User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive Sixty

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

hello
Glad to see you are still around!  Dloh cierekim''' 20:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Er, thanks? Am I supposed to remember you from somewhere? --  tariq abjotu  20:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps not. Perhaps I misremembered the name. Sorry for the intrusion. Dloh  cierekim  22:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

DC happy hour on Thursday, February 28!
Please join Wikimedia DC for Happy Hour at the Capitol City Brewery at Metro Center on Thursday, February 28 at6 p.m. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, see Meetup/DC 34. Hope to see you there! Harej (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Academy Awards
The ceremony concluded at approximately 9:05pm on the 24th. I see that you mentioned UTC on the candidates page, but we usually go by the local time unless that isn't possible (e.g. when an event occurs in space or pertains to multiple time zones). —David Levy 21:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not what I thought. ITN/C says "Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC." -- tariq abjotu  21:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was referring to the date used at Template:In the news.  To my knowledge, it usually is the date appearing in our article, which is based on local time when possible (and I seem to recall past discussions about how to handle space events).
 * Of course, the local date and UTC date often are one and the same, so perhaps different admins are following different practices without realizing. In any event, we probably should settle on one and apply it to both the template and the candidates page.  —David Levy 22:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to a discussion: Wikipedia and legislative data
Hi Tariqabjotu, since you are interested in meetups in DC, I'd like to invite you to attend the Cato Institute's "Wikipedia and Legislative Data" events on March 14. (There's also an all day workshop on March 15; let me know if you are interested, we may be able to add more people.)

There will be an introduction to Wikipedia and open edit-a-thon in the afternoon, and a Sunshine Week Reception in the evening. I hope you can make it!


 * Please sign up here
 * Announcement on Cato's blog
 * Background from Cato sponsor Jim Harper's perspective
 * Background from Wikipedian Pete Forsyth's perspective

Hope to see you there! -Pete (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, March 9!
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Guapo's at Tenleytown-AU on Saturday, March 9 at 5 PM All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see Meetup/DC 35. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 14:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC remarks
Hi Tariqabjotu. Thanks for your comments on the new question in the RfC discussion - I'm glad that it's seeing a nice healthy amount of debate. I just wanted to have a word about your replies to FormerIP there, as I think you might have misinterpreted his intentions. I see that there was some confusion about your use of the word "inconclusive", but I think that this was an honest misinterpretation by FormerIP. Saying that he's patronizing you or that he's manipulating the word is assuming a bad-faith motivation on his part, and I don't think he intended it like that at all. In any case, this is a little too much comment on contributors for the RfC page, in my opinion. If other things like this crop up in the future, could you take them to my talk page, or email me about them instead? I think that would be the best way to resolve any conduct issues while still keeping the discussion on track. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 02:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That was hardly an accusation of misconduct, and I find it wholly unnatural to complain to you about a matter so trivial -- particularly when I assume you're monitoring the page and will call out misconduct if you feel something is such. Nevertheless, given FormerIP responded to the first remark you referenced by saying Your above statement is the first time I have been aware of someone from the other side of the hill acknowledging that there is inconclusiveness in the sourcing. It's a bold thing to accept because, obviously, it raises the question as to why our current wording expresses a conclusion., I'm not sure what exactly you thought I assumed incorrectly. It's a circuitous way of saying "So I see you've finally started to see the light", an expression I reject. --  tariq abjotu 02:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons images on the main page
This is just a reminder to upload Commons images locally (unless they're protected at Commons) before transcluding them on the main page. (File:Krakow Ghetto 06694.jpg was unprotected for about 16 minutes, which is less time than the bot often takes.) Thanks! —David Levy 05:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, right. Thanks. Although I'm not sure why you used a form notice... it's not like I don't know you're supposed to upload images locally. I obviously just forgot. --  tariq abjotu  06:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't use a form notice. I'm realize that you're aware of the need, so I typed the above note manually.  (I don't know of a template for this purpose, but when I inform administrators inexperienced with such edits, I include an explanation that our cascading protection doesn't extend to Commons, thereby leaving the images vulnerable to vandalism.)  I'm sorry if my tone seemed more formal than intended.  —David Levy06:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step three
Hello all. We have finally reached step three in the Jerusalem RfC discussion. In this step we are going to decide the exact text of the various drafts and the general questions. We are also going to prepare a summary of the various positions on the dispute outlined in reliable sources, per the result of question nine in step two. I have left questions for you all to answer at the discussion page, and I'd be grateful for your input there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 08:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to a Women in the Arts Meetup & Edit-a-thon on Friday, March 29
In honor of Women's History Month, the Smithsonian and the National Museum of Women in the Arts are teaming up to organize aWomen in the Arts Meetup & Edit-a-thon on Friday, March 29, 2013 from 10:00am - 5:00pm. The event is focused on encouraging women editors while improving Wikipedia entries about women artists and art world figures. This event is free of charge, but participation is limited to 20 volunteers, so RSVP today! Sarasays (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, April 13!
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, April 13 at 5:30 PM All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see Meetup/DC 36. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 19:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Istanbul#RFC2: Istanbul Infobox_Image". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator /  talk  21:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
John of Reading (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Istanbul
Hello. After looking at few links and archives, I see that you were instrumental in improving the article to FA status. I think I was a little impatient with the changes I wanted to make, and I owe you an apology. Sorry about that... Cavann (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC step three comments
Hi Tariqabjotu. I've just got back to full internet access after having been away for a few days, and I have been looking through the Jerusalem RfC discussion. I see that unfortunately the atmosphere has soured quite a bit after I asked the new discussion questions. This is not the fault of any one editor, to be sure, but I think it would help to improve the atmosphere if you could make an extra effort to keep your comments completely focused on the content at hand, and remove any trace of commenting on other editors from them.

For example, the fact that you didn't specify any specific issues in this response means that the other party may come to the conclusion that the comment is aimed at them rather than the content. (Although I see you responded in more detail in your next comment in that thread.) The more specific your comments are, the more likely it will be that the other parties focus on your comments' content and not any assumptions they might make about an underlying message.

Also, your use of "unnecessary nitpicking" and "cue eye-rolling" here make it sound like the other party is at fault for their comment. In this kind of situation I find it is often helpful to shift the focus of the comment from the other contributor to what you personally think about the content. So "unnecessary nitpicking" would become "I would prefer to use a less-detailed approach, because X", and "cue eye-rolling" would become "I don't think that the meaning is that similar, and I'm having trouble understanding how you came to that conclusion". Does this sound like something you would be willing to do in your future comments? Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 04:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No. "This is not the fault of any one editor, to be sure, but I think you..." Oh, wait, so you are actually singling me out. I was the firstperson you thought of when making the rounds today. For making comments that 'might' have a 'trace' of an 'underlying message'. Meanwhile, you remark to FormerIP that you can 'understand' why, in the same thread, he might have suggested I may be a "pissy loser". You tell him to let you know ifhe has seen any conduct issues. You point the finger at me and empathize with FormerIP, and who knows what coddling you still have left to do.


 * So, let me repeat myself: no. And if this is what you call responsible moderating, please remove my name from the RfC discussion and desist from informing me of the progress of this sham. I've been pushed around enough by fellow participants already. --  tariq abjotu  05:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, it's true that I've only been sending these kinds of messages to editors who wrote posts that I saw problems with, so from that point of view I am singling you out, yes. Saying that you're the first editor I thought of isn't correct, however - I left a similar message for No More Mr Nice Guy a couple of days ago, and I have been in contact with various participants by email as well. Ideally I would have liked to deal with all of these issues when they first came up, but that has been difficult as I have been travelling and I only got back last night, hence my "doing the rounds". About my message to FormerIP - I can understand why he said what he said, but that doesn't mean that I think it was a reasonable way for him to express himself. If I thought his comment was perfectly fine, I wouldn't have left him a message. And the offer to contact me privately by email about conduct issues is open to all participants, not just the ones who I remind on their talk pages. The reason I didn't mention it in your message is that I already told you about it in above. I thought that you would remember. But, just in case it isn't clear, please let me know, by email, about any conduct issues you spot in the RfC discussion. That also goes for trifling little ones. I would much rather you talk about these kinds of things to me than letting them build up over weeks and months. If you let things build up like that it can cause resentment, and that can make it a lot harder to find consensus. You're also welcome to send flames and rants to my inbox - it might help you let off steam, and I was given a nifty flame-retardant suit when I joined MedCom. :) — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 12:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)




 * Well, it's too late for that. You've come at the endgame of this dispute, after countless discussions over months and years (not all of which I've participated in). And despite participants doing their best to keep up appearances, I know nothing has changed.


 * Among those who oppose the current wording, I can count on half of my left hand the number of people who think those who are fine with the current wording are so in good faith. The remainder have, often explicitly, suggested that our every move is motivated by malicious intent: employing stalling tactics, pushing a point-of-view, willfully ignoring policy, referring to sham consensuses, etc. What is keeping this article from changing, they would say, is the cabal of editors who have conspired over years to maintain an "Israeli point-of-view" in this article (and no doubt others). And the way they interact with us is governed by the perception that we are incorrigible point-of-view pushers blocking progress.


 * When that is how someone perceives you, it doesn't matter what you say; it is impossible to remove every 'trace' of an 'underlying message'. Their response will be colored by the idea that you are willfully disregarding policy to advance your viewpoint, which has already been decried as irrational. A direct example comes in Sepsis's summary of the definitions discussion:




 * This 'same old' idea is a reference to both the dictionary discussion and the discussion of the capital point in general. Regarding the dictionary discussion, I explained my position regarding this under the collapsed section. You even summarized that position in the opening question (Opposing views were that dictionary definitions of capital are objective...). But this is not an explanation in the eyes of Sepsis II; from his perspective, it willfully ignores policy and serves solely to advance my point-of-view. Because he believes the position is invalid, it is actually invalid. And I'm sure he's not alone. As applied to the greater conflict, an oft-stated sentiment is that those who support the current wording have no real reasons for doing so. They can't point to policy, they can't point to any sources. They are motivated by their point-of-view and nothing else and have argued there is no consensus for change based simply on the fact they disagree. This gave birth to such absurdities as the concept of"consensus by default".


 * Do I believe these perceptions have been dropped? No, of course not. Sepsis clearly can't stop assuming bad faith. FormerIP already rehashed the term "stalling tactics". On Talk:Jerusalem, as a new RfC about bolding al-Quds in the lead comes up, I have quickly been labelled a point-of-view pusher "trampl[ing] down a simple uncomplicated gesture of recognition of the dreadful other's worldview" (by one of the signatories to the RfC discussion included) just because I stated that al-Quds isn't understood in English. The reason we're here in the first place is because several of those opposed to the current wording see nothing reasonable about their opponents' perspective. They are aware that there have been multiple RfCs and 'compromises' leading to the current wording, but, in their minds, those were flawed. There was something wrong with the RfC and the participants were biased; if only we were to control for these factors, we'd get the right result. Indeed, one of my greatest fears is that if this RfC yields a different result from the status quo (which has a good chance of happening), it will validate their perceptions of supporters of the current wording as obstructing progress all along. I don't have a problem with the sentence changing, but there has never been any definitive denouncement of their poisonous assaults on their opponents (which have no doubt driven people away or encouraged disputants [myself included] to be unnecessarily defensive of the status quo). And you don't help matters either by lending your understanding to FormerIP's incivil and battleground-acknowledging "pissy loser" remark.


 * Now, aware, in their minds, that the pro-Israeli cabal (I believe the term "hasbara brigade" has been used) will come out in full force, one way to ensure the wrong result isn't achieved again is to slant the RfC so it is impossible for anyone to draw up a conclusion different from theirs. Prior to this RfC discussion, before you had to step in as a third-party, several RfC ideas were presented. Most were the most obvious of leading questions, with solid resistance, for example, to asking a question about the whole of the first sentence. Because they believed the two halves were incompatible, the two halves were, in fact, incompatible and so there was no point in even asking about them. We had a brief repeat of that dispute in this RfC discussion, although thankfully it was resolved. But I see signs once again that some of the editors in the dictionary discussion would like their position to be taken as absolute.


 * At this stage, I am the only somewhat regular participant in this discussion who thinks the current sentence is fine. With my withdrawal, joining the others in the same camp who have slowly tired of this issue, we would be left mostly with a group of editors who have shown a desire to create an RfC based around their pre-conceived notions, aware that previous neutral RfCs have not yielded the results they've desired. For this RfC to have any standing, we cannot allow that kind of group, a group of editors who rarely disagree among themselves, to decide the structure. And I refuse to allow that kind of group to bully my points into irrelevance. To that end, I will continue to make statements that 'might' have a 'trace' of an 'underlying message' (which, as you can see by my comment here, constitute significant restraint as they are) rather than completely whitewash my remarks only to have them distorted by others' baseless perceptions of me anyway. --  tariq abjotu  16:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite amazing how the abused is reprimanded and the abuser coddled. Sorry I can't help you more, but I'm trying to cut my exposure to the intellectually dishonest down to the minimum necessary, and wikipedia quite frankly is not necessary. No More Mr Nice Guy(talk) 18:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to the "All Things GW" editathon on Saturday, April 20
The "All Things GW" editathon on Saturday, April 20, 2013 from 12:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. is a rare chance to go behind the scenes in the University Archives of the Libraries and use their unique resources to research and update Wikipedia pages related to The George Washington University and the Foggy Bottom neighborhood. Did you miss our last D.C. history editathon? This is your is your chance to come edit with wiki-friends using different great collection! The event includes a behind-the-scenes tour of the University Archives and a show-and-tell of some of its most interesting treasures, snacks, and the editathon.

Participation is limited to 30 volunteers, so RSVP today! Dominic·t07:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

note
thanks for your reply. I have replied to you at the rfc page. feel free to comment if you wish. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

DC meetups on April 19 and 20
Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for two exciting events this weekend:

On the evening of Friday, April 19, we're hosting our first-ever WikiSalon at our K Street office. The WikiSalon will be a twice-monthly informal meetup and collaborative editing event to help build the community of Wikimedia enthusiasts here in DC; please join us for its inaugural session. Light refreshments will be provided.

On Saturday, April 20, we've partnered with the George Washington University to host the All Things GW Edit-a-Thon at the Teamsters Labor History Research Center. Please join us for behind-the-scenes tours of the University Archives and help edit articles about GWU history.

We look forward to seeing you at one or both of these events! Kirill [talk]20:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

question
hi there Tariqabjotu. I'm kind of reeling from all the stuff at the rfc page for the jerusalem article. is there any way to0 simply accept the ideas of the other side, move to consensus, and get the rfc set up? it seems like no matter what you say or no matter how much you try to accept anyone's ideas there, they do not agree that there is a consensus. let me know your thoughts on this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would I do that? See my comment to Mr. S at User_talk:Tariqabjotu. Letting a group of people who rarely disagree on anything to decide the nature of the RfC unchallenged makes no sense. And also, it's not like there is an "other side". Note, for example, that despite Dlv and I ultimately agreeing on a rewording of (13)-(15), Dailycare still seems to have an objection. That matter was closed, as the author of those summaries has agreed to a rewrite. And yet Dailycare still objects to the change. I have my suspicions as to why, but don't make me repeat what I wrote to Mr. S. --  tariq abjotu  20:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

note
thanks for your note, and for your helpful reminder re indentation. I appreciate it. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> Hello Tariqabjotu, Sm8900 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * hey, thanks for your help on the rfc. looks like things are gradually coming to a close there. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * by the way, one option might be for us to declare that we were unable to reach a consensus on this. I'm just offering that as one option. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)