User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive Sixty-Two

The Signpost: 19 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Burma
If your ears were ringing, it's because I mentioned your move decision on Burma here. While I'm unhappy with that result, I think, having recently done a similar close myself, that you hewed to policy well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

hmmm
I saw you had closed on sarah brown. I realize if you go by votes, many voted for sarah jane brown, but many also said "i dont care which target, as long as its not wife-of". Were you not swayed by the fact that 1) no reliable source has ever called her this and 2) there is a somewhat notable/written-about artist called sarah jane brown? On wp:criteria, i really think that name fails miserably - its not just rare - its literally never been used, i could not find a single instance. might you recondider, for example nee macauley which several liked, dab-by-date, or one of the other options? It feels like decision-by-committee ended with a result which makes no sense to the reader. Also thanks for your comment on the other move, and sorry in advance for disputing you on this one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The move doesn't change the article; it changes the article title. I'm not sure how this move generates confusion. If you have a problem with the closure, you know the correct forum to dispute it. --  tariq abjotu  16:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * understood - but my point is, the title is an important indication to the reader. In addition, before opening a move review, we are requested to ask the closer first. Thus I'm asking you - how did you deal with consideration that the title has never been used in any RS about the subject? Any of the others would be better than this one because of that, iMO, which is why i'm asking if you'd be willing to read through and consider another option besides this one. In your choice of Burma, you put recognizability and naturalness first per wp:criteria, so i'm a bit confused by the policy-based reasoning behind this move. which gives readers a title for a woman that she's never been called, by anyone, anywhere. please take the above with all due respect.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with OWK. You gave no explanation why you moved the article to "Sarah Jane Brown". I would have at least expected this, when you closed the discussion. She's not known as Sarah Jane Brown, so it's a poor decision IMO. Sionk (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Because most editors commenting there preferred that name, and that's her legal name? Was that so difficult to infer? Again, if you have a problem with the closure, please take the matter to WP:MR, where I can more easily ignore your entreaties. --  tariq abjotu  22:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't clear to infer. As an admin, you should be prepared to back up your decisions, rather than rely on telepathy, shouldn't you? Though to be honest, if nobody is ever able to find Sarah Brown's article again because it is mis-titled, maybe that solves all our problems.Sionk (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And "legal name" is a fairly meaningless concept in her country. A lot of editors were just going "change because the current offends some principle" and pouncing on any alternative that would do rather than specifically addressing the question of whether that alternative is recognisable and a form used - many instead were just trying to inflate a consensus. "Sarah Jane" is a particularly common double-barrelled forename, a point made in the discussion, which means the article title is especially misleading in giving the impression that's her standard given name. The reason for choosing this over a bracketed disambiguator should have been given in the close. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's remember to AGF. I carefully studied the close this admin did on Burma, which was very contentious, and though I personally disagreed with the result (I would have preferred Myanmar), I think they closed correctly per policy. So I think we should just give them time and space to explain a bit more detail of their reasoning first.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I know you're frustrated, but would you possibly reconsider?
Obiwankenobi's behavior is turning out to be rather appalling, I'm personally disgusted by not only his editing choices but his general character. You are now the second administrator he has blustered, browbeaten, and quite frankly bullied into reversing a move discussion that didn't go the way that his arguably misogynist point-of-view allows. First there was Good Olfactory and at User_talk:Good_Olfactory, regarding a move discussion at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton that Obiwan improperly non-admin closed. And now this here. Maybe tomorrow after some time away, can you reconsider this? Tarc (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to second that. I barely know Obi but, having seen some of his behaviour in the "catagorisation of women writers" fiasco and his behaviour in the Brown RM discussion, I used him as an example of unconscious sexism in a discussion. He came to my talk page and harangued me (with which I have no problem). But that day I received two emails from two different Wikipedia editors who have my talk page watchlisted. One said they've been having an extremely difficult time on wiki and Obi had a lot to do with their frustration. The other said they were very unmotivated now, in part due to him. So, if you're feeling in any way harassed or oppressed by him, you're not alone. But the best response may be to change his behaviour rather than ours. If you have the time or energy, would you please consider at least keeping an eye on the Brown review, in case you see something we're missing? Cheers. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs ·email) 08:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * For the record, the purpose of [Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Harrassing_admins_into_reversing_decisions|this]] wasn't to attack or get on your case for what happened, I was just bringing my frustration with a particular set of users to a wider audience. That I wanted you to "stick to your guns" as you put it was exactly it.  So, just wanted to note that. Tarc (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Iraq War protection
I have been willing to discuss all issues, but the user involved simply mass-reverts my edits without discussion. Locking the to the version that mass-deletes huge contributions of mine is extraordinarily unfair. CJK (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah... so I saw the tenor of his reverts, and it was questionable. But when looking through the history, it seemed like he wasn't the only person contesting your edits, so I thought protecting the article would be more fair than blocking that particular editor. --  tariq abjotu  20:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Nobody else is currently contesting my edits. There has been no response to my posts on the talk page for quite a while now. CJK (talk) 14:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

re: your message
Hi Tariqabjotu, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek  . 69  talk 01:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Question
Hallo Tariq I hope you are doing well! I am writing because of an advice. As you know, I go quite often to Istanbul, and I am more and more appalled about the dimension reached by the city transformation during the last period. In the last months several European medias became attentive about the ongoing destruction of the cityscape (see for example here). Since a couple of months I was thinking to add to the Istanbul article a section about city planning, but then happened what happened (BTW, a major cause of the upsurge is the wild speculation who is affecting the whole city, Gezi Parki is a drop in the ocean). Anyway, I am aware that this theme is delicate and can become a battlefield: so, before doing anything, I am asking your opinion, as major contributor and lover of the city (like me :-)). Thanks,Alex2006 (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

File:En-admin-growth.png
Hey! Are you ever going to update the above graph? Feed  back   ☎ 21:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have the Excel document with me still, so I would have to start from the beginning -- which anyone could just as easily do. -- tariq abjotu  15:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Echo RM
-- seriously? Can you please show me where that demonstration was? The only objective evidence provided was based on a totally misguided reading on page traffic. All the other evidence was merely anecdotal. I am seriously considering listing a move review on this. older ≠ wiser 15:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Then go ahead. --  tariq abjotu  15:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Very well.

Move review for Echo
An editor has asked for a Move review of Echo. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. older ≠ wiser 15:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

London Millennium Funicular
Please reconsider your close ofLondon Millennium Funicular the last person who expressed an opinion did so on a faulty reading of a ghit reading (seehere) and says that they would not have supported the move if they had not misread the ghit numbers. You have move a page to a name for which there are no unreliable, let alone reliable sources that use it, with just two people including the nominator who supported the move, and one opposed. So there is no consensus for the move and no reliable sources to support it. -- PBS (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, did you Google "Millennium Bridge Inclined Lift", though? The name actually under consideration? I suppose I could relist it to allow more opinions, but you kept raising a Google search that turns up nothing, even though the phrase you were using wasn't under consideration. But just as eager you are to have me discount the supporters/reverse my decision based on allegedly faulty support rationale, I don't see why I can't do that with opposition. --  tariq abjotu  21:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you read my oppose opinion which covered the name to which you moved it? -- PBS (talk) 09:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ping? -- PBS (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I did read your oppose vote. Nothing you say in it compels me to override other peoples' opinions (so what if the two sites with the name were involved with the design and building of the device?). --  tariq abjotu 17:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: ITN image
Thank you for bringing that to my attention; I did not check over the uploader's history on Commons. I did an image search and it does indeed appear to be copyvio of an image on the Mongolian government website (http://www.president.mn/eng/newsCenter/viewNewsPhoto.php?newsId=122). I've restored the previous image.  Spencer T♦ C 22:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Ditto. Double the barnstar. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Revolver (album)
Why this is consensus andthis is not? Also, do you had idea that WP:PDAB is being discussed at WT:D? Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  01:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Tbhotch, I believe my closing rationale was clear enough. Basically the only reason those opposing the Revolver move raised for why the move shouldn't take place is that the move would inconvenience readers (whoever they may be) going to Revolver (album) and finding themselves atRevolver (disambiguation), despite them most likely wanting the album by the Beatles. As I said in the closing statement, this reason doesn't make sense. If Revolver (album) redirects to Revolver (The Beatles album), as it does after this move, that rationale fails. If there was any other reason the move shouldn't take place, it wasn't mentioned during the discussion.
 * I see you (and a few other editors) are furious that the WP:PDAB was closed the way it was. "How can thirteen editors dictate policy?" "How is 7-5 consensus?" I do not need to answer those questions, and I don't need to answer the question you raised here. It is not my position to decide that I didn't like the way EdJohnston closed that other discussion and ignore it. And neither is it yours. While I'm hesitant to validate a sudden wave of move requests in accordance with WP:PDAB, you're going to need to do better if you want to stop them. Otherwise, your points will come across as thinly veiled disgust toward the VP closure. If the WP:PDAB is eventually reversed, only then I might reconsider. In the meantime, I'm not acting on your and B2C's indignation. --  tariq abjotu  02:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARYTOPIC still applies. This is not an example of WP:PDAB. See WP:MRV. Apteva (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Natural History Museum, London
I would have been nice when you completed the page move by fixing the consequences too. By not fixing the disambiguation page you created a lot of loops in template. Please be aware of that in the future. The Banner talk 09:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

RM:Adroit-class destroyer, etc
Hello You closed this RM a couple of days ago with the comment "The result of the move request was: no consensus". I wish to have this decision reviewed; can you elaborate on it a bit? There were only three responses to this RM (after a month!) so there wasn't much to form a consensus from; but as the request was based on policy and sources, while the only objection was unsubstantiated when challenged, I would have thought that the wider consensus(from the previous discussions, particularly at WP:SHIPS (here, now) and from "due consideration (of) applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions", would have made it a safe bet. Xyl 54 (talk) 11:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There really just wasn't enough information for me to make the determination that the article should be moved. It had already been relisted once so I didn't want to relist it again (probably with no change in outcome). --  tariq abjotu  04:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for replying (and my apologies for the delay in my responding to it); I had thought (like I said) that the fact that one title was fully in accord with policy, sources on the page, naming convention, and matched the original titles of these pages, whilst the other was based on one editors (as it turns out, unverifiable) opinion, would be more than enough information, but, there you go...
 * Anyway, I would still like to get these pages moved to the correct titles; if you are unhappy about it, can you suggest my next step in achieving this?
 * Or should I just do the bold thing and move them myself? I’m trying to play by the rules, here, but it’s a bit frustrating having to argue the case for following the guidelines, while cavalier actions (like the ones that led to this mess) get supported. What do you reckon? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, if you think the RM should have been closed in a different direction, if you feel I missed something, you can request a move review. That probably wouldn't be successful though. However, if you want, I could reopen the move request for another week. Right now, though, there is just insufficient information to have a consensus either way, as so few people commented. Perhaps if I were to reopen the move request, you should (neutrally) advertise it on the WikiProjects (Ships, Military history, and France) associated with those articles. --  tariq abjotu  17:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know that re-listing would achieve much (though thanks for the offer); I already flagged the RM at WT:SHIPS, and invited the editor who made the contested moves, but got little response. I'll look into a move review when I get back next week. You may be right about it being unsuccessful, though that would be disappointing, for all manner of reasons. Anyway, my regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the wise close
Thanks for the wise close on French Sudan, an appropriate assessment of the discussion. Thanks! AbstractIllusions(talk) 19:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The "Li (surname)" saga.
Would appreciate your comments here (and maybe here) after your recent close. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As the closer, I'm supposed to be neutral, so I don't want to get involved too much in those discussions. Given the number of people who participated in the original move discussion, I'm sure you'll get enough input without me. --  tariq abjotu  04:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

ITN
good call(Lihaas (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)).

The Signpost: 03 July 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Digital move
I don't see anything on Talk:Digital in support of the move you just did. Can you please say there what's up? The recent RM went the other way.Dicklyon (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see it was about moving the disambig page. But your last step was an error: you moved Talk:Digital data and should not have;  that's the talk page for Digital data, an article not part of the RM. Can you please fix? Dicklyon (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, Bkonrad fixed it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, July 13!
Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, July 13 at 6:00 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 the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 00:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

definition of cartwheel as used by us mortal native speakers...
Hi there. You seem to be making edits in the latest catastrophe article without much experience, to judge from your edits, one of which I had to revert. Now you altered mine, without any good cause. You will find "cartwheeled" used elsewhere in Wikipedia aviation crash articles, where appropriate.

And this: http://www.cbsnews.com/8601-500251_162-50150363.html?assetTypeId=58&blogId=

I came across it after using mine. Kind regards, --Mareklug talk 02:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know how you expect to get any sympathy from me when you basically call me an idiot. I'm curious to know which edits I've made that have exposed that I don't have "much experience" (and with what exactly? I've never flown a B777 into SFO, if that's what you mean). Oh, and isthis the revert you're talking about? I'd hardly call that something you had to revert -- just something you wanted to revert, apparently so you could wave it my face more than twenty-four hours later. And you have some nerve talking about native English speakers, when your user page shows you are not one (and you should be able to infer that I am one).


 * However, speaking at least to the word "cartwheel"... that's subjective. I saw the video myself; that doesn't look like "cartwheeling" to me. One person's use of the term is not gospel (as some would disagree). It was obviously at least "spinning"; there is no reason to resort to hyperbole.


 * That being said, please do me the favor of not actually responding to me. I'm not actually interested in what you have to say, given the arrogant attitude you presented in your initial statement about a very minor point. --  tariq abjotu  02:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Your edits are being discussed on ANI
Hello. Please participate in the current discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Mareklug talk 03:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Martian Gullies
An article that you have been involved in editing, Martian Gullies, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh? I've never edit that article. --  tariq abjotu  17:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I know, but you edited the proposed target article called: Seasonal flows on warm Martian slopes as shown. Anyway, it was just a courtesy message in case you still want to be involved in that article, Cheers, BatteryIncluded(talk) 18:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 July 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC: breakdown of results
Hello again everyone. Now that the Jerusalem RfC has been closed and there has been time for the dust to settle, I thought it would be a good time to start step six of the moderated discussion. If you could leave your feedback over at the discussion page, it will be most appreciated. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 09:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)