User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive Four

Main	Gallery	Milestones	Barnstars	Links	Final Words	Talk

So why do I use various religious symbols on my userpage?	Border Color
I don't mean to be divisive, but rather inclusive, portraying several religions (and their respective statements of equality) side-by-side. Nevertheless, if you have any issues or feedback regarding my userpage, please tell me here; that's the only way I'll know to change it.		Away In and Out Ready to Edit

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy map

Hello, I just wanted to say I found your color coordinated map of reactions to the cartoon controvery very interesting and informative. I think things like this that present data in means "outside of the box" are specially appealing. Good job. —Aiden 02:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I've gotten quite a few positive comments regarding the map. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Mosque

Hello, yes I think it is ready. I will help deal with any problems on it's FA. About the Selimiye picture, I think it should replace the primary picture. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Only because it looks nice. The Afghan mosque is good, but a large important one should have the top. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 03:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There's people in that one. Otherwise it's good. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 04:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Saudi Academy

POV, yes. Unverified, no. Everything in the article is a fact, including the nickname, which I am re-adding with a souce. If there is verifiable factual information you feel would balance the pov, I will not contest it. KI 14:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Charles Stuart William Palmer

I am curious, what was the reason for flagging this article as "This person is not notable."? Regards Oldfarm 16:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. FYI, Google searches for "Charles Palmer judo" [1] and "Charles Stuart Palmer judo" [2] yield a number of articles. He was also known as Charlie Palmer, and Google finds numerous articles under that name [3] - (including one on Wikipedia, Judo). There was already a page on Wikipedia for Charles Palmer (a cricketer). Regards Oldfarm 03:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'm leaving the article alone (although a source or two would be nice for users like me who fail to find the man on a search engine). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of the article came from my own notes that I have collected over the years. On a lot, I really cannot remember the source. Many are newspaper and magazine articles that were cut out and mailed to me by friends. A lot was from memory. Regards, Oldfarm 04:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the Barnstar. It is nice to be noticed. You have a neat user and talk page. --Bduke 22:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Netscott's block

The content of the linked site aside, Netscott was clearly acting in good faith re the WP:3RR, and quit reverting when he thought he'd run out. Further, he did discuss his changes on the talk page. It is rather Anonymous editor who declined discussion. Netscott should be unblocked.Timothy Usher 04:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a note to apologize to you Joturner for trying to revert/add that link. I must admit that it had been a month or two since the last time I had visited the Mohammed Image Archive page and when I originally visitied it the "Extreme Muhammad" section was no where near as reprehensible as it is now. Now that I've actually seen what's been added to that section, I 100% agree that such a site has no business being linked to from the Muhammad article. Netscott 05:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I just want to point out that I cannot block / unblock users as I am not an admin. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Mosque

I took a look at mosque -- it's shaping up nicely. Some links to articles on architecture might help -- is there an article on Islam and architecture? -- and perhaps some notice taken of Saudi subsidies for new mosques and their controversial stand against any form of decoration. Saudi-designed mosques might as well be warehouses, IMHO. I don't have time to do any of this, but you might enjoy looking for materials. Zora 02:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to deal with the objections on the article's FAC first. You seem to be a little more familiar with the situation than me, so you probably would be more able to write a section on mosques in Saudi Arabia. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, I must have expressed myself badly. The Saudis can build their own mosques like warehouses -- it's sad, but not my place to complain. It bugs me when they tear down beautiful old mosques to put up a warehouse that I get upset, or when they subsidize new mosques outside Saudi (as they are doing in the US) and demand that the new mosques be completely modernist and unadorned. It's exactly like the Puritans going about smashing cathedrals. It hurts me in the aesthetic :/ The problem is that I have a strong POV here, but I don't have a battery of quotations and pictures to back it up, and that's what would be needed for a good article. So I'm not going to be inserting a POV if I can't support it properly. Zora 05:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Mosque FAC Comment

Thanks for letting me know. I will go over the article and sources again over the next few days. Pecher ^Talk 10:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your great work on Mosque. I hope this one will get featured. By the way, I see you are a Muslim and I would like to hear your comments about Martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadar. The article says that "fundamentalists thrust Islam by hook or by crook... by sexual harassment and forcible abductions of the daughters of Hindus and other satanic misdeeds". Is it true? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

All I have to say is that Martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadar is in serious need of cleanup. It's hardly coherent as it is. If you want to discuss the merits of Mosque becoming a featured article, you can leave your comments at its FAC page. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

New user page

Looks great! Only thing is that I'd think twice before posting your picture -- as you know, wiki can get quite personal. Take care. -- Samir (the scope) 07:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing to fear. If John Lee Ming Keong can post his picture without a problem, I don't think I should have a problem either. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 07:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'd give JLMK the same advice if I knew him. Take care -- Samir (the scope) धर्म 18:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I echo the sentiments on the new layout. Its quite nice, one of the best I've seen so far.--Kross^Talk 22:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment; I'm glad you like it. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hey buddy,

I was browsing WP:FAC recently when I ran across the article on the mosque. I was impressed by your contributions to this article and this drew me to your user page. I then noticed your RfA and read over that, and was quite disturbed by the kinds of objections that were raised to your nomination there.

I just wanted to let you know that your work here on Wikipedia stands out, and is appreciated, even if some people fail to see that. I am very impressed by your dedication to the mosque article; you address every concern in the FAC discussion and its featured article nomination has garnered considerable support.

I also deeply regret that your user page caused you so much trouble during your RfA. People checked that out and immediately assumed that you were totally biased and that you would abuse administrative powers. Your defense under the comments section in your RfA is impeccable, and it deeply saddens me that people would be so quick to jump to conclusions. I personally enjoyed your user page; it's obvious you put considerable effort into polishing your work on Wikipedia, and your user page is no exception.

Keep up the good work. Adhere to your faith. Don't let others bring you down. And thank you for your contributions. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 10:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Solar eclipse

Hi,

I thought you might want to take a look at my changes in Solar eclipse since you voted in the FA discussion.

Thanks, Nick Mks 14:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar, and by the way that was my first one. I also want to mention that I really like your user page and I enjoyed the story of your spiritual path. Cuñado - Talk 06:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Mosque FAC

Thanks for the heads up; I'll take a look.

In the meantime, I'm amazed by what you've done with your user pages. How did you do all this?Timothy Usher 08:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The answer's simple. My user page says "I am editing from UTC-4". I believe the signature gives UTC... and so subtract four... that should give you the answer. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 08:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Skool Esperanzial note

Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Celestianpower ^háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Jylland Posten cartoons

I read your userpage and I'm curious about your position on the Muhammad cartoons. I must applaud you for how well you've documented your conversion. KI 03:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In order from who I was/am least angry at to who I most angry at:

• Least Angry At: peaceful protesters and newspapers that printed the cartoons just to convey the news
• Second-Least Angry At: Jylland-Posten
• And then... Newspapers that made a point not to print the cartoons (i.e. saying CNN, BBC, etc decided not to print the cartoons out of respect for Islam)
• Second-Most Angry At: Other newspapers that reprinted the cartoons with the intention of rubbing them in the face of displeased Muslims
• Most Angry At: Flag-burning, violent, inciteful ("Muslim") protestors

There is obviously nothing I could find wrong with the peaceful protestors. I also had no problem with newspapers that printed the cartoons so they could portray the news. I was only a bit more angry at Jylland-Posten because, although the cartoons depict the Prophet Muhammad in a terrible and incorrect way, they had every right to do it. Their intention was to stand up against bullying by radical Muslims, and I applaud that, even if I don't agree with the message in the cartoons (which I don't believe the cartoonists even agreed with). I was a little more angry at newspapers that made a big deal out of the fact that they weren't going to print the cartoons. In my opinion, it sounded as though they were saying Please don't hurt us scary Muslims; we're not printing the cartoons. I would have much rather preferred them unceremoniously not printing the cartoons. I was significantly angry at the newspapers that reprinted the cartoons for the sake of standing behind Denmark and taking sides. That served no purpose but to enrage and ignite a cultural battle; I don't believe that kind of incitement is good for the planet.

However, I'm by far most angry at the Muslims who decided to react to the issue with violence. It is truly disappointing that there are so many Muslims who resort to violence in the face of adversity. Around the world, Muslims have a bad name as terrorists and violent reactionaries. And ironically, in response to this typecasting, they conform to that very typecast. Unfortunately, I have witnessed the same kind of thing in the African American community. Such is life I suppose. I converted to Islam in the midst of the July 2005 London bombings in the hope that there was still a significant amount of good left in the Muslim community, instead of a submission to stereotypes like I see in my lost African American identity. Even after this fiasco in February, I still think there is. Somewhere. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you care to explain your action regarding timeline ga failure? -- tasc ^talk_deeds 18:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe I did explain the rationale on the talk page. I never said anything was unreadable in the article. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome

Please remind me to give you a "support" if you decided to candidate yourself for adminship. --Aminz 10:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad Cartoons and some other stuff

Yes! I feel the exact same way. I am curious, does your school have a local chapter of MSA? I started an Islamic Culture Club, which is not a member of MSA but runs along the same lines, and I want to hold Jumu'ah prayers in school, but as it is a public school I am unsure of the legality of such an action because it would be school-sponsored prayer... Any idea? Thanks, KI 03:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my school does an MSA although it is not a member of the MSA. I go to a public high school as well and we do hold jumuah weekly (although this is the first year it has really been organized enough to do that). Right now, our jumuah prayers usually have fewer than seven attendants, despite a student body of 3300, but it's better than nothing. If you live in the United States, like myself, prayer within a student organization is protected under the Equal Access Act, which was passed in August 1984. It states:

It shall be unlawful for any public secondary school which receives Federal financial assistance and which has a limited open forum to deny equal access or a fair opportunity to, or discriminate against, any students who wish to conduct a meeting within that limited open forum on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings. (full text)

That and the rest of the act are generally interpreted to mean prayer in religious clubs is allowed as long as it's not disruptive and as long as attendance is not encouraged or mandated by the school. So go ahead and try it; it's your right. Unless, of course, if you're not from the United States; it may not be then. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Your warning to 152.163.100.201

Hi Joturner, I suspect you've given an erroneous warning (using vandalproof) against User:152.163.100.201. [4]. Please see Talk:Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations#removal_of_links for my reasoning. Thanks, Andjam 04:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the user's history of warning (although the AOL account complicates matters), the IP, and the fact that the edit summary (revert previous blanking AGAIN!) seemed to indicate that the content had been removed before, I determined the edit to be vandalism. It appears from the talk discussion that the edit was in fact legitimate. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Responded

I have responded. --Cyde Weys 04:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Curious...

Hi Jordan,
Thanks for sharing your steps into Islam on your user page. One in particular caught my attention: "14 August 2005: I make the intention to stop listening to music." Does (or did) that mean any and all music, or just certain kinds? Has the intention been realised? I understand if you feel these questions are too personal, with my apologies in advance if my curiosity makes me too forward. Regards, David Kernow 13:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Interpretations about whether music is allowed in Islam vary. I was never really particularly fond of music, especially rap and hip-hop, so I was more than happy to attempt this one. Nevertheless, it is quite hard to avoid music. Television, other people who like to listen to music in the car, etc are sources of music even if I don't want to listen to it. And on occasion, I will listen to some music intentionally. However, since I've listened to those songs so many times, it's really no big deal. So, overall, I say that has been realized. I listen to / hear music far, far less than I used to. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Jordan. People sometimes laugh off "gangsta culture" and the like, but there are some perturbing lyrics out there. I hope I'm not suffering from pre-senile conservatism. Though it's a minority, there is some great instrumental rock around. I reckon music is a basic kind of human expression – which, like anything else, humans can abuse – and I think I'd really miss it if I no longer (or hardly ever) listened to or took part in it. So long as people can choose. (I once worked in a warehouse where the radio was always on...) Best wishes, David Kernow 17:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

PS Here's a retouched version of your photo: Image:Joturner-self (retouched).jpg

I don't really miss the music. Also, thanks for editing my photo. However, I darkened it a bit (I like the darkness) and replaced the original image. It's now at Joturner-self.jpg. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 20:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. I have the monitor I use set darker than seems the norm, so I probably made the photo too light. Anyway, if anyone else would like to see a brightened version, there's somewhere to direct them. Best wishes, David 21:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Buhari Template

Check this out.. Template:Buhari

Suggestions welcome!! «₪Mÿš†íc₪» 21:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to figure out what you wanted me to look at, but then I realized it was the template. The template doesn't work perfectly since all numbers must have three digits (I think {{Buhari|076|008|422}}, not {{Buhari|076|08|422}}) was what you were going for. If possible, it would be nice to have it fill in those leading zeros if the editor doesn't put them in. In addition, it seems like it should be volume|book|number, not book|volume|number as you currently have it. Lastly, I would be great to have it say Sahih Bukhari - Volume 8, Book 76, Number 422 instead of the current Buhari Book 076 Vol 08 Hadith 422. Lastly, unless there is a transliteration I'm unaware of, the template needs to be moved to Bukhari. Feel free to reply with a {{sofixit}} if that is what you want. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an templates

Hi Jordan,

I responded on Mystic's home page, but in case you're not watching it:

Four templates? That's completely unnecessary. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. The standard first template cannot do two things: 1) drop the word "Qur'an" where it's already been stated, or where multiple verses are being cited in one sentence. We don't wish every other word to be Qur'an - in blue no less. I discovered this problem when I went around adding the original template to various articles. 2) Cannot cite a range, except as follows: 009:010-15, which is ugly as sin. However, please let me know if you've a solution to these problems (as with the ugly zeros) within one template - of course we'd prefer just one were it possible.

Alternately, we may wish to drop Quran-usc and Quran-usc-range in favor of the num versions - at least that way, we could manually include Qur'an, or not, and only require two templates.

What do you think?Timothy Usher 00:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was just going to suggest that. That's wonderful. It says never to use templates within other templates, though; I'm not sure why. Still, the zeros are so ugly, this is what we must do.

Brilliant. Thanks for all this help.

What about the range issue? Of course it doesn't matter as far as USC is concerned, we start in the same place, the end-range is just there to avoid it from falling outside the link display.

Also, what do you think of my idea to drop "Qur'an" from the link display?Timothy Usher 01:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes; dropping it would be a good idea. If you want, you (or I) just copy the code from {{three digit}} to the other templates. Feel free to use {{sofixit}} if you so desire. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Shall do, making the -num variants defunct.Timothy Usher 01:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by that. What are you doing? Copying the code from {{three digit}}? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll do both. Question: is there a way to determine where this template has already been used? Shouldn't be too many places. That way I can go through, add the word Qur'an and cut the zeros from the display.Timothy Usher 01:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You can look at "what links here" (located on the left side of every page under toolbox) on the template page. For the Qur'an-usc template, this is the what links here page. Nothing includes that template as you can see. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Help! After a few careless errors, this is what I did, and it's still not working correctly:[5]

You can see what's happening - it's looking for the first set of close brackets, rather than moving inward from both sides.Timothy Usher 01:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The template works - 3:21. I think the if statements are a bit troublesome although they are indeed implemented correctly (at least I thought they were). Perhaps you could put a message on the template talk page stating that there really is no error contrary to what the template page says. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

More Hadith Templates

• Template:Abudawud - Sunnan Abu Dawud 1:15

• Template:Muslim - Sahih Muslim Book 1 Hadith 4
• Template:Muslim-usc - 1:4
• Template:Bukhari - Sahih Bukhari Vol 76 Book 8 Hadith 422

I created all these templates. If you want a shorter version of the Bukhari template use Template:Bukhari-usc created by Timothy. If there are issues please feel free to fix them and remember to put a note on the talk page. thanks «₪Mÿš†íc₪» 09:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Minor Barnstar
		for your help in creation of the very useful Qur'an and Bukhari Templates. Aminz 08:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Poll of the Day

Why did you delete my article about the Poll of the Day on Talk:Main Page? I thought it was a pretty good idea.1028 23:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I was reverting your deletion of another person's comment, which is usually bad and usually vandalism. I presumed (incorrectly) that both edits were therefore vandalism and reverted them both. I have no problem with your other comment. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Email

Check yer email! --Cyde Weys 04:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have responded. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hrrmmm, still haven't gotten it yet. If I haven't gotten it by tomorrow maybe try resending it? --Cyde Weys 04:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

As for Blair, I'm thinking a few more pictures might be good ... luckily, you're in exactly the right position to take 'em. I'm thinking of a picture of Blair Blvd. from one of the third floor overlooks and a pic of the SAC. By the way, do you guys have bomb threats/fire drills fairly often? Back when I went that was a bit of a problem ... --Cyde Weys 04:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I already have a picture of Blair Boulevard from the third floor between lunches as well as picture of the cupola. I have a picture of the media center, and I'll have an opportunity to take a picture of the school's SAC tomorrow. However, as of right now, I see no place to put the images, so I'm holding off on uploading them. There hasn't been a bomb threat at the school in at least three years, but there recently has been a problem with faulty ffoire alarms as well as small intended trash can fires. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 05:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Just upload them to Wikipedia under GFDL-self. Even though they're orphaned they'll stick around at least for a few days. Wikilink 'em here so I see em (and so they have file links). That'll do it. Then we can add them to the article as necessary. And you haven't had bomb threats in the past three years? Wow, either Blair is getting a bit better or the administration isn't telling you everything :-P And by the way, that pic of the computer lab you uploaded made me more nostalgic than I have any right of being. Are you in the Magnet? --Cyde Weys 05:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph of my Identity page probably gives that away. I'll upload the images momentarily. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 05:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Page moves and changes

Hey Jordan. Timothy has been making many abritrary changes to articles recently like moving Isa to Jesus in Islam and blanking and redirecting Jibril to Gabriel. He is making many changes and breaking rules while doing it. Feel free to step in and give your opinion. This should not continue like this. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

No location, he's just doing it as he wants and ignoring the discussion that took place over the last few days on the Qur'an page. For now you can discuss on the talk page of Isa. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Now he's just arguing for his sake. He moved the page arbitrarily, edited it several times and changed all the names. Completely ignores all discussion and expects us to keep his edits. Please join in. This is silly and he's just doing it to ruin the Islamic pages. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 05:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't want to step foot in these rapidly-moving waters because I feared I'd be swept in by the undertow, but it looks like I'll have to just walk right in and hope this river is really just a shallow creek. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 05:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. He really doesn't understand and keeps making useless arguments. See talk:Isa. He will face consequences if he does what he's been doing over the last few days. He's outright ruining the articles. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 06:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Jibril. He blanked the article and redirected it to Gabriel. Probably others too. IMO every single edit he makes usually has this effect. It's pretty silly. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 06:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Jordan, AE's charge above is incorrect. The situation was, first, that the Jibril article was a duplication of the section Gabriel#Gabriel in Islam, with a bit more information. The Gabriel article gave too little coverage to Gabriel in Islam. So, I 1) merged the two texts, with improvements and adding linked citations 2) redirected Jibril to Gabriel#Gabriel in Islam (unfortunately, section redirects aren't currently supported.)

In the new version of Gabriel, the Islamic view is longer than the Christian view, as it should be (Gabriel only pops up briefly, if memorably, in Christianity).

No useful text has been lost. The only question is whether the name should be translated, and whether Gabriel's role in Islam ought be segregated from the Judaic and Christian roles.

Jews would most likely not agree that Gabriel foretold the birth of John the Baptist or Jesus. For some reason, this has not proved a problem on Gabriel.

There is no question that Gabriel and Jibril refer to the same figure, indeed the roots are straightfowardly cognate. There is no difference in the way the function of this angel (as a messenger) is conceived. There is no problem with article length in Gabriel. The only things being defended here are the arbitrarily untranslated Arabic nomenclature, the duplication of text and the segregation of wikipedia by religion.

Jibril is also a figure in Judaism and Christianity, under the name Gabriel (English < Hebrew). The situation is that there's one article with all three POV's, and one with only one. There is no difference between these articles other than this exclusion of POV, which is why I'd called it a POV fork. If Jibril remains as such, we're obliged to discuss his role in other Abrahamic traditions generally, with the absurd note, "Jibril (English Gabriel)...", and the absurd result of two articles identical in every respect other than their titles.Timothy Usher 08:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Islam Peer Review

I am requesting a peer review for the Islam article. If you have any suggestions, please let us know. Thank you very much. BhaiSaab 01:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright; I'll take a look later or perhaps tomorrow. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Jazakallah Khair brother. BhaiSaab 01:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The new look

Are you a universalist now? :) —Aiden 01:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There was never a point where I was not a universalist; I just didn't express that as clearly as my Muslimness before. Similarly, I know the Interstate Highway System (essentially) by heart, but I choose not to depict that on my user page. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Just curious. :) I find it pretty interesting. I have many Muslim friends but none that are universalist. If you don't mind me asking, wow do you reconcile your beliefs with say, the image of a cross, when you do not believe Jesus died on a cross? —Aiden 05:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

We must be thinking of separate definitions of universalism. From the universalism article...

In comparative religion, universalism is the belief that true and valuable insights are available in many of the religious traditions which have grown up in various human cultures. It posits that a spiritually aware person will respect religious traditions other than his own and will be open to learning from them. It does not deny that immersion in one tradition is a useful anchor for an individual's spiritual development. While it celebrates the richness and value to be found among humankind's religious traditions, it does not necessarily deny that some things done in the name of religion, and some religious practices, are not constructive. But it distinguishes itself from the view that there is only one true faith, one uniquely chosen people, or one final prophet superseding all others.

I would have to have to distance myself from that last statement, of course. I do believe that there was a final prophet superseding all others. As for the one true faith and one uniquely chosen people, I will withhold my opinions on that. I'll just say that I believe there are many paths to peace in this world and the Hereafter. I don't exactly subscribe to the belief that all non-Muslims will go to Hell.

The universalism article as another definition states...

Universalism can also mean the wish for a closer union between all people of the world (the emergence of world citizens) and/or the aim of creating common global institutions (democratic globalization)

In these two manners, I believe I am a universalist. I don't believe that I have to believe that Jesus died on the cross to be a universalist. Unfortunately, I have encountered a closed-minded approach to other religions and beliefs among many Muslims. It bothers me greatly when religious people don't take of advantage of independent thought. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 05:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well said. I was thinking of the "all paths are valid" universalism. Nonetheless, thanks for explaining. —Aiden 06:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Rant...

Big big big horrible rant coming up so be warned :) -- Mindspillage is Kat Walsh, she's a lady and she even has a picture on her user page. </end big big horrible rant> - nice looking user / user talk pages by the way :) -- Tawker 05:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I wrote he but then, as usual, checked his her userpage to see if there was any indication of gender. I meant to change the gender pronouns, but it must have slipped my mind as I was completing my comment. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 05:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Project Page under construction

Hello Jordan,

I have created a project page for the Arabic/English translation issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aminz/Project_Page

I believe even if we don’t arrive at consensus, it is very important to discuss this issue there. Any comments? Thanks --Aminz 10:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't think the project page is a good idea. In fact, I am downright insulted by the way you portray non-Muslims (as well as the way you portray the viewpoints of Muslims as anti-non-Muslim)

Jordan, I removed the project page per your feedback but I believe you misunderstood me and made a quick judgement. I portrayed views of SOME Non-Muslims. I am trying to make sure people will not misunderstand Islam. God knows I have good intentions. MY ANALYSIS IS PURELY THEORETICAL. Using two words for the same thing will produce confusion among unknowledagble people. Let me show you another example: It is about the words "Messiah", "christ" and "anointed". You know they are all the same. According to Gary Miller:" The meaning of the Hebrew word "Messiah" is "God's anointed." Gary Miller claims that "Even Cyrus the Persian is called 'Messiah,' or 'the anointed,' in Isaiah Chapter 45. This verse has been translated in a misleading way...Here, when it refers to Cyrus, they translated the Hebrew word "Messiah" with "God's anointed." But in places where the Bible is talking about Jesus, when the term "Messiah" appears, instead of translating it as "anointed," they simply transliterate it so that it reads "Messiah." This word "Messiah" is in the Greek equivalent written as "Christ" and in fact often appears this way in the Greek Septuagint. Miller claims that there is a conspiracy to give us the impression that there is only one Messiah, one Christ and no other."

You are familiar with christianity. Don't people think that the title "Messiah" by itself implies divinity? See, we are talking about a serious issue here. We have to make sure different words do not increase misunderstanding among Non-Muslims. --Aminz 21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

First off, although project pages don't really need to have NPOV (I don't think), the project page is extraordinarily biased.

If you are not a Muslim editor, please do not leave any messages here. Thanks

In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful

Horribly biased and unnecessarily unwelcoming.

Of course and I made it clear at the beginning so that nobody doubts about it. I want it to be a place that Muslims talk about this issue. --Aminz 21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The goal of this discussion is to find the solution that is most beneficial to Islam.

No, the goal of this discussion should be to find the solution that is most beneficial to Wikipedia. We are not supposed to be pandering to Muslims.

Okay, I removed the page. What I was trying to do was an "un-wikipediaic" work. But I had good intentions. --Aminz 21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

So, unlike wikipedia, we are not supposed to be NPOV here

Uh... why not? The discussion there will affect what happens in the mainspace and therefore we should be neutral.

The unknowledgeable Non-Muslims will think that Muslims worship Allah rather than God.

Don't call non-Muslims unknowledgable. There are many non-Muslims who are knowledgeable about Islam. And just because someone may not be very knowledgeable about one thing (Islam in this case) does not mean they're completely unknowledgeable.

Why are you changing my words from their true positions and doing Tahrif to my text? My text says that "those Non-Muslims who are unknowledgeable will think ..."? --Aminz 21:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

2. Some hostile people towards Islam spread the belief that "Allah" is not "God" but Satan, a jinn etc. You may have heard about these if you are living in US. Most of typical Non-Muslims are ignorant about Islam and will believe in such things and then now we will have a tough job to prove that No, Allah is God. The latest rumor is that Allah is the Moon God. 3. A linguist argument based on the way Qur’an chooses the words to talk to people. I think having this in mind will help us looking at our problem here. I am still working on this, but the main idea is this: Consider the situation at the early times of Islam, people were worshipping idols, they had totally wrong conceptions about God. They knew nothing about many Islamic concepts. The Qur’an itself had to correct all these views and teach them about the concept of a unique God and being a monotheist, teach them about the prophet Jesus and so on. Imagine that situation. Qur’an had two choices in my mind: 1.Give a new term for God and define its meaning for people. 2. Takes a term that people are already familiar with and is close enough the desired concept and then try to correct the view of people about that term. – I want to prove that Qur’an chooses the second approach.

And more of the same. More generalizations. More demeaning non-Muslims. I don't like it at all. My favorite statement there is Some hostile people towards Islam spread the belief that "Allah" is not "God" but Satan, a jinn etc. Well, sure, that's why they're hostile. Some hostile people towards Americans think they all hate all Muslims and Arabs.

No, Again you are doing Tahrif to my text. I think you are doing this deliberately. There are group of Non-Muslims who say so and so? Where did I generalized it to all Non-Muslims? --Aminz 21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Right here: Most of typical Non-Muslims are ignorant about Islam and will believe in such things... -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

See, I said "Most of typical Non-Muslims" which still believe is true. Tell me, how many people are interested in religon? Among those how many people have studied Islam? Let me ask you another question: The Qur'an repeadly say: "But most of them know not". I believe any humble person will confess his/her "ignorance". --Aminz 22:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me start with an experience: I was moving around changing some of the words "Allah" to "God". Guess what? Someone asked me: "Just want to be clear on this... When Jews refer to Yahweh they are actually referring to Allah?" Then I provided quotes from Maimoinds and so on to PROVE that they are the same. Another experience: An admin said: “it isn't so clear to me that Garbiel is referring to the angel that talked to Muhammad. However, it is clear that Jibril is."

Prove that they are the same? Uh... we're talking about religion here. Nothing can be proven. I believe in Islam, but I dare not attempt to prove its truthfulness to anybody.

YES! This can be proved. We may not be able to prove the existence of God to anybody. Yes, there are several statements that could not be proved but this one can. My whole feeling about your analysis of my text is that you are not open-minded to my text. You want to find faults in it. If it wasn't this way, you would have asked me to show you the evidences. --Aminz 21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You may have heard that some hostile Christians toward Islam have propagated the view that God of Islam is Satan.

Again, that's what hostile people do.

Martin Luther, the protestant leader, referred to Muhammad (pbuh) as "a devil and first-born child of Satan".

Martin Luther lived five hundred years ago. Pre-Slavery in the United States, pre-Holocaust. If you needed to go back five hundred years to find a well-known, influential leader who has said something demeaning about Islam, I would be happy. I, however, need to go back to just last month (Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Zacharias Moussaoui, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) to find outspoken Muslims demeaning non-Muslims. We have Muslims bombing trains and flying planes into buildings. Clearly, there are some issues in Islam that need to be cleared up before we disparage respected figures from centuries ago who happened to say one comment that insulted the the Prophet Muhammad.

See, you missed my point. You are mixing up my ideas with your perspective. Yes, there are some fool Muslims like Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Zacharias Moussaoui, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But what does it have to do with my argument? You should look at my arguments from a theoretical point of view. Ask yourself again, why did I provide this example? What was its connection with previous sentences. Sorry my brother, you misunderstood me again. --Aminz 21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Imagine that one believes that Muhammad (pbuh) was possessed by Satan and that Allah has revealed Qur’an to Muhammad (pbuh). They mix these two and conclude that Allah is Satan.

That very well may be a non-sequitur.

On a final note, I'd like to copy the comment I made to User:Aiden, just a couple hours ago (see here):

Unfortunately, I have encountered a closed-minded approach to other religions and beliefs among many Muslims. It bothers me greatly when religious people don't take of advantage of independent thought.

You, Aminz, have provided a textbook example of that. Perhaps if Muslims (as a whole; not all Muslims are like this) were to stop thinking so negatively about every non-Muslim, everyone Western, those who don't think highly of Islam will change there ways. The project page you created just fuels hate and strengthens the tensions between the Muslim and non-Muslim communities. I do not support the project page at all. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel sad to see your argument since I feel you have had something in your mind and then with that perspective you have looked at my page and have misunderstood everything. --Aminz 21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have seen many people who thought Muslims are worshipping Allah rather than Yahew (the God of jews). If you don't believe me, take a jewish article and replace the names of God with Allah.

Yes, there is no reason to continue the discussion which to me means that you still believe your judgment about me is true but you find me so off that even having discussion with me is useless. Well, POV of everybody is respectable. I need to go now. Salam --Aminz 22:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I can't let this go. I don't want this to end the wrong way. I'd like to state that I still believe the page was insulting to non-Muslims, even if that was not what you intended. The comment about the truthfulness of Islam was irrelevant and so I struck that out. But other than that, I stand by everything I said. Note that this post was about the project page and not you at all; I said You, Aminz, have provided a textbook example of [closed-mindedness] instead of You, Aminz, are a textbook example of that for a reason. Since the comment was about the project page, I feel there is no need to continue the discussion, not because I find you "so off", but because the project page is gone. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Page being insulting to non-Muslims is a claim that can be true, but the way you were substantiating the claim is unacceptable to me, i.e. most of your arguments are unacceptable to me.

Let me take a sentence from my text that you alluded to and maybe most controversial one: “Most of typical Non-Muslims are ignorant about Islam and will believe in such things...” Regarding the sentence:”

I said most of typical Non-Muslims are ignorant about Islam. Let me ask you a question: How much do you know about for example the Bahai faith or Hinduism faith? Since it is not our religion, you don’t know much, am I right?. The same goes for Islam. If it is insulting to you that you are ignorant about Bahai faith, then I’ll accept that it will be insulting to Non-Muslims that they are ignorant about Islam.

Regarding your sentence: You, Aminz, have provided a textbook example of [closed-mindedness] and your argument. I can see the stress is on “You, Aminz,”. Anyways, that particular sentence criticizes what I have provided. Here is the context:”Unfortunately, I have encountered a closed-minded approach to other religions and beliefs among many Muslims. It bothers me greatly when religious people don't take of advantage of independent thought.”

Let’s try to avoid talking with each other as much as possible. That is the best solution. Salam -- Aminz 02:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Fictional claims?

D'oh! If there was a "lacks common sense" barnstar, I'd definitely deserve it. I saw this edit in the my watchlist and meant to revert it because the name Will Trost failed the Google test so the claim that he plays Navy Lacrosse is probably fictional. So, I didn't want to use rollback because then I couldn't explain my rationale. So (I use Firefox) I switched to that tab (or so I thought) and went to revert it manually... and, well, I must have done it in the wrong tab. I'm really sorry! But, going to the Asian vs white and Asian thing, Blair has about 3200 students, about 400 of whom are magnet. Now, I would say that most non-magnet students are Hispanic, black, or white with few Asians. Greatschool shows that 14% of Blair students are Asian. This is about 1/8, or 400 students. If there are few Asians in the non-magnet, then all 400 Asians must be in the magnet program, meaning that almost 100% of magnet students are Asian. Granted, maybe 10% are white, but 10% is still not "mostly white." But again, I goofed with the edit summary so I couldn't clarify that earlier. Thanks for catching me! --M@thwiz2020 21:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll fix the phrase then. By the way, the magnet at Montgomery Blair is approximately 52% Asian, 44% white, 5% African-American, 1% Hispanic (adjusted a bit from 4-Apr-2004 source: Beyond Black and White; Washington Post Magazine). Certainly that should qualify as "mostly white and Asian". -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Only 52%? Wow... --M@thwiz2020 21:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Viswanathan

Sorry, all the edit box showed was "BALLS" written, nothing else. I figured a blank article was better than one composed entirely of BALLS. I realize the problem and I'm sorry for the confusion. Thanks.

~Matt

I agree. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

A few comments

I wrote in the 'favorite dish are leeks' part then wrote what I found to be a humorous comment to myself since I thought someone had edited from what I thought I'd written: 'favorite food are leeks' to see how fast someone would react or just remove it myself in ten minutes.

hhmmmm, sandbox warning bit snappy, eh?

)

PS. There's no e-mail, but who am I to complain. PPS. Making a map over a single specific political controversy after featuring the broad generalities of all official major world religions seems either very specialist informative or ... overzealous. But I felt the map was very informative and kewl as well so keep it up! (Christian myself, and approved of the cartoons because I don't believe in the Qua'ran at all, but I can understand your anger and I do not respect the purely flammatory parts of my brotherly people (am half-Norwegian, half-Chinese myself) although I believe that all free speech that does not directly or strongly indirectly encourage violence should be restricted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toteone (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure where I warned you (as your talk page is blank), but that's a standard warning message. In fact, it is one of the lightest. About the e-mail, I'm not sure what you're talking about there. About your last comment, I don't think I'm featuring any broad generalities about religions on my user page (unless you mean "broad facts"). People have found the map very useful and it is not rare for maps to be made for articles and subjects that could be improved by them. I don't find the use of religion as "overzealous" as I find it accepting of all beliefs, but you are more than entitled to your opinion. Additionally, even if you were to believe in the Qur'an there would be nothing in it to comprimise your ability to be okay with the cartoons. I'm not sure where you get the impression that I'm angry at the cartoons. I'm not. At all. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

American Patrol Edits Revert

Reason One: "radical English only policy" According to Merriam Webster, radical means "extreme". That's an opinion. Reason Two: "is against American politicians of Hispanic descent no matter their political stance". Prove it. Been to his site several times. Reason Three: "Although Spencer denies being racist, he has close ties with the White Nationalist group American Renaissance". Part A: Unless it can be proven, sounds like slander to me. Part B: Remark about "racist organization": Quick question, has nothing to do with article reallyb but, How come blacks, hispanics, Chinese, eqyptians, can have organizations just for them, and talking about other races, and its just a pro-(certain race), and it is considered perfectly fine. Yet if whites have an organization doing the same thing or less, it is a white supremacy group? I use this tool way too much to vandalize it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.2.145.225 (talk • contribs).

My RFA

Hello Tariqabjotu/Archive Four, and thanks for supporting me on my recent request for adminship! It has succeeded with an unanimous support of 67 votes, so that I am now an administrator. Please feel free to leave a note on my talk page should you wish to leave any comments or ask for any help. Again, thanks a lot, AndyZ t 21:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Help

Hi Joturner, Could you help me learn some programming stuff in wikipedia. Where could I find help for this? I want to learn the expression language you used in Template:Three digit in detail. Thanks.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 08:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. There's one page on qif conditionals (which I did not use in {{three digit}}) and then there's another page on Parser Functions (which I did use in {{three digit}}). Essentially what the statement in {{three digit}} does is check to see if the initial condition and then, if it is true, execute the first statement or otherwise execute the second statement. {{1}} is the first parameter of the template (in {{three digit|570}}, 570 would be {{1}} while in {{three digit|570|69}}, 69 wold be {{2}}). The #ifexpr: checks to see whether {{1}} is greater than 99.5. If that is the case it executes the first statement, {{{1}}} which is printing out the first parameter (the number). If that is not the case and the expression is false, it goes to the second statement, another embedded #ifexpr: ({{ #ifexpr: ({{{1}}} > 9.5) | 0{{{1}}} | 00{{{1}}} }}). Once again, if the first parameter is greater than 9.5, it executes the first statement (printing out a zero followed by the first parameter). If the first parameter is not greater than 9.5, it executes the second statement (printing out two zeros followed by the first parameter). There are more functions you can learn about on the Parser Functions page. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the explanation I'll get in touch with you if I need more help, if that is okay with you.. Thank you very much..  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 18:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #3

5,000 Edits!

		The Original Barnstar
		Here's a barnstar in commemoration of your 5,000th edit! Jared W 11:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar; I have added it to my user page. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Template

After some thought I decided to create this smiley template, as I thought most of the arguments in the talk pages are due to misinterpretaion of what is being said, hopefully these smileys will help us (at least me !!) communicate in a much more friendly manner. Hope you all will like it.

• {{smiley|1}} will produce (Friendly smile)
• {{smiley|2}} will produce (Confident)
• {{smiley|3}} will produce (Mocking)
• {{smiley|4}} will produce (Hysterical)
• {{smiley|5}} will produce (Hurt)
• {{smiley|6}} will produce (Very Sorry)
• {{smiley|7}} will produce (Sleepy)
• {{smiley|8}} will produce (You are Nive)
• {{smiley|9}} will produce (I am not happy)
• {{smiley|0}} will produce (No Comments)

Thanks a lot for directing me to the functions help. thanks.  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 20:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Expand template

Jacoplane has repeatedly removed the template because he doesnt like how it looks. He has no idea what he's doing. In addition, I've seen plenty of pages with the expand template on the article, rather than the talk, page. KI 02:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Listen, KI, I'm getting rather tired of you going around claiming I'm a clueless newbie. I posted a message over a week ago saying I wouldn't mind if you put the template back on the article if you really wanted it there. Why didn't you? You never responded to my message except today where you reverted and accused me of vandalism once again. Like Joturner, I've told you that these accusations of vandalism are totally inappropriate on good-faith edits. Regards, jaco♫plane 02:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting in my RfA!

I read your comments and considerations through the RfA with great interest, and I appreciate the time and effort you put into it. Thanks! It did not gain consensus, but I'm glad I accepted it. - Amgine 17:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to WP:ERRORS

Thank you for pointing me towards WP:ERRORS. I never knew it existed, heh. I will use it in future, thanks for the help! --Doug (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit: And it was in a box at the top of the page. Gah, that will teach me to skip reading infoboxes. Cheers! --Doug (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

I forgot to login. wasnt vandalism to my user page. Thanks for looking out for me though. -- Chris Ccool2ax 04:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Answering the RFA questions

I am very, very sorry I hadn't answered the questions: I would have, but I really had to leave (I had to be up by 6:40 this morning). I know how much you love those answers (and I know it's really my civic duty to answer them), so I went on and answered them. Enjoy! —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 11:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Curious about music

Hi, I was reading your very interesting userpage and noticed that you stopped to listen to "music." Firstly, out of curiousity, are you referring to "Western music" and secondly why did you stop? Thank you Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what "Western music" would be. Nevertheless, you're not the only one to have this question. See my 25-April response to David Kernow. I copy this response to your talk page, but I'm unable to do that because I'm posting from a location where the IP address has been blocked. When I get home, I'll copy it to your user page. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Your vote on my RFA

Thank you for voting on my RFA, however I've decided to withdraw my nomination. I'll perhaps nominate myself in the future once I have more experience, and not to immaturely release RFAs. Until then, I'll continue working on Wikipedia. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 21:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)