This is an archive of past discussions about User:Tariqabjotu. 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.
BTW, I am from St. Petersburg which is 6 degrees south of the arctic circle. The longest day of the year is about 20 hrs sunup 4 horus sundown, and even when the sun is down, it never gets dark. And there are oodles of Muslims from the many Muslim provinces of Russia. What are they to do there? What about north of the arctic circle where some days don't end at all? - CrazyRussiantalk/email00:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The ruling on those cases differs, but all basically end with "you have to fast for a very long time". If you're truly interested in the matter, I would suggest (mainly page four of) this article (note sahur refers to the time before the fast, and that the end of sahur coincides with fajr, which means dawn, when fasting begins). -- tariqabjotu03:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Heh... Dude has a fine string of titles after his name. Almost runs into a second line. Sounds a lot like Judaism, only more complicated. We pray three times a day - you five, we fast five days a year - you thirty. Thanks for the link. - CrazyRussiantalk/email08:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi I have a question regarding the current events page you redesigned. I've stolen most of your design on Portal:Current events/Video gaming, but I was wondering if you knew of a way in which I could get it to only display the days Monday-Friday. Since this is a very commercial area, nothing tends to happen on Saturday or Sunday, and if there is some big event, I can always add that page manually. Thanks! jaco♫plane00:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that! I'll try to figure out the template, so that I won't have to bother you in the future :) I'll take a look at the month archive page question you posted and let you know what I think. Cheers, jaco♫plane16:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907
About changing the blurb - I meant to add the info about the wreckage having been found to today's section (September 30) and edited the original blurb instead. Could a September 30 section be created? Fvasconcellos15:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I am glad to see you are keeping these up to date :). FYI, the May number seems to be off a bit (we had it at 929, but it appears the correct number is 925), all the other months check out exactly so far. I have been reviewing the meta and en.wiki user rights logs to go backwards and track the numbers more exactly (see the bottom of my page User:NoSeptember/admincount). Small numbers changes don't mean much, but I figure why not see how accurate I can get. Cheers, NoSeptember 19:15, 1 October 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. Ralbot06:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
RE: do not bite new users.
Nelson nyc has been adding this link to ban ki moon's page without any regard to NPOV principles. Firstly, as you may know, the article he had added is biased and not a reliable source for wikipedia. BTW, my last account's password is lost; just to let you know im not a sock puppet. Login to earth20:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tariqabjotu! Since I've seen you around WP:RM a lot, you've probably noticed that {{WP:RM}} has changed quite a bit in the past week or so. Would you like to comment on the talk page about which format you like best? Thanks. —Mets501(talk)13:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... even though my time is being freed up, I'm still going to wait for my semi-wikibreak to conclude. However, that makes you, CrazyRussian, Blnguyen, Aguerriero, Chacor, Yanksox (offered in August), and possibly Kingboyk (offered in August but suggested I wait until six months after RfA 2). Even if all of you don't go through with your co-nominations, I am quite honored so many offers have been made at all. -- tariqabjotu02:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which finished with a tally of 52/6/1 (~90%). It was an interesting process which gave me a chance to learn a bit about myself and about the community. My intention now is to slowly ease into using those additional buttons on my page. No use being over eager and mucking up the works. The support of all those who went over my record and/or rallied to my defense after the big oppose vote was instumental to the success of this review. Again, thank you! --StuffOfInterest11:33, 10 October 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. Ralbot17:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Re; List of Brahmin etc
I would take the initiative in getting the List of Muslims articles deleted, but I was criticized quite strongly when I did just that back in February (although there were additional factors that led to that criticism). Perhaps, however, it might have been better if I had co-nominated fewer articles to appear less drastic. -- tariqabjotu 20:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I personally can see no reason to have any page that is called List of Muslims (or Brahmins or Christians or sun-worshippers) because it must, of necessity be selective. I mean, if List of Muslims is to be entirely accurate, how many thousands of millions of people will be in it? "List of notable Muslims"? Who's to say. "List of Muslim athletes"? Pointless. (And in all of the above, Muslim can be replaced with any other religion, belief, whatever.)
There is probably need for a much wider debate within Wikipedia on the acceptability of such titles, but I am very new here and would not know how to start it, though I would happily support sucj a move. Emeraude20:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of the collateral damage. I often would take care of only a couple double redirects – if any – because manually correcting double redirects, especially for articles with many of them (like Saint Andrew's Cross) could be quite tedious. Now that I see AWB takes care of double redirects (I'm sure I knew that at one point), I'll make sure I use that in the future when performing a move. Nevertheless, thanks again. -- tariqabjotu02:44, 17 October 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. Ralbot18:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Re: Image:Texas Flag at DKR - North Texas vs Texas 2006.jpg
Hello Tariqabjotu - thank you for your messages and for your help with the situation. Yes, I agree with you, the Image should not have been used on the second page. That was my mistake. Most images I upload are free because I have either taken them myself, gotten permission for them, or gotten them from the US govt. I forgot that image had a non-commercial license. I have removed it from the article where it was not fair use. Thanks again, Johntex\talk22:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I closed the move request. Note also you can close a move request by just removing the {{move}} template from the top and, optionally, adding {{subst:polltop}} '''some result'''. ~~~~ before a section and {{subst:polltop}} after it. -- tariqabjotu05:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, okay. I thought closing a contested move request required administrator intervention, and is done by selected people, as with WP:AFD. Tinlinkin05:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, administrators are not the only ones allowed to close move requests. I'm not an administrator, and I've been doing it for a couple months now. No one has stopped me yet (most likely because WP:RM often gets backlogged and so the help is appreciated). I have gotten at least one complaint regarding a move request close, but that got resolved. -- tariqabjotu05:41, 22 October 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. Ralbot06:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Yoghurt move
I commend your decision; I would have done the exact same thing had I had the ability to do so. Score one for the discussion team. -- tariqabjotu04:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
No, that's not true. If used on an experienced editor it's a clear and calculated insult which says (at best) "You are too stupid to understand the rules, so I am spelling them out to you like a newbie". There is no reason to use {{3RR}} on anyone who is familiar with the rule unless you want to insult them. Guettarda02:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Well... I'm not sure if I'd go so far as to say it's a "clear and calculated insult." However, I do wish alternate templates that don't go over the basics of the rules like that could be written. {{sofixit}} is by far one of the worst. (I used {{sofixit}} as an example, so you wouldn't respond to that wish for alternate templates with precisely that template) Nevertheless, I will often use the standard templates in the rare situations I need to post them on the talk pages of longtime editors not because I want to insult the recipient, but rather because it's simpler (custom messages end up saying the same thing usually). That's why I was so alarmed by your response to Serge. -- tariqabjotu02:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Using a template to communicate with someone amounts to making the decision that they are not worth the effort of actually writing them a message. That's great for things like {{welcome}} (people don't expect any welcome, so boilerplate is appreciated). This is also true of the {{tl|test} family of templates - more often than not, a vandal isn't worth your time. Beyond these (and perhaps some that I am unfamiliar with) boilerplate is fairly rude. Using {{3RR}} to inform a new user of the 3 revert rule really isn't the best way to communicate with a new editor, but the benefit of informing someone of the rule may outweigh the fact that it's rude. Using {{NPA}} has the benefit that it may save you replying to the insult.
Using one of these templates on an established user does nothing but insult the person. It's safe enough that any established user knows the 3RR. It takes a couple seconds to figure out whether you are dealing with an established editor or a newbie. If you say "FYI - you're at three reverts" and the person actually doesn't know what you are talking about, they will say "what are you talking about". There is no way an admin can try to argue ignorance of the 3RR, and since Serge had responded to a comment of mine in which I had discussed how wrong it was for Mets501 to have move-protected the page when he moved it (I hadn't realised that it was move-protected initially), there is no way that he couldn't know I was an admin (unless he claims to be ignorant of the fact that only admins can move move-protected pages).
Any established user should at the very least know the 3RR. Spelling out the rules s..l..o..w..l..y and in great detail is an insult. Including the diffs is aggressive. Serge's actions were clearly unacceptable. If you want to call someone stupid and threaten them, then you should be brave enough to call them that openly and deal with the consequences. Insults like Serge's are unacceptable, clear violations of WP:NPA. I see no reason to tolerate the sort of behaviour. Guettarda20:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused. I've seen references to "Tariq's proposal" but when I scanned, I found JohnK's proposal that you supported (move 27 AP cities). Can you point me to the most recent statement of your proposal? If your proposal is inactive, I intend to oppose the current proposal in favor of reopening the discussion around a proposal I can support.
In the name of antidisruption, I am willing to support some such proposal, even though I otherwise support the comma convention. These debates are just a PITA, and the AP list provides a sufficient backstop and rationale as to which cities to include. Thanks for your contributions to this discussion. --ishu04:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The proposal they are referring to is this one. Serge closed john k's proposal and my proposal because people were complaining there were too many proposals open concurrently, not because there was anything wrong with the other two. -- tariqabjotu04:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow; I really was not expecting that. Thanks! It seems like you're doing a couple random acts of kindness of your own... -- tariqabjotu00:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
