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 17:00, 30 April 2013 editSm8900 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers63,776 edits →note← Previous edit Revision as of 17:07, 30 April 2013 edit undoTariqabjotu (talk | contribs)Administrators36,354 edits →note: + replyNext edit →
Line 458: Line 458:
I think things may go on as before. However, I think it is good we opened up this discussion. I think the moderator truly has made every effort to make this process go well. However, I think a different structure needs to be used for this sort of process. thanks. --] (]) 19:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC) I think things may go on as before. However, I think it is good we opened up this discussion. I think the moderator truly has made every effort to make this process go well. However, I think a different structure needs to be used for this sort of process. thanks. --] (]) 19:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


::just letting you know, some more questions have been posted by the moderator at ]. you can see some of my replies there as well. thanks. --] (]) 17:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC) :just letting you know, some more questions have been posted by the moderator at ]. you can see some of my replies there as well. thanks. --] (]) 17:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

::Yes, I did notice. Thanks. -- ''']''' 17:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:07, 30 April 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 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. See WP:MINREF. Thanks. Jehochman 14:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

ITN

Sorry about the duplicate post! I'm surprised it didn't edit conflict us. Ks0stm 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 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 13:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

AN/I referral

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages: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 Levy 03:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. First, this was brought to ANI because the complainant was annoyed that I didn't edit Misplaced Pages 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. -- tariqabjotu 23:15, 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 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)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

hello

Glad to see you are still around! Dlohcierekim 20:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Er, thanks? Am I supposed to remember you from somewhere? -- tariqabjotu 20:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, perhaps not. Perhaps I misremembered the name. Sorry for the intrusion. Dlohcierekim 22:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

DC happy hour on Thursday, February 28!

Please join Wikimedia DC for Happy Hour at the Capitol City Brewery at Metro Center on Thursday, February 28 at 6 p.m. 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, see Misplaced Pages:Meetup/DC 34. Hope to see you there! Harej (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Academy Awards

The ceremony concluded at approximately 9:05pm on the 24th. I see that you mentioned UTC on the candidates page, but we usually go by the local time unless that isn't possible (e.g. when an event occurs in space or pertains to multiple time zones). —David Levy 21:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I thought. ITN/C says "Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC." -- tariqabjotu 21:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was referring to the date used at Template:In the news. To my knowledge, it usually is the date appearing in our article, which is based on local time when possible (and I seem to recall past discussions about how to handle space events).
Of course, the local date and UTC date often are one and the same, so perhaps different admins are following different practices without realizing. In any event, we probably should settle on one and apply it to both the template and the candidates page. —David Levy 22:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 February 2013

Invitation to a discussion: Misplaced Pages and legislative data

Hi Tariqabjotu, since you are interested in meetups in DC, I'd like to invite you to attend the Cato Institute's "Misplaced Pages and Legislative Data" events on March 14. (There's also an all day workshop on March 15; let me know if you are interested, we may be able to add more people.)

There will be an introduction to Misplaced Pages and open edit-a-thon in the afternoon, and a Sunshine Week Reception in the evening. I hope you can make it!

Hope to see you there! -Pete (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, March 9!

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Guapo's at Tenleytown-AU on Saturday, March 9 at 5 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 Misplaced Pages:Meetup/DC 35. Hope to see you there! Kirill  14:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2013

Jerusalem RfC remarks

Hi Tariqabjotu. Thanks for your comments on the new question in the RfC discussion - I'm glad that it's seeing a nice healthy amount of debate. I just wanted to have a word about your replies to FormerIP there, as I think you might have misinterpreted his intentions. I see that there was some confusion about your use of the word "inconclusive", but I think that this was an honest misinterpretation by FormerIP. Saying that he's patronizing you or that he's manipulating the word is assuming a bad-faith motivation on his part, and I don't think he intended it like that at all. In any case, this is a little too much comment on contributors for the RfC page, in my opinion. If other things like this crop up in the future, could you take them to my talk page, or email me about them instead? I think that would be the best way to resolve any conduct issues while still keeping the discussion on track. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 02:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

That was hardly an accusation of misconduct, and I find it wholly unnatural to complain to you about a matter so trivial -- particularly when I assume you're monitoring the page and will call out misconduct if you feel something is such. Nevertheless, given FormerIP responded to the first remark you referenced by saying Your above statement is the first time I have been aware of someone from the other side of the hill acknowledging that there is inconclusiveness in the sourcing. It's a bold thing to accept because, obviously, it raises the question as to why our current wording expresses a conclusion., I'm not sure what exactly you thought I assumed incorrectly. It's a circuitous way of saying "So I see you've finally started to see the light", an expression I reject. -- tariqabjotu 02:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons images on the main page

This is just a reminder to upload Commons images locally (unless they're protected at Commons) before transcluding them on the main page. (File:Krakow Ghetto 06694.jpg was unprotected for about 16 minutes, which is less time than the bot often takes.) Thanks! —David Levy 05:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, right. Thanks. Although I'm not sure why you used a form notice... it's not like I don't know you're supposed to upload images locally. I obviously just forgot. -- tariqabjotu 06:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
I didn't use a form notice. I'm realize that you're aware of the need, so I typed the above note manually. (I don't know of a template for this purpose, but when I inform administrators inexperienced with such edits, I include an explanation that our cascading protection doesn't extend to Commons, thereby leaving the images vulnerable to vandalism.) I'm sorry if my tone seemed more formal than intended. —David Levy 06:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 March 2013

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for helping. Ice20039 (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step three

Hello all. We have finally reached step three in the Jerusalem RfC discussion. In this step we are going to decide the exact text of the various drafts and the general questions. We are also going to prepare a summary of the various positions on the dispute outlined in reliable sources, per the result of question nine in step two. I have left questions for you all to answer at the discussion page, and I'd be grateful for your input there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 08:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to a Women in the Arts Meetup & Edit-a-thon on Friday, March 29

In honor of Women's History Month, the Smithsonian and the National Museum of Women in the Arts are teaming up to organize a Women in the Arts Meetup & Edit-a-thon on Friday, March 29, 2013 from 10:00am - 5:00pm. The event is focused on encouraging women editors while improving Misplaced Pages entries about women artists and art world figures. This event is free of charge, but participation is limited to 20 volunteers, so RSVP today! Sarasays (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2013

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

The Signpost: 01 April 2013

The Signpost: 08 April 2013

DC meetup & dinner on Saturday, April 13!

Please join Wikimedia DC for a social meetup and dinner at Vapiano (near Farragut North/Farragut West) on Saturday, April 13 at 5:30 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 Misplaced Pages:Meetup/DC 36. Hope to see you there! Kirill  19:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Istanbul#RFC2: Istanbul Infobox_Image". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot 21:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tariqabjotu. You have new messages at Template talk:ITN talk.
Message added 06:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

John of Reading (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Istanbul

Hello. After looking at few links and archives, I see that you were instrumental in improving the article to FA status. I think I was a little impatient with the changes I wanted to make, and I owe you an apology. Sorry about that... Cavann (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC step three comments

Hi Tariqabjotu. I've just got back to full internet access after having been away for a few days, and I have been looking through the Jerusalem RfC discussion. I see that unfortunately the atmosphere has soured quite a bit after I asked the new discussion questions. This is not the fault of any one editor, to be sure, but I think it would help to improve the atmosphere if you could make an extra effort to keep your comments completely focused on the content at hand, and remove any trace of commenting on other editors from them.

For example, the fact that you didn't specify any specific issues in this response means that the other party may come to the conclusion that the comment is aimed at them rather than the content. (Although I see you responded in more detail in your next comment in that thread.) The more specific your comments are, the more likely it will be that the other parties focus on your comments' content and not any assumptions they might make about an underlying message.

Also, your use of "unnecessary nitpicking" and "cue eye-rolling" here make it sound like the other party is at fault for their comment. In this kind of situation I find it is often helpful to shift the focus of the comment from the other contributor to what you personally think about the content. So "unnecessary nitpicking" would become "I would prefer to use a less-detailed approach, because X", and "cue eye-rolling" would become "I don't think that the meaning is that similar, and I'm having trouble understanding how you came to that conclusion". Does this sound like something you would be willing to do in your future comments? Best — Mr. Stradivarius 04:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Does this sound like something you would be willing to do in your future comments?
No. "This is not the fault of any one editor, to be sure, but I think you..." Oh, wait, so you are actually singling me out. I was the first person you thought of when making the rounds today. For making comments that 'might' have a 'trace' of an 'underlying message'. Meanwhile, you remark to FormerIP that you can 'understand' why, in the same thread, he might have suggested I may be a "pissy loser". You tell him to let you know if he has seen any conduct issues. You point the finger at me and empathize with FormerIP, and who knows what coddling you still have left to do.
So, let me repeat myself: no. And if this is what you call responsible moderating, please remove my name from the RfC discussion and desist from informing me of the progress of this sham. I've been pushed around enough by fellow participants already. -- tariqabjotu 05:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's true that I've only been sending these kinds of messages to editors who wrote posts that I saw problems with, so from that point of view I am singling you out, yes. Saying that you're the first editor I thought of isn't correct, however - I left a similar message for No More Mr Nice Guy a couple of days ago, and I have been in contact with various participants by email as well. Ideally I would have liked to deal with all of these issues when they first came up, but that has been difficult as I have been travelling and I only got back last night, hence my "doing the rounds".

About my message to FormerIP - I can understand why he said what he said, but that doesn't mean that I think it was a reasonable way for him to express himself. If I thought his comment was perfectly fine, I wouldn't have left him a message. And the offer to contact me privately by email about conduct issues is open to all participants, not just the ones who I remind on their talk pages. The reason I didn't mention it in your message is that I already told you about it in #Jerusalem RfC remarks above. I thought that you would remember. But, just in case it isn't clear, please let me know, by email, about any conduct issues you spot in the RfC discussion. That also goes for trifling little ones. I would much rather you talk about these kinds of things to me than letting them build up over weeks and months. If you let things build up like that it can cause resentment, and that can make it a lot harder to find consensus. You're also welcome to send flames and rants to my inbox - it might help you let off steam, and I was given a nifty flame-retardant suit when I joined MedCom. :) — Mr. Stradivarius 12:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I would much rather you talk about these kinds of things to me than letting them build up over weeks and months.
Well, it's too late for that. You've come at the endgame of this dispute, after countless discussions over months and years (not all of which I've participated in). And despite participants doing their best to keep up appearances, I know nothing has changed.
Among those who oppose the current wording, I can count on half of my left hand the number of people who think those who are fine with the current wording are so in good faith. The remainder have, often explicitly, suggested that our every move is motivated by malicious intent: employing stalling tactics, pushing a point-of-view, willfully ignoring policy, referring to sham consensuses, etc. What is keeping this article from changing, they would say, is the cabal of editors who have conspired over years to maintain an "Israeli point-of-view" in this article (and no doubt others). And the way they interact with us is governed by the perception that we are incorrigible point-of-view pushers blocking progress.
When that is how someone perceives you, it doesn't matter what you say; it is impossible to remove every 'trace' of an 'underlying message'. Their response will be colored by the idea that you are willfully disregarding policy to advance your viewpoint, which has already been decried as irrational. A direct example comes in Sepsis's summary of the definitions discussion:

Well right now it stands at seven editors who have explained why this is OR/SYNTH vs two editors who disagree but refuse to give any explanation. So really this is just the same old "I support the inclusion, and because I do there is no consensus to remove it, and because there is no consensus the inclusion remains, and no I do not need to explain my support for the inclusion, or counter the arguments for removal."

This 'same old' idea is a reference to both the dictionary discussion and the discussion of the capital point in general. Regarding the dictionary discussion, I explained my position regarding this under the collapsed section. You even summarized that position in the opening question (Opposing views were that dictionary definitions of capital are objective...). But this is not an explanation in the eyes of Sepsis II; from his perspective, it willfully ignores policy and serves solely to advance my point-of-view. Because he believes the position is invalid, it is actually invalid. And I'm sure he's not alone. As applied to the greater conflict, an oft-stated sentiment is that those who support the current wording have no real reasons for doing so. They can't point to policy, they can't point to any sources. They are motivated by their point-of-view and nothing else and have argued there is no consensus for change based simply on the fact they disagree. This gave birth to such absurdities as the concept of "consensus by default".
Do I believe these perceptions have been dropped? No, of course not. Sepsis clearly can't stop assuming bad faith. FormerIP already rehashed the term "stalling tactics". On Talk:Jerusalem, as a new RfC about bolding al-Quds in the lead comes up, I have quickly been labelled a point-of-view pusher "trampl down a simple uncomplicated gesture of recognition of the dreadful other's worldview" (by one of the signatories to the RfC discussion included) just because I stated that al-Quds isn't understood in English. The reason we're here in the first place is because several of those opposed to the current wording see nothing reasonable about their opponents' perspective. They are aware that there have been multiple RfCs and 'compromises' leading to the current wording, but, in their minds, those were flawed. There was something wrong with the RfC and the participants were biased; if only we were to control for these factors, we'd get the right result. Indeed, one of my greatest fears is that if this RfC yields a different result from the status quo (which has a good chance of happening), it will validate their perceptions of supporters of the current wording as obstructing progress all along. I don't have a problem with the sentence changing, but there has never been any definitive denouncement of their poisonous assaults on their opponents (which have no doubt driven people away or encouraged disputants to be unnecessarily defensive of the status quo). And you don't help matters either by lending your understanding to FormerIP's incivil and battleground-acknowledging "pissy loser" remark.
Now, aware, in their minds, that the pro-Israeli cabal (I believe the term "hasbara brigade" has been used) will come out in full force, one way to ensure the wrong result isn't achieved again is to slant the RfC so it is impossible for anyone to draw up a conclusion different from theirs. Prior to this RfC discussion, before you had to step in as a third-party, several RfC ideas were presented. Most were the most obvious of leading questions, with solid resistance, for example, to asking a question about the whole of the first sentence. Because they believed the two halves were incompatible, the two halves were, in fact, incompatible and so there was no point in even asking about them. We had a brief repeat of that dispute in this RfC discussion, although thankfully it was resolved. But I see signs once again that some of the editors in the dictionary discussion would like their position to be taken as absolute.
At this stage, I am the only somewhat regular participant in this discussion who thinks the current sentence is fine. With my withdrawal, joining the others in the same camp who have slowly tired of this issue, we would be left mostly with a group of editors who have shown a desire to create an RfC based around their pre-conceived notions, aware that previous neutral RfCs have not yielded the results they've desired. For this RfC to have any standing, we cannot allow that kind of group, a group of editors who rarely disagree among themselves, to decide the structure. And I refuse to allow that kind of group to bully my points into irrelevance. To that end, I will continue to make statements that 'might' have a 'trace' of an 'underlying message' (which, as you can see by my comment here, constitute significant restraint as they are) rather than completely whitewash my remarks only to have them distorted by others' baseless perceptions of me anyway. -- tariqabjotu 16:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Quite amazing how the abused is reprimanded and the abuser coddled. Sorry I can't help you more, but I'm trying to cut my exposure to the intellectually dishonest down to the minimum necessary, and wikipedia quite frankly is not necessary. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to the "All Things GW" editathon on Saturday, April 20

The "All Things GW" editathon on Saturday, April 20, 2013 from 12:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. is a rare chance to go behind the scenes in the University Archives of the GW Libraries and use their unique resources to research and update Misplaced Pages pages related to The George Washington University and the Foggy Bottom neighborhood. Did you miss our last D.C. history editathon? This is your is your chance to come edit with wiki-friends using different great collection! The event includes a behind-the-scenes tour of the University Archives and a show-and-tell of some of its most interesting treasures, snacks, and the editathon.

Participation is limited to 30 volunteers, so RSVP today! Dominic·t 07:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

note

thanks for your reply. I have replied to you at the rfc page. feel free to comment if you wish. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

DC meetups on April 19 and 20

Wikimedia DC invites you to join us for two exciting events this weekend:

On the evening of Friday, April 19, we're hosting our first-ever WikiSalon at our K Street office. The WikiSalon will be a twice-monthly informal meetup and collaborative editing event to help build the community of Wikimedia enthusiasts here in DC; please join us for its inaugural session. Light refreshments will be provided.

On Saturday, April 20, we've partnered with the George Washington University to host the All Things GW Edit-a-Thon at the Teamsters Labor History Research Center. Please join us for behind-the-scenes tours of the University Archives and help edit articles about GWU history.

We look forward to seeing you at one or both of these events! Kirill  20:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

question

hi there Tariqabjotu. I'm kind of reeling from all the stuff at the rfc page for the jerusalem article. is there any way to0 simply accept the ideas of the other side, move to consensus, and get the rfc set up? it seems like no matter what you say or no matter how much you try to accept anyone's ideas there, they do not agree that there is a consensus. let me know your thoughts on this. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Why would I do that? See my comment to Mr. S at User_talk:Tariqabjotu#Jerusalem_RfC_step_three_comments. Letting a group of people who rarely disagree on anything to decide the nature of the RfC unchallenged makes no sense. And also, it's not like there is an "other side". Note, for example, that despite Dlv and I ultimately agreeing on a rewording of (13)-(15), Dailycare still seems to have an objection. That matter was closed, as the author of those summaries has agreed to a rewrite. And yet Dailycare still objects to the change. I have my suspicions as to why, but don't make me repeat what I wrote to Mr. S. -- tariqabjotu 20:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2013

note

thanks for your note, and for your helpful reminder re indentation. I appreciate it. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions

hey, thanks for your help on the rfc. looks like things are gradually coming to a close there. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
by the way, one option might be for us to declare that we were unable to reach a consensus on this. I'm just offering that as one option. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PDFlink

Template:PDFlink has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Lexein (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 April 2013

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Cavann (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding Jerusalem RFC

A request for clarification has been submitted regarding the ArbCom mandated Jerusalem RFC process. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

note

hi there. thanks very much for your note at the Arbcomm page. I appreciate your insights.

I think things may go on as before. However, I think it is good we opened up this discussion. I think the moderator truly has made every effort to make this process go well. However, I think a different structure needs to be used for this sort of process. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

just letting you know, some more questions have been posted by the moderator at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion. you can see some of my replies there as well. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I did notice. Thanks. -- tariqabjotu 17:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)