Misplaced Pages

User talk:Tariqabjotu: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:03, 24 March 2011 editTariqabjotu (talk | contribs)Administrators36,354 edits →FYI: + reply← Previous edit Revision as of 00:15, 24 March 2011 edit undoMbz1 (talk | contribs)22,338 edits →FYI: okNext edit →
Line 399: Line 399:
::OK I am asking you now. Why did you remove my comment only? Nobody, but you could explain this better.--] (]) 23:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC) ::OK I am asking you now. Why did you remove my comment only? Nobody, but you could explain this better.--] (]) 23:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
:::You were obviously looking for a confirmation of your position from an admin who you assumed would be more sympathetic toward you. But you did not get that because the difference between your comment and the two preceding it is obvious to any outside observer. The first two are very relevant, doing what many people do on ITN/C -- considering the scale of the event in context. Doing so is a double-edged though, as you see Passionless argue that because so much Israeli violence occurs and we don't post that, we shouldn't post this instance of Palestinian violence, while BabbaQ uses a similar point to conclude the opposite -- that the rarity of this event warrants an ITN posting. Your comment starts as a relevant reply, but quickly degenerates into a commentary about who's responsible for the violence in Israel and Palestine and their motives. It's irrelevant to the item's inclusion on ITN and it's inciting. -- ''']''' 00:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC) :::You were obviously looking for a confirmation of your position from an admin who you assumed would be more sympathetic toward you. But you did not get that because the difference between your comment and the two preceding it is obvious to any outside observer. The first two are very relevant, doing what many people do on ITN/C -- considering the scale of the event in context. Doing so is a double-edged though, as you see Passionless argue that because so much Israeli violence occurs and we don't post that, we shouldn't post this instance of Palestinian violence, while BabbaQ uses a similar point to conclude the opposite -- that the rarity of this event warrants an ITN posting. Your comment starts as a relevant reply, but quickly degenerates into a commentary about who's responsible for the violence in Israel and Palestine and their motives. It's irrelevant to the item's inclusion on ITN and it's inciting. -- ''']''' 00:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
::::I was looking for a third opinion, and Elen did find bout comments to be soapboxing.
::::I was looking for a third opinion because the last time I communicated with you a few months ago you did not provide an answer to my question.
::::Thanks for explaining to me where I got it wring. I have never contributed to ITN before, and I believed my comment was OK. I simply tried to explain why none of the violence going on in this region cannot be taken out of content. I still believe to be inflammatory.
::::In any case I will try to avoid making the comments I did in the feature, and I still would recommend you to try to ].--] (]) 00:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:15, 24 March 2011

Merge discussion for Istanbul

An article that you have been involved in editing, Istanbul , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going to the article and clicking on the (Discuss) link at the top of the article, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. İnfoCan (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: Saturday, December 4

We meet outside by the trees at 5:00 PM.

Our next Misplaced Pages NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Misplaced Pages articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I have not failed to notice...

I have not failed to notice that the information you used from "Weatherbase" for the Istanbul climate section is obsolete, as it has not been updated.

For instance the website states the record high as just 37°C and the record low as just -8°C, both which are false because both records are higher and lower than that. Please look at page 2 from Meteor.gov.org (Alas in Turkish only), and in the English language websites Mid East Weather Otulook, Mherrera.org and Meteorologyclimate.com.

The overemphasis on fog is also not fully correct. This will (falsly) lead the outsider to think that the city is shrouded under a full fog cover for the 228 or so days. I just want to point out that the fog usually does not last the entire day and dissipates before noon. This is not San Franciso where I lived and where the fog stays the entire day and paralyzes the city's sea transportation. This rarely occurs in Istanbul where I now live and happens usually no more than a few days each year, usually outside summer.

And the overemphasis on the number days with certain weather types like snow or hot days in a very erratic and transitional climate like that of Istanbul is also questionable. The city's weather changes constantly (practically from day to day) and the number of snow (but does happen every year nevertheless) and hot days change from year to year.

At least you used the updated data of the (very erratic) annual average precipitation of Istanbul from Meteo.gov.tr which currently stands at 843.9 mm (and also shows the precipitation pattern for the past 40 years including the least and most recorded precipitaitons), because again, none of whom in the website "Weatherbase" have been updated, and the annual average precipitation still stands 640 mm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.88.71 (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of Turkish spelling

Is there an established rule regarding the use of Turkish letters in the English Misplaced Pages? Regarding the article Hatt-i humayun, I am uncertain as to whether to spell it as "hatt-i humayun", "hatt-ı hümayun" or "hatt-ı hümâyûn" throughout the article. The first would be the spelling with English letters, the second is the common Turkish spelling, and the third one using diacritics is the more scholarly Turkish.

I get the following hits with Google-books and Google scholar: "hatt-i humayun" , "hatt-ı hümayun" or "hatt-ı hümâyûn" . Of course not all sources are on the Internet.

What is your opinion? --İnfoCan (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Valued opinion

I've reworked the definition of this article's topic (first two sentences) and, as I value your content-proficiency, was wondering what you thought of my change and if you have any further suggestions.
With respect, Jaakobou 23:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

While I'm somewhat honored that you value my opinion on the matter, I am not going to comment on a content dispute I don't want to be involved in. -- tariqabjotu 03:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
It's not a content dispute and if it ever turns into one I give you my word that I will not use your reply here in discussion. I am requesting a generic editorial opinion that has no bearing on any dispute whatsoever. I don't have much experience in FA level articles and I wanted to get your thoughts on the definition changes I've made. Please.
Warm regards, Jaakobou 11:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
p.s. there is a fairly collegiate atmosphere on that article's talkpage, btw. 11:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Careful

Hey Tariq, when editing main page FA blurbs, make sure you following the formatting conventions listed at Misplaced Pages:Today's_featured_article/requests under "Suggested formatting". In particular, the only bolded part should be the link to the FA (and generally alternative names are to be avoided, although I saw the talk page thread). Raul654 (talk) 06:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Pantherskin returns edit warring

Tariqabjotu, do you remember this?:

You blocked Pantherskin because of his edit warring at Syria and Golan heights , he had repeatedly removed the Dayan comment without agreement at the talkpage, several editors disagreed with him removing it, Now Pantherskin has returned and once again has removed the exact same Dayan comment: . There has not been any new development at the talkpage to remove it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

One new edit doesn't warrant any attention at the moment. -- tariqabjotu 18:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Three weeks

You said here three weeks instead of three months: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Corrected. -- tariqabjotu 18:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

What topic ban covers?

Hi Tariq. I asked you a question on AE, but I've got no response. So one more time: I was blocked for 48 hours for this edit. Please notice I was not edit warring as Nab was, I made only one constructive comment about wikipedia policies, and got blocked for 48 hours! My other block for topic ban violation was for this edit at Rothschild family. So could you please explain to me how two edits I got blocked for is a topic ban violation, and all edit warring Nab has done in the last few days is not. I am asking this question because I'm really trying to understand what does mean broadly-interpreted topic ban and what it covers. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Your topic ban was for "all content and discussions related to the Israeli-Arab conflict". The first link is a comment on an AE request directly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The request against Roland was made in the context of the ARBPIA restrictions and it dealt with a controversial anti-Israel image. Clearly within the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The second link is less obvious, but I imagine you were blocked because the Rothschild family was instrumental in the Zionist movement. That's good enough for me.
One's topic ban does not mean they are subject to more restrictive rules (e.g. a 1RR) on articles outside the topic ban. As I stated plainly at AE, Nableezy's edits on List of Arabs, aside from being tangential to the area of interest (so what if Nasser was important to Arab-Israeli conflict; it's a list that contains no such information), are rather harmless. -- tariqabjotu 16:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to respond my question, but I cannot agree with your assessment. Let's start with Rothschild family please. This article has not a single word about any Arab country and/or Arab territory. Zionism has no more direct connection to I/P conflict than Nasser has to it. Egypt has a big connection to I/P conflict. When I think about Egypt I of course think about Moses and Exodus and about the pyramids, but I also think about 4 wars it fought with Israel. Of course Egypt should be covered by a topic ban much more than Rothschild family is. Now, if Zionism is connected to I/P conflict, Nasser is much more so.
BTW do you know that I was topic banned on I/P related article not because I violated any policy in those articles. I was banned as Sandstein stated this: "I am really concerned about these Holocaust soap DYK diffs provided by Mbz1. As Gatoclass says, these seem to reflect a bona fide content dispute about what the sources say, and Mbz1 brings them up here in a manner that gives the impression of having the intent to associate Gatoclass with Holocaust denial, and at any rate misuses the AE process for the discussion of a content dispute, which AE is not for. This has got to stop. While the soap issue is probably outside the scope of WP:ARBPIA, it being brought up here is part of a pattern of battleground conduct by Mbz1 mostly in an ARBPIA context." So as you may see Sandstein saw the problem in my comments about the Holocaust that had nothing to do with I/P conflict of course. I provided the link to show that behavior should be taken in the account, when AE is enforced.
Please let's keep it here in one place. I am watching your talk page. Thanks. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I knew you weren't going to agree with my explanation. I knew you were going to equivocate the articles you got blocked for editing with the ones Nableezy is being tried for. This was so predictable, I don't know why I even bothered responding. This is what makes this area of Misplaced Pages so frustrating. Most of the people editing Misplaced Pages do so because they enjoy the community or enjoy contributing what they know or just like writing. But people in this area -- you most definitely included -- edit Misplaced Pages because they see it as front on an Arab-Israeli information war. You've already made your allegiances clear and you're not suddenly going to switch positions because of something I or anyone else says.
So... what's the point of this? Mbz1, I'm not interested in providing you artillery for the next several times you complain at AE. I know this is difficult for many Israel-Palestine editors to do, but you need to drop this; the past has passed. I will categorically revert any mention of those past blocks on my talk page. -- tariqabjotu 19:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
97% of my edits (the images I upload, the articles I write) have absolutely nothing to do with I/P conflict at all. I am not, and never have been a single purpose account. I filed only 3 AE requests altogether that cannot be compared to SD and Nab activity there. Your sarcasm is absolutely unwarranted in my situation.
I brought up my last blocks not to discuss them, but to try to understand how the system works, because it does not work properly. Being or not being sanctioned should not deepened on what administrator imposes the sanction, on what mood this admin is in, and on what religious beliefs he/she decides to exercise at the moment. The borders of topic ban should be described clearly and the way everybody understands them. It is my right as an editor to understand how it works, and it is your duty as admin to help me with this.
Your response is an usual response of anybody, who has no better arguments. I knew what response I will get from you. I should not have asked you those questions. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Your decisions at AE

Mr Tariqabjotu, please re-read the Damour Massacre article. There is no way that any fair reading of that article does not put it squarely in the middle of the I-P conflict area, especially since I believe the wording of that topic ban is "broadly construed." It may not be immediately obvious, but it is generally understood that the Palestine Liberation Organisation and Arafat were the principle effectors of this event, which led to further events in which Israel was also involved. -- A Mr NoAccount

But.. you do realize that he didn't actually edit the article in any case? He simply gave evidence that another editor had been edit warring on it, in order to resolve an issue regarding that editor edit warring over Arab ethnicities, that seems less than absolutely damning. un☯mi 05:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
No, that was not clear in your comment. I was under the impression that an edit had been made to the Damour article under a topic ban. --Mr No Account

Tariq, something really should be done about the obvious socks using AOL IP addresses. They really should be treated as open proxies. nableezy - 16:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Addressing I-P at AE all at once

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Israel-Palestine_Conflict. An idea for a nice, clear place to sort it all out. The editors named are not set in stone. Add or remove as you think appropriate. What do you think? --Vassyana (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiXDC: Misplaced Pages 10th Birthday!

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

You are invited to WikiXDC, a special meetup event and celebration on Saturday, January 22 hosted by the National Archives and Records Administration in downtown Washington, D.C.

  • Date: January 22, 2011 (tentatively 9:30 AM - 5 PM)
  • Location: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), downtown building, Pennsylvania Avenue & 7th St NW.
  • Description: There will be a behind-the-scenes tour of the National Archives and you will learn more about what NARA does. We will also have a mini-film screening featuring FedFlix videos along with a special message from Jimmy Wales. In the afternoon, there will be lightning talks by Wikimedians (signup to speak), wiki-trivia, and cupcakes to celebrate!
  • Details & RSVP: Details about the event are on our Washington, DC tenwiki page.

Please RSVP soon as possible, as there likely will be a cap on number of attendees that NARA can accommodate.

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

"just a ploy to remove that comma"

Regarding this, I actually didn't notice that I'd done that until after I saved the edit. I then consulted our Serial comma article, which indicates that "it is less often used in British English" (which Pakistani English generally reflects), and a subsequent Google search corroborated this. That's why I didn't self-revert. —David Levy 05:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh. -- tariqabjotu 04:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for taking down the obscene and racist comment re Superbowl.μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for additional information

With regards to this edit, could you please respond at Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates#Super Bowl XLV to a request for a more detailed explanation of your reason for removing the ITN listing. The purpose for this request is to allow any interested party enough information to work to resolve the issue. --Allen3  14:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

ITN

admins have rules to follow before posting (see admin quide on the page), one of which means posting a note on the article page when its posted on ITN. And second is to give crdit to nominees/substantial contriobutors.(Lihaas (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)).

Don't patronize me. As a frequent ITN/C commenter, you should know that I frequently update ITN and, therefore, don't need you to explain to me what the procedure is. If I missed something, you should be capable of adding a notice to someone's talk page rather than being a dick about it. -- tariqabjotu 10:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
what are you talking about patronising. I was "adding a notice" as you suggest. If i was "patronising" there would be a far more visible anger or tempaltes (but we dont template regulars). And i wasnt the one who wrote "being a dick about it" which is a NPA that i never wrote.Lihaas (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
No, you added a notice to my talk page, rather than to the talk page of the article or editor where an ITNtalk or ITNcredit is normally placed. And, yes, it is patronizing. You may have typed the message yourself, but it is effectively a template response -- precisely what you would have told a new admin who had just edited ITN for the first time. And, thanks for reminding me that I said you were being a dick; I almost forgot. -- tariqabjotu 23:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
yes of course, this was not patronising was it? Practice what you preach. Most people dont be "a dick about it" to have an adverse reaction and intentional NPA for the SECOND time. lighten up, son!
at any rate, lets cease this tiresome thread.Lihaas (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, are you sure that "Revolution" should be in upper case? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Block of 68.79.92.229

Hi tariqabjotu. I was just looking at your block of 68.79.92.229, and I've got to say it looks a little excessive to me. This is his first block, he had no warnings about edit warring/3rr (just disruption), he appears to be relatively new and the disruption occured about 18 hours before your block. He had appeared on ANI for a day and a bit, in a section that received little admin attention, before being archived. He did go over 3rr, so I do understand if you felt a block was necessary. I was wondering if you would look again at your block, especially the length, in light of these factors. Worm 23:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

China overtakes Japan on ITN

The updated article is Economic history of modern China. The proposed blurb is as follows:China overtakes Japan as world's second-largest economy by nominal GDP. Hope this is good enough now. GreyHood 02:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, we indeed have several more items nearly ready for posting. This means that the chronologically older items have a strong chance to be featured on the Main Page for a very short time if all the supported nominations are posted and more follow up at a similar rate, bumping out older items. That's why we should try to post older items as quickly as possible. No need for rush, of course, but I just want to say that having a backlog of close-to-posting items is a reason to prompt the posting of certain items, not to delay. GreyHood 02:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

ITN pic

Hi, thanks for the image and I've cropped it a bit more. I hope you won't mind. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I kind of liked the context, but it's okay. Also, why did you re-protect the image? Is the cascade protection on the fritz? -- tariqabjotu 18:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
It is just a habit of mine :D I seem to recall I was told to manually protect the MP images a long time ago for some reason, probably it is now obsolete. Btw, is my "incarnation" of the image necessary? --BorgQueen (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikimania 2012 bid, DC chapter & next meetup!

  1. At WikiXDC in January, User:Harej proposed that DC submit a bid to host Wikimania 2012. A bid and organizing committee is being formed and seeks additional volunteers to help. Please look at our bid page and sign up if you want to help out. You can also signup for the bid team's email list.
  2. To support the Wikimania bid, more events like WikiXDC, and outreach activities like collaborations with the Smithsonian (ongoing) and National Archives, there also has been discussion of forming Wikimedia DC, as an official Wikimedia chapter. You can express interest and contribute to chapter discussions on the Wikimedia DC Meta-Wiki pages.
  3. To discuss all this and meet up with special guest, Dutch Wikipedian User:Kim Bruning, there will be a meetup, Misplaced Pages:Meetup/DC 16 this Tuesday at 7pm, at Capitol City Brewery, Metro Center. There will be a pre-meetup Wikimania team meeting at 6pm at the same location.

Apologies for the short notice for this meetup, but let's discuss when, where & what for DC Meetup #17. Also, if you haven't yet, please join wikimedia-dc mailing list to stay informed. Cheers, User:Aude (talk)

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello from fr.Wikipédia!

Hello!

I'm Morphypnos, a french user!

You are an administor who can help me. In fr.Wikipédia , we need some sketches to complete our collection of articles. Have you that?

Thank you!

To here! =D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morphypnos (talk • contribs) 19:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Help needed

We need your help @ INT section. please have a look Protests sticky link & Egyptian take over the SSI -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I was the one the who reverted the climate section. Sorry.

I was the one the who reverted the climate section. Sorry.

But the annual precipitaiton of Istanbul is 843.9 according (and no longer 680 mm) to its source the Turkish State Meteorological Service which has been updated by them after a 39 year period. The previous precipitaiton of 680 mm from the WMO source is now obsolete as it has not been updated. You should use the new updated precipitation from the official site: http://www.dmi.gov.tr/veridegerlendirme/yillik-toplam-yagis-verileri.aspx?m=istanbul.

Another emphasis of foggy days is also not entirely correct, because the fog usually dissipates during the same day toward noon. Istanbul is not San Franciso where the fog stays for an entire day. You should mention this.

Summers though are not that dry, but indeed are moderatly dry as that season receives significant rainfall. This is due that Istanbul is a borderline case with the oceanic climate, so it does not have a real "dry season" without hardly any rain which is more typical of a "classic" mediterraenean climate. You should add that it is moderatly dry, because the summer precipitation is more than 30 mm, which in drier cities such as London or Paris would be considered wet.

P.S. I live in Istanbul where we can observe the weather live, and where it is now heavily snowing now, which is not all unusual.

I have no objection to changing/updating the information. My primary objection was your reversion of the section to a series of one-sentence paragraphs. Regarding the specific points...
  • I don't care about the rainfall amount; I'll probably look at the table again, but we just need to be consistent between the two.
  • Regardless of where you go, fog is generally a morning phenomenon, dissipating during the day. The Climate sentence also indicates quite clearly that fog dissipates after the morning.
  • Thirty millimeters in a month is not wet. It's not arid, of course, but it's not wet. The driest months in Paris and London are wetter then the driest months in Istanbul.
-- tariqabjotu 21:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear ITN update

Good work rewording the nuclear meltdown blurb. I struggled to find the right formulation, and ended by giving up. Thue | talk 21:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, although I think most of the credit goes to Kslotte. -- tariqabjotu 22:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Fukashima move war

There have been quite a number of discussions about moves against consensus, at which the community opinion was generally that they should be reverted as soon as possible. That is the only reason I released it. Your view may vary, and in any case, your action in move protecting the page was undoubtedly the right one at the time. At your suggestion I have reprotected now they have done the move, as I share your concerns that it will just start up again otherwise. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That action has little effect. They're debating whether to keep the article at its current location or change it to a redirect, which doesn't require the move function to carry out. With the article in the accidents location, edit-protecting the article would be crippling an article where information is constantly changing. Hence, why I didn't do it. But edit-protecting the redirect, as I did, halts the redirect-war. So, I see two acceptable options at this juncture: fully-protecting the article at the redirect or blocking editors who continue to restore a redirect. But, move-protecting the article -- while I agree with it to prevent move vandalism and move-warring -- won't do anything for the redirect-war. -- tariqabjotu 18:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011


Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI

.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, okay. Obviously, if you really wanted to know why I removed only your comment, the best person to ask would have been me. But, I know you know that, and I know that's not what you were looking for. -- tariqabjotu 23:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Question #1 What do you know about me?
Question #2 Are you able to assume good faith?
OK I am asking you now. Why did you remove my comment only? Nobody, but you could explain this better.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
You were obviously looking for a confirmation of your position from an admin who you assumed would be more sympathetic toward you. But you did not get that because the difference between your comment and the two preceding it is obvious to any outside observer. The first two are very relevant, doing what many people do on ITN/C -- considering the scale of the event in context. Doing so is a double-edged though, as you see Passionless argue that because so much Israeli violence occurs and we don't post that, we shouldn't post this instance of Palestinian violence, while BabbaQ uses a similar point to conclude the opposite -- that the rarity of this event warrants an ITN posting. Your comment starts as a relevant reply, but quickly degenerates into a commentary about who's responsible for the violence in Israel and Palestine and their motives. It's irrelevant to the item's inclusion on ITN and it's inciting. -- tariqabjotu 00:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I was looking for a third opinion, and Elen did find bout comments to be soapboxing.
I was looking for a third opinion because the last time I communicated with you a few months ago you did not provide an answer to my question.
Thanks for explaining to me where I got it wring. I have never contributed to ITN before, and I believed my comment was OK. I simply tried to explain why none of the violence going on in this region cannot be taken out of content. I still believe this comment to be inflammatory.
In any case I will try to avoid making the comments I did in the feature, and I still would recommend you to try to assume good faith.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
User talk:Tariqabjotu: Difference between revisions Add topic