User talk:Tariqabjotu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

The Signpost: 17 July 2013[edit]

Thanks![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Thanks for your RM close at Talk:Haram (site). "Site", while not the perfect disambiguator, is the best available. Cheers. —  AjaxSmack  16:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Santa Maria de Ovila[edit]

Hi - would you please explain your reasoning behind finding consensus to move here? Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems self-evident; I don't know what needs to be explained. -- tariqabjotu 05:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, it seems to me that Binksternet and I put forward pretty strong policy-based arguments, supported with plenty of evidence, why the previous title was more appropriate. So I would very much appreciate your evaluation of the arguments presented and how it wound up being a consensus to move. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, more people disagreed with your position; their reasons seemed -- and still seem -- perfectly valid. If you feel I closed the move request incorrectly, there's a move review process. -- tariqabjotu 02:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I started a move review - see below for the link. Nothing personal! Dohn joe (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Move review for Santa María de Óvila[edit]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Santa María de Óvila. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Dohn joe (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you! Meow![edit]

Cute grey kitten.jpg

In case of ITN-generated Wikistress, look at the fluffiness of the kitten and all shall be well.

LukeSurl t c 20:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you![edit]

Choco chip cookie.png Thank you for assisting in moving the incubated page for The Avengers: Age of Ultron into the mainspace! It is much appreciated! Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Your block of me yesterday[edit]

To avoid further misunderstanding I am reposting here what I wrote yesterday in regards to your block.

The only thing that I did today was restore the NPOV tag which had been wrongly removed. Your block unfortunately is based on a false pretext.
What is "extremely obvious" to me is that my contributions have been constantly deleted wholesale by people who refuse to engage in good-faith discussion. What would be constructive is for you to state your objections in detail if you have any, rather than abuse your power to favor one side of the dispute.
CJK (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Move of Philippe, King of the Belgians[edit]

hi there, thank you for pointing out the move review discussion to me, I was not aware of it. Gryffindor (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

How do I fix something on ITN?[edit]

You closed the royal baby thread at ITN while (I believe) there was still valid discussion underway. (Just started really.) We have been incredibly pedantic about the title of Princess Kate, but ignored the point that this kid is equally in line to be ruler of 16 Commonwealth realms, not just Britain. To the royalists in these places this will be very important, and most won't have had breakfast yet. I think the blurb needs to change to mention it.

Didn't want to appear confrontational and reopen the thread, but this should be discussed. How can it be done? Can maybe YOU re-open the thread please? HiLo48 (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You should probably raise it at WP:ERRORS. Or if you have an alternative wording now that doesn't turn the blurb into a mouthful, I could make the change. -- tariqabjotu 23:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

This week's articles for improvement - 22 July 2013 to 28 July 2013[edit]

This week's article for improvement is:

Ancient Roman architecture

Aqueduct of Segovia 08.jpg

Arches were used in Ancient Roman architecture to build aqueducts, such as the Aqueduct of Segovia


Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Vote for future TAFI selections.

posted by Northamerica1000(talk) 11:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


Ocean's Eleven[edit]

Hello, regarding your closure of the RM discussion at Talk:Ocean's Eleven, I wanted to state that I believe the discussion should have been closed with no consensus. The request was to fix something that was not broken and was aimed to remove disambiguation terms unnecessarily. Since we were not dealing with any vital topics here, I think the rule of thumb should be, when in doubt, disambiguate. There was sufficient doubt in the discussion. As I mentioned in the discussion with the principle of least astonishment, it makes sense for a reader to arrive at a fork in the road and proceed from there. This pair of articles is different from a pair in which one would be lowercase and the other would be title case. With a title case query, we generally assume a proper noun is being sought for. If a query is in lowercase, then readers will at least land at the article that has the underlying meaning for the proper noun even if they were not looking for it specifically. Here, I find the two films too interchangeable. The odds are roughly 50-50 to satisfy what the readers are looking for, the main distinction being the film's "official" title, which should not apply to article titles per WP:COMMONNAME. I showed results that there were inverse uses of the name, e.g., Ocean's Eleven in reference to the 1960 film. Nor did WP:2DAB apply because it requires one of the topics to be primary, which obviously was never the case with the previous setup. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 16:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hah, and I like the font selection you have on this talk page. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 16:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

@Erik: I think your points were already clear during the move request, and I obviously didn't think they were strong enough to outweigh those points supporting the request. If you feel I closed the move request improperly, you are free to open a move review.
About the font, I absolutely hate sans-serif fonts. Therefore, I have a personal CSS file making all of Wikipedia appear in Georgia font and also forced everyone coming to my talk page to see the beauty of serifs. (The site-wide CSS file also has the added benefit of preventing me from accidentally posting while logged out, as it's extremely obvious when I'm not logged in.) -- tariqabjotu 09:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join a discussion[edit]

Through this way, I inform there is a discussion about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D was approved at VPP. I notify you about this because you has participated in at least one RM discussion in which PDAB is cited (in any form). You are welcome to give ideas about the future of this guideline at WT:D or to ignore this message. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013[edit]

Redact[edit]

This is just a heads up that I redacted the word "clearly" in the Men's Right's movement log here. It was brought up in the ANI as the two admins involved had an objection to it as insulting and I didn't recall much opposition by you to their argument about how they perceived the word so I didn't feel it's be controversial to redact it.--v/r - TP 18:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there was any discussion at ANI about my comment on the log there; I believe it was only about my comment on User talk:Pudeo. The suggestion from Bwilkins that my words there were "insulting" was repeatedly and strongly rejected by myself and a few others. As for the wording on the Article probation page, I have no objection to removing the word "clearly" there (written in a slightly different context) if KC and Bwilkins don't want the constant reminder of their assumption of bad faith. However, if you do so, I'd prefer you just remove the word rather than replace it with the {{redacted}} template, which gives the impression that I said something far less innocuous than what I said and encourages people to find out what the "offending" remark was. -- tariqabjotu 21:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I'm sorry, I didn't read the user's talk page discussion and I wasn't aware. I've removed the template as well.--v/r - TP 00:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Template move[edit]

I just updated Template:IPA symbol/doc, but could you do a null edit to Template:IPA symbol so it shows up? (and feel free to check my edits) Thanks. Apteva (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why a null edit was needed? Maybe just a purge of the template? Also, the template is only semi-protected, so you should be able to edit it. -- tariqabjotu 09:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Oops, I must be color blind. I thought for sure that as a widely used template it was full protected. When a page that is transcluded is edited, those edits will not show up on the page it is transcluded onto until later, which can be forced with a null edit, which will not show up in the edit history, but will allow the changes to be seen. Apteva (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you![edit]

Bubble Tea.png Talk:America RM. Even though I didn't !vote (was watching it but had no opinion) I would just like to say I thought you did well there, in the way it was handled I mean, I don't care about the result. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you![edit]

Bubble Tea.png Talk:America RM. Even though I didn't !vote (was watching it but had no opinion) I would just like to say I thought you did well there, in the way it was handled I mean, I don't care about the result. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:America[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to close the discussion at Talk:America. Although you didn't reach the conclusion I would liked to have seen, that's just something comes with editing Wikipedia. You took the time to read all of that and give such a detailed close and I just wanted to let you know that it is appreciated, since closing those types of discussions that seems to be a rather undesirable job. Thanks. - SudoGhost 22:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey[edit]

Sorry about that revert, it was accidental, mobile editing is sometimes too slow, sometimes too quick! :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Take Back the Night[edit]

Hi Tariqabjotu. I noticed that you replaced the hatnote on Take Back the Night, changing the link to Take Back the Night (song) instead of the disambiguation, Take Back the Night (disambiguation). May I ask why you did this? There's quite a few Take Back the Night's, even though only two have articles.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

@Status: WP:TWODABS says we don't need a disambiguation page when there are only two topics with the same name. That is understood to mean two topics covered by Wikipedia, not two topics in the entire universe. Right now that is just the anti-domestic violence protests and the Justin Timberlake song. The rest of the articles linked from the disambiguation page are not about subjects entitled "Take Back the Night". One could conceivably make the case that Highlander (season 3) is admissible since it has a section entitled "Take Back the Night". However, that's quite spurious (this isn't IMDB; do you really think people are going to be searching for that like that?), and even if it wasn't, that still can be covered by a hatnote. It is, without a doubt, unhelpful to funnel those looking for the article on the Timberlake song through a disambiguation page, as that's far and away most likely the alternate subject those landing on that page are interested in. -- tariqabjotu 00:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. What about the novels? I haven't looked into them, but they could have some notability. The fact remains that there are many Take Back the Nights and it would be a disservice to exclude them.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
@Status: They might have some notability, but they don't have articles now. I'm not suggesting anything novel here (no pun intended); disambiguation pages are supposed to list subjects that have articles on Wikipedia, not be a placeholder for potential articles. Right now, even if someone is looking for the novel by Erin Merryn, what help is the Erin Merryn article? If someone is looking for the Sweet Valley University novel, what use is List of Sweet Valley University novels? Neither of those articles say anything about those works besides the titles, so per WP:DABRELATED, these don't belong on a disambiguation page. Highlander (season 3) at least mentions something about a "Take Back the Night" episode, but that's pushing it and, in any event, a disambiguation page is not needed. -- tariqabjotu 02:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Considering how large of a term Take Back the Night is, I still don't agree. I, however, trust your judgement in the matter.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Move request for Aryan Migration to Assam[edit]

Actually, when i created the article, with current Aryanization section as lede, i linked Aryan with Aryan, which linked as same till date, though lede was now changed by user Chaipau. Is this good enough reason to keep the name as Aryan, which too supported by Assam government. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 05:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2013[edit]

RM:Adroit-class destroyer, again[edit]

Just to let you know (following on from the discussion, above), I've done the move review on this; it's here (sorry, I've no idea how to work the template). Xyl 54 (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, August 24![edit]

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, August 24 at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 04:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

ITN thanks[edit]

Main Barnstar.png The Main Page Barnstar
Thank you for keeping ITN moving along. It seems like 75% of the postings are by you, and your efforts are greatly appreciated. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 August 2013[edit]

Closing of move request for On My Way (Charlie Brown song)On My Way (song)[edit]

Please see my reaction at Talk:On My Way (song). Moreover, I question the appropriateness of you being the person to close this request. The move request was initiated by citing the move of Jack (Breach song)Jack (song) as precedent. That other move was closed less than two weeks ago by you, and it involved the same basic issue, so I don't think you're really an uninvolved party on this topic. The only change in the situation, relative to the prior move request that was closed three weeks ago as "Not moved", is the direct connection to your other action. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Gee. I didn't even remember closing that move request. That being said, I think closing a similar move request is pushing it in terms of calling someone "involved". -- tariqabjotu 18:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I certainly agree that closing a similar move request is not a problem. And I guess I believe it when you say you didn't remember that other closing. But this particular situation bugs me. We had a move request that was just closed as "not moved", followed immediately by another move request that raised no new issues other than citing two very-recent moves involving the same judgment call – i.e., whether a topic (and specifically a song title) needs to have a separate article devoted to it in order to be considered ambiguous – and you close that second move in favor of moving. Nothing new happened except your reading of the consensus. Personally, I think your interpretation is incorrect on that topic. Something can be very noteworthy and not be in a separate article. In such a situation, I think an article on another topic/song with the same name should be considered as needing disambiguation. I didn't comment in the second discussion because I had already expressed my view a few days earlier in the other discussion and nothing seemed to have changed. I was rather surprised to see a different outcome appear from the second discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. I agree that "another move request occurred" is not a good enough reason to open a move request so soon. That being said, as it was opened, there were more participants [i.e. all of the supporters]. It is obvious there would be no basis for moving the article after the first move request, as no one [but the nominator] supported it. I think a reasonable thing to do is to ask the editor who closed the first move request (Jafeluv (talk · contribs)) to re-evaluate the move requests in light of the additional participation. If he still feels it shouldn't be moved, I'll move it back. Otherwise, I'll let it be. -- tariqabjotu 18:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
OK. But first let me see if I can convince you with a hypothetical case. Let's say someone in Kansas starts a punk-metal band and decides to name the band "Adam Lanza", and the Topeka Times writes an article about them (perhaps suggesting that their choice of name is in rather poor taste). Now someone decides to write a Wikipedia article about this band, citing the article in the Times as evidence of noteworthiness. There is no article on Wikipedia called "Adam Lanza". So should the article be put at "Adam Lanza", or at "Adam Lanza (band)"? On top of this, the "On My Way" issue involves the partial-parenthetical disambiguation WP:PDAB issue, which makes the case for "On My Way (song)" even weaker. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
That's not comparable. There is almost no situation in which On My Way (song) would redirect to the other articles, as they contain no information about those albums' respective songs entitled "On My Way" (except that they exist). The existence of any such redirect is a redirect "because we can", not a redirect because one is actually useful. I don't see how PDAB comes into play at all. If the Charlie Brown song didn't exist -- or if it didn't have an article -- there would be no need for a On My Way (song) page/redirect. The idea that we have to disambiguate against all articles that have the phrase "On My Way" is extreme and, as far as I know, never intended by any policy or guideline. -- tariqabjotu 21:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I see. Thank you for responding. I think that's a better explanation of your perspective than you previously provided. But if you look at that article about the Charlie Brown song, you'll see that there's basically nothing in it either. There are no sources that discuss the song. All the sources are just chart lists that happen to include this one in the list (or are dead links or the song's video on youtube or the artist's web site which doesn't seem to contain any obvious mention of the song). As far as I can see, the article meets Wikipedia deletion criteria, as it has no sources to establish notability. The only obvious difference between this song and the seven others with the same name now listed at On My Way is that some fan bothered to put together an article about this one. There is no obvious indication of a higher degree of notability. Not even the Topeka Times. As for the perceived supportive attitude on the requested move discussion, I count 3 opposed (76.65.128.222, In ictu oculi, Richhoncho) and 4 support (BDD, Tbhotch, 68.44.51.49, Aspects). The opposes often cited the previous expressions of opposition in the other request that had just closed two weeks earlier as "no move", which contained one additional oppose (mine). I know it's not a vote count, but that's hardly a tidal wave of support. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I also now notice that the article was only created very recently and that its creator is a user with a history of being repeatedly blocked and otherwise admonished for creating "unnecessary discography articles" with expressions of concern over "Notability of songs". Please see User talk:Greenock125/Archive 1. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Ashanti[edit]

Hello again - I've got a question again on an RM close, this time of Ashanti. First, I'd like to say that I appreciate the closing statement. It's really helpful to know some of your thinking in making the close. That being said, I still question your finding of consensus to move. As far as I can tell, each option had roughly equal support. "Ashanti Douglas" was the first choice of the nom and bobrayner. "Ashanti (entertainer)" (the status quo) was the first choice of me and tbhotch. "Ashanti (singer)" was the first choice of in ictu and status. Article editor expressed a preference against "(entertainer)", but didn't say if they preferred the full name or "(singer)" (or something else). In ictu and the nom said they'd support the full name and "(singer)", respectively. That seems pretty darn even to me - and again, certainly not enough to rise to the level of consensus to move. As for "in light of the "entertainer" disambiguator being phased out except in situations where no better alternative exists" - what is the evidence for that? There are a few editors who dislike it, but see Talk:Chris Brown (American entertainer) for a recent RM that went the other way. I don't see evidence that it is being phased out at all. I'd love to hear your thoughts on both those issues. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You do realize I closed the Chris Brown RM, right? I don't use my previous move request decisions as reason to make other decisions... and I don't believe I should. However, I felt that in the Chris Brown RM, there was enough evidence presented to demonstrate that "entertainer" was appropriate, and that Chris Brown's acting (or at least dancing) is notable enough in his career to make him not just a singer. I mean, I don't really agree with that -- I do think he's basically just a singer -- but the evidence was presented. In the Ashanti move request, the evidence was exceedingly poor. Perhaps part of the problem was that the move request was not directly about changing the disambiguator to "singer". However, I feel enough time was granted to the request to allow people to register their opinions and present evidence if there was any to bring. And there wasn't, apparently. -- tariqabjotu 21:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I did not realize you had closed the Chris Brown RM. But that just confuses me even more. In the Ashanti RM, I and others presented very similar evidence about Ashanti as with Brown, to show that she is referred to as an "entertainer" and that she is notable for more than just singing:
  • According to the article, the subject has a rather extensive filmography, making her more than just a "singer"
  • She was even named "Entertainer of the Year"
  • Historical Dictionary of African-American Television, p.26: "Among the entertainers appearing in the TV special were ... Ashanti."
  • The Economic Naturalist's Field Guide, ch.1: "To celebrate Amber Ridinger's thirteenth birthday, for example, her parents bought her a $27,000 Dolce & Gabbana gown and hired JaRule, Ashanti, and other popular entertainers to provide live music..."
  • Ebony, Apr. 2005, letter to editor:"[Ashanti] has proven to be a top-notch entertainer who has made her mark in the music and movie arenas."
  • Seems to me like Ashanti has a respectable filmography, including a lead role the tv drama Army Wives. Three full paragraphs in the current article are about her acting
  • Looking at IMDb, she has always been credited as "Ashanti" as acting
  • My main concern is that she is not just a singer
What am I missing? Dohn joe (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I do see a distinction. For example, here your sources [except the non-reliable letter to the editor] almost exclusively refer to Ashanti as an entertainer en masse with other people. On Chris Brown, I saw more evidence that the term was applied specifically to him. This is like finding sources that say "He met Daniel Day-Lewis and other celebrities" vs. "He met actor Daniel Day-Lewis"; in the former formulation, the use of the generic "celebrities" over the more precise "actor" is there to allow for celebrities who aren't actors -- even though Daniel Day-Lewis is almost exclusively an actor. Again, I think the importance of Chris Brown's dancing career is far overstated and that "entertainer" is a ridiculous catch-all, but evidence was at least provided there that sources call him an entertainer. It was a reasonable angle to take, even though not one I would take. That being said, if you don't see any distinction between the two scenarios, I am perfectly happy to move the Chris Brown article to Chris Brown (American singer). -- tariqabjotu 22:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I guess the real point in the comparison was that Ashanti's acting career is more extensive and notable than Chris Brown's dancing career, and so the "entertainer" tag is even more appropriate for her than for him. If it's a question of sources, I can find you a dozen right now that call her "singer and actress". That's the dual notability that most people in the RM acknowledged, and that makes "entertainer" a reasonable tag. I also have to say that I'm a little troubled by your statement that ""entertainer" is a ridiculous catch-all". It's fine to think that, and there are others who do as well, but do you really think that you should be closing RMs where "entertainer" is part of the equation? I appreciate that you closed Brown's RM against that position, but don't you think that there's a chance for that prejudice to sneak into your decision-making process? There's certainly at least the possibility of the appearance of it. Would you consider reverting the move and reopening the RM to let another closer without a strong feeling take a crack at it? Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
You misunderstood what I said; I was talking about in regards to Chris Brown. I could form a personal opinion about Ashanti (or a variety of other entertainers), but that's irrelevant. Still, it should be clear to you that I feel confident about my conclusion and that I have no intention of changing my mind. So, if you want to contest the move further, you should go to move review. -- tariqabjotu 00:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
You know, I thought about that after I finished my post, that the ridiculous claim might only apply to Brown, so, sorry for that. It still doesn't make any sense that Ashanti as entertainer would be less ridiculous than Brown, though. Would it have made a difference if I had posted the sources that call her both a singer and an actress? Dohn joe (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps. But it's water under the bridge now, as the move request is over. -- tariqabjotu 01:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I reverted C.D. Chivas USA move[edit]

I'm not sure you followed the entire discussion, partially because you only closed the top half of it and did not include the bottom half. The Football project members were strongly opposed to the move as it affects several other MLS team articles and many other English-language football club articles. Feel free to revert my revert, but I would like to explain your decision at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football so that everyone at the project is onboard with it. No disrespect intended. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Tariqabjotu. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Tariq. I'm afraid to say I think it was a very bad move. Three supports, three opposes surely equals no consensus. I'd have understood if one side used policy whilst the other didn't, but there were quite clearly policies supporting both options. Any chance of a review/reopening? Number 57 14:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

You are free to open a move review. -- tariqabjotu 15:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks. On a different note, I recently requested that {{Palestinian elections}} be protected as a user has been edit warring by trying to remove links from the template. Unfortunately it has been protected on the version that violates BRD with the links removed, despite the protecting admin telling participants to follow the BRD guideline. I've brought up the issue on their talk page and they advised me to seek a second opinion from an uninvolved admin. Number 57 20:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
At some point, the BRD cycle just becomes an edit war. It was an edit war by this point and with a relatively short three-day protection time, it's not a big deal. -- tariqabjotu 22:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Main page FA summary redirects[edit]

Thank you for bringing some common sense and simple decency to the whole unnecessary argument. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Journey Through the Decade#Requested move 04 August 2013[edit]

The requested move was relisted two days ago. Please undo your close.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Talked backed on the inquiry I made as to the second closure.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Would you be opposed to changing your closure from "not moved" to "no consensus"?—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't, if it makes a difference to you. -- tariqabjotu 15:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
To me it does make a difference. "No consensus" seems to be more accurate considering what happened during the whole relisting mess.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Move review for Journey Through the Decade[edit]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Journey Through the Decade. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. —Ryulong (琉竜) 04:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI note[edit]

I've brought the INS Sindhurakshak (S63) issue to ANI here, as you have been involved in this matter I thought I would notify you as a courtesy. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Joefromrandb[edit]

Did you look at his talk page? FTR, I never had any conflict with Joe until a few days ago when he wanted to cap a "t" mid-list. FWIW, the editors at the MoS agreed with me that he is wrong. Its disappointing that admins so often play the "pox on both houses" card. I havn't been bothering Joe, he's bothering me and you are defending him. BTW, had you looked at the diffs at Roger Waters, you would see that he is disputing my correction of overlinking by script. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Gabe. You may want to examine User:Purplebackpack89/JoeRFCU, which displays his many instances of edit-warring, personal attacks, and incivility pbp 21:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89: Yes, I saw that and I saw the links on Gabe's page. Frankly, I think you two are on a fishing expedition (e.g. this is edit-warring?), so I don't give too much weight to your link collections. If anything, they show the fervency with which you are pursuing Joe; the existence of such collections is a classic warning sign that certain editors are on the lookout for any mistake by their adversaries and are aiming to entrap them.
I acknowledge that Joe's history is far from clean, with questionable outbursts at people who object to his comments and actions. However, that doesn't make him an eternal bad guy. And in this instance, I don't feel that's the case. Last week, you were told to just stay away from Joe. You seemed to stop commenting on his talk page, and yet... somehow you and Gabe forged a partnership over the last week, with the apparent common goal of getting Joe sanctioned. This kind of behind-his-back scheming is, at best, unprofessional. And then when he interjected with an entirely relevant and totally expected (albeit pithy) remark, there you are, ready to slap a warning on his talk page. I'm not sure I'm ready to throw around the T-word, but that word Joe used gets close to what happened there. You had this ridiculous public side conversation, baiting him with gems such as "I'm going to wait a couple weeks and see if he screws up again." and "What we're hoping for is, either at the RFC/U or not, he makes a big fool of himself in front of a whole bunch of people." Of course, Joe is responsible for what he says -- no one can make him do anything -- but don't go looking for trouble and expect to find sympathy when you find it. -- tariqabjotu 23:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
@GabeMc: Much of what I said to Purple applies to you as well. There is evidence that you are baiting Joe, effectively calling him incompetent and explicitly calling him a troll. You also seem to be espousing a bit of a battleground mentality, scoping out editors to join you in your efforts against Joe. Also, let me remind you that being "right" is not an acceptable defense for edit-warring. That a handful of editors at MoS agree with you on a point is irrelevant. That you used a script to perform an action is irrelevant (you are responsible for every edit made from your account). That you weren't the first to revert is irrelevant. It takes two to tango, and I feel you're trying to use Joe's track record to shield your culpability. -- tariqabjotu 23:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Have you ever seen anyone revert the correction of overlinking common terms? Joe cam at me on a rampage. I never had any dispute with him before a couple of days ago, when he decided to start his WP:TEDIOUS campaign. What do you make of this edit? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
No different than what happened in this edit. -- tariqabjotu 23:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, IMO in one diff Joe is conspiring to disrupt Wikipedia, in the other I am asking PbP that if he needs to take Joe to AN/I that I would like to weigh-in. FTR, I apologized for calling Joe a troll within minutes of making the comment, which was several days ago, but his rampage continues. I am astounded that you don't see that Joe followed me to Waters to revert the linking correction as a way of bothering me, not improving the article. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Right. See distinction without a difference. Both remarks demonstrate battleground mentality. -- tariqabjotu 23:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Compare this edit with the rest of these ones. Also, these are some odd delinks in context. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what you're trying to demonstrate. That he generally removes links, but this time he's adding links? -- tariqabjotu 04:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    I'm trying to demonstrate that it has nothing to do with links, but that he was merely challenging my work for other reasons. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Before you judge, take a look at some of the evidence. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Gabe here. Your view on the issue is very one-sided, bordering on inaccurate. For one, it assumes that it's a bad idea to template somebody if they did something wrong; see Wikipedia:Do template the regulars and other corollaries. For another, why can't we inform him that we find his continued incivility repugnant? A lot of other editors, even admins, have done the same, and he's reacted the same way he has to us: calling them trolls and children. That is patently unacceptable, and yet you ignore that in your view. You also are unnecessarily dismissive of some of the edit wars, arguing the rule of edit-warring rather than the spirit: "He only made two reverts" (even though, I counted three on some of them you say that about) or ignoring the talkpage war or whatnot. I also disapprove of your use of KETTLE and challenge you to find diffs where I use profanity, the word trolling, or childishness, against Joe or anybody else. You're essentially saying it's passable for Joe to personally attack us, but unacceptable for us to call him on it. I don't think you've examined the evidence in full, to say the only instances of incivility he's ever had are in response to something we said is grossly inaccurate. Probably 70%, 80% of the incivility diffs we've found are of editors other than us. Finally, I would challenge you to see what happens if you leave any comment on Joe's talk page that's anything but laudatory: you'll find that no matter how it's worded, he's dismissive of the problem and often personally attacks those critical of him. pbp 13:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Your view on the issue is very one-sided, bordering on inaccurate.
Wow. As opposed to yours?
This is looking like "I didn't hear that". So far in the RfC, three people have agreed that there are major issues with your and Gabe's actions that contributed to Joe's behavior, and then we have the admins who have rejected your AN3 and ANI reports against Joe. Did it ever cross your mind that maybe, just maybe, there isn't this conspiracy to allow Joe to act with impunity, but that you two are actually not blameless here? I never said that Joe's responses to other editors' remarks are appropriate; however, you seem far less interested in getting him to change his ways than you are with proving that he's a menace. Your continued refusal to acknowledge any role in intensifying the conflict with Joe and your insistence that every one of your rote warnings (including this absurd one) was appropriate demonstrates a strident refusal to "get it".
As a result, rebutting your remarks here point-by-point would be a colossal waste of time, and this response here is even more than they warrant. Please ensure that your comment above is your final one on my talk page about this matter. Goodbye. -- tariqabjotu 16:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Your "point-by-point" rebuttal[edit]

The majority of diffs you have cited in your point-by-point rebuttal have been removed. As such, you probably should restructure your rebuttal to note that, or withdraw it altogether pbp 17:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2013[edit]

RFC/U[edit]

Tariq, I've checked for a policy to support your undo and I cannot find one. While I intend to have a response of my own, I obviously have an extra strong disagreement with SudoGhost's focus on the nominators and sweeping disregard for the overwhelming evidence. If I simply wanted to oppose for oppose sake, I'd have also left a !vote of oppose under yours.--v/r - TP 19:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance2#Guidelines: Only endorse views with which you agree. Do not post "disagreement" endorsements. The lack of a signature is sufficient indication that there may be some disagreement with the statement. -- tariqabjotu 19:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough.--v/r - TP 19:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NLT[edit]

While I am enjoying the sideshow vicariously, I refuse to dignify it by participating. While within reason they should probably be permitted to print whatever they like there, I take serious issue with the accusations of legal threats. WP:NLT is a policy with which I agree and I take it seriously. I have never made a legal threat on Wikipedia and I never would, and I really think any allegations that I made legal threats should be removed from the RfC. That's simply a lie. If you're uncomfortable removing it due to WP:INVOLVED, perhaps you could pass my concerns on to an appropriate party.

And while I refuse to participate, please don't take that to mean that I won't give pause to good-faith concerns raised by you and others; I will. But the RfC itself is simply a piece of premeditated spite and nonsense, evidenced by diffs such as the one where I apparently committed "blasphemy". This is not the Salem witch trials and I'm not going to defend myself in a star chamber. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

@Joefromrandb: I'm not sure why you've specifically objected to that point, as opposed to any others. Regardless, I'm not going to remove it, and I don't think you should worry about it. Its prefaced as a possible legal threat, and I've already noted the absurdity of the accusation. And, yes, in terms of good-faith concerns... I'm sure I'm not the first to say this, but you should really stop with the gratuitous profanity. Calling something a "piece of shit" or inserting fucking for emphasis may sound normal and not mean-spirited in informal speech, but in print on Wikipedia, where we can't hear the tenor of your voice and where people from all of the world who don't know you can read it, it's more likely to not come off very well. -- tariqabjotu 05:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you need to participate in this circus much. I only spent about 30 minutes reviewing some of his attacks and can see most are gross exaggerations. (I wanted to say Tariqabjotu did an excellent job of identifying this trend in Gabe's original research style attacks) Reviewing the attacker's edit history, ignoring his massive minor edits count, I find examples of this behaviour being used on dozens of editors that have attempted editing on the articles he participates in. This drives editors away from Wikipedia and is plainly not the spirit of Wikipedia. I have noticed a escalated display of attack level for IP editors. This usually demonstrates article ownership. He has no right to complain about others when his own behavior exemplifies his complaints. Joe, I have repeated the sentiment given (above) to you on my own talk page. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hotel California page move[edit]

I guess I was one of the first to suggest making the song the primary topic, but do we now have go through and change the link in every case where Hotel California was intended to point to the album, but now points to the song? --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 05:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to do it, but, yes, it'll need to be done, eventually. You might want to consider making a bot request (changing all links to Hotel California to links to Hotel California (Eagles album)). -- tariqabjotu 05:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, but well that bot request and the changes would have to be done quickly before editors start linking Hotel California to the song now, right? Also, we have to consider italicizing of both displayed text in a pipe and in a straight up link, so the bot will have to know to change ''[[Hotel California]]'' to ''[[Hotel California (Eagles album)|Hotel California]]'' right? --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 05:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
That's functionally equivalent to the bot just changing the link from Hotel California to Hotel California (Eagles album); the bot creator can figure out how to properly to do it anyway. You vastly overestimate the degree to which other editors will notice the move and the speed at which they will change any links. As long as the bot gets done within the next week or two, you're fine. You may get a few false positives, but editors on the respective pages would surely notice and revert the bot's modification. -- tariqabjotu 05:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. I am probably overestimating those things. I'm not in a panic over this though, just asking. I've never made a bot request before, but willing to give it a try. Thanks. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 05:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Masjid al-Haram[edit]

The text added by 76.65.128.222 wasn't originally part of Anthony Appleyard's comment; see [1]. —rybec 15:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps that's the case. However, it's supposed to be there. Per requested move instructions, you are supposed to use {{subst:Requested move|''NewName''|''Why''}}, which adds the {{Requested move/dated}} template and that additional piece (see Template:Requested move#Usage). The fact that that piece didn't show up is evidence that he just manually (and incorrectly) added the {{Requested move/dated}} himself. Also, considering he personally is not actually requesting the move, it'd probably be better if someone else (perhaps you) wrote an opening reason (using the {{subst:Requested move|''NewName''|''Why''}} template) to accompany the request. -- tariqabjotu 15:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I think you're right; I was wondering if he had forgotten to substitute it. I'll ask 76.65 about adding the reason. —rybec 16:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you free on Wednesday? Join us at the Wikimedia DC WikiSalon![edit]

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next DC WikiSalon, which will be held on the evening of Wednesday, August 24 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 11:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Forever in Love (instrumental)[edit]

Hi Tariq, you moved the above, which was consensus, but there no support for moving Forever in Love (Sylver song) to Forever in Love (song). One person suggested, one opposed and another saying that Forever in Love (song) should point to the disambiguation page. Perhaps you would be kind enough to consider the unsupported move? --Richhoncho (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Wow, ok. Yeah, I'll move it back. With the recently added hatnote, it's that issue again. -- tariqabjotu 02:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Cavann (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

DefendEachOther and review fora[edit]

Hi Tariqabjotu. From Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2013_August. I hadn't disclosed prior involvement in the RM because I consider the MR question to be a completely different to the RM question. However, you are completely right, in that declaring non-uninvolved non-outsider status is desirable. You have a particular point given that I mention your prior involvement in the general question and suggest that it was enough that you shouldn't have been closing (that you closed against your own previous opinion is not the point). Please note that this is advocating a quite high standard, and I hope that you don't feel personally criticized. I'd prefer the word "critiqued" for my comments in review forums.

In citing Meatball:DefendEachOther, I didn't mean to suggest that you were bludgeoning, but you are perhaps too quick to answer points that might have been more convincingly answered by others. As the meatball essay says, the answers are more convincing if they come from outsiders. If you provide quick answers, it dissuades outsiders from answering. Of course, if no one answers a question, its probably good for your to answer before the end, and if the question is direct, you should answer.

I wish that MR nominations and supports of the nomination weren't considered indictments. Review forums are better considered as community continuing education.

I do wish that you hadn't closed an actively progressing discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Tariqabjotu. You have new messages at LFaraone's talk page.
Message added 15:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LFaraone 15:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Tariqabjotu. You have new messages at LFaraone's talk page.
Message added 15:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LFaraone 15:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Deleted comment[edit]

I can see it upset you, so my apologies for having deleted your comment with this edit of mine. It wasn't intentional. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

@Psychonaut: It wasn't you. The frustration was at the software, which has allowed people to inadvertently delete my comment three times ([2], [3], [4]). Undoing your edit, and readding your comment was, I felt, the best way to stop that from recurring. -- tariqabjotu 15:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tivanir2 (talkcontribs) 16:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Short, sweet, and exactly what needed to be said[edit]

This edit is the message that people just can't seem to hear. Thank you for saying it. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; I appreciate the remark. -- tariqabjotu 04:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Meet up with local Wikipedians on September 14![edit]

Are you free on Saturday, September 14? If so, please join Wikimedia DC and local Wikipedians for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) at 6:00 PM. All Wikipedia/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages are welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please visit the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill [talk] 19:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Mail me[edit]

...will you? I just want to run something by you. --RA () 22:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

@Rannpháirtí anaithnid: I assume you tried emailing me using the standard mail function. I had recently changed my email address and failed to confirm it, so it was temporarily disabled. It works now, but I've also emailed you. -- tariqabjotu 00:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 August 2013[edit]

Are you free next Thursday? Join us at the Wikimedia DC WikiSalon![edit]

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next WikiSalon, which will be held from 7 to 9 PM on Thursday, September 5 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon is an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 15:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Saint Peter RM[edit]

You closed the Saint Peter RM pretty soon after the argument that you thought won the day was made (that "Saint" is a disambiguator) and I didn't have a chance to respond. I think it's a particularly bad argument since there are many Saints Peter. Even if not, I can't think of any other page where an honorific is used as a disambiguator, but I can think of cases where they would be useful if permitted. This was the only argument advanced in favor of "Saint Peter", even though several policy-based arguments were made against it. I had not really fought much in this RM since the "Saint" advocates weren't even making arguments, just voting. --JFH (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Just a note that the RM turns out to be by Kauffner Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner‎. I don't say this requesting any different action that what you've taken, this is simply a nod so you are ahead of information. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi: For the love of God. Thanks; I'll get around to it when it's not 1am. -- tariqabjotu 04:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 August 2013[edit]

Chelsea Manning RfAr[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Chelsea Manning and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21 23:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Please note that I haven't named you, so I expect that Hahc21 or someone else will bring whatever evidence against you that they choose to.--v/r - TP 00:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Tariqabjotu. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Please Help![edit]

In this page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iran-Ethnicity-2004.PNG a user wants to impose his ideas. He is from Afghanistan and his name here is historyofiran. I have shown him this reliable source from University of Texas: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iran_peoples_82.jpg but he does not accept and countinue deleting edits. it is not his main account and he tries here to spread Fundamentalism and Tajik-Taliban natonalism. Hochvoltag (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

NGE Move[edit]

I'd like a further explanation as to how you formed consensus on the Neon Genesis Evangelion move. I am concerned because the definition of primary topic here leads 50,000 people to a different page and makes there search for material more complex. I'd like to understand how you reconciled the issue of PTOPIC and applied it to DABCONCEPT which academically speaking has referred to all media as "Neon Genesis Evangelion" in show and movies under that name; and a large number of works are prefixed with the term. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I was not involved in this RM at all, but have now glanced at it. Move? With no explanation? Frankly, I find your mute close decisions to be disrespectful to everyone involved, even when I'm not one of them. --B2C 03:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
@Born2cycle: And I find your badgering to be obnoxious. RM has a perennial backlog, and I'm not going to provide a book-length explanation when I feel it's self-explanatory why a decision is made. -- tariqabjotu 04:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
No one is asking for a book. Two or three sentences is usually quite adequate. But a one word decision? Only in very obvious situations. Thank you. --B2C 07:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, the decision is not entirely mine. Do I see the sensibility in having franchise articles occupy the title without disambiguation? Sure. Would I have supported this move? Perhaps not. But I'm looking at the consensus of editors who participated, not injecting my own opinion. The remarks of those supporting the move, who cited PRIMARYTOPIC, were valid in light of policy and guidelines. -- tariqabjotu 04:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
How did you evaluate the previous WP:DABCONCEPT which says "Where the primary topic of a term is a general topic that can be divided into subtopics ... the unqualified title should contain an article about the general topic rather than a disambiguation page."? The "general topic" is Neon Genesis Evangelion which consists of no less than ten works baring the name and numerous spin offs all prefixed with the term. I reasoned with PTOPIC that while anime had the largest view count a sizable minority and combined being greater than the anime, were the collection of media all attributed as Neon Genesis Evangelion. View count is just one tool, but academically Neon Genesis Evangelion includes works like "Neon Genesis Evangelion: End of Evangelion" and is discussed without exclusive use to the anime. In My Father, He Killed Me; My Mother, She Ate Me: Self, Desire, Engendering, and the Mother in Neon Genesis Evangelion Ortega includes a lengthy discussion and pictures about End of Evangelion's interpretations. Dozens of English and non-English sources to do not differentiate between Death and Rebirth, EoE or even the manga and now are adding in the NGE Rebuld series. The topic of Neon Genesis Evangelion rather than the specific anime focus is the important both academically and to provide context to tens of thousands of readers looking for information about its body of works and what NGE is about. Such an article is difficult to create, but I do not see how the hatnote to the anime was worse than the anime's hat note to the topic page; I do not see how it is an improvement in terms of organization or comprehending the whole. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Not that I want to answer in Tariqabjotu's place, but it's pretty clear WP:DABCONCEPT works in case of the primary topic already being determined as a broad concept, but does not state anywhere that several works bearing the same name necessarily have a broad concept primary topic. Other users have already explained that to you when you raised the question at the guideline talk page (you seem to have misunderstood WP:DABCONCEPT and WP:PTOPIC as two different approaches, while both are about the very same thing, only with WP:DABCONCEPT illustrating a specific case of WP:PTOPIC). Determining what exactly is the primary topic is to be done by consensus discussion, and Tariqabjotu merely assessed this consensus to tip on the side of PTOPIC being a specific use of the name rather than a broad concept (and rightly so in my opinion). As for your other arguments about End of Evangelion, the source you quote clearly refers to it as End of Evangelion and not "Neon Genesis Evangelion: End of Evangelion". No confusion possible for the reader. Note that your source also states "Evangelion is, without doubt, one of the most complex anime serials produced in the late 1990s"..."anime serials", not "animated franchise/corpus" and the likes.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

August Coup RM[edit]

I'd like a further explanation as to how you formed consensus on your "no consensus" decision at Talk:1991_Soviet_coup_d'état_attempt#Requested_move. In particular, presuming you did not merely count !votes, I'd like to understand what arguments you found to be based in policy on each side, and how you weighed them against each other. Thank you.

In general, an RM close explanation of "No consensus" is not an explanation at all. In this case, I went to great lengths to explain how the oppose arguments were not based in policy. Did you ignore that, or disagree? If you disagreed, why? Thank you. --B2C 03:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You may not be aware, but I actually asked EdJohnston, who previously closed the discussion, to reopen it on those grounds; many of the early opposing comments were quite poor. However, as time went on, there appeared to be legitimacy to the idea that "August Coup" may not be recognizable enough, even if people are familiar with the topic. -- tariqabjotu 03:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. It would have been helpful if you had mentioned your reasoning in your closing comments. I, for one, wish you that you adopt such a practice. Thank you. --B2C 07:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
@Born2cycle: It's kind of tough to predict who will complain and in what manner. I'm only going to provide explanations when the results are hard to decipher, which, despite your inquiries here, does not describe either of these move requests. It's commonplace that someone who had a counter opinion in a move request ends up unhappy, and there is no reason I need to provide any sort of explanation when the response to "Why did you do that?" is simply "Other people disagreed with you." I'm not changing the way I do this. -- tariqabjotu 23:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
What does the "toughness of predicting who will complain and in what manner" have to do with whether it's helpful and respectful to the community for a closer to explain his or her reasoning? Frankly, I don't understand why you said that. I'm very curious... what are you thinking? When you explain your reasoning, "predicting who will complain and in what manner" should not be a consideration.

You should simply explain your reasoning, whatever it is. Maybe habitually explaining your reasoning will reduce the number and kind of complaints, maybe not. But if it does, that would just be a bonus. The important thing is to explain. If certain arguments were dismissed because they were refuted or blatant JDLI, it helps to point this out because it should cause people to leave substantive arguments in the future (or, better yet, not bothering trying to defend a position that can't be defended substantively). If certain arguments are highlighted as being particularly persuasive, that should encourage others to try to form such arguments in other RMs, if possible. Good closer explanations should help raise the quality of RM discussions. That's the point. If you just close with "moved", or "not moved" or "no consensus", there is no feedback. The improvement process is short-circuited. --B2C 15:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Temporary Injunction Enacted[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has passed a temporary injunction in the case in which you are a party to. The full text of the injunction follows:

The articles "Bradley Manning", "United States v. Manning", and "Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage" are placed under standard discretionary sanctions for the duration of the case. Unless otherwise provided for in the final decision, any sanction imposed pursuant to this injunction will automatically lapse upon the closure of the case.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 23:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 September 2013[edit]

Hyderabad, India → Hyderabad[edit]

Hi, A very thanks for your move request, It means a lot for us, in our previous move requests we were tired convincing but could not present the case as you did in this request. It was solid one shot goal by you. Thanks a lot once again. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 23, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 10:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

FAR[edit]

I have nominated Mosque for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loomspicker (talkcontribs) 13:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidence length[edit]

Dear Tariqabjotu

I was wondering if it would be possible for you to refactor your evidence submission to the Manning case. at nearly 2000 words it is double the word limit. Its very verbose and the fact that you have conclusions in each section shows that the length is somewhat excessive. Keep in mind that conciseness and brevity is the key to arbcom cases and ensuring your point is gotten across. Can you cut it down to 1100-1200 at least? Many Thanks Seddon talk 07:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

@Seddon: I cut down my original set of evidence substantially (to < 900 words). I then added some more, and it looks like it's 1150 words (including numbered diffs, titles, and linked usernames). As I don't plan to add any more evidence sections, I hope this works. -- tariqabjotu 17:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
That'll do donkey, that'll do. Thanks for that Tariqabjotu :) Seddon talk 17:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
@Seddon: David's evidence is very long, and it doesn't look like any of his evidence sections are even objections to other sets of evidence. As my set of evidence did before, his section has a significant amount of explanatory text. Can you tell him to cut it down? Or are we getting more leeway with evidence length? -- tariqabjotu 14:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
No I see no reason for more leeway. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Seddon talk 17:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 September 2013[edit]

Hyderabad new lead[edit]

Hi, Please have a look at my reply for the proposed new lead at article talk page. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you free next Thursday? Join us at the Wikimedia DC WikiSalon![edit]

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next WikiSalon, which will be held from 7 to 9 PM on Thursday, September 26 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon is an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 06:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long[edit]

Hello, Tariqabjotu. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Manning naming dispute Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 1239 words and 63 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (who are listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT(talk) 04:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

'Paris Metropolitan Area' move[edit]

Hello,

It was agreed that an English name should be found, but there was hardly a 'move to' consensus there, and I'm more than a bit disappointed to see 'familiarity' win over proper usage and reference. 'Urban area' is not only the most direct translation of aire urbaine, it is the most used translation in English articles actually speaking of the INSEE statistical tool that is the aire urbaine - and 'urban area' is the translation provided by the INSEE itself. You also brought up a good point about capitalization - the 'aire urbaine' is not an existing area, it is but a single-use statistical tool unknown to most everyone in France; capitalising 'metropolitan area' will make using the term even more misleading to the uninformed reader.

"Paris metropolitan area" in English literature and reference almost ~never~ refers to the above statistical tool ('urban area' predominates there), it is either a reference to the 'Paris region' (Île-de-France) or a vague 'Paris and its suburbs' description, so where now can we discuss the very statistical tool that the article is supposed to be about?

I'm appallingly bad at making concise (thus convincing) arguments, so apologies if i didn't make the above clear in the talk-page discussion (mostly with myself). THEPROMENADER 06:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Your points were duly noted, but you didn't appear to adequately convince the other commenters. -- tariqabjotu 16:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
There was most certainly a concensus that the article should be moved to an Engish title, but most were willing to support a move to ~any~ English title (often without even considering existing French usage). Knowlegable or not, I don't think there was consensus at all as far as a destination title was concerned. Lack of consensus aside, Wikipedia today is practically the only (if not the only) place in any documentation or the web where "Paris metropolitan area" refers to Paris' aire urbaine statistics. Since no sources (but Wiki itself) make this translation, I don't see how this could be considered acceptable for an encyclopedia that prides itself in requiring sourced material - or should Wikipedia begin sourcing itself? THEPROMENADER 21:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
This is still an open issue for me: Practically all English articles talking about the aire urbaine (that this article is supposed to be about) and the creators of the aire urbaine itself, use the term 'urban area', and practically all articles using the term 'Paris metropolitan area' (never capitalised, btw) are referring to the Île-de-France (where most statistics are taken), a vague reference to the 'area around Paris, or some method of their own: the moved article is not about that. Wiki alone makes this 'translation', and this is also a problem reference-wise. What should I do, open another move request, or contest the move? THEPROMENADER 09:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Er... bump? THEPROMENADER 12:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
@ThePromenader: You are entirely free to open a move request or, given it's been more than a month, another move request. The point is that I saw no basis to make any determination other than the one that I made; if you think some of the rationales were incorrect, that's not really my fault but the fault of those making the rationales. -- tariqabjotu 06:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Never said anything was your ~fault~, but I did think you 'skimmed' a bit... the consensus was for 'change it from French', not for the proposed title... an understandable oversight; there's something wrong with that process. I remember a contributor who almost managed to construe a 'should we change the lead image' question into a vote ~for~ a photo of his choice... but everyone bailed when they figured out what he was doing. Yet here everyone stuck to their 'yes' vote even though I had managed to get them to change their mind...
I'll just start a new move proposition, methinks. Just thinking of you reading that talk page again is already giving ~me~ a headache. Thanks and cheers. THEPROMENADER 06:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Permission to post WP:RM[edit]

Hi, thanks for all your recent RM work, again. You already know my view on the (entertainer) dab where it is not in line with reliable sources. You closed the 5th (!) failed RM to Talk:Usher (entertainer) to primary topic Usher with the totally sensible request to not have another RM for another year. May I ask, does your guidance also apply to an RM in the interim to change the vanity dab (entertainer) to (singer) [per "I'm a rapper/singer," Usher says, adding confidently, "I'm the king of hip-pop."] If you allowed a RM on the dab only, I would stipulate in the template that discussion on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is out-of-bounds per previous closing advice. If you prefer no RM of any kind for a year that is also okay. All the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: I was mostly talking about requesting the article be named Usher Raymond (that was the third RM in six months with that same proposal). Another move request so soon may still come across as annoying, but at least it's a different request. -- tariqabjotu 03:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
718smiley.png. Reasonable. What I will do then is reflect that clarification on the Talk page and not do anything for the time being. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi: I just skimmed over your original comment, but now rereading it, I just wanted to clarify that the move request I closed was not asserting that he is the primary topic of the term "Usher". -- tariqabjotu 03:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
You're correct, I misread scrolling down. It was to Usher Raymond. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 September 2013[edit]

Christian Church[edit]

To avoid being ethnocentric, we should not assume that all churches are Christian. In common usage, some folks will call any religious building of any faith a "church". Wikipedia should be informative, especially to the ignorant. Please see this headline: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/world/asia/pakistan-church-bombing.html?hp&_r=0&gwh=D0810943F98DD37B026376C09D4FF048. Jehochman Talk 14:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Who are these people, and what other types of religious buildings do they call churches? Perhaps some people use the term "church" to refer to other religious buildings, but they'd generally be understood to be wrong. Since the text "a church" is linked to an article about the church in question as well, it seems unnecessary and will come across as redundant to the vast majority of readers who know what a church is. -- tariqabjotu 15:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, NYT has edited their headline, so I will agree that we can keep it short. The point we seem to be missing is that this is the most deadly ever attack on Pakistan's Christian minority. Jehochman Talk 15:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Westgate shopping mall shooting[edit]

This i blatantly deceptive, I was not a dissenter. you can see i supported (adn warned of the return of the flags by someone else) trimming./ I questioned WHAT to trim, not to removfe sourced content as your edit did. per BRD, the BOLD removcals reverted mean to discuss and I hafve used the talk page (and even acceded when consensus was clearly against me). If you have a feeling on the matter, discuss what is to be removed.(Lihaas (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)).

Vandalism[edit]

can you please semi-protect ITN/C for a bit... getting tired of constant vandalism by different IP addresses. -- Ashish-g55 21:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Tariqabjotu. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 16:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Phil Sandifer[edit]

Per this comment, if Phil really did make a mistake by confusing your name with Tarc's when making this comment, which I assume is what sparked the finding of fact, and if Phil can substantiate the claims he's made about Tarc, then, who has already been brought up for his remarks by Kirill, would you consider retracting the finding of fact as a show of solidarity that we are all against hatred? We can continue to discuss the degrees of language that constitutes hatred, but we can all agree that getting to that understanding is important to have a free NPOV encyclopedia.--v/r - TP 19:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

@TParis: No, I will not retract the finding of fact. Your assumption about what sparked the finding of fact is incorrect. And I am not buying into any suggestion that proposing this finding of fact and standing against hatred are mutually exclusive. -- tariqabjotu 20:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree they aren't mutually exclusive, but I think a misunderstanding is what escalated this and I wanted to seek an easier resolution. If none is available, I'll drop it.--v/r - TP 21:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2013[edit]

Gospel[edit]

I don't understand your closing rationale. I've left my question at what is now (erroneously, if I understand the scope of the article correctly) gospels. There were no counter arguments to the view, which seems to have acquired consensus late in the discussion with no rebuttals, that the scope of the article is "gospel" as a genre of Christian literature like homily, sermon, etc. You should've closed with no consensus, and pointed out that in order to avoid confusion with other articles, the article could be provided with a disambiguating phrase. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi![edit]

Hi, I'm [User:N0n3up|N0n3up]] and I'm sort of new on Wiki. I was wondering if you could give me some tips, Thanks :) (N0n3up (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC))

@N0n3up: What did you need help with? -- tariqabjotu 05:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

RM for Towanda Masonic Lodge No. 30 A.F. and A.M.[edit]

You relisted this RM on Sept. 21 for further discussion... but no further discussion has taken place. Are you willing to close? Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox civilian attack[edit]

Template:Infobox civilian attack has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox event. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Manning move discussion[edit]

I somehow doubt commentary about "attempts at playing dumb" will help us determine the appropriate name of the article. If you have an issue with another user's conduct, try the appropriate fora; please don't derail the move discussion. I have not redacted anything, and I won't discuss what to redact within that move discussion. In my personal opinion both Tom Morris' initial !vote and your initial reply were appropriate, but then things started going downhill, from both sides. Thus I asked you both to stop. Huon (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Huon: Except "playing dumb" is exactly what it was. Of course, I'm unlikely to get you to see that when you can't see anything inappropriate in saying It is only when the name change is accompanied by a change in gender that everyone freaks out and starts imposing arbitrary standards. I'd submit that your condescension -- like Tom and I aren't the adults we are -- doesn't "help us determine the appropriate name of the article" either, but, again, I'm unlikely to get you to see that when you feel it is more beneficial to put a plague on both houses than to address the legitimate problem that is casting aspersions. As you've continued that tone here by referring to WP:DR as if I'm a new editor and suggesting I was "derailing the move discussion" (with, what, three comments in the entire move discussion?), I feel the usefulness of discussing this matter with you has long been exhausted and request that you not return to my talk page, especially to give me more unwanted advice about this issue. -- tariqabjotu 02:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Leeds[edit]

The decision at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Leeds#Merge_inactive_WikiProject_as_a_taskforce_of_WP:UK seems off, isn't there a consensus to merge the wikiproject as a taskforce of WP:WikiProject Yorkshire, the alternative suggested in the survey section? There are five supporters of the merger. -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 05:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mosque, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grand Mosque of Cordoba (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Photo[edit]

I agree that it's best not to picture somebody else next to that blurb! Isn't File:Anas al-Liby.jpg a public domain image? Why can't we use it on the home page? Jehochman Talk 03:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

@Jehochman: It's allegedly public domain because it's used in the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorist poster. However, unless the FBI actually took that photo, it's not public domain. And I'm sure you can agree the FBI probably didn't take that photo... (darn it, he was in our photo studio and we let him go!) -- tariqabjotu 04:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
LOL! Maybe we should change the tag on the image, in that case, before some other unsuspecting editor takes the purportedly free image and commits copyright mayhem. Jehochman Talk 04:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
@Jehochman: I've tagged it as a copyright violation on Commons. -- tariqabjotu 04:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 October 2013[edit]

Are you free on Sunday? Join us for a special Wikimedia DC WikiSalon![edit]

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for a special WikiSalon at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Library's Digital Commons Center. We will gather at 3 PM on Sunday, October 13, 2013 to discuss an important topic: what can Wikipedia and the DC area do to help each other? We hope to hear your thoughts and suggestions; if you have an idea you would like to pursue, please let us know and we will help!

Following the WikiSalon, we will be having dinner at a nearby restaurant, Ella's Wood Fired Pizza.

If you're interested in attending, please sign up at the event page. We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 02:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


Tariqabjotu[edit]

Please dont' remove postintg by others. I've already checked and see no topic ban for me on the move request (nor manning himself ) If you're aware of any, please show a link and I will gladly comply  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   16:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: As mentioned as part of your block notice: When you return to editing, you are topic-banned from all articles and discussions related to either Private Manning or transgender issues, broadly construed, for six months. -- tariqabjotu 17:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I recieved your email. I did find the ban - Fluffernutter placed a note on my page saying I'm banned, no I'm not going to lawyer (or try to lawyer my way of it) I see it, you're right. I'm not. Consider the stick dropped.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   17:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013[edit]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute closed[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Hitmonchan (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
  2. IFreedom1212 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
  3. Tarc (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
  4. Josh Gorand (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
  5. Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed. He is also topic banned from all pages (including biographies) related to leaks of classified information, broadly construed.
  6. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is admonished for acting in a manner incompatible with the community's expectations of administrators (see #David Gerard's use of tools).
  7. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from using his administrator permissions (i) on pages relating to transgender people or issues and (ii) in situations involving such pages. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter.
  8. The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one.
  9. All editors, especially those whose behavior was subject to a finding in this case, are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions on Wikipedia, and to avoid commentary that demeans any other person, intentionally or not.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 01:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 October 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 23 October 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 30 October 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 06 November 2013[edit]

Talk:United States v. Microsoft Corp.#Requested move 2[edit]

Another move proposal is initiated. Join in. --George Ho (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 November 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 20 November 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 04 December 2013[edit]

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Admin-monthly.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 December 2013[edit]

Speedy deletion nomination of West Indies (disambiguation)[edit]

A tag has been placed on West Indies (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
  • disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ringbang (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 25 December 2013[edit]

iPhone 5s[edit]

Hello, I noticed you had closed the discussion over whether to leave the “s” in “iPhone 5s” lowercase or capitalize it. According to the fourth first-level bullet at MOS:TM, “Using all lowercase letters may […] be acceptable if it is done universally by sources, such as with xkcd.” (no emphasis in original) A simple spin on your search engine of choice shows that, although use is somewhat mixed, use of a lowercase “s” clearly outweighs the alternative used in the Wikipedia article title. Although this is not universal, it is closer to universal than the capital “S”. In addition, your conclusion to this discussion had somewhat mixed support, and and there were not enough votes to show a consensus supporting either version according to the community. I recommend we reopen the discussion and wait until we have enough votes to adequately conclude we have a sample space representative of the Wikipedia community (within reason). Cup o’ Java (talkedits) 04:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Tariqabjotu![edit]

Fireworks in Jaén (cropped).jpg
Happy New Year!
Hello Tariqabjotu:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


Peace sign.svg


Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

The Signpost: 01 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 08 January 2014[edit]

Meetups coming up in DC![edit]

Hey!

You are invited to two upcoming events in DC:

  • Meetup at Capitol City Brewery on Saturday, January 25 at 6 PM. Please join us for dinner, drinks, socializing, and discussing Wikimedia DC activities and events. All are welcome! RSVP on the linked page or through Meetup.
  • Art and Feminism Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, February 1 from Noon – 5 PM. Join us as we improve articles on notable women in history! All are welcome, regardless of age or level of editing experience. RSVP on the linked page or through Meetup.

I hope to see you there!

(Note: If you do not wish to receive talk page messages for DC meetups, you are welcome to remove your username from this page.)

Harej (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 22 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014[edit]

Coming up in February![edit]

Hello there!

Our February WikiSalon is coming up on Sunday, February 23. Join us at our gathering of Wikipedia enthusiasts at the Kogod Courtyard of the National Portrait Gallery with an optional dinner after. As usual, all are welcome. Care to join us?

Also, if you are available, there is an American Art Edit-a-thon being held at the Smithsonian American Art Museum with Professor Andrew Lih's COMM-535 class at American University on Tuesday, February 11 from 2 to 5 PM. Please RSVP on the linked page if you are interested.

If you have any ideas or preferences for meetups, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/DC.

Thank you, and hope to see you at our upcoming events! Harej (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 February 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 19 February 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 26 February 2014[edit]

DC Meetups in March[edit]

Happy March!

Though we have a massive snowstorm coming up, spring is just around the corner! Personally, I am looking forward to warmer weather.

Wikimedia DC is looking forward to a spring full of cool and exciting activities. In March, we have coming up:

  • Evening WikiSalon on Wednesday, March 12 from 7 PM – 9 PM. Meet up with Wikipedians for coffee at the Cove co-working space in Dupont Circle! If you cannot make it in the evening, join us at our...
  • March Meetup on Sunday, March 23 from 3 PM – 6 PM. Our monthly weekend meetup, same place as last month. Meet really cool and interesting people!
  • Women in the Arts 2014 meetup and edit-a-thon on Sunday, March 30 from 10 AM – 5 PM. Our second annual Women in the Arts edit-a-thon, held at the National Museum of Women in the Arts. Free lunch will be served!

We hope to see you at our upcoming events! If you have any questions, feel free to ask on my talk page.

Harej (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 12 March 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 19 March 2014[edit]

An exciting month of wiki events![edit]

Hello there,

I am pleased to say that April will be a very exciting month for Wikipedia in Washington, DC. We have a lot of different events coming up, so you will have a lot to choose from.

First, a reminder that our second annual Women in the Arts Edit-a-Thon will take place on Sunday, March 30 at the National Museum of Women in the Arts.

Coming up in April, we have our first-ever Open Government WikiHack with the Sunlight Foundation on April 5–6! We are working together to use open government data to improve the Wikimedia projects, and we would love your help. All are welcome, regardless of coding or editing experience. We will also be having a happy hour the day before, with refreshments courtesy of the Sunlight Foundation.

On Friday, April 11 we are having our first edit-a-thon ever with the Library of Congress. The Africa Collection Edit-a-Thon will focus on the Library's African and Middle East Reading Room. It'll be early in the morning, but it's especially worth it if you're interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of African topics.

The following day, we are having our second annual Wiki Loves Capitol Hill training. We will discuss policy issues relevant to Wikimedia and plan for our day of outreach to Congressional staffers that will take place during the following week.

There are other meetups in the works, so be sure to check our meetup page with the latest. I hope to see you at some of these events!

All the best,
James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 01:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 02 April 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 09 April 2014[edit]

How to speak 3 words of cat language?[edit]


You can learn 3 words of cat language here! ----

If you want to learn just go on this video! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYzuuhycHvo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.190.222.109 (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 April 2014[edit]

Two edit-a-thons coming up![edit]

Hello there!

I'm pleased to tell you about two upcoming edit-a-thons:

  • This Tuesday, April 29, from 2:30 to 5:30 PM, we have the Freer and Sackler edit-a-thon. (Sorry for the short notice!)
  • On Saturday, May 10 we have the Wikipedia APA edit-a-thon, in partnership with the Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Center, from 10 AM to 5 PM.

We have more stuff coming up in May and June, so make sure to keep a watch on the DC meetup page. As always, if you have any recommendations or requests, please leave a note on the talk page.


Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 20:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 07 May 2014[edit]

Meet up with us[edit]

Happy May!

There are a few meetups in DC this month, including an edit-a-thon later this month. Check it out:

  • On Thursday, May 15 come to our evening WikiSalon at the Cove co-working space in Dupont Circle. If you're available Thursday evening, feel free to join us!
  • Or if you prefer a Saturday night dinner gathering, we also have our May Meetup at Capitol City Brewing Company. (Beer! Non-beer things too!)
  • You are also invited to the Federal Register edit-a-thon at the National Archives later this month.

Come one, come all!

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 20:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 21 May 2014[edit]

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Washington, DC meetups in June[edit]

Greetings!

Wikimedia DC.svg

Wikimedia DC has yet another busy month in June. Whether you're a newcomer to Wikipedia or have years of experience, we're happy to see you come. Here's what's coming up:

  • On Wednesday, June 11 from 7 to 9 PM come to the WikiSalon at the Cove co-working space. Hang out with Wikipedia enthusiasts!
  • Saturday, June 14 is the Frederick County History Edit-a-Thon from 11 AM to 4 PM. Help improve local history on Wikipedia.
  • The following Saturday, June 21, is the June Meetup. Dinner and drinks with Wikipedians!
  • Come on Tuesday, June 24 for the Wikipedia in Your Library edit-a-thon at GWU on local and LGBT history.
  • Last but not least, on Sunday, June 29 we have the Phillips Collection Edit-a-Thon in honor of the Made in America exhibit.

Wikipedia is better with friends, so why not come out to an event?

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 01:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 04 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 11 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 18 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 25 June 2014[edit]

The Great American Wiknic and other events in July[edit]

Wikinic 2013 washington d.c. 02.JPG

I am pleased to announce our fourth annual picnic, the Great American Wiknic, will take place at Meridian Hill Park in Washington, D.C. on Sunday, July 13 from 1 to 5 PM (rain date: July 20). We will be hanging out by the statue of Dante Alighieri, a statue that was donated to the park in 1921 as a tribute to Italian Americans. Read more about the statue on Wikipedia. If you would like to sign up for the picnic, you can do so here. When signing up, say what you’re going to bring!

July will also feature the second annual Great American Wiknic in Frederick, Maryland. This year’s Frederick picnic will take place on Sunday, July 6 at Baker Park. Sign up here for the Frederick picnic.

What else is going on in July? We have the American Chemical Society Edit-a-Thon on Saturday, July 12, dedicated to notable chemists, and our monthly WikiSalon on Wednesday, July 16.

We hope to see you at our upcoming events!

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 21:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 09 July 2014[edit]

File:Istanbul collage 6a.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Istanbul collage 6a.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Istanbul collage 6b.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Istanbul collage 6b.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Istanbul collage 5c.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Istanbul collage 5c.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Istanbul collage 5d.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Istanbul collage 5d.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Istanbul collage 4c-alt.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Istanbul collage 4c-alt.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Istanbul collage 5e.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Istanbul collage 5e.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 July 2014[edit]

Battle of Fort Stevens Edit-a-Thon![edit]

Company F, 3rd Massachusetts Heavy Artillery, in Fort Stevens, Washington DC (ca. 1861).jpg

Greetings!

Sorry for the last minute update, but our friends at the DC Historical Society have scheduled a Battle of Fort Stevens Edit-a-Thon to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Civil War battle fought in the District. The event will last from noon to 2 PM on Wednesday, July 30. Hope you can make it!

Best,

James Hare

(To unsubscribe, remove your username here.) 21:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 30 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 06 August 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 13 August 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 20 August 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 27 August 2014[edit]

Wikipedia and YOUR History: Taking Control of the Internet[edit]

Come one and come all. To a presentation at the Laurel Historical Society about how you can help verify, validate, and edit the information that is on the front line of local history.

Picture your self leading the masses to improve Wikimedia one article at a time.
  • Show the Internet who is the better editor.
  • Be the creator of culture that you know you are.
  • Spread the knowledge of noteworthy people who no one but you cares about.
  • Lead the charge to a better Wikipedia --- eventually.


Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia and YOUR History: Taking Control of the Internet[edit]

See you at the Laurel Pool Room, 9th and Main Street, Laurel, MD on Thursday, September 11, 2014 at 7:00 PM EST. See http://www.meetup.com/Wikimedia-DC/events/205494212/ for more information. Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia DC invites revolutionaries, free thinkers, and other sundry editors to a DC WikiSalon[edit]

The WikiSalon is a special meetup usually held during the first and third full weeks of every month, from 7 PM to 9 PM. It's an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss Wikimedia wikis and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own.

If you're coming by Metro, the closest station is Dupont Circle (on the Red Line). If you're driving, a lot of parking opens up downtown after 6:30 PM, so finding a parking space (even a free one) should be easy. Once you've found the building, go to Cove on the second floor. We will be in the conference room.

When: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 at 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM

Where: The Cove, Dupont Circle, 1730 Connecticut Avenue NW, 2nd floor, 20009, DC


For more information, see http://www.meetup.com/Wikimedia-DC/events/205500822/


My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2014[edit]

Wikimedia DC's Wonderful meetups[edit]

Wikimedia DC's Upcoming meetups

  • Thursday, September 11: “Wikipedia and YOUR History: Taking Control of the Internet, One Article at a Time!”
    A presentation at the Laurel Historical Society about how you can help verify, validate, and edit the information that is on the front line of local history. Laurel Pool Room, 9th and Main Street in Laurel, MD. 7 PM.
  • Wednesday, September 17: WikiSalon
    Come for the pizza, stay for the conversation. 7 PM – 9 PM
  • Saturday, September 20: September Meetup
    Get dinner and drinks with fellow Wikipedians! 6 PM
  • Sunday, September 21: Laurel History Edit-a-Thon
    Local history for Wikipedia! 10:15 AM – 4 PM
  • Saturday, September 27 – Sunday, September 28: Please RSVP for the Open Government WikiHack at Eventbrite by clicking on the link. The National Archives and Records Administration and Wikimedia DC are teaming up to come up with solutions that help integrate government data into Wikipedia. 10:30 AM – 5 PM each day

My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2014[edit]