Misplaced Pages

Talk:Third_holiest_site_in_Islam_(expression) Move

The first move was offical move request made and other two move requests are created by me to discuss on talk page. Why you have closed them too? They were part of talk page and discussion on them was not concluded. Even if discussion on them was concluded, there is not logic to do that with talk page things. --- ALM 10:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Your input would be appreciated at this Request for Comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Current Affairs Portal

There seems to be some problem with the current affairs portal. The page isn't showing the seventh of December even though it appears when the page is edited. Could you please have a look at it?

Regards

Capitalistroadster 01:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This was it. -- tariqabjotu 01:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Could I get some help?

I noticed you protected the page I requested to be protected: WWE Armageddon. A little while after, User:TJ Spyke posted on the talk page and told me just to leave the page alone here: Talk:WWE_Armageddon#A_note_about_match_order. That's just bad faith and I consider it a personal attack as well. This user loves to do that, and has done it before. Adding a warning to his user page doesn't seem to stop him either. He either ignores it, or just removes it. Any suggestions? I brought this up on WP:AN/I before, and there is a new post about it as well. Most people just suggested RFC, which isn't the complete solution to TJ and his attacks on myself and his bad faith because of my edits to pages he edits. RobJ1981 01:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Black people

Why did you revert my redirect? We're trying to divide the black people article into 2 different articles. One for all dark skinned people black people (generic) and one just for people of African ancestry black people (ethnicity) Gottoupload 02:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Black people is marked as a controversial article, so you need to discuss such a major split on Talk:Black people before making it. Additionally, copying the text from one article and pasting it into another is not the proper way to carry out a move. -- tariqabjotu 02:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Templates

Hi Tariqabjotu. Could you please tell me what templates do you use for closing move discussions? Thank you. Regards.--Húsönd 03:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

At the top of the move request goes {{subst:polltop}} '''move/no move/no consensus/something else''' (optional comment). ~~~~ and at the bottom goes {{subst:pollbottom}}. -- tariqabjotu 08:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Regards.--Húsönd 14:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

help request

Your help is requested as someone with current or recent interest in resolving the U.S. settlement naming convention discussion. I have created a "discussion template" modeled off of an RfC to attempt to structure the discussion, which is spinning wheels and spraying mud. I'd greatly appreciate any input you could provide (including "what are you smoking?"--or perhaps, "keep this in your back pocket"). Thanks in advance. --Ishu 16:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Air of reality

Hello Tariq, this user is employing the same techniques that User:Mactabbed employed and is editing on the same topics. See this talk as well as Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Clever_curmudgeon and Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Mactabbed this individual has a long history of disruption on the Wiki. (→Netscott) 23:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ilan Pappé

You have declined the request to semi-protect Ilan Pappé, on the grounds that "There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time." I think you should look at the logs for the now-protected Steven Plaut, David Bukay, and Kurt Nimmo, and if possible at the deleted logs for Roland Rance, and reconsider. The latest edits were clearly made by the same person/people, using the same language and accusations. We can be certain that this page will continue to be vandalised in the same libellous way until it is protected, when the culprit/s will move on to attack another anti-Zionist Jew. Why wait for the inevitable recurrence of vandalism before acting? If the article is semi-protected, established bona fide editors will still be able to edit it, but the string of disposable accounts set up in order to carry out such attacks will be stymied. RolandR 02:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think semi-protection is necessary. The problematic user(s) has/have been blocked. -- tariqabjotu 03:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Ryukyu Islands

You said:

"A month transpired between the October move and this recent move request; that's not quite the scenario you mention in the third paragraph."

Not everyone in the know can check changes to each article on one's watchlist on a daily basis. The article existed without macrons for almost three years prior to the move. The person who renamed it added erroneous information that claimed Ryūkyū Shotō (Japanese term) is equivalent to "Ryukyu Islands" (English term). The two terms actually have different definitions. This incorrect information probably caused many editors who visited the article during that month to not notice the problem. You did point out that a month passed, however I never claimed that a month didn't pass. Almost three years passed prior to the move as well. The creation of a non-macronised article three years ago wasn't the start of a revert war. —Tokek 03:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

What is this in reference to? I don't remember saying this comment (not because I didn't say it, but because it has been awhile). Is there something you would like me to do? -- tariqabjotu 03:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

what are you talking about?

What "personal attacks" are you reffering to?I'd like to know who's been talking to you.Next time I'd preffer a refference to charges directed against me with the warning.ThankyouNadirali 03:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

See WP:ANI#Xenophobia. -- tariqabjotu 03:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

2 sides of the story need to be heard

I think you need to here form my side of the story before taking sides.Personal attacks have been launched against me by the same users who reported me along with attempting to intimidate user:Saddiqui by making threatening comments. They have also vandalized my comments once and have been trolling with there provokitive comments non-stop.They have also accussed me of being a "maddrassa student".If anyone's been trolling it's them.Nadirali 04:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

I'm not taking sides. It doesn't matter if people have been levying personal attacks against you; you still are not allowed to attack others. If people are attacking you, warn them using {{npa}}, {{npa2}}, {{npa3}}, and {{npa4}}, or {{civil1}} and {{civil2}}. -- tariqabjotu 04:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine then,but I'd like you to give them the same warning as they too have caused violations against me.If you want to block me ,then block them as well.It's only fair after all.Nadirali 04:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

consider this

hello sir,I would like you to read all the things these users posted on the History of India talk page and would like you to give them a similar warning for personal attacks and racism: "where did you read this? In a Pakistani madarassa? C'mon, have you ever heard of the Indo-Aryan migration theory. After the arrival of Aryans in the Indian subcontinent, the IVC was virtually destroyed. The civilization created by the Aryans afterwards is known as the Vedic civilization. Dude.. go read some history books before blabbering here and stop showing off your madarassa education. --Incman|वार्ता 21:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)" Pakistan puffs it's chest in rabid jingiosm, hides it's problems under the rug, tried to portray itself as a paradise, and get's laughed at by the civilized world as a poor, backward and paranoid nation.Hkelkar 01:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I also believe that paks are confused about their identity. I think they have a hard time choosing whether they are Indian or they want to be arabian? Do they want islamic sharia law or commonwealth law. They look upon islamic invaders as heroes even though those same invaders came and raped their ancestors and coverted them. they're all about jatt/ punjabi/ rajput pryde even though the rajuts started out as hindu and sikhs were being slaughtered wholesale by the moguls. I think education is the key to solving this problem. that and separation of church and state.--D-Boy 00:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Separation of religion and state in Pakistan???? It's more likely for aliens from planet Glarbon to land their spaceship in the middle of Waziristan and do a belly dance to an audience of hookah-smoking Pukhtun poppy-seed dealers.Hkelkar

There is no room in the official historical narrative for questions or alternative points of view which is Nazariya Pakistan, the Ideology of Pakistan—devoted to a mono-perspectival religious orientation. This, as opposed to nearly a sizable of Pakistan up at arms to separate from the state (*cough Balochistan *cough), with another fraction run by the Taliban and Osama, the the remaining half full of jingoist whackos spreading hate against Hindus and Christians and selling anti-semitic Jew-hating conspiracy theories on every street-corner in Lahore(Pakistan: In the Land of Conspiracy Theories, PBS). .Gee whiz, what a paradise! Hkelkar 23:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)ThankyouNadirali 05:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali

Point

I appreciate your being fair. Just like to point out that nadirali has professed to sockpuppeteering and done some post-mediation baiting in my talk page (to which I shall not respond).This, after it was HE who said he would instigate edit-warring with the assistance of Siddiqui (and, presumably,his own socks), not I . Hkelkar 06:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, Nadirali persists in coterie formation with Pakistani nationalist editors even after being warned , effectively making threats against other editors (intent to mass-edit-war).

Perhaps Nadirali should be made to read WP:POINT. Hkelkar 06:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, Nadirali continues to make incivil and derogatory comments in the talk page. Why does he keep trolling it despite your advice to the contrary? Hkelkar 00:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea. -- tariqabjotu 00:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You should be "de-admined".

Back in November, you protected the Protest Warrior article because User:Shortbus requested it. You did this due to "edit warring", apparently without checking the factual accuracy or the conformance to policy of his edits and actions. Not coincidentally, the edits you froze in the article were his. Shortly thereafter I pointed out to you that it was he who recalcitrantly refused to discuss edits on the talk page. Despite this you did not take any action to help the situation nor even deign to respond to my comment. Now, it turns out his edits (the ones you froze in the article for two weeks) have been proven factually inaccurate. While you conformed to policy, I find your handling of this matter clumsy, frustrating and offensive and not performed with the due diligence I think one should expect from someone in your position. If the opportunity ever arises for a movement to see you stripped of your administrator status, you will find my efforts firmly in that direction. Respectfully, Lawyer2b 17:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry your wishes were not fulfilled quicker, but I don't believe anything happened incorrectly here. Pages are often times protected – even to The Wrong Version – to halt edit- and revert-warring (which indeed was occurring on the Protest Warrior article). The protection is meant to encourage dispute resolution through the appropriate means: discussion on talk pages. -- tariqabjotu 20:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident

Just want to let you know that most images you removed from that page have since been restored, despite objections from several editors. Beit Or 21:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)