Misplaced Pages

User talk:Tariqabjotu: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:26, 11 August 2013 editTariqabjotu (talk | contribs)Administrators36,354 edits archiving← Previous edit Revision as of 18:33, 11 August 2013 edit undoBarrelProof (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers106,839 edits →Closing of move request for On My Way (Charlie Brown song) → On My Way (song): I agree that closing a similar move request is not a problem. And I believe it when you say you didn't remember that other closing. But this particular situation bugs meNext edit →
Line 267: Line 267:


:Gee. I didn't even remember closing that move request. That being said, I think closing a similar move request is pushing it in terms of calling someone "involved". -- ''']''' 18:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC) :Gee. I didn't even remember closing that move request. That being said, I think closing a similar move request is pushing it in terms of calling someone "involved". -- ''']''' 18:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
::I certainly agree that closing a similar move request is not a problem. And I guess I believe it when you say you didn't remember that other closing. But this particular situation bugs me. We had a move request that was just closed as "not moved", followed immediately by another move request that raised no new issues other than citing two very-recent moves involving the same judgment call – i.e., whether a topic (and specifically a song title) needs to have a separate article devoted to it in order to be considered ambiguous – and you close that second move in favor of moving. Nothing new happened except your reading of the consensus. Personally, I think your interpretation is incorrect on that topic. Something can be very noteworthy and not be in a separate article. In such a situation, I think an article on another topic/song with the same name should be considered as needing disambiguation. I didn't comment in the second discussion because I had already expressed my view a few days earlier in the other discussion and nothing seemed to have changed. I was rather surprised to see a different outcome appear from the second discussion. —] (]) 18:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:33, 11 August 2013

The Signpost: 17 July 2013

Thanks

Thanks for your RM close at Talk:Haram (site). "Site", while not the perfect disambiguator, is the best available. Cheers. —  AjaxSmack  16:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Santa Maria de Ovila

Hi - would you please explain your reasoning behind finding consensus to move here? Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems self-evident; I don't know what needs to be explained. -- tariqabjotu 05:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, it seems to me that Binksternet and I put forward pretty strong policy-based arguments, supported with plenty of evidence, why the previous title was more appropriate. So I would very much appreciate your evaluation of the arguments presented and how it wound up being a consensus to move. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, more people disagreed with your position; their reasons seemed -- and still seem -- perfectly valid. If you feel I closed the move request incorrectly, there's a move review process. -- tariqabjotu 02:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I started a move review - see below for the link. Nothing personal! Dohn joe (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Move review for Santa María de Óvila

An editor has asked for a Move review of Santa María de Óvila. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Dohn joe (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

In case of ITN-generated Wikistress, look at the fluffiness of the kitten and all shall be well.

LukeSurl 20:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank you for assisting in moving the incubated page for The Avengers: Age of Ultron into the mainspace! It is much appreciated! Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Your block of me yesterday

To avoid further misunderstanding I am reposting here what I wrote yesterday in regards to your block.

The only thing that I did today was restore the NPOV tag which had been wrongly removed. Your block unfortunately is based on a false pretext.
What is "extremely obvious" to me is that my contributions have been constantly deleted wholesale by people who refuse to engage in good-faith discussion. What would be constructive is for you to state your objections in detail if you have any, rather than abuse your power to favor one side of the dispute.
CJK (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Move of Philippe, King of the Belgians

hi there, thank you for pointing out the move review discussion to me, I was not aware of it. Gryffindor (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

How do I fix something on ITN?

You closed the royal baby thread at ITN while (I believe) there was still valid discussion underway. (Just started really.) We have been incredibly pedantic about the title of Princess Kate, but ignored the point that this kid is equally in line to be ruler of 16 Commonwealth realms, not just Britain. To the royalists in these places this will be very important, and most won't have had breakfast yet. I think the blurb needs to change to mention it.

Didn't want to appear confrontational and reopen the thread, but this should be discussed. How can it be done? Can maybe YOU re-open the thread please? HiLo48 (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You should probably raise it at WP:ERRORS. Or if you have an alternative wording now that doesn't turn the blurb into a mouthful, I could make the change. -- tariqabjotu 23:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

This week's articles for improvement - 22 July 2013 to 28 July 2013

This week's article for improvement is
Architect
Please be bold and help improve it!

posted by Northamerica1000 11:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Ocean's Eleven

Hello, regarding your closure of the RM discussion at Talk:Ocean's Eleven, I wanted to state that I believe the discussion should have been closed with no consensus. The request was to fix something that was not broken and was aimed to remove disambiguation terms unnecessarily. Since we were not dealing with any vital topics here, I think the rule of thumb should be, when in doubt, disambiguate. There was sufficient doubt in the discussion. As I mentioned in the discussion with the principle of least astonishment, it makes sense for a reader to arrive at a fork in the road and proceed from there. This pair of articles is different from a pair in which one would be lowercase and the other would be title case. With a title case query, we generally assume a proper noun is being sought for. If a query is in lowercase, then readers will at least land at the article that has the underlying meaning for the proper noun even if they were not looking for it specifically. Here, I find the two films too interchangeable. The odds are roughly 50-50 to satisfy what the readers are looking for, the main distinction being the film's "official" title, which should not apply to article titles per WP:COMMONNAME. I showed results that there were inverse uses of the name, e.g., Ocean's Eleven in reference to the 1960 film. Nor did WP:2DAB apply because it requires one of the topics to be primary, which obviously was never the case with the previous setup. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 16:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hah, and I like the font selection you have on this talk page. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 16:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

@Erik: I think your points were already clear during the move request, and I obviously didn't think they were strong enough to outweigh those points supporting the request. If you feel I closed the move request improperly, you are free to open a move review.
About the font, I absolutely hate sans-serif fonts. Therefore, I have a personal CSS file making all of Misplaced Pages appear in Georgia font and also forced everyone coming to my talk page to see the beauty of serifs. (The site-wide CSS file also has the added benefit of preventing me from accidentally posting while logged out, as it's extremely obvious when I'm not logged in.) -- tariqabjotu 09:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join a discussion

Through this way, I inform there is a discussion about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D was approved at VPP. I notify you about this because you has participated in at least one RM discussion in which PDAB is cited (in any form). You are welcome to give ideas about the future of this guideline at WT:D or to ignore this message. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

Redact

This is just a heads up that I redacted the word "clearly" in the Men's Right's movement log here. It was brought up in the ANI as the two admins involved had an objection to it as insulting and I didn't recall much opposition by you to their argument about how they perceived the word so I didn't feel it's be controversial to redact it.--v/r - TP 18:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there was any discussion at ANI about my comment on the log there; I believe it was only about my comment on User talk:Pudeo. The suggestion from Bwilkins that my words there were "insulting" was repeatedly and strongly rejected by myself and a few others. As for the wording on the Article probation page, I have no objection to removing the word "clearly" there (written in a slightly different context) if KC and Bwilkins don't want the constant reminder of their assumption of bad faith. However, if you do so, I'd prefer you just remove the word rather than replace it with the {{redacted}} template, which gives the impression that I said something far less innocuous than what I said and encourages people to find out what the "offending" remark was. -- tariqabjotu 21:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I'm sorry, I didn't read the user's talk page discussion and I wasn't aware. I've removed the template as well.--v/r - TP 00:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Template move

I just updated Template:IPA symbol/doc, but could you do a null edit to Template:IPA symbol so it shows up? (and feel free to check my edits) Thanks. Apteva (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why a null edit was needed? Maybe just a purge of the template? Also, the template is only semi-protected, so you should be able to edit it. -- tariqabjotu 09:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Oops, I must be color blind. I thought for sure that as a widely used template it was full protected. When a page that is transcluded is edited, those edits will not show up on the page it is transcluded onto until later, which can be forced with a null edit, which will not show up in the edit history, but will allow the changes to be seen. Apteva (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Talk:America RM. Even though I didn't !vote (was watching it but had no opinion) I would just like to say I thought you did well there, in the way it was handled I mean, I don't care about the result. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Talk:America RM. Even though I didn't !vote (was watching it but had no opinion) I would just like to say I thought you did well there, in the way it was handled I mean, I don't care about the result. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:America

Thank you for taking the time to close the discussion at Talk:America. Although you didn't reach the conclusion I would liked to have seen, that's just something comes with editing Misplaced Pages. You took the time to read all of that and give such a detailed close and I just wanted to let you know that it is appreciated, since closing those types of discussions that seems to be a rather undesirable job. Thanks. - SudoGhost 22:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey

Sorry about that revert, it was accidental, mobile editing is sometimes too slow, sometimes too quick! :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Take Back the Night

Hi Tariqabjotu. I noticed that you replaced the hatnote on Take Back the Night, changing the link to Take Back the Night (song) instead of the disambiguation, Take Back the Night (disambiguation). May I ask why you did this? There's quite a few Take Back the Night's, even though only two have articles.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

@Status: WP:TWODABS says we don't need a disambiguation page when there are only two topics with the same name. That is understood to mean two topics covered by Misplaced Pages, not two topics in the entire universe. Right now that is just the anti-domestic violence protests and the Justin Timberlake song. The rest of the articles linked from the disambiguation page are not about subjects entitled "Take Back the Night". One could conceivably make the case that Highlander (season 3) is admissible since it has a section entitled "Take Back the Night". However, that's quite spurious (this isn't IMDB; do you really think people are going to be searching for that like that?), and even if it wasn't, that still can be covered by a hatnote. It is, without a doubt, unhelpful to funnel those looking for the article on the Timberlake song through a disambiguation page, as that's far and away most likely the alternate subject those landing on that page are interested in. -- tariqabjotu 00:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. What about the novels? I haven't looked into them, but they could have some notability. The fact remains that there are many Take Back the Nights and it would be a disservice to exclude them.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
@Status: They might have some notability, but they don't have articles now. I'm not suggesting anything novel here (no pun intended); disambiguation pages are supposed to list subjects that have articles on Misplaced Pages, not be a placeholder for potential articles. Right now, even if someone is looking for the novel by Erin Merryn, what help is the Erin Merryn article? If someone is looking for the Sweet Valley University novel, what use is List of Sweet Valley University novels? Neither of those articles say anything about those works besides the titles, so per WP:DABRELATED, these don't belong on a disambiguation page. Highlander (season 3) at least mentions something about a "Take Back the Night" episode, but that's pushing it and, in any event, a disambiguation page is not needed. -- tariqabjotu 02:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Considering how large of a term Take Back the Night is, I still don't agree. I, however, trust your judgement in the matter.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Move request for Aryan Migration to Assam

Actually, when i created the article, with current Aryanization section as lede, i linked Aryan with Aryan, which linked as same till date, though lede was now changed by user Chaipau. Is this good enough reason to keep the name as Aryan, which too supported by Assam government. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 05:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2013-07-29

RM:Adroit-class destroyer, again

Just to let you know (following on from the discussion, above), I've done the move review on this; it's here (sorry, I've no idea how to work the template). Xyl 54 (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, August 24!

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, August 24 at 6:00 PM. All Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia and free knowledge/culture enthusiasts, regardless of editing experience, are welcome to attend! All ages welcome!

For more information and to sign up, please see the meetup page. Hope to see you there! Kirill  04:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

ITN thanks

The Main Page Barnstar
Thank you for keeping ITN moving along. It seems like 75% of the postings are by you, and your efforts are greatly appreciated. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 August 2013

Closing of move request for On My Way (Charlie Brown song) → On My Way (song)

Please see my reaction at Talk:On My Way (song). Moreover, I question the appropriateness of you being the person to close this request. The move request was initiated by citing the move of Jack (Breach song) → Jack (song) as precedent. That other move was closed less than two weeks ago by you, and it involved the same basic issue, so I don't think you're really an uninvolved party on this topic. The only change in the situation, relative to the prior move request that was closed three weeks ago as "Not moved", is the direct connection to your other action. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Gee. I didn't even remember closing that move request. That being said, I think closing a similar move request is pushing it in terms of calling someone "involved". -- tariqabjotu 18:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I certainly agree that closing a similar move request is not a problem. And I guess I believe it when you say you didn't remember that other closing. But this particular situation bugs me. We had a move request that was just closed as "not moved", followed immediately by another move request that raised no new issues other than citing two very-recent moves involving the same judgment call – i.e., whether a topic (and specifically a song title) needs to have a separate article devoted to it in order to be considered ambiguous – and you close that second move in favor of moving. Nothing new happened except your reading of the consensus. Personally, I think your interpretation is incorrect on that topic. Something can be very noteworthy and not be in a separate article. In such a situation, I think an article on another topic/song with the same name should be considered as needing disambiguation. I didn't comment in the second discussion because I had already expressed my view a few days earlier in the other discussion and nothing seemed to have changed. I was rather surprised to see a different outcome appear from the second discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)