User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive Forty-One

Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: I removed you from the list of parties. Daniel (talk) 03:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protect Dictatorship article
Hi, you recently denied the semi-protection for the article Dictatorship. I'd like to know how much IP vandalism is required for the article to be semi-protected. Currently, approx 30 of the last 50 edits were vandalism... that makes about a 60% of the edits. Almost every day there is an event like that, that makes the article hard to maintain. It is as well a subject which will not change in the future, and the sources IPs are from pretty much everywhere varying by times according to the mood of the news. Also you left no message in the article Talk page about your decision. Regards! Alchaemist (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no set minimum. I looked at the frequency -- over time -- of the edits. It would have been one thing if those vandalism edits were over the course of a day or two. Here, they were over several weeks. Also, the recent IP edits have been legitimate edits. The disruption is far from unmanageable. --  tariq abjotu  04:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Reopening first move discussion
Why did you do it?

Do you actually thing it helps us move forward to continue adding to the ziggurat, or to have a more orderly discussion in a format that is standard? I mean, what purpose does it serve? I am trying to make sense of it. --Cerejota (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We were having a discussion. It wasn't finished. You closed it and told people not to comment on it. You then started a new one, with none of the information and comments from the previous one. In summary: That last move request wasn't in straw poll format, so let's start over. As I said in the edit summary: uh... no. Four people, including one person who disagrees with the "Operation" name, have stated that the reboot was unnecessary, that a discussion was already ongoing. Apparently, that's still not good enough for you. You're clearly trying to maneuver your choice in, what with the "silence implies consent" and "24hr deadline" nonsense. I'm not playing your games; I have said all I need to say to make my point. --  tariq abjotu  17:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Like Wikifan's objection to bot archiving, your current attitude is not very productive. I have given no indication in my editing and argument of operation in no other fashion than with transparency and usefulness. In fact, at times I felt we where moving ahead together in even different directions than from where we both started. But then I see those hopes slashed.


 * I know it might be hard, but would you believe me if I told you that I am not trying to hide anything? I have no problem with discussion or debate. In fact, I have answered all points raised etc. I am not trying to hide a discussion, but highlight the fact that we need to make a decision. Perhaps I have been cumbersome and too bold, but being treated the way that Wikifan has treated me and that now you seem to join is really not good and conducive to any understanding or article quality. We are not enemies and shouldn't be enemies nor is this the end of the world.


 * I am not playing a game and your accusation is hurtful and unproductive - I am trying to be clear and to follow what policies require me to do, to seek to understand the other side. Again, that we disagree doesn't mean that we cannot work work together, or that we can convince each other. The issue of my reversion of a move by another user is already in Dispute Resolution, to keep bringing it up even in unrelated discussions, or to go on strike from other productive things that have to happen in the article is an attitude I do not understand - it strikes me as disrespectful of the dispute resolution process, and of the need to edit.


 * I can't say that I don't listen. Man, I have gone as far as not writing my usual "Thanks!" when addressing you as a sign of respect because you mentioned you took it the wrong way. (and I write that even when it doesn't make much sense, its a tick) Why you remain this way towards me? Why do you fail to assume good faith? --Cerejota (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW? My offer to talk remains, I feel we have agreed with many things and disagree with others, but I only hear from you when there is disagreement. Why?--Cerejota (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see
Talk:December_2008_Gaza_Strip_airstrikes... I think it was great!--Cerejota (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Bolding of Operation Cast Lead
I'm merely following the precedent set in 2006 Israel–Gaza conflict with the bolding of Operation Summer Rains in the introduction. WanderSage (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

File:File:Dulles-board-11aug06.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:File:Dulles-board-11aug06.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Dman727 (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC) --Dman727 (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

RE : Picture?
Thanks. Hang on, I'm running a background search. - Mailer Diablo 04:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good catch! It is indeed, a copyvio.  I'll initiate deletion over at Commons. - Mailer Diablo 04:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the ones at Wikimedia Commons. I suppose we'll have to trace the sources and have them similarly deleted as well, if necessary. - Mailer Diablo 07:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza conflict
Hi,

I think the lead for the article 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict is a mess. I was wondering if I could create a separate page for discussing the lead (and hopefully reaching agreement), just like there is a separate page for discussing the title.

What do you think?VR talk 17:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

about the picture
my friend from gaza, sent me the picture, with some others. he cant edit wikipedia, so he asked me to upload them, what is the problem?? Maen. K. A. (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why you Removed the picture?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhero88 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * why dont you answer me??Maen. K. A. (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not what you put in the image descriptions. You said you took the pictures. Considering your past poor history with images, I'm inclined to disbelieve you. --  tariq abjotu  20:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).

We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza (on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

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) 07:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages
Hi Tariqabjotu - I realize that you're an administrator and a mediator, that you are as cognizant as anyone is likely to be of the purpose of a talkpage and what contributes constructively to a discussion. Given that, I hate to lecture - but perhaps everyone occasionally needs a reminder of a few things. I understand you've got a history with Tiamut (indeed, I've read a fair amount of it on various pages), and that this colors your interactions and influences your interpretation of her (his?) comments.

On the other hand, this particular page is fairly high profile at the moment, and the discussions are evolving at a pretty rapid pace. It makes it very difficult to discuss and achieve a rough consensus on all the many areas of dispute if folks are commenting about other editors, about the subject in general, or otherwise focusing on conflicts or problems not pertinent to that article. I've been trying to nudge people, on their talkpages and at the article talk, into focusing solely on content specific issues. Do you think you could give me a hand, and hopefully keep this article and its discussion orderly until its no longer a current event?

(Incidentally, have you ever met Susan Silverman-Abramowitz? A rabbi in Silver Springs I used to know).

Avruch  T 16:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you've chosen not to respond? Perhaps you could explain, so that I won't make the same error (whatever it might have been) again? Avruch  T 23:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry... I thought I responded to this. I specifically remember writing an entire response, complete with the fact that I don't know who Susan is, but I suppose I never pressed the submit button. Anyway, I am unwilling to help you police the talk page. --  tariq abjotu  23:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)  §hepBot  ( Disable )  20:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sensationalism
Regarding your comments at the talk page of 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, are you aware of a policy that the image violates? Or is it just your aesthetic judgment that leads you to think the image should be removed?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Since, judging by your comment on the article talk page, mere words are incomprehensible to you, I will provide you with a policy: WP:UNDUE. --  tariq abjotu  06:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have started a discussion regarding this dispute at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009
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.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 01:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

summary on photo
You can sometimes be brash an one sided, but you did an amazing job in summarizing very fairly a very complex discussion. That takes guts and a real ability to see through your own position into the other side. I just wish in discussion you used the same ability, because you can be harsh (I have a thick skin for intelligent harshness, not for childish trolling, but others might not). Anyways, I was mighty impressed. Seriously. --Cerejota (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * While I normally consider your analysis of my edits worthless, I am grateful for your back-handed compliment. That takes guts and real ability to say something positive to someone with whom you disagree and whom you frequently misinterpret. I just wish in discussion you used the same ability, because you can be surprisingly insolent despite the fact that you yourself frequently make questionable comments in the hope that people will take them lightly. Anyways, I was mighty impressed. Seriously. --  tariq abjotu  02:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * See what I mean? You are being intelligently harsh (BTW, who uses insolent in regular discourse? Specially if you are more than a decade younger than I am)... As to frequently misinterpreting - perhaps so, but these whole series of articles is full of frequent misinterpretation, basically because people are not seeking agree, but to win. However, my remark at the end was not meant as sarcasm, but as a recognition that you might have a problem believing me. I do not consider your analisys worthless. Because smart people shouldn't be quabbling like this. We can both joke and be serious. And we can profoundly disagre on one matter and agree on another. --Cerejota (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for putting the dead baby picture up for discussion. It seems like you have already made some considerable headway. I wonder if you have any thoughts on the Gallery of pictures that has been being reverted as well, the dead girl, the bodies at the morgue etc? Does it strike you that there should be a balance in photos as well as in text? Or do you find it acceptable that there would be more photos of Palestinian suffering as they have had so many more casualties? It seems to me that since this war did not start in a vacuum, (ie several years of indiscriminate rocket fire into Israeli civilian communities) that we should be able to balance the article with some pictures of Hamas damage and devastation. I think emotive, sensationalist photos should be out, myself. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I hate galleries. Period. So, any images that get placed in the article, in my opinion, should be placed in the article. There should be no problem here because this is a long article. I think one of those images would be fine (I think the picture of the girl is the most relevant), along with the other wide shots of devastation in Gaza. The question of balance in photos as well as text has nothing to do with the subsequent question; yes, I think there should be more pictures of Palestinian suffering because this event was all about what was happening in Gaza (not that there was a whole lot happening against Israel). The article does not suggest this happened in a vacuum either; there's the background section and there's there was even a picture there (and that picture should be re-added). There's also another picture of a rocket being fired from Gaza. There's a difference between sensationalist photos and photos that accurately depict the subject and content of the article (within obvious reason). The baby image, as I have already stated, fits in the former. The other images currently in the article, in my opinion, fit in the latter category. --  tariq abjotu  02:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009
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.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 05:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot  ( Disable ) 

NYC Meetup: You're invited!
Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

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 automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009
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.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 22:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Been a while.
Happy belated: birthday, Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and Groundhog Day.

Take a break from all the WP nannying. Hope you're doing great @ MIT.

Take another look at December 2008’s and last month’s archived portal pages and see if they work correctly on your end. Shades of Extreme Home Makeover - etc.

This may be the closest I get to re-mastering old films, like they now have to do for Blu-Ray. Feels like it, fun but tedious.

''Some of these archived portal pages I've trundled through going back to Jan of '08 (so far) succumb to table-formatting bugs (on my platform [Tiger/Safari (+FF3)]). So I kludged the position of the calendars. But these two months work fine. No clue as to why they break. Is there a documented bug? This seems to be some kind of CSS error.'' Found the bug that broke the monthly portals. See below.

The Portal:Current events/How to archive the portal page must not be visited very often of late, so I'm attempting to make its link more prominent by adding a comment above the "fold". Don't have a clue how many editors might contribute to the upkeep of this, though.

Here are handy linx for you to peruse these pages, only the last 2 have reconstructed sidebars As Of This Writing (hereinafter "AOTW"):

January 2008 (works okay on my plat)

February 2008 (broken, so it's kludged) UPDATE: Fixed. Feb 13 was missing the end comment and  |} 

March 2008 (okay)

April 2008 (okay)

May 2008 (works okay, International hols are an embarrassment [why just May?])

June 2008 (works OK)

July 2008 (breaks with prescribed table formatting, so it's kludged) Fixed! July 5 slug was broken. no |}

August 2008 (OK)

September 2008 (OK)

October 2008 (OK)

November 2008 (also breaks so it's kludged. Don't know what'll happen if we attempt to reconstruct & restore a local [temporally speaking ;)] sidebar) UPDATE: Okay now. Discovered that a missing |} on any particlar portal day breaks the formatting of the monthly portal on which it's transcluded. Just watch the history & my contribs.

December 2008 (Okay and complete, with the important comment that it's an archived section)

January 2009 (Also OK, as above)

So pass the word along that some spadework has been done, and it's as self-explanatory as I can manage to make it. Thanx again for all the great work on this design, unjustly neglected.

Now to wake up our 2.5-year-old. Yes, it's been a while.

Schweiwikist (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Updated by Schweiwikist (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009
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.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 23:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; February 16, 2009


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.

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 07:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

DC Meetup Events: You're invited!
This has been an automated because you your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; February 23, 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:


 * Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
 * An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
 * News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
 * Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
 * Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
 * Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
 * Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 22:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; 2 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:


 * Books extension enabled
 * News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
 * Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
 * Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names, a procedure has been developed at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; 9 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:


 * News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
 * Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
 * Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 01:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009  Unsubscribe &middot; Single-page &middot; Full edition &raquo;  — 16 March 2009


 * News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
 * Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 00:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)