User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive One

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.

Eid ul Adha

Salam -- why is Dec 31 a possible date for Eid ul adha? My apologies for the ignorance on this matter, but I'm simply confused.

Because the Islamic calendar is a lunar calendar, it has only approx. 354 days instead of 365. That means Eid moves up eleven days every Islamic year. Therefore, since this Eid ul-Adha is January 10, next Eid ul-Adha will occur approx. 354 days later, on December 31. They are two different Eid ul-Adhas in two different Islamic years (1426 AH and 1427 AH, respectively). The Eid ul-Adha for 1428 AH will occur December 20, 2007. joturner 03:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Green Day

Green Day is not plural in the same way "the group" and "the band" aren't plural

Please note that in British English, group references (such as companies, or bands) are plural. Thus "Microsoft are announcing a new version of Windows very soon" is grammatically correct. The Wikipedia doesn't require one or the other but an informal truce has developed around articles' subject matter (for instance, most of the London bombing article should use British English). In this case, an American band was being interviewed in Germany, so I think using American English makes sense. --Dhartung | Talk 8 July 2005 06:01 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction; I didn't know that. -- joturner 8 July 2005 19:00 (UTC)

Actually, it's not quite as straightforward as Dhartung would have you believe. Microsoft, in British English, is singular. So is Green Day unless, as was the case in this instance, the sentence is construed to imply a reference to "the members of" Green Day. The sentence has been subsequently corrected so it says : "the members of Green day are being interviewed back stage", which is now clear and correct. To say, for example, "Green Day are touring in November", in any other circumstances, while it might be idiomatic, is technically incorrect grammar. You were right in the first place. ElectricRay 11:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ramadan

I'll be helping you on Ramadan when I have the time. I greatly appreciate having someone there who isn't as totally pissed off at Striver as I am. It's hard to edit without giving way to anger. I'll try to follow your lead <g>. Zora 00:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Muslim

I'm glad you like the change. I very much appreciate it when you make suggestions like that. I'm so upset at Striver at this point that sometimes I fail to see opportunities to compromise. Thanks for being clear-headed. Zora 21:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply

I know it may get frustrating and I liked your try to eliminate confusion, but most of the time it's good to keep it simple. :) Keep up the good work. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi!

I replied back :) --Striver 02:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

More replies :) --Striver 03:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate you warnings. I have also replied. :) --Striver 04:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

NBA All-Star Weekend

Thanks for helping with the edit -- I just took it on because it was a WP request. And, happy birthday. :) Shigpit 01:07, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Good articles

You delisted Geology of the Capitol Reef area and listed Wave-particle duality? Have you seen the size difference between the two? One is certainly much more complete than the other and a much better article. The presense of 'too many red links' is an invalid thing to object to even in the FAC process. Why should it matter here? And the article you promoted did not have a single image while the one you delisted has two (I'll be adding many more once I get my Linux drive back up). How many featured articles are you the main author of? I'm up to 15, including almost all 'geology of...' FAs. --mav 19:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Islam

As-Salam Alaykum brother. Congratulations on converting to Islam. I too embraced Islam 4 years ago when I was 16 years old. Best thing to remember is that God wants us all to be on the middle path, not an extremist, not incredibly liberal, moderation is the key in faith and in everything else a well. If you need anything drop me a message anytime. Mustaqbal 10:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Conversion to Islam

Asalamu Alykum, Congratulations on your conversion and mashallah you seem like a salafi brother. I am 19, male, going to UNM and as you can tell, also a muslim. Although I had the advantage of being raised Muslim I am very impressed by your coversion. Good Job on the Halal meat thanksgiving but, you might already now, there are lots of fatwas saying that the food here is still of the people of the book and the main debate ppl were worried about was the way the animals are killed. Well anyway sorry if that didn't make any sense its 4am here and I am tired but I would like to start editing with you soon. Salam and Jazaka Allahu Alkhayer for the good guild logo. Angry Ayrab 11:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

(Belated) Happy Birthday and Merry Christmas

Hi Jotourner. Thanks for your vote at Hindu-Arabic numerals. I wish you a belated Happy Birthday and hope you had a nice Christmas! deeptrivia (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Hindu-Arabic numerals

Hi! User:RN moved the article to Arabic numerals despite 28 votes favoring the title "Hindu-Arabic numerals" and only 17 favoring "Arabic numerals." He argues that if we don't count voters with less that 150 (or sth like that) edits, only 56% voters "support changing the title to Hindu-Arabic numerals", while at least 60% support votes are required. However, it was agreed between all parties in the beginning of the vote that the proposal is to move the article to "Arabic numerals" from "Hindu-Arabic numerals." It was also agreed (though I thought it was very unfair) that:

• Those opposing the move have the advantage that it won't be moved unless there's a 60% majority
• Those supporting the move have the advantage that the person proposing the move can do the *short* opening statement.
• For all the rest of the voting procedure both parties are equal. (quoting Francis Schonken from 21:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC))

I would definitely have preferred it the other way round, since I think an opening statement makes a HUGE difference, since many people just read the opening statement and understandably don't bother with the discussion below the votes. The present situation was accepted with the agreement that the article will be moved to "Arabic numerals" only if more than 60% voters favored that title. Thus, only 40% oppose votes were sufficient to retain the title "Hindu-Arabic numerals." In the present situation (with over 60% voters opposing the change), I find the move to "Arabic numerals" ridiculous, besides being completely unjust and unfair. Your comments will be appreciated. deeptrivia (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Image in Qur'an article

Hi Jotourner. I was wondering if you could explain to me why some people believe the image in the Qur'an article is offensive. I understand it has to do with the woman's arm being bare, but there are images of women with bare arms all over Wikipedia. Why is this one in particular such a problem? Is it because a woman with bare arms is being allowed to read the Qur'an? I must confess I know very little about Islam, but I would love to learn more. I doubt I'm going to change my opinion on this particular matter, but it would be nice to at least understand the point of view they are coming from. Cheers. Kaldari 21:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the interest in learning about Islam. I personally am not offended per se by the picture, although, as you can see by my vote, I am in favor of removing it and, if possible, replacing it with a new one. Most likely, those Muslims who are offended by the picture are offended because the woman is in the presence of the Qur'an. Yes, there are other pictures with bare arms (and bare other-body-parts) on Wikipedia, but they are not in the presence of the Qur'an or any other holy book.

Muslims do believe in the Bible and the Tanakh in their original forms and therefore it is no surprise that a large part of what is stated in those two books is also stated in the Qur'an. But neither of those can be found today in their original forms; it is fact that they have been altered significantly. Very few, or if not nobody, alive today has even read the Bible in its original language. However, it is a proven fact that the Qur'an remains today as the most preserved book in history; not a single dot or stroke has been altered between the very first rendition of the Qur'an and the copy you can buy from a local bookstore today. By the way, I would like to point out that I am referring to the Qur'an in Arabic as "the Qur'an" in any other language is just a translation; translations can alter significantly.

The main reason for the Qur'an's preservation is that Muslims regard it as the word of God and therefore the most revered item one could ascertain in this world. Before touching or reading the Qur'an, the Muslim must cleanse himself or herself in a process called wudu. The Qur'an must be treated with the utmost respect; it cannot be taken into any unclean place (like the bathroom) or put on an unclean surface (such as the floor without a clean mat underneath). When disposing of the Qur'an, or any other item that bears a name of Allah (especially in Arabic), it must be burned or buried (odd as that may sound). Some Muslims will even go so far as to put the Qur'an higher than them whenever they read it or kiss the Qur'an when he or she sees one. In some countries, such as Pakistan, desecrating the Qur'an is punishable by a life sentence or death. I think you get the point; the Qur'an is respected most highly by Muslims.

Surely you can see why it could be considered sacrilegious to portray the Qur'an next to someone doing something un-Islamic. Non-Muslims are allowed to read the Qur'an. But this person, although presumably a non-Muslim, is dressed in a manner that violates the modest clothing outlined by the Qur'an and example (hadith) of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The degree to which Muslims are offended by this portrayal of the Qur'an, as you can see, varies.

If you have anymore questions, feel free to ask. joturner 23:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. At least now I understand a bit of the reasoning behind why someone would be offended. As you have described it, the issue seems to be closer to profanity than obscenity, i.e. the problem has more to do with the subject's lack of religious reverance than the fact that her arm is uncovered. Would you say that is accurate? This seems a bit more reasonable, at least to my Westernized mind. The issue is certainly a difficult one, as Wikipedia's purpose is certainly not to be offensive. Reading over Wikipedia:Profanity, it seems the question boils down to whether or not the image adds something of value to the article. Although that is certainly open to debate, my personal opinion is that the image does add something to the article as it is an interesting picture and provides good illustration for the last two paragraphs of "Writing and printing the Qur'an". Of course the issue ultimately boils down to editorial judgement, and that is where I suppose we must agree to disagree. It's unfortunate that the debate on the article talk page has accomplished little in the way of actual communication between the two sides of the issue. I think some of the people involved would be more receptive if the objections were explained better. Kaldari 05:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree that it's closer to profanity. joturner 11:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually while AFAIK the letters in the quran today are the same as the ones in the oldest extant copies, dots and strokes were added - the dots that differentiate letters e.g. sin and shin (I'm not sure what those dots are called) and the harakat. See http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/compilationbrief.html for more detail. Schizombie 13:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

POV Edits in Current Events

Thanks for your help. How do you do the "revert to" command? Is that an editor command that is earned? Kukini 03:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

There is an admin command that makes it easier, but I'm not an admin. Adminship can be earned by it takes several months and at least 1000 or 2000 edits. But anyone can revert. You can look at the history and click on the timestamp of the last good version (the one you want to revert the page to). Then, the click "edit this page" at the top of that version. You'll get a warning saying you're editing an old version. Just post something like "reverted to someUser version" or "reverted vandalism" in the edit summary, submit, and you're done. joturner 03:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Kukini

He was warned. I was tired of putting up with his POV pushing. He's a new user whom I kept trying to help, I thought we had cleared things up when he put his item on Current events, but he kept insisting on inserting it into the 2006 article, and I had had enough. I say stop it now before he becomes another problem user. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I can let it go. I just am concerned that the NPOV policy is NOT being followed here. Iraqi deaths under American influence get deleted but not the deaths by insurgents. This seems quite peculiar to me. Kukini 21:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Mosque

I noticed you reverted my edit and said "will find source." If you are going to do that, insert the ^{[citation needed]} tag and revert, or wait until you have the information until you revert. Incidentally, the new version (25-27) is based on a Sunni hadith that many Shi'a might have a problem attributing to all Muslims. Just to avoid any future incidents, it is best not to attribute a Sunni hadith to an Islamic viewpoint. Actually, there seems to be alot of edit wars that are based on whether the view should be qualified by the term Sunni. See caliph, Hasan ibn Ali and Yazid. Two editors, one who is a Shi'a and I don't know about the other seem to go back and forth inserting Sunni in front of contentous statements. And also, the 25-27 number refers (to my knowledge) to prayer in congregation, it does not neccessitate prayer in a mosque. Pepsidrinka 21:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for enlightening me about the use of the {{fact}} tag. Go ahead and remove the reference to a specific number if you feel it is fit. joturner 21:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed you have been pushing to make this article better in the more recent past. And I imagine you would like you see this article on the featured status log. The only reservation I have, well let me say this. I think there are two possible options. We could qualify the statement to ascribe it just to a Sunni belief, until we can confirm or deny the belief within other denominations of Islam. Or we can just mention it to be more virtuous and link to the already linked citation you added. I prefer the latter, only because, when someone unfamilar with Islam reads that sentence, it doesn't really add anything unless you know how much reward or how much virtue there is in reading by oneself. Even for a Muslim (i.e. me), it is really ambigous just because, as far as I know, there is nothing explicitly mentioned for you to multiply it by 25 or 27. For example, in giving of charity, of the top of my head I'm inclined to say the reward in ramadan is 70-700 more. So something like that is tangible (i.e. you give $1 and the reward is $70-$700). Whereas in this, looking at it from a non-muslims point of a view, it doesn't add anything. Your thoughts? Pepsidrinka 22:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. Go ahead with the second option. joturner 22:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Another Post

Hey Jordan how's it going. I bet you can't guess who this is. --Pedxing585 02:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello there; welcome to Wikipedia. joturner 02:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Jung Han article

Yes, the article should be deleted. I know the poster and I know who he is referring to (as you can see by the post he made on my talk page. If you are an admin, go ahead and delete the article. By the way, don't associate the improper addition with me because I know him. I did not put him up to it. joturner 02:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, I merely tagged the page. Thanks for your message. Stifle 02:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Holidays

Hi Joturner, I saw that you added a list of pages that use the Holidays infobox on the talk page. You may also consider joining the holidays WikiProject which is still fairly new and needs as much help as possible! It would be appreciated if you joined! Thanks DaGizza ^Chat 19:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Mashallah!

How to perform Eid prayers

I'm not very knowledgable about prayers and I was trying to find an online description of how to perform the Eid-ul-Azha prayers by myself but couldn't find any reliable source (e.g. some come from a Madhi or Shi-a perspective). I think it would be quite useful and beneficial to add a paragraph on how to perform the Eid prayers either here in the Eid-ul-Azha article or on the Salaat article and then link it here.

Thanks to the muslim Guild and yourself for all of your great works relating to the Islamic articles. Keep up the commendable effort.

Eid Mubarak

Salaam. Eid Mubarak. I noticed you observed your first Eid al-Adha today. Insha'allah it went well for you. Pepsidrinka 20:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Age in Islamic years or solar years?

Thanks for your input on Talk:Islamic calendar. Do you know someone who could provide a more definitive answer, based on input from countries where Islamic ages might be common? --NealMcB 14:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Islamist terrorism and Islam in the United States

Hey joturner. It would be appreciated if you could take a look at these two articles where some highly anti-Islam POV is being pushed. Yuber^(talk) 22:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any anti-Islam point of view in the Islam in the United States article. In the Islamist terrorism article, however, we are walking a fine time. The article is about a topic that by definition is going to have to say some disparaging things about Islam. It will have to talk about interpretations of the Qur'an that promote violence and opinions of these terrorist groups. But at the same time, the article has also mentioned interpretations of the Qur'an that denounce violence as well as Muslim leaders who are against terrorism. In my opinion, it is as neutral as possible. joturner 23:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"Crusade"

I think your using the word "crusade" is highly suggestive and inappropriate. As I pointed out to User:Anonymous editor, I also changed articles where the Bible is called "the Holy Bible", and will continue to do so. I don't see why applying Wikipedia policies should raise eyebrows.

As far as I know, I have not deleted the definite article when deleting the word "holy"; it probably wasn't there in the first place. I am sorry for not having inserted it here and there. ---Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 23:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of the implications of the word crusade, but it was not used to be offensive. I tried to clarify that with the following sentence in which I plainly state that I'm not saying you're wrong. I do agree that enforcing Wikipedia policy should not raise a few eyebrows, but as I stated, almost all of these edits were in Islam-related articles. It makes me wonder (and certainly it will make others wonder) why you have chosen to enforce the policy in those articles primarily. And there have made some edits in which you have omitted the article when it originally was there. For example, see Sawm of Ramadan and Ramadan (calendar month). joturner 23:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry about those mistakes. Interesting to note their number seems to have instantly dropped from many to some. But I will try and be more careful.

And I don't think it's relevant which articles I edit. I can't edit them all at once. Like I said, I have edited and will continue to edit those articles where the Bible is called "the Holy Bible" (or the Vedas "the Holy Vedas", for that matter). Undoubtedly, some people won't appreciate that either, but should that stop me from doing so? ---Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 00:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the two instances you mentioned. ---Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 00:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Quran photo

Thanks for your comments about the Quran photo. You're right: I don't have any legal control over whether the image is used in the article or not, but I thank you for considering my opinion on the matter. Quadell 13:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there was a notice that photography was not allowed, but it wasn't enforced. They searched my bags for security reasons and saw my camera, and I had expected it to be a problem, but it was not. Many people, including me, were taking photos right in front of guards, and no one complained. You're right that that's not a copyright issue, but that's a common mistake to make -- people should assume good faith about such things. All the best, Quadell 23:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Mecca section reinstated

I have reinstated the section on the "Importance of Mecca". If you feel the wording of the section is incorrect, POV, etc, please edit it (of course) but if you want to remove it altogether please explain to the rest of us why! I personally think it shoul;d be kept because Mecca is a word known to all, whereas Hajj isnt. (Maybe should be, but isnt) so a brief description of the rituals on the Mecca page is useful. Those that want to delve deeper can the go to the Hajj page for greater detail.Jameswilson 23:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I was not the person who took out the "Importance of Mecca" section. The previous editor, 62.6.139.10, stated in his edit summary that he was restoring an unvandalized version. Clearly, looking at the difference between revisions, he was not reverting vandalism. I was simply reverting to the version that had been accepted for days (which curiously enough did not include the "Importance of Mecca" section). I have no problem with the section at all and believe restoring it was a good decision. joturner 00:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - my mistake thinking it was you. Jameswilson 01:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"Unnecessary sources"

Regarding these edits: What does it hurt to have more than one source linked for a story? Reading about events from more than one source can provide useful information or perspective. --Mr. Billion 05:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need three sources documenting a volcano erupting? I don't think so. The main point of the source is to verify that the occurence of the event occured. If there is so much information that we have several perspectives on an issue, we should just create a new article on Wikipedia. joturner 05:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree we don't need so many articles for the volcano thing (although some news sources did conflict on that), but the main point of news sources on Current Events is not simply to verify the entry that's on Current Events, but rather to make additional information available to users. Again, what harm comes from more than one source? --Mr. Billion 06:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Assalamu alaykum

Assalaamu alaykum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuh,

Akhee, I was just reading your profile. MashaAllah, it nearly brought me to tears. I also reverted to Islam, a little over 2 years ago myself. Just want to say akhee, uhibbuka fillaah. I love you for the sake of Allah.

Wassalaamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh

Mujaahid 07:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Keeping cool

It wasn't directed at anyone in particular; it was just a general reminder. I'm glad you didn't perceive any negativity -- perhaps I was reading into things. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

2006 bin Laden video

I recently started 2006 bin Laden video. Please improve it in any way you see fit. Thanks. KI 13:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...

Thank you for the input recommendations and collaboration above all, which is all I was really after. But thanks for the status vote as well.--Lacatosias 16:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. joturner 16:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Damadola airstrike

Hi. I know you are interested in Current Events and NPOV issues. Could you take a look at this page if you have a chance? It is under what I consider to be vandalistic attack (removal of sourced content) from User:Mistress Selina Kyle and User:BlueTruth. Thanks. --68.223.81.133 19:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure; I'll look at the article. joturner 19:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I did some editing. I hope that helped the situation. joturner 20:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Nicely done. Thanks for your input. --68.223.81.133 20:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Texas articles

Apologies. I was at first a little offended by his comments, most notably by his comments about non-Texas users editing Texas articles. That seemed to me a bit arrogant. Dr. Cash 04:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for GA for Opus Dei

Thanks for putting a GA label for the Opus Dei, Joturner! So happy to see it, and even happier to see that you are a religious person. Yes I agree with you that religion is good for the world. Lafem 05:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. joturner 14:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Damadola controversy

For the IP poster's bias one only needs to look at one of his statements from two days ago: "The official number of dead is 13, including five women and eight children." This is so wrong it borders on offensive (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Damadola_airstrike&oldid=36164780). He also cites obscure Pakistani tribesmen who claim only civilians were killed and these are obvious attempts to insert his own opinion using them as mouthpieces. For a truly non-biased article, only officials should be cited, as eye-witnesses can lie or distort details and not been held accountable. He is also a sockpuppet and his numerous other IDs have all been blocked.

PS: Sorry, I did not see there was already a section for this on your talkpage.

--BlueTruth 22:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright... that's acceptable rationale. joturner 22:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Xiangqi

Why did you revert? [1] It has been discussed on the article's talk page. enochlau (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. You did mention the change was in accordance with the talk page. I must have missed that comment in your edit summary. joturner 01:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Gay bathhouse

Please avoid removing or modifying messages on articles or article talk pages and then ignoring the article/talk page. Please return to Talk:Gay bathhouse to explain your recent change to a message on that page. Exploding Boy 03:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about. I did explain my change to the message. joturner 03:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Then I suggest you return to the talk page. Exploding Boy 03:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

semi-protection

There's an unwritten policy against protecting the featured article of the day. We're supposed to encourage new users to edit articles, to get them hooked into becoming Wikipedia addicts like the rest of us. In the past I've semi-protected a featured article or two but it got unprotected fairly quickly.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with this, the featured article always gets a lot of vandalism and only a few legitimate newbie edits, but that's how things stand at the moment. -- Curps 06:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Islamic topics

Hi Joturner. There are a few Islamic topics which can be expanded. Please see if you can expand Islamic literature, Islamic poetry and Islamic studies. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I'll see what I can do. joturner 17:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Quran pic deletion

You edited your original comments on the Quran pic controversy. Just out of curiosity, why is the issue irrelavent now? Pepsidrinka 22:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I found the page for requesting de-adminship. I am in the process of writing that request write now. If you would like to support his de-adminship, just tell me and I'll notify you when I complete the request. joturner 22:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please add me to the list. ALso you might want to modify the 3RR violation section in the RFC to include the 4th revert and the deletion as that might qualify as a revert. Jwissick^(t)(c) 06:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC

Thank you for notifying me. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking over your userpage and your contributions, I find it amazing that we're in conflict. You're a great contributor to Wikipedia, and I agree with you about just about everything. We're both members of the Muslim League, we're both coders, we're both religious pacifists, and we're probably the only two Wikipedians that declare themselves both pro-legalization and drug-free!

You seem like a great guy and a valuable ally, and it's unfortunate we find ourselves in this position. I hope we can patch things up and work together. Sincerely, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I do hope we can put this behind us. But unlike you, I'm putting the interest of Wikipedia before my personal interests. I am happy the image is gone, but the manner in which you did it, in my opinion, is reprehensible for an administrator. Once this issue is resolved, I'm sure we can get back to being on good terms. I don't believe one bad move makes one bad person. joturner 15:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy, we're in trouble now!! Babajobu 16:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

When I first saw your post (the one above) on my talk page, I had no idea what you were talking about. But when I took a look at the Request for Comment page, it became obvious. I understand if Jimbo disagrees with our point of view, but by no means do we (or maybe I?) owe Quadell an apology for putting up the request for comment. I don't understand how he could consider enforcing the reasonable rules of Wikipedia a "sickness to Wikipedia". What I do think is absurd is that we should be forced to ignore the recent actions by Quadell. Although Quadell may not ultimately be removed from his admin position, initating this request for comment alone means he'll have to face the situation and take accountability.

P.S. I love the addition to your user page. joturner 21:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...I feel like it needed to be said...the RfC deserved a fair hearing and not to be mocked by our God-King. The issues here are important, if only because it sets a potentially disastrous precedent for the GFDL, which is being reduced to something more like fair use. Anyway, I personally don't want Quadell to be deadminned, he seems like a good Wikipedian who was stuck in a very awkward position, but I don't regret certifying the RfC one bit, and I certainly don't think you (or I, or Zora, or Kone) owe anyone an apology for bringing this issue to the attention of the community. Cheers, Babajobu 01:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care either way, to be honest. Whatever you like. Babajobu 05:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for defending me.

Thanks for defending me , I don't know why zora keep saying that I'm Wahhabi, this really upset me , i know and i respect all Muslims trends and i respect every religion and every opinion , all what i tried to do is remove contradiction between the image and the quran , believe me when i tell you there is no single problem if any person was unclean and touch quran , even if he wasn't dressed at all , and the aya in the quran didn't mention physical touching , it means understanding , so if you read the aya again it means "no one can understand (touch) except those who are purified" and purified here means a lot of issues "open minded" , "clean heart" , "kind" , "peaceful", "committing good deeds" ...etc. so my point has nothing to relate the women is standing beside the picture is offending me , NO , she can do what she want , I don't care , My point is "the picture under this key topic gives false interpretation about the figure of women in quran" that's it. again i feel sick for repeating this over and over , i don't want to hurt any body i don't want to hurt Zora or any person , i feel guilty when i see some body attacks me for this , i want to live in peace and to express my beliefs freely. again Jazakom Allah Kol Kheer. Your brother, Waleeed 06:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

No problem. I tried to ask her several weeks ago where she got the idea there a Saudi was making many of the reversions (see User talk: Zora#Why the image is shocking), but she never explained it to me. Instead, she went on to talk about how much she dislikes Saudi Arabia. As you said, you're not a Saudi and so those comments were irrelevent. joturner 06:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

just small recommendation , if you want to discover more about Islam try to read Sufism , you will go deep and deep and you will learn much more about quran , but i don't recommend this for you now as a new convert , just try to enhance articles about Sufism and to cover this beautiful part of Islam,, and later you will discover the real power behind Sufism , later.Waleeed 06:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Qur'an

Perhaps to start off this thing with a clean slate and promote good will the current talk page should be archived as well? Jwissick^(t)(c) 06:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You can archive it if you want, but it doesn't look like the discussion on the Talk:Qur'an page relates to the picture. joturner 11:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The last section does.. It talks about the revert war. I don't know how to archive yet.... Jwissick^(t)(c) 15:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I archived it so don't worry. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

RFC closure

Thanks, and no hard feelings. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 12:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

kafir

Your vote at Kafir (Islam) has been removed by User:Philip Baird Shearer for some reason. He moved my vote too without explanation. I'm not sure if it was deliberate or by accident by you better check it out. __earth ^(Talk) 16:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Userpage

Hi Jordan. You're new user page is very nice. Good work. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. joturner 14:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving the image

Jordan I replied to your vote on the talk page of the cartoon controversy article. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

cartoons

Showing the figures of Mohammed is disturbing muslims. And it is a insult to Islam. In Islam making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden.That is raping the holy things of Islam.And it is not about "freedom".PLEASE get back your sıgnature.Thanks.--Erdemsenol 00:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As you may have been able to tell by my user page, I am a Muslim. And judging by the tone of your above post and the fact that you're Turkish, I'm guessing you're a Muslim too (I hope that's correct). I agree that the pictures are blasphemous to Islam and that it is outrageous that they were printed not just in September 2005, but also on February 1. But that does not trump the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for all people. These pictures aren't inoffensive to a large portion of Wikipedians. And even to Muslims, it should not be considered offensive in this context as it is put in the article simply to illustrate the issue at hand. If you want to look at the article, you can do so while averting your eyes from the picture at the top of the article (that's what I do). If you really don't want to look at the pictures, you don't have to visit the page; no one is forcing you to look at the page or the picture.

This is one thing I hope all Muslims can understand: unfortunate as it may be, not everyone is a Muslim and we have to respect that. At the same time, I do think the Europeans that published these cartoons need a lesson in tolerance as well. But, maybe we, and the rest of the world's Muslims, should take the initiative and let the picture be. It is outrageous, yes. It is sacreligious, yes. But the response seen (in the media) throughout the Muslim world as well as the fervent comments on Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy are not going to improve the image of the true religion, Islam.

May Allah bless you in this world and the Hereafter. joturner 01:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

barnstar

I hereby award you this barnstar for your rational speech on User:Erdemsenol's talk page. L33th4x0r 16:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Permission to move barnstar to your main user page?

Would you grant me that permission? L33th4x0r 16:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)