This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Galactus
Hi there,
In response to your query, I would say the issue still exists. Both parties directly involved in the dispute, DavidA and TheBalance, appear to be voluntarily disengaging from each other as a show of good faith while waiting for the mediation case to start. I can only applaud their mutual restraint and patience, and suggest that as a sign that they both consider mediation worthwhile.
I know nothing about you personally, and prefer not to form an opinion at this time, so yes I agree that it would be good to have you mediate the case. As I mentioned, the others have been waiting very patiently, so hopefully they haven't forgotten about the mediation, assuming they are still interested! BOZ (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. I was wondering whether you'd consider unblocking TreasuryTag and KnowIG and protecting the page instead. Typically, there's very little to be gained from blocking all parties in an edit war, as it does nothing to resolve the conflict. It's likely that they'll just go back to reverting when their blocks expire. I agree that the blocks are valid (both parties were edit warring and it was indeed pretty lame), but I think that what I'm suggesting may be a better solution to the problem. Thoughts? --Deskana(talk) 14:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. Blocking all parties in an edit war, especially when for a short time, is better than protecting the page as it doesn't penalize other editors who want to contribute to the article in a constructive manner. I don't see why you believe both parties will continue after the block has expired; realizing the matter is a blockable offense will, in my opinion, discourage further disruption. -- tariqabjotu 14:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
It is my experience that people will quite frequently engage in behaviour that they know could result in them being blocked, and many users even make threats to do so in unblock requests. I will take this matter to the administrator's noticeboard instead. Thanks. --Deskana(talk) 14:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
In which case, they ought to be reblocked. No dispute between two disruptive users needs to be resolved. -- tariqabjotu 14:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The above statement was actually only in reference to one of them in particular. Anyway, it doesn't matter since I seem to be the only one with this opinion. --Deskana(talk) 15:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding my block
Hi Tariq, I've left a message for you here. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 11:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. I am a bit unsure how to take the message you left. First, you said "Your actions during and since your block further assure me that the block was the right move" but I have not made a single article edit since my block ended.[1] I have been trying to make sense of the block -- I've never been blocked before. More importantly, you said "You have also repeated the discounted point that you never made more than four reverts in twenty-four hours." I said that because I didn't make more than four reverts in twenty-four hours. Please provide Diffs if you maintain that I did. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Actions meaning your desparate attempts to get your block log expunged (as mentioned) and your irrelevant suggestions (as mentioned) as to why you were blocked. That's what that whole paragraph was about. No, I am not arguing you made four reverts within twenty-four hours (ugh, as mentioned); I am saying that it doesn't matter that you didn't, so stop bringing it up. Did you read any part of the comment I left you? -- tariqabjotu 13:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi again Tariq and thanks for your patience. Yes I read your comment. You characterized my promise to not edit Caroline Glick pending comments from others as "worthless". (Where's the good faith?) Another admin, with whom I had no previous contact and who is far less invested in Israel-Palestine articles than you are or I, had supported my rewrite of a contentious section of the article, as had other editors in Talk. Yes, I reverted section-blanking twice in 24 hours. But it seems from the reasoning you made for my block -- "...I don't care what Shimeru has to say. As far as I can tell, she is involvedhere in this edit war, and she over-stepped her bounds my protecting a page where she was clearly involved in this dispute. Blatantly improper move." -- that you were pissed at the other admin and I made a convenient target, as you and I have had differences on I-P articles in the past. Do you think it might be useful if editors/admins less invested/partisan regarding I-P articles looked at this dispassionately? And let me say again I realize I could have behaved better when the edit-warring started. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Again, more unfounded theories and more deflection. No, RomaC, I don't think it would be useful to waste more people's time with this. It was a 16-hour block, for Christ's sake. And your unblock request during the block was declined. And now the block's over. Get over it. -- tariqabjotu 15:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.RomaCTALK 03:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Regarding report
Hi Tariqabjotu. Would it be possible for you to give me an explanation on why my report [2] was not an edit war violation? As the other two editors involved on the page in question do not seem interested in any discussion about the content, would it also be possible for you to recommend where I should go from here? I am not sure what to do. Kind regards, VesaTen (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The three edits you mentioned in your report consisted of two reverts by the editor in question, spaced a week apart, and then another revert from a different editor. In the course of things, however, you reverted three times. So, I'm not sure why you expect me to block one or both of them, and not you. I skipped over reading your entire paragraph on AN3 as it was clear there was no violation, but I imagine -- if you really want to pursue the matter further -- you can open a request for comment. -- tariqabjotu 14:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply Tariqabjotu. However, I am still confused as the definition of edit warring as given on the edit warring noticeboard is "Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute." I did not think the number or time of edits would need to be taken into account for something to be considered edit warring (as I thought such considerations would be only necessary for 3RR reports), but that improper use of edits (such trying to force a page revision without entering discussion more than once, and showing bad faith) would also qualify. Kind regards, VesaTen (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
About the Geography section of Istanbul
No the reverts I made are not an attempt of arbitration enforcement. Otherwise the same editions and reverts can apply to you as well.
I reeadded the Geology Flora and Fauna sections because of their relevance.
Any body has the right to contribute and is not vandalism.
I absolutely did not and do not intend any edit war. But the editions and removals of the subsections you made in the Geography section is downsizing and not enriching the article. It may not sound important to you personally, but the flora and fauna sections and its diversity are very important aspects of the city, and ecologically very significant and I added credible academic references and try to continue to find more credible academic references.
The climate is a borderline case between mediterranean in the south and oceanic in the north. And not just one climate type exists there. Tha is how the clkimate of Istanbul is classified by Turkish meteorlogists, who are obviously no amateurs.
No. You have a very clear restriction placed against you, a very clear restriction that is not placed against me. You violated it, and you likely will be blocked. As has been explained numerous times, you have been unwilling to engage with other editors, especially me, on the talk page of the article. -- tariqabjotu 09:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately your reversions to the section of the article is done without any compromise and arbitration (I confess I did do the same as well nor talked beforeand nor afterwards to your talkpage as well) But you do not seem to be open or indeed tolerate any reversions and reeditions (In this case by me); however I now added more credible academic references and explanations to them. That is why I do not want to be rude, I hope I am mistaken, I think that you might abuse your status as an administrator, by not being flexible, just as was the case with me.
As I mentioned above even if it may not sound important to you personally, the (geology), flora and fauna sections and its diversity are very important aspects of the city, and ecologically very significant and I added credible academic references and try to continue to find more credible academic references.
There were so many accusations being flung in so many directions that I couldn't make sense out of them, and that diff I pointed at was one of the few I could unequivocally point at and say "no".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you message from user:hkwon for granting unblock request.
Thank you very much for granting my unblock request. You probably have taken lots of trouble reviewing all messages exchanged between me and others in order to make a fair decision. You gave me the faith that Wikipedia has the just and proper appeal process for users who were blocked or sanctioned unfairly/excessively. I would be certainly careful with my tone from now on, regardless of provocation. I would need to go back to the article kimchi to send my section draft to editors to keep my promise and, if necessary, to restore the opposing party's revert which was made during my absence without proper reasons. I am the one who initiated a consensus-gathering effort and requested a third opinion from other editors in this discussion. I will do my best to avoid another edit war. Hkwon (talk) 05:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this edit:
I realize that the FIFA World Cup has greater global recognition than most sporting events do. Having added it myself, I also realize that the ball is pictured.
However, such wording does not merely serve to specify the sport; it also is a means of linking to our article about the sport. If the sole objective were to identify potential unknowns, none of non-bold links (including one to 2010 FIFA World Cup) would be present.
Also note that we recently retained the "In tennis" wording while displaying photographs of French Open players holding tennis rackets on tennis courts (and have consistently acted in kind with other sports), so I'm not aware of any consensus/precedent for omitting such wording when the image renders the sport obvious. In addition to the aforementioned fact that identifying the sport isn't the only objective, we must keep in mind that not everyone sees the image (due to technical limitations and visual impairments). —David Levy 15:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think my perspective is particularly unusual or otherwise difficult to understand, but the way you approach it suggests I have to state the obvious. Basically, what I have always thought is that we write enough to convey the news item, and then see which links fit in based on that wording. Hence, your suggestion that 2010 FIFA World Cup would not be linked under my logic is clearly absurd.
And I see no reason to believe that people believe otherwise. The item, for example, used to link to extra time, but because someone thought that it was not essential to conveying the gist of the news item, it was removed (along with the link to overtime (sports)). Similarly, I'm quite certain we have added "In American football" before Super Bowl items largely due to complaints that not everyone knows about the Super Bowl. Similar goes for the NBA finals, and several other sports. Others, like Wimbledon, are probably known by most people, but it's included anyway, I suppose just in case. But the World Cup is so well known, it doesn't need it and it seems rather condescending to elaborate like that, particularly when we don't elaborate other lesser-known pieces of information.
Including an unneeded phrase just to link to a broad article about a topic people probably already know about does not appear to be standard on ITN. The point about the picture only drove things home; even without the picture, mentioning the sport is unnecessary (hence, why I didn't include it when initially adding the item). -- tariqabjotu 16:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
1. I'm a bit taken aback. My intention was to post a friendly explanation of my logic for adding the wording. I didn't wheel-war or rush to initiate a community discussion without consulting you. Instead, I came to your talk page to express my views, which I felt was the most courteous approach. I don't know what I did to provoke the above response, but I sincerely apologize if my message came across as some sort of attack.
2. I didn't mean to imply that "2010 FIFA World Cup would not be linked under [your] logic" (which surely doesn't include the belief that "the sole objective [is] to identify potential unknowns"). My point was merely that the added benefit of linking to a relevant article (even when its general subject can be presumed familiar) applies as much to the wording in question (assuming its presence) as it does to those other links.
3. As on prior occasions (e.g. 1, 2, 34), Tone performed that edit on the basis that "we never add results" (i.e. scores and other such specifics).
4. I don't assert that we should include such wording "just to link to" the article about the sport. I regard this as a significant benefit, but I also believe that specifying the sport is a sensible, clarity-conducive, harmless-at-worst practice (even when the event is widely known).
But I fully recognize the logic of your contrary position (as I tried to convey upfront) and certainly don't mean to suggest that it's strange or unreasonable. Sorry again for any offense caused. —David Levy 17:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Could you please notify these two of the arbcom sanction and logg it?
[4] "the Arab league?leaders who rides on camels with their national flag is not the world."
I'm not sure why you are deleting verbal's edit request. It is bad for to edit other user's comments. Directly responding seems to be the more genial approach. I've restored his comment. aprock (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't patronize me. It's not a "comment" that needs "direct responding" or a "more genial approach". It's a request for the article to be edited. When that request is accepted or rejected, it ought to be removed. That's the purpose of the template. -- tariqabjotu 16:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not patronizing you. I'm asking you to conform to policy on a controversial article that is currently in ArbCom. Looking at Template:Editrequest, your updated handling appears to be sufficient. Thank you. aprock (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense. You acted like I was some big, bad admin abusing his power by removing somebody's "comment" and demanded I take some "genial approach". When I point out that you don't know what you're talking about, you say, "oh, my problem all along was that you didn't keep the little {{editrequest}} text on the page" (something that (a) is only a recommendation and (b) nobody does in practice) and removing the evidence of your folly on your talk page. You were wrong. You don't need to admit it, but don't act like you're some defender of what's right. As I said, don't patronize me, and if that's too hard for you, quit commenting on my talk page. -- tariqabjotu 17:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand that you don't like people questioning your actions, but your characterisations here are more than a bit over the top. A more genial handling of these and related situations would be appreciated. aprock (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Please do not remove, revert or otherwise edit my comments again. Verbalchat 17:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
The block of Pantherskin
Hello Tariqabjotu. I believe the block you imposed on user:Tariqabjotu is extremely unfair. The user was engaged in the discussion on Neutral point of view, and the user clearly was not editing against the consensus. Edit warring involves more than one editor, as any warring does. Even if the block itself could be justified somehow, the time of the block could not. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's what Pantherskin said on WP:AN3 in response to the report against him:
I care what other editors have to say, but I do not care what the usual partisan pro/anti-Israel editors have to say. As so far only the usual partisan editors have shown up (i.e. you, Zero and Nableezy)...
Yes, he may have gone to the noticeboard, but I don't see how that is helpful at all. Further, I am practicing what I preach; this conflict area has marked as an area of intense conflict and there should be no tolerance for persistent edit warriors. To say nothing of Nableezy or anyone else's actions prior to this case, in this situation Pantherskin was clearly the primary edit warrior, reverting against against multiple editors (Supreme Deliciousness, Nableezy, Zero0000). -- tariqabjotu 18:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for responding my concern. I cannot agree with you on few points.
Pantherskin was absolutely right in the quote you provided. All mentioned users (Supreme Deliciousness, Nableezy, Zero0000) are "pro/anti-Israel editors." On the other hand it does not look as Pantherskin is a partisan editor. They are preaching almost the same things you do.
It does not matter how many users Pantherskin has reverted. Please take a look at Tag team characteristics. Besides, if you are to look at one of the article in question, you will see that other editor has reverted Nableezy already.
Are you calling admin Zero0000 a "tag teamer" ? Jiujitsuguy removed a quote from the Golan Heights article while adding "according to independent historians were of doubtful historical accuracy." [6] the same thing as Pantherskin did. Pantherskin was asked at the talkpage where in the source it says "according to independent historians were of doubtful historical accuracy." and he did not reply, Jiujitsuguy is continuing Pantherskins editing against what the sources say and once again as Pantherskin did without explaining his edits at the talkpage, and without getting consensus for its removal. And that was only one part of Jiujitsuguys editing, he also without discussion the change first put the Hebrew before Arabic:[7]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
This comment above from Mbz1 is not describing the situation at all or what Pantherskin did. Not only was he edit warring against several editors removing sourced information which he had no consensus for, when he got replys at the talkpage he did not answer to them and continued to edit war removing sourced information while not bringing any sources at all supporting his view, although he was asked at the talkpage to provide sources. And then he claimed we needed a RfC to re add the sourced information while him removing the sourced information bringing no source to support his view apparently didn't need a RfC. Also notice that it wasn't until after nableezy filed the edit warring report that Pantherskin opened a thread at the npov noticeboard. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I wish you responded to me. I have done some research that has proved my suspicion about tag team practice:
wikistalk shows that Pantherskin and Jiujitsuguy have worked on a total of only two articles.
On the other hand [8] Supreme Deliciousness and Nableezy worked together at around 80 articles in the mainspace alone.
[9]. More than 100 articles for Zero0000 & Nableezy working together.
[10] The three of them (Nableezy, Supreme Deliciousness, and Zero0000) have worked at 23 of the same articles. Besides as I mentioned above the time of the block is against the policy. Thanks. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Mbz1, please don't throw around accusations. I am interested in the A-I conflict, and so are many others. Are Breein1007 and Nsaum75 also tag teaming? [11] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
If the policy/guideline says 24 hours is standard for a first block, 30 hours is not excessive.
Your results show nothing regarding tag-team editing. Rather, they demonstrate nothing other than the fact that Nableezy, Supreme Deliciousness, and Zero0000 are interested in Israel and Palestine. That's not news. -- tariqabjotu 19:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, so the block has expired and I think we can move on. I do not agree with the block, but I understand that this how Wikipedia works. Admins enforce what can easily be seen (reverts), and usually do not enforce what is difficult to see (WP:V, WP:NPOV). That in no way is a criticism of Tariqabjotu, but a critiscm of Wikipedia. And I do not have a ready solution. I appreciate your comments Mbz1, and I do not appreciate the comments by Supreme Deliciousness which are distorting the facts. Pantherskin (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Additional note: Supreme Deliciousness had already to acknowledge that he used a fake source to push his POV, see [12] and [13]. Pantherskin (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
That wasn't the Dayan quote. Almost the entire discussion at Syria was about the Dayan quote and the entire discussion at Golan Heights was about the Dayan quote. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
My talk page is not an extension of the article talk pages. Considering Pantherskin has come to terms with the block, I don't think there's anything else to discuss here. -- tariqabjotu 21:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Noticeboard thread about RegentsPark
(Cross-posted to you and Basket of Puppies)
I’ve commented again in the administrators’ noticeboard thread about whether or not RegentsPark has misused his sysop powers. I’d appreciate it if you could continue to participate there, since it would bother me if this thread ends up being archived without any kind of resolution either way. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm somewhat bemused by your conclusion that Freakshownerd is exempt from 3RR simply because he or she invoked WP:BLP in six reversions during a 24-hour period. There was no BLP violation in the pre-existing text that I can see: text that has stood with minor alterations since at least 2005.
As documented by the sources (and others that could be provided on request), Johnson is both a creationist and a noted supporter of AIDS denialism. These verified matters were in the five-year-old consensus version of the lead until Freakshownerd deleted them last week.
Incidentally, referring to creationism or AIDS denial as out of the scientific mainstream, as evidenced by multiple sources, is not editorialising, per WP:FRINGE. To use an example I've used once already today, someone writing an article on a crystal healer would probably do well to note that crystal healing is not accepted by mainstream medicine. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Follow up
As per our last conversation, you might want to check User talk:Gwen Gale for the continued results of your very bad removal of the block that Gwen had given...it's now license to to be a WP:DICK, as opposed to just being a very disruptive editor overall. I don't usually disagree this much with my fellow admins, but the Verbal block on top of the block reversal - both with incredible amounts of valid discussion and information surrounding them - are a wee bit surprising. Hope you'll take a further look. (talk→BWilkins←track) 20:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Tombaker's first comment there is, yes, a bit dickish, but from my perspective, I don't see what's wrong with his follow-up comments. Obviously, I'm not familiar with the entire backstory, so perhaps there is something Tombaker has done that makes the block seem clearly worthy. That's the impression Gwen is giving off, and that also seems to be the impression you're giving off. But, I am not a mind reader. I cannot, for example, predict that upon unblocking him, Tombaker will make a dickish comment. And I cannot, for example, decipher "disruptive editing" to mean he did this and that and yada, yada for so long. I can look at his edits, and -- I know you'll say it -- I could have asked Gwen. But, Tombaker had asked for an explanation of why Gwen found him so disruptive. Gwen did not provide one. So, I see one of two things: either she was so intimately involved with Tombaker that she didn't feel it worth her time to provide an explanation, or there was no good reason for such a long block. Either, in my opinion, is worth an unblock, particularly after five days.
And let me say this for the record: I am sick of you analyzing every one of my admin actions and comparing it to this unblock. The editor had been blocked for five days; you're nitpicking about 24-hour and 30-hour blocks. I understand you're a talk page stalker, and maybe even a contributions stalker, and I understand you and Gwen may be buddies, but please stop beating the dead horse. No, I did not link incorrectly. -- tariqabjotu 21:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Nice, friendly. By the way, no need to recopy things onto my talkpage: I keep discussions in one place, and watch them accordingly. (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Right, of course, you are a talk page stalker... -- tariqabjotu 21:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
When I start a discussion, I stick around to contribute - that's the usual way. Doesn't mean I'm stalking, merely that I'm awaiting a reply - keeps things together. If you've read any of my essays, you'll know I have no "buddies". All of us have people who stalk their talkpage, especially to remove the regular vandalism; in fact, I'm sometimes surprised by who drops by to undo some loser's attempt at puerile humour...you likely have quite a few, based on your tenure around here. It's odd that we never ran into each other before - but twice in less than a week we cross paths twice, and not in what I would call a positive way. I typically support my admin colleagues in their actions - and if needed, maybe exchange e-mails if I have concerns - after all, we can all learn from each other. (talk→BWilkins←track) 21:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you not recall that you have the talk page stalker template on your page and the nature of the talk page stalker page? -- tariqabjotu 22:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
*sigh* Yes, I know what's on my userpage. Hard to tell by your writing whether you were trying to be funny or not, as per the nature of the TPS page - based on your post immediately before that, there was no ability to assume pleasantness or humour ... (talk→BWilkins←track) 23:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
At least your above comment clarifies whether you were being sarcastic in your first edit summary and response. -- tariqabjotu 23:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The world needs a "sarcasm" font ;-) (talk→BWilkins←track) 23:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I know that aside from editing ITN and your work as an admin, you also have/had dealings with Media, Commons, Wiki-news and other trans-wiki projects so I figured you (also) might be the person to ask... (I also asked HJ, but that's all. I don't spam)
My question is this: Most of the stories either posted, nominated or blurbed on WP:ITN are stories dealing with foreign countries or policies of foreign governments (Foreign in the sense of countries not the U.S. or the U.K.), and while we strive to check our facts by sourcing, sometimes even the international media does not give a clear picture of the situation. Given that, I was wondering if it would be possible/feasible to compile a list of editors from different language versions of WP that are bilingual in English so that we could ask them directly and clear up common misconceptions of stories before they get posted.
Something of a wild idea I'll admit, but you can see an example of this under the nomination of the Bullfighting Ban in Catalonia. MickMacNee posted the info that several municipalities in Spain had already banned the sport, (sounds true, but hard to check), but a user named Vilar posted that indeed it is not quite true as (other than the Canary Islands) there are Anti-Bullfighting Cities, but not formal bans. His user page says he is actually from Spain and therefore he is most probably correct in this matter. To wit: if we had access to editors from different countries who were bilingual in English, then we could instantly check the accuracy of any story first-hand; not as an article writing tool, merely as a fact-checking mechanism.
Would this be at all possible or even advisable? It could certainly help us find sources on less-then-covered stories and would open up a new route for cross-wiki interaction. Thoughts? Cwill151 (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Obviously you don't want to respond and that's totally fine... I know you're busy and this was probably just a waste of your time. My apologies... (I'll delete this when next I have access to a computer as all I have now is an iPad and they don't delete partially). Sorry to take your time and space. Cheers! Cwill151 (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for revert ecko1o1's vandalism. You missed one his IPs (121.134.92.195). Elockid and I have dealt with a similar sockpuppet (Nangparbat). In Nangparbat's case, it was determined to long-term semi-protect all the articles they vandalized or smeared with POV edits. I think it might be a good idea to do the same to Asian American. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't quite miss it; I saw it was there, and considered a range block, but decided against it. I could easily semi-protect the page too, but I'm intentionally giving him an opening (not necessarily there). I want to see whether s/he truly has an intention to cease edit-warring. Another block evasion will simply lead to an indefinite block (and, of course, a closing of the loopholes). -- tariqabjotu 01:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
edl
the edl page was protected untill the 29th, its the 29th today and its still locked why? question answerd don't worrySlatersteven (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Monty Hall Problem
Hi there! Regarding your protection of Monty Hall problem for a month, do you think it would be possible to unprotect it? I see that most of the dispute surrounding the article has been resolved, and many improvements could be made. For your info, I have made a request at WP:RFPP. Thanks! -download ׀ sign! 00:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Uh... it's been unprotected for over twenty-four hours now. -- tariqabjotu 08:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Decline on AN3
Hi Tariq. Thanks for looking into my request on AN3. I am, however, a little perplexed by the reasoning for your decline. I absolutely agree that the dispute itself is stupid, but the edit war is problematic. I've asked Til to discuss his request on the article talk page, which he refuses to do. As a result, at this point I'm left with two options. One is to allow him to make the change without establishing consensus (and against policy on date formats), or two, I can engage in an edit war. Considering Til has been blocked on 3 separate occasions for this behavior, refuses to engage in discussion, and has 4 reverts in 30 hours, I wasn't expecting a decline. Could you explain why an edit war violation (and violating the spirit of 3rr) isn't sufficient in this case? Thanks so much.
"I've asked Til to discuss his request on the article talk page, which he refuses to do." As do you.
"One is to allow him to make the change without establishing consensus (and against policy on date formats)..." Wait, where and when did you get consensus? And how is your reverting in line with policy? On the contrary, it seems quite clear that policy would support the use of BC/AD, regardless of Til's additional motives so adamantly insisting it be that way.
"Considering Til has been blocked on 3 separate occasions for this behavior..." So?
"refuses to engage in discussion" Again, pot calling kettle black.
"and has 4 reverts in 30 hours" Not faring much better yourself. -- tariqabjotu 15:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I was just asking for clarification on the ruling, not trying to get into an argument regarding the content dispute, but ok.
I wasn't the initial revert, nor was I asked to discuss on talk. I'm planning to open discussion there anyway, but I wanted this to blow over first, since otherwise it'll serve to create drama and little else. In any case, when Til's change opposes that of two other editors, and he's asked to discuss before re-reverting, the appropriate response is not to ignore discussion requests and re-revert. This is unconstructive, and specifically what 3rr is about.
I didn't say I got consensus. I said there was no consensus for the original change. This is not Til's problem, but it's a problem with the article. The date precedent has been stable since at least 2006 as BCE, until it was recently changed this year without consensus. Another editor caught the change, and appropriately reverted it. It would be inappropriate to simply assume that, since Til wants it to be BC and is refusing to discuss, and I don't want to violate policy and edit war, we should just let him change it.
So, he is edit warring now... and has a history of edit warring in the past (including recently) which he's been blocked for on 3 occasions... I'd rather not explicitly detail how this is relevant, as it would be needlessly accusatory... but it seems pretty plain to me. Is there a reason previous blocks for continued disruptive behavior isn't relevant?
I covered this in 1.
I have 3 reverts in 30 hours, and was not the first revert. I provided specifics for my stance in edit summaries, including specific policies and revision IDs, and now (rather than re-reverting... even though it wouldn't be a technical violation of 3rr) I'm pursuing alternatives. To say that I'm not working constructively, or am violating policy, would be need some justification.
Again, I'm really not looking to discuss the content... just the basis for the ruling. I don't understand why "the dispute is silly" is a valid rationale for a ruling on edit warring. That there hasn't been a "technical" violation of 3rr is a valid rationale, but as explicitly specified on WP:AN3 and Template:uw-3rr, WP:EW can be violated without 4 reverts in 24 hours. 4 reverts in 30 hours certainly qualifies... so I'm confused as to why a clear violation of edit warring (not 3rr) was declined. I don't mean to sound rude, as I do appreciate you taking time to look into it... but the ruling was very much unexpected, and my actions going forward are kind of limited at this point.
Where did you see a significant enough problem on that page to justify a two week complete lock? Theres a fairly involved conversation going on on the talk page for a while now on the neutrality of the article name vs other creation myths, but actual warring on the page isn't really a problem. Virtually all creation/evolution/pseudoscience articles have this level of reverts with requests to take things to talk page first. Thats common practice, changes like that generally require talk page discussion. I'd like to know what you thought was so bad to justify the lock before I take it to RPP for review. — raekyT 18:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Is it standard practice for admins, or just you, to completely ignore people? — raekyT 22:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Believe it or not, I do not edit Wikipedia 24/7. I have made all but three edits since you posted your request, and all of them were today. However, your secondary comment above ensures that no, I will not be responding to you. -- tariqabjotu 22:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I previously edited (and reverted) the climate section...
I previously edited (and reverted) the climate section of Istanbul according to credible and verifiable scientific sources and websites.
I reverted the climate section of Istanbul to the edition I did, because the statistics about the weather are from two noverifable travel site (I did mot remove them however, but unfortunately there is no link to its original source, and in the other travel site it is not stated at all. Nevertheless I removed the number of days of snow, fog, thunderstorms etc. because numbers are subject to change and vary constantly; the important feature is the occurence of certain weather phenomenon in this case snow, fog, thunderstorms etc. and not the overemphasis on the number of days). I also added new revised data of the annual preciptation that has been released by the Turkish State Meteorological Service this year in 2010. Ultimately the reference from the World Meteorological Organization is based on climate data released by the Turkish State Meteorological Service (and from official meteorological websites in general).
I added references that are and should only be from official meteorological sources/websites - and not from dubious and unreferenced travel websites, from which the the statistics about the weather and climate of Istanbul were put.
When describing the weather of a city, plain and clear language should be used, not the overflowing langauge frequently used in travel websites.
Official data about the weather statistics and climate of is Istanbul are only taken from the weather stations of the Istanbul Regional Directorate within the city limits: e.g. Göztepe, Sarıyer which are quite close to the traditional city center (in the European side), due to the greatly varying precipitation and temperature levels in the city.
Here are the sources which I added from the Turkish State Meteorological Service about the Average Annual Precipitation and the Extreme Values Measured in Istanbul Regional Directorate (Göztepe) (In Tukish only):
What the hell are you talking about? It's your version, your reversions which keep introducing poor, unreliable sources. I keep trying to remove them and rewrite the section to sound more educated, but you keep insisting on reinstating this kindergarten-level English with choppy sentences and blogspam references. There is no excuse for it.
This is the English Wikipedia, and when there are reliable English sources which support a claim, they should be given precedence. It's very hard for readers to verify information not written in their language, and I can see from here that the sentence "The highest recorded temperature was 40.5 °C (105 °F) on 12 July 2000, and the lowest recorded temperature was −16.1 °C (3 °F) on 9 February 1927." is not supported by the source. An exception can be made for the Turkish Meteorological Authority, but the site you referenced contains no information about temperatures. Therefore, you are forcing the article to use two sources to generate the climate table. This simply leads to confusion, particularly because the Turkish Meteorological Authority suggests that the city gets 150 mm more rain than noted by the WMO, the BBC, and other reasonably reliable sources for weather stats.
If you want to rewrite the section so it's not as heavy on numbers, be my guess, but it is very difficult to cite "The weather in Istanbul is pleasant year-round." Average numbers are easy to cite and adequately depict the climate in a manner that isn't editorializing. If we were to go by logic, where numbers don't matter, we wouldn't even include a climate table. But, as I said, you are welcome to try. But quit degrading the article by insisting it employ one-sentence paragraphs and gutter references. -- tariqabjotu 11:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for not responding to you sooner, because I do not visit Wikipedia on a daily basis, and the last time I logged in was in 2 August 2010 when I wrote in your talk page, about this topic.
The references I put are from the the Turkish State Meteorological Service (meteor.gov.tr), which is a professional academic Turkish government bureau that produces the latest meteorological and climactic data of Turkey. Their observations and classifications, are constantly revised.
As I mentioned above, the reference from the World Meteorological Organization is based on climate data released by the Turkish State Meteorological Service. The new revised data released by them in 2010 , is however only about the annual precipitation of Istanbul, which is the only edition I did in the climate graph of the city. This newly released information has not yet been updated by the World Meteorological Organization.
(Official data about the weather statistics and climate of is Istanbul are taken from the weather stations of the Istanbul Regional Directorate only within the city limits: e.g. Göztepe and Sarıyer).
Although my intention is to reference the statistics and data from credible academic sources, the problem is that some of the verifiable scientific sources I added are not in English. Unfortunately most of the data published by the Turkish Meteorological Authority is in Turkish (including the reference about the weather extremes), and the vast majority of readers will not be able to follow these information.
What is the Wikipedia policy on non-English sources even though they are from credible academic websites and can these sources stay?
