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.
Move
I'd probably make a bigger mess of it! Would you mind posting the request on WP:AN to ask someone to do it. If you're still stuck, you can get back to me, but I'm no expert on the moving business, I'm afraid. Tyrenius 01:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll contact another admin first, and then perhaps I'll go to WP:AN. I don't want to go to WP:AN and have three admins attempting to fix it at the same time. -- tariqabjotu 01:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
LOL. Like buses? Tyrenius 01:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes... something like that... Alex Bakharev has prevented that situation. -- tariqabjotu 01:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Glad you've got it sorted. Tyrenius 01:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tariqabjotu. You're right that the suggested discussion template for discussing page moves wasn't used, but see here: Talk:Exodus (organization)#Page title. There were no objections, and this is a procedural request because a redirect already exists. As the article makes clear, the name of the organization is Exodus International. Thanks. Fireplace 01:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
It's quite common for low-profile articles, like Exodus (organization), to not receive much input, even over long periods of time. Creating a new survey / discussion section (along with adding to WP:RM) helps solicit input from users who normally would not visit page in question. Nevertheless, you can always contact an admin (I am not one) if you disagree and feel the page should be moved immediately. -- tariqabjotu 01:38, 29 August 2006 (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 06:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
My RfA
Thanks!
Thank you very much for your support on my recent Request for Adminship, and particularly for your flatteringkind rationale. :) The request was ultimately unsuccessful - which wasn't entirely surprising - and so I'll be taking special care to address the concerns raised by the opposing !voters before running again. If you have any feedback for me, please don't hesitate to leave it at my talk page. Thanks!
Thank you very much for participating in my RFA, which closed successfully today with a result of (62/18/3). I will go very carefully at first, trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools, and will begin by re-reading all the high-quality feedback I received during the process, not least from those who opposed me. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! Guinnog 14:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)}
Your move to Prime minister (sic) is wrong under WP rules. WP does not allow pages to be moved to grammatically incorrect locations. The office is spelt two ways: either with both words uppercased or both lowercased. As technical reasons prevent the page being located with both names lowercased it was decided long ago, on this and similar cases, that there was no option but to use the title in uppercase. That policy trumps any vote. Indeed if the RM proposal had been spotted in time, admins would have aborted it as the vote is invalid under WP rules.
The reason for this policy is simple. Having an article on something called a Prime minister would have Wikipedia an international laughing stock. It is about as loopy and ignorant as writing United states or George bush.
Please be more careful and avoid making WP a laughing stock. If the media ever saw your move they would have a field-day. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I haven't seen any discussion regarding this on Talk:Prime Minister, so I commented on this at the administrator's noticeboard. I don't think United States and George Bush are analogous here since those two subjects never have the second word in lowercase. It seems like, if necessary, the {{lowercase}} template can be added to the top of the Prime minister article. Regardless, I await confirmation at the admin noticeboard that the precedent you speak of does indeed exist. -- tariqabjotu 01:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem. It is a while since this issue last came up. I'm trying to remember where the discussion occurred then. (I remember it spread over a number of places because it involved a number of articles.) Because periodically attempts are made to move the page to Prime minister (much to fury or hilarity from British users and political scientists on WP because a mixed title is such a fundamental faux pas) the importance of unison capitalisation of the office was spelt out explicitly in a number of the Naming Conventions pages. If you look to the NC page on capitalisation you will see that the office is explicitly mentioned as an example, precisely because this issue comes up. The template about first letter lowercasing only applies where the first letter has to be lowercased but the other words (if there are any) are uppercased (eg, iPod, true Catholic Church and where there is no alternative. It is not designed to cover cases where there is the option of full uppercasing. Where there are two options, and one is technically possible, it is always used.
In the past where RMs have resulted in results that clashed with the MoS and NC, admins overrule the RM using the IAR (Ignore All Rules) rule which is there in effect to override a decision taken under a rule which if implemented would damage WP. Writing Prime minister, as I have said, would make us a laughing stock among among interested in current affairs, politics, political science, history, or anything similar. It is a really really embarrassing mistake. Just how embarrasing however may not be appreciated by people outside the area of political science. It is like having an article on France and naming its capital as Berlin, or an article on George Bush and saying that he is a Democrat (or that he is the wife of Bill Clinton!) It is of that scale of, if you'll pardon the word, "wrongness". FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no interest in defending Prime minister over Prime Minister; my goal is to determine which is more appropriate (given naming conventions) for the article title. As for "It is like having an article on France and naming its capital as Berlin, or an article on George Bush and saying that he is a Democrat (or that he is the wife of Bill Clinton!)"... no, it's not even close. -- tariqabjotu 02:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
If you were a political scientist or a historian you'd know it is very close. Prime minister is illiterate garbage. And if you think I am being hard on the loopy rename, you should try talking to British users. If they saw it they would savage it as plain ignorant. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Move follow-up
Regarding the September Campaign - please remember to fix links on the talk page for FAC, PR and such, after move.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 13:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah... collateral damage. I fixed some of the most used double-redirects, tried to tidy up the intro in Invasion of Poland (1939), and altered the link on the WP:FA page, but I suppose I overlooked those affected items on the talk page. Sorry about that; I have fixed them now. -- tariqabjotu 19:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the move, could you please take a look and comment, if you wish, at Talk:Invasion_of_Poland_(1939)#Move_closing. Please consider returning the article to an original name until the real consensus regarding the name is reached. --Irpen 03:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Irrational
Please do not make statements implying that I've called anyone irrational, when I haven't. Thanks. --Serge 03:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Statements such as I don't see how progress can be made in such an irrational environment ([1]) and But I suggest the inability of anyone to actually state what it is is that it's not really there. That creates an irrational basis for decision-making, by definition. ([2]) appear to say you think some of the involved parties are being irrational. Perhaps if that was not what you meant, you should clarify that. -- tariqabjotu 03:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You wrote, "let's try avoid calling others 'irrational'. " I did not call anyone irrational. There is a world of difference between an irrational person, and an irrational statement or act. Please respect that. I do. Thanks. --Serge 03:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. -- tariqabjotu 04:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your congratulations :) —Xyrael / 12:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which was successful with a an overwhelmingly flattering and deeply humbling total of 138/2/2 (putting me #10 on the RfA WP:100). I guess infinite monkey theorem has been officially proven. Chimps really can get somewhere on Wikipedia.
With new buttons come great responsibility, and I'll try my best to live up to your expectations. If you need assistance with something, don't hesitate to swing by my talk page or email me (trust me, I do respond :)). The same goes for any complaints or comments in regard to my administrative actions. Remember, I'm here for you.
(Thanks go to Blnguyen for the incredible photo to the right.)alphaChimplaudare 05:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
So, when can I be expecting the RfA (it's after August 15 ;))? Have a great senior year (don't let the college thing get too stressful). alphaChimplaudare 05:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the well wishes for my senior year, and I'm sure you'll do fine with the RfA tools. About a future RfA, see User:Tariqabjotu/Rationale. -- tariqabjotu 09:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Current Affiars portal
G'day Jo,
I have tried creating today's date so that I can add a story the first European space craft to the moon arriving see [3]. It came up as a red link. What do I have too do to create the page? Capitalistroadster 07:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
You add something like {{subst:Portal:Current events/DateHeader|2006|09|03}} (for today). I added how to do that into the Portal:Current events comments that are visible only when editing it. -- tariqabjotu 09:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Smile!
Riana has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
Just thought I'd send one your way, for being one of the most level-headed, courteous people I've seen on the 'pedia. Best wishes, — riana_dzastawreak havoc|damage report 14:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the smile. I'm quite surprised as I'm unsure where I have run into you. Perhaps you could enlighten me. -- tariqabjotu 14:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, don't you know? *mysterious grin* No, I've just been trying to spend more time on the project space lately, and keep running into your comments. Consistently impressed by your politeness and rationality. That sort of thing stands out, unfortunately. — riana_dzastawreak havoc|damage report 15:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Anti Gay remarks stay on the bill o'reilly's controversy page
Look, unless somebody can dismay these FACTS, then it will stay on the article, do you understand? -The Bird —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.97.150 (talk • contribs)
I'm not sure what you're talking about. -- tariqabjotu 05:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
OH don't give me that, you told me to not add "nonsense" to the bill o'reilly controversy article, Now about 2 min. before you sent me the message I added his anti-gay remarks, which were the following: "On the December 8 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly offered a Factor jacket to radio "shock jock" Howard Stern. After Stern said, "I won't wear it, but I will give it to a crack whore" and handed it back, O'Reilly told him: "I'm not having this on some lesbian somewhere. It's not going to happen."
Now look, here is what is going to happen, you are not going to send me another message regading the info I provided you as "nonsense" understood? Now if you do have a problem with this info feel free to discuss it on the discussion page.
-The bird
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 06:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Comic books -> comic move
I noticed on the Action (comic) and Crisis (comic) talk pages that you'd dropped a note in about cancelling the move. It does need doing - the guy who made the mistaken initial moves has been trying to correct them and run into problems fixing those two back to the original place (see discussion here). I have largely left him to tidy up the last loose ends so it might be worth dropping him a note explaining the format of a successful move request. (Emperor 15:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC))
The instructions for requesting a move are located at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Steps_for_requesting_a_page_move. Please pass that on to the correct party (I was unsure whether that was indeed ChrisGriswold, as I see your discussion on his talk page has been abandoned for two weeks). -- tariqabjotu 21:42, 11 September 2006 (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 05:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
How does this page work? Are admins only supposed to deal with technical issues, e.g. when a history merge is required, or with all of thE requested moves? Most of the requested moves are at this page because discussion/consensus is needed rather than for technical reasons. Are we supposed to "close" these discussion by performing or not performing the page move, or aren't the editors involved in the discussion expected to do that, or what? Herostratus 07:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Both admins and non-admins, as far as I can tell, are able to close move requests. The editors involved in the discussion could theoretically close the move request, but a third-party would probably be better in order to minimize bias. As you said, we are supposed to close the discussions by either performing the move or not performing the move. Normally, when I close a request, I add {{subst:polltop}} '''move/no move/no consensus/etc''' at the top of the Move Request section, add {{subst:pollbottom}} to the bottom, and remove the {{move}} template from the top of the talk page. Some moves can simply be performed by any user (i.e. moves to non-existent pages, moves over redirects with no history) and so I help perform those. However, there are other moves, where the target article has a history, that I cannot perform myself (as dealing with that, of course, requires being an admin). More information on the process is available at Wikipedia:Moving guidelines for administrators; I don't want to provide superfluous information in my explanation here as I don't want to appear condescending, but if my response was insufficient, feel free to contact em again. -- tariqabjotu 16:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This was a trivially obvious move with no possibility of controversy, which I would have done without asking if the target was unobstructed. The template was posted on the talk page and attracted no comments. What is the benefit in discarding such a request because of a tiny procedural deviation, especially when it is already 12 days old? – Smyth\talk 21:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and did the move, because I saw it there, and checking Amazon, it's easy to see that we're just correcting an erroneous title here, and that nobody seems to be opposing it. Feedback is welcome; it seemed to me like a good corner to cut. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
That's fine with me. -- tariqabjotu 03:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, this article has been languishing in cleanup for over a year. It's a subject I couldn't begin to address. You are the most knowledgeable person on Islam that I can think of. Can you give it a look? Cheers, and happy editing. :) Dlohcierekim 13:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm at school right now, but perhaps I'll take a closer look at it later. However, at quick glance, I question whether the article is really needed in the first place. The listing of and commentary on hadiths do not appear to have an encyclopedic benefit. For the time being, I have endorsed the {{prod}}. -- tariqabjotu 16:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I was afraid the article might not be a keeper. :) Dlohcierekim 16:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I see this has gone to AfD. Can you explain what a Hadith is and why it would be encyclopedic? I'm way out of my element here. :) Dlohcierekim 15:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I would have to say the hadith article answers your question best: Hadith are traditions relating to the words and deeds of the prophet Muhammad. Essentially, most things Muhammad advocated or did are considered hadith, and advocated in Islam (especially Sunni Islam; the Sunni refers to the Sunnah, which is supported by the hadith). So, the examples of hadith in the hadith article, like Modesty and chastity are parts of the Faith., would be a encouraged guideline in Islam. That's basically it; the hadith article really does a good job of explaining it, so you should look there if you want to know more. I suppose they could be considered encyclopedic as they are sort of like sources supporting certain rulings and practices in Islam, but I feel the article up for AfD is excessive.-- tariqabjotu 08:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I tend to keep based on "not paper" for stuff like this. Mostly, it gets deleted anyway. CheersDlohcierekim 12:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
With regard to this comment [4] I mean that I don't want other Muslim Wikipedians whom might be in favor of keeping that article to think that I voted transwiki/delete on that article solely because of Striver's contributions to it so I thought it would be better just to keep out of it.--Jersey Devil 05:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Highlights --> Headlines
Thanks for making this change on the Current Events page. I don't know if you are an admin or what position you hold, but I do feel strongly about the change. It looks much better now, and sounds more credible. Thank you doktorbwordsdeeds 11:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not an admin; I'm just a regular contributor like you. -- tariqabjotu 11:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Ridicule etc.
You wrote: "I agree with your opinion the reactions from the Muslim world on this are quite ridiculous. However, the problem is we don't have too many people saying this is ridiculous loud enough in the real world to get a place in the article. As far as I can see, it's some in the Muslim world protesting, the Vatican trying to defend the Pope's statements, and the rest of the world, save Angela Merkel, staying out of this. -- tariqabjotu 20:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)"
So, ahem, I searched news.google.com in the vain hope that somebody of weight would have called this affair ridiculous. Somebody did: [5]Azate 21:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes; satire is the greatest source of introspection. -- tariqabjotu 21:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Talk Page Comment
Absolutely agreed that it was trolling, and as the rants spilled over to my talk page and back to the article's talk page, I've blocked the user for disruption. I note that it's not his first block. Take care -- Samir धर्म 23:29, 16 September 2006 (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 05:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Here in Wikipedia there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go unappreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go unnoticed. As Esperanzians we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. This is where the Barnstar Brigade comes in. The object of this program is to seek out the people which deserve a Barnstar, and help them feel appreciated. With your help, we can recognize more dedicated editors!
What's New?
September elections are upon us! Anyone wishing to be a part of the Advisory Council may list themselves as a candidate from 18 September until 24 September, with the voting taking place from 25 September to 30 September. Those who wish to help with the election staff should also list themselves!
Appreciation Week, a program currently in development, now has its own subpage! Share your good ideas on how to make it awesome there!
The Esperanza front page has been redesigned! Many thanks to all who worked hard on it.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.
The September 2006 Council elections will open for nominations on 18 September 2006. The voting will run from 25 September 2006 until 30 September 2006. If you wish to be a candidate or a member of the elections staff, please list yourself!
The new Esperanza front page design has but put up - many thanks to all who worked on it!
TangoTango has written a script for a bot that will list new members of Esperanza, which will help those who welcome new Esperanzains greatly!
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.
Re: First edit day
Thanks for the greeting. :) – Chacor 20:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Tonetare scandal
Tonetare/Taretone scandal was this user attacking seven users creating sockpuppets/PA/NPOV/aruging and vandalizing. Sugarpinet/c 00:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I have now replied. Sugarpinet/c 00:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, but I basically agree with your point over his move from ForestH2 to Sugarpine. Rama's arrow 02:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Sugarpine's RfA
No problem, glad we could clear it up. I thought your response was highly appropriate. As always, best, Gwernol 02:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Happy Ramadan
Many happy returns - I hope you're not alone in fasting. A Muslim friend of mine once explained how his elders coached him into fasting successfully for long periods of time. All the best, Rama's arrow 00:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the greeting. I am alone, in some regards, with my fasting, but at the same time there are many with me. In all honesty, fasting for me is not an especially taxing ordeal; after day three or so, food doesn't even cross my mind during the daytime. However, perhaps I'll be retracting that in a few years when Ramadan falls in the middle of the summer, resulting in fasts that last nearly seventeen hours (as opposed to the current thirteen). -- tariqabjotu 02:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Fiddlesticks! Hehehehe... My Bombay friend kept the fast at the height of the Indian summer. I expect its prolly tougher in the Mid-east and Africa. Rama's arrow 02:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Btw, fasting is not a foreign concept to me. I keep 24-hr fasts every week - no food, no water. Rama's arrow 02:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow... any particular reason? -- tariqabjotu 03:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
We Hindus do fast periodically, but I want to build my physical and mental constitution by doing it regularly. Its not all that "wow" - I do have many failures and hard moments. Check out tapasya - its somewhat close to what I'm "trying" to do. Rama's arrow 03:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree that food isn't so hard to abstain from - water is a different issue. If you exercise regularly, or better yet are a bodybuilder, you can get through it easier. One must do work that one is most passionate about, or else he/she will get distracted and suffer. God is a great motivation, but I try to think of Him even when I'm gorging, so... Anywayz, all the best. Rama's arrow 03:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Ramadhaan mubaarak!
السلام عليكم
ramadhaan mubaarak, Tariq! we haven't spoken before, but i thought now would be a nice time to extend my warmest greetings and congratulations to you. ان شاء الله you'll find this month very rewarding both externally and internally, both in this life and in the Hereafter. a pleasure to meet you, and i look forward to working with you in the future to help improve articles on wikipedia. thank you, wa jazaakallahuma khairan! ITAQALLAH 12:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
