until my vacation finishes in a week's time before starting a second nomination, but the academic year is looming ahead for me, and disruption of my studies would be even worse than disruption of my vacation. I might actually take a look at the article you have up for featured status; I do have some interest in hurricanes, and I've never done a review before. One thing I noticed right away is that the first paragraph mentions the storm forming on June 28, but -- as far as I can tell -- the year has not been mentioned yet by then. --  tariq abjotu  20:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, good luck with your studies! And we always need help in the hurricane project, so don't be a stranger ;) I added the year, btw, good catch. --♫Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

As a third party marginally involved in the Istanbul FAC review I just want to say that I was sorry to see what happened, because I felt that the article was very close to passing. It is essentially at FA level now (I better feel that way since I voted to support), so I would expect it to pass fairly easily if it were nominated again. I hope that after you have had a chance to catch your breath, and find a time when your other time commitments permit, you resubmit it to FAC. I very well realize how frustrating the FAC process can be, and I am glad to see that no one involved seems to be holding a grudge. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't worry; I will be nominating it again, most likely on Thursday, which is after my trip is over. Obviously there are no guarantees with the FAC process, but I do feel that it was indeed close to passing. --  tariq abjotu  10:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I also wanted to drop in and say that the article is going well. I would just encourage you to be open to suggestions made during the FAC. Everyone there wants to see all articles improved. I'm happy to be involved in the nomination if you want a co-nom, or to act again as a reviewer, whichever suits. Look forward to it being back on the list. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a difference between being open to suggestions and agreeing with all suggestions. If it wasn't clear already -- as there was no intention to suggest otherwise -- if Hurricanehink were to raise the exact same points again, I would still not act upon them. I didn't reject them because I had a problem with criticism of content I created or because I refused to believe the article wasn't perfect. That is how my response seemed to be interpreted, and unfortunately so, as I made my best effort to explain first why I didn't think Hurricanehink's points were correct or otherwise needed to be addressed. Unless someone else gave input on these points (and, with time, that probably would have happened), it would have simply been a stalemate between the nominator (me) and the reviewer (Hurricanehink), with no compulsion for me to do anything.


 * Instead, I rejected them because I rejected the premises behind them -- and the FAC process does not compel me to capitulate to every single request made by a reviewer. I thought about each of his points (and each of your points) to try to see the issue the reviewer was seeing. In some cases, that required little effort, and so I quickly rectified the issues. In other cases, even after considerable effort, I could not see the lack of clarity or ambiguity that the reviewer mentioned. That was especially common in the case of Hurricanehink, but this is not out of a personal issue with him -- as I have had no prior interaction with him. The focus here seems to be on what I didn't do to address his points, rather than what I did do (and what I did to address the points made by you and Rusty). I could go through the remaining points one-by-one, but I thought I did that the first time around. Should Hurricanehink bring up the same points again, I will restate the same. But, barring any new information, I have no plans to address more of his points.


 * Putting it blunty, I think I'll do fine without a co-nomination as well as without the accusation that I wasn't open to suggestions, when I accepted most of them. --  tariq abjotu  20:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Istanbul#Transportation
Hi! Are you sure that my edits on the Transportation section of the article Istanbul were superfluous? I respect your experience and efforts, however I cannot understand why, for example, the article Istanbul may not have the same structure and similar content as in the article San Francisco? If you can explain it to me briefly I'll learn more. CeeGee (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Burma
You clearly do seem to have an opinion there. Reducing the arguments of the entire bunch of supporters into something as simplistic as saying "they were supporting the move to Myanmar because it is an official name" does great disservice to the efforts of our volunteer editors. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Move review for Burma
An editor has asked for a Move review of Burma. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

ISTANBUL NATIVE NAME - RACISM AGAINST TURKEY
given the way this renders in the infobox, the native name is unnecessary comment by 

THIS IS OBVIOUSLY RACISM AGAINST TURKISH IDENTITY --AlexanderFreud (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain your words?
How did I accuse the nom regarding the earthquake blurb? Thanks,Egeymi (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean it. And I am very sorry, since my words are understood as accusation. I think the speaker/writer knows the intentions of his statements, not the audience/readers. I wish I did not try to justify or explain my vote.Egeymi (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Warning
You are quick, on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard exist the opinion of only one user (in the appendix as a red link), and you reverted changes. Zero desire to respect opinion of others users, not even waiting for opinion of other users, pushing only your version according to your opinion. Congratulations.Subtropical-man (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution(DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you areactive in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Backstage at the Smithsonian Libraries
Backstage at the Smithsonian Libraries is part of Wikipedia Loves Libraries 2012, the second annual continent-wide campaign to bring Wikipedia and libraries together with on-site events. Running this fall through October and November, libraries (and archives) will open their doors to help build a lasting relationship with their local Wikipedian community.

Organized by Wikimedia DC, this event will take place on October 12, 2012, and will include new editor training, a "backstage pass" tour of theNational Museum of Natural History, and an edit-a-thon. Everyone is welcome to attend!

Kirill [talk] 18:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Akka (software) re-instatement
I see you deleted this page. I was referred to it from a google search. The current only other source of information is a commercial body who support the open source product.

As Akka is a significant advancement in scalable web based messaging, I think you'll find that it is important to have this information. I would rather come here and learn in an unbiased way.

If you search in wikipedia you will find a few references to this now deleted page.

I haven't read this; I'm trying to learn about Akka. So I don't know what the content was that so offended the editors that they decided to remove it in just seven days.

Sorry about writing in an anonymous fashion. It's been so long that I have forgotten my password and the email has been sent to an account that I can't get to at the moment. So rather than pollute the system with yet another account I thought I'd just post like this.

Mel Pullen (elves at CIX). — Preceding unsigned comment added by86.26.8.112 (talk) 12:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

"2012 Anti-Islam film protests" redirect issue
Hi,

Since you did the move at 2012 Anti-Islam film protests back to the original title, I'd hope you might quickly adjudicate an issue over at that page. I'm pretty sure it should be a redirect because you moved it back as such. But someone else wants to edit it as a separate page, which seems invalid, and breaks searches and the like. Assuming keeping it as a redirect is the correct thing, I'd appreciate it if you would do that and protect the page. (I'm referring to the unredirected page if it's unclear: .) Edit: Edit war over that one particular redirect page no longer occurring, so you can ignore this request now. – 2001:db8:: (rfc &#124; diff) 00:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, could move the article over redirect per this consensus.  Mohamed CJ  (talk)  13:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Istanbul
I saw your question on Graham's page ... my guess is he was simply going through and archiving (not promoting) anything 4 weeks old that didn't have at least 3 supports ... and you just missed that bar. (Ian is on holiday, so Graham is having to handle almost all the delegate tasks himself.) I'll ask him if you can put it back up right away, since the best I can tell, there were no loose ends. I'll run through and probably support, and that's your 3 supports ... Cas and Rusty will probably support again. - Dank (push to talk) 02:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See User talk:GrahamColm. It's fine for you to renominate, and this one may go very quickly. - Dank (push to talk) 23:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

ITN
--Deryck C. 20:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)