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.
:::You may also want to read my comments ]. ] ] 02:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
:::You may also want to read my comments ]. ] ] 02:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
::::You can't be asking me to fix the thousands of links ''and'' be asking for the move to be overturned. Which do you want? I'm not going to bother doing the former -- and I never planned on doing the former -- with the full knowledge that any move made by an administrator regarding this will be met with a firestorm. Seriously, guys. Why do you let something that 99.9% of the 6.6+ billion people in the world couldn't care less about consume so much of your time? Why do you all bother, with the endless move requests, the endless threads -- here and elsewhere -- when you all seem more interested in the argument than its resolution? And why the hell are you going to bother asking for some sort of outside party to make a decision based on your comments, by nature of you making a move request, when you're going to respond to the result with ''this''? If you want to waste your own time on this matter, fine. But don't waste mine by bringing your fight to my doorstep. I have said this ''multiple times'' now: '''I am not getting further involved with this. I am not changing my mind.''' So, please, go away. All of you. If I wake up tomorrow and discover that all of these moves have been reversed, ]. Continue fighting over this trivial issue to the death; the rest of the world won't be giving a fuck either. -- ''']''' 04:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
⬅ We all know its going to end up at Arbcom so I suggest we let that happen. Otherwise we will have votes on votes on votes on different pages as people try to avoid the issues and confuse the position to maintain a status quo. This needs intervention. Tariqabjotu, my thanks at least for taking this on. --] <small>]</small> 22:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
⬅ We all know its going to end up at Arbcom so I suggest we let that happen. Otherwise we will have votes on votes on votes on different pages as people try to avoid the issues and confuse the position to maintain a status quo. This needs intervention. Tariqabjotu, my thanks at least for taking this on. --] <small>]</small> 22:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
First, when you comment on a new subject on someone's talk page, create a new section (and please don't use ugly, obtrusive red letters -- I can understand English just fine). Second, I did not call you a possibly banned user; you need to pay more attention to the history of that article. -- tariqabjotu21:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Xasha, instead of loosing yout time in the noticeboard, try better to reduce your stalinist and anti-Romanian attitude from this encyclopedia and stop to remove quoted information that don't match to your attitude regarding the Romanians. Looking to your edits, I see only hostility against Romanians. But I think you're just an exception between Russian users, not a normal case.--Olahus (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Xasha, you vandalized the article Moldovans again and again and again. As usual, you insisted in the deletion of quoted information. This IS obvoiously vandalism.--Olahus (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Um... I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't mix up those two cases as I didn't even know about the other one. One, apparently, is for the Balkan states while the other is for Eastern Europe. I did not confuse Moldova with Macedonia as you imply. Those two countries aren't on opposite sides of the world, you know... as this map suggests, Moldova could be considered at least partially in the Balkans. Because the Macedonia case allows general sanctions to be applied to articles related to the Balkans (not just Macedonia), "defined broadly", and because I was not aware of the case that allowed general sanctions to be applied regarding Eastern Europe in general, I invoked that case, not the Digwuren one.
Both describe the geographical region related to Olahus's problematic editing (although one more undisputably so than the other) so I don't understand why it matters which case I invoke and where I post the violation. I don't know what "order" you're talking about and I don't find whatever joke you were trying to make funny. -- tariqabjotu22:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Meh, I rather prefer this map, than one with an arbitrarily drawn line, but whatever. Olahus is the third user (I know) active in articles about Moldova who was put on parole and in both previous cases the warning admins (El_C and Stifle) have used the Macedonia warning only to correct themselves later, I assumed that you fell victim to the eM error as well. If that is not the case, please accept my apologies. Still, that last part was kinda stuffy. Relax! :-P --Illythr (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Moldova is not a Balkan country. At least, in according to the most common definitions of this region, it is by far not a Balkan country. This map is obviously an original research and the author did'n mention any source of the map (actually, what source could he have at all? ). --Olahus (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, as someone above mentioned, I could move the restriction to the case encompassing all of Eastern Europe, not just the Balkans, if that's what you want. -- tariqabjotu10:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Apologies
Then, appreciating the irony, I did indeed misread you, and there are no excuses. I sincerely apologize. I would just add (by no means in exculpation of my misprision), that we grow up in, and are exposed to, language, customary expressions and newspaper consensus on how the world is described, which people, like I.M. (Jordanian) hailing from another cultural milieu and accustomed to different descriptions for the land, take exception to. I haven't checked that person's record. But systemic bias is something we all have. And that huge swathe of discussion was really just over the refusal to put in an adjective or a locative particle that would have left the Islamic reader satisfied. But I won't blog the issue here on your page. Regards Nishidani (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm unsure if you're suggesting that we should have added an another word or two to the first sentence of Jerusalem to " the Islamic reader satisfied", but if you were, I'm going to have to disagree with you to the greatest degree. First, of course, I'm sure there are many Muslims that don't care about this wording, and think it's accurate. But more on point, this reminds me of what was happening at the Muhammad article a few months ago. As you may have been aware, there was an online petition demanding that the images of Muhammad be removed from that article. It snowballed out of control until we had arbitrary IP users removing images from the article and ranting on the talk page about this supposed inappropriateness. I understand that we should be cognizant of cultural differences, but this is an encyclopedia. Further, it seems we are expected to bend over backwards to tailor to Muslim interests -- for Israel-Palestine topics, that means highlighting the Palestinian point-of-view and drawing sympathy toward their causes -- and acting like the world revolves around Arabs and Muslims. Some nerve. And this is obviously not an issue limited to Misplaced Pages.
Case in point, the Israel article on the Arabic Misplaced Pages is absolutely atrocious, repeatedly using "Zionist" where "Jewish" is more accurate (and less, as is often intended, ederisive), discussing a Palestinian perspective of the 1948 war and Israel's beginnings. Pure bias, as indicated by the some of the comments on the talk page. On the talk page, one editor even, insofar as I can tell (I can't really read Arabic), suggests that it's okay to present the Israel-Palestine conflict from the Arab perspective. I'm sure Imad, after he's finished spreading his bundle of neutrality across the English Misplaced Pages, will head to the Arabic Misplaced Pages next, and eliminate the excessively pro-Arab sentiment. But somehow, I'm not holding my breath. Like I said, it's politics. Civil POV pushers do not deserve to be rewarded. -- tariqabjotu11:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Jerusalem
Talk page locked? Sorry if you don't want comments here...After a quick review, it's going to DR, so I'd like to keep the protection until there's been some further input. Didn't realise...talk page looked so quiet! Best, PeterSymonds(talk)14:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Talkback
I have left you a response on my "Discussions" page (follow the Kacheek emoticon in my signature). -Jéské17:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
A follow-up note
Hi Tariqabjotu, since you commented at a thread on ANI, I thought I'd leave a follow-up note for you. I've considered your opinion (as well as the long term nature of the account and the fact that the incident was isolated) and have lifted the block on User:Cush a bit early (1 week effectively reduced to ~4 days). Thanks for weighing in, R. Baley (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I've considered your opinion (as well as the long term nature of the account and the fact that the incident was isolated)
Right... except you forgot to mention the most important part: you forced the half-apology out of him. Seriously, I sure hope other isolated incidents of offensive comments toward other groups are treated with this much vigor in the future. No, strike that; I hope they aren't, because such actions would still be considered excessive. We're not the morality police; we block people to prevent users from disrupting the wiki in the future. People felt qualified to somehow extrapolate this one data point into a career spewing anti-semitic jargon. And, of course, the only remedy for such aspiring Jew-baiters is an indefinite block that may only be lifted once an apology (ideally to the entire Jewish people) is given. Yup, even though he had no block history. We don't seem to treat others like this, but, unfortunately, the entire community seemed to rally behind you and explain, presumably to me, in fifteen different ways why "Jew crew" was offensive (as if I didn't already understand). Why? Well, I might conjecture, but I don't want to be blocked indefinitely and forced to give an apology (oh no, I said too much!). -- tariqabjotu16:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tariq, I'm sorry you disagree with what I did, but I really did do it because I don't want that type of language to be acceptable. I also didn't see an apology, half or otherwise, but what I did see was a statement that it wouldn't happen again (which was all I was asking for). Prior to that all I saw was a defense of its use.
I did read your comment at the time it was posted at ANI (and I respect your opinion -so it bothered me somewhat) but as you never replied to my response, I was not completely sure if you really thought I intended to to indefinitely block -or if you thought week was too long (or were against any block altogether).
Finally, I just want to re-iterate that it was not my intent to block permanently. Since I stepped in relatively early, I was concerned that my perception of the magnitude of the insult might be hugely different than the consensus which would later develop. . .I was thinking that that would lead to extra entries in the block log (distorting things later). Maybe we're not seeing things the same way in this instance, but I want you to know I value your input -so if you're thinking I'm off-track again in the future, don't hesitate to leave a note at my talk page. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Emerging Church Lock
Could you return the Emerging Church article to its pre-edit-war condition, as of June 10, since you've put a 5-day lock on it? There are multiple issues with the content (which was slipped in prior to the lock) that have not been discussed.
Specifically, Adminster has refused to discuss changes before making them, even after a reasonable request to do so. Some of the information he's trying to add is unsupported speculation from a blog source (spurgeon.org), and the image, itself, has copyright issues - the border is copyrighted by one individual, but the internal image is not his to copyright. Additionally, the image itself is a parody and violates WP:NPOV. While I'm willing to get a third opinion/arbitrate the issue if Adminster will discuss it, the changes don't belong on the main page until consensus is reached.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Understood! We have passed the expiry for the lock, and it is still uneditable, though. Will this be unlocked automatically?--Lyonscc (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, at the moment, the semi-protection is redundant, but I don't think it's a bad idea to keep it, in case East deletes his subpage. · AndonicO13:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Apologies
I was initially unable to find the ITN/C debate about Russert. Thank you for pointing to it in your reversion - I have seen it now. I apologize for reacting so hastily. Bobo.21:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
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 (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
What appears to be an hiatus in the Jerusalem capital flack
I am hoping that, in spite of your decision to disengage from this discussion, you were silently following the latest development. Which was that, because of the lack of larger participation in the discussion, we don't feel we have a mandate to recommend any change right now.
I hope that in the future you will participate in this discussion. Your contributions - even when crossing the border into anger - were always relevant.
By deligitimizing their position, you render any chance of compromise or discussion impossible. And their position is legitimate - at least, it is one that is held by a substantial portion of people of this world, and knowledgeable people at that. A little distance goes a long way.
After all, these arguments are only about words. And not very many words, at that. The more we can focus the discussion on one sentence or another, and display a little flexibility where possible, we can, perhaps, make our own contribution to a better Misplaced Pages, and maybe even a better Middle East. --Ravpapa (talk) 11:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, I was silently following the discussion and saw the latest "development". As for future participation... I'm not responding to Nishidani or Imad marie anymore, at least on this matter. As I already noted, in one way or another in several different ways, I find them absolutely impossible to work with -- and thus, I won't try. At this point, I don't consider their opinions on this of any value and will continue to disregard them in the future.
You're entitled to your opinion about whether Imad and Nishidani are civil POV pushers; it certainly hasn't changed mine. I am aware of Nishidani's varied contributions (if you're trying to prove Imad has edited across many areas, you haven't succeeded), but having a narrow or broad focus doesn't make or break a civil POV pusher. There are other criteria on the list in Raul's essay, some of which I have noticed Imad and/or Nish fulfill quite nicely. Unfortunately, you only took select quotes from Raul's essay and proceeded to disprove them, even though I never argued that they were true.
Whether my delegitimization of their position makes compromise or discussion impossible is moot; as I already stated, I want to have neither with them. As far I'm concerned, this discussion is closed and has been closed for quite some time. I have yet to be presented with anything I didn't know already.
I'm trying to discern what you were thinking when you said...
And their position is legitimate - at least, it is one that is held by a substantial portion of people of this world, and knowledgeable people at that.
...but I can't quite tell. I'm not sure what position these "knowledgeable people" are holding. That Israel's capital is disputed? (Nobody said it wasn't.) That East Jerusalem is occupied territory? (I'm aware of that.) That Palestinians want East Jerusalem to be the capital of their own state? (I never disputed this.) That Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel? (This is called denialism and anyone who holds it is not in anyway "knowledgeable".) Or is it that the dispute over Israel's capital should be placed further up in the Jerusalem article on Misplaced Pages? Because frankly, I don't think most "knowledgeable people" would give a damn about that.
Even still, you obviously didn't troll through the archives enough, or else you would have discovered -- heck, in some of the very discussions you cited in your closing statement -- that my position on this matter used to be that something about the capital dispute should be in the first paragraph of Israel. I said that in January 2007 and I said it again in April 2007, specifically presenting a proposal that had just that. Go ahead, look. However, compelling reasons were provided against that and after a variety of opinions were presented by people who originally wanted something else, a version similar to the current introduction was put in place. The article was featured and, now this may come as a shock, people dropped it. (Oh, but, as has been said, I'm not flexible, I'm not open to compromise, I'm motivated by some nationalism, yada yada.)
Since then, I don't remember having a single discussion where someone has suggested that we eliminate the information about the dispute or move it even farther down, even though we (a) had people who advocated such positions initially and (b) at several points the article actually appeared like that. And yet, we continue to have these flare-ups every once in a while from someone who feels they have been entrusted with revealing to the entire wiki community... (drum roll...) things we already know about the Palestinian position. They claim it's all about neutrality, when, of course, we know it's not. Imad, apparently fluent in Arabic, seems willing to exhaust a month working on getting a few words inserted into the Jerusalem on account of "neutrality", but won't do anything about this piece of propaganda the Arabic Misplaced Pages calls an encyclopedic article. Why am I not surprised?
The optomistic statements in your final paragraph leave me laughing. If you think a discussion on Misplaced Pages will help fix the Middle East, you're crazy. Don't lecture me about "flexibility"; you're talking to the wrong person. I never asked for your poetic words of wisdom and I don't appreciate them now. -- tariqabjotu16:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not particularly sure why you want a map in the infobox, especially considering there's a Location section in the article. -- tariqabjotu22:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Soviet_Story&action=history
where use ISasha has added another sheet of info on the article displaying personal opinions of some Dyokov that calls himself historian.. as some have stated before,the article has become a church for Dykov's personal views and is not much about the Soviet Story as it should be..
(I wonder if Dykov is the only "historian" to have an opinion on this so his views are displayed so huge there giving even a special thread just for him..
I wonder if any person who will claim to be a historian, a researcher or whatever will have the chance to have a thread where he can dispaly his personal views.. in that case this Soviet Story Article should expect 100s of pages dispalying personal views of whoever has said anything about the film)
Please delete this last edit- (cur) (last) 14:25, 18 June 2008 ISasha (Talk | contribs) m (16,887 bytes) (reintroduced vandalized section)
of Sasha who is in the edit war as much as the ones who tried to remove this offtopic thread.(I wonder why??? May be he's got some agenda?)
May I ask what the reason was for protecting User talk:Alansohn? Does it harm anyone if he creates school articles while he is blocked? It might seem wrong, and maybe you are trying to enforce a break, but is it really going to help if it upsets him? Carcharoth (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I haven't been bothered with an e-mail yet, so it obviously doesn't upset him enough. If you don't think it's necessary, remove it. I just was under the impression that the user talk page is only editable during blocks in order for the blocked party to contest his/her block (hence why you can't edit other pages in your userspace that are equally, and perhaps more, trivial). -- tariqabjotu18:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The use of {{2nd chance}} here would be incorrect. It's clearly not pertinent for his situation; no one's doubting that he can write articles and his block is only thirty-one hours. -- tariqabjotu20:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
No, Olahus. Look a few threads up on my talk page, where you commented. Also look a few threads up on your own talk page, where someone specifically pointed to you the ArbCom case I'm talking about and accurately predicted I would just propose changing the location of the sanction. Why does this matter to you? Further, the reason I didn't include Xasha or anyone else is that their disruption did not appear to be as widespread as yours. I'm not going to do anything now either. -- tariqabjotu11:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
How did you come to the conclusion that Xasha's edits disruptions did not appear to be as widespread as mines? E.g. regarding the article Moldovans, my edits were quoted with serious and official sourcesDespite of those factsm the user Xasha reverted the edits without an explanation. He didn't it just once, but several times. See , , . According to the rules of this Enciclopaedia, edits as those of Xasha are called vandalisms, and my reverts of his edits are completely legitime.
I asked Xasha in his talk page to stop this vandalizing. Not just that he didn't answer my question, but he also emptied it accusing me of making personal attacks against him! Furthermore, he ignored Illythr's advice to archive the talk page and after I restored the page with my question, he changed the content of the page again.--Olahus (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
According to the rules of this Enciclopaedia, edits as those of Xasha are called vandalisms, and my reverts of his edits are completely legitime.
Precisely why I don't feel the need to sanction Xasha. Xasha's edits are not vandalism; they are edits within a content dispute, and so your edits are not in anyway legitimate. At the time of the application of the sanction, you were edit-warring on Moldovan language, Moldovans, and Bendery -- multiple articles -- and not just with Xasha. Like I said, I'm not going to sanction Xasha at this moment. If you think something needs to be done, take your issue up at WP:AE. -- tariqabjotu22:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to have to contest your blocking of the two editors. I think the protection could be lifted in lieu of something like a 1RR sanction vis-a-vis WP:ARBPIA, but until that happens (and even if it does) a protection of an article and a block of two editors for edit-warring is too much. It should be one or the other because blocks are preventative. Since the two blocked editors can't edit the article anyway due to the protection, the block's goal of preventing them from continuing to edit war on this article has already been accomplished. -- tariqabjotu14:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm just curious whether you considered a WP:ARBPIA sanction before your protection. I mean, it's a bit miraculous this article has escaped one all this time. -- tariqabjotu14:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
These afd's, initiated right after the event, although correct under Misplaced Pages's policy, almost always end up failing. The correct way of going about these articles is to wait a month or two when all the hysteria has died down and then proceed with the afd. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)23:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I see that you're as confused by the result of this discussion as I am, Honestly, I'm not sure where it is stated that merge isn't a valid closing rationale for an AfD. I'm considering taking this to DRV, but as I haven't really participated there I'm unsure if this is the appropriate or not. Any thoughts? AniMate23:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The second was not a revert, he add a source for his precedent edit. So there were 3 (but not more than 3 reverts). And even if you consider the second edit I presented here a revert, still the first block by the admin PeterSymonds was not legitimate since there were only 3 reverts at that time and no more that 3 as the rule requires.
I am aware of the three-revert rule, thank you. "I only reverted three times" is the most common defense in the book. WP:3RR also mentions that the rule is an "electric fence"; one is not entitled to three reverts per day. Desiphral's previous block, which, by the way, was only for twelve hours (rather than the standard twenty-four), was reviewed by multiple editors and another admin, so I consider it fair. (Even reviewing the evidence myself, I still see the block as fair). Desiphral got off his block by immediately continuing to edit war on two different articles. That is why his block is longer. -- tariqabjotu14:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought I commented here yesterday, but probably I just gave "show preview" and forgot to save it.
"one is not entitled to three reverts per day" - that is the most common pretext in the book to block a user for braking the 3RR rule, when he didn't really brake it. If you wanna consider his third edit a revert, than it was only when you blocked him the second time, that he really broke that rule. So I think you should have blocked him for only 12 h, so it would have been 24 h together with the first block.
See also the question that I have asked PeterSymonds
You're trying to argue a block that has already expired. It's history. The problem for you is that Desiphral's behavior after the block only serves to demonstrate why the block was necessary. He made baseless complaints that Peter was somehow biased against him, placing the blame on the blocker, rather than the blockee (himself, the one who committed the transgression). Further, he still didn't catch the hint from his short, twelve-hour block that edit-warring was not okay, as he proceeded immediately after his block expired to do just that on two articles (calling his opponent's edits 'vandalism' as well). One can only imagine what he would have done had he not been blocked. As I mentioned on Desiphral's page, had I known he was edit- and move-warring on another article as well, his block would have been even longer. So, don't waste your time complaining about a block that is lenient enough already. Desiphral's block is not going to be removed or reduced, but if you need several more admins to tell you this, you are free to take this to WP:ANI. Feel free to reference this comment or this discussion in any future complaint. -- tariqabjotu10:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
that your saying that free and fair discussion has halted doesn't make it so, right? There has now been an RfC filed, and I've tallied the discussion to show that there's no consensus to merge at this time. I'd ask that you self-revert, for the duration of the RfC. Thanks, S.DeanJameson19:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
You have some nerve. Today, you have proven yourself a raging, almost habitual, liar who is unwilling to take criticism. I will no longer respond to any of your junk, and, for that reason, any further comment here by you will be immediately reverted. -- tariqabjotu19:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Tariq, please be careful, about the personal attacks. Regardless of whether an editor is a "raging habitual liar," there is seldom little good that comes from telling them so. When it the last time you said to someone, "I find that you are totally unwilling to take criticism!" and they replied, "Hmmm, yes, you have a point. Let me consider that and see if I can improve my behavior"? hehehe...
And Dean, as I have mentioned to you, you have also been guilty of ratcheting things up quite a bit. Calling the merge process "backdoor deletion" is a misrepresentation of the reality. Let's all try and be a little more civil, okay? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I was obviously not expecting him to agree with my assessment; I was explaining why I would no longer respond to him. A spade is a spade. I have definitively vowed to no longer respond to him. So, although I appreciate your attempt to act as mediator, it is not necessary and your point is lost on me. -- tariqabjotu19:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I have in the past had to tell people to stay the hell off my talk page. I'm just saying, when you say things like "raging liar," it doesn't do any good, and kinda makes you look bad, especially if taken out of context. You don't have to take my advice :) --Jaysweet (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, if someone wants to know the backstory, I can point them to it. However, I will concede that perhaps "raging, almost habitual, liar" may not have conveyed the point that I wanted, namely that S. Dean has been sounding excessively agitated in his comments because of how the article turned out (repeatedly merged, etc.) and how he has persistently misrepresented his opponents' positions as well as the statements of the well-meaning Friday and Calton. Obviously, that's not as concise as my previous wording, but it's perhaps more accurate. I'll copy it to the thread on my talk page. -- tariqabjotu20:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
With all respect, tariq, I think you might want to re-think your tone and lack of grace in some of the discussions that have been going on regarding this article - and I'm not talking about exchanges with S. Dean. If you want diffs, I'll give you diffs, but your attitude has sometimes not been particularly collegial or appropriate, in my opinion. Just saying, in the spirit of clearing the air. Tvoz/talk21:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I've just reviewed all of my comments on this matter. While I might describe some of them as pointed, I stand by all of them. -- tariqabjotu21:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, Tariq. I wasn't trying to get you to back away from your positions, just your attitude. Tensions run high, and responding with some grace doesn't hurt. But never mind. Tvoz/talk22:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Saying "you have proven yourself a raging, almost habitual, liar" isn't helpful, and doesn't follow the whole "focus on the contributions, not the contributor" ideal. I strongly disagree with S. Dean's actions and position, but he did apologize. AniMate22:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think I need to respond to this... again... in the same thread I responded to it the first time. -- tariqabjotu05:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for my attitude and tone
In looking back through my discussion with you (and others of your view), I recognize that I have advocated my position with such vigor that it has led to hard feelings and anger. I apologize completely for the role my tone and attitude have played throughout. This is my first real dispute on Misplaced Pages, and I have not handled it as I should have. Please accept my apologies. S.DeanJameson20:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
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 (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Point me to where The Jerusalem Post says their images are available under the GNU license and I'll stop. Otherwise, they will be deleted soon. We have guidelines on what images are permissible on Misplaced Pages, and you must follow them. -- tariqabjotu12:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Jerusalem FAR
Jerusalem has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
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 (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, sorry about that. The notices on the talk pages of articles that make it to ITN (and to editors who help bring said articles to ITN) are a relatively new thing, dating back to June 10. So, essentially, I forgot that these new templates are a part of the ITN update process (and, to be honest, I don't think it was loudly announced that these were part of the process now; one really had to be paying attention). -- tariqabjotu20:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the tag. It's not that I crave for it but simply like to have it. I hope to contribute more for ITN and DYK! --gppande«talk»21:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Editor's barnstar
The Editor's Barnstar
I award you this Editor's barnstar, for turning impossible POV-magnets into Featured Articles, and keeping them that way against the hordes of POV-pushers. Jayjg 06:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar; I've added it to my userpage. However, it might have come too soon. I don't plan on spending a large amount of time trying to fix the issues with the article. I, to put it simply, do not have the time to spend fixing the (legitimate) problems with the article within the short period the FAR process allows. Further, I certainly don't have the energy to argue with people who want every point about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict included. I would, ideally, like to see the FAR tabled for a bit because many of the issues -- almost everything except for those surrounding the introduction -- are being raised for the first time. But, it doesn't matter; if the article loses FA status, the issues can be addressed then and then brought to another (surely, painful) FAC -- if someone is up for that monumental task. -- tariqabjotu10:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I understand your reluctance, but I hope you will, at some point, have the time or energy to address any legitimate concerns - these are important articles, and it's clear that the partisans currently contesting its FA status have neither and interest in nor the ability to bring it to/keep it at FA status, so you're about the only hope it has. Jayjg 00:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
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 (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Recently at Jerusalem
Hello there,
As I said on the Jerus talk page I have lost my patience with sloppy and highly-partisan deletions of basic historical facts by one editor of late and it has harmed my attitude in dealing with others. Really, I was upset with one person only and should not have directed my frustration at everyone who feels passionately about the "Jerusalem as capital" question. On the other hand, I got quite slammed for my two less-than-perfect comments, even after apologizing, while I see everyone else got away with personally attacking me and other editors today without comment. Now that I reflect further, your reprimand was quite personal, and given the fact that I'd already been 'egged in the face', I think it was overkill, especially since I did not say a word about 'sides.' While I understand that some of my recent additions are contentious, I welcome any help fine-tuning them. In my opinion, as well as others', it is not sufficient simply to have one sentence in this article which reads: "permits are said to be hard to come by." As you can see from the World Bank report, the scale of the matter is pretty large - 400 demolition orders annually - and in my opinion quite worthy of note. If you have any suggestions other than 'delete, delete', I am open. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
When you decide you're going to pretend you don't know how this indentation thing works (i.e. you put a response without indenting), you should expect that responses to other people are sometimes going to appear like responses to you. I indented immediately in from Esmehwa's comment. My comment about your tone was merely an aside; it was obvious, really, from the rest of my post that I was addressing him, unless otherwise stated. Now, for the piece about being 'egged in the face' already and overkill -- which doesn't make sense, because I was only the second to respond to you -- I have some advice (which I'm sure you've heard before): if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. -- tariqabjotu22:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
You think I misunderstood your attacks on the talkpage (calling me "holier-than-thou," and paternalistically reprimanding my recent style of editing, for instance). I think you misunderstood me, here: I was trying to make my comments more readable - I assumed it was obvious that anyone would know all the comments were from one source. Maybe this was not within suggested editing mode. But if you cannot assume good faith anymore after all this time at wikipedia, then maybe it is you who should consider getting out of the kitchen - failure to assume good faith poisons the food. Your 'get out of the kitchen' comment almost sounds like what you are trying to do is drive people with opposing points of view out of the kitchen. Sorry Tariqabjotu, the heat of the kitchen is where I live, and no amount of attempts can drive me out. This should not be an atmosphere in which people try to inflame one another - we should be trying to cool things down - it's damn hot enough in Israel as it is. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
By the way, Please do not copy my writing to my talkpage or anywhere else, if I want it there I will put it there myself. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey there. I don't know what you mean by "baseless attacks on their opponents." Can you please explain, and offer specifics only, please. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to explain specifically what has been bothering you. In recent days I have had a barrage of insults directed at me personally, rather than at the content, and am doing my best to keep a cool head. My main charge against various editors has been regarding their incivility, attacking my motivations, my knowledge, etc. charging me with spouting "conspiracy theories,""rambling" concerning a one-sentence answer to a question, having friends (Palestinians) who might bulldoze a certain editor (as happened recently to 30 people in Jerusalem), "hijacking", being "holier-than-thou", having problems "in the head", "agenda-pushing", being a "rigid ideologue,""brainless and brainwashed", " the only one with egg on the face is you". 3/4 of these comments have come from one editor who has succeeded in unsettling me, drawing me in to battle, when I really should just ignore her; I personally believe should be blocked. As far as the charge of pro-Zionism, I myself was raised Zionist beyond your wildest dreams -- I know what a Zionist is and I know what an Israeli is and I know that the two are not necessarily synonymous, so rather than referring to all Israelis, sometimes I specify, pro-Zionist. As far as my view that Palestinian perspectives are being disappeared, I will stand by that assertion; not that all Palestinian views are being deleted, but several significant Palestinian perspectives have repeatedly disappeared from various articles,usually due to what I view as an assault by just one or two persistent editors who are constantly on wikipedia, and this should not happen. I would like the atmosphere to cool down and if you will work towards that with me, that would be great. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Your "pro-Zionist" comment was specifically leveled at "two or three" certain editors, so the options as to whom you were referring are quite limited. You are heavily implying that "2 or 3" of the editors who are reverting to the header you don't like are doing so at least in part because they are "pro-Zionist". You have no basis for that, because the rationale behind the headers was explained in non-partisan terms. There's a difference between something "disappearing" and someone "disappearing" something. I highly doubt that you are unaware of the brutal connotations of the latter, considering you have nearly exclusively used it in that sense, and even put the word in quotes). Disappearing something implies extreme malice ("to cause (someone) to disappear, especially by kidnapping or murder"). -- tariqabjotu20:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess that, to me, the word "disappearing" does not have to connote malice. It connotes a wish to see someone just "disappear", just go away, somehow cease to be an 'obstacle.' Disappearing, is a word between annihilating and omitting. It is stronger and more active than omission, and it is less conscious and intentional than annihilation. I see it as an unconscious process. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
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 (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
And that it can be re-added later. I'm sure there are some readers who don't know what the Tour de France is, but as long as the picture is right there it's seems like a little too much explaining to mention that it's in cycling. One way or another, there's going to be stuff on ITN or elsewhere on the Main Page that cannot be explained fully on the Main Page (for example, the item about India's government sounds Greek to me). However, it's not too much to ask for people to click on the links provided or, at least in this case, look at the picture a few pixels over. -- tariqabjotu14:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the template. Can you use Image:Carlos sastre 2008.jpg for the Tour de France item, because it's a picture of Sastre during the Tour with the yellow jersey? Also, can you say in the item that Sastre is from Spain, as mentioning the nationality of the sportsperson has been usual for sports items. Spencer23:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
FYI, it was an American editor who...
Sorry about that, that was a product of "edit summary searching" fatigue. I know you are American, your talk page makes it obvious. I did not search the edit summaries well enough and I thought it was Okedem, who I am pretty sure is Israeli. By the way, I don't think it is possible for that edit to have been an instance of "drawing lines in the sand and dividing people based on nationality" since I am myself Israeli and obviously don't hold that 'certain set of views.' (I got the impression that she had assumed that some 'pro-Palestinian' had deleted the mufti quote, and was directing my clarification at her assumption). I was afraid to say "pro-Zionist" per our discussion above. But, you're right, perhaps I should not have assumed that Okedem, or you, fit that description; it just seems that way. Point taken.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I came upon your contributions for the first time (we never crossed paths before) and I was greatly impressed by what you've brought to Misplaced Pages. Please accept this as a token of my appreciation of your fine work:
Heya, we're planning on making the report final tomorrow (August 7, the 6-month mark). If you get a chance, could you please review and/or endorse? Thanks, --Elonka14:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
User:217.75.202.131
Hello Tariqabjotu. I would like to bring the recent behaviour of the above mentioned user to your attention, as I see you have dealt with him/her in the past. Over the past few days, this user entered an edit war with me on a number of articles concerning the Bosnian War of the 1990's. Although two are to blame for an edit conflict, I wish for it to be known that I have tried to discuss these issues with the user on his/her talkpage but have received very little in verbal response; even so, he/she has persistently reverted. On principle, I know that I am not right about everything and I take no issue with users who may reammend one or two of my edits, specifically when my original edit consists of dozens of minor things which include grammatical clean-ups etc. I am against the concept of blanket-editing and have even explained this to the anonymous user, but he/she appears to have fully ignored it. It is also clear that he/she is a blatant trol whose intention it is to be disruptive. If you are still an administrator, I would be grateful if you could take sime time to resolve these issues: locking the page from newly established users may be one solution. If you are no longer an admin, please accept my apologies for writing, and inform me as soon as possible so that I can alert someone else. Many thanks. Evlekis (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic
Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come! You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Hi there seeing that the article was a former GA candidate, which obviously did not meet the criteria. Do you think the article could meet it now, or what could be improved? Thanks. Mohsin (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
WHATWikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Misplaced Pages and
StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Misplaced Pages Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.
WINNINGS?
Prizes include a dinner for three with Misplaced Pages creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!
WHEN
The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.
WHO
All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!
REGISTER
The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.
WHERE
Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.
I need some advice. There is a series of articles in this category that are mostly unreferenced, and of living persons. See Hooper Dunbar for an example. Their notability comes from having been elected members of the Universal House of Justice, so I redirected pretty much all of them to that page. Someone reverted the redirects, referring to this discussion. The way I see it, if they are biographies of living persons, and remain unreferenced, I don't need special approval to redirect them. Do you recommend redirecting or an AFD? or some other action? Cuñado ☼ - Talk04:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
I gotta say, you were very brave to start closing the Ireland pages. They've been hanging there for a while, and I did wonder who'd have the guts to start closing (ignored it myself when closing RM discussions, not through cowardice but, if you believe me, per contributions of myself to previous similar discussions ;) ). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Tariqabjotu! After reading your edit summary for the above mentioned moves, I think you may have made a mistake. You see, discussions are still ongoing and at other pages than the one you cited in your edit summary. Could you please read this for clarification and review the situation. Thanks. ;) --Cameron*17:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
That was a premature close if ever I saw one for a controversial topic, because active discussions were taking place on individual pages and the MOS page was not the final word on consensus if you read the individual page discussions. I support Cameron's comments. ww2censor (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The topic has been controversial since 2004. And it's been discussed to death since then too. I commend Tariqabjotu again for having read through the pages and made his decision. -- Evertype·✆18:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I was perfectly civil. Highly critical, but perfectly civil. But if you do have something else to say, let's not clutter Tariqbjotu's talk page anymore. Srnec (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The specific move request Ireland to Ireland (state) was opened five days ago and you prematurely closed that against the clearly oppose consensus on that talk page. Evertype has already conveniently forgotten that FACT and you don't seem to have noticed or seen that. ww2censor (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay? Everyone done? Well, you all certainly didn't make this easy for me. WP:RM suggested that this discussion was centralized in one place. In that one place, the MOS talk page, the consensus seemed obvious to me (although the Ireland (state) proposal had several other suggestions). It was only after I completed the moves and began removing talk page notices that I noticed this was not centralized. Receiving the most resistance, I noticed, was the Ireland (island) move. This was particularly surprising to me because that received a mountain of support on the MOS talk page. So, in light of that, I will acknowledge that I did not see those other discussions, although I think that was an understandable mistake on my part, based on the recount above.
Now, the problem (or problems). There will always be an ongoing discussion, especially as long as the status quo was maintained. So, the idea that it was premature on the basis that there was still discussion ongoing is not particularly compelling. The five days cited by ww2censor in his latest comment is acceptable for move requests, provided there is a clear consensus. The confusion about the location of the discussion led to me believing that the consensus was clear.
On the basis on vote counting alone, I would be willing to reverse the move to Ireland (island) based on the opinion on that article's talk page (22-15, against; with the MOS talk, it's 23-19, against). However, in order for me to do that, I'd have to reverse the disambiguation move, which, combined with the talk on that article's talk page.
Yes, that would be back to square one. And, in this case, I see that as an illogical conclusion. Why? Well, first, we'll have this squabbling continuing for several more weeks and months, until someone finally forces a move when all the opposers on vacation. Not particularly productive. Secondly, and more importantly, if there's anything that has been made clear over the past few days, through these move proposals, and, apparently, over the past many months through multiple discussions, it's that "Ireland", on its own, is ambiguous to a very significant portion of the English-speaking population. Were it so obvious that "Ireland" meant the island (or, alternatively, the country), we wouldn't have suffered through so many months of discussion and controversy. And that, my friends, is why we have a disambiguation page. This isn't one of those simple move requests where we want to just move Basic Article A to Location B; this is about making a disambiguation. The amount of controversy over this makes the disambiguation a no-brainer. So, I'm going to keep that.
Unfortunately, that resolution means that something needs to be done about the article about the island. Obviously, it can't stay (because the disambiguation page is there), so it must be moved. It's a less than ideal solution, but that article has to be moved to Ireland (island). I'd be open to moving Ireland (state) back to Republic of Ireland because it does not conflict with the disambiguation page, but I don't see any evidence I missed initially that would support reversing that.
Tariqabjotu, your comment: The confusion about the location of the discussion led to me believing that the consensus was clear clearly indicates you made a judgment error. That's a pity, but as an admin, you can revert you error, and based on all the flack I suggest you do that, even though you are being praised by those who clearly wanted and benefited from the confusion that you fell for. The task force was never the place for deciding a consensus on page moves. I think it is about time I deleted all the Ireland articles from my watchlist after 3 years and leave them to Matt who is already actively, imho, destroying the moved articles. If we really need an article about a rock with no population we already have a FAGeography of Ireland and don't even need Ireland (island). ww2censor (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
This is what I have thus far done - destruction? I've moved back nothing 'difficult' yet - only stuff like Science that was moved-over into Ireland from ROI (yes, not forked - but actually moved!!) And some stuff that NI never had in its offical article at all, which is shocking. Policy will one day be met if we keep this up guys!--Matt Lewis (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tariq - I think you've fallen for the line that a small but determined number of Irish POV pushers have been pushing for months - that Ireland is an ambiguous term. This is simply not true - the name "Ireland" has always, and will always refer to an island in the Atlantic ocean. This island has had a number of different states on it, but none of which are exclusively just known as "Ireland" (the current state occupying the majority of the island has a ready made disambiguation term ("Republic of")).
It was unfortunate that the first discussion you came across was the one that fewest people (and the most skewed audience in terms of representation from Ireland and elsewhere) contributed to. I would strongly advise looking at the RM on the original Ireland page, and look at what contributors from outside the British Isles (i.e. those least likely to have a national bias) have to say. пﮟოьεԻ5721:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
No. Actually the thing that persuaded me was the information that most readers who type in simply "Ireland" are looking for the State. It is that fact that is 'pushing' the conclusion that Ireland is an ambiguous term. And if it isn't - then it primarily refers to the country whose capital is Dublin. Sarah777 (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Looking through the section, I observe that the vast majority of people commenting -- on both the support and oppose sides -- are Irish or from the United Kingdom. That's unfortunate as, ideally, a wider swath of the world should have commented because of the RM post. But, I don't see the trend you're talking about. -- tariqabjotu22:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
e/c Just to interject, if I may (and I won't labour things here - I wish to make edits now). I have have spent a lot of my valuable time arguing for change here, and am not personally an 'Irish pov pusher' at all. A great many who have put their good will and time into this are simply trying to help. I happen, myself, to be very British, and my gripes have been (in no particular order) 1) the edit warring (especially on piping), 2) my lack of progress at the British Isles taskforce - due to a total lack of agreement over which 'Irish state' article to use in a guideline (what brought me to all this!), 3) the general ambiguity I have found in articles that I believe have been neglected, 4) the bad atmosphere many editors and admin I have spoken too now say they choose to keep away from, and 5) the problem with NI seeming to be part of Ireland. I personally didn't have a "ROI issue" over that particular name. I know that number57 has been close to this issue before - it could be easily argued that he has a POV himself. There is a well-known group of the same people who always appear to oppose these polls - this accusation simply goes both ways. The Irish nation is commonly called 'Ireland', and is now the Irish government's official name too. Why look outside of the British Isles? To me, it would risk addressing people who know less about the issues, and who often tend to romanticise Ireland too. I welcome you to look through discussion. You will find it gets rough at times (esp in this last poll - and I'm not one myself to hold back when confronted), but I'm sure you won't change the natural and logical conclusions you came to on your own accord: nothing is there to contradict them. Anyway - your action (surely a matter of time from a passing admin) was a huge sigh of relief to me, and that's all I have left to say. Apart from thanks for standing by your decision, too.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, a lot of Nationalists vote against a dab because they believe (wrongly IMO) that adhering to WP:COMMONNAME in some way supports the Unionist/British position on Ireland! And the Unionists/(Some) British (such as yourself??) think it is in some way supporting the Nationalist position!! Sarah777 (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Rockpocket, I imagine that tomorrow morning there will begin the flood of people confused at the move decision. Few will be actually aware of what happened, many may simply believe that consensus on the poll was for a move. Even if the do they won't know where to comment one way or the other: Ireland, Ireland (island), Ireland (state), Republic of Ireland, Ireland (disambiguation), the task force page, Tariqabjotu's talk page, or the AN/I??
I think it would be a good idea to set up an RFC on the decision and post notices of the RFC at each of the relevant pages. For one thing it will keep comments all in one place and allow us to gauge the measure of consensus - which may fall down on the side of 'it happened, leave it alone'. I don't think the RFC needs to be or should be controversially phrased, simple a statement of fact and a plain request for comment, but I think it would be useful as a means to calmly collect the response of community to the decision to move the articles.
As an anon, I do not have privileges to start the required RFC page, so I am asking if you would. (I am going to post a copy of this message on Tariqabjotu's, he may be interested in setting up the RFC himself. In any case his perspective on an RFC would be valuable.)
I am not interested in setting up the RFC, and I have no comment on whether one is a good idea. As I have suggested here, and elsewhere, you have already seen the full extent of my involvement with this issue. -- tariqabjotu00:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I think it is unarguable that dab is the only solution here. For a long time I argued for the primacy of the state/country over island if one must "triumph". But that solution would be equally unstable. So dab is supported by everything from plain logic and common sense to WP:COMMONNAME. And now that the term "Ireland" has been dabbed there is simply no further justification for referring to Ireland (the soverign, internationally recognised and commonly termed country) as RoI anymore. Thus the need to complete this process by moving RoI to Ireland (state). (Though I'd prefer by far Ireland (country), I accept that only compromise will achieve stability and that many people regard the term "country" as referring to the whole island)). Sarah777 (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I will 100% support whatever is most per policy. If it's a disambiguation page - then great. I actually back a few options (others are at WP:IDTF), but will go with the most policy based. We can't keep the 'status quo' of maintaining the two state articles of Republic of Ireland and Ireland (a forked state article, linked to widely for the state), that is for sure: Ireland had gradually gown to the point where it simply made having the official-state ROI article look silly. In 'real life', Ireland is actually the official name for the Irish state (ROI is a choice), and the awkward politics surrounding co-joining the island of Ireland with the state of Ireland at 'Ireland' was just too much to handle. Readers were finding Northern Ireland present when the use of 'Ireland' was simply referring to contemporary Irish society - far too much meaning on Misplaced Pages was fudged. Tariqabjotu is right, people's consternations can't be ignored forever, and Wikpedia is supposed to protect itself against 'polling blocks' (there's a better word for that one I'm sure). --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Tariqabjotu. Might I suggest you review the discussion at Talk:Ireland (island)#Proposed move to Ireland (island) and Talk:Ireland#Proposed move to Ireland and in the context of your recent move. The problem with interpreting the consensus on the discussion you closed, is that all the stakeholders do not appear to be aware of it and thus didn't comment there. The appropriate wikiprojects were directed to the ongoing discussions I link above, and as you can see, the consensus is somewhat different. I appreciate you were likely not aware of these other discussions. I suspect this is going to end up under review anyway, but it might minimize the drama if you, as the closing admin, conduct your own review first. Rockpocket19:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I echo the above statement - I don't think most users were aware of the taskforce (which was dominated by Irish users) - and the consensus on the most commented-upon move request (i.e. that on Talk:Ireland (island) as it is now) was certainly against the move. As you aren't online at the moment and this needs urgent attention, I have referred it to WP:AN. пﮟოьεԻ5719:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Lets just wait until Tariqabjotu responds, before offering value judgments. His interpretation is perfectly understandable given the discussion he closed. What is not clear is whether he was even aware of those other discussions. Tariqabjotu, I would add, if I am mistaken and you did take those other ongoing discussions into consideration, could you mark them as closed too? Thanks. Also, I don't see why this needs urgent attention, its not the end of the world if it remains for a few hours. Please can we de-escalate this and just wait a little? Rockpocket19:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I think your intervention here is most unhelpful Rock. There is no "different consensus" anywhere else; just some different !vote scores. Please stop confusing the issue. Sarah777 (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
My point is that the sensible way to do the moves would have been to have created Ireland (island), then had a bot run through all the links to Ireland to change them to point at the redirect, then to have moved the page. The way it's been done there are thousands and thousand of links to a dab page. Until a bot has fixed this, the best thing to do is to move the - ten links? - dab page back to the original location, and after all the links are changed, and only then, move back Ireland (disambiguation) to Ireland. I'll give Tariq a chance to fix this himself as is only fair. But if, when I check back, it is still stuffed, I will do it. There may not be a deadline in the general sense, but this needs fixing fairly quickly, before people start wasting time on changing the links by hand or with AWB. Angus McLellan(Talk)22:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Whoa!!! I've just noticed this! In no way have a bot change all the 'Ireland' links into 'Ireland (island)' - the majority of Ireland links refer to the country, not the island! (and this can be proven). This fact is one of the main arguments for changing the status quo: 'Ireland' (per common-name usage) has been habitually used instead of 'Republic of Ireland' to mean the contemporary or the historical Irish state. A bot sending them all to the new island article is an absolute nightmare scenario! The idea with the approach Tariqabjotu moved on is that they all now sensibly go to the new Ireland disam page. --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
You can't be asking me to fix the thousands of links and be asking for the move to be overturned. Which do you want? I'm not going to bother doing the former -- and I never planned on doing the former -- with the full knowledge that any move made by an administrator regarding this will be met with a firestorm. Seriously, guys. Why do you let something that 99.9% of the 6.6+ billion people in the world couldn't care less about consume so much of your time? Why do you all bother, with the endless move requests, the endless threads -- here and elsewhere -- when you all seem more interested in the argument than its resolution? And why the hell are you going to bother asking for some sort of outside party to make a decision based on your comments, by nature of you making a move request, when you're going to respond to the result with this? If you want to waste your own time on this matter, fine. But don't waste mine by bringing your fight to my doorstep. I have said this multiple times now: I am not getting further involved with this. I am not changing my mind. So, please, go away. All of you. If I wake up tomorrow and discover that all of these moves have been reversed, I won't give a fuck. Continue fighting over this trivial issue to the death; the rest of the world won't be giving a fuck either. -- tariqabjotu04:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
⬅ We all know its going to end up at Arbcom so I suggest we let that happen. Otherwise we will have votes on votes on votes on different pages as people try to avoid the issues and confuse the position to maintain a status quo. This needs intervention. Tariqabjotu, my thanks at least for taking this on. --SnowdedTALK22:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
