User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive Twenty-One

Hello Tariqabjotu, I'd like to once again request your expertise in move discussions to give me a second opinion on this issue. In this controversial poll proposed by user Endroit, the result seems to have been "no consensus" (at least I would have closed it as "no consensus" if I hadn't participated in it). Nonetheless, user Endroit himself decided to close the poll as "oppose", which is actually the position he defended throughout the poll. Was this a proper procedure? It looked very unorthodox to me and I contacted him asking for the poll to be reopened until an outside admin close it. Could you please give me your frank opinion about this situation? Sorry for the trouble. Thank you. Best regards,--Húsönd 15:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no set manner to close a move poll. Normally, when the poll results in over 60% supporting, I say support. For 40-60%, I say no consensus and for less than 40%, I say no move. However, the latter two don't really have much of a difference. Regardless, it probably would not have been a good idea for Endroit to close the poll in his favor, but he did make the correct decision. Someone else asked me about the poll conclusion, and I will take care of that. -- tariqabjotu 16:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your intervention. Endroit took this issue to

WP:AN, which is good to get more independent feedback. By the way, we have different established bordelines for consensus. I usually recognize consensus only when one position nears the double of the other. Regards.--Húsönd

17:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I just sent you an email. Thanks :-) JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 02:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You recently blocked 168.215.59.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for 30 hours for vandalism. Since the expiration of that block, that user has continued to vandalize. Could you please block this user for a lengthy duration? Thanks, NatusRoma | Talk 16:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Done; I blocked him for 300,000 seconds. -- tariqabjotu 16:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. NatusRoma | Talk 17:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

hello from Calgary, Canada - and thank you - to all the users for the copyright comments on my digital photo and scan images

I have modified the copyright note - and realize anything could happen to the images in the world of neutral-evil aligned Wikipedia users - who are obssessed with factual articles and publishing quality graphics - and at the same time don't know the difference between art, anarchy, and Freeedom!. Copyright tagging and image work still in progress.--John Zdralek 22:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

example images with licensing formatting

Foothills Hospital image

backdrop test image

old speed skates made in Canada image

antique skate blade image

I am telling you, "You" are Time Person of the Year! Stop deleting it, I had a source! —The preceding

Yes; I noticed and merged the sections. In my opinion, Husnock's behavior is becoming increasingly disruptive and his self-unblock was wrong, but a month-long block is a bit excessive and futile given he's stepping out of Wikipedia. If this were a normal user, I would have suggested the protection of his userpage, but I'm almost certain Husnock would defy that. So, I'll have to think about this one... -- tariqabjotu 05:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I just grouped the sections together as subsections to preserve the links to them, and make it a little clearer where the various posts begin and end. You're welcome to comment on the block if you think it was excessive, I'm standing in a certain position and I may not have the same view as everyone else, that's the whole idea of reviewing significant blocks there :) --

talk

) 05:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this a significant workaround the section / link dilemma? -- tariqabjotu 05:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good trick. The other reason though that I thought they would be better separate is just to make it clear where my post begins, but if you like it better as a single section that's ok. --

talk

) 05:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious about this edit you made to Mount Hood. You made another edit which I understand and agree with, as that part of the article frequently needs cleanup. However the first section (Incident history) should tend to be stable. Do you think it should be refactored as a separate list article? Or, at the other extreme, be combined into a paragraph detailing the accidents? — EncMstr 08:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I made these changes. In my opinion, that's sufficient. -- tariqabjotu 12:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the clarification. That improves the section nicely. — EncMstr 08:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I see that that is not the first time that image was uploaded. Perhaps that file name should be protected against recreation. pschemp | talk 01:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this type of salting sufficient? -- tariqabjotu 02:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Perfect. pschemp | talk 02:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I was looking for what template to use there, but came up empty-handed. I guess you've tagged all of them by now, or do you need me to do it? Thanks again. —Pilotguy (ptt) 01:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I got them all. -- tariqabjotu 02:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As a result of reverting systemic blanking of certain comments by a banned user, I've had to remove a few edits you made (due to edit conflicts) on ANI. I apologise, and ask if you could kindly reinstate them. Thanks and sorry. – Chacor 02:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll only re-instate my comment if Sandy re-instates her link to that site with images similar to the one that appeared on Today's Featured Article. Frankly, I'd prefer if she did not do that. -- tariqabjotu 02:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the

Perhaps after a couple more days I'll unprotected. The last time the article was unprotected, editors quickly began edit-warring again. -- tariqabjotu 13:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I use the fair use license tags properly. LILVOKA 16:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You closed a discussion months ago as move, but never actually made the move. I moved one other that you missed too. -Patstuart^talk|edits 01:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There are probably quite a few moves that have yet to be performed. I closed the move, moved a couple, and then intentionally stopped since there are a heck of a lot of pages to move. If editors interested in particular articles related to programming languages want to fulfill the move request, they are free to do so. -- tariqabjotu 02:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hiya, just wanted to drop you a courtesy note to let you know about a current