User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive Twenty-Eight

Persian/Arabian Gulf page's tag
Hi

I would like to thank you for taking care in page of Persian Gulf, but would like to ask for tagging it with the neutrality tag (totaly or partially in catagories related to the naming history issue) as the name and naming history is highly disputed as you can notice in the talk page. Thanks, Ralhazzaa 22:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not going to get involved in the naming dispute. If you want to add a template to the article, you are free to do so as there is no protection at the moment. --  tariq abjotu  02:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

small token
I saw you were missing this one.


 * Thanks a lot for the barnstar; I have added it to my userpage. I was going to request a Main Page appearance on May 16, Jerusalem Day, but that looks like it's getting a bit crowded. I think I may go with June 7 to mark the fortieth anniversary of the re-unification of Jerusalem (Jerusalem Day according to the Gregorian calendar) and the 908th anniversary of the beginning of the Siege of Jerusalem. I don't think I'll have trouble pushing Atheism out of that spot. Any advice on the matter? --  tariq abjotu  17:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, looks like you really have it thought out! I can't wait to see it featured on the main page. nadav 17:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Mazal Tov ! מזל טוב
Congratulations on finally getting FA status for Jerusalem, after working so hard, and so tirelessly, remaining patient in the face of exhausting opposition. Right on! okedem 09:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Current events
I have no real problem if you decide to semi-protect the article. I unprotected since it was a heavily watchlisted page, and I figured any vandalism in the future could easily be reverted in seconds/minutes. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.
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 06:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

OTRS
Just in case you aren't aware, a policy was recently implemented by the Wikimedia Foundation, regarding access to nonpublic data (see ) Please note if you do not comply with these rules you should remove yourself from OTRS volunteering where your name is listed. Otherwise, please ignore this message :) Kind regards,  Majorly   (hot!)  17:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

For no reason...
For absolutely no reason other than trying to cheer you up a little :) Have a beautiful day, dear Tariq! Love,  P h a e d r i e l  - 07:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That was unexpected... thanks... Did I look unhappy? --  tariq abjotu  21:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't dear Tariq, but hey, that's no reason not to try and make your day a little happier, is it? :) I've just sent you an email. Have a beautiful weekend! Cheers,  P h a e d r i e l  - 15:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Occult excitement at Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn
This info may not come as news to you, since you just semi-protected the page. . EdJohnston 22:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have blocked the five users mentioned on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard indefinitely. --  tariq abjotu  23:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay
Clearly, we misunderstood each other. I posted in AN, as I've come to expect Admins to have picked up a bit more in the way of a neutral mindset and some skill at diplomacy, and I kinda feel betrayed when one of them comes up short in either category. It was lacking today with FutPerf. Realizing that even you guys have on days and off days is part of the education. I need to learn how to express myself clearly, so that I am not misinterpreted. Pax nobiscum. Arcayne  (cast a spell)  03:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, were you thinking to respond at some point? Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No. To what? --  tariq abjotu  21:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu
"If we must resort to compromises when no compromise is needed, the terrorists have won" is an attack on editors with whom you do not agree, essentially calling them terrorists. Admins are not exempt from the rules, please be mindful of WP:Civility. Furthermore, Naming conventions (geographic names) is a guideline (more like a sloppy essay) written almost entirely by User:Pmanderson who is a party to this dispute, the guideline fails to address that there are 3 categories of geographical names, names of international geographical places like Oceans and Seas, names of geographical places which are under national authorities like cities, and names of geographical places which are shared by two or more national authorities such as rivers and islands - so the issue is not as clear-cut as it may seem, it ultimately comes down to consensus. I will elaborate on this issue on the articles' talk page later on. Meanwhile, keep in mind that we're discussing guidelines that can be changed and interpreted at will by anyone, however there is a serious binding policy that admins should not use their power in disputes to which they are a party. --Mardavich 04:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "'If we must resort to compromises when no compromise is needed, the terrorists have won' is an attack on editors with whom you do not agree, essentially calling them terrorists."
 * Oh please; no it is not.
 * "Furthermore, Naming conventions (geographic names) is a guideline (more like a sloppy essay) written almost entirely by User:Pmanderson who is a party to this dispute"
 * The fact that Pmanderson has edited that guideline often is largely irrelevant since (a) it still has the guideline stamp of approval, (b) the foundation of the current form existed prior to Pmanderson's changes, and (c) the template is based off other basic guidelines and policies (such as WP:NC(CN)). I hadn't even heard of the page you mentioned until just now.
 * "there is a serious binding policy that admins should not use their power in disputes to which they are a party."
 * If there isn't already, there should be a policy saying editors shouldn't throw this mantra around when it's not necessary. I have not suggested any such action, even though (the closing admin) basically invited me to do so. Additionally, it's a question whether I'm truly "involved" here; I'm not saying I prefer one version over another as I don't. I am simply asking the Arvand camp to provide some sort of policy or guideline that backs up their side. You and they have still not done that. I'm waiting. --  tariq abjotu  04:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please Tariqa, that line was seen as an attack on the character of several editors. Your denial won't change anything, you could at least admit that it was a bad analogy. And there is no question that you are involved here, you have taken sides in a dispute, regardless of your interpretation of guidelines (which are not official policies, and hence not arbitrary). WP:NAME, an official policy with stamp of approval the foundation, had foreseen complicated situations like this, and prescribes that "In a few cases of naming conflicts, editors have been unable to reach a strong consensus to support one name above another name. In these instances, both names are allowed.". --Mardavich 05:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not going to admit it was a bad analogy. Because it wasn't a bad analogy. Heck, it wasn't even an analogy. By terrorists, I actually meant terrorists. Your extrapolation is your fault alone. This isn't a matter of how I interpret guidelines; it's what the guidelines say. The Shatt al-Arab side has WP:NC(CN), WP:NCGN, and WP:NCON all as support. The piece you quote from WP:NAME is inadmissible in supporting a side in an argument. It's meant as a last resort, not as a license to ignore other policies and guidelines when one sees fit. By using it, you are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy: you're saying no consensus could be created, so you're sticking by your position. However, the only reason no consensus could be created is that you are sticking by your position. But your position is only based on the idea that no consensus could be created... it's a big mess of circular logic. So, you have nothing so far. We'll talk about me being "involved" later, once we get at least two defensible positions. --  tariq abjotu  05:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Arguments have already been made, it's not up to you to decide what is a "defensible position" or "inadmissible" in a content dispute. By dismissing your opponent's arguments, you are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy that you are somehow above consensus, and your position is the only logical approach available. --Mardavich 06:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am still responding only to your arguments, demonstrating that you have no policy or guideline to support your position. I'm not merely saying that sentence of WP:NAME is "inadmissible" or saying that you don't have a "defensible position"; I am saying why (the former due to the self-fulfilling prophecy and circular logic and the latter due to the fact that no policy or guideline supports your position). If you have a problem with my why, fire away. I know claiming that I think I'm "somehow above consensus" or that "[my] position is the only logical approach available" vilifies me, but it does not refute the facts (and it's not true). --  tariq abjotu  06:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do a problem with your why, it's based on your opinion. I have a policy to support my position, that sentence of WP:NAME is admissible, claiming otherwise is merely your opinion. Guidelines are not arbitrary and could not have foreseen every possible scenario, which is why WP:NAME has made that exception for cases like this. National sovereignty and authority is more important than some objective criterion to determine common usage in English. For example, the Indian government has decided to change the name of the city "Madras" to "Chennai", Wikipedia should and does respect this, even if Madras is much more common in English literature (See books.google.com), the same rational should apply to Islands and Rivers that are shared by two national authorities such as the Arvand River. --Mardavich 08:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have replied on the talk page of the article. --  tariq abjotu  15:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

River naming
Ha. I feel your pain. I was involved in some nasty Polish-Lithuanian naming disputes (see archives of talk:Jogaila), so I can only express my sympathy. But the noticeboard is a bad idea: it is not used to ask for help on individual articles and even if it attracted some attention it would be from uninformed users who would not follow up on the discussion. What to do? Dunno. (My personal 2cent: name the river where it is the longest) Renata 23:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Elaborate
"Thus, those who have commented already about this matter on the talk page (outside of just a simple drive-by vote) and regular editors of the article are discouraged from posting statements of support." And this is based on what policy? In what capacity, you're conducting a new poll with your own rules? --Mardavich 23:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This kind of rhetoric is precisely why I did not respond to your latest request to assume good faith. You are completely unwilling to assume good faith on your own. First it was the terrorist thing and now you believe I have some ulterior motive to promote an Arab agenda. I'm not a nationalist. I don't care about Arabs. I don't care about Persians. I don't care about [insert preferred faction here]. All I care about is resolving the dispute over the name of the article in a manner supported by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. That is why I favor the Shatt al-Arab position, which has presented guidelines to support its position. Your position has not. Hence, it is incredibly ironic for you to be asking me how the wording is based on policy.


 * Nevertheless, I will respond: it is not based on policy. The discussion / straw poll is intended to gauge what those outside the group of editors here believe. We already know what you and I and the other regular editors believe; that's all over the talk page. Much in the same way you think I have a pro-Arab agenda, I believe there are some involved with a pro-Persian agenda (which is why they have remained steadfast, dancing around the issue of policy and guideline). Getting an opinion representative of the general Wikipedia public rather than representative of Persians and Arabs would produce a clearer, less biased result. --  tariq abjotu  23:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's good to hear that you finally admit that you "favor the Shatt al-Arab position" and that you don't assume good faith. However, your straw poll is not a move request, and hence not biding. In move requests, you don't profile users based on their perceived nationalities. And if you "already know what you and I and the other regular editors believe", then why did you take part in the straw-poll yourself? Do as you preach.--Mardavich 00:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You only read what you wanted to read; your statement is a serious distortion of what I said even if it is interspersed with quotes. I did not say I don't assume good faith... favor was taken out of context... etc. etc. Perhaps you should read up on confirmation bias. --  tariq abjotu  00:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that you don't favor a position in this dispute? Do you intend to use your administrator powers in this dispute? By the way, for someone who "don't care about Arabs", you sure admire their way of life and seek to emulate it. --Mardavich 00:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wearing a thobe one day in one's entire life does not make one an Arab nationalist anymore than eating Chinese food weekly makes one a Chinese sympathizer. Regardless, this has no bearing on the naming of the article; now that this matter is out of the way, I hope you can get back to your search for the policy or guideline supporting your position. --  tariq abjotu  03:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Tariqabjotu, please don’t dodge the question. Do you favor a position in this dispute? Do you intend to use your administrator powers in this dispute? --Mardavich 03:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're trying to distract me from the real issue. I'm not falling for it. Go back to the talk page of the article and either present policy and guidelines that support your position or concede defeat. You are in no position to issue ultimatums when you have yet to fulfill this oft-made request. --  tariq abjotu  04:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to distract you from the issue, it's a simple question to clearify the situation, why wouldn't you answer?  I'm not conceding defeat, this is a content dispute, and my arguments are as valid and strong as anybody's. If you think otherwise, then that's your opinion, and you're entitiled to it. But you can't force me and others to accept your position as the truth because you’ve declared it so. Anwyays, have a good night - I am off to sleep. --Mardavich 04:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * my arguments are as valid and strong as anybody's Perhaps you could, you know, say what those arguments are and which policies and guidelines support them? There's a section under Talk:Shatt al-Arab (Arvand Rud) that remains empty. --  tariq abjotu  04:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The arguments were already given above, in the formal move request, the binding one. --Mardavich 04:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S: In the middle of our discussion you implied that I am Persian, FYI I am Azeri. --Mardavich 04:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Um... ok? Thanks for sharing. I'm not sure where you get the impression move requests are "binding". You are mistaken; there's a reason they can be re-done or simply conducted on talk pages. WP:RM is just consensus-gathering tool, not a suicide pact. If you really want to be picky, this is an extended discussion over whether the move request was closed correct (see also: this statement). You have not presented any policy and guideline (still); if the RfC and current efforts to reflect the opinion of the general community don't align with the narrow move request, that's your loss. --  tariq abjotu  04:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case you should reformat your new request to conform with WP:RM. --Mardavich 05:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.
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 06:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Iran semiprotection
As a matter of fact I was contacted by an Iranian user by E-mail. He was begging for semiprotection claiming that amount of vandalism is higher than they can handle. I have checked and there was a significant amount of vandalism, so I saw nothing wrong with the request. There were no content dispute over registered and unregistered users or something. Alex Bakharev 06:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Noah's Ark
I just edited the Noah's ark article and then noticed you had locked it. Since I was able to edit it, I'm not sure if the lock was effective (or perhaps there's just a lag). If the former I just wanted to let you know about it. I also want to assure you that I have no opinion on whatever the edit dispute is, and I apologize if I unknowingly edited something controversial - I am simply trying to clean up bad spelling on wikipedia. --Bachrach44 13:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When an administrator protects an article, there is option for him or her to set the expiration date. I set it to be seven days from the time of protection, which corresponds to 01:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC) (as noted in the history). The protection template does not show the exact time at which the protection expires. Thus, the best possible option is to put the date of expiry (which was May 10, 2007). The reason you could edit the article is that the protection had expired. The template does not disappear automatically; either another user will remove the template or DumbBOT will do it. Since you have alerted me that the protection has expired, I have removed the template myself. --  tariq abjotu  16:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Weapons Section in Civilian Attack template
At the Template talk:Infobox civilian attack page, I asked if a Weapons section could be added to the template, and you said you added this section. However, it doesn't show up in Wikipedia articles. For example, see Virginia Tech massacre. There is a space for listing weapons in the template, but the weapons section doesn't show up. Can you fix this? Thanks in advance, and thanks for adding the section. Griot 16:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone else corrected your code before I could. Template fields are case-sensitive, so you should use weapons, not Weapons. --  tariq abjotu  20:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Your protection of WP:IAR seems a bit hasty
From my perspective, IAR's had much heavier edit warring before, and it's cooled off without protection. I guess it's no big deal either way, but why bother protecting it? The primary dissenter seemed to leave off edit warring yesterday. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe we can wait this out. Alternatively, if things come to a (calm) standstill on the talk page, unprotection can be requested at WP:RPP. --  tariq abjotu  15:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But why protect an essentially quiesced article? Do you have something against undoing your own actions? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 18:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * An edit war is an edit war, regardless of whether is it occurring over the span of three days or three minutes. No, I do not have "something against undoing [my] own actions" and the allegation that such is the case is unfounded. I was aware of the situation when I made the protection and I am aware of it now; you have provided me with no new information regarding the page. If you want to request unprotection at WP:RPP, no one is stopping you. --  tariq abjotu  19:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Sorry to offend. Offense was not intended. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 21:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

AZN Pride
I think you're better off blocking seeing as he's not getting the message. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 15:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. He has only be told about removing speedy deletion templates. I think that if we explain why the inclusion of non-notable bands is not appropriate he might get the message. I attempted to explain this part on his talk page. If he reacts negatively to this and proceeds to create the article after the protection expires, it might be safe to say "he's not getting the message". But until then, I'll just give him the benefit of the doubt and write this off as simple inexperience. --  tariq abjotu  15:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Broken links
Since you're the most knowledgable person on Wikipedia i know, could you help me with a problem? On my userpage, around the Signpost and Award sections on the righthand side, the links seem not to work and occasionally some random pixel will lead my to a random page, most often Punk rock, Cancer (astrology), The Simpsons, and my emailuser page. Can you help me fix/figure out the problem and what's causing it? Thanx,  Ṣ₡ЯՄ♏ ʂɧ♆ ☭ ♲ recycle kids! omg i'm ur biggest fan... ➤  22:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure where the problem could be; it looked fine to me. However, you signature is way, way too long and excessively colorful. Please see Signatures. --  tariq abjotu  22:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up about the signaturem but there were no weird links? Today I clicked the "i" in my "Signpost" heading and it brought me to an image of a microphone. Thanks anways!  Ṣ ₡ Я Մ Պ Տ ɧ ѱ Ꭶ ☎/∑ 00:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

...of the week
Hello, I noticed that Jerusalem didn't make it. Could you point me to where that happened so that I can see what the problems were myself? Also, I just read through the Shatt al-Arab controversy, and I have to say I agree entirely with your position. Is it too late to sound off now that its gone mediation-ho? Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 05:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No Article of Week was chosen because the idea was rejected. No, it's not too late to chime in on the issue regarding the Shatt al-Arab; we're still looking for outside opinions. --  tariq abjotu  11:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Baby Gender Mentor
According to this, the article was protected on May 13 for the whole day as featured article, yet there is an abundance of IP edits. Isn't that supposed to be prevented by protection? —AldeBaer 22:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, just realised it was only move-protected. —AldeBaer 22:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection of Gilberto Silva
I'm not sure what this was meant to accomplish, but anon vandals can edit the article:,. 88.233.34.73 00:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That prevents all editors, except administrators, from moving the article to another title. Yes, anon vandals can edit the article, but so can anon good-faith editors. See WP:NOPRO for more rationale behind keeping Today's Featured Article editable by all visitors. --  tariq abjotu  00:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.
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 03:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

'Chelsea wins' issue
Please see Dreaded Walrus' interpretation of the matter on my talk page. I am British English myself, and I am almost certain what he is saying is correct. No one here would refer to Chelsea as 'Chelsea Football Club'- I would suspect the club is far more well known than the location. I am certain that, when phrased like that, it is singular. Again, see Dreaded Walrus' explanation on my talk page. J Milburn 21:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism to Reggae has continued
After you took the semi-protection off of Reggae, the vandal who inspired the protection (user:212.9.28.125 and other IP addresses) started up his vandalism again. There is no evidence that he will change his destructive edits. Spylab 16:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam
Apply 3RR rules uniformly. You only blocked 1 of the edit warring parties. Gridges 21:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It was patently obviously that you were being disruptive. Would you like me to be more specific with your block reason? --  tariq abjotu  21:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Disruptive? Those were legitimate edits, deleted because they didn't fit in with the article's theme of "Islam is evil". The New York Times and other papers point to the use of 'criticism' as a pretext for denigrating and inciting Muslims. Why should that fact not be included in the article? What is disruptive in presenting another perspective in an article which had so far been use to make a single statement: that Islam is an evil religion and that Muslims are evil people? Since when is it policy for Wikipedia to have articles that serve the advocacy interests (hatred ridden ones at that) of a single view? Gridgess 21:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.
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 05:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Watching Jerusalem
I hope you are not planning to stay up all night to guard the page! I'll keep watch till 12:00 UTC, and others I'm sure are checking the page. The only thing I am concerned about is revert wars. What do I do about 3RR? nadav (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. --  tariq abjotu  05:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Your May 20 standardization of BCE/CE faith-neutral dating has been undone in the last 24 hours. Due to heavy traffic it is nearly impossible to get in and make reversions. When the current attack on this article subsides (if it ever does), this task needs addressing. Do you know of any way to lock the changes in, once made? Hertz1888 13:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Advice
More users are fighting over the comments at Talk:Mao: The Unknown Story. Can you please just say whether the comments are valid or not. If they are valid please revert and make some sort of "decision"; if not then just leave them.

It all boils down to whether the comments are acceptable or not under wikipedia guidelines - we won't work it out between ourselves. John Smith&#39;s 17:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * }