User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive Fifty-Three

Thanks
Thanks for stepping up to post the Shammi Kapoor ITN :) -- Ashish-g55 00:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Username
Hey! You just expressed a concern regarding my username. Here the explanation: :P


 * Batman: I have one rule.
 * The Joker: Oh, then that's the rule you'll have to break to know the truth.
 * Batman: Which is?
 * The Joker: The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules, and tonight, you're gonna break your one rule!
 * Batman: I'm considering it.
 * The Joker: There's only minutes left; you're going to have to play my little game if you want to save one of them.
 * Batman: Them?
 * The Joker: You know, for a while there, I thought you really were Dent. The way you threw yourself after her... [laughs]
 * '[Batman realises he means Rachel; enraged, he flips Joker over onto the table]
 * The Joker: Look at you go! Does Harvey know about you and his "little bunny"?
 * [Batman slams Joker's head into the mirror and punches him]
 * Batman: WHERE ARE THEY?
 * The Joker: Killing is making a choice...
 * [Batman punches him again]
 * Batman: WHERE ARE THEY?
 * The Joker: Choose between one life or the other: Your friend the District Attorney, or his blushing bride-to-be!
 * [Batman punches him again]
 * The Joker: [laughing hysterically] You have nothing to threaten me with! Nothing to do with all your strength!
 * [Batman grabs him]
 * The Joker: But don't worry, I'm gonna tell you where they are! Both of them, and that's the point. You'll have to choose. He's at 250 52nd Street and she's at Avenue X and Cicero.

So, this was the story, a line from my favourite movie, The Dark Knight.

250 52nd Street or Avenue X at Cicero 19:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies
Hi. I only just saw your comment at WP:ERRORS regarding the darkest planet blurb that you posted. My comment there was overly critical – sorry for giving you a hard time. I really do appreciate your work at ITN. Best wishes, Jenks24 (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Istanbul redirect
OK, I am sorry. -- Supermæn (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Moonwatching in Saudi Arabia
Tariqabjotu, thanks for the information about the beginning of Eid ul-Fitr. I'm puzzled by something though, after looking at the website you linked to which shows where the new crescent moon was visible on August 29. If I'm reading the world map correctly, the new moon was not visible in Saudi Arabia on August 29, but only in Southern Chile, Polynesia (naked eye) and South Africa (binoculars). Am I reading the map right? --  Kenatipo   speak! 15:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking so long to get back to you; I've been travelling. Yes, you're reading that correctly. But it's well known that there is a sort of confirmation bias on moonsightings. Muslims in the Middle East and the Arab world had long placed Eid ul-Fitr as starting the evening of August 29. And, low and behold, that's when the moon was "sighted". Of course, it's likely no one ever saw the moon (except in Chile), but the most unreliable of reports are believed in order to keep with the planned Eid day. It's only a matter of time before people just cut the crap and calculate the months (as some Islamic organizations, like some in North America, have already decided to do). --  tariq abjotu  13:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tariq; hope you had a good trip! --  Kenatipo    speak! 14:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 September 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 September 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You're invited! Wikimedia DC Annual Membership Meeting
Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

The Signpost: 19 September 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 10:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Catherine the Great
Hello! Please take your attention to my proposal here and here. Thanks! Grey Hood  Talk  22:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

RE: What does that add?
And the links to Australian rules football and to 2011 AFL Grand Final don't explain that? &mdash; Joseph Fox 08:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI
The warning from m.o.p. to Deterence was a response to a thread I started at ANI, here. Swarm  02:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 October 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22
You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here !--Pharos (talk) 05:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 October 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Moammar Gaddafi
Hi,

I think the full protect needs to be put back in place. Despite who's right, there's multiple parties that are edit warring over the article -- if there's consensus on what the content of the article should be, an admin can make those changes, but right now that consensus doesn't exist. Additionally, when reversing another admin's actions, could you please consult that admin before you reverse it? Thanks, Mikaey,  Devil's advocate  14:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with the unprotection, I'll restore it. If you don't, I don't see the point of this complaint. Your reason for the protection was, in part, lack of independent confirmation. Because that now exists, it seems like the original reason for full protection was broken. --  tariq abjotu  14:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you would, please -- the fact is, there's an edit war in progress. There's bound to be more details to come in that people are going to argue over.  Mikaey,  Devil's advocate  14:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Then cross that bridge when we get to it, but you protected the article because his death was unconfirmed and because people were edit-warring over whether he was dead. But it's reasonably confirmed, with pictures, and he's dead, so there's no reason you presented that still is valid now. Fully protecting articles that are bound to get updates due to current events is uncommon, and, in my opinion, a bad idea. --  tariq abjotu  14:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but until he's confirmed dead by reliable sources, it's still a BLP, and "reasonably confirmed" isn't good enough.  Mikaey,  Devil's advocate  15:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There were pictures. Seriously. Just drop it. --  tariq abjotu  15:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any cases where pictures have constituted a reliable source on Wikipedia. Pictures can always be faked or doctored.   Mikaey,  Devil's advocate  15:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, look -- there were three points here. Can we agree on the following items?
 * Before you undo another admin's administrative actions, you should always consult with that admin first. (This is just common courtesy.)
 * BLPs always require that highly reliable sources attest to any of the information on their page. Pictures don't constitute reliable sources.
 * Despite what the reason was for the edit war, there was an edit war going on, and the full protection should have stayed in place to give people a chance to cool down and come to a consensus as to what the actual content of the article should have been. Just because the reason for the full protection goes away doesn't mean that people have come to a consensus as to what the content of the article should have been, and unless an equally compelling reason came along to remove the protection (or people came to a consensus as to what the content should have been), it should have stayed in place.
 * I think I'm done trying to argue that the full protection should go back in place, because it's kinda pointless now, but can we agree that it shouldn't have been removed? Mikaey,  Devil's advocate  15:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI...
I just wanted to tell you that this looks to me like the single greatest bone-head move I've ever seen an admin do on Wikipedia. What is the big hurry to include current events? What is the big rush to include unconfirmed materials? The article now stands in ruins from being overly edited. Thanks. Erikeltic ( Talk ) 14:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Since when is "over-editing" a reason for protecting an article? --  tariq abjotu  14:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Edit warring then. There you go.  BTW, Generalíssimo Francisco Franco is still dead.   Erikeltic ( Talk ) 14:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit warring was over whether he was dead. Now there's independent confirmation, including pictures, so why would that edit war continue? --  tariq abjotu  14:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There was no confirmation at the time of your edit. You should have left it admin-only for the 12 hours.   Erikeltic ( Talk ) 14:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was. That's why I unprotected the article. --  tariq abjotu  14:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue with you, but you're incorrect. There was no confirmation by any government agency at the time of your edit and you took it upon yourself to swoop in and open the article up for editing after another admin had protected it.  There is absolutely no need to rush something like that; if Gaddafi was dead, chances are really good that he'll still be dead in a couple of hours.  You made a bad call (period).   Erikeltic</B> ( Talk ) 14:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hilo
In regards to his latest comments, I feel it's time to implement the topic ban there's been support for against him. Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with Hot Stop. I read the original discussion on his behavior but did not comment on it. The reason is that, while I thought HiLo48's behavior was extreme and disruptive, I thought it sets a bad precedent that we might censor users for having extreme personal views. After my nomination was turned into an anti-American cesspool by HiLo48, it has become obvious (to me) that he has little interest in improving the quality of ITN nominations and is merely using ITN as a front for expressing his bigoted views against a particular nation. I do not see any interest in making constructive comments to the discussion; all I see is intentional disruption and provocation.  Jim Sukwutput  06:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 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) 11:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You're invited! Wikipedia Loves Libraries DC
Note: You can remove your name from the DC meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC), on behalf of User:Aude

The Signpost: 31 October 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) 18:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011
<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) 13:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 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) 23:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

ITN
Thank you for posting the Eurasian Union. Could you please review this nomination, is it ready for posting or not? Grey Hood  Talk  15:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't worry; I had noticed already (I'm going through all of ITN/C searching for items). It's added now. --  tariq abjotu  15:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Grey Hood   Talk  16:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Locking of Ugg boots
I would like to point out that the edits by Phoenix and Winslow were to remove content that originally had consensus. Phoenix and Winslow took those edits to the talk page on 10 October where his changes were discussed extensively and rejected with the current wording again gaining consensus. Phoenix and Winslow then took the same edits to the NPOV noticeboard on 14 November (without notifying any of the article editors) where they are still under discussion. When the previous page protection was lifted the article editors declined to make any changes apart from returning the page to the pre-lock consensus version per talk until the disputes were resolved. Against consensus, Phoenix and Winslow made his disputed edits, was reverted, was asked to use talk before making more edits and yet he made the edits for a second time. The behaviour by Phoenix and Winslow (and his socks) to continually promote a company in this article is unacceptable and is locking out legitimate editors. What can be done to prevent Phoenix and Winslow from editing against consensus so that the situation can be resolved without having the page locked? Wayne (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)