User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive Twenty-One

Comment It seems that my previous comment, which I have deleted was taken a bit more serious than I expected. It was intended as a joke and I apologize if you took offence to it. Captaindansplashback 18:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Blocked User page Could you please unblock my user page now that I know the policy I can follow it like I ALWAYS do with the Rules.--Hornetman16 20:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC) I already unprotected it. --Durin 20:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Signpost updated for December 11th. The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery Volume 2, Issue 50 11 December 2006 About the Signpost From the editor: New feature Board of Trustees expanded as three new members are appointed Wikimedia Foundation releases financial audit Arbitration Committee elections continue, extra seat available Female-only wiki mailing list draws fire Trolling organization's article deleted WikiWorld comic: "Redshirt" News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones Wikipedia in the News Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC) The Incident Thank you Tariqabjotu for trying to stop the holocaust pic trolling. Maybe I snapped at you too fast before? Im sorry. SO many of the 'POV pushing' editors! Especially with pics.Opiner 12:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Query I noticed your documentation of milestone edits. Is there a tool you can use to identify such milestone edits? I also notice that you have several notations of race and religion on your user page. May I ask if you have ever gone through an AfD or CfD on a topic related to race or religion on wikipedia? I am an Afro-american and have noticed that often times administrative debates stall due to lack of support. What is the debate that you most wish you had gotten support for? TonyTheTiger 15:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC) There are several edit counters available at Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters#List of counters that would assist you in finding your total number of edits currently. Alternatively, you can just look under your contributions, set it to show 500 at a time, and begin at your earliest contribution to see your 500th, 1000th, 1500th, etc. edits. I'm sure I have been in a few AfD or CfD debates that involved race or religion, but none stand our and I can't really say there is one I most wish I had gotten support for. -- tariqabjotu 16:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Did you do something other than cut and paste for your response to appear on both of our talk pages? Also did you know that using 500 at a time causes count lags because it starts with 1-500 then goes to 500-999, then 999-1498? Do you have a preferred counter? At the top of my user page I use Kate's tool. However, this will not help me to go back and find my 1000th or 2000th edit. Do you have any specific suggestion for that purpose. TonyTheTiger 16:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC) I just cut and paste the response. About the contribution counter, I think you might have discovered a glitch (to some extent). If you begin at the oldest contribution, it will show edits 1-500, 501-1000, 1001-1500, etc., but it appears starting at the newest contributions, it shows the 500 oldest edits, then the 500 oldest edits beginning with the 500th oldest edit, then the 500 oldest edits beginning with the 999 oldest edit. I reported the possible bug. -- tariqabjotu 16:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC) From WP:AIV 68.44.107.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), constantly linkspamming and vandalsing articles, usually a tag team efort with suspiciously similar IP 68.44.32.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Permanent ban is definatly in order here. Both IPs have been warned and blocked repeatedly. L0b0t 16:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC) This is a gross mischaracterization of what is occuring with these IP addresses. 68.44.32.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked two days ago. 68.44.107.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), contrary to what you say, has never been blocked. And you're warnings are excessively harsh. Remember to use {{test1}}, {{test2}}, {{test3}}, etc. instead of jumping to {{test4}} or {{bv}}. -- tariqabjotu 17:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC) 68.44.107.97 has 10 edits dating back to August 2006, every single edit is to vandalise an article or to insert commercial linkspam. 68.44.32.182 has 27 edits since May of 2006, only 1 of which is not vandalism or linkspamming. Both of these IP's abuse the same 3 articles repeatedly. How is that a gross mischaracterization? L0b0t 17:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC) You said the users had been warned and blocked repeatedly, but 68.44.107.97 had never been blocked and only received two warnings. 68.44.32.182 had been blocked several times, but I see several of the warnings on the user's talk page are double posts of the same warning. Although at least one of these users may be persistent with ignoring Wikipedia's rules, we do not want to be scaring potential users away by using {{blatantvandal}} for every bit of vandalism. -- tariqabjotu 17:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC) I disagree wholeheartedly. We DO want to scare away users that have nothing to contribute but linkspam and vandalism. {{blatantvandal}} is not a step up from a {{test}} but rather, to be used when there is no question as to wether the edit was vandalism (Such as this case, when it is the same linkspam and removal of sourced info again and again by the same anon users.) I'm all for not biting the newcomers but vandalism should never be tolerated for any reason or from any editor. To be soft on vandals (short blocks or even worse no block) just encourages more vandalism. The article Johnny Rebel (singer) has been vandalised 25 times just by these two anons. Where do you draw the line? L0b0t 18:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC) User:RunedChozo Hey, there. Currently, there's some ongoing discussion about the recent events surrounding this user, on WikiEN-l. I'm checking things over, and I haven't been able, just yet, to find evidence to support the allegation of block evasion -- any chance you could help me out in that regard? Thanks in advance! Luna Santin 22:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Look at the recent contributions for 70.114.237.14 (talk · contribs). It's quite clear it's him since he's talking in the same fashion and given this comment where he references his talk page being blocked. I suppose a checkuser can be done to confirm this. -- tariqabjotu 22:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC) I'm pretty sure that user is our earlier anon using a dynamic IP who was making extreme comments on the Beit Hanoun page. There were two problematic users, Runed and the anon. The IP range of that user above looks roughly in the zone of the anon. A checkuser should be performed to confirm if this is Runed or not. JoshuaZ 22:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Hrm. Looks like 70.114.237.14 and RunedChozo have very similar behaviors, the way I'm reading it. No objection if we want a checkuser on this -- if there may be other users involved, being safe couldn't hurt. Luna Santin 23:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC) I'm working on the checkuser request right now (it's actually an addendum to another checkuser request from earlier). -- tariqabjotu 23:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC) indian caste system mediation hello Tariq. you invited a number of users to a mediation case quite a few days ago. two of the main participants (BhaiSaab and Hkelkar) have been blocked per a recent ArbCom ruling. the other user has not agreed to participate... so it seems to be just me. in the light of this, should the case be closed or what? thanks. ITAQALLAH 04:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Sure. However, it was not through some formal process, so I'm not sure what could be down to close the discussion. -- tariqabjotu 05:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Please delete these pages User:Mike1, User talk:Mike1, User talk:Mike1/archive1, User talk:Mike1/archive2, User talk:Mike1/archive3. This is my alternate doppelganger account. Feel free to check the logs at User:Mjg0503 if you want first. Mjg0503 21:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Thank you :) have fun with the wiki. - Mjg0503 21:13, 13 December 2006 (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  scrumshus Talk to me 23:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC) There might be a way with Cascading Style Sheets, but I think some of the functions to do it are disabled. There might be another way, but I don't know it. -- tariqabjotu 23:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC) okay, ill try it. thnx  scrumshus Talk to me 23:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC) ITN On you posting this on ITN, please see my concerns here. Thanks, Mikker (...) 01:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC) I have responded. -- tariqabjotu 02:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Re: Blanking 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 Dudedontworry 05:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC) 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. E104421 09:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Poll: "Ryūkyū" instead of "Ryukyu" 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,--Húsönd 15:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC) 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. -- tariqabjotu 16:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC) 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.--Húsönd 17:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Hey there I just sent you an email. Thanks :-) JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC) User 168.215.59.254 You recently blocked 168.215.59.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 30 hours for vandalism. Since the expiration of that block, that user has continued to vandalize. Could you please block this user for a lengthy duration? Thanks, NatusRoma | Talk 16:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC) Done; I blocked him for 300,000 seconds. -- tariqabjotu 16:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC) Thanks for doing that. NatusRoma | Talk 17:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC) Regarding Permission 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 Zdralek 22:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC) example images with licensing formatting Foothills Hospital image backdrop test image old speed skates made in Canada image antique skate blade image Time Person of the Year 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). Re: Blocking Husnock First, your block of Husnock (talk · contribs) was excessive. Second, see this WP:ANI discussion. -- tariqabjotu 05:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC) I was a little slow in drafting my post, it's in the section below the one you link to: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_of_Husnock. --bainer (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 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... -- tariqabjotu 05:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 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) Is this a significant workaround the section / link dilemma? -- tariqabjotu 05:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC) 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) 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? — EncMstr 08:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC) I made these changes. In my opinion, that's sufficient. -- tariqabjotu 12:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Thank you very much for the clarification. That improves the section nicely. — EncMstr 08:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Deleted Image I see that that is not the first time that image was uploaded. Perhaps that file name should be protected against recreation. pschemp | talk 01:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Is this type of salting sufficient? -- tariqabjotu 02:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Perfect. pschemp | talk 02:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Re: mprotected2 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) I got them all. -- tariqabjotu 02:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC) ANI 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. – Chacor 02:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC) 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. -- tariqabjotu 02:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Signpost updated for December 18th. The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery Volume 2, Issue 51 18 December 2006 About the Signpost From the editor: Holiday publication Elections conclude, arbitrators to be chosen Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser opens WikiWorld comic: "Dr. Seuss" News and notes: Fundraiser plans, milestones Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident protection 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. QmunkE 15:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC) Perhaps after a couple more days I'll unprotected. The last time the article was unprotected, editors quickly began edit-warring again. -- tariqabjotu 13:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC) That's cool Thanks for the reply, I use the fair use license tags properly. LILVOKA 16:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC) FP programming language, FL programming language You closed a discussion months ago as move, but never actually made the move. I moved one other that you missed too. -Patstuarttalk|edits 01:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC) 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. -- tariqabjotu 02:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC) Courtesy note about ArbCom proceeding Hiya, just wanted to drop you a courtesy note to let you know about a current ArbCom proceeding where your name is briefly mentioned: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions. No action is needed on your part, though if you would like to participate in the case by offering a statement, evidence, or comments on the workshop page, you are more than welcome. FYI, Elonka 05:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)