This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thanks. By the way, I was looking for someone who could translate this document (or at least dissect some of the most important information) for the #Demographics section. I see, conveniently, that you're fluent in Hebrew. Would you happen to have the time to fulfill the request? Thanks in advance, regardless of your response. -- tariqabjotu 19:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I've replied in my talk page. okedem 17:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
United Nations semi Protection
Hi I notice you semi protected the United Nations page, Good move, you may have noticed were we discussing this on the talk page and were about to request it. How long to you intend to keep it like that. Buffa Buffadren 18:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The request for protection was made at WP:RPP, which is why I semi-protected the article. As the history notes, the semi-protection will expire 23:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC). -- tariqabjotu 18:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
March 14 comment
The reason the "Steak & BJ" comment was added it that the "holiday" is added numerous times a day. Not really giving anyone ideas although it seems to deter few people from adding it. I can only imagine how bad it's going to be in five days on the actual day. Just thought you would like to know. Thanks! -- Borameer™ 19:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The block
The changes of it being a sharedIP are slim to none, and it was pretty obvious from the IP's comments that he wasn't going to act as a good faith editor. -- Tawker 05:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Edit history says you protected it, but it's getting slammed by IPs ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Au contraire, I just move-protected it. No one (except admins) can move the article, but everyone can edit it. Maybe I'll semi-protect it if it continues (and if I can come up with a good cricket pun). -- tariqabjotu 00:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
ah, ok, sorry for my misread, Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 13 March 2007 (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 05:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Main page image
Don't forget to protect the image of Khalid Mohammed. – Chacor 15:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, it extends to images too? Okay then. – Chacor 15:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
KSM and coercion
I noticed you stated on talk:ITN that you believe KSM's Guantanamo admissions were "almost certainly coerced". That's very odd. Have you read the transcript? KSM was very much in control, I thought. - NYC JD(interrogatories) 16:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not disagree that the transcript gives the impression that Khalid is in control during the hearing. However, that does not mean the admission was not coerced. Page fourteen of the transcript brings up the point regarding the man's treatment for three years, between 2003 and 2006. Note also that the location of the place where he was held during those three years is [ REDACTED ]. His treatment has human rights violations written all over it. The secret [ REDACTED ] prison and alleged torture are violations of various human rights treaties, including, but limited to, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art. 5, 9, and potentially 10), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Art. 7, 10), and the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Major news organizations, including, but not limited to, TIME Magazine, have picked up on the confession's dubious reliability. Even if the confession were at his own leisure, there are variety of reasons why someone would want to make such an extensive confession even if were not entirely true. Admitting one had a hand in carrying out 9|11 is enough for the maximum sentence (death? life without parole?). So why not also claim you participated in thirty other attacks; they can't punish you doubly worse, but perhaps it might take the authorities off the scent of the real perpetrators. -- tariqabjotu 21:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Any similarity to real persons or events is strictly accidental. :)
As to the coercion, I understand that the extra-legal confinement, black sites, and the aggressive interrogation techniques which may or may not constitute torture are all hihgly problematic. I was just remarking on the robustness of KSM's testimony and how voluntary it sounded. - NYC JD(interrogatories) 22:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The house... votes
Yes I must admit my confusion over a lot of this, and I often go with what sounds correct to me. But some of my friends have pointed out that I'm "right posh". So who knows. I get a lot of exposure to US grammar (or lack of it) from television, so who knows what sounds right any more.
I'd say "The house votes..." and "The team votes..." because they are all making a collective vote. But I'd also say "The team were..." and "The house was...", so go figure. lol
"The herd of cows were walking through the gate." "The cows were walking through the gate." Now I'm confused again... --Monotonehell 08:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
West End Theatres
Hi, may I ask why this template is locked from editing? Thanks Kbthompson 17:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't remember exactly how the interface looks, but I believe the protection notice might lead you to User:Tariqabjotu/TOFA templates A, which contains all the templates on today's featured article, Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. The protection should expire at 00:00 (UTC), a little over three hours from this point. -- tariqabjotu 20:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense now, sorry to have bothered you. The navigation box was designed yesterday, and still has some minor tweaks necessary. Kbthompson 23:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Well said
I just wanted to commend you for your well-balanced comments on the decline of User:MiddleEastern's block. Firm, but fair, representative of consensus and yet reflective of the group dynamics at work, and not absolutist, while being perfectly firm on drawing the line at hate speech. Very well said. Tiamut 03:24, 20 March 2007 (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 07:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
MIT
Oh, wow! Best of luck getting in (unless...have they sent the admissions letters already?) And yes, I'll be here during CPW; if you're able, I strongly recommend going. I think it's the best way to get to know the campus and the dorms so that you don't have to sift through all the...bias...from admissions offices. Oh, and I can definitely say that there's definitely time aside from schoolwork, at least during freshman year. I pretty much got started editing after getting here, and I'm editing right now to procrastinate on a women's studies paper right now. If you have any questions, my account has email enabled, so feel free to do so. ShadowHalo 04:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Archived current events portal pages fall on hard times in early 2007 -- alas, a backlog
Hi and happy '07 and happy Spring '07.
Now that I'm caught up in that department: The archived CE portal pages for Jan, Feb, and March apparently weren't quite authored according to the July-Dec '06 guidelines: CE items (with their own header that's linked) are now apparently just "tacked on" to the extant "future" pages rather than their just being overwritten as I noticed [if my recollections are accurate] you seemed to have been doing, and I might also have done once or twice, it's tedious hunting through history pages. I've been out of touch with this as you can guess.
Pursuant to this item from "How to archive the portal", The December 2006 coding ought to have been just poured into the January 2007 page according to the directions, but apparently the Jan 07 code was placed in or around or under the data that was already there, including the big "month picker" at the bottom. January looked fine the first time I looked at it recently, but February and March are still a bit out of kilter. The Feb sidebar is not up to date (I just grabbed code from a CE Sidebar rev from feb 28, and had to tweak it while incorporating it), and the March sidebar seems not to exist yet at all.
I may try to tackle it once I attend to other (non-WP CE) matters today. I found the whole overhaul that took place with this portal last July to be exciting and would like to see it continue.
This small problem tends to suggest to me that the sidebar itself (with month names, as well as the "live" CE sidebar) might be better off consisting of smaller transcluded modules for each "department", and what might be done every first of the month is that the same "scrolling" procedure be done within each module that I learned to do with the calendar, and all the data from the outgoing month would then be "frozen" onto the archived page, and the live modules would transition for a few days.
Hope that all made sense to you. Looks like an idea to be implemented by July of this year. I support the idea of the CE Portal being a backgrounder or almanac, and it operates that way right now (despite those who take "be bold" a little too seriously, I have indeed noticed).
I'm not quite clear about the synchronization needed (or that ought to appear) between the "live" (generic) Sidebar that is 'cluded onto Current Events, and the "current" (monthly-titled) Sidebar that (as I write this) ought rightly to appear on March 2007, but is currently missing. I wonder if the whole "live" SB ought to be what occupies that space until 23:59:59 on 3/31?
One more thing: I'm trying to learn enough about date-math/date-comp functions so that the horribly vague phraseology including "has yet to occur" won't appear on all these (not quite encyclopedic) future month pages, but for example, instead, via a rendered date-math-function template: "The month of Nnnnn XXXX (Gregorian) will begin in NN days on a Nnnnday, and end NN days later on a Nnnnnday." thanks.
I saw you dealt with this user before. See this edit of hers: [1]. okedem 17:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I have warned the user about her personal attacks and blanked her user page again. The next incident should lead to a block. -- tariqabjotu 18:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The semiprotect status on the Lon Chaney page
Hello Tariqabjotu and Malcolm. As this was my first foray onto the request for protection page I just wanted to make sure that I did not do anything out of line. As Tariqabjotu pointed out there have been five acts of vandalism in the last three days and this is what prompted my request. I do appreciate Malcolm's note that I wasn't violating the three revert rule. It seems that I may be one of a few (or the only editor) that has this actors page on a watchlist, thus the time delay on getting any vandalism reverted so I appreciate the semiprotect status that it now enjoys. Perhaps in a couple of months this person will have moved on and it can be taken off. Again, please feel free to let me know if I have violated any policy and thank you for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 22:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
No, you didn't do anything wrong, as far as I can see. I set the semi-protection to expire in fourteen days, but someone can always remove it earlier (or extend it) at his or her discretion. -- tariqabjotu 22:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Quebec
I'm sorry you don't feel like the Quebec election is international news, but it is a major deal — decides the fate of another referendum on Quebec independence. It is the current main story on Google News, which has 405 other articles on the subject from the New York Times to the Seattle Times to the Guardian to the BBC. Páll(Die pienk olifant) 03:35, 27 March 2007 (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 14:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there's a lot more important reason to block User:AjdemiPopushi. It's an offensive nickname. In Serbo-Croat it means, "Come on and and suck mine" (100% referring to You-know-what).
Thanks for volunteering to help with the Signpost. You expressed interest in helping with the In the news column. One place to start is with Wikipedia:Press coverage; however, that page does not cover everything. You'll also want to use a service such as Google or Yahoo News- search for "Wikipedia" or "Wikimedia", and look specifically for articles that mention Wikipedia directly (not just using us as a source for a piece of trivia). Many other users have expressed an interest in helping with In the news; I've set up a sandbox page for all contributors to help out on here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/ITN. Feel free to help out; I expect that this column will be a collaborative effort. You can work on this all throughout the week; your final work should be finished by Monday at about 17:00 UTC.
If you have any questions at all, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thanks again for volunteering. Ral315» 05:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Afrika paprika returned
Afrika paprika is editing again as User:Krpelj. Self-identified.
I told him I won't report him, so that I can satisfy his demands (about two Italian users) - but I also did not allow him to edit any article (violating his ban). He openly said that he's stubborn and said that he will never stop editing, and continued the old edit-wars he was leading as Afrika paprika and Factanista.
My patience is running thin with this guy, I hope I can remain good faithed.... Cheers. --PaxEquilibrium 16:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It looks like someone else did something about this; if you need anymore assistance, feel free to ask. -- tariqabjotu 22:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I do. See Special:Contributions/Joker_13. There is a possibility that this is Afrika paprika (can't be sure); the user stopped editing immediately after I welcomed him and then Afrika paprika appeared as Krpelj.
I'd like if You could keep an eye on the account, should it be reactivated. Thanks. --PaxEquilibrium 22:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Huh?
Excuse me, bu thwat the heck are you talking about? Archiving is a part of Discussion. I told people I was archiving discussions that had swollen to over 100k (archiving usually happens after 40k). I had suggested that people either conclude the active conversations or begin them anew in a new section. The conversations archived had not seen any conversation in over 4 hours.
As well, edits that violate consensus are going to be reverted. That one editor doesn't feel that the edits are going his way doesn't mean he claim edit warring or whatever. I certainly don't need you to be Mardavich's stalking horse in this matter. I appreciate your 'concern' in this matter. Perhaps you could redirect it towards those users who are actually in more dire need of understanding that Wikipedia is a community, and the squeaky wheel doesn't get the grease.Arcayne 22:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Over four hours??? Guess what I was doing during the four hours between 1:00am and 5:00am last night? Sleeping. Wikipedia is an international website with editors from all over the world; not everyone will have an opportunity to respond to a talk page comment at any given moment. People work. People study. People eat. And, yes, people sleep. Some people will edit every three hours; others will edit every three days. You cannot just say that because no one has commented in four hours a discussion is closed. I'd suggest waiting five to seven days after the conclusion of a conversation before considering it closed. 300 (film) is a very active article and there clearly are a lot of matters that are as of yet unsettled. The fact that a talk page has reached a certain size is not an automatic license to archive the page, particularly when there is unfinished business. Regarding your pending three-revert rule violation, all of your reverts to 300 (film) contribute to the rule unless you are reverting simple vandalism. That is not what you are doing; you are reverting legitimate edits, so clearly "consensus" has not yet been reached. The best course of action is to go to the talk page and discuss the matter more. Perhaps you might consider Wikipedia:Mediation Committee or Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. I am not Mardavich's stalking horse. Yes, he contacted me, but that is irrelevant to the fact that you are indeed acting over-zealously on the article. -- tariqabjotu 22:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you are correct about the archiving issue. Perhaps you completely missed that part of the conversation where I suggested to people a few times to begin the conversations anew in new sections. Perhaps you aren't Mardavich's stalking horse. However, I don't see any edit history showing him asking for your assistance, nor do I see any response by you to him in his edit history, That suggests that the request was handled via private email, which in turn suggest both a lack of visible communication as well as a more than passing acquaintance to the guy. So please, don't insult me with your claims of not acting on his behalf, it demeans both of us.
I will take into consideration your comments. Perhaps you can be troubled to take a look at the article's edit page. On each and every section there is a statement to bring all proposed changes to the Discussion area, as consensus might have already been reached or is an ongoing discussion. That Mardavich chose to ignore this statement and simply put his comments there anyway doesn't play like a person seeking or even acknowledging consensus l it reads like someone insisting that their POV is right and everyone else is wrong. I take personal exception to that, and so should you, If I did that in one of your articles, you'd clim up my bottom with a red-hot microscope, and rightfully so. That your comments defend this sort of POV behavior on the part of another detracts from their importance to me. You do not need to contact me again regarding this matter, and I suggest that you privately email Mardavich back and let him know I don't want to hear from him again. I gave him a chance to redeem himself, and he blew it. Arcayne 23:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any acquaintance with the guy. My Yahoo! and AIM screen names are on my user page, and the link to e-mail me is also on my user page. Anyone can use them, including you. You don't own the article so you cannot say Mardavich is simply going against your instructions. A controversial article should be handled carefully, but you can't just so no one is allowed to edit it without your permission. -- tariqabjotu 23:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
What part of "you don't need to contact me again" was unclear to you? I responded to your post, stated my position, and asked you to not bother replying. Since you fail to grasp even the basics of what i was addressing in my posts to you, it tells me that you are the sort that needs plain instructions. Please do not bother me anymore. I certainly hope that is clear enough. Arcayne 23:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
If you want your perspective to be reflected on the 300 (film) article, you're going to have to converse with the article's editors, including Mardavich. You can't just shut down all conversation with others and be dogmatic about the way you feel the article should be. I am going to continue contacting you if I feel it's necessary, and I hope Mardavich will too if he feels compelled as well. -- tariqabjotu 23:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
No, that can be considered stalking. If I have asked you to not contact me at my Talk page, I expect you to respect that - and that includes altering my talk page. If you or Mardavich are in desperate need of contacting me, it is not as if you do not have avenues to do so - as I have nothing that I wish to privately wish to discuss with you or Mardavich, it can all be handled through the Discussion page. I have nothing to say to either of you that cannot be said on the Discussion page. Do not contact me on my Talk Page again. Arcayne 23:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the protection of the 300 article is probably a little too quick. There was a brief spat earlier this evening about whether to include a particular section that is under discussion. There were some opportunistic edits. However there isn't really much in the way of an edit war, and the subject is being discussed on the talk page. Would you please unprotect? --Tony Sidaway 23:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I'll unprotect the article in the hopes that the worsening situations stops getting worse. -- tariqabjotu 23:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I recommend restoring the protection per the editor already "cleaning up" after your unprotection. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not see this occurring; the edit warring seems to have stopped – at least of now. -- tariqabjotu 01:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Hullo, before yesterday's full protect, the article had been semi-protected; it seems that when you removed the full protect, you did not restore the semi-protect. As we're now experiencing some disruptive edits from anonymous IPs, I wonder if you might be willing to restore the previous semi-protect. Best, --Javits2000 09:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I'm curious where the basis for blocking Arcayne is? I didn't see a single warning on his talk page about coming close to a violation of the 3RR, and when I checked 300 I saw maybe 3 edits altogether on the main page with his name on it. Could you please show me where you are basing your decision? BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I posted the evidence here. As for the warnings: he has been blocked (and then later unblocked) for violating the three-revert rule on the article. I warned him about the three-revert rule a couple days ago, but he removed the warning from his talk page, calling me a "stalking horse". -- tariqabjotu 13:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I didn't see the warning before and didn't check the history. Then might I ask you to fully protect the 300 page. The film is out, and there aren't going to be any more major additions to the article, everything now is more of "fixing what is there" kind of editing. I know I might have to go through the formality of going to "page protection", but I thought I'd ask you if you could do it. If you check the history there is nothing but constant bickering over NPOV for this article. It think a full protection, forcing all the editors to bring their opinions to the talk page to sort it all out once and for all might be the best solution for this. I've seen countless edit wars, 3RR warnings, and blocks over this issue of NPOV. I believe that it would best serve not only the article, but also the regular editors, so as to keep them from edit warring in the future. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, semi-protect restored via WP:RFP. But thanks for not responding. --Javits2000 20:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Sarcasm aside, the appropriate means is to go to WP:RFPP, as you did. If I agreed with leaving the semi-protection, I would have kept it in place when I removed the full protection. I still don't really believe the semi-protection is warranted now. -- tariqabjotu 20:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Had you explained your position three days ago, I would have gone directly to RFP, and those of us who have the thing watchlisted would have been spared a lot of hassle. As you're such a stickler for the rules, I'm assuming you checked with the editor who originally instituted the semi-protect before removing it. Never mind how, in a period of less than an hour, you could go from feeling that full protection was required to feeling that no protection was required. The whole thing strikes me as ill-considered at best, but thankfully we're back to status quo now, so es macht nix. --Javits2000 21:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I forgot to respond to your request. Perhaps I overlooked your request. I'm not sure why you're so bitter.
The vandalism is not that bad.
No one is requiring you to revert vandalism; if you got tired of dealing with it, let someone else do it.
There was nothing preventing you from ever going to WP:RFPP if you felt I was taking too long to respond.
As for me asking the previous protector about unprotecting... no, I didn't. And no, I didn't need to. The protection had been in place for over two weeks and no expiration date / time had been specified. There's no reason to ask the previous protector if it's okay to protect. On the other hand, if I wanted to unprotect the article right now, just a few hours after Allison placed the semi-protection, it would be recommended that I contact her first. Regarding your Never mind how, in a period of less than an hour, you could go from feeling that full protection was required to feeling that no protection was required statement, you should be aware that semi-protection and full protection serve two different purposes. The former is primarily for vandalism whereas the latter is primarily for halting content disputes. That's why when full protection is removed from articles, semi-protection is not put in place as a sort of "step down".
So, please stop airing your grievances in my direction. I suggest you and Bignole and Arcayne and Sa.vakilian and Mardavich stop bothering me and follow one of the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to solve the problems with the article; that would be far more productive. I refuse to be drawn any further into this as I'm tired of seeing every article even remotely related to Islam, Arabia, or Iran be the center of controversy. -- tariqabjotu 21:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Spare me the drama. If this diff and this diff prove anything, it's that most articles on Islam (including those on the most basic topics) are not even subjects of interest to most editors, much less "centers of controversy." Of course 300 has nothing to do with either Islam or Arabia, and the "controversy" we've been dealing with is just garden-variety nationalism of the same kind that we encounter on a lot of articles dealing with "Greece," "Serbia," et al. It's not my fault if you got drawn into it, but I have every right to criticize how you've chosen to handle it.--Javits2000 22:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I would ask that you refrain from using my name to further an argument promoting how you are just some innocent caught up in some pro- or anti- Islam dispute. The single most tendentious matter in the article was the pro-nationalist versus pro-neutrality edits, and when one of the pro-nationalist folk contact you for assistance, you were quite eager to leap to his defense. At the very least, if you didn't want to get "drawn into" a debate you helped encourage, you should have - at the very least - done a bit more backreading before wading in. That you entered the article with the wrong scenario playing in your head about the source of the dispute was sure to make you misread the landscape. As someone you blocked for restoring edits in an effort to maintain the stability of the article while consensus was being sought in Discussion, I know you weren't thinking straight.
I can understand how being an admin is difficult; I've heard the complaints about how no matter what you do, someone's going to think you're wrong. I get that. However, You used the Full Protect as a means of stopping what you saw was an edit war of two pov. Once this so-called edit war had subsided, you had a responsibility to restore it back to the form it was before, and not take the additional step of removing all protection, leaving the article open to all vandals - and you know there has been more than just a little vandalism on the article. That's squarely on you, as it only feuled the pro-nationalism folk and undercut those editors who ended upp having to remove a lot more vandalism rahter than, you know, improve the article.
My apology below for calling you a stalking horse aside, you walked into this entirely unprepared and acted in a way that people would naturally wonder at your actions. That you didn't bother to respond - even openly - on the Discussion Page of the article when you were asked by no fewer than three people to reinstate the semi-protection is suspect. That they opposed the pro-nationalism editing of the article, your silence seems ever more damning. Arcayne 00:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Neither of you will quit, eh?
Javits2000, I don't know what drama you're talking about; I'm simply saying that you're blaming me for my oversight (not responding to your request) when you should be examining your own oversight (not going to WP:RFPP earlier). Yes, articles related to the Arab world, Persia, and Islam do get a lot of heat, although not all are under fire.
Arcayne, your name is not trademarked; I can use it if I'm asking you all to stop contacting me for matters that should be resolved through other channels. And despite your disgust toward me responding to Mardavich, I told him to go to WP:DR and to use my talk page instead of Yahoo! a couple days ago. I blocked you for violating the three-revert rule, which you did. That's plain and simple and does not require looking through reams of talk page discussions. Your last sentence of your first paragraph suggests you do not understand WP:3RR. Restoring edits in an effort to maintain stability is the most commonly used excuse for edit warring. If it's vandalism, reversions are okay. If it's a content dispute, no matter how confident you are in your position, it's (for the most part) counted against you. And I never said this was a pro- or anti-Islam dispute; I merely lumped it into the same family of trivial disputes.
Your second paragraph is patently wrong; I do not have a responsibility to restore it back to the form it was before. Anyone can unprotect an article if it has been protected for a long time (like two weeks). Even now, the vandalism is far from rampant; perhaps you perceive it as serious because you're working with the article a lot. Semi-protection should be used to combat vandalism not to just block out IPs attempting to make legitimate edits such as this, this, and this.
Again, your last paragraph is ridiculous, and not just because you dismiss your stalking horse accusation as trivial. I responded to one request for re-protection and that is enough. I have better things to do – both on-wiki and off – than babysit this article. If you have any further questions about my conduct, take it to WP:AN. Continuing this conversation here will waste both my time and, more importantly, yours as you'll just see me say the same thing over and over. -- tariqabjotu 01:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, when we're right, we aren't really good about quitting, Tariqabjotu. I won't waste my time or yours correcting your misinformation. Yes, I violated 3RR, and I sat out my break. You're also right in that we are wasting our time trying to point out where you might have been mistaken. Forgive us for expecting a bit more wisdom from an admin than you were apparently able to muster. Speaking for myself, I will be sure to avoid making such an assumption again. Of course, I will be removing your comments from my Talk Page, as I have asked you on numerous occasions to not comment on my talk Page. As we don't really have anything further to say to one another, I don't imagine you'll have much problem with that.Arcayne 01:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. I'm usually better at responding to comments on my talk page, but I have not been so good at that recently, perhaps due to my desire to bring Jerusalem up to featured status (that's basically all I've been focusing on for the past few months). I'll try to get back to responding to talk page requests as soon as possible. Is that a reasonable concession? I have fully-protected the article again and left a note on the article talk page in the hopes this matter will be resolved once and for all (without me participating in the discussion, however). -- tariqabjotu 02:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Let's try this again
Looking back over the posts from before, I can see I got a little hot under the collar from your accusations, and perhaps I responded more harshly than wasnecessary. Instead of lashing out, I should have considered that you had been presented a perhaps skewed view of matters, and my response likley didn't help relieve you of that view.
To begin with, it was not my intention to "hide" any conversation in an archive, either on my talk page or in the article's Discussion area. When you approached me, it was with the accusation that I was edit-warring, committing 3RR, etc. These were precisely the sorts of accusations I would receive from Mardavich - actually, it was a recurrent tactic to accuse anyone who reverted his edits to warn them of their impending 3RR violations, presumably to scare them off from addressing his edits. He filed many, many 3RR complaints, none of which bore any fruit, and 2 RfC complaints which I personally helped to resolve by issueing a blanket apology for being uncivil to him. I don't deal well with manipulative people, and you may feel free to ask any editor in the article, and they will have a Mardavich horror story to tell. He is one of at least three editors who consistently push the Iranian POV, often to the detriment of the article. I would be happy to name admins who have commented on this poor behavior before, and show diffs of this if you would like, but this is more an informal explanation than an inquisition.
Then, after a particulalrly ugly exchange where Mardavich is exercising an all-too-common lack of civility with the other editors in the article, I reminded him that his tone needed to be a bit more civil, and to please explain more about his objections to a review (Farrokhe) that had already been excluded by concensus (I only agreed after the numerous flaws of the Farrokhe review had been pointed out).
Then you came intot he picture, warning me against precisely the same sorts of violations that Mardavich had in the past. The fact that he did indeed make a point of contacting you via email (as opposed to the public forum of a Talk page) made your contacting me extraordinarily suspicious. That you proceeded to revert and comment on my talk page after I asked you not to made me absolutely sure that you were as much of a...undesirable...person to be around. In retrospect, it may have been unfair to paint you with the same brush for which Mardavich has supplied the paint.
Which brings us to here. I do not consider my actions to be contrary to Wikipedia policy. I do not pretend to OWN the article; in fact I have fought very, very hard to ensure that no one does that, or violates any policy of Wikipedia, as far as that goes. Do I consider myself part of the editors who have done superlative work on the article? Yes I do. Did I make a mistake in archiving the Discussion page too early? Perhaps. Maybe folks didn't see the section entitled 'Archiving soon', placed a day earlier, when I siad that I would be archiving later, and to tie up old conversations, or continue them below the archiving soon section header. It was certainly not my intent, either before or now, to archive active conversations in order to hide them.
Because of the article's GA status, stability is of paramount importance. Due to this, I placed notes in each of the article section headers that suggested that before making any significant changes that they be brought to the Discussion page, as the change in question might have been the subject of earlier concensus. As well, discussing those changes beforehand helped to prevent edit-warring. And it was working just fine. the article was getting put together, and consensus was built before any change went in, ensuring its durability.
That changed when a few editors simply ignored these noted requests and just loaded statements that had been discussed and dismissed before. I would submit that they were submitted in this way because they knew they were going to be unacceptable, and spark an edit war wherein they could demand inclusion as a compromise to an RfC. It is not an unknown tactic, and one which Mardavich has been a party to before. It was not an OWN issue that prompted their reverting (as per the edit summaries); it was an attempt to prevent this tactic from being used again.
I would ask you to assume good faith (unless of course I show evidence to the contrary) that I am acting in concert with the other editors to ensure that an unbiased, properly constructed article is presented. That I don't automatically assume good faith with Mardavich is based upon my (and others') very similar experiences with him, wherein he has not bothered to demonstrate AGF even once.
I hope that explains (rather, over-explains) my reaction to your posts. it seems unfair to have the skepticism which I apply to anything Mardavich does applied to you. It seems you are coming in halfway through the situation, and my reaction to your initial accusations was from the gut. He's bad news, but you (I can see from your contributions) are not. I apologize for biting your head off. Arcayne 04:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Salam Tariq, Please forgive me if I interfere in this debate. I just want to show that Arcayne don't obey WP:EQ. For example this comment made Iranians angry and result in editorial war. Can you please describe WP:CIVIL, WP:HAR, WP:CON, WP:OWN, WP:AGF and especially WP:DR for him.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 05:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This is the first I am hearing of Sa's disapproval of my glib response in the talk page. Had he voiced them to me, i likely would have removed them. However, this further illustrates the problem in the page. Why he would post this particular time to post his complaint is interesting, to say the least. I responded on his talk page here, expressing the same sentiment that I have here. Arcayne 07:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that appears to have done the trick. Any idea how that autoblock (that seemed to have been triggered at 23:12, April 2) was triggereed? Arcayne 14:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
US-centric main page (in response to your comment on the ITN error report)
I am not quite sure how you could say that automatically presuming that anyone who reads the fact is American is not US-centric. I am British, and so I read the phrase ambassador to India and I think of the English ambassador. Presuming that people will automatically think they are American is presuming that everyone who reads it is American. J Milburn 19:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
No one is presuming that anyone who reads the fact is American. No one is presuming that anyone who reads that fact will know Rush Limbaugh is American. It said that the person was an ambassador to India, not the ambassador to India. The use of the indefinite article, rather than the definite article means that the country of origin was just omitted. Take a look at the other responses to your comment; others seem to agree with me. -- tariqabjotu 21:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Hell, you got me there. In any case, it would look a lot better if it said the country of origin. J Milburn 21:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Deleting a site for art, music and culture in Jerusalem?
Hello Tariq,
You haev deleted a site for art, music and culture in Jerusalem. (external links). This site is the most extensive cultural events calendar in Jerusalem, why deny this information from people who want to know about Jerusalem?
It is also being discussed in the talk page of Jerusalem, so please continue the discussion there and state why it should be deleted, in your opinion.
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 05:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
