User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive Forty-Six

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Point

Somebody was talking about the Jewish/Muslim day being spread over 2 different days. I was pointing out that any day is spread over 2 different days in any other calendar or time zone. Peter jackson (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, now I've thought about it a bit more & looked up some data, I can go further. To simplify things, ignore summer time & take the Jewish/Muslim day as beginning at 6pm & the Hindu at 6am. Then

  1. When the 20th starts for Jews & Muslims in Kiritimati it is 11pm on the 18th in New York
  2. When the 20th ends for Hindus in Hawaii it is 1am on the 22nd in Japan.

So you might say that 1 day spreads over 5. Peter jackson (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I am extremely confused as to what you're saying. There is nothing wrong with saying that a Jewish holiday begins at sunset on May 18, because no matter where in the world you are, when the sun sets there for May 18, the Jewish day will begin and, thus, the holiday will begin. The question was whether to mention these holidays on both the (Gregorian) day of the sunset marking the start of the holiday or the following (Gregorian) day, which is usually more associated with the holiday. Right now, the standard way is to mention the holiday on both days, and that's fine. From one location, a Jewish or Muslim day transcends two Gregorian days, from the sunset of the first Gregorian day to the sunset of the second Gregorian day.
Also I think you are confusing matters further by suggesting that the Jewish and Muslim calendars have similar numbering to the Gregorian calendar; it's the 20th day of the month now in the Gregorian calendar, but it's only the seventh day of the month in the Jewish and Muslim calendars. I'm not sure about the Hindu calendar, but I'm skeptical it's the 20th day of month in their system. -- tariqabjotu 10:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I was just throwing out some interesting things to ponder.
Hindus, like Jews & Muslims, use a calendar where the "months" really are months, that is they're based on the phases of the moon. On the other hand, their version is more astronomical, starting from the moment of conjunction rather than the first visibility of the crescent, so I'm not sure whether they could correspond. Peter jackson (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Didn't this originally arise out of On this day? Does Wikipedia have some mechanism for changing that to fit the reader's time zone? Or is it only "on this day" always for people living in one zone? Peter jackson (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

2010 Fuzhou train derailment

I was in the process of making a couple edits to the layout when you posted on my talk page. Should have done those things in reverse order, though, consolidated and then posted, sorry. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks okay now, I suppose. -- tariqabjotu 10:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Goldstone update

You responded to an AN3 alert concerning Richard Goldstone a week ago; the article's protection is due to expire shortly. I've been working on revising and greatly expanding the article in my userspace (see User:ChrisO/Goldstone) and will copy the new text over when protection is lifted. Hopefully it will move things forward a bit. However, I expect that a handful of editors will continue to push for the inclusion of problematic material, and this may cause further problems. I'd be grateful if you could continue to monitor the article and, where necessary, take action to resolve any problematic editing. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, I've extended the protection with the aim of hearing more opinions on ChrisO's proposed re-write. You might also be interested in this thread on my talk page. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I assume there's nothing I need to do now... -- tariqabjotu 23:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

RFPP

Just to point out that I had already annotated 2 of the 5 reports that you marked in this edit; you overwrote one of my edits (One Time) and unnecessarily duplicated a second (Louis Mountbatten), so I assume that you didn't get an edit conflict for some strange reason. (As it happens, I got an edit conflict with you when about to annotate a third report). So the situation wasn't quite as bad as you thought! Regards, BencherliteTalk 23:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I did get an edit conflict, but I intentionally copied my version of the text over the present text at the time because it would have taken awhile to copy the notice one by one into each section again (and because the result would have effectively been the same). The duplication for the Louis Mountbatten occurred, I'm certain, because I just put the {{RFPP}} in on the last line without realizing you had placed one there just seconds before me. The situation is still as bad as I thought, though. You didn't protect any of those pages; the admins who respond to the requests should note that they have been handled so others don't waste their time. -- tariqabjotu 23:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Well I agree with you there - I saw the call at AN or ANI (I forget which) for more hands to the pump at RFPP, turn up and spend my first few minutes trying to find an article that hasn't been protected! So you and I both spend time unnecessarily marking protected pages; although (of course) there is always the possibility that the admins in question saw the edit history through other methods e.g. through their watchlists or by direct request, and didn't realise that there was an unmarked RFPP entry. BencherliteTalk 23:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Selected Anniversaries May 25

I don't understand why you changed the May Revolution entry. It is far more informative and precise in the previous version. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 00:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It was also much longer. -- tariqabjotu 00:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Not that much. And 10 more words are surely worth the difference. --IANVS (talk | cont) 00:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but it got vandalized again

Thank you very much for protecting User:AshtonBenson as I requested! The content of the page which I asked you to protect contained criticism of an admin. That very same admin has deleted the content from the page you protected. Would you mind restoring the content of the page to its original state? I think it is blatantly and egregiously inappropriate for an admin to delete content which is critical of himself/herself (obvious conflict of interest there!). You may leave the block in place -- I am not requesting that you remove the block -- only that you restore the deleted text. Thank you very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.173.208.77 (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Block review typo?

[1]

I think that's what you meant? FT2 (Talk | email) 09:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You might also want to suggest to him what he needs to do, to be unblocked - for example "I would be prepared to consider unblocking you if...." FT2 (Talk | email) 09:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

London block

Hello, Tariqabjotu-

Regarding the "London" article, are you an/the administrator who has blocked all editing on the article? TWO editors have reverted Space25689's edit, which has taken a non-neutral stance and should really be discussed on the "Talk:London"page first. If the article is to be locked, it should be locked in the version prior to his original edit.

Thanks.

Thmc1Thmc1 (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

Cher

Thanks. The problem as I see it is that the other editor is in Russia, based on the location of the IP that first started the whole issue. I think he has adequate English skills, but I'm not convinced he understands the subtleties of the whole thing. I posted a long explanation of why his edits were wrong and the problems with them and he stopped responding and didn't edit. Then the next day, he forges on with his edits and when I posted again on Talk:Cher, he posted the same arguments he had the night before and all I could do was repeat what I'd said the night before. He didn't apparently get the basic idea that Warner Bros. UK is not the same as Warner Bros. US, for example. I don't think he really does understand the concept of consensus, that 3RR is a bright line rule and I have a bit of a doubt that he really "gets" it. When someone else reverted him too, he just kept right on. That's why I posted the "you DO understand" 3 reverts and you've done 6 sort of post to him, hoping it would gel. Since he reverted others too, I am sure he doesn't get it. I predict he'll be back and he'll do the same things again. In any case, thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Better Luck Tomorrow

Hi Tariqabjotu,
could you revisit the Better Luck Tomorrow section at WP:RFPP. Talkbacking you since replies there tend to get missed. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 11:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw what you did there when I attempted to address the RPP request regarding the template, and I have to say it's a really tough call. Based on what I saw at the Better Luck Tomorrow article, there was no basis at all for the addition of the template, and the IP gave no reason for doing so. However, based on what he (very recently) said on the talk page, there appears to at least be some remotely understandable reason why that should be put in the article. Still, I just felt no pressing reason to upgrade the article to full protection. But, if you want I could change it. -- tariqabjotu 13:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it would have helped if the IP had mentioned that in one of the early edit summaries.
I'll just keep both pages watchlisted and see what happens. I'll expect that article to get one more reversion, but seeing that I already protected the wrong version of the template that's only fair. ;)
Cheers, Amalthea 14:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

AN3/User:108.2.200.127, et al.

Hi Tariqabjotu,

You recently made a No violation determination for an edit war I posted about for Malta Boat Club. I understand that it is not a 3RR violation, but I am not sure how to proceed without violating the rule myself. Any guidance you could provide would be greatly appreciated. The entire issue can be viewed here in my attempt to contact the editor whose edits I found objectionable. Should I throw in the towel and allow the editor to obscure the club's connection to Mark Gerban or do I just continue to revert the edit until there is a bright-line rule violation?

Thanks,

Ciricula (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Update: another editor reverted the problem edit here, but I still would appreciate direction on how to handle this when the content is deleted again. Ciricula (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what you're worried about; you're not close to breaking the three-revert rule at all, and I'd hardly consider what you're doing now edit-warring. You tried to contact him on the talk page five days ago, and he hasn't responded. So, it's not like you've done anything wrong. It's just that there has been very little activity coming from this user, especially in recent hours. So, as with some other forms of disruption, there's nothing drastic enough happening here for me to see a reason to intervene, and there's certainly no 3RR/edit-warring violation. -- tariqabjotu 00:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Carl Levin

I have apologized to Steelbeard1 for edit warring. You were right to block me. Thanks for your intervention. I am the Botendaddy 17:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Your work has been undone -- please help!

Thank you very much for protecting User:AshtonBenson as I requested! The content of the page which I asked you to protect contained criticism of an admin. That very same admin has deleted the content from the page you protected. Would you mind restoring the content of the page to its original state? I think it is blatantly and egregiously inappropriate for an admin to delete content which is critical of himself/herself (obvious conflict of interest there!). You may leave the block in place -- I am not requesting that you remove the block -- only that you restore the deleted text. Thank you very much! — AshtonBenson (70.36.134.194 (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC))

Arbitration enforcement re User:Wikifan12345 et al

As you're one of the three admins who responded to the earlier AN3 report concerning BLP problems on Richard Goldstone, I thought I should notify you that I have filed an arbitration enforcement request concerning ongoing repeated violations of multiple Wikipedia policies by four editors. You can read the request at WP:AE#Wikifan12345 et al. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Gaza flotilla clash

Greetings,

I have addressed your message at my talk page, as it's easier to follow the thread on a single talk page. Regards, ליאור (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Cyclone Laila

Hi Tariq. This is regarding my edit to captioned article that you undid. Cyclone names in Indian ocean region are not necessarily named after person's names. I am especially speaking for Pakistani/Indian names (myself being a native Urdu language speaker). Example in case are list of North Indian Ocean storm names; Pakistani contributed names in List 7 is Titli, meaning Butterfly, which is never used as a female name. Similarly List 8 has Bulbul, named after a bird (I don't know its english name). To further prove my point, please see the article on last cyclonic storm named by Pakistan, Cyclone Nargis. If you read the third paragraph, it says the name has meaning Daffodil, which is sourced from a news website. Therefore, I suggest that my contribution regarding the name meaning be re-added. I am not doing it myself before I have your approval. Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remukhan (talk • contribs) 12:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaza Flotilla Crash

User:Kasaalan is making multiple reverts to remove material about the political (Islamist) affiliations of the owner/sponsoring urkish organization of the ship involved in the fighting.Broad Wall (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you point to some diffs? It's very difficult to wade through the article's history. -- tariqabjotu 15:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The offending editor is User:Kslotte my error.

14:36, 1 June 2010 Kslotte (talk | contribs) (56,740 bytes) (→Ships in the flotilla: re-structure) ( [[2]] about half-way down the page, where the left hand column is entitled "Islamist links".

14:50, 1 June 2010 Kslotte (talk | contribs) (56,325 bytes) (revert; re-structuring to have proper layout) (undo) [[3]] removing same material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broad Wall (talk • contribs) 15:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay; well, I blocked Kslotte ten minutes ago. -- tariqabjotu 15:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The material Kslotte removed is still gone. How does it get back into the article?Broad Wall (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
    • How does it get back into the article? Consensus. -- tariqabjotu 15:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Tariqabjotu. You have new messages at Ciricula's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

Can you review Ai 00's edits to the Gaza flotilla raid page?

I've once again removed the 'armada of hate' bit.

Not all the edits Ai 00 made are necessarily bad, but I'm concerned there may be a pattern of inserting NPOV language.

However I don't have a long history as a wikipedia editor and I don't feel that I'm qualified to determine if the edits should result in a ban as per the 1RR policy. Zuchinni one (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but it got vandalized again

Thank you very much for protecting User:AshtonBenson as I requested! The content of the page which I asked you to protect contained criticism of an admin. That very same admin has deleted the content from the page you protected. Would you mind restoring the content of the page to its original state? I think it is blatantly and egregiously inappropriate for an admin to delete content which is critical of himself/herself (obvious conflict of interest there!). You may leave the block in place -- I am not requesting that you remove the block -- only that you restore the deleted text. Thank you very much! 24.15.171.123 (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

I wasn't edit warring against myself. Way to ignore the person who was reverting my changes and also broke 3RR. It really gives a lot of insight into the quality of your investigation into my behaviour and your overall tendencies as an admin. Thanks a lot. You're doing a wonderful job. Breein1007 (talk) 06:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

And FYI, aside from the many people you have blocked since 1RR was put in place, you missed a BIG handful of people who violated 3RR before. But since you carefully reviewed the edit history before you blocked me, I guess you already knew that? Breein1007 (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I am still waiting for your response regarding the user who was edit warring against me and violated 3RR without any consequences. Breein1007 (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaza flotilla raid

FYI, user:IANVS has repeatedly violated 1RR on this article since you released his block (see the article history). I am not a disinterested party. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't mind if I'm blocked. But please take into account: Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Undoing_changes_in_the_lead_unless_discussed_first and this: Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Several POV issues on most recent lead edition. Thanks, --IANVS (talk | cont) 02:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The edit-warring was so flagrant -- I see four reverts in less than twelve hours -- that it doesn't matter what was said in those threads. -- tariqabjotu 07:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Admin, I kindly ask you to do pay close attention to Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Undoing_changes_in_the_lead_unless_discussed_first and this: Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Several POV issues on most recent lead edition. At least for the sake of Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means that "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both." This does seem a bit unfair really. IANVS has been doing a good job at the article. Even if you would like to block him, please consider shortening the length of the block. Thank you for your attention in advance. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If I should be formally bringing things like this to a noticeboard, please tell me. User:Physchim62 seems to be violating 1RR (see history). Also, and perhaps I'm being unusually sensitive, I consider the statement "Get a brain, mate" [4] to be a personal attack. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Henrik's google search

You appear to have User:Henrik/sandbox/google-search in your monobook.js. It now seems to work in the new Vector skin, should that be of use to you. If so, load the updated code from Henrik's page into your vector.js page, clear the cache, and you should be away. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

Listing countries at ITN

Please see my response at WT:ITN. Sorry I came off as overbearing. SpencerT♦Nominate! 19:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive_Forty-Six&oldid=1076085909"