User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive Forty

Why no credit given to me?
I expanded the article 2008 Indian Embassy bombing in Kabul‎ 10 folds (see third from bottom) and nominated it to the ITN section. However, didn't see any credit message on my talkpage like this. The article has been updated by you on main page. -- gp pande  «talk»  15:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, yeah, sorry about that. The notices on the talk pages of articles that make it to ITN (and to editors who help bring said articles to ITN) are a relatively new thing, dating back to June 10. So, essentially, I forgot that these new templates are a part of the ITN update process (and, to be honest, I don't think it was loudly announced that these were part of the process now; one really had to be paying attention). --  tariq abjotu  20:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the tag. It's not that I crave for it but simply like to have it. I hope to contribute more for ITN and DYK! -- gp pande  «talk»  21:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Editor's barnstar
Thanks for the barnstar; I've added it to my userpage. However, it might have come too soon. I don't plan on spending a large amount of time trying to fix the issues with the article. I, to put it simply, do not have the time to spend fixing the (legitimate) problems with the article within the short period the FAR process allows. Further, I certainly don't have the energy to argue with people who want every point about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict included. I would, ideally, like to see the FAR tabled for a bit because many of the issues -- almost everything except for those surrounding the introduction -- are being raised for the first time. But, it doesn't matter; if the article loses FA status, the issues can be addressed then and then brought to another (surely, painful) FAC -- if someone is up for that monumental task. --  tariq abjotu  10:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your reluctance, but I hope you will, at some point, have the time or energy to address any legitimate concerns - these are important articles, and it's clear that the partisans currently contesting its FA status have neither and interest in nor the ability to bring it to/keep it at FA status, so you're about the only hope it has. Jayjg (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Recently at Jerusalem
Hello there, As I said on the Jerus talk page I have lost my patience with sloppy and highly-partisan deletions of basic historical facts by one editor of late and it has harmed my attitude in dealing with others. Really, I was upset with one person only and should not have directed my frustration at everyone who feels passionately about the "Jerusalem as capital" question. On the other hand, I got quite slammed for my two less-than-perfect comments, even after apologizing, while I see everyone else got away with personally attacking me and other editors today without comment. Now that I reflect further, your reprimand was quite personal, and given the fact that I'd already been 'egged in the face', I think it was overkill, especially since I did not say a word about 'sides.' While I understand that some of my recent additions are contentious, I welcome any help fine-tuning them. In my opinion, as well as others', it is not sufficient simply to have one sentence in this article which reads: "permits are said to be hard to come by." As you can see from the World Bank report, the scale of the matter is pretty large - 400 demolition orders annually - and in my opinion quite worthy of note. If you have any suggestions other than 'delete, delete', I am open. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * When you decide you're going to pretend you don't know how this indentation thing works (i.e. you put a response without indenting), you should expect that responses to other people are sometimes going to appear like responses to you. I indented immediately in from Esmehwa's comment. My comment about your tone was merely an aside; it was obvious, really, from the rest of my post that I was addressing him, unless otherwise stated. Now, for the piece about being 'egged in the face' already and overkill -- which doesn't make sense, because I was only the second to respond to you -- I have some advice (which I'm sure you've heard before): if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. --  tariq abjotu  22:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You think I misunderstood your attacks on the talkpage (calling me "holier-than-thou," and paternalistically reprimanding my recent style of editing, for instance). I think you misunderstood me, here: I was trying to make my comments more readable - I assumed it was obvious that anyone would know all the comments were from one source. Maybe this was not within suggested editing mode. But if you cannot assume good faith anymore after all this time at wikipedia, then maybe it is you who should consider getting out of the kitchen - failure to assume good faith poisons the food. Your 'get out of the kitchen' comment almost sounds like what you are trying to do is drive people with opposing points of view out of the kitchen. Sorry Tariqabjotu, the heat of the kitchen is where I live, and no amount of attempts can drive me out. This should not be an atmosphere in which people try to inflame one another - we should be trying to cool things down - it's damn hot enough in Israel as it is. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC) LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, Please do not copy my writing to my talkpage or anywhere else, if I want it there I will put it there myself. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Working Group Wiki Final Report
Hey, as a reminder, the Working Group is approaching our 6-month deadline for producing our final report. The draft is being built at. Could you please stop in, and see if there is anything you'd like to add? Or if not, just signoff at the talkpage that you are okay on how things are going? Thanks, Nishkid (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you in the midst of editing?
I see you deleted the "1967 War" heading, and now all info is consolidated under "Division." was that intentional? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was in the midst of editing... --  tariq abjotu  21:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please explain
Hey there. I don't know what you mean by "baseless attacks on their opponents." Can you please explain, and offer specifics only, please. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Specifically, I'm talking about when you refer to editors as pro-Zionists. Less directly, you say, "No surprise, but four editors have aggressively been changing the 1948 War heading to 'War of Independence' and the 1967 War heading to 'Unification.'" (something that wasn't happening) and that "the Palestinian view is being 'disappeared' from the article.". --  tariq abjotu  23:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to explain specifically what has been bothering you. In recent days I have had a barrage of insults directed at me personally, rather than at the content, and am doing my best to keep a cool head. My main charge against various editors has been regarding their incivility, attacking my motivations, my knowledge, etc. charging me with spouting "conspiracy theories," "rambling" concerning a one-sentence answer to a question, having friends (Palestinians) who might bulldoze a certain editor (as happened recently to 30 people in Jerusalem), "hijacking", being "holier-than-thou", having problems "in the head", "agenda-pushing", being a "rigid ideologue," "brainless and brainwashed", the only one with egg on the face is you". 3/4 of these comments have come from one editor who has succeeded in unsettling me, drawing me in to battle, when I really should just ignore her; I personally believe should be blocked. As far as the charge of pro-Zionism, I myself was raised Zionist beyond your wildest dreams -- I know what a Zionist is and I know what an Israeli is and I know that the two are not necessarily synonymous, so rather than referring to all Israelis, sometimes I specify, pro-Zionist. As far as my view that Palestinian perspectives are being disappeared, I will stand by that assertion; not that all Palestinian views are being deleted, but several significant Palestinian perspectives have repeatedly disappeared from various articles,usually due to what I view as an assault by just one or two persistent editors who are constantly on wikipedia, and this should not happen. I would like the atmosphere to cool down and if you will work towards that with me, that would be great. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your "pro-Zionist" comment was specifically leveled at "two or three" certain editors, so the options as to whom you were referring are quite limited. You are heavily implying that "2 or 3" of the editors who are reverting to the header you don't like are doing so at least in part because they are "pro-Zionist". You have no basis for that, because the rationale behind the headers was explained in non-partisan terms. There's a difference between something "disappearing" and someone "disappearing" something. I highly doubt that you are unaware of the brutal connotations of the latter, considering you have nearly exclusively used it in that sense, and even put the word in quotes). Disappearing something implies extreme malice ("to cause (someone) to disappear, especially by kidnapping or murder"). --  tariq abjotu  20:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess that, to me, the word "disappearing" does not have to connote malice. It connotes a wish to see someone just "disappear", just go away, somehow cease to be an 'obstacle.' Disappearing, is a word between annihilating and omitting. It is stronger and more active than omission, and it is less conscious and intentional than annihilation. I see it as an unconscious process. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Editnotes becoming of an admin
Before using the lowest form of wit in edit notes, please consider that items stay on ITN for much longer than the relevant picture. Kevin McE (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And that it can be re-added later. I'm sure there are some readers who don't know what the Tour de France is, but as long as the picture is right there it's seems like a little too much explaining to mention that it's in cycling. One way or another, there's going to be stuff on ITN or elsewhere on the Main Page that cannot be explained fully on the Main Page (for example, the item about India's government sounds Greek to me). However, it's not too much to ask for people to click on the links provided or, at least in this case, look at the picture a few pixels over. --  tariq abjotu  14:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the template. Can you use Image:Carlos sastre 2008.jpg for the Tour de France item, because it's a picture of Sastre during the Tour with the yellow jersey? Also, can you say in the item that Sastre is from Spain, as mentioning the nationality of the sportsperson has been usual for sports items.  Spencer T♦C 23:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, it was an American editor who...
Sorry about that, that was a product of "edit summary searching" fatigue. I know you are American, your talk page makes it obvious. I did not search the edit summaries well enough and I thought it was Okedem, who I am pretty sure is Israeli. By the way, I don't think it is possible for that edit to have been an instance of "drawing lines in the sand and dividing people based on nationality" since I am myself Israeli and obviously don't hold that 'certain set of views.' (I got the impression that she had assumed that some 'pro-Palestinian' had deleted the mufti quote, and was directing my clarification at her assumption). I was afraid to say "pro-Zionist" per our discussion above. But, you're right, perhaps I should not have assumed that Okedem, or you, fit that description; it just seems that way. Point taken.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

ITN Administrator category
I created the category Category:Wikipedia in the news frequent administrators. As you have experience in ITN and ITN-related matters, I invite you to add your name there. The purpose is so if a non-admin (such as myself) needs an administrator to add, modify, or remove an item, you have experience in this area. Thanks,  Spencer T♦C 01:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In honour of a job well done
Hello! I came upon your contributions for the first time (we never crossed paths before) and I was greatly impressed by what you've brought to Wikipedia. Please accept this as a token of my appreciation of your fine work:

Cheers! Ecoleetage (talk) 04:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Working Group Final Report
As a reminder, the Working Group's deadline to post a final report, occurs on August 7. A draft final report is now on EN, at Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars/Draft report. Could you please review it, and either edit it, post comments at the talkpage, and/or post your endorsement at the bottom of the report? Thanks, Nishkid (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Heya, we're planning on making the report final tomorrow (August 7, the 6-month mark). If you get a chance, could you please review and/or endorse? Thanks, --Elonka 14:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

User:217.75.202.131
Hello Tariqabjotu. I would like to bring the recent behaviour of the above mentioned user to your attention, as I see you have dealt with him/her in the past. Over the past few days, this user entered an edit war with me on a number of articles concerning the Bosnian War of the 1990's. Although two are to blame for an edit conflict, I wish for it to be known that I have tried to discuss these issues with the user on his/her talkpage but have received very little in verbal response; even so, he/she has persistently reverted. On principle, I know that I am not right about everything and I take no issue with users who may reammend one or two of my edits, specifically when my original edit consists of dozens of minor things which include grammatical clean-ups etc. I am against the concept of blanket-editing and have even explained this to the anonymous user, but he/she appears to have fully ignored it. It is also clear that he/she is a blatant trol whose intention it is to be disruptive. If you are still an administrator, I would be grateful if you could take sime time to resolve these issues: locking the page from newly established users may be one solution. If you are no longer an admin, please accept my apologies for writing, and inform me as soon as possible so that I can alert someone else. Many thanks. Evlekis (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic
Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come! You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Muslim entertainers
I have nominated Muslim entertainers, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Muslim entertainers. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? NonvocalScream (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Islam in Malaysia
Hi there seeing that the article was a former GA candidate, which obviously did not meet the criteria. Do you think the article could meet it now, or what could be improved? Thanks. Mohsin (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:S-ecc
Template:S-ecc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Bazj (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You're invited...
...to the 5th Washington DC Meetup! Please visit the linked page to RSVP or for more information. All are welcome! This has been an automated delivery, you can opt-out of future notices by removing your name from the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan
WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT


 * Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Spring 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
 * Commons:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Gallery (our cool gallery)

WINNINGS? Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:


 * Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project


 * 349 W. 12th St. #3
 * Between Greenwich & Washington Streets
 * By the 14th St./8th Ave. ACE/L stop

FOR UPDATES

Check out:


 * Wikis Take Manhattan main website

This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,
 * Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Current events: Regional pages
Current events: Regional pages, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Current events: Regional pages and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of those pages list at Current events: Regional pages MfD during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Suntag  ☼  08:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You are invited!
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

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) 22:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What to do?
I need some advice. There is a series of articles in this category that are mostly unreferenced, and of living persons. See Hooper Dunbar for an example. Their notability comes from having been elected members of the Universal House of Justice, so I redirected pretty much all of them to that page. Someone reverted the redirects, referring to this discussion. The way I see it, if they are biographies of living persons, and remain unreferenced, I don't need special approval to redirect them. Do you recommend redirecting or an AFD? or some other action? Cuñado ☼ -  Talk  04:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Congrats for bravery
I gotta say, you were very brave to start closing the Ireland pages. They've been hanging there for a while, and I did wonder who'd have the guts to start closing (ignored it myself when closing RM discussions, not through cowardice but, if you believe me, per contributions of myself to previous similar discussions ;) ). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wowsers. Allow me & my friends to give you a Wayne's World salute: We're not worthy, we're not worthy. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * May I also thank you for your perspicacity and your decisiveness. -- Evertype·✆ 16:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Tariqabjotu! After reading your edit summary for the above mentioned moves, I think you may have made a mistake. You see, discussions are still ongoing and at other pages than the one you cited in your edit summary. Could you please read this for clarification and review the situation. Thanks. ;) --Cameron* 17:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the air has come out of my party balloons. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That was a premature close if ever I saw one for a controversial topic, because active discussions were taking place on individual pages and the MOS page was not the final word on consensus if you read the individual page discussions. I support Cameron's comments. ww2censor (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The topic has been controversial since 2004. And it's been discussed to death since then too. I commend Tariqabjotu again for having read through the pages and made his decision. -- Evertype·✆ 18:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You commend him only because you agree with his decision. Will you commend me for bravery too? I mean, in reverting his move of Republic of Ireland when there was no move proposal? Srnec (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not if you won't address me in a civil fashion. Regrettable. -- Evertype·✆ 18:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was perfectly civil. Highly critical, but perfectly civil. But if you do have something else to say, let's not clutter Tariqbjotu's talk page anymore. Srnec (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The specific move request Ireland to Ireland (state) was opened five days ago and you prematurely closed that against the clearly oppose consensus on that talk page. Evertype has already conveniently forgotten that FACT and you don't seem to have noticed or seen that. ww2censor (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I have repeatedly had to point out the Wiki-consensus is WP:NPOV WP:COMMONNAME, not totting up !votes. The decision here was brave and correct and long overdue. Sarah777 (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

My response
Okay? Everyone done? Well, you all certainly didn't make this easy for me. WP:RM suggested that this discussion was centralized in one place. In that one place, the MOS talk page, the consensus seemed obvious to me (although the Ireland (state) proposal had several other suggestions). It was only after I completed the moves and began removing talk page notices that I noticed this was not centralized. Receiving the most resistance, I noticed, was the Ireland (island) move. This was particularly surprising to me because that received a mountain of support on the MOS talk page. So, in light of that, I will acknowledge that I did not see those other discussions, although I think that was an understandable mistake on my part, based on the recount above.

Now, the problem (or problems). There will always be an ongoing discussion, especially as long as the status quo was maintained. So, the idea that it was premature on the basis that there was still discussion ongoing is not particularly compelling. The five days cited by ww2censor in his latest comment is acceptable for move requests, provided there is a clear consensus. The confusion about the location of the discussion led to me believing that the consensus was clear.

On the basis on vote counting alone, I would be willing to reverse the move to Ireland (island) based on the opinion on that article's talk page (22-15, against; with the MOS talk, it's 23-19, against). However, in order for me to do that, I'd have to reverse the disambiguation move, which, combined with the talk on that article's talk page.

Yes, that would be back to square one. And, in this case, I see that as an illogical conclusion. Why? Well, first, we'll have this squabbling continuing for several more weeks and months, until someone finally forces a move when all the opposers on vacation. Not particularly productive. Secondly, and more importantly, if there's anything that has been made clear over the past few days, through these move proposals, and, apparently, over the past many months through multiple discussions, it's that "Ireland", on its own, is ambiguous to a very significant portion of the English-speaking population. Were it so obvious that "Ireland" meant the island (or, alternatively, the country), we wouldn't have suffered through so many months of discussion and controversy. And that, my friends, is why we have a disambiguation page. This isn't one of those simple move requests where we want to just move Basic Article A to Location B; this is about making a disambiguation. The amount of controversy over this makes the disambiguation a no-brainer. So, I'm going to keep that.

Unfortunately, that resolution means that something needs to be done about the article about the island. Obviously, it can't stay (because the disambiguation page is there), so it must be moved. It's a less than ideal solution, but that article has to be moved to Ireland (island). I'd be open to moving Ireland (state) back to Republic of Ireland because it does not conflict with the disambiguation page, but I don't see any evidence I missed initially that would support reversing that.

So, upon my review, I'm going with Ireland [disambiguation page], Ireland (island) [article about the island], Ireland (state) [article about the country]. Now, I'm done... you are welcome to open a WP:AN or WP:ANI post, but I'm sticking with this position regardless. --  tariq abjotu  20:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Tariqabjotu, your comment: The confusion about the location of the discussion led to me believing that the consensus was clear clearly indicates you made a judgment error. That's a pity, but as an admin, you can revert you error, and based on all the flack I suggest you do that, even though you are being praised by those who clearly wanted and benefited from the confusion that you fell for. The task force was never the place for deciding a consensus on page moves. I think it is about time I deleted all the Ireland articles from my watchlist after 3 years and leave them to Matt who is already actively, imho, destroying the moved articles. If we really need an article about a rock with no population we already have a FA Geography of Ireland and don't even need Ireland (island). ww2censor (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It "clearly indicates" that you didn't like his judgement. No more. -- Evertype·✆ 15:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is what I have thus far done - destruction? I've moved back nothing 'difficult' yet - only stuff like Science that was moved-over into Ireland from ROI (yes, not forked - but actually moved!!) And some stuff that NI never had in its offical article at all, which is shocking. Policy will one day be met if we keep this up guys!--Matt Lewis (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment

 * Welcome to the emotional atmosphere of Ireland topics. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Tariq - I think you've fallen for the line that a small but determined number of Irish POV pushers have been pushing for months - that Ireland is an ambiguous term. This is simply not true - the name "Ireland" has always, and will always refer to an island in the Atlantic ocean. This island has had a number of different states on it, but none of which are exclusively just known as "Ireland" (the current state occupying the majority of the island has a ready made disambiguation term ("Republic of")).
 * It was unfortunate that the first discussion you came across was the one that fewest people (and the most skewed audience in terms of representation from Ireland and elsewhere) contributed to. I would strongly advise looking at the RM on the original Ireland page, and look at what contributors from outside the British Isles (i.e. those least likely to have a national bias) have to say. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  21:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Actually the thing that persuaded me was the information that most readers who type in simply "Ireland" are looking for the State. It is that fact  that is 'pushing' the conclusion that Ireland is an ambiguous term. And if it isn't - then it primarily refers to the country whose capital is Dublin. Sarah777 (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Which section are you talking about? There's so much stuff to wade through... --  tariq abjotu  22:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No specific section - just look at the comments of editors unlikely to be involved in nationalist fervour in the Talk:Ireland (island) debate.  пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  22:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking through the section, I observe that the vast majority of people commenting -- on both the support and oppose sides -- are Irish or from the United Kingdom. That's unfortunate as, ideally, a wider swath of the world should have commented because of the RM post. But, I don't see the trend you're talking about. --  tariq abjotu  22:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * constructive criticism --89.101.221.42 (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * e/c Just to interject, if I may (and I won't labour things here - I wish to make edits now). I have have spent a lot of my valuable time arguing for change here, and am not personally an 'Irish pov pusher' at all. A great many who have put their good will and time into this are simply trying to help. I happen, myself, to be very British, and my gripes have been (in no particular order) 1) the edit warring (especially on piping), 2) my lack of progress at the British Isles taskforce - due to a total lack of agreement over which 'Irish state' article to use in a guideline (what brought me to all this!), 3) the general ambiguity I have found in articles that I believe have been neglected, 4) the bad atmosphere many editors and admin I have spoken too now say they choose to keep away from, and 5) the problem with NI seeming to be part of Ireland. I personally didn't have a "ROI issue" over that particular name. I know that number57 has been close to this issue before - it could be easily argued that he has a POV himself. There is a well-known group of the same people who always appear to oppose these polls - this accusation simply goes both ways. The Irish nation is commonly called 'Ireland', and is now the Irish government's official name too. Why look outside of the British Isles? To me, it would risk addressing people who know less about the issues, and who often tend to romanticise Ireland too. I welcome you to look through discussion. You will find it gets rough at times (esp in this last poll - and I'm not one myself to hold back when confronted), but I'm sure you won't change the natural and logical conclusions you came to on your own accord: nothing is there to contradict them. Anyway - your action (surely a matter of time from a passing admin) was a huge sigh of relief to me, and that's all I have left to say. Apart from thanks for standing by your decision, too.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, a lot of Nationalists vote against a dab because they believe (wrongly IMO) that adhering to WP:COMMONNAME in some way supports the Unionist/British position on Ireland! And the Unionists/(Some) British (such as yourself??) think it is in some way supporting the Nationalist position!! Sarah777 (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, I posted the following of Rocketpocket's talk page:

Rockpocket, I imagine that tomorrow morning there will begin the flood of people confused at the move decision. Few will be actually aware of what happened, many may simply believe that consensus on the poll was for a move. Even if the do they won't know where to comment one way or the other: Ireland, Ireland (island), Ireland (state), Republic of Ireland, Ireland (disambiguation), the task force page, Tariqabjotu's talk page, or the AN/I??

I think it would be a good idea to set up an RFC on the decision and post notices of the RFC at each of the relevant pages. For one thing it will keep comments all in one place and allow us to gauge the measure of consensus - which may fall down on the side of 'it happened, leave it alone'. I don't think the RFC needs to be or should be controversially phrased, simple a statement of fact and a plain request for comment, but I think it would be useful as a means to calmly collect the response of community to the decision to move the articles.

As an anon, I do not have privileges to start the required RFC page, so I am asking if you would. (I am going to post a copy of this message on Tariqabjotu's, he may be interested in setting up the RFC himself. In any case his perspective on an RFC would be valuable.)

What do you think? --89.101.221.42 (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not interested in setting up the RFC, and I have no comment on whether one is a good idea. As I have suggested here, and elsewhere, you have already seen the full extent of my involvement with this issue. --  tariq abjotu  00:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. And indeed I respect the fortitude in which you have carried yourself since making the decision. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment on response

 * Thank you. I think it is unarguable that dab is the only solution here. For a long time I argued for the primacy of the state/country over island if one must "triumph". But that solution would be equally unstable. So dab is supported by everything from plain logic and common sense to WP:COMMONNAME. And now that the term "Ireland" has been dabbed there is simply no further justification for referring to Ireland (the soverign, internationally recognised and commonly termed country) as RoI anymore. Thus the need to complete this process by moving RoI to Ireland (state). (Though I'd prefer by far Ireland (country), I accept that only compromise will achieve stability and that many people regard the term "country" as referring to the whole island)). Sarah777 (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I will 100% support whatever is most per policy. If it's a disambiguation page - then great. I actually back a few options (others are at WP:IDTF), but will go with the most policy based. We can't keep the 'status quo' of maintaining the two state articles of Republic of Ireland and Ireland (a forked state article, linked to widely for the state), that is for sure: Ireland had gradually gown to the point where it simply made having the official-state ROI article look silly. In 'real life', Ireland is actually the official name for the Irish state (ROI is a choice), and the awkward politics surrounding co-joining the island of Ireland with the state of Ireland at 'Ireland' was just too much to handle. Readers were finding Northern Ireland present when the use of 'Ireland' was simply referring to contemporary Irish society - far too much meaning on Wikipedia was fudged. Tariqabjotu is right, people's consternations can't be ignored forever, and Wikpedia is supposed to protect itself against 'polling blocks' (there's a better word for that one I'm sure). --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you're leaving these discussions Tariqabjotu; a very wise move. I'm thinking of doing the same thing. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also a very wise move. Sarah777 (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Before I do? I suggest reverting Ireland (state) to Republic of Ireland & letting it have its own RM discussion. GoodDay (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Never make controversial reverts without discussion - at least that is what I am constantly told. Sarah777 (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion
Hello Tariqabjotu. Might I suggest you review the discussion at Talk:Ireland (island) and Talk:Ireland and in the context of your recent move. The problem with interpreting the consensus on the discussion you closed, is that all the stakeholders do not appear to be aware of it and thus didn't comment there. The appropriate wikiprojects were directed to the ongoing discussions I link above, and as you can see, the consensus is somewhat different. I appreciate you were likely not aware of these other discussions. I suspect this is going to end up under review anyway, but it might minimize the drama if you, as the closing admin, conduct your own review first. Rockpock e  t  19:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I echo the above statement - I don't think most users were aware of the taskforce (which was dominated by Irish users) - and the consensus on the most commented-upon move request (i.e. that on Talk:Ireland (island) as it is now) was certainly against the move. As you aren't online at the moment and this needs urgent attention, I have referred it to WP:AN. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  19:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This was a bad move - the issue is controversial and under discussion. Djegan (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets just wait until Tariqabjotu responds, before offering value judgments. His interpretation is perfectly understandable given the discussion he closed. What is not clear is whether he was even aware of those other discussions. Tariqabjotu, I would add, if I am mistaken and you did take those other ongoing discussions into consideration, could you mark them as closed too? Thanks. Also, I don't see why this needs urgent attention, its not the end of the world if it remains for a few hours. Please can we de-escalate this and just wait a little? Rockpock  e  t  19:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I've removed the comment from WP:AN. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  19:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think your intervention here is most unhelpful Rock. There is no "different consensus" anywhere else; just some different !vote scores. Please stop confusing the issue. Sarah777 (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, please, hold your horses. I'm currently writing a statement. --  tariq abjotu  19:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops, all the revert warring made me launch an AN/I post. Just missed this. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh? If only you had! Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your point Angus? Sarah777 (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My point is that the sensible way to do the moves would have been to have created Ireland (island), then had a bot run through all the links to Ireland to change them to point at the redirect, then to have moved the page. The way it's been done there are thousands and thousand of links to a dab page. Until a bot has fixed this, the best thing to do is to move the - ten links? - dab page back to the original location, and after all the links are changed, and only then, move back Ireland (disambiguation) to Ireland. I'll give Tariq a chance to fix this himself as is only fair. But if, when I check back, it is still stuffed, I will do it. There may not be a deadline in the general sense, but this needs fixing fairly quickly, before people start wasting time on changing the links by hand or with AWB. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Whoa!!! I've just noticed this! In no way have a bot change all the 'Ireland' links into 'Ireland (island)' - the majority of Ireland links refer to the country'', not the island! (and this can be proven). This fact is one of the main arguments for changing the status quo: 'Ireland' (per common-name usage) has been habitually used instead of 'Republic of Ireland' to mean the contemporary or the historical Irish state. A bot sending them all to the new island article is an absolute nightmare scenario! The idea with the approach Tariqabjotu moved on is that they all now sensibly go to the new Ireland disam page. --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You may also want to read my comments at ANI. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't be asking me to fix the thousands of links and be asking for the move to be overturned. Which do you want? I'm not going to bother doing the former -- and I never planned on doing the former -- with the full knowledge that any move made by an administrator regarding this will be met with a firestorm. Seriously, guys. Why do you let something that 99.9% of the 6.6+ billion people in the world couldn't care less about consume so much of your time? Why do you all bother, with the endless move requests, the endless threads -- here and elsewhere -- when you all seem more interested in the argument than its resolution? And why the hell are you going to bother asking for some sort of outside party to make a decision based on your comments, by nature of you making a move request, when you're going to respond to the result with this? If you want to waste your own time on this matter, fine. But don't waste mine by bringing your fight to my doorstep. I have said this multiple times now: I am not getting further involved with this. I am not changing my mind. So, please, go away. All of you. If I wake up tomorrow and discover that all of these moves have been reversed, I won't give a fuck. Continue fighting over this trivial issue to the death, but the rest of the world won't be giving a fuck either. --  tariq abjotu  04:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't give a fuck if my comment here annoys you. But the "endless threads" are created by those who support the moves you made, not by those, like me, who opposed them. In essence, a group that has singularly failed to get its way for years now has gotten its way without consensus because you, in good faith, performed a move without good sense. Srnec (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

⬅ We all know its going to end up at Arbcom so I suggest we let that happen. Otherwise we will have votes on votes on votes on different pages as people try to avoid the issues and confuse the position to maintain a status quo. This needs intervention. Tariqabjotu, my thanks at least for taking this on. --Snowded TALK  22:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The status quo was fine by me and many other editors. For years polls have supported it. But only the minority that keeps proposing changes seems to register with you people. Srnec (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My thanks too, for taking this on. And a logical summary, with clear and clean reasons.  --HighKing (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Tariqabjotu, if you don't give a fuck, you shouldn't have got involved in the first place. Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * People who give a fuck shouldn't be closing move requests. --  tariq abjotu  16:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Technical problem
A technical matter; from the (new) Ireland dab page Ireland (state) redirects to RoI whereas Ireland (island) is clean. It needs an Admin to move Republic of Ireland to Ireland (state). Could you tidy up this last piece of the jigsaw? Sarah777 (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC: controversial multi-page move
An RfC on the recent multi-page move has been opened at Talk:Ireland. --89.101.221.42 (talk) 10:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration of Ireland article naming dispute
I have filed this Request for arbitration of Ireland article naming dispute and named you as one of the involved parties. I would appreciate it if you could make a 500-word-or-less statement there. -- Evertype·✆ 19:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)