User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive Twenty-Two

Template Vandalism
That explains why they were all mprotected2ed except that one. Anyway, template:pokemon has now been removed from the article entirely. --Rory096 03:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Permission
Can I keep your name at my user page here ? --- ALM 14:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer if you didn't. --  tariq abjotu  14:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * May I ask why? You do not have to reply if you do not want to. But replying will clear my confusion. Btw I really wished and waited anxiously for your reply during your nomination for admin too, but you never replied there. --- ALM 15:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page/Candidates
Perhaps you could ad the Glenn McGrath suggestion? Dec 22. -- HamedogTalk|@ 16:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears the coverage of this story is of limited geographic scope, limited primarily to Australia and the United Kingdom. --  tariq abjotu  16:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Big news any where in the cricketing world. McGrath and Warne to of the greatest cricketers of all time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hamedog (talk • contribs) 21:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

Your current events redesign
I noticed this page was proposed for speedy deletion because it should have been made in your user sandbox. Accordingly I have moved it to: User:Tariqabjotu/Current events/Redesign --Dgies 00:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The resolution article bolding
Regarding this, I suggest bolding both articles instead. Aran|heru|nar 04:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Main page
What happened how was this possible? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 15:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No one protected a template on the Main Page, and then someone else exploited that vulnerability. --  tariq abjotu  15:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What a horrible image!! Noty exactly what you want to see at Christmas or any time! I thought the main page was immune from such edits Ernst Stavro Blofeld 15:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC) THanks for releieving my eyes anyway. Man that must have seriuosly hurt! Ernst Stavro Blofeld 15:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Main Page
Did you see the vandalism picture on the Main Page too? Apparently, upon clicking the history, it is no longer there but I definetly seen it!

Anthon y cfc ( talk  •  email  •  tools ) 16:07, Sunday December 24 2006 (UTC)


 * The vandalism occurred to a template transcluded onto the Main Page, and not onto the Main Page itself. --  tariq abjotu  16:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Get Your Act Together"
Tariqabjotu wrote:
 * At who was that directed? for accidentally skipping over this template? Everyone except you? --  tariq abjotu  17:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Everybody – myself included. I certainly don't intend to direct it at any one person. Even a non-administrator can leave a request for page protection or a message on the administrators' noticeboard if they spot a page that needs it. It's my fault as much as it's anyone else's fault. However, it's not an area I have any involvement with, and I don't expect to have to do everything myself. The Main Page gets millions of hits a day, and it simply should not be possible for someone to shove a penis in the public face of Wikipedia – Gurch 18:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I noticed my name got into this conversation. I will admit that I missed protecting those templates that the penis vandal got, both the December 15 SA and the December 24 POTD. But Gurch has a valid point that it is essentially the whole community's fault. Because it got to a point where only one user, me, was monitoring the main page protections. That in my opinion is unacceptable for an important page like the main page. Not only was there not another Wikipedian to double check myself, but what could have happened if I got too busy or went on a wikibreak -- and all of the templates and images for a particular day was not protected? So hopefully, more eyes and a new bot will prevent it from ever happening again. Regards, Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Emergency revert
What was that about?--Azer Red Si?  22:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you're aware of the extreme vandalism that occurred around 15:30 (UTC), but it's discussed on Talk:Main Page, WP:AN, and WP:ANI. The vandalism was especially hard to detect, so I looked through the history of the Main Page to see if there was a version that would not have the vandalized template. Reverting the Main Page to the previous version did not actually do anything, but it appeared to fix the issue because when I had checked the previous version, the image had been removed (unbeknownst to me) from the vandalized template. So, I reverted. However, by the time I went to check the Main Page again, the image was re-added to the previously vandalized template. Thus, it was back, leaving me confused as to how that happened. I checked WP:ANI and saw that someone had pointed out POTD row/December 24, 2006 as the vandalized template. I protected the page and blocked the vandal. Someone got around to reverting my reversion on the Main Page before I could. I checked the history of POTD row/December 24, 2006 and saw that the vandalism was being eliminated while I was performing my Main Page revert. --  tariq abjotu  22:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"fascist"
Hi decided to call me (and other Hindu and Indian users) fascist. It may be of note that the last user to engage in defining me with that term got banned for one year. Needless to say I value democracy. Baka man  03:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th.
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 07:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Another JP sock
seems to be a new and fairly obvious JP sock (unwillingness to sign talk page comments is a dead giveaway). - Merzbow 22:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have filed a request for checkuser (see Requests for checkuser). I would like to note that not signing talk pages is not really a dead giveaway; many new users don't do that. --  tariq abjotu  23:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Indefblock of User:Louiselouise
I saw you just blocked this user (presumably for blanking PRODWarning). In my experience, blanking a warning template is usually a symptom of being a new user and not understanding MediaWiki very well. Since this user's only other contrib was creating an article which was speedied, an indef block without warning seems a bit harsh. What ever happened to assume good faith and don't bite the newcomers? Am I missing something here? --Dgies 01:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've unblocked her and left a message on her talk page. --  tariq abjotu  04:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
The mediation has started, please join at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-08 Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident --Striver - talk 10:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hajj
Hello, Tariq. Please be encouraged to add the first day of Hajj to MainPage, if it's not too late. I can't confirm the date from info in the article, so I ain't sure when the 5 days of Hajj is supposed to begin. Is it today ? Thanks in advance. --PFHLai 14:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I was out today. However, to answer your question, Saudi Arabia (as far as I know) sighted the new moon on December 20 (extraordinarily hard to believe, but... uh... sure), so that means the first day of the Islamic month of Dhu al-Hijjah began on December 21. The first day of hajj is the ninth day of Dhu al-Hijjah, so that would mean hajj began on December 29. --  tariq abjotu  00:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So it was yesterday. Ooops... I've just added this to the SA template for Dec.29th anyway, as a reminder for whoever updating the templates in 2007. Oh, well.... Thanks for letting me know.  Hope you had fun in the snow. :-) Cheers. -- PFHLai 00:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It will probably be closer to December 19 in 2007, so that won't be much of a reminder. --  tariq abjotu  00:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * At least it's on the same page. Hope this helps. --PFHLai 00:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein
Could you please tell me why the sprotected template is not necessary on the above page and only the sprotected 2 template? Suely its better to let new or unregistered users know that they can't edit R  y  a  n  P  o  s  t  l  e  t  h  w  a  i  t  e See the mess I've created or lets have banter 01:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * From Template:Sprotected2:
 * "This template [sprotected2] should be used for pages that are semi-protected for longer periods (for brief semi-protection please use sprotected) or where the other semi-protection template may be untidy."
 * Saddam Hussein has been, and most likely will continue to be, semi-protected for a long period of time. Perhaps un-protection may occur when the article becomes linked from the Main Page. --  tariq abjotu  01:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Cheers for clarifying that for me, Just thought it would be better to have both tags on, as I can see though just the sprotect2 template is required R y  a  n  P  o  s  t  l  e  t  h  w  a  i  t  e See the mess I've created or lets have banter 01:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but how do people who are new to Wikipedia editing know that the page is semiprotected with sprotect2? &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 01:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If they click on [view source] at the top, it will tell them the page has been protected from editing. Additionally, one could also click on the padlock to get the semi-protection policy. If you have a problem with the whole concept of the template, you would probably be more successful bringing it up at Template talk:Sprotected2 or Village pump (miscellaneous) (although you won't be the first person to call the subtlety of the template into question). --  tariq abjotu  02:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You're sure we want to unprotect it 30 minutes before the expected execution, while the article is already a huge vandalism target? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  02:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the fact that it is in the news is precisely why I unprotected it. There are probably a good number of anonymous users who suddenly want to add something to the article. High-traffic articles linked from the Main Page (not yet, but soon) tend to get lots of viewership and usually are not protected; that's a good time to show off the anyone-can-edit mantra of Wikipedia. However, if the article gets swamped with vandalism, semi-protection can always be re-applied. --  tariq abjotu  02:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that you're sticking around to clean up the fallout. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs)  02:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Aren't we self-important, monitoring the Saddam page. You must feel very special.Wolfp10 04:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Saddam
Yes, but I wasn't referring to that. I'm referring to those people who keep making jokes about his death. Besides, it's only for the time-being.  Nish kid 64  02:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

My Signature
My signature was changed over an hour before you left your comment. Even if I had not changed it, it would have been basic manners to at least wait for my reply before commenting. thank you. Codu (t)⁄(c) &bull; 18:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:2006 Bangkok bombings on ITN
Yeah, I noticed in the article that it wasn't really a sure number. I went back, and saw you removed it. Whatever, I'm fine with that.  Nish kid 64  21:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You possess good sense of humour.
You possess good sense of humour but you can make others' year, happy or that too one should not suggest you? swadhyayee 03:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Robert Ehrlich
Thanks for the catch on Robert Ehrlich; the reason I added that fact was because the link to Robert Ehrlich in the Pirate's Booty article, which someone else had already written, pointed to the Governor's article. Andrew Levine 17:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Adam Air Flight 574
Hi, its me. Regarding the above article, although it is now in a presentable state, Pharos has raised a concern that it may be a good idea to leave it off ITN until the aircraft is discovered. Whilst I am inclined to agree, I'm unsure; as I mentioned on the page at ITN/C, it's not unknown for an aircraft to disapear and never be rediscovered. I would apreciate it if you could add your opinion. Many thanks, Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart  -  Receive My EviLove  23:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd, 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 07:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Officeholder
Gerald Ford is no longer linked to the main page, so would it be possible for you to unprotect Template:Infobox Officeholder as there are edits that are waiting to be made. Thank you. Philip Stevens 11:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed the template from to, since the template is used in nearly two thousand places. You can always request that a change be made to the template by adding , with the requested edit, to the talk page. --  tariq abjotu  12:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Silver Chips
just fyi

The Sword and Age of Winters
Thanks for protrecting The Swords article, can you please do the same for Age of Winters as the same two people (or one person as I suspect a sock puppet) are vandalising that article too. Same as before, removing information arbitrarily with no attempt to explain why and response to requests for dialogue. The Kinslayer 16:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, Just needed to inform you that user 66.90.137.157 has returned to edit warring the various articles as soon as his ban was over. The Kinslayer 14:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

08october user
Hi Tariqabjotu. In doing a little research, I noticed something you might take an interest in. The user, user:08october, that you blocked for 3RR this morning, appears to be using a sockpuppet to avoid your block, and is back making the exact same reverts again as the user User:04december. I was going to report to WP:AIV, but I noticed you had made some edits recently, and if you are here, probably easier to report it to you. Caper13 05:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Jacob Peters
It appears that JP is back in full swing. If you'll check the history of Vladimir Lenin for January 6/7, you'll see several IP addresses and a new user account with his fingerprints on them. He's made himself quite a pest, and I'm hoping you might help sort this out. Rklawton 19:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * }