:I find some similarities between the two accounts, but [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar|a request for checkuser]] reveals that it is ''unlikely'' they're maintained by the same person. Regardless, please do not levy attacks against Indian people; those kinds of comments do not lend to civil discussion. -- '''[[User:Tariqabjotu|<font color="black">tariq</font><font color="gray">abjotu</font>]]''' 01:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
:I find some similarities between the two accounts, but [[Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar|a request for checkuser]] reveals that it is ''unlikely'' they're maintained by the same person. Regardless, please do not levy attacks against Indian people; those kinds of comments do not lend to civil discussion. -- '''[[User:Tariqabjotu|<font color="black">tariq</font><font color="gray">abjotu</font>]]''' 01:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
==Jerusalem==
[[Jerusalem]]
Hello Tariqabjotu
Please look more carefully, it was my work on [[Jerusalem]] that has been reverted by [[User:Amoruso]] and [[User:Okedem ]] simply because of their blatant POV, you can check where they come from.
"I look upon all creatures equally; none are less dear to me and none more dear." -- Bhagavad Gita
S-Protect of AVR Butterfly
Thanks you for agreeing to semi-protect AVR Butterfly. When will this take effect? As I mentioned in the RfSP the same user/links have been added to the Atmel AVR. So far the unregistered user has resorted in insults on the accompnying talk page. I am trying to create aa discussion about the matter. I would like to request Semi-Protection for Atmel AVR as well. Would you be able to do that or shoudl I post my request on the Wikipedia Request for Protection page. --Rehnn83 13:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
link colors
Hi, its me scrumshus again, all grown up. I was wondering (since you're the most knowledgable person i know on wikipedia) if there is a way to change all link colors in a page. not each link seperatly, but as a whole, because on my page, the blue links dont reflect on the black and gray too well. thnx for reading, Good 'Ol scrumshusTalk to me23:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have only blanked that which I contributed as Administrator Zoe, Laughing and Frelang do not appreciate my original research, I am retracting all my contributions. You will see this at the WP AB Dudedontworry05:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your WP:AN/I Comment
Hi, regarding to your comment at the WP:AN/I as "From what I have personally seen from these two users (particularly on Babur prior to its protection), they have been quite incivil and disruptive. I support the idea", i have a feeling that you might have missed or forget the case. Could please review the Babur article's talk page and clarify who is distruptive and who is incivil explicitly? I'm the one who is continuosly attacked by that user, and that user was blocked for this reason [1]. Unfortunately, I edit/revert warred with that user (i reverted to Sikandarji's version) [2], but never be impolite to anyone. The case is also similar in the Ephthalites article (i reverted to Sikandarji's compromise version) [3]. Edit/revert warring is a quite different issue than incivility and disruption, i think. I shall greatly appreciate if you'd be kind enough to explain your comment at the WP:AN/I. Regards. E10442109:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tariqabjotu, I'd like to once again request your expertise in move discussions to give me a second opinion on this issue. In this controversial poll proposed by user Endroit, the result seems to have been "no consensus" (at least I would have closed it as "no consensus" if I hadn't participated in it). Nonetheless, user Endroit himself decided to close the poll as "oppose", which is actually the position he defended throughout the poll. Was this a proper procedure? It looked very unorthodox to me and I contacted him asking for the poll to be reopened until an outside admin close it. Could you please give me your frank opinion about this situation? Sorry for the trouble. Thank you. Best regards,--Húsönd15:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no set manner to close a move poll. Normally, when the poll results in over 60% supporting, I say support. For 40-60%, I say no consensus and for less than 40%, I say no move. However, the latter two don't really have much of a difference. Regardless, it probably would not have been a good idea for Endroit to close the poll in his favor, but he did make the correct decision. Someone else asked me about the poll conclusion, and I will take care of that. -- tariqabjotu16:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your intervention. Endroit took this issue to WP:AN, which is good to get more independent feedback. By the way, we have different established bordelines for consensus. I usually recognize consensus only when one position nears the double of the other. Regards.--Húsönd17:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hello from Calgary, Canada - and thank you - to all the users for the copyright comments on my digital photo and scan images
I have modified the copyright note - and realize anything could happen to the images in the world of neutral-evil aligned Wikipedia users - who are obssessed with factual articles and publishing quality graphics - and at the same time don't know the difference between art, anarchy, and Freeedom!. Copyright tagging and image work still in progress.--John Zdralek22:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am telling you, "You" are Time Person of the Year! Stop deleting it, I had a source! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pelhamgop (talk • contribs).
Yes; I noticed and merged the sections. In my opinion, Husnock's behavior is becoming increasingly disruptive and his self-unblock was wrong, but a month-long block is a bit excessive and futile given he's stepping out of Wikipedia. If this were a normal user, I would have suggested the protection of his userpage, but I'm almost certain Husnock would defy that. So, I'll have to think about this one... -- tariqabjotu05:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok, I just grouped the sections together as subsections to preserve the links to them, and make it a little clearer where the various posts begin and end. You're welcome to comment on the block if you think it was excessive, I'm standing in a certain position and I may not have the same view as everyone else, that's the whole idea of reviewing significant blocks there :) --bainer (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's a good trick. The other reason though that I thought they would be better separate is just to make it clear where my post begins, but if you like it better as a single section that's ok. --bainer (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mount Hood proseline
I'm curious about this edit you made to Mount Hood. You made another edit which I understand and agree with, as that part of the article frequently needs cleanup. However the first section (Incident history) should tend to be stable. Do you think it should be refactored as a separate list article? Or, at the other extreme, be combined into a paragraph detailing the accidents? — EncMstr08:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks, I was looking for what template to use there, but came up empty-handed. I guess you've tagged all of them by now, or do you need me to do it? Thanks again. —Pilotguy (ptt)01:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a result of reverting systemic blanking of certain comments by a banned user, I've had to remove a few edits you made (due to edit conflicts) on ANI. I apologise, and ask if you could kindly reinstate them. Thanks and sorry. – Chacor02:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll only re-instate my comment if Sandy re-instates her link to that site with images similar to the one that appeared on Today's Featured Article. Frankly, I'd prefer if she did not do that. -- tariqabjotu02:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since no edits have been made to the discussions for at least two days, would you be in favour of lowering the protection on the article, either to unprotected, or semi-protected and just block edit-warring parties in future? I ask only because I'm not in favour of having pages fully protected for any significant amount of time - it's more harmful in the long run in my opinion - the edit warring is unfortunate, but full protection is completely restrictive and doesn't seem to have helped the situation move forward. As the protecting admin I thought I'd come to you before I went to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Thanks. QmunkE15:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps after a couple more days I'll unprotected. The last time the article was unprotected, editors quickly began edit-warring again. -- tariqabjotu13:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are probably quite a few moves that have yet to be performed. I closed the move, moved a couple, and then intentionally stopped since there are a heck of a lot of pages to move. If editors interested in particular articles related to programming languages want to fulfill the move request, they are free to do so. -- tariqabjotu02:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask why? You do not have to reply if you do not want to. But replying will clear my confusion. Btw I really wished and waited anxiously for your reply during your nomination for admin too, but you never replied there. --- ALM15:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What a horrible image!! Noty exactly what you want to see at Christmas or any time! I thought the main page was immune from such edits Ernst Stavro Blofeld 15:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
THanks for releieving my eyes anyway. Man that must have seriuosly hurt! Ernst Stavro Blofeld15:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody – myself included. I certainly don't intend to direct it at any one person. Even a non-administrator can leave a request for page protection or a message on the administrators' noticeboard if they spot a page that needs it. It's my fault as much as it's anyone else's fault. However, it's not an area I have any involvement with, and I don't expect to have to do everything myself. The Main Page gets millions of hits a day, and it simply should not be possible for someone to shove a penis in the public face of Wikipedia – Gurch18:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed my name got into this conversation. I will admit that I missed protecting those templates that the penis vandal got, both the December 15 SA and the December 24 POTD. But Gurch has a valid point that it is essentially the whole community's fault. Because it got to a point where only one user, me, was monitoring the main page protections. That in my opinion is unacceptable for an important page like the main page. Not only was there not another Wikipedian to double check myself, but what could have happened if I got too busy or went on a wikibreak -- and all of the templates and images for a particular day was not protected? So hopefully, more eyes and a new bot will prevent it from ever happening again. Regards, Zzyzx11(Talk)06:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you're aware of the extreme vandalism that occurred around 15:30 (UTC), but it's discussed on Talk:Main Page, WP:AN, and WP:ANI. The vandalism was especially hard to detect, so I looked through the history of the Main Page to see if there was a version that would not have the vandalized template. Reverting the Main Page to the previous version did not actually do anything, but it appeared to fix the issue because when I had checked the previous version, the image had been removed (unbeknownst to me) from the vandalized template. So, I reverted. However, by the time I went to check the Main Page again, the image was re-added to the previously vandalized template. Thus, it was back, leaving me confused as to how that happened. I checked WP:ANI and saw that someone had pointed out Wikipedia:POTD row/December 24, 2006 as the vandalized template. I protected the page and blocked the vandal. Someone got around to reverting my reversion on the Main Page before I could. I checked the history of Wikipedia:POTD row/December 24, 2006 and saw that the vandalism was being eliminated while I was performing my Main Page revert. -- tariqabjotu22:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you just blocked this user (presumably for blanking {{PRODWarning}}). In my experience, blanking a warning template is usually a symptom of being a new user and not understanding MediaWiki very well. Since this user's only other contrib was creating an article which was speedied, an indef block without warning seems a bit harsh. What ever happened to assume good faith and don't bite the newcomers? Am I missing something here? --Dgies01:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Tariq. Please be encouraged to add the first day of Hajj to MainPage, if it's not too late. I can't confirm the date from info in the article, so I ain't sure when the 5 days of Hajj is supposed to begin. Is it today ? Thanks in advance. --PFHLai14:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So it was yesterday. Ooops... I've just added this to the SA template for Dec.29th anyway, as a reminder for whoever updating the templates in 2007. Oh, well.... Thanks for letting me know. Hope you had fun in the snow. :-) Cheers. -- PFHLai00:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This template [{{sprotected2}}] should be used for pages that are semi-protected for longer periods (for brief semi-protection please use {{sprotected}}) or where the other semi-protection template may be untidy.
Saddam Hussein has been, and most likely will continue to be, semi-protected for a long period of time. Perhaps un-protection may occur when the article becomes linked from the Main Page. -- tariqabjotu01:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the fact that it is in the news is precisely why I unprotected it. There are probably a good number of anonymous users who suddenly want to add something to the article. High-traffic articles linked from the Main Page (not yet, but soon) tend to get lots of viewership and usually are not protected; that's a good time to show off the anyone-can-edit mantra of Wikipedia. However, if the article gets swamped with vandalism, semi-protection can always be re-applied. -- tariqabjotu02:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I wasn't referring to that. I'm referring to those people who keep making jokes about his death. Besides, it's only for the time-being. Nishkid6402:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My Signature
My signature was changed over an hour before you left your comment. Even if I had not changed it, it would have been basic manners to at least wait for my reply before commenting. thank you. Codu(t)⁄(c) • 18:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re:2006 Bangkok bombings on ITN
Yeah, I noticed in the article that it wasn't really a sure number. I went back, and saw you removed it. Whatever, I'm fine with that. Nishkid6421:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, its me. Regarding the above article, although it is now in a presentable state, Pharos has raised a concern that it may be a good idea to leave it off ITN until the aircraft is discovered. Whilst I am inclined to agree, I'm unsure; as I mentioned on the page at ITN/C, it's not unknown for an aircraft to disapear and never be rediscovered. I would apreciate it if you could add your opinion. Many thanks, Blood Red SandmanOpen Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove23:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for protrecting The Swords article, can you please do the same for Age of Winters as the same two people (or one person as I suspect a sock puppet) are vandalising that article too. Same as before, removing information arbitrarily with no attempt to explain why and response to requests for dialogue. The Kinslayer16:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tariqabjotu. In doing a little research, I noticed something you might take an interest in. The user, user:08october, that you blocked for 3RR this morning, appears to be using a sockpuppet to avoid your block, and is back making the exact same reverts again as the user User:04december. I was going to report to WP:AIV, but I noticed you had made some edits recently, and if you are here, probably easier to report it to you. Caper1305:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that JP is back in full swing. If you'll check the history of Vladimir Lenin for January 6/7, you'll see several IP addresses and a new user account with his fingerprints on them. He's made himself quite a pest, and I'm hoping you might help sort this out. Rklawton19:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this in the article yet ? If so, please revert my edit on ITN. I'm working on shortening DYK at the moment. Thanks. --PFHLai06:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only admission of anything I could find in the article was about his signing a cooperation statement with the secret police in 1978. It's not clear to me if he has admitted to anything else the newspapers have reported. If that's good enough for you as the same as "admitting he worked with Poland's Służba Bezpieczeństwa ...", okay, I trust your judgement. --PFHLai07:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
common images
I know the process, but forgot to copy the rest of the image info because I was in a hurry. I thought I'd gotten it because I was looking at the commons version of the image in another browser window. Thanks for fixing it. Savidan20:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't the image info that was the problem; it was that the image was not uploaded locally in the place of the image taken directly from Commons. -- tariqabjotu20:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tariqabjotu. Just wondering. Why did you fully protect Rush Limbaugh? I didnt know anyone had requested it, and all things considered, the recent editing (last day or so) is a little less contentious than usual. Not that I mind. I could use a few days off from having to defend it from vandals, but I am curious. Caper1321:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The editing dispute you referenced on WP:RFP is a revert war involving the addition of a 5-word sentence-- protection is an overreaction. As Caper13 said, things are a bit less contentious than usual, and while he may appreciate the protection to take a 'few days off,' I, for one, would like to continue to try to improve it. (He can rest assured knowing that I'll protect it from vandals! :-) I've consequently relisted it for unprotection or a return to semi-protection. Though you should know. 72.128.82.8804:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for giving Infinity on High Protection but there is one problem
The current information on the page is false and was put there by a IP spammer right before you protected the page. Is there a way that you can put the proper information in and then reprotect it. The proper information is provided in the Talk page for the article. Thanks a lot. --Russ is the sex22:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This template has never been vandalized, and has been undergoing edits and improvements. Please do not pre-emptively full-protect pages; it infringes on the fundamental free editing nature of Wikipedia. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's used on over two thousand pages and with the recent template vandalism (perhaps you have not heard about it?), pre-emptively protecting a rarely-edited, high-use template, despite no history of vandalism, is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. You can request an edit using {{editprotected}} or, if you feel compelled, take the issue to WP:RPP. -- tariqabjotu05:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say the same thing as Mardavich above actually :) I know the rules, but thanks for reminding me. I also know what 3RR is, and none of my edits were disruptive. I left notes on the talk page as well. But again, thanks for reminding me the rules. Cheers! Baristarim16:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response
I accept what you are saying, but I think that Persian nationalism is preventing the legitimate inclusion of the commonly accepted alternative name for the Gulf - the Arabian Gulf - in the Persian Gulf article (in fact, in some Arab states it is illegal to refer to the Gulf as the Persian Gulf). Please take a look at the talk page.
Also, after stating my point on Talk:Persian Gulf, User:Mardavich and User:Behaafarid appeared to track back on all my recent contributions - namely to Ethnic minorities in Iran and Arvand Free Zone - and reverted any changes I made, including updated wikilinks, fact tags and NPOV adjustments (nothing substantial, just small edits here and there). It is notable that they have not ever edited these article before, so the only reason for reverting was to stalk and vandalise my work. This is disruptive, but is the common experience Wikipedia users have when confronted by nationalists.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz16:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That attitude does not help one bit. Stop the excessive reverting and stop throwing accusations of nationalism. Your above statement embodies exactly why the Persian Gulf article has faced numerous issues. -- tariqabjotu16:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it's my fault? I bring it on myself? I asked you to look at the constant reversion of my edits by stalkers and you claim I am throwing around accusations. Yes, I am accusing and with good reason.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz16:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. It looks like just Chussid against the group to me (though I they were clearly revert warring as well), so I don't see the point in blocking the entire page. In any case, I was just curious for a second opinion. Thanks, Mackan7917:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I not provoking anyone, I am simply discussing content and citing Wikipedia policies, which is entirely within my rights as a user, and user:Ahwaz responds by saying "you are a liar, as well as a stalker and a bully" [9] or that "I can't read English" [10] and you come and warn me? You're an administrator, you should know the WP:NPA policy better than me. Are such comments acceptable to you? If not, then why isn't user:Ahwaz being warned? --Mardavich23:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not believe Ahwaz's comments are acceptable. And yes, I am familiar with WP:NPA, which in part says Frequently, the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all. I understand it's not just a lone personal attack, but the guy is blocked... there isn't much harm he can do since his talk page is the only place he can post comments. If you stop posting on his talk page, it is very likely he will stop responding. It's as if you're sticking your hand into a lion's cage; you keep doing it even though you know you'll get bitten and even though you can just leave it alone. -- tariqabjotu23:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I had given up already. But my intention was never to provoke him, but rather to open up some sort of dialogue with him and explain to him the reliable sources policy (WP:RS), since I saw him complaining that nobody is interested in a debate or discussion with him. Unfortunately, he doesn't want to assume good faith and he's only interested in personal accusations and attacks, which is why I gave up a few hours ago. Anyways, your intentions seem noble, sorry for my earlier reaction, I am just touchy and tired because of all that verbal abuse. --Mardavich00:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People born in Jerusalem
Hi,
I've noticed you was the editor who added the split request to the Jerusalem article. Was that list moved to somewhere or was it simply deleted by the anonymous user who edited it at 17:24, 9 January 2007? I noticed this quite accidentally (I was searching for that section of the article in the page history because I need the template that arranged the list into nice columns), and now I don't know whether I stumbled upon unnoticed vandalism or the list is safely moved to somewhere. – Alenshatalk15:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm not sure what happened to it either. I saw the list had suddenly disappeared, but not moved to another article. I just didn't say anything about it because I didn't think it was necessary for the article anyway and surmised that someone else had agreed with me on that point. -- tariqabjotu15:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether it's important for the article or not but lots of cities have similar sections and apparently it was important for those who compiled the list (and how would it look if that anonymous someone's edit was the final say in the matter :) anyway, I'll mention it on the talk page and if someone cares, they can move it wherever they want. – Alenshatalk16:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, when reporting IP addresses on WP:AIV, use the {{ipvandal}} template instead, since it has important WHOIS links. For instance, in the past half-hour I saw that two reported IP vandals came from the BBC (not blocked) and the U.S. House of Representatives (blocked) due to the WHOIS links. -- tariqabjotu22:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through our Archives I saw that you took an interest in the Adopt-a-user program during its formation and development. Well this is just a quick message to tell you the program is well and truly lifted off, with over 200 users involved in the program, 50+ active Adopters and approx. 150 Adoptees, and always expanding. If your still interested please pop by WP:ADOPT, have a look around and ask any questions you want on our talk page. Look forward to seeing you there. Cheers Lethaniol15:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find some similarities between the two accounts, but a request for checkuser reveals that it is unlikely they're maintained by the same person. Regardless, please do not levy attacks against Indian people; those kinds of comments do not lend to civil discussion. -- tariqabjotu01:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please look more carefully, it was my work on Jerusalem that has been reverted by User:Amoruso and User:Okedem simply because of their blatant POV, you can check where they come from.
