This is an archive of past discussions about User:Tariqabjotu. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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)
Im dissapointed with your decision to merely page protect without addressing Jakew as i was hoping for at least a caution. BWilkins notedhere 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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)
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)
Hi there - I was wondering if you could help me understand why 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)
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)
The Admin Barnstar is defined as given to those who make "a particularly difficult decision," and this seems to fit that criteria.Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 15:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
For having the guts to make the hard decisions, and for all the hard work you do onITN I hereby award you this barnstar. Keep up the good work! --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
People edit Wikipedia doesn't mean it's correct and certainly due weight is often not applied. If you look at Subspecies_of_Galápagos_tortoisehere 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)
I can't see the references mentioned in the article you're talking about, but I do notice that 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is this how TFL functions? No one else can make changes to your section? The main reason I made the change is because I thought it was completely unnecessary to so strongly emphasize an event that just happened today with a list that talks about fourteen finals. But, I understand. This was discussed well in advance, which explains why it took you five attempts to put in a sentence that was grammatically acceptable in English.
P.S. Especially since you're being such a jerk about a reasonable change, I'll make sure that I prevent David Levy from dropping the UEFA story from ITN in deference to TFL since, you know, you are "entirely independent". -- tariqabjotu21:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
No, it's not "how TFL functions", how TFL functions can be found at WP:TFL. We are promoting a list, not an ITN item, they are coincident but independent. I'm very interested by your comment "which explains why it took you five attempts to put in a sentence that was grammatically acceptable in English." which seems to be quite indicative of some kind of personal issue you have with my ability to write English. I'm also interested in where your sudden change to the TFL blurb was "was discussed well in advance". Finally "since you're being such a jerk" is, without a shadow of a doubt, apersonal attack, which is really disappointing and something which I hope you won't repeat. Oh, and any issue you have with David Levy has no relevance to the content of TFL. If you would like to contribute to TFL, please do so, but please don't just "drive by" and assume it'll be fine by you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
In closing, I suggest you just leave the TFL blurb alone unless there are clear errors. It may or may not coincide with some half-sentence in ITN, but there's no harm in that. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
You seem to have implied that making a change to the blurb without some sort of approval from a community or discussion with you is unacceptable. There is no other conclusion I could possibly make because, even until now, you have provided no reason at all as to why your version is actually better. Your edit summary and your comments here have only cited the point about ITN, and mocked the ITN procedure in the process, and your second comment here made no effort to respond to my point about excessively emphasizing one final.
I said what I meant and meant what I said. I imagine you can write English perfectly fine, and we all make mistakes, but the fact that you didn't get it correct on the first (or second, or third...) time seems to contradict the concept that there is some sort of process that needs to be followed before making changes to the blurb. And, yet, you described my edit as "drive by". Any more than yours? What the hell did you expect me to do? Inform you that I combined a couple sentences? Oh please, get off your high horse; I did not and do not need to do that. I need no one's permission to make such an innocuous change, and I don't expect such derisive and flippant remarks from prior editors when I do so. -- tariqabjotu21:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Our standard practice is to not include the same event in more than one main page section at the same time. For example, we routinely remove one from OTD if it's mentioned (typically in much greater detail) in TFA or TFP. In this respect, no two main page sections are "entirely independent" of each other.
In May, when TFL was about the Eurovision Song Contest, I inserted code to suppress the ITN item until the end of the day. As I explained at the time, I did so both to prevent redundancy and to support TFL. (A related ITN item greatly increases the likelihood that someone interested in the topic will click away from the main page without even seeing the featured list section.)
The above disagreement notwithstanding, I believe that the same approach is warranted in this instance. An item's omission from OTD means that it doesn't appear until at least a year later, so an ITN item's one-day absence is relatively minor. —David Levy22:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I didn't really agree with your decision to do that last time, as I feel TFL and ITN tend to emphasize different aspects of the content. For example, you really have to search through the TFL blurb, if you get down there, and get to that part of the blurb, before you see the link to the final of Euro 2012. And UEFA Euro 2012 isn't linked at all. Further, I think the omission of Euro 2012 would be far more glaring than the omission of Eurovision was (given it's substantially larger viewing audience).
And, yes, of course, I also feel given Rambling Man's insistence that TFL and ITN be completely independent, I see no pressing reason to coordinate with TFL. -- tariqabjotu22:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I didn't really agree with your decision to do that last time, as I feel TFL and ITN tend to emphasize different aspects of the content. For example, you really have to search through the TFL blurb, if you get down there, and get to that part of the blurb, before you see the link to the final of Euro 2012. And UEFA Euro 2012 isn't linked at all.
If The Rambling Man would permit it, we could add a such a link.
But my point is that it isn't very harmful if the ITN item is simply absent (irrespective of something serving as a substitution) on Monday (UTC) — the only day of the week on which TFL appears on the main page, and the only instance in which this particular featured list will everappear there. The ITN item would return on Tuesday, which isn't even outside our normal update window.
Further, I think the omission of Euro 2012 would be far more glaring than the omission of Eurovision was (given it's substantially larger viewing audience).
It would be a more radical approach, but instead of suppressing the item, we could modify it to serve as an anchor link to the TFL section, thereby directly promoting it.
And, yes, of course, I also feel given Rambling Man's insistence that TFL and ITN be completely independent, I see no pressing reason to coordinate with TFL.
I disagree with him and see possible ownership issues, and while I understand the temptation to say "okay, have it your way" and leave TFL to sink or swim on its own, I feel that we should instead set aside the above disagreement and act in the best interests of Wikipedia's readership and community at large. —David Levy23:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Greetings, and thanks for all your work at ITN and Wikipedia as a whole.
I was a bit surprised by your comment just now regarding the ITN death criteria. While I agree that a review may well be a good thing, it seems to me that the place to discuss that would be the talk page or elsewhere, and not the voting area. While I have no emotional attachment to Borgnine getting an ITN mention, this is my first nomination in some time, and I'd like to see it judged on its merits. Could I ask you to consider taking the comment to the talk page, or failing that, keeping an eye on it and doing so (or hatting it) if it becomes a sideshow with debate raging over your suggestion and not the nomination? Thanks for your consideration, and again, for the efforts you make at ITN, which I generally am in agreement with. Cheers!Jusdafax23:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
RE:Istanbul at FAC
Hallo Tariq
thanks for inviting me, I will do it! Anyway, each morning (GMT+1) during the last week I have been watching what you wrote in the previous night...Great work! Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 12:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
thanks for writing! I don't know this source, but the concept of "ethnic" group was plainly unknown to the Ottomans. They thought only in term of "confessional" groups (Millet). For example, administratively there was an Eastern Orthodox millet, but never a Greek (Rum) community, an Armenian Orthodox Millet, but not an Armenian community. Incidentally, this way of defining groups caused thousands of Greeks to be expelled from Greece in 1923 because they were Muslim (if you go to Ayvalik, many inhabitants still speak Greek there), while Christian Karamanli were deported to Greece. Alex2006 (talk) 07:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
BTW, I think that in the religious/ethnic groups section there should be also a sentence about the Levantines, a community which played an important role in the city and that - although diminished in number - is still present Alex2006 (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
If you want to add it, go ahead; I'm not doing it. As you saw, I cut information in the interest of length (the article is long as it is). We can't mention every ethnic group. -- tariqabjotu08:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
OK Tariq, if I find the right way to compress :-) it, i will do. I think that a short citation should be good, due above all to its historical significance. Alex2006 (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I saw your objection to adding photos to the Istanbul article. I see that Paris Hilton article has 10 photos. (I am not going to comment on her presumed importance.) Could you please explain me, without sending me to policy pages, 'cause I read the link you provided but could not understand: What are the criteria to use in order to be able to know how many photos can be added to an article? All the best. --E4024(talk) 16:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
In general, there are too many images if there is sandwiching. Sandwiching is when images are squeezed between two images on both sides simultaneously. You should also avoid crowding, displacing images from their intended locations (i.e. putting so many images that some of them are pushed down beyond where the image was intended to be located). Looking back at version with the additional images, you'll see that all of the text in the Architecture section suffers from sandwiching, and most of the Administration and Economy sections is the same way. In the Architecture, Administration, and Culture sections, you also see that images are being pushed downward by other images. All of this is because there were too many images in the article. -- tariqabjotu18:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
