User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive Sixty-Five

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evidence length

Dear Tariqabjotu

I was wondering if it would be possible for you to refactor your evidence submission to the Manning case. at nearly 2000 words it is double the word limit. Its very verbose and the fact that you have conclusions in each section shows that the length is somewhat excessive. Keep in mind that conciseness and brevity is the key to arbcom cases and ensuring your point is gotten across. Can you cut it down to 1100-1200 at least? Many Thanks Seddon talk 07:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

@Seddon: I cut down my original set of evidence substantially (to < 900 words). I then added some more, and it looks like it's 1150 words (including numbered diffs, titles, and linked usernames). As I don't plan to add any more evidence sections, I hope this works. -- tariqabjotu 17:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
That'll do donkey, that'll do. Thanks for that Tariqabjotu :) Seddon talk 17:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
@Seddon: David's evidence is very long, and it doesn't look like any of his evidence sections are even objections to other sets of evidence. As my set of evidence did before, his section has a significant amount of explanatory text. Can you tell him to cut it down? Or are we getting more leeway with evidence length? -- tariqabjotu 14:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
No I see no reason for more leeway. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Seddon talk 17:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 September 2013

Hyderabad new lead

Hi, Please have a look at my reply for the proposed new lead at article talk page. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you free next Thursday? Join us at the Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for our next WikiSalon, which will be held from 7 to 9 PM on Thursday, September 26 at our K Street office.

The WikiSalon is an informal gathering of Wikimedia enthusiasts, who come together to discuss the Wikimedia projects and collaboratively edit. There's no set agenda, and guests are welcome to recommend articles for the group to edit or edit on their own. Light refreshments will be provided.

We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 06:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, Tariqabjotu. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Manning naming dispute Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 1239 words and 63 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (who are listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT(talk) 04:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

'Paris Metropolitan Area' move

Hello,

It was agreed that an English name should be found, but there was hardly a 'move to' consensus there, and I'm more than a bit disappointed to see 'familiarity' win over proper usage and reference. 'Urban area' is not only the most direct translation of aire urbaine, it is the most used translation in English articles actually speaking of the INSEE statistical tool that is the aire urbaine - and 'urban area' is the translation provided by the INSEE itself. You also brought up a good point about capitalization - the 'aire urbaine' is not an existing area, it is but a single-use statistical tool unknown to most everyone in France; capitalising 'metropolitan area' will make using the term even more misleading to the uninformed reader.

"Paris metropolitan area" in English literature and reference almost ~never~ refers to the above statistical tool ('urban area' predominates there), it is either a reference to the 'Paris region' (Île-de-France) or a vague 'Paris and its suburbs' description, so where now can we discuss the very statistical tool that the article is supposed to be about?

I'm appallingly bad at making concise (thus convincing) arguments, so apologies if i didn't make the above clear in the talk-page discussion (mostly with myself). THEPROMENADER 06:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Your points were duly noted, but you didn't appear to adequately convince the other commenters. -- tariqabjotu 16:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
There was most certainly a concensus that the article should be moved to an Engish title, but most were willing to support a move to ~any~ English title (often without even considering existing French usage). Knowlegable or not, I don't think there was consensus at all as far as a destination title was concerned. Lack of consensus aside, Wikipedia today is practically the only (if not the only) place in any documentation or the web where "Paris metropolitan area" refers to Paris' aire urbaine statistics. Since no sources (but Wiki itself) make this translation, I don't see how this could be considered acceptable for an encyclopedia that prides itself in requiring sourced material - or should Wikipedia begin sourcing itself? THEPROMENADER 21:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
This is still an open issue for me: Practically all English articles talking about the aire urbaine (that this article is supposed to be about) and the creators of the aire urbaine itself, use the term 'urban area', and practically all articles using the term 'Paris metropolitan area' (never capitalised, btw) are referring to the Île-de-France (where most statistics are taken), a vague reference to the 'area around Paris, or some method of their own: the moved article is not about that. Wiki alone makes this 'translation', and this is also a problem reference-wise. What should I do, open another move request, or contest the move? THEPROMENADER 09:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Er... bump? THEPROMENADER 12:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
@ThePromenader: You are entirely free to open a move request or, given it's been more than a month, another move request. The point is that I saw no basis to make any determination other than the one that I made; if you think some of the rationales were incorrect, that's not really my fault but the fault of those making the rationales. -- tariqabjotu 06:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Never said anything was your ~fault~, but I did think you 'skimmed' a bit... the consensus was for 'change it from French', not for the proposed title... an understandable oversight; there's something wrong with that process. I remember a contributor who almost managed to construe a 'should we change the lead image' question into a vote ~for~ a photo of his choice... but everyone bailed when they figured out what he was doing. Yet here everyone stuck to their 'yes' vote even though I had managed to get them to change their mind...
I'll just start a new move proposition, methinks. Just thinking of you reading that talk page again is already giving ~me~ a headache. Thanks and cheers. THEPROMENADER 06:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Permission to post WP:RM

Hi, thanks for all your recent RM work, again. You already know my view on the (entertainer) dab where it is not in line with reliable sources. You closed the 5th (!) failed RM to Talk:Usher (entertainer) to primary topic Usher with the totally sensible request to not have another RM for another year. May I ask, does your guidance also apply to an RM in the interim to change the vanity dab (entertainer) to (singer) [per "I'm a rapper/singer," Usher says, adding confidently, "I'm the king of hip-pop."] If you allowed a RM on the dab only, I would stipulate in the template that discussion on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is out-of-bounds per previous closing advice. If you prefer no RM of any kind for a year that is also okay. All the best. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: I was mostly talking about requesting the article be named Usher Raymond (that was the third RM in six months with that same proposal). Another move request so soon may still come across as annoying, but at least it's a different request. -- tariqabjotu 03:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
. Reasonable. What I will do then is reflect that clarification on the Talk page and not do anything for the time being. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi: I just skimmed over your original comment, but now rereading it, I just wanted to clarify that the move request I closed was not asserting that he is the primary topic of the term "Usher". -- tariqabjotu 03:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
You're correct, I misread scrolling down. It was to Usher Raymond. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 September 2013

Christian Church

To avoid being ethnocentric, we should not assume that all churches are Christian. In common usage, some folks will call any religious building of any faith a "church". Wikipedia should be informative, especially to the ignorant. Please see this headline: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/world/asia/pakistan-church-bombing.html?hp&_r=0&gwh=D0810943F98DD37B026376C09D4FF048. Jehochman Talk 14:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Who are these people, and what other types of religious buildings do they call churches? Perhaps some people use the term "church" to refer to other religious buildings, but they'd generally be understood to be wrong. Since the text "a church" is linked to an article about the church in question as well, it seems unnecessary and will come across as redundant to the vast majority of readers who know what a church is. -- tariqabjotu 15:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, NYT has edited their headline, so I will agree that we can keep it short. The point we seem to be missing is that this is the most deadly ever attack on Pakistan's Christian minority. Jehochman Talk 15:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Westgate shopping mall shooting

This i blatantly deceptive, I was not a dissenter. you can see i supported (adn warned of the return of the flags by someone else) trimming./ I questioned WHAT to trim, not to removfe sourced content as your edit did. per BRD, the BOLD removcals reverted mean to discuss and I hafve used the talk page (and even acceded when consensus was clearly against me). If you have a feeling on the matter, discuss what is to be removed.(Lihaas (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)).

Vandalism

can you please semi-protect ITN/C for a bit... getting tired of constant vandalism by different IP addresses. -- Ashish-g55 21:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Tariqabjotu. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Phil Sandifer

Per this comment, if Phil really did make a mistake by confusing your name with Tarc's when making this comment, which I assume is what sparked the finding of fact, and if Phil can substantiate the claims he's made about Tarc, then, who has already been brought up for his remarks by Kirill, would you consider retracting the finding of fact as a show of solidarity that we are all against hatred? We can continue to discuss the degrees of language that constitutes hatred, but we can all agree that getting to that understanding is important to have a free NPOV encyclopedia.--v/r - TP 19:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

@TParis: No, I will not retract the finding of fact. Your assumption about what sparked the finding of fact is incorrect. And I am not buying into any suggestion that proposing this finding of fact and standing against hatred are mutually exclusive. -- tariqabjotu 20:46, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree they aren't mutually exclusive, but I think a misunderstanding is what escalated this and I wanted to seek an easier resolution. If none is available, I'll drop it.--v/r - TP 21:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2013

Gospel

I don't understand your closing rationale. I've left my question at what is now (erroneously, if I understand the scope of the article correctly) gospels. There were no counter arguments to the view, which seems to have acquired consensus late in the discussion with no rebuttals, that the scope of the article is "gospel" as a genre of Christian literature like homily, sermon, etc. You should've closed with no consensus, and pointed out that in order to avoid confusion with other articles, the article could be provided with a disambiguating phrase. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi, I'm [User:N0n3up|N0n3up]] and I'm sort of new on Wiki. I was wondering if you could give me some tips, Thanks :) (N0n3up (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC))

@N0n3up: What did you need help with? -- tariqabjotu 05:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

RM for Towanda Masonic Lodge No. 30 A.F. and A.M.

You relisted this RM on Sept. 21 for further discussion... but no further discussion has taken place. Are you willing to close? Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox civilian attack

Template:Infobox civilian attack has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox event. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Manning move discussion

I somehow doubt commentary about "attempts at playing dumb" will help us determine the appropriate name of the article. If you have an issue with another user's conduct, try the appropriate fora; please don't derail the move discussion. I have not redacted anything, and I won't discuss what to redact within that move discussion. In my personal opinion both Tom Morris' initial !vote and your initial reply were appropriate, but then things started going downhill, from both sides. Thus I asked you both to stop. Huon (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@Huon: Except "playing dumb" is exactly what it was. Of course, I'm unlikely to get you to see that when you can't see anything inappropriate in saying It is only when the name change is accompanied by a change in gender that everyone freaks out and starts imposing arbitrary standards. I'd submit that your condescension -- like Tom and I aren't the adults we are -- doesn't "help us determine the appropriate name of the article" either, but, again, I'm unlikely to get you to see that when you feel it is more beneficial to put a plague on both houses than to address the legitimate problem that is casting aspersions. As you've continued that tone here by referring to WP:DR as if I'm a new editor and suggesting I was "derailing the move discussion" (with, what, three comments in the entire move discussion?), I feel the usefulness of discussing this matter with you has long been exhausted and request that you not return to my talk page, especially to give me more unwanted advice about this issue. -- tariqabjotu 02:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Leeds

The decision at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Leeds#Merge_inactive_WikiProject_as_a_taskforce_of_WP:UK seems off, isn't there a consensus to merge the wikiproject as a taskforce of WP:WikiProject Yorkshire, the alternative suggested in the survey section? There are five supporters of the merger. -- 76.65.129.3 (talk) 05:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mosque, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grand Mosque of Cordoba (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Photo

I agree that it's best not to picture somebody else next to that blurb! Isn't File:Anas al-Liby.jpg a public domain image? Why can't we use it on the home page? Jehochman Talk 03:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

@Jehochman: It's allegedly public domain because it's used in the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorist poster. However, unless the FBI actually took that photo, it's not public domain. And I'm sure you can agree the FBI probably didn't take that photo... (darn it, he was in our photo studio and we let him go!) -- tariqabjotu 04:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
LOL! Maybe we should change the tag on the image, in that case, before some other unsuspecting editor takes the purportedly free image and commits copyright mayhem. Jehochman Talk 04:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
@Jehochman: I've tagged it as a copyright violation on Commons. -- tariqabjotu 04:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 October 2013

Are you free on Sunday? Join us for a special Wikimedia DC WikiSalon!

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for a special WikiSalon at the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Library's Digital Commons Center. We will gather at 3 PM on Sunday, October 13, 2013 to discuss an important topic: what can Wikipedia and the DC area do to help each other? We hope to hear your thoughts and suggestions; if you have an idea you would like to pursue, please let us know and we will help!

Following the WikiSalon, we will be having dinner at a nearby restaurant, Ella's Wood Fired Pizza.

If you're interested in attending, please sign up at the event page. We look forward to seeing you there! Kirill [talk] 02:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


Tariqabjotu

Please dont' remove postintg by others. I've already checked and see no topic ban for me on the move request (nor manning himself ) If you're aware of any, please show a link and I will gladly comply  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   16:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: As mentioned as part of your block notice: When you return to editing, you are topic-banned from all articles and discussions related to either Private Manning or transgender issues, broadly construed, for six months. -- tariqabjotu 17:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I recieved your email. I did find the ban - Fluffernutter placed a note on my page saying I'm banned, no I'm not going to lawyer (or try to lawyer my way of it) I see it, you're right. I'm not. Consider the stick dropped.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   17:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 October 2013

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Hitmonchan (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
  2. IFreedom1212 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
  3. Tarc (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
  4. Josh Gorand (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
  5. Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed. He is also topic banned from all pages (including biographies) related to leaks of classified information, broadly construed.
  6. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is admonished for acting in a manner incompatible with the community's expectations of administrators (see #David Gerard's use of tools).
  7. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from using his administrator permissions (i) on pages relating to transgender people or issues and (ii) in situations involving such pages. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter.
  8. The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one.
  9. All editors, especially those whose behavior was subject to a finding in this case, are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions on Wikipedia, and to avoid commentary that demeans any other person, intentionally or not.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 01:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

The Signpost: 23 October 2013

The Signpost: 30 October 2013
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive_Sixty-Five&oldid=1168308663"