[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive Fifty-Nine

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


Jerusalem

Hi Tariqabjotu,

What about the solution of a "binding mediation" or a "binding RfC" to solve this issue once for all ? The question remains who could be the mediators. That is why I asked to the ArbCom to suggest some. If you find this a good solution and if you support this (as the "other party"), that will enable the situation to move forward. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe I've already said the same in my comments at the RfArb. -- tariqabjotu 14:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
Sorry, I had not read this.
We are on the same wavelength for the process to solve all this.
I hope the arbcom will understand us.
Pluto2012 (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi again,
I think (and I think you think so too) that if we want to move forward and be efficient, the first think will be to set up a "protocol" of discussion (whatever the binding RfC, binding mediation or discussion).
Regarding this latest, this is a total no-sense with nobody listening to anybody else.
Pluto2012 (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi,As I was absent and busy did I miss the RfArb regarding Jerusalem?--Tritomex (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
So we got it.
Any idea of what is next step ? Pluto2012 (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Please stop bothering me. I completely reject your self-proclaimed peacemaker title after this condescending remark. I suggest, as I've already begun to do, speaking to Stephen Zhang, someone who I hold to much greater esteem and who expressed some interest in mediating this dispute during the RfArb. -- tariqabjotu 16:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I am not at all a "self-proclaimed peacemaker". I am just civilised with people who are civilised. Regardigng the diff, I am also not a fan a hypocrisy. I say what I think and I think what I say. That is the more simple.
You are obviously good faith but you are also particulary upset.
After reading the Jerusalem's talk page, I was coming to suggest you that we try to write a common proposal for this lead of "shit" (goodness I wrote "shit" ;-).
Anyway, I stop "bothering" you. Give you some days to think about my suggestion. If you think it may not be bad ; just leave a short message here. Else, I will not insist.
Pluto2012 (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I meant what I said at the RfArb, despite someone's description of it as a "hissy fit". As far as I can tell, there is no progress being made on the talk page at present. While proposals are being made, they are being presented too quickly to foster clear discussion. With an RfC or mediation just around the corner, I see no reason to put forth something else and add to the fray. And explaining my position on this matter and trying to make sense of others' positions have proven to be massive time sinks with no gain. Once again, I'll say for the record that while I think the current formulation is fine, I am fine with changing the wording. But I don't have time for pointless exercises in arguing at the moment. I'd be happy to invest (if I can restrain myself, a little) time in resolving this issue when the structure for doing so is set up. -- tariqabjotu 16:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tariqabjotu,
I didn't find the time to answer you sooner. Sorry for this.
Given the direction of the RfC, I prefer resigning.
Soon we can add in the lead that Jerusalem is mainly known for the never-end polemics it generated on wikipedia encyclopaedia. :-)
Take care.
Pluto2012 (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

Talkback

Hello, Tariqabjotu. You have new messages at Steven Zhang's talk page.
Message added 12:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Steven ZhangHelp resolve disputes! 12:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI Move of New York street articles

Hi. I see that you recently closed the RM discussion at Talk:Houston Street and did page moves for a number of Manhattan streets based on that discussion. I saw this because I had one of those pages watchlisted, but I was not alerted to the discussion because notifications of the page move discussion had not been posted on the pages that I had watchlisted. I can't explain what happened, but it appears that the bot failed to place notifications on the talk pages for the last six streets named in that discussion. One of those six moves (Dyer Avenue) involved a name that appears to have some ambiguity, so I reverted it, but the rest look uncontroversial. --Orlady (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem 2". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation.Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 January 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 22:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Jerusalem 2, to which you were listed as a party, has beendeclined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to themailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, seeWikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, --WGFinley (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

RM Closure

Regarding your edit [1], please see WP:RMCI regarding proper closing procedures. Thanks. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Considering I just closed about ten move requests, I think it's quite clear that I know how to close move requests. You moved two of the articles and Nyttend moved the third -- six hours ago. One of you should have closed it properly, but for some reason didn't. I thought I would remove the template while, presumably, one or the both of you finished whatever you were doing, so that the request wasn't showing up at WP:RM as unaddressed. -- tariqabjotu 23:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tariqabjotu. You have new messages at Tiggerjay's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tiggerjay (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hilarious

Love the edit summary for the cquote redirect, but I do think it a good step if the MoS is meant to mean anything.  davidiad.:τ00:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

Assistance required

Hi,

I saw that you are involved in resolving edit wars and so I thought I'd ask for your help. An editor and I are having a bit of a diagreement reqarding the infobox picture of Dar es Salaam. Previously, my image Dar es Salaam before dusk.jpg, aFeatured Picture was being used after undergoing a tough selection process. Another editor changed this to his image which is of considerable low resolution, image quality and composition. I reverted this and placed a note on the talk page asking for discussion before changes but but my revert was reverted without any. What do you suggest? --Muhammad(talk) 15:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a previous discussion that led to the featured photo's selection for the infobox? If not, I would suggest opening an RfC, as otherwise it's just your preference against his. -- tariqabjotu 16:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
No there was no such discussion as this was done quite a long time before the other picture was uploaded. I have put up a RfC, would appreciate if you could just confirm if it is ok since this is my first one. Thanks --Muhammad(talk) 16:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Istanbul TFA

Hello. As I selected the article directly to appear as TFA without a prior request at WP:TFAR, there was nothing of which you should have been notified earlier. (Most TFAs are in fact selected directly by Raul or one of his TFA delegates rather than being nominated first.) Notification on FAC nominator talk pages (and those of other leading editors) that a particular article has been selected as the TFA is handled by User:UcuchaBot(BRFA). I add the |maindate= to the talk page as I have the page open anyway. There is no rule that articles have to wait for x months or years before being selected as TFA - in fact, there are advantages in selecting articles that have relatively recently passed FAC because they are less likely to have deteriorated since promotion and are more likely to have active editors keeping an eye on them). Nor is every TFA date-related – some are, but many are not. I simply selected Istanbul because it was a recent FA on an interesting topic that would help give a better range of topics at TFA in January; if you would rather I scheduled something else with a view to an appearance at a later date, that's fine by me. But there are no guarantees that it would appear on 29th May, or that it would be possible to select it around the time of the 2020 decision. Regards, BencherliteTalk 15:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a strong preference for swapping it out, but between zero chance of date relevance and some chance of date relevance, I'd choose the latter, especially as there are so many dates relevant to Istanbul (e.g. May 29) and, perhaps more importantly, the city has a good chance of winning its bid for the Olympics this September (which would generate more direct relevance). After then, I probably wouldn't care. This is a very stable article, especially for an article of this size and importance, so I don't think you'd have to worry about deterioration. I'm aware it's ultimately your decision, so consider my input as you like. -- tariqabjotu 16:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, will do when time permits, hopefully later today. Thanks for your polite enquiry and understanding! BencherliteTalk 17:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Now fixed. BencherliteTalk 11:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As you have closed the request move here i would like you to also look into the related request movehere because there is no further discussion going on and both are related to each other.Thanks -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  • On similar note the following pages also fall in the category as per consensus:
Islamic view of Hagar → Hagar in Islam
Islamic views of Mary → Mary in Islam
Shuayb → Shuaib
Islamic views on Daniel → Daniel in Islam --Ibrahim ebi (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

User:Beloki

Since you recently blocked this user for making personal attacks, I thought I should let you know that (s)he is at it again. CT Cooper · talk 23:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Moderation of Jerusalem RfC

Hello. You are receiving this message because you have recently participated at Talk:Jerusalem or because you were listed at one of the two recent requests for mediation of the Jerusalem article (1, 2). The Arbitration Committee recently mandated a binding request for comments about the wording of the lead of the Jerusalem article, and this message is to let you know that there is currently a moderated discussion underway to decide how that request for comments should be structured. If you are interested in participating in the discussion, you are invited to read the thread at Talk:Jerusalem#Moderation, add yourself to the list of participants, and leave a statement. Please note that this discussion will not affect the contents of the article directly; the contents of the article will be decided in the request for comments itself, which will begin after we have finalised its structure. If you do not wish to participate in the present discussion, you may safely ignore this message; there is no need to respond. If you have any questions or comments about this, please leave them at my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

Jerusalem RfC discussion: rounding up step one

Hello. This is a boilerplate message for participants in the moderated discussion about the Jerusalem RfC - sorry for posting en masse. We have almost finished step one of the discussion; thanks for your statement and for any other contributions you have made there. This is just to let you know I have just posted the proposed result of step one, and I would like all participants to comment on some questions I have asked. You can find the discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Judging the consensus for step one - please take a look at it when you next have a moment. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 17:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two

Hello. This is to let you know that we have now started step two in the Jerusalem RfC discussion, in which we will be deciding the general structure of the RfC. I have issued a call for statements on the subject, and I would be grateful if you could respond at some time in the next couple of days. Hope this finds you well — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

Superbowl

Hi Tariq, I'd like to put the Superbowl back. This is a very timely thing. Could you please reply at WP:ITN/C. In short, there are plenty of citations on the article that support the game summary. Practically every article written has a game summary. There are no disputes on the article talk page about the current game summary, and there are lots and lots of eyes on it. This should be restored to the home page ASAP. SeeWP:MINREF. Thanks. Jehochman Talk 14:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

ITN

Sorry about the duplicate post! I'm surprised it didn't edit conflict us. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 17:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two question

Hello everyone. I have asked a question about having drafts versus general questions at the Jerusalem RfC discussion, and it would be helpful if you could comment on it. I'm sending out this mass notification as the participation on the discussion page has been pretty low. If anyone is no longer interested in participating, just let me know and I can remove you from the list and will stop sending you these notifications. If you are still interested, it would be great if you could place the discussion page on your watchlist so that you can keep an eye out for new threads that require comments. You can find the latest discussion section at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Step two discussion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. This is just a quick message to let you know that unless there is significant ongoing discussion, I intend to wrap up step two in a few days, probably on Thursday 31st 28th February. I invite you to have a look at the discussion there, especially at question five where I have just asked a question for all participants. —Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

AN/I referral

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ﬥ (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

ITN/C

I strongly urge you to ease up on posting things to ITN. I have noted that you err on the side of posting, rather than not posting, especially in contested cases. Being referred to AN/I (even if it went your way this time) is a sign that you are not finding consensus. Let other admins pick up the slack for awhile, since, as many people have noted, ITN is not so important. Abductive (reasoning) 03:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Being referred to AN/I (even if it went your way this time) is a sign that you are not finding consensus.
No, it's evidence of the surprisingly widespread misconception that consensus is determined by counting votes. —David Levy03:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. First, this was brought to ANI because the complainant was annoyed that I didn't edit Wikipedia in my sleep. Second, the comments at ANI suggest that I was within my discretion to post the item, and that the complaints were overblown. And, third, if "ITN is not so important", why did you feel it necessary to bring this up, despite the outcome at the ANI discussion that concluded eight hours earlier? Doesn't "ITN is not so important" suggest that people who complain about items being posted (or not being posted) need to cool their jets? So, in summary, no. --tariqabjotu 04:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Your choices are controversial, stop making controversial choices. Abductive(reasoning) 21:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Stop demanding mindless vote counts. —David Levy 22:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
What part of 'no' didn't you understand? Go away. -- tariqabjotu23:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Magdalene asylum

Regarding this edit re the above topic, there are some factual inaccuracies as I've tried to bring to attention with this edit. I've probably not used the template correctly. Can you help please?RashersTierney (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Mail

It regards the second RFA, I saw the reversal, I had to revert and I explained why through email though I respect your opinion. It's a sensitive issue. Secret account 07:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I got your e-mail. If you don't want people to look at your previous RfA, don't respond to someone's question by telling them to look at your previous RfA. -- tariqabjotu 07:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive_Fifty-Nine&oldid=1091656206"