== [[Wikipedia:Today's featured list/July 2, 2012]] ==
I undid your edit. [[WP:TFL]] is entirely independent of the vagaries of ITN, please leave the blurb as is. It may be that it takes a week for the community to decide on a suitable hook/update for ITN. TFL has an updated blurb, and updated article, we don't need ITNers to pop by to "fix" our work. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 21:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
DC Wikipedia meetup #28 is on Saturday, March 10, 2012, from 7pm on at Capitol City Brewery in downtown DC. (11th & H St NW).
Join us for an evening of socializing, chatting about Wikipedia, discussing Wikimedia DC activities and the latest preparations for Wikimania 2012. (RSVP + details)
You're invited: Smithsonian Institution Women in Science Edit-a-Thon!
Who should come? You should. Really.
She Blinded Me with Science: Smithsonian Women in Science Edit-a-Thon will be held on Friday, March 30, 2012 at the Smithsonian Archives in Washington, D.C. This edit-a-thon will focus on improving and writing Wikipedia content about women from the Smithsonian who contributed to the sciences. It will be followed by a happy hour meetup! We look forward to seeing you there!
Why is it OK for you to stand there and insult me as an editor because I think gay pornography is ill-suited to the fornt page of wikipedia? As I said I have no problems with us having articles on it. But yes the words "gay pornography" stand out when you're eating your lunch and my personal opinion is it was not the sort of time you want to be reading about such material. I wouldn't dare insult your integrity as an editor because you are a Muslim amd believe in Mohammed and Alla. You have a set of beliefs, I have mine. You seem to have misinterpreted my comments on it appearing on the main page as a homophobic attack or something. Not at all. But there is a reason gay or any pornography is not advertised in mainstream daily television and that certain topics are generally evaded. That was my point. But there was absolutely no need for you to turn up as you did and resort to personal attacks on me and insult everything I've done as an editor.♦ Dr. Blofeld22:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, Tariqabjotu expressed concern that someone with your accomplishments as an editor would advance an argument radically inconsistent with Wikipedia's principles.
Tariqabjotu didn't allege homophobia on your part, but remarks along the lines of "whether some gays waving colored flags fully support them or not" (equating gay rights activism with pornography) don't help your case. —David Levy22:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He turned up in anger and outrage at the thought that I would even remotely not want to see talk of gay pornography appearing on my PC screen whilst eating lunch and assumed I was a mad anti-gay porn fuddy duddy condemning the youth of today for their morality or something. That was exactly what he thought. As I said I have nothing against that sort of content appearing on wikipedia but yes it was distasteful in my personal opinion to see such topics appear on my computer screen when about to eat in the middle of the day and I'm surely not the only person who is of that opinion given the fact that they won't show Jenna Jameson as a featured article because they'll get complaints. I am very aware that this sort of content appears regularly on wikipedia and is generally considered acceptable, but I wanted to see how much it is considered acceptable, and quickly learned universally so, amongst the wikipedia community. What I won't accept is you resorting to personal attacks on everything I've done for wikipedia because I find one article inappropriate reading material. ♦ Dr. Blofeld23:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He turned up in anger and outrage at the thought that I would even remotely not want to see talk of gay pornography appearing on my PC screen whilst eating lunch and assumed I was a mad anti-gay porn fuddy duddy condemning the youth of today for their morality or something. That was exactly what he thought.
Are you a mind-reader?
As I said I have nothing against that sort of content appearing on wikipedia but yes it was distasteful in my personal opinion to see such topics appear on my computer screen when about to eat in the middle of the day
The operative words are "in my personal opinion". You want us to ban main page content that you deem "distasteful" (at least during lunchtime in your time zone).
and I'm surely not the only person who is of that opinion given the fact that they won't show Jenna Jameson as a featured article because they'll get complaints
Translation: "Raul654's desire to avoid being confronted by villagers with torches and pitchforks proves that the angry mob's position is legitimate!"
What I won't accept is you resorting to personal attacks on everything I've done for wikipedia because I find one article inappropriate reading material.
Most world religions strongly oppose sodomy and acts of behaviour which encourage people to indulge in it. Gay pornography is offensive material to many but you have such a radical view on wikipedia content that you fail to see that many people find it offensive and completely inappropriate for showcasing on the main page of wikipedia. And must you really write everywhere in green text as if you are a wikilord tlaking to the pauper? It comes across as very patronising.♦ Dr. Blofeld11:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the problem. In the course of making your point, you mentioned how you wouldn't give me a hard time for, for example, my religious views. And, you're right, you shouldn't. Unless I, for example, decided to impress my religious beliefs on Wikipedia by demanding that encyclopedic, tactful references to concepts deemed unacceptable in my religion be kept off our Main Page. Your opinion of pornography -- gay or otherwise -- is your opinion, and while I may (or may not) disagree on it, that is neither here nor there. The issue is not that you have these views. The issue is that you demand Wikipedia (or at least its Main Page) operate in a way that caters to them. As you should have observed in the near-unanimous objection to your position, your stance on this goes against everything Wikipedia stands for as a free encyclopedia. -- tariqabjotu11:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I am not a Christian myself and dispute a lot a things in the bible, I come from a strong Christian background and such material is considered very offensive and sinful to Christians. Although you state you are a religious pluralist you have insulted the religion of my family because Christians consider it offensive. You turned up in outrage that I would even be remotely bothered by the appearance of a gay pornographic film on the front page of wikipedia yet you are missing that the vast majority of world religions consider it offensive material which should not be encouraged. As I said I have no problem with many articles on it but featuring them on the main page amongst other material does stand out to me. But you made an attack on me as an editor when I can't help the background I grew up in which teaches that it is a wicked act. I just think there is a time and place for pornography and daytime showcasing on the main page of one of the world's biggest websites is radical, you can't dispute that. ♦ Dr. Blofeld12:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an idiot; I know Islam's view on homosexuality. But I also understand that on a global project like Wikipedia, I can't allow my religious beliefs (or the predominant views in my faith) to dictate what the project does. Your six years here have obviously been a waste if you can't grasp this simple point. -- tariqabjotu12:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your strong reaction indicates you a] support gay pornography and b] are quite excited with the idea that wikipedia is so radical it permits coverage it on the main page. Yet you claim to be a Muslim and that the idea of wikipedia being completely devoid of standards and free to any topic, however offensive to some, are considered more important than your religious beliefs. No, you should not let your views tamper with the devleopment of the project, but you showed a complete outrage that somebody might show a distaste to gay pornography on the main page of wikipedia, you were very vocal about it. Yes, the point I've got from my six years experience on wikipedia is that it accepts all kinds of shit which most of the public are likely to laugh at that wikipedia could even call itself an encyclopedia and very few of us are actively improving content. Not to mention a distinct lack of respect for fellow editors and ganging up.Very true. ♦ Dr. Blofeld12:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even worth trying to argue with you. Rarely have I seen stubbornness and arrogance as strong as yours. Please desist from carrying on this topic here. -- tariqabjotu18:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fog picture of Istanbul will mislead the readers, because thick fog is not a dominant weather pattern, unlike in San Francisco.
Fog is less pronounced in Istanbul, because it often dissipates by noon or afternoon and it does not frequently last the whole day. Paralyzing fogs that last the entire day, are not more common than the number of days or weeks with snow. I know, because I live in Istanbul, and have lived in San Francisco.
However, to be fair, unlike snow which always occurs between November and March lasting for a week or two, fog does occur in every season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.149.40 (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. If you are the person who kept removing that photo, thank you for finally telling me why. I'll attach that as a decent reason. The picture is great, but if it's not representative, that's a problem. So, how about this one? The fog is much less dense and it's acceptable for use on Wikipedia. -- tariqabjotu00:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your picture showing Levent shrouded in fog is in indeed great, and fogs like this are common during the mornings, as the text already states it below this picture. The issue had nothing to do with the picture itself nor am I against its removal of it, as it should stay. (I think the snowy picture showing Levent should stay too, not only because it is an annual weather pattern during winter, but also because there are so many ignorant idiots who think that Istanbul is tropical and hot throughout the year) The other picture looks like smog, which alas is another common - unnatural - weather feature of Istanbul called pollution.
I did not edit in the Istanbul article and I haven't touched the picture. I browsed in the article and I just wanted to point the issue regarding fogs. That is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.149.40 (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tariqabjotu. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
Today is Holy Saturday for Eastern Christians, not Easter Saturday which is the Saturday following Easter Sunday. Eastern Christians celebrate Easter a week after Western Christians this year. Please remedy this situation if you could please.
Time: 11 a.m. - 5 p.m. (drop-ins welcome at any time)
The event's goal will be to improve Wikipedia articles and content related to the neighborhoods and history of New York City - No special wiki knowledge is required!
Please join us for a Wikimedia DC Meetup & Dinner on Saturday, May 5. This will be a great opportunity to meet other Wikimedians from the DC area, discuss upcoming Wikimedia DC activities and events, and have fun over dinner and drinks. All ages are welcome! Kirill[talk]04:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 20
Hi. When you recently edited Istanbul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Biennale (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.
Please join us for the second Smithsonian Institution Archives Edit-a-thon! This event will focus on Smithsonian history including the history of the Institution's museums, archives, research centers and the people behind them. This will be a great opportunity to learn about the Archives, work within them & with staff, and learn more about the world's largest museum complex. We hope you'll join us on Friday, May 25. Please sign up here! Sarah (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: You received this message because you were listed here. If you no longer wish to receive messages of this nature, please remove yourself from that list.
Of course, thanks for inviting me! And, of course, for protecting the page yesterday. But do you think that this guy who vandalised the article yesterday is the one that was blocked last week? The ip address is from Turkey... Alex2006 (talk) 05:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to the person who you were reverting about fourteen hours ago (that's not yesterday for me), well, I'm not sure. It doesn't seem like Namuslu's M.O. (the edits by the person you were reverting were outright vandalism), but based on the IP editors we saw just a couple hours ago (which were obviously Namuslu), maybe it was him. -- tariqabjotu05:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I meant yesterday GMT+1 :-) It is a pity for this guy. Turkish wikipedians could do a lot of useful work in this field, since they have access and can read the sources in Turkish, but a lot of them simply don't understand it, and waste time writing about night clubs, shopping center and hamams... Maybe this happens because Turkey until not many years ago was a poor country, and now is booming, so they are proud to show their country's progress, but in doing so they forget that what is really important is their true cultural heritage. I noticed the same behavior by the Greeks in the 1990s. Alex2006 (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the Like template is to use it in talk page discussions as I am. If you think it gives too much emphasis, I suggest you take it up at the talk page for the template. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tariq. I've just settled down with my egg butty and a cup of tea ready to make a decision on hurling, and you've beaten me to it! I was conscious that my decision to close Poker down as nominator ruffled feathers, so I thank you for coming to the same conclusion as me. Here's to the rare sight of ITN discussions actually going somewhere doktorbwordsdeeds06:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Im dissapointed with your decision to merely page protect without addressing Jakew as i was hoping for at least a caution. BWilkins noted here that it was a violation of 3RR, but you ignored that. Can you tell me what you will do to prevent Jakew from returning to the same behavior as soon as the protection expires? Pass a Methodtalk21:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It takes two to edit war, and there are more than two people edit-warring on that article. I don't doubt that Jakew's edit warring was wrong, but I also don't doubt that there has been a lot of edit warring from several editors over the past month. The action most likely to stop the edit-warring all around and to get whatever issues people have with the article addressed is to protect the article, not to block Jakew. -- tariqabjotu22:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I might reply to you in 2 weeks because im fairly sure Jakew will have resumed the edit-warring by then. I hope the second time you won't be as lenient as this time. Pass a Methodtalk22:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That looks fine, but I should have retracted the statement earlier. As it has two orange tags, it really shouldn't be posted. That being said, they've been up for a very long time. -- tariqabjotu09:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've removed one of the tags. I've removed the unrefereced section along with its tag. I don't think the section is of vital importance and there shouldn't be any of such an unsourced chunk of claims in a political BLP anyway. --BorgQueen (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In response to your latest comment don't your think that the language of WP:3RR should be changed for example include the word "recent"?For example "Undoing recent edits of other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. "?--Shrike (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, because that change does not support what I said. If you have a problem with my decision, take it up at ANI. I am not interested in being the target of your badgering for days on end. -- tariqabjotu20:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be aggressive I don't seek any sanctions against anyone I just want to understand a policy better.That is all.--Shrike (talk) 05:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you planning to step in at any point to say something? This guy, SudoGhost, has given me warnings saying that I insulted him, although I didn't and that I threatened him legally, yet I only said I would be talking to a lawyer about it because it seems as though it may violate ethnic/racial issues. (Y26Z3 (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Well, I have never seen such a thing happen before, but my apologies for assuming it was intentional. I suppose the mere outrageousness of it proves the unlikelihood of it being done on purpose. μηδείς (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a response on the page with regards to the reversals by DrKeirnan. I can assure you it hasn't "simmered down". I have simply been waiting for a response, before continuing to edit. There is no point in reporting something and then continuing an edit war while waiting. I have tried negotiation with these people, repeatedly to no effect. Would you sort the matter out please? Unless it is sorted, I cannot continue. Please get back to the page and read the details. Amandajm (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there - I was wondering if you could help me understand why this notice I added to the edit warring board was not addressed. I'm not in any way blaming your or anything, and it seems like the offending user has disappeared for the time being, so I don't plan to pursue it any further. It just seems you're pretty experienced, and I was wondering if you'd be so kind as to point out any error I made for future reference. I'd really appreciate it! --Williamsburgland (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It happens sometimes. I don't think you did anything wrong. However, when I look at WP:AN3, I tend to pass over the reports of anonymous editors edit-warring. That's because there often is no point. They tend not to be as tenacious as logged-in users (even if they were in the preceding twenty-four hours, they tend to move on) and can easily evade the block. So, at least in my experience, either they hop to another IP, necessitating semi-protection of the article, or they just stop because they're not vested enough in the project to even register for an account. So, when I'm low on time and have other things to do (like I do now), I tend to go after logged-in users. But that's just me; I don't have any reason to believe other admins behave the same way. -- tariqabjotu01:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For having the guts to make the hard decisions, and for all the hard work you do on ITN I hereby award you this barnstar. Keep up the good work! --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, okay. But then can you explain why "Pinta Island tortoise" has been the primary name, used as the common name at the beginning of the article and in the infobox, for quite a long time? Was that just made up? And, why do media reports of this event refer to a "Pinta tortoise" or something close to that? It seemed like Pinta Island tortoise was understood to be the common name in the article, and I was just moving the article to reflect that. -- tariqabjotu13:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People edit Wikipedia doesn't mean it's correct and certainly due weight is often not applied. If you look at Subspecies_of_Galápagos_tortoise here it's called 'Abingdon Island tortoise', it's a general problem it has many names(each one individually soureable) but collectively conflicting, hence the scientific name was used. Regards, SunCreator(talk)13:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the references mentioned in the article you're talking about, but I do notice that not a single story comes up when I search for "Abingdon Island tortoise". I do see results (some scientific) for the name when doing a regular Google search, but Pinta Island tortoise seems far more common.
That being said, I don't particularly care if you move the article back, but I want to reiterate that you're going after the wrong person here. The article was written as if "Pinta Island tortoise" was the primary name, and it's been that way for awhile. I just matched the title with how the article was written. I understand the article probably doesn't see much traffic, but if you do decide to revert the move, the first thing you should do afterward is rewrite it to note the ambiguity and put the scientific name as the primary name. -- tariqabjotu14:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see your not a zoological person, as you would not use G books, but anyway the most authority source is the IUCN neither of it's publications use 'Pinta Islands tortoise'. My issue is not with the page move so much(I've updated the page contents), the issue is with the In the news title on the Main page. Regards, SunCreator(talk)14:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make sense for the article name and the link text on the Main Page to be different. And I'd appreciate you not insulting my intelligence. If that's what you planned to do all along, you shouldn't have come in the first place. With that, I'm definitely not going to help you, so you'd be better off complaining somewhere where someone will care. -- tariqabjotu14:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, if you took anything I said as an insult. I started this conversation on the main page talk page about the error in the ITN, a change which it appears you made. It's not true about the articles contents for the last 12 months and up to yesterday the article started with the wording Lonesome George (Spanish: Solitario Jorge) is a tortoise" Regards, SunCreator(talk)14:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I undid your edit. WP:TFL is entirely independent of the vagaries of ITN, please leave the blurb as is. It may be that it takes a week for the community to decide on a suitable hook/update for ITN. TFL has an updated blurb, and updated article, we don't need ITNers to pop by to "fix" our work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
