User talk:Tariqabjotu

Main	Gallery	Milestones	Barnstars	Links	Final Words	Talk

Talk

Hinduism 900 million adherents

• Archive One: 8 July 2005 to 3 February 2006
• Archive Two: 4 February 2006 to 23 March 2006
• Archive Three: 24 March 2006 to 6 April 2006
• Archive Four: 8 April 2006 to 12 May 2006
• Archive Five: 13 May 2006 to 26 May 2006
• Archive Six: 27 May 2006 to 25 June 2006
• Archive Seven: 26 June 2006 to 16 July 2006
• Archive Eight: 17 July 2006 to 7 August 2006
• Archive Nine: 8 August 2006 to 3 September 2006
• Archive Ten: 4 September 2006 to 1 November 2006
• Archive Eleven: 2 November 2006 to 23 November 2006
• Archive Twelve: 24 November 2006 to 13 December 2006
• Archive Thirteen: 14 December 2006 to 7 January 2007
• Archive Fourteen: 8 January 2007 to 7 February 2007

[edit] Admin promotions

As you did this graph, I wonder if you might consider making a graph on admin promotions, perhaps with bars for the monthly promotions and a line for the 6-month rolling average (data is here in the 1st and last columns). We had a recent thread (again) on that issue here. Cheers, NoSeptember 18:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

How about Image:Admin-monthly.png? -- tariqabjotu 23:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The graph shows just what I wanted. I'll be sure to work it into the next discussion involving trends at WT:RFA unless you beat me to it :). Cheers, NoSeptember 00:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Premiered at noticeboard instead :). NoSeptember 22:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

About 3 months have passed since the failure of my last RfA, and I was wondering about nominating myself again. I've done the following to address your previous concerns:

• More than tripled my number of edits (I now have over 2,000, which I realise is still on the low side for an admin candidate, but it should give me a fighting chance).
• Regular recentchange patrolling to demonstrate my commitment to vandal fighting. I'm also fairly conscientious about warning vandals using the template, and have reported some vandals to AIV.
• Regular participation in AfDs, which has given me more understanding of deletion policy.

Do you think this is enough to give me a chance at RfA, and would you be prepared to support it? Walton monarchist89 18:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been hanging around RfA too much recently. However, I would suggest waiting a bit longer because, regardless of the !vote I might offer, I doubt you'd be able to pass. Editcountitis can be overlooked by some, but not by most. -- tariqabjotu 18:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I really don't want to have to wait until April - what sort of number of mainspace edits would you be looking for overall? I can spend more time on Wikipedia if I have to. It would be helpful if you could say what, in your view, the minimum acceptable number of mainspace and/or overall edits is; then I can work towards reaching that number. But I just want to know how close I am. Walton monarchist89 16:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Spencer

Hi Tariqabjotu,

Thought it might be interesting: [1].

It is written by Professor Carl Ernst, William R. Kenan, Jr., Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies and Director of the Carolina Center for the Study of the Middle East and Muslim Civilizations University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

Cheers, --Aminz 23:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shortcut

Yeah, that was brought to my attention by Picaroon on IRC after I had created it. There were 6 items up at the RfD, and it appears only DYK was kept (thank god!). Would it too much of a hassle to keep ITN, too? I'd rather not have to go through the trouble of typing it out all the time. Nishkid64 00:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the deletions of T:ITN and T:ITNT were unnecessary (although there still exists WP:ITN and WP:ITNT). It's not like we're running low on server space... -- tariqabjotu 01:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Anna Nicole Protection

Hi there. I think that the protect resets when you downgrade, but I wasn't sure and it was very, very late for me when I did it so I didn't take any chances. Happy editing! Teke ^(talk) 02:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

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 05:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing protection for California Gold Rush

Thanks for move-protecting California Gold Rush while it was the Main page FA on Feb. 14 (UTC). At this point, as you know, the article name remains on the Main page as a "Recently featured" and will still draw quite a bit of traffic. I know that the high level of vigilence many of us have maintained will start to drop during these next several days. Is it possible to keep the article "move-protected" for another three days, and better, is it possible to "semi-protect" it during this same time - there were over 100 vandalism incidents during the last 24 hours. NorCalHistory 00:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Past experience tells me that the additional semi-protection is not necessary unless the article normally receives great amounts of vandalism. Now that California Gold Rush is no longer today's featured article, more likely than not the vandalism will come to a stop. -- tariqabjotu 00:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll keep you up to date if there continues to be an unusual vandalism prob. NorCalHistory 00:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Southern Page Edit War Southern U.S.

Hi this is Louisvillian and there is currently an Edit War on the Southern U.S. page between myself and user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.168.88.158 or Gator (his login name and I noticed you've already warned him of is highly opinionated edits)and if I'm not mistaken you are an admin and I was hoping to put an end to this. This war is involving the Cultural variations section about Kentucky. It's basically about is Kentucky more Southern or Midwestern and what not, and me knowing opinions mean nothing on this site provided a few sources to back what I put into the Article here is my Edit

Kentucky, at the confluence of the Upper South or Upland South and the Midwest, served as an important Border State during the Civil War and has long exhibited great cultural variety across different regions of the state. Some studies suggest that while a good majority of Kentuckians (79%) consider themselves and their state to be Southern, a considerable amount of Kentuckians may not readily identify with the South, most of whom who are opposed to the term Southern opt for the term Midwestern.[1] [1] For example, the culture of Northern Kentucky is more Midwestern than Southern, as this region is culturally and economically attached to Cincinnati. Conversely, Southern Indiana is more Southern than Midwestern, as it is culturally and — particularly in south central Indiana — economically attached to Louisville [2]. Louisville is often described as both "the Gateway to the South" and "the northernmost Southern city and southernmost Northern city." While varying degrees of Northern cultural influence can be found in Kentucky outside of the Golden Triangle region, cities such as Owensboro, Bowling Green, and Paducah, along with most of the state's rural areas, have largely remained distinctly Southern in character.

Here is his edits

Kentucky, at the confluence of the Upper South and the Midwest, served as an important Border State during the Civil War and has long exhibited great cultural variety across different regions of the state. Some studies suggest that many Kentuckians may not readily identify with the South or consider themselves to be "Southern", opting instead for the term "Midwestern" or more neutral regional labels. [2] For example, the culture of Northern Kentucky is more Midwestern than Southern, as this region is culturally and economically attached to Cincinnati. Conversely, Southern Indiana is highly Southern when compared to most of the Midwest, as it is culturally and — particularly in south central Indiana — economically attached to Louisville. Louisville, viewed as a Midwestern city in some analyses of the region [3], is often described as both "the Gateway to the South" and "the northernmost Southern city and southernmost Northern city." While varying degrees of Northern cultural influence can be found in Kentucky outside of the Golden Triangle region, cities such as Owensboro, Bowling Green, and Paducah, along with most of the state's rural areas, have largely remained distinctly Southern in character.

The other user is having alot of problems at the part where it states that the vast majority of Kentuckians identify with the South (which was cited with The Southern Focus Study). He just wants it to say that Kentuckians may not readily identify with the South, without mention of the source that I've provided. This stems from a debate as to which of our sources is more reliable, My Southern Focus Study which has been conducted for the past decade and is still running, or his pre 1990's study that was conducted for only one year. So I tried to incorperate both of our sources (which you can see in my edit above), But he is using his opinion to counter this source. There is also a problem at the part where it claims that Northern Ky is more Midwestern than Southern (as it was not cited) so I cited it with a map created by this nation most reknwon georgrapher DW Meining's. The problem he has with this is that it proves that Southern Indiana is more Southern than Midwestern (which is against his opinion). He continues to edit the Southern Indiana claim without touching the Northern Kentucky claim, which are cited by the same moer than credible source. I've lately tried to compromise with him on the edits, however he continues to take out my more than qualified ( much more so than the little sources he has provdided to support his opinion which is in the minority might I add) and preferred (by the concensus on this current and old Southern talk page) sources, without cause/ his opinion.

Now he is also making a claim that Louisville is considerd a Midwestern city, and attempted to cite it with a JSTOR, that's fine, But what he claimed was not in the Exert from the JSTOR to prove Louisville was a Midwestern city is not in there at all. It doesn't even mention the state of Kentucky on the JSTOR. If you aren't too busy can please take time to resolve this matter, if you can please send me a message on my page Louisvillian 23:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's really not important what I think about the dispute. You and the person with whom you are edit-warring need to discuss the matter on the talk page and come to some sort of conclusion / comprimise with which you two (and ideally everyone else) will agree. -- tariqabjotu 23:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

We've been debating this topic for some time now, and he insist on using his opinion rather than facts for a proper article which is what I thought was against the rules here. He is in my opinion a vandal and if you check his history he has been warned before to provide credible sources before editing an article. I think this constitutes a banning if it persist. Louisvillian 00:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record: I have, on several occasions, attempted compromise with Louisvillian regarding the usage of the word "majority" - choosing instead a two-sided approach with "many" being a compromise word - but he will not accept this, stating violently on the page that I am a "jackass", that my edits are "bullshit", and that he will "never compromise." The Southern talk page verifies this. He tends to engage in this sort of behavior; note his edits on the Kentucky talk page under the "East Central" section, for one example. Before the page was blocked, the consensus was for my edit to the page. The only supporter that he has since drawn in this debate is Rjensen, an editor who has been blocked for 3RR violations on more than half a dozen occasions and is currently accused of sockpuppetry.

I am more than willing to compromise, and have changed my edit to accomplish this. Since our two cites disagree regarding questionable things such as "good majorities", I have proposed a comfortable middle ground with the word "many", but Louisvillian has rejected this. I do not believe that a consensus of any size will change his mind.

--Gator87 06:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Unprotection

Thanks very much for unprotecting User talk:Vox Humana 8'.--Vox Humana 8' 15:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. -- tariqabjotu 15:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for protection extension

Dear Tariqabjotu,

It is now early on February 20; the protection for the Southern United States page is set to expire later today. As relatively few editors have been involved in the discussion taking place there and no consensus/compromise has been reached, I would like to respectfully request an extension of the protection time for the page. Were the page unprotected today, I believe that the edit warring will continue. Thank you for your consideration. --Gator87 05:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

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 07:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moscow is in FAC now.

As you have contributed to the article Moscow I wanted to let you know it is in Featured Article Candidates list now. --Hirakawacho 12:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: An Irate Local

Sorry. I did not mean to be so biteing, but I somtime get a little tired of everybody and their brother posting questions all on one page where they don't belong. I will try to be more polite in the future, and will apologize to that user. ffm ^yes? 22:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Person of the Year

Good call on the gallery. Congratulations for winning it, BTW ;) CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; I worked my tail off all year for it. -- tariqabjotu 04:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:49th Grammy Awards#Requested move

Please see my comment at the bottom of the closure. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

for finally protecting the Chicken page. its been a real pain in the ass the last few days. VanTucky 00:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your deletion of Muslims fear Backlash

Hello. You speedy deleted and salted Muslims fear Backlash (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) just as I had put it up for AfD. Purely from a process point of view, I'm concerned that this (admittedly poor) article is now salted without ever being discussed in AfD. I'm more concerned, though, that its incivil author will now have something real to complain about in DRV and other fora. Could you elaborate why you felt it was necessary to act as you did? Sandstein 07:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

For one thing, I did not salt the article. I was at Wikipedia:Protected titles adding another page when I saw the glaring delete this page enable cascading protection (I assume it was added by Ryulong). I looked at the poor page and noticed it had been deleted three times. And so, I deleted it again. I don't care if Prester is going to have something to complain about; since when do we operate based on how specific users will react? I don't fear backlash. -- tariqabjotu 07:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not implying you fear anything. I was asking you to, in a sense, not feed trolls. Why delete and protect a page out of process when it would have been properly deleted five days hence? Being deleted thrice already isnt't grounds for a fourth deletion under WP:CSD#G4 if none of the previous deletions have been the result of a XfD discussion. Sandstein 07:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I restored some of the later versions of the article and removed the salt. But as I said earlier, the page was salted by Ryulong; I merely deleted it. I forgot about the caveat in WP:CSD#G4, but that did not influence my decision to delete the article. -- tariqabjotu 08:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Given the author's intent, below, to try and source the article, I'll wait some time before AfDing it again. Sandstein 08:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

By reading all of the correspondence between you and other editors I can assume, If I complete the article with references the article will be considered?. Let me repeat that again. I , given more than a few seconds, have the ability to complete the article fully referenced. Is there any other objections than the referenced material? Prester John 08:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I restored some of the later versions of the article and removed the salt. -- tariqabjotu 08:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:3RR warning on Slavica Ecclestone

I am aware of the 3RR and that I may have violated it. The problem with the article in question is that it is an issue of revert-war for quite some time. I have tried to step in and stop it pointed people to talk things through before they revert it but I have now, sadly, become part of it. I have requested it's full protection. Perhaps you could do something about? Again I apologize. Tar-Elenion 16:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

As you may or may not have noticed, I declined your request for protection. You are not doing anything to stop the edit war; on the contrary, you are continuing it. If it were not for your edits, there would not have been an edit war in the first place. If you really want to do something good for the article, take the initiative of starting a discussion on the article talk page. -- tariqabjotu 16:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that in the end you are right, I failed as I was drawn into the revert-war, that much is obvious and I admit it, and I also again apologize. But you are wrong, if you look at the article's history you will see that it is and was an issue of revert-warring for very long time before I got there. BTW I am not complaining, in case you maybe understood it in a wrong way. Regards. Tar-Elenion 16:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slavica Ecclestone again

I would just like to point out to you that despite your warning[2] to Paulcicero he again reverted the page[3] continuing the revert-war. Tar-Elenion 17:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed and I blocked him for twenty-four hours. -- tariqabjotu 17:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

And I'd like to point out that Tar-Elenion lied about another user, resulting in him being blocked. After your warning, Paulcicero stopped reverting the article. I noticed revert war, stepped in, and expanded the article[4], adding two independent references about the disputed part, and some info that wasn't in the article at all, again, referenced. Tar-Elenion reverted my edit without any explanation[5], later claiming on talk page that one of the sources I used is yellow press which is completely bogus, and still doesn't do away with other sources. Paulcicero then reverted to this expanded version of the article[6], which IMO was completely reasonable. Nikola 22:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userpage protected

I put a Semiprotect on your userpage before I realised it was a far more widespread situation. It will expire in 26 hours, so i am tempted to leave it as it until the attack waves are over. Agathoclea 22:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antisemitism

Hi Tariqabjotu,

I was wondering if you have some free time helping with Antisemitism article(in which case I would be thankful). If not, that's perfectly okay.

I have been involved in that article for awhile and I think the Islam section is very POV. I think the section would not become neutral unless several new editors join in. SO if you have time, please join in. There is a dispute here [7].

Thanks,--Aminz 06:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

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 08:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places in Jerusalem

Hi Tariqabjotu: You nominated List of places in Jerusalem for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places in Jerusalem.) However it would have been nice if you would have informed the original creator of this article that you were doing so (I have just done so [8]), as he had his reasons, which is not well-understood now as can be seen in the present deletion discussion. Kindly note that on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion it advises that: "...'It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter. For your convenience, you may use {{subst:AFDWarningNew|Article title}} (for creators who are totally new users), {{subst:AFDWarning|Article title}} (for creators), or {{subst:Adw|Article title}} (for contributors or established users)." Thank you for noting this for future purposes. IZAK 10:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder although I would have appreciated one that was less... er... condescending. As for the suggestion that the creator ought to be notified, I would like you to note that the editor has made a total of six edits in the past year and has edited the article only once – over a year and a half ago (in May 2005). Although I'll admit I have rarely adhered to the AfD instruction you cited, I would really only consider doing so if I have seen certain names repeatedly in the history. The spirit of the AfD instruction, I presume, was to ensure that the creator was not hurt by the fact that the article (s)he spent so much time making suddenly vanishes. The article in question has been present for over a year and half, and even longer within the main Jerusalem article. In the same manner I wouldn't track down and contact the writer of a paragraph I'm about to delete so as not to discourage him/her, I wouldn't consider notifying individual contributors unless the article in question is relatively new and/or certain editors have clearly put significant amounts of effort into it. I'm sure it would be civil to notify the creator regardless, but I take issue with the instructions implying that it would be incivil not to. -- tariqabjotu 13:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Paulcicero

He has just accused me of have a sockpuppet?! -> [9] I wasn't even on Wikipedia at the time, I am not sure but isn't this kind of prohibited to accuse someone without any evidence? Also please note that he is also constantly revert-warring. Can you do something about all this? Tar-Elenion 20:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Before I take care of the edit-warring situation with him, I would like to ask you whether you are truly sticking by your story. Are you truly standing by the position that 58.165.122.36 (talk • contribs) and 58.165.90.202 (talk • contribs) are not you? -- tariqabjotu 20:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am telling you that I wasn't on Wikipedia for a whole day. Besides thats not my IP anyway. Tar-Elenion 20:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did accuse him, becuase I find it suspicous that there are a couple of IP adresses that revert my edits which are similar to the ones that Tar-Elenion is reverting. Here is one of them [10] this user appears to just revert my edits, and i also find it strange that the user is so familiar with the rules that he filed a complaint against me [11] . And regarding the Slavica Ecclestone article where i was blocked, i im trying to compromise with him about leaving her ethnicity out of the article but he just responds with that our sources are tabloids. You should ban him and semi-protect the articles of which he is revert-warring so he cant use his sockpuppets. Paulcicero 20:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You cannot accuse people just like that. There are thousands of users who revert and edit on Wikipedia, some coincide with others. BTW It is you who is constantly revert-warring and arguing with other people, not me, so if I was you I wouldn't be talking about banning. Tar-Elenion 21:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Enough"

I meant the page has been protected enough. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Again me

Sorry for bothering, I came on purpose here because you know very well what I was doing (though you unjustly accused me of revert-warring) recently. This time not to be accused of such a thing I would like to ask you to look into one particular matter. Tee issue is with the article Republic of Ragusa, the user User:Giovanni Giove has started recently with massive chnages to the article with absolutly no discussion on the talk page. His changes are in most cases incorrect, wrong and/or POV. For example he removes sourced name of the Republic in Croatian and replaces all Croatian names by the outdated and supposed 'Illyric', he also imposes chakavian dialect for Croatian language (after I warned him chakavian was never spoken in Ragusa/Dubrovnik he changed it to shtokavian dialect). He also imposes incorrect name (in English) of 'Kingdom of Yugoslavia' (he insists on 'Jugoslavija') and Dalmatic for Dalmatian language. Not to be accused again of revert-warring I am coming to you again, just because of it. If you look into Giovanni Giove's history you will see that his contributions are full of revert-wars (on massive scale) and that the only constant in all of his changes are his revert-wars, especially on Dalmatia-related historical articles. Please look into the matter. Thanks. Tar-Elenion 22:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason he is revertwarring is maybe that you revert every edit he makes? Paulcicero 16:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

He was revert-warring much before I came, just take a look at his contributions. Tar-Elenion 14:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Community discussion

Tariq, at this point I agree with you that the New Yorker/Essjay discussion should be in a more community wide forum. (→Netscott) 03:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've started a Community noticeboard thread about this. Please join the discussion. Thanks. (→Netscott) 05:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pan-Islamism

Hi, I am confused as to why I was blocked for violating WP:3RR when I had already done a self-reversion of my edit to that page. Please explain the block as I did not believe I had violated WP:3RR, with or without the self-reversion. KazakhPol 05:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

See SlimVirgin (talk • contribs)'s evidence presented at the 3RR noticeboard (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:KazakhPol_.28Result:_24hr.29). -- tariqabjotu 05:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That does not answer my question. The NPOV and TotallyDisputed templates are different, and adding the NPOV template is not a reversion. Please explain. KazakhPol 20:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

They're pretty darn close; the effect is almost exactly the same. I consider it a fourth reversion. -- tariqabjotu 21:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you point me to the clause where it says making similar edits counts as a reversion? I am also confused on whether re-adding a template without going to an earlier version of the page counts as a reversion, especially when the use of the template is not under dispute. KazakhPol 21:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

(a) Editors may still be blocked even if they haven't made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behaviour is clearly disruptive. (b) Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any edit warring, even if they do not exceed four reverts on a page in 24 hours. You're even counting the number of reverts you're making in your edit summaries, reinforcing the idea that you're trying to take advantage of the concept of the 3RR. Regardless, the {{NPOV}} and {{TotallyDisputed}} tags are very similar; I'm pretty sure you were aware of that when you made your edits. -- tariqabjotu 21:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I assume you will now block SlimVirgin as she reverted three times within 24 hours without posting a rationale. I believe 24 hours is appopriate? So you know for future instances, the counting of reversions is so that outside users are able to keep track of how many reverts one makes in 24 hours, and has nothing to do with 'taking advantage of 3RR'. Unfortunately I have not yet seen the clause under WP:3RR where it says making similar edits counts as a reversion. Could you point out that clause? Thanks, KazakhPol 21:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Please answer the question I have now twice asked you. Or is your response that I am "gaming the system"? KazakhPol 21:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not going to block SlimVirgin; she hasn't reverted anything in a long time. That clause you speak of does not exist, but I have instead pointed out ample evidence supporting my block. If you have any further issues with my block, take it up at WP:ANI (although I believe your efforts would be fruitless). -- tariqabjotu 22:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope that in the future you decide to block both editors when there is a series of reversions, rather than one party to the dispute. KazakhPol 22:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

She did not violate the three-revert rule, whereas you did. I did, however, acknowledge that she was close to violating it herself. -- tariqabjotu 22:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to re-post one of the comments you left on my talkpage here - the one in which you said I was gaming the system. You may want to re-add the statement here. If your interpretation of WP:3RR is 'do not revert multiple times in 24 hours', then she did violate it. Regards, KazakhPol 22:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ter-Elenion

Tar-Elenion's IP address is most definitely [Special:Contributions/89.172.231.115 89.172.231.115] (see this revert on Slavicca Ecclestone).

This has also attracted much of my attention to connect User:Tar-Elenion and User:Afrika paprika, a very violent troll who's been trolling for a year or so (creating hordes of sockpuppets, like User:Factanista for instance). It is not only that Tar-Elenion shares exactly the same interests like Afrika's armada (or more precisely, with those of Factanista), and I became especially suspicious when I saw the 89.172 AOL. Afrika paprika has never ever stopped trolling since the day he came to Wikipedia on 5 July 2006. For this whole time, he has been creating hordes of sockpuppet and constantly kept blatantly trolling, editing other user's userpages and posting violent personal attacks (aside from the fact that about 90% of his +1,000 edits were revert edit-warring). He then switched to anons after he got tired of socks. He has never given and vouched never ever to do so - and very interestingly, when 2007 came (after alluding that he already made a new account), he vanished into thin air. This is about the same time that Tar-Elenion shows up.

I don't want to share bad faith, and there is a greater possibility that Tar isn't Afrika, but I just thought you should know (P.S. - mostly because of his IP confusion). --PaxEquilibrium 21:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Another Wikipedian wrote a messeage to him and referred to him as afrika [12] this could be a sign that he infact is Afrika Paprika Paulcicero 23:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You should also look through that users (User:GreaterCroatia) edits and you will notice that he hasnt mady any useful contributions, all his edits are pov-vandalism Paulcicero 23:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have questions regarding possible sockpuppetry, you are free to open a request for checkuser. -- tariqabjotu 05:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You were right - Tar-Elenion is Afrika paprika. --PaxEquilibrium 13:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but can't. There is not a single rather fresh sock of Afrika paprika that I can put to request a CheckUser (it requires fresh ones). If Tar indeed is Afrika; then he got out through this one. --PaxEquilibrium 12:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

This is funny. I just came to report that someone named "GreaterCroatia" has posted some crap (though he deleted it) at my talk page and I see this. PaxEquilibirium I don't know how you concluded that this revert is done by me. I have been recently accused by your pal Paulcicero, who also accused me of having sockpuppets, which was then proved by Checkuser that I have nothing to do with it. And now you accuse me of being a sockpuppet of someone else? Sorry for asking, but what the hell is wrong with you people?! Tar-Elenion 14:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Saw your work on WP:RFPP. How's life on Wikipedia treating you? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 00:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing just fine. And you? -- tariqabjotu 05:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad's image again...?

Hello! Can you try explaining to Zikrullah why we cannot allow forks of Muhammad to "maintain his Islamicity"? See Muhammad saw and Talk:Muhammad saw for his reasoning. I believe that someone knowledgeable should explain to him the incorrectness of his actions; a block would be too extreme if he remains ignorant of why doing things like he does is wrong. And when it comes to Islamic things you're the first "someone knowledgeable" I can think of, hence this note. Regards, Awyong J. M. Salleh 09:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that Zikrullah has reacted negatively to your comment. But I'll keep an eye on it; feel free to comment here again if (s)he persists. -- tariqabjotu 00:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mawlid & Arba'een, 2007

Hello, Tariq. If you don't mind, could you confirm the 2007 date for Mawlid & Arba'een, and add them to Portal:Current events/Sidebar and Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/March, please ? Thank you. --PFHLai 15:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Mawlid looks like it will be March 31 and Arba'een looks like it is March 11; I'm not sure why the dates for Mawlid were incorrect, but I took care of them. -- tariqabjotu 00:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help, Tariq. --PFHLai 16:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

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, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jerusalem

Hello!

I wanted to thank you for all your work on the article. It really needed some editing...

okedem 17:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, I was looking for someone who could translate this document (or at least dissect some of the most important information) for the #Demographics section. I see, conveniently, that you're fluent in Hebrew. Would you happen to have the time to fulfill the request? Thanks in advance, regardless of your response. -- tariqabjotu 19:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've replied in my talk page. okedem 17:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United Nations semi Protection

Hi I notice you semi protected the United Nations page, Good move, you may have noticed were we discussing this on the talk page and were about to request it. How long to you intend to keep it like that. Buffa Buffadren 18:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The request for protection was made at WP:RPP, which is why I semi-protected the article. As the history notes, the semi-protection will expire 23:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC). -- tariqabjotu 18:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March 14 comment

The reason the "Steak & BJ" comment was added it that the "holiday" is added numerous times a day. Not really giving anyone ideas although it seems to deter few people from adding it. I can only imagine how bad it's going to be in five days on the actual day. Just thought you would like to know. Thanks! -- Borameer ™ 19:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The block

The changes of it being a sharedIP are slim to none, and it was pretty obvious from the IP's comments that he wasn't going to act as a good faith editor. -- Tawker 05:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cricket World Cup

Edit history says you protected it, but it's getting slammed by IPs ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Au contraire, I just move-protected it. No one (except admins) can move the article, but everyone can edit it. Maybe I'll semi-protect it if it continues (and if I can come up with a good cricket pun). -- tariqabjotu 00:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

ah, ok, sorry for my misread, Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for March 12th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

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 05:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main page image

Don't forget to protect the image of Khalid Mohammed. – Chacor 15:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to; the image is protected through cascading protection. -- tariqabjotu 15:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it extends to images too? Okay then. – Chacor 15:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] KSM and coercion

I noticed you stated on talk:ITN that you believe KSM's Guantanamo admissions were "almost certainly coerced". That's very odd. Have you read the transcript? KSM was very much in control, I thought. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 16:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not disagree that the transcript gives the impression that Khalid is in control during the hearing. However, that does not mean the admission was not coerced. Page fourteen of the transcript brings up the point regarding the man's treatment for three years, between 2003 and 2006. Note also that the location of the place where he was held during those three years is [ REDACTED ]. His treatment has human rights violations written all over it. The secret [ REDACTED ] prison and alleged torture are violations of various human rights treaties, including, but limited to, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art. 5, 9, and potentially 10), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Art. 7, 10), and the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Major news organizations, including, but not limited to, TIME Magazine, have picked up on the confession's dubious reliability. Even if the confession were at his own leisure, there are variety of reasons why someone would want to make such an extensive confession even if were not entirely true. Admitting one had a hand in carrying out 9|11 is enough for the maximum sentence (death? life without parole?). So why not also claim you participated in thirty other attacks; they can't punish you doubly worse, but perhaps it might take the authorities off the scent of the real perpetrators. -- tariqabjotu 21:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Any similarity to real persons or events is strictly accidental. :)

As to the coercion, I understand that the extra-legal confinement, black sites, and the aggressive interrogation techniques which may or may not constitute torture are all hihgly problematic. I was just remarking on the robustness of KSM's testimony and how voluntary it sounded. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 22:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The house... votes

Yes I must admit my confusion over a lot of this, and I often go with what sounds correct to me. But some of my friends have pointed out that I'm "right posh". So who knows. I get a lot of exposure to US grammar (or lack of it) from television, so who knows what sounds right any more.

I'd say "The house votes..." and "The team votes..." because they are all making a collective vote. But I'd also say "The team were..." and "The house was...", so go figure. lol

"The herd of cows were walking through the gate." "The cows were walking through the gate." Now I'm confused again... --Monotonehell 08:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] West End Theatres

Hi, may I ask why this template is locked from editing? Thanks Kbthompson 17:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember exactly how the interface looks, but I believe the protection notice might lead you to User:Tariqabjotu/TOFA templates A, which contains all the templates on today's featured article, Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. The protection should expire at 00:00 (UTC), a little over three hours from this point. -- tariqabjotu 20:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense now, sorry to have bothered you. The navigation box was designed yesterday, and still has some minor tweaks necessary. Kbthompson 23:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well said

I just wanted to commend you for your well-balanced comments on the decline of User:MiddleEastern's block. Firm, but fair, representative of consensus and yet reflective of the group dynamics at work, and not absolutist, while being perfectly firm on drawing the line at hate speech. Very well said. Tiamut 03:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

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 07:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MIT

Oh, wow! Best of luck getting in (unless...have they sent the admissions letters already?) And yes, I'll be here during CPW; if you're able, I strongly recommend going. I think it's the best way to get to know the campus and the dorms so that you don't have to sift through all the...bias...from admissions offices. Oh, and I can definitely say that there's definitely time aside from schoolwork, at least during freshman year. I pretty much got started editing after getting here, and I'm editing right now to procrastinate on a women's studies paper right now. If you have any questions, my account has email enabled, so feel free to do so. ShadowHalo 04:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archived current events portal pages fall on hard times in early 2007 -- alas, a backlog

Hi and happy '07 and happy Spring '07.

Now that I'm caught up in that department: The archived CE portal pages for Jan, Feb, and March apparently weren't quite authored according to the July-Dec '06 guidelines: CE items (with their own header that's linked) are now apparently just "tacked on" to the extant "future" pages rather than their just being overwritten as I noticed [if my recollections are accurate] you seemed to have been doing, and I might also have done once or twice, it's tedious hunting through history pages. I've been out of touch with this as you can guess.

Pursuant to this item from "How to archive the portal", The December 2006 coding ought to have been just poured into the January 2007 page according to the directions, but apparently the Jan 07 code was placed in or around or under the data that was already there, including the big "month picker" at the bottom. January looked fine the first time I looked at it recently, but February and March are still a bit out of kilter. The Feb sidebar is not up to date (I just grabbed code from a CE Sidebar rev from feb 28, and had to tweak it while incorporating it), and the March sidebar seems not to exist yet at all.

I may try to tackle it once I attend to other (non-WP CE) matters today. I found the whole overhaul that took place with this portal last July to be exciting and would like to see it continue.

This small problem tends to suggest to me that the sidebar itself (with month names, as well as the "live" CE sidebar) might be better off consisting of smaller transcluded modules for each "department", and what might be done every first of the month is that the same "scrolling" procedure be done within each module that I learned to do with the calendar, and all the data from the outgoing month would then be "frozen" onto the archived page, and the live modules would transition for a few days.

Hope that all made sense to you. Looks like an idea to be implemented by July of this year. I support the idea of the CE Portal being a backgrounder or almanac, and it operates that way right now (despite those who take "be bold" a little too seriously, I have indeed noticed).

I'm not quite clear about the synchronization needed (or that ought to appear) between the "live" (generic) Sidebar that is 'cluded onto Current Events, and the "current" (monthly-titled) Sidebar that (as I write this) ought rightly to appear on March 2007, but is currently missing. I wonder if the whole "live" SB ought to be what occupies that space until 23:59:59 on 3/31?

One more thing: I'm trying to learn enough about date-math/date-comp functions so that the horribly vague phraseology including "has yet to occur" won't appear on all these (not quite encyclopedic) future month pages, but for example, instead, via a rendered date-math-function template: "The month of Nnnnn XXXX (Gregorian) will begin in NN days on a Nnnnday, and end NN days later on a Nnnnnday." thanks.

 Schweiwikist • (t)  15:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ITN

Good job on the Woolmer item. That one was really getting long-winded and linking all over the 'pedia. --Monotonehell 16:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sarahshalom

Hello,

I saw you dealt with this user before. See this edit of hers: [13]. okedem 17:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have warned the user about her personal attacks and blanked her user page again. The next incident should lead to a block. -- tariqabjotu 18:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The semiprotect status on the Lon Chaney page

Hello Tariqabjotu and Malcolm. As this was my first foray onto the request for protection page I just wanted to make sure that I did not do anything out of line. As Tariqabjotu pointed out there have been five acts of vandalism in the last three days and this is what prompted my request. I do appreciate Malcolm's note that I wasn't violating the three revert rule. It seems that I may be one of a few (or the only editor) that has this actors page on a watchlist, thus the time delay on getting any vandalism reverted so I appreciate the semiprotect status that it now enjoys. Perhaps in a couple of months this person will have moved on and it can be taken off. Again, please feel free to let me know if I have violated any policy and thank you for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 22:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you didn't do anything wrong, as far as I can see. I set the semi-protection to expire in fourteen days, but someone can always remove it earlier (or extend it) at his or her discretion. -- tariqabjotu 22:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quebec

I'm sorry you don't feel like the Quebec election is international news, but it is a major deal — decides the fate of another referendum on Quebec independence. It is the current main story on Google News, which has 405 other articles on the subject from the New York Times to the Seattle Times to the Guardian to the BBC. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 03:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

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 14:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:CampanileMtTamalpiasSunset-original.jpg

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:CampanileMtTamalpiasSunset-original.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. KFP (talk | contribs) 16:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the nom, btw. Trisweb 21:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:AjdemiPopushi

Actually, there's a lot more important reason to block User:AjdemiPopushi. It's an offensive nickname. In Serbo-Croat it means, "Come on and and suck mine" (100% referring to You-know-what).

Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 20:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that certainly makes me feel better about blocking him without opening a request for checkuser. -- tariqabjotu 21:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost

Thanks for volunteering to help with the Signpost. You expressed interest in helping with the In the news column. One place to start is with Wikipedia:Press coverage; however, that page does not cover everything. You'll also want to use a service such as Google or Yahoo News- search for "Wikipedia" or "Wikimedia", and look specifically for articles that mention Wikipedia directly (not just using us as a source for a piece of trivia). Many other users have expressed an interest in helping with In the news; I've set up a sandbox page for all contributors to help out on here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Other/ITN. Feel free to help out; I expect that this column will be a collaborative effort. You can work on this all throughout the week; your final work should be finished by Monday at about 17:00 UTC.

If you have any questions at all, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thanks again for volunteering. Ral315 » 05:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afrika paprika returned

Afrika paprika is editing again as User:Krpelj. Self-identified.

I told him I won't report him, so that I can satisfy his demands (about two Italian users) - but I also did not allow him to edit any article (violating his ban). He openly said that he's stubborn and said that he will never stop editing, and continued the old edit-wars he was leading as Afrika paprika and Factanista.

My patience is running thin with this guy, I hope I can remain good faithed.... Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 16:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like someone else did something about this; if you need anymore assistance, feel free to ask. -- tariqabjotu 22:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I do. See Special:Contributions/Joker_13. There is a possibility that this is Afrika paprika (can't be sure); the user stopped editing immediately after I welcomed him and then Afrika paprika appeared as Krpelj.

I'd like if You could keep an eye on the account, should it be reactivated. Thanks. --PaxEquilibrium 22:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

Excuse me, bu thwat the heck are you talking about? Archiving is a part of Discussion. I told people I was archiving discussions that had swollen to over 100k (archiving usually happens after 40k). I had suggested that people either conclude the active conversations or begin them anew in a new section. The conversations archived had not seen any conversation in over 4 hours. As well, edits that violate consensus are going to be reverted. That one editor doesn't feel that the edits are going his way doesn't mean he claim edit warring or whatever. I certainly don't need you to be Mardavich's stalking horse in this matter. I appreciate your 'concern' in this matter. Perhaps you could redirect it towards those users who are actually in more dire need of understanding that Wikipedia is a community, and the squeaky wheel doesn't get the grease.Arcayne 22:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Over four hours??? Guess what I was doing during the four hours between 1:00am and 5:00am last night? Sleeping. Wikipedia is an international website with editors from all over the world; not everyone will have an opportunity to respond to a talk page comment at any given moment. People work. People study. People eat. And, yes, people sleep. Some people will edit every three hours; others will edit every three days. You cannot just say that because no one has commented in four hours a discussion is closed. I'd suggest waiting five to seven days after the conclusion of a conversation before considering it closed. 300 (film) is a very active article and there clearly are a lot of matters that are as of yet unsettled. The fact that a talk page has reached a certain size is not an automatic license to archive the page, particularly when there is unfinished business. Regarding your pending three-revert rule violation, all of your reverts to 300 (film) contribute to the rule unless you are reverting simple vandalism. That is not what you are doing; you are reverting legitimate edits, so clearly "consensus" has not yet been reached. The best course of action is to go to the talk page and discuss the matter more. Perhaps you might consider Wikipedia:Mediation Committee or Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. I am not Mardavich's stalking horse. Yes, he contacted me, but that is irrelevant to the fact that you are indeed acting over-zealously on the article. -- tariqabjotu 22:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are correct about the archiving issue. Perhaps you completely missed that part of the conversation where I suggested to people a few times to begin the conversations anew in new sections. Perhaps you aren't Mardavich's stalking horse. However, I don't see any edit history showing him asking for your assistance, nor do I see any response by you to him in his edit history, That suggests that the request was handled via private email, which in turn suggest both a lack of visible communication as well as a more than passing acquaintance to the guy. So please, don't insult me with your claims of not acting on his behalf, it demeans both of us.

I will take into consideration your comments. Perhaps you can be troubled to take a look at the article's edit page. On each and every section there is a statement to bring all proposed changes to the Discussion area, as consensus might have already been reached or is an ongoing discussion. That Mardavich chose to ignore this statement and simply put his comments there anyway doesn't play like a person seeking or even acknowledging consensus l it reads like someone insisting that their POV is right and everyone else is wrong. I take personal exception to that, and so should you, If I did that in one of your articles, you'd clim up my bottom with a red-hot microscope, and rightfully so. That your comments defend this sort of POV behavior on the part of another detracts from their importance to me. You do not need to contact me again regarding this matter, and I suggest that you privately email Mardavich back and let him know I don't want to hear from him again. I gave him a chance to redeem himself, and he blew it. Arcayne 23:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any acquaintance with the guy. My Yahoo! and AIM screen names are on my user page, and the link to e-mail me is also on my user page. Anyone can use them, including you. You don't own the article so you cannot say Mardavich is simply going against your instructions. A controversial article should be handled carefully, but you can't just so no one is allowed to edit it without your permission. -- tariqabjotu 23:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What part of "you don't need to contact me again" was unclear to you? I responded to your post, stated my position, and asked you to not bother replying. Since you fail to grasp even the basics of what i was addressing in my posts to you, it tells me that you are the sort that needs plain instructions. Please do not bother me anymore. I certainly hope that is clear enough. Arcayne 23:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want your perspective to be reflected on the 300 (film) article, you're going to have to converse with the article's editors, including Mardavich. You can't just shut down all conversation with others and be dogmatic about the way you feel the article should be. I am going to continue contacting you if I feel it's necessary, and I hope Mardavich will too if he feels compelled as well. -- tariqabjotu 23:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that can be considered stalking. If I have asked you to not contact me at my Talk page, I expect you to respect that - and that includes altering my talk page. If you or Mardavich are in desperate need of contacting me, it is not as if you do not have avenues to do so - as I have nothing that I wish to privately wish to discuss with you or Mardavich, it can all be handled through the Discussion page. I have nothing to say to either of you that cannot be said on the Discussion page. Do not contact me on my Talk Page again. Arcayne 23:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 300

I think the protection of the 300 article is probably a little too quick. There was a brief spat earlier this evening about whether to include a particular section that is under discussion. There were some opportunistic edits. However there isn't really much in the way of an edit war, and the subject is being discussed on the talk page. Would you please unprotect? --Tony Sidaway 23:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll unprotect the article in the hopes that the worsening situations stops getting worse. -- tariqabjotu 23:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I recommend restoring the protection per the editor already "cleaning up" after your unprotection. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not see this occurring; the edit warring seems to have stopped – at least of now. -- tariqabjotu 01:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hullo, before yesterday's full protect, the article had been semi-protected; it seems that when you removed the full protect, you did not restore the semi-protect. As we're now experiencing some disruptive edits from anonymous IPs, I wonder if you might be willing to restore the previous semi-protect. Best, --Javits2000 09:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm curious where the basis for blocking Arcayne is? I didn't see a single warning on his talk page about coming close to a violation of the 3RR, and when I checked 300 I saw maybe 3 edits altogether on the main page with his name on it. Could you please show me where you are basing your decision?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I posted the evidence here. As for the warnings: he has been blocked (and then later unblocked) for violating the three-revert rule on the article. I warned him about the three-revert rule a couple days ago, but he removed the warning from his talk page, calling me a "stalking horse". -- tariqabjotu 13:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't see the warning before and didn't check the history. Then might I ask you to fully protect the 300 page. The film is out, and there aren't going to be any more major additions to the article, everything now is more of "fixing what is there" kind of editing. I know I might have to go through the formality of going to "page protection", but I thought I'd ask you if you could do it. If you check the history there is nothing but constant bickering over NPOV for this article. It think a full protection, forcing all the editors to bring their opinions to the talk page to sort it all out once and for all might be the best solution for this. I've seen countless edit wars, 3RR warnings, and blocks over this issue of NPOV. I believe that it would best serve not only the article, but also the regular editors, so as to keep them from edit warring in the future.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, semi-protect restored via WP:RFP. But thanks for not responding. --Javits2000 20:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm aside, the appropriate means is to go to WP:RFPP, as you did. If I agreed with leaving the semi-protection, I would have kept it in place when I removed the full protection. I still don't really believe the semi-protection is warranted now. -- tariqabjotu 20:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Had you explained your position three days ago, I would have gone directly to RFP, and those of us who have the thing watchlisted would have been spared a lot of hassle. As you're such a stickler for the rules, I'm assuming you checked with the editor who originally instituted the semi-protect before removing it. Never mind how, in a period of less than an hour, you could go from feeling that full protection was required to feeling that no protection was required. The whole thing strikes me as ill-considered at best, but thankfully we're back to status quo now, so es macht nix. --Javits2000 21:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I forgot to respond to your request. Perhaps I overlooked your request. I'm not sure why you're so bitter.

1. The vandalism is not that bad.
2. No one is requiring you to revert vandalism; if you got tired of dealing with it, let someone else do it.
3. There was nothing preventing you from ever going to WP:RFPP if you felt I was taking too long to respond.

As for me asking the previous protector about unprotecting... no, I didn't. And no, I didn't need to. The protection had been in place for over two weeks and no expiration date / time had been specified. There's no reason to ask the previous protector if it's okay to protect. On the other hand, if I wanted to unprotect the article right now, just a few hours after Allison placed the semi-protection, it would be recommended that I contact her first. Regarding your Never mind how, in a period of less than an hour, you could go from feeling that full protection was required to feeling that no protection was required statement, you should be aware that semi-protection and full protection serve two different purposes. The former is primarily for vandalism whereas the latter is primarily for halting content disputes. That's why when full protection is removed from articles, semi-protection is not put in place as a sort of "step down".

So, please stop airing your grievances in my direction. I suggest you and Bignole and Arcayne and Sa.vakilian and Mardavich stop bothering me and follow one of the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to solve the problems with the article; that would be far more productive. I refuse to be drawn any further into this as I'm tired of seeing every article even remotely related to Islam, Arabia, or Iran be the center of controversy. -- tariqabjotu 21:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Spare me the drama. If this diff and this diff prove anything, it's that most articles on Islam (including those on the most basic topics) are not even subjects of interest to most editors, much less "centers of controversy." Of course 300 has nothing to do with either Islam or Arabia, and the "controversy" we've been dealing with is just garden-variety nationalism of the same kind that we encounter on a lot of articles dealing with "Greece," "Serbia," et al. It's not my fault if you got drawn into it, but I have every right to criticize how you've chosen to handle it.--Javits2000 22:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I would ask that you refrain from using my name to further an argument promoting how you are just some innocent caught up in some pro- or anti- Islam dispute. The single most tendentious matter in the article was the pro-nationalist versus pro-neutrality edits, and when one of the pro-nationalist folk contact you for assistance, you were quite eager to leap to his defense. At the very least, if you didn't want to get "drawn into" a debate you helped encourage, you should have - at the very least - done a bit more backreading before wading in. That you entered the article with the wrong scenario playing in your head about the source of the dispute was sure to make you misread the landscape. As someone you blocked for restoring edits in an effort to maintain the stability of the article while consensus was being sought in Discussion, I know you weren't thinking straight.

I can understand how being an admin is difficult; I've heard the complaints about how no matter what you do, someone's going to think you're wrong. I get that. However, You used the Full Protect as a means of stopping what you saw was an edit war of two pov. Once this so-called edit war had subsided, you had a responsibility to restore it back to the form it was before, and not take the additional step of removing all protection, leaving the article open to all vandals - and you know there has been more than just a little vandalism on the article. That's squarely on you, as it only feuled the pro-nationalism folk and undercut those editors who ended upp having to remove a lot more vandalism rahter than, you know, improve the article.

My apology below for calling you a stalking horse aside, you walked into this entirely unprepared and acted in a way that people would naturally wonder at your actions. That you didn't bother to respond - even openly - on the Discussion Page of the article when you were asked by no fewer than three people to reinstate the semi-protection is suspect. That they opposed the pro-nationalism editing of the article, your silence seems ever more damning. Arcayne 00:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Neither of you will quit, eh?

Javits2000, I don't know what drama you're talking about; I'm simply saying that you're blaming me for my oversight (not responding to your request) when you should be examining your own oversight (not going to WP:RFPP earlier). Yes, articles related to the Arab world, Persia, and Islam do get a lot of heat, although not all are under fire.

Arcayne, your name is not trademarked; I can use it if I'm asking you all to stop contacting me for matters that should be resolved through other channels. And despite your disgust toward me responding to Mardavich, I told him to go to WP:DR and to use my talk page instead of Yahoo! a couple days ago. I blocked you for violating the three-revert rule, which you did. That's plain and simple and does not require looking through reams of talk page discussions. Your last sentence of your first paragraph suggests you do not understand WP:3RR. Restoring edits in an effort to maintain stability is the most commonly used excuse for edit warring. If it's vandalism, reversions are okay. If it's a content dispute, no matter how confident you are in your position, it's (for the most part) counted against you. And I never said this was a pro- or anti-Islam dispute; I merely lumped it into the same family of trivial disputes.

Your second paragraph is patently wrong; I do not have a responsibility to restore it back to the form it was before. Anyone can unprotect an article if it has been protected for a long time (like two weeks). Even now, the vandalism is far from rampant; perhaps you perceive it as serious because you're working with the article a lot. Semi-protection should be used to combat vandalism not to just block out IPs attempting to make legitimate edits such as this, this, and this.

Again, your last paragraph is ridiculous, and not just because you dismiss your stalking horse accusation as trivial. I responded to one request for re-protection and that is enough. I have better things to do – both on-wiki and off – than babysit this article. If you have any further questions about my conduct, take it to WP:AN. Continuing this conversation here will waste both my time and, more importantly, yours as you'll just see me say the same thing over and over. -- tariqabjotu 01:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, when we're right, we aren't really good about quitting, Tariqabjotu. I won't waste my time or yours correcting your misinformation. Yes, I violated 3RR, and I sat out my break. You're also right in that we are wasting our time trying to point out where you might have been mistaken. Forgive us for expecting a bit more wisdom from an admin than you were apparently able to muster. Speaking for myself, I will be sure to avoid making such an assumption again. Of course, I will be removing your comments from my Talk Page, as I have asked you on numerous occasions to not comment on my talk Page. As we don't really have anything further to say to one another, I don't imagine you'll have much problem with that.Arcayne 01:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm usually better at responding to comments on my talk page, but I have not been so good at that recently, perhaps due to my desire to bring Jerusalem up to featured status (that's basically all I've been focusing on for the past few months). I'll try to get back to responding to talk page requests as soon as possible. Is that a reasonable concession? I have fully-protected the article again and left a note on the article talk page in the hopes this matter will be resolved once and for all (without me participating in the discussion, however). -- tariqabjotu 02:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's try this again

Looking back over the posts from before, I can see I got a little hot under the collar from your accusations, and perhaps I responded more harshly than wasnecessary. Instead of lashing out, I should have considered that you had been presented a perhaps skewed view of matters, and my response likley didn't help relieve you of that view. To begin with, it was not my intention to "hide" any conversation in an archive, either on my talk page or in the article's Discussion area. When you approached me, it was with the accusation that I was edit-warring, committing 3RR, etc. These were precisely the sorts of accusations I would receive from Mardavich - actually, it was a recurrent tactic to accuse anyone who reverted his edits to warn them of their impending 3RR violations, presumably to scare them off from addressing his edits. He filed many, many 3RR complaints, none of which bore any fruit, and 2 RfC complaints which I personally helped to resolve by issueing a blanket apology for being uncivil to him. I don't deal well with manipulative people, and you may feel free to ask any editor in the article, and they will have a Mardavich horror story to tell. He is one of at least three editors who consistently push the Iranian POV, often to the detriment of the article. I would be happy to name admins who have commented on this poor behavior before, and show diffs of this if you would like, but this is more an informal explanation than an inquisition.
Then, after a particulalrly ugly exchange where Mardavich is exercising an all-too-common lack of civility with the other editors in the article, I reminded him that his tone needed to be a bit more civil, and to please explain more about his objections to a review (Farrokhe) that had already been excluded by concensus (I only agreed after the numerous flaws of the Farrokhe review had been pointed out). Then you came intot he picture, warning me against precisely the same sorts of violations that Mardavich had in the past. The fact that he did indeed make a point of contacting you via email (as opposed to the public forum of a Talk page) made your contacting me extraordinarily suspicious. That you proceeded to revert and comment on my talk page after I asked you not to made me absolutely sure that you were as much of a...undesirable...person to be around. In retrospect, it may have been unfair to paint you with the same brush for which Mardavich has supplied the paint.
Which brings us to here. I do not consider my actions to be contrary to Wikipedia policy. I do not pretend to OWN the article; in fact I have fought very, very hard to ensure that no one does that, or violates any policy of Wikipedia, as far as that goes. Do I consider myself part of the editors who have done superlative work on the article? Yes I do. Did I make a mistake in archiving the Discussion page too early? Perhaps. Maybe folks didn't see the section entitled 'Archiving soon', placed a day earlier, when I siad that I would be archiving later, and to tie up old conversations, or continue them below the archiving soon section header. It was certainly not my intent, either before or now, to archive active conversations in order to hide them.
Because of the article's GA status, stability is of paramount importance. Due to this, I placed notes in each of the article section headers that suggested that before making any significant changes that they be brought to the Discussion page, as the change in question might have been the subject of earlier concensus. As well, discussing those changes beforehand helped to prevent edit-warring. And it was working just fine. the article was getting put together, and consensus was built before any change went in, ensuring its durability.
That changed when a few editors simply ignored these noted requests and just loaded statements that had been discussed and dismissed before. I would submit that they were submitted in this way because they knew they were going to be unacceptable, and spark an edit war wherein they could demand inclusion as a compromise to an RfC. It is not an unknown tactic, and one which Mardavich has been a party to before. It was not an OWN issue that prompted their reverting (as per the edit summaries); it was an attempt to prevent this tactic from being used again. I would ask you to assume good faith (unless of course I show evidence to the contrary) that I am acting in concert with the other editors to ensure that an unbiased, properly constructed article is presented. That I don't automatically assume good faith with Mardavich is based upon my (and others') very similar experiences with him, wherein he has not bothered to demonstrate AGF even once.
I hope that explains (rather, over-explains) my reaction to your posts. it seems unfair to have the skepticism which I apply to anything Mardavich does applied to you. It seems you are coming in halfway through the situation, and my reaction to your initial accusations was from the gut. He's bad news, but you (I can see from your contributions) are not. I apologize for biting your head off. Arcayne 04:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Salam Tariq, Please forgive me if I interfere in this debate. I just want to show that Arcayne don't obey WP:EQ. For example this comment made Iranians angry and result in editorial war. Can you please describe WP:CIVIL, WP:HAR, WP:CON, WP:OWN, WP:AGF and especially WP:DR for him.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 05:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the first I am hearing of Sa's disapproval of my glib response in the talk page. Had he voiced them to me, i likely would have removed them. However, this further illustrates the problem in the page. Why he would post this particular time to post his complaint is interesting, to say the least. I responded on his talk page here, expressing the same sentiment that I have here. Arcayne 07:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that appears to have done the trick. Any idea how that autoblock (that seemed to have been triggered at 23:12, April 2) was triggereed? Arcayne 14:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US-centric main page (in response to your comment on the ITN error report)

I am not quite sure how you could say that automatically presuming that anyone who reads the fact is American is not US-centric. I am British, and so I read the phrase ambassador to India and I think of the English ambassador. Presuming that people will automatically think they are American is presuming that everyone who reads it is American. J Milburn 19:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No one is presuming that anyone who reads the fact is American. No one is presuming that anyone who reads that fact will know Rush Limbaugh is American. It said that the person was an ambassador to India, not the ambassador to India. The use of the indefinite article, rather than the definite article means that the country of origin was just omitted. Take a look at the other responses to your comment; others seem to agree with me. -- tariqabjotu 21:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hell, you got me there. In any case, it would look a lot better if it said the country of origin. J Milburn 21:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's there now; I had added it about seven hours ago. -- tariqabjotu 21:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw, thanks. I was just trying to retain some dignity, heh. Happy editing. J Milburn 21:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution

Salam Tariq. How are you.

I have problem with a guy. Please read Talk:Timeline of Iranian revolution#January 7 (17th of Dey 19) 1978. I explained more this discussion in Persian :User talk:Rayis#Thmeline and this is his answer: User talk:Sa.vakilian#Your messages on my talk page. He claimed that I threated him but I just said I'll revert his tag whenever he put. Because it's not reasonable. However I'm ready for every Dispute resolution which you propose.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 14:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest using Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. -- tariqabjotu 02:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting a site for art, music and culture in Jerusalem?

Hello Tariq,

You haev deleted a site for art, music and culture in Jerusalem. (external links). This site is the most extensive cultural events calendar in Jerusalem, why deny this information from people who want to know about Jerusalem?

It is also being discussed in the talk page of Jerusalem, so please continue the discussion there and state why it should be deleted, in your opinion.

Gooday,Haketem 09:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Today's featured article template protection

Hello! The {{protected title}} template isn't intended to protect existent pages, and the coding bug that allowed this has now been eliminated.
I created {{TFA template}} specifically for this purpose and implemented it on your pages. I also moved them to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/A and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/B and relocated the links from WP:PT to WT:TFA. —David Levy 19:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright; thanks for the update. -- tariqabjotu 21:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confused by your userpage...

• Are you or are you not a Muslim?
• Have you been accepted by MIT? What was your SAT score?

217.160.230.182 22:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In order: no; yes; I'm not going to tell you. -- tariqabjotu 22:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Why did you apostatize from Catholicism?
• Why did you apostatize from Islam?

217.160.230.182 22:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In order: I only went to Catholic school and was never Catholic; I'm not going to answer that question. -- tariqabjotu 00:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

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 05:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Talk:Operation Wilno

Out of curiosity, why did you change your mind? And here I was happy for 12 minutes that one problem has ended :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed my mind after reading more of that "Discussion" and "Alternative name" sections. -- tariqabjotu 01:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. If I may ask, what convinced you that 'battle of Wilno' is not a better name? Note that in this case we are not only in need of a 'best' name, but 'any' name will do as the article is occupying a name which 99,9% of all sources use for a different event (thus the first priority is to free a redirect, second, to have a better name).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion about which is a better name; I just thought there was no consensus that "Battle of Wilno" was a better name, based on the discussion. -- tariqabjotu 02:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, however I still wonder if keeping an article under a misleadin name (as users looking for 1944 battle will find 1919 one) is preferable to moving it to a name considered better by roughly half of the participants (note that no other suggested name has generated more then one support post; and nobody is actually arguing in favour of leaving the article at the current name - everybody is in agreement current name is bad). PS. Consider this case study in RM history: a move was carried out to a name with the highest number of support votes, even though only 1/3 of the voters supported that name...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding sources that use "Operation Wilno" to refer to the 1944 event. -- tariqabjotu 02:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Try: 'operacja wileńska' + 1944 and compare to 'operacja wileńska' + 1919. And yes, in English historiography different name is usually used for the 1944 event - 'operation ostra brama' + 1944 or 'wilno uprising' + 1944. However on the 'operation wilno' name may be used (particulary relying on Polish historiography and translations) by some for the 1944 event - but certainly not for 1919.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not fluent in Polish (it is Polish, right?) so... I can only say that if you weren't able to convince the others involved (whom I'm sure are more knowledgeable about the situation) that the suggested name is better, I'm not sure I could be convinced. You are, of course, free to get a second opinion for another outside user, but I fear someone's going to think you're twisting arms if you do that. So... do that at your own peril. -- tariqabjotu 02:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's really a minor issue. Eventually majority of reasonable users will triumph; that's the wiki way. It's a shame it will not happen here, now - but you can't win them all, as the proverb goes. Amusing thing is that most likely this controversy will end up helping the article improve in quality :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parkway Central Middle School IP

...which you blocked for EIGHT months as of Febuary 27th... I have submitted a unblock request. In it is also an alternitive for blocking this IP. Thanks! W1k13rh3nry 20:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cite web

I think the year is being repeated twice for articles using the accessdate, accessyear format. FMF|contact 00:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I made a change to the template. Did that fix the issue? -- tariqabjotu 00:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No the history is now showing "invalid time", you could check the references here as example. FMF|contact 00:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright; the issue should be fixed now. -- tariqabjotu 00:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sig Question

Noticing your sig, how do I go about changing the appearance of my sig? i know what I want to to do, but am unsure how to test it out or make it the default. Arcayne 04:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You go to "My preferences" then (under the "User profile" tab) type your new signature, with all the links you want included, in the Signature box. Afterwards, uncheck the box next to "raw signature". -- tariqabjotu 14:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Could I trouble you to take a gander at my Sandbox and tell me what I am doing incorrectly? Arcayne 14:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I made a change that probably took care of the issue. -- tariqabjotu 14:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be working now. Thanks for the assist. :) Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing edit summary

Just wondered why you removed the disambig link to International Day of Quds from the Jerusalem Day article with the edit summary that should not have been removed? Surely it's a valid link. Number 57 12:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how that occured; I meant to only re-add the link to Yom Ha'atzma'ut. Perhaps I accidentally edited an old version of the article. -- tariqabjotu 14:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, no worries. I have readded it :) Number 57 14:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date/year linking in Jerusalem

Hi! This is with regard to the date/year linking in the article Jerusalem. Per Dates section in Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context, standalone years need not be linked, unless relevant to the context. The article has almost all the years linked which IMO increases wikilinks. Yes, some historically significant years need to be linked, but I think the article could do with some less amount of date/year links. That helps easy reading. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to remove links that you feel are unnecessary. Coincidentally, I was just about to notify you that I moved the {{Jerusalem}} template back to the top of the article. Jerusalem, of course, is the main article in the template series. Thus, I thought it would make more sense to keep it in a more prominent location. I kept the template right-aligned (because I had a feeling you preferred that) and moved an image in the History section to the left to accommodate that. -- tariqabjotu 15:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Yes I read your edit summary on the shifting of the template, the edit summary nicely explained the move. Yes I am aware of the FAC, and it is through the FAC that I came to the article. I shall definitely comment in the FAC. Basically I have a tendency to comment against multi-subsection "History" section. However, in case of Jerusalem, history is so important and long, it may be better to have subheadings. Anyway, shall be on the FAC soon. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shatt al Arab/Arvandrud move

Hi, I'm a WP newbian, and I'm at a loss. I started the poll on this a week or so ago, and I agree with your conclusion that the consensus and most relevant evidence pointed to a clear move. Yet the same individual who has been fighting his "Arvandrud should be the primary name fight" for years there simply reverted your move. Can anything be done? Thanks. DLinth 18:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Khoikhoi (talk • contribs) did not participate in the move request on the talk page (except when closing it) and has not been very involved in the article. I think you may have him confused with another editor. -- tariqabjotu 22:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that you're a fellow Marylander! How can we get "Southern State" out of the first line of the Maryland article? (see discussion there.)

No confusion about Khoikhoi (talk • contribs). In fact, as experienced an editor as Khoikhoi is, he seems overly eager to relegate the consensus name for this article despite its worldwide usage. For ex., before the poll on this topic he had reverted or otherwise switched "Shatt al Arab" to "Arvandrud" or "Arvandrud/Shatt al Arab" on 1 April and 30, 28, 26 March, plus three times on 25 March. He suggested a poll, then when the evidence presented didn't "go his way", he simply reverted your move. Any suggestions for "awakening" Khoikhoi to the evidence, and for getting this article's nomenclature fixed so it no longer conflicts as it does now with most sources and reference material around the world? I "don't have a dog in this fight" other than, with my job as a geographer, it pains me to see WP articles out of step with accepted worldwide geographic nomeclature. (Keep getting logged out on my Mac here....I tried the "enable cookies" suggestion already....) DLinth 03:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Merzbow and his attacks

Look at this please: [14] and [15]. Despite my bringing up legitimate grievances of the article I am attacked as being "easily offended" even they are promoting conspiracy theories like Eurabia by Bat Ye'or as "criticism of Islam" and calling Pat Robertson a "critic" of Islam (he calls Muslims devils and believes Muslims will burn in hell) even though they are clearly bigots. The double standard here is that if Bat Ye'or was promoting a similar conspiracy theory about Jews taking over Europe, she would be labeled a anti-Semite not a "critic" of Judaism. Can you please help there with the bullying or at least raise the issue with other admins if you don't want to look into it? Merzbow's actions in particular are reprehensible with his pasting of "This guy is a Christian, I'm easily offended" all over the place and calling me a troll. Khorshid 05:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor problem with map Image:Cartoonmap-key.png

This map has Kaliningrad Oblast' in gray, rather than blue (like the rest of Russia). Not critical, just something to keep in mind for the next time you revise the map. Cheers, Tomer^talk 07:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)