User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive Twenty

Aaron Klein: the POV excitement continues
You helped us out previously on this issue by semi-protecting the Aaron Klein page. I posted this new message today to WP:ANI. I assumed it was more correct to explain the situation on a public talk board rather than just ask you for a block on MikeJason. If you have a recommendation on what to do next, please let me know. EdJohnston 01:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 27th.
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 02:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:NotJudaism
How crazy was that template or maybe its just me? MetsFan76 05:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

MetsFan, you can stop now. The template is deleted and, besides, Humus is not doing anything wrong; he is entitled to his opinion. Something that is not a good idea, however, is badgering those who disagree with you. --  tariq abjotu  05:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Excuse me..I wasn't badgering anyone. I was making a point at how silly this was. Anyway, its over. MetsFan76 06:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No; you clearly were. On the template for deletion page, as well as on Humus sapiens's talk page. Please do not do that in the future. --  tariq abjotu  06:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Second time....I was trying to figure out what the deal was with that template b/c I found it very insulting which is why I contacted Humus. Good night.  MetsFan76 06:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I contributed to the confusion with my comment. No, it wasn't about you. Only after I posted my comment I realized that it could be misunderstood but it was too late. I feel that the whole thing is a huge misunderstanding. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Current Affairs Portal
Jo,

Can you have a look at the current affairs portal? For some reason, it is showing today as yesterday.

Regards

Capitalistroadster 09:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone had vandalized the page. --  tariq abjotu  11:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits to Beit Hanoun article
Striver got an admin to undelete the two pictures. No actual discussion of the matter took place. You may want to talk to the admin and/or Striver. The idea that one of these pictures is fair use has some minimal plausibility (incorrect but I can see why soemoen might think it) but the idea that both of them are fair use in the same article is laughable. JoshuaZ 15:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The allegation that Striver just talked to an admin is not correct. I responded on the talk page for the article. --  tariq abjotu  16:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for that clarification. JoshuaZ 16:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Beit Hanoun incident may need protecting again.
It seems like editors are back to fighting over whether to include the picture. JoshuaZ 22:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not necessary, in my opinion. We ought to warn them about the 3RR (because this isn't really coming from all ends), and block them if they persist. --  tariq abjotu  22:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know who the "we" is in that sentence. At this point I'm a bit too involved an editor to be doing any blocking. I'll put a note on the talk page about 3RR which should get the point across. JoshuaZ 22:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, maybe just "an admin." I might be too involved in this now too. Nevertheless, I warned Striver he's close to violating it (his 12:07 (UTC) edit counts as well, correct?). --  tariq abjotu  22:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're still uninvolved. I would see that as a revert also. I think I might actually be arguably at 3 reverts also. JoshuaZ 22:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And the edit warring is back with many parties. JoshuaZ 16:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Given and other recent comments I think a block of our favorite anon is in order. JoshuaZ 13:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Sorry to bother you, but i'm not exactly an expert around here- I just noticed some vandalism to the sweatshop article, and i don't know how to undo it and warn whoever did it- 70.176.114.118 01:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hercule moveprotect
Just saw your re-add of the template and the note on PL(D)'s page (he/she needs to have a name that isn't an article name...). You are right that it's still moveprotected, but the page is no longer listed on List of protected pages or List of protected pages/Long-term protection. I believe this has caused the confusion. I've added a note there now. JRP 05:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Admin-warming gift
An early holiday birthday* gift for you has been placed under the tree here, for your review. I'm fascinated with the work that goes into the various calendars, etc. on WP, and used your August into September Current Events cal edit to come up with tomorrow's calendar (Dec 1, they almost match, since September also started on a Friday). It's quite a superb design that I understand you came up with. If this re-fit looks right, just copy and paste. Glad to help in a timely fashion, and see you next month perhaps, if not sooner ;) !

* Just missed Election Day, I see. Best wishes anyway!

 Schweiwikist   (talk)   20:20, 30 November 2006 (updated-corrected) (UTC)


 * Wonderful! One minor correction though... back in early September, the archive sub-pages were at Portal:Current events/Month year. They have since been moved to just Month year (e.g. November 2006), so that should be corrected. But, overall, I'm glad someone else has been able to decipher the monthly update (see also: Portal:Current events/How to archive the portal). --  tariq abjotu  22:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Schweiwikist replies: Noted and implemented on my aforementioned page. I have already found this page, and I find it an enjoyable late-night read.  Schweiwikist   (talk)   02:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussions on Indian Caste System
I have discussed my edits endlessly. We need an outside mediator, and when we tried to get one, no one helped us. Please take a look at the discussions. BhaiSaab talk 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But revert-warring is still not the answer. It sounded like you wanted the article to be protected at your version. --  tariq abjotu  17:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't care which version you would have protected, even if it was the wrong one, because at least the parties would go back to answering my questions on the talk page. BhaiSaab talk 17:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for intervening. BhaiSaab has been revert-warring for months on this article, misrepresenting sources, and hoping that the page will get protected to his version.I don't care about which version the page get's protected either (and I have no say on that matter anyways, as admins are required to protect at current version and not discriminate between "right" and "wrong" version, and the protection tag says that protection is not an endorsement of the current version anyways). I have made my points in the talk page. BhaiSaab has been imposing his references (which are partisan when verified, misrepresented when not) over the ones that I have cited (which are scholarly and non-partisan). I want BOTH views to be represented, but BhaiSaab has been repeatedly removing the scholarly references that present the situation in a more NPOV light. Hkelkar 17:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't want both views to be represented. It's only when I presented five sources that stated the same thing you realized that you couldn't get rid of the obvious. Then you went on and on trying to find sources that didn't say Muslim castes were influenced by Hinduism, and then when you find something you either misrepresent it or use your own interpretation to say something the source doesn't say. BhaiSaab talk 22:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * J., I would appreciate it if you mediated this matter. BhaiSaab talk 22:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Finally someone with enough courage to take this on. Thanks. BhaiSaab talk 22:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Vlh
Will you please block this slow-speed vandal for me? He keeps inserting original research into Wikipedia despite warnings on his talk page and a massive discussion of the articles he's adding the text on, Grand Slam Champion and Triple Crown Champion (see history of articles). Consensus at the Pro Wrestling WikiProject and Policy state that unverified facts can't be inserted into Wikipedia. I've went through test4 with him (twice) and he still hasn't gotten the hint yet. semper fi — Moe  02:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggest taking this to WP:ANI since this isn't an obvious vandalism incident, and since the issue isn't especially pressing. --  tariq abjotu  02:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Tried that, no one bothered to respond. semper fi — Moe  02:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Protection issue
Hi - I reprotected here, on WP:RFPP, after the requester noted that Jidan had re-commenced edit warring immediately after protection. For now, I've unprotected, though I'm skeptical as to how well this tactic will work. There is a post about Jidan on WP:ANI here. Thanks - M a rtinp23 13:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about
you are close to violating the three-revert rule for the article. There is no three revert rule for reverting vandalism. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know there is no 3RR for reverting vandalism. I did not see it as reverting vandalism, but obviously I'm in the minority. You are free to disagree, but I believe people and administrators are not always going to agree on their analyses of situations since they are not mass-produced robots. Sadly, disagreeing with you does not constitute obviously having no idea what one is talking about. --  tariq abjotu  01:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't think that repeated insertin of To a certain extent through heroic figures like Klaus Fuchs, the brilliant activities of the Soviet intelligence service resulted in the early loss of America's monopoly on the destructive atomic bomb. is not vandalism? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like a POV to me; obviously not overt vandalism. If you want to make WP:DIFFICULT blocks, better gain consensus on the WP:ANI page. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {L} 10:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Courtesy notice
Bibi Mubarika Yusufzay, which you prodded, has been recreated after deletion. I have undeleted the history and submitted it to AfD as a disputed prod. Cheers, - crz crztalk 03:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.
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 05:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Third_holiest_site_in_Islam_%28expression%29 Move
The first move was offical move request made and other two move requests are created by me to discuss on talk page. Why you have closed them too? They were part of talk page and discussion on them was not concluded. Even if discussion on them was concluded, there is not logic to do that with talk page things. --- ALM 10:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested
Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Current Affairs Portal
There seems to be some problem with the current affairs portal. The page isn't showing the seventh of December even though it appears when the page is edited. Could you please have a look at it?

Regards

Capitalistroadster 01:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This was it. --  tariq abjotu  01:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Could I get some help?
I noticed you protected the page I requested to be protected: WWE Armageddon. A little while after, User:TJ Spyke posted on the talk page and told me just to leave the page alone here: Talk:WWE_Armageddon. That's just bad faith and I consider it a personal attack as well. This user loves to do that, and has done it before. Adding a warning to his user page doesn't seem to stop him either. He either ignores it, or just removes it. Any suggestions? I brought this up on WP:AN/I before, and there is a new post about it as well. Most people just suggested RFC, which isn't the complete solution to TJ and his attacks on myself and his bad faith because of my edits to pages he edits. RobJ1981 01:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Black people
Why did you revert my redirect? We're trying to divide the black people article into 2 different articles. One for all dark skinned people black people (generic) and one just for people of African ancestry black people (ethnicity) Gottoupload 02:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Black people is marked as a controversial article, so you need to discuss such a major split on Talk:Black people before making it. Additionally, copying the text from one article and pasting it into another is not the proper way to carry out a move. --  tariq abjotu  02:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Templates
Hi Tariqabjotu. Could you please tell me what templates do you use for closing move discussions? Thank you. Regards.-- Hús  ö  nd  03:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * At the top of the move request goes  move/no move/no consensus/something else (optional comment). ~  and at the bottom goes   . --  tariq abjotu  08:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :-) Regards.-- Hús  ö  nd  14:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

help request
Your help is requested as someone with current or recent interest in resolving the U.S. settlement naming convention discussion. I have created a "discussion template" modeled off of an RfC to attempt to structure the discussion, which is spinning wheels and spraying mud. I'd greatly appreciate any input you could provide (including "what are you smoking?"--or perhaps, "keep this in your back pocket"). Thanks in advance. --Ishu 16:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Air of reality
Hello Tariq, this user is employing the same techniques that User:Mactabbed employed and is editing on the same topics. See this talk as well as Requests_for_checkuser/Clever_curmudgeon and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mactabbed this individual has a long history of disruption on the Wiki. (→ Netscott ) 23:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ilan Pappé
You have declined the request to semi-protect Ilan Pappé, on the grounds that "There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time." I think you should look at the logs for the now-protected Steven Plaut, David Bukay, and Kurt Nimmo, and if possible at the deleted logs for Roland Rance, and reconsider. The latest edits were clearly made by the same person/people, using the same language and accusations. We can be certain that this page will continue to be vandalised in the same libellous way until it is protected, when the culprit/s will move on to attack another anti-Zionist Jew. Why wait for the inevitable recurrence of vandalism before acting? If the article is semi-protected, established bona fide editors will still be able to edit it, but the string of disposable accounts set up in order to carry out such attacks will be stymied. RolandR 02:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think semi-protection is necessary. The problematic user(s) has/have been blocked. --  tariq abjotu  03:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And the same libellous and disruptive edit has now been made by User:Harmont. This will keep happening until the article is protected.--RolandR 15:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have blocked the user as a suspected sockpuppet and semi-protected the article. --  tariq abjotu  15:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Ryukyu Islands
You said:
 * "A month transpired between the October move and this recent move request; that's not quite the scenario you mention in the third paragraph."

Not everyone in the know can check changes to each article on one's watchlist on a daily basis. The article existed without macrons for almost three years prior to the move. The person who renamed it added erroneous information that claimed Ryūkyū Shotō (Japanese term) is equivalent to "Ryukyu Islands" (English term). The two terms actually have different definitions. This incorrect information probably caused many editors who visited the article during that month to not notice the problem. You did point out that a month passed, however I never claimed that a month didn't pass. Almost three years passed prior to the move as well. The creation of a non-macronised article three years ago wasn't the start of a revert war. —Tokek 03:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What is this in reference to? I don't remember saying this comment (not because I didn't say it, but because it has been awhile). Is there something you would like me to do? --  tariq abjotu  03:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right. I haven't been as active as before on Wikipedia so I forgot how old this topic has become. Checked some other pages and it appears that the situation was resolved anyway. Sorry for the bother. I won't mind if you forget that I brought this up. —Tokek 15:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello. You were initially involved in the concluding of the Ryūkyū Islands -> Ryukyu Islands poll. This is the continuation of that. There is debate over the results of a poll and how to proceed with those conclusions. Would you please take a look at the poll and the debated issues? We need some input from someone more impartial. Thank you. Bendono 11:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

what are you talking about?
What "personal attacks" are you reffering to?I'd like to know who's been talking to you.Next time I'd preffer a refference to charges directed against me with the warning.ThankyouNadirali 03:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali


 * See WP:ANI. --  tariq abjotu  03:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

2 sides of the story need to be heard
I think you need to here form my side of the story before taking sides.Personal attacks have been launched against me by the same users who reported me along with attempting to intimidate user:Saddiqui by making threatening comments. They have also vandalized my comments once and have been trolling with there provokitive comments non-stop.They have also accussed me of being a "maddrassa student".If anyone's been trolling it's them.Nadirali 04:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali


 * I'm not taking sides. It doesn't matter if people have been levying personal attacks against you; you still are not allowed to attack others. If people are attacking you, warn them using, , , and , or and . --  tariq abjotu  04:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine then,but I'd like you to give them the same warning as they too have caused violations against me.If you want to block me ,then block them as well.It's only fair after all.Nadirali 04:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

consider this
hello sir,I would like you to read all the things these users posted on the History of India talk page and would like you to give them a similar warning for personal attacks and racism: "where did you read this? In a Pakistani madarassa? C'mon, have you ever heard of the Indo-Aryan migration theory. After the arrival of Aryans in the Indian subcontinent, the IVC was virtually destroyed. The civilization created by the Aryans afterwards is known as the Vedic civilization. Dude.. go read some history books before blabbering here and stop showing off your madarassa education. --Incman|वार्ता 21:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)'''" Pakistan puffs it's chest in rabid jingiosm, hides it's problems under the rug, tried to portray itself as a paradise, and get's laughed at by the civilized world as a poor, backward and paranoid nation.Hkelkar 01:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I also believe that paks are confused about their identity. I think they have a hard time choosing whether they are Indian or they want to be arabian?  Do they want islamic sharia law or commonwealth law.  They look upon islamic invaders as heroes even though those same invaders came and raped their ancestors and coverted them.  they're all about jatt/ punjabi/ rajput pryde even though the rajuts started out as hindu and sikhs were being slaughtered wholesale by the moguls.  I think education is the key to solving this problem.  that and separation of church and state.--D-Boy 00:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Separation of religion and state in Pakistan???? It's more likely for aliens from planet Glarbon to land their spaceship in the middle of Waziristan and do a belly dance to an audience of hookah-smoking Pukhtun poppy-seed dealers.Hkelkar

There is no room in the official historical narrative for questions or alternative points of view which is Nazariya Pakistan, the Ideology of Pakistan—devoted to a mono-perspectival religious orientation. This, as opposed to nearly a sizable of Pakistan up at arms to separate from the state (*cough Balochistan *cough), with '''another fraction run by the Taliban and Osama, the the remaining half full of jingoist whackos spreading hate against Hindus and Christians and selling anti-semitic Jew-hating conspiracy theories on every street-corner in Lahore(Pakistan: In the Land of Conspiracy Theories, PBS). .Gee whiz, what a paradise! Hkelkar 23:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)'''ThankyouNadirali 05:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

Point
I appreciate your being fair. Just like to point out that nadirali has professed to sockpuppeteering and done some post-mediation baiting in my talk page (to which I shall not respond).This, after it was HE who said he would instigate edit-warring with the assistance of Siddiqui (and, presumably,his own socks), not I. Hkelkar 06:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, Nadirali persists in coterie formation with Pakistani nationalist editors even after being warned, effectively making threats against other editors (intent to mass-edit-war).

Perhaps Nadirali should be made to read WP:POINT. Hkelkar 06:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI, Nadirali continues to make incivil and derogatory comments in the talk page. Why does he keep trolling it despite your advice to the contrary? Hkelkar 00:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. --  tariq abjotu  00:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You should be "de-admined".
Back in November, you protected the Protest Warrior article because User:Shortbus requested it. You did this due to "edit warring", apparently without checking the factual accuracy or the conformance to policy of his edits and actions. Not coincidentally, the edits you froze in the article were his. Shortly thereafter I pointed out to you that it was he who recalcitrantly refused to discuss edits on the talk page. Despite this you did not take any action to help the situation nor even deign to respond to my comment. Now, it turns out his edits (the ones you froze in the article for two weeks) have been proven factually inaccurate. While you conformed to policy, I find your handling of this matter clumsy, frustrating and offensive and not performed with the due diligence I think one should expect from someone in your position. If the opportunity ever arises for a movement to see you stripped of your administrator status, you will find my efforts firmly in that direction. Respectfully, Lawyer2b 17:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry your wishes were not fulfilled quicker, but I don't believe anything happened incorrectly here. Pages are often times protected – even to The Wrong Version – to halt edit- and revert-warring (which indeed was occurring on the Protest Warrior article). The protection is meant to encourage dispute resolution through the appropriate means: discussion on talk pages. --  tariq abjotu  20:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident
Just want to let you know that most images you removed from that page have since been restored, despite objections from several editors. Beit Or 21:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

reply
Alright I will. Baka man  00:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

reply
Sorry, I lost it for a bit there. It's just that some of these Pakistani nationalists on wikipedia frustrate me, with their jingoist historical revisionism and blatant propaganda, portraying the world's largest democracy and bastion of multiculturalism, tolerance and pluralism like India as some sort of war-ravaged apartheid state of "kaffirs" in order to deflect attention from the despicable actions of their own government and the brutal atrocities taking place in their own country. I added some sources to show that he was spreading baseless propaganda (as are many Pakistani nationalists on wikipedia), based on delusions of religious supremacy and their narrow tribalist ethnocentrism. I will do my best to not get baited by this chap anymore. why can't these countries be more modern-minded and liberal like Turkey or Morocco is beyond me. Hkelkar 02:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * }