User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive Twenty-Five

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Slavica Ecclestone again

I would just like to point out to you that despite your warning[1] to Paulcicero he again reverted the page[2] 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[3], 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[4], 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[5], which IMO was completely reasonable. Nikola 22:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 [6].

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

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)

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 [7]), 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)

About Paulcicero

He has just accused me of have a sockpuppet?! -> [8] 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 [9] 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 [10] . 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)

"Enough"

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

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)

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)

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)

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 [11] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)