Misplaced Pages

Talk:Third_holiest_site_in_Islam_(expression) Move

The first move was offical move request made and other two move requests are created by me to discuss on talk page. Why you have closed them too? They were part of talk page and discussion on them was not concluded. Even if discussion on them was concluded, there is not logic to do that with talk page things. --- ALM 10:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Current Affairs Portal

There seems to be some problem with the current affairs portal. The page isn't showing the seventh of December even though it appears when the page is edited. Could you please have a look at it?

Regards

Capitalistroadster 01:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This was it. -- tariqabjotu 01:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Could I get some help?

I noticed you protected the page I requested to be protected: WWE Armageddon. A little while after, User:TJ Spyke posted on the talk page and told me just to leave the page alone here: Talk:WWE_Armageddon#A_note_about_match_order. That's just bad faith and I consider it a personal attack as well. This user loves to do that, and has done it before. Adding a warning to his user page doesn't seem to stop him either. He either ignores it, or just removes it. Any suggestions? I brought this up on WP:AN/I before, and there is a new post about it as well. Most people just suggested RFC, which isn't the complete solution to TJ and his attacks on myself and his bad faith because of my edits to pages he edits. RobJ1981 01:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Black people

Why did you revert my redirect? We're trying to divide the black people article into 2 different articles. One for all dark skinned people black people (generic) and one just for people of African ancestry black people (ethnicity) Gottoupload 02:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Black people is marked as a controversial article, so you need to discuss such a major split on Talk:Black people before making it. Additionally, copying the text from one article and pasting it into another is not the proper way to carry out a move. -- tariqabjotu 02:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Templates

Hi Tariqabjotu. Could you please tell me what templates do you use for closing move discussions? Thank you. Regards.--Húsönd 03:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

At the top of the move request goes {{subst:polltop}} '''move/no move/no consensus/something else''' (optional comment). ~~~~ and at the bottom goes {{subst:pollbottom}}. -- tariqabjotu 08:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Regards.--Húsönd 14:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

help request

Your help is requested as someone with current or recent interest in resolving the U.S. settlement naming convention discussion. I have created a "discussion template" modeled off of an RfC to attempt to structure the discussion, which is spinning wheels and spraying mud. I'd greatly appreciate any input you could provide (including "what are you smoking?"--or perhaps, "keep this in your back pocket"). Thanks in advance. --Ishu 16:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Air of reality

Hello Tariq, this user is employing the same techniques that User:Mactabbed employed and is editing on the same topics. See this talk as well as Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Clever_curmudgeon and Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Mactabbed this individual has a long history of disruption on the Wiki. (→Netscott) 23:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ilan Pappé

You have declined the request to semi-protect Ilan Pappé, on the grounds that "There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time." I think you should look at the logs for the now-protected Steven Plaut, David Bukay, and Kurt Nimmo, and if possible at the deleted logs for Roland Rance, and reconsider. The latest edits were clearly made by the same person/people, using the same language and accusations. We can be certain that this page will continue to be vandalised in the same libellous way until it is protected, when the culprit/s will move on to attack another anti-Zionist Jew. Why wait for the inevitable recurrence of vandalism before acting? If the article is semi-protected, established bona fide editors will still be able to edit it, but the string of disposable accounts set up in order to carry out such attacks will be stymied. RolandR 02:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think semi-protection is necessary. The problematic user(s) has/have been blocked. -- tariqabjotu 03:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And the same libellous and disruptive edit has now been made by User:Harmont. This will keep happening until the article is protected.--RolandR 15:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked the user as a suspected sockpuppet and semi-protected the article. -- tariqabjotu 15:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Ryukyu Islands

You said:

"A month transpired between the October move and this recent move request; that's not quite the scenario you mention in the third paragraph."

Not everyone in the know can check changes to each article on one's watchlist on a daily basis. The article existed without macrons for almost three years prior to the move. The person who renamed it added erroneous information that claimed Ryūkyū Shotō (Japanese term) is equivalent to "Ryukyu Islands" (English term). The two terms actually have different definitions. This incorrect information probably caused many editors who visited the article during that month to not notice the problem. You did point out that a month passed, however I never claimed that a month didn't pass. Almost three years passed prior to the move as well. The creation of a non-macronised article three years ago wasn't the start of a revert war. —Tokek 03:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What is this in reference to? I don't remember saying this comment (not because I didn't say it, but because it has been awhile). Is there something you would like me to do? -- tariqabjotu 03:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I haven't been as active as before on Misplaced Pages so I forgot how old this topic has become. Checked some other pages and it appears that the situation was resolved anyway. Sorry for the bother. I won't mind if you forget that I brought this up. —Tokek 15:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello. You were initially involved in the concluding of the Ryūkyū Islands -> Ryukyu Islands poll. This is the continuation of that. There is debate over the results of a poll and how to proceed with those conclusions. Would you please take a look at the poll and the debated issues? We need some input from someone more impartial. Thank you. Bendono 11:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

what are you talking about?

What "personal attacks" are you reffering to?I'd like to know who's been talking to you.Next time I'd preffer a refference to charges directed against me with the warning.ThankyouNadirali 03:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

See WP:ANI#Xenophobia. -- tariqabjotu 03:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

2 sides of the story need to be heard

I think you need to here form my side of the story before taking sides.Personal attacks have been launched against me by the same users who reported me along with attempting to intimidate user:Saddiqui by making threatening comments. They have also vandalized my comments once and have been trolling with there provokitive comments non-stop.They have also accussed me of being a "maddrassa student".If anyone's been trolling it's them.Nadirali 04:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

I'm not taking sides. It doesn't matter if people have been levying personal attacks against you; you still are not allowed to attack others. If people are attacking you, warn them using {{npa}}, {{npa2}}, {{npa3}}, and {{npa4}}, or {{civil1}} and {{civil2}}. -- tariqabjotu 04:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine then,but I'd like you to give them the same warning as they too have caused violations against me.If you want to block me ,then block them as well.It's only fair after all.Nadirali 04:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

consider this

hello sir,I would like you to read all the things these users posted on the History of India talk page and would like you to give them a similar warning for personal attacks and racism: "where did you read this? In a Pakistani madarassa? C'mon, have you ever heard of the Indo-Aryan migration theory. After the arrival of Aryans in the Indian subcontinent, the IVC was virtually destroyed. The civilization created by the Aryans afterwards is known as the Vedic civilization. Dude.. go read some history books before blabbering here and stop showing off your madarassa education. --Incman|वार्ता 21:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)" Pakistan puffs it's chest in rabid jingiosm, hides it's problems under the rug, tried to portray itself as a paradise, and get's laughed at by the civilized world as a poor, backward and paranoid nation.Hkelkar 01:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I also believe that paks are confused about their identity. I think they have a hard time choosing whether they are Indian or they want to be arabian? Do they want islamic sharia law or commonwealth law. They look upon islamic invaders as heroes even though those same invaders came and raped their ancestors and coverted them. they're all about jatt/ punjabi/ rajput pryde even though the rajuts started out as hindu and sikhs were being slaughtered wholesale by the moguls. I think education is the key to solving this problem. that and separation of church and state.--D-Boy 00:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Separation of religion and state in Pakistan???? It's more likely for aliens from planet Glarbon to land their spaceship in the middle of Waziristan and do a belly dance to an audience of hookah-smoking Pukhtun poppy-seed dealers.Hkelkar

There is no room in the official historical narrative for questions or alternative points of view which is Nazariya Pakistan, the Ideology of Pakistan—devoted to a mono-perspectival religious orientation. This, as opposed to nearly a sizable of Pakistan up at arms to separate from the state (*cough Balochistan *cough), with another fraction run by the Taliban and Osama, the the remaining half full of jingoist whackos spreading hate against Hindus and Christians and selling anti-semitic Jew-hating conspiracy theories on every street-corner in Lahore(Pakistan: In the Land of Conspiracy Theories, PBS). .Gee whiz, what a paradise! Hkelkar 23:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)ThankyouNadirali 05:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

Point

I appreciate your being fair. Just like to point out that nadirali has professed to sockpuppeteering and done some post-mediation baiting in my talk page (to which I shall not respond).This, after it was HE who said he would instigate edit-warring with the assistance of Siddiqui (and, presumably,his own socks), not I . Hkelkar 06:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, Nadirali persists in coterie formation with Pakistani nationalist editors even after being warned , effectively making threats against other editors (intent to mass-edit-war).

Perhaps Nadirali should be made to read WP:POINT. Hkelkar 06:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Nadirali continues to make incivil and derogatory comments in the talk page. Why does he keep trolling it despite your advice to the contrary? Hkelkar 00:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea. -- tariqabjotu 00:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You should be "de-admined".

Back in November, you protected the Protest Warrior article because User:Shortbus requested it. You did this due to "edit warring", apparently without checking the factual accuracy or the conformance to policy of his edits and actions. Not coincidentally, the edits you froze in the article were his. Shortly thereafter I pointed out to you that it was he who recalcitrantly refused to discuss edits on the talk page. Despite this you did not take any action to help the situation nor even deign to respond to my comment. Now, it turns out his edits (the ones you froze in the article for two weeks) have been proven factually inaccurate. While you conformed to policy, I find your handling of this matter clumsy, frustrating and offensive and not performed with the due diligence I think one should expect from someone in your position. If the opportunity ever arises for a movement to see you stripped of your administrator status, you will find my efforts firmly in that direction. Respectfully, Lawyer2b 17:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry your wishes were not fulfilled quicker, but I don't believe anything happened incorrectly here. Pages are often times protected – even to The Wrong Version – to halt edit- and revert-warring (which indeed was occurring on the Protest Warrior article). The protection is meant to encourage dispute resolution through the appropriate means: discussion on talk pages. -- tariqabjotu 20:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident

Just want to let you know that most images you removed from that page have since been restored, despite objections from several editors. Beit Or 21:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

reply

Alright I will.Bakaman 00:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

reply

Sorry, I lost it for a bit there. It's just that some of these Pakistani nationalists on wikipedia frustrate me, with their jingoist historical revisionism and blatant propaganda, portraying the world's largest democracy and bastion of multiculturalism, tolerance and pluralism like India as some sort of war-ravaged apartheid state of "kaffirs" in order to deflect attention from the despicable actions of their own government and the brutal atrocities taking place in their own country. I added some sources to show that he was spreading baseless propaganda (as are many Pakistani nationalists on wikipedia), based on delusions of religious supremacy and their narrow tribalist ethnocentrism. I will do my best to not get baited by this chap anymore. why can't these countries be more modern-minded and liberal like Turkey or Morocco is beyond me. Hkelkar 02:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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.

Weekly Delivery

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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  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  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 . Unfortunately, I edit/revert warred with that user (i reverted to Sikandarji's version) , but never be impolite to anyone. The case is also similar in the Ephthalites article (i reverted to Sikandarji's compromise version) . 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 Misplaced Pages 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: Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. 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.

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 Misplaced Pages: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. -Patstuart 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: Misplaced Pages: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)