User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive Three

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.

Regarding the Links in Muhammad

I'll leave the changes be, but here was what I was saying in terms of point of view. I don't think the articles being linked to were written in neutral point of view; I simply think the selection of links were. For example, the link to The 100, whose only purpose is to demonstrates one author's view of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as the most influential person in history, is not balanced by another link about criticism of him. In fact, none of those links focus on any articles on an opposing, less respectful viewpoints of the Prophet (although Depictions of Muhammad comes close). The least we could do is relieve the See Also section of some of its piety (Seal of the Prophets) and unnecessary praise (The 100). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Joturner, thank you for writing me. No dispute on my part about The 100 and Seal of the Prophets my edits were moreso in regards to Depictions of Muhammad and List of films about Muhammad. The first is imho very relative in a "see also" context and the second is just odd because there's doesn't seem to be any point in having a redirected wikilink when the wikilink can just go directly to the pertinent article. Netscott 02:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I couldn't agree with you more. Those two articles do belong; it must have had to do with the edit conflict that occured during my first edit attempt (I was editing AE's version while you were making your edit). I was only attempting to remove Ya Muhammad, Zulfiqar, The 100, and Seal of the Prophets. Do you contest those removals? But absolutely, Depictions of Muhammad and List of films about Muhammad should remain; I mistakenly presumed that when AE noted back to keeping the links in his edit summary, those links include the latter two. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've just removed The 100, after your explanation, your removal of that one seemed logical to me. But I'll let you and the other editors work out the other "see also"s. Netscott 03:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I may just let it go though. Those links aren't going to cause me to toss and turn in my sleep. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good Wikistress reduction philosophy... hehe.. Netscott 03:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Joturner, sorry to bother you but Irishpunktom has filed a 3RR report against me regarding the The 100 wikilink. Please review the article Muhammad's history and respond to his report accordingly if you would. Thanks Netscott 13:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

• Update: You may want to review the report regardless but it appears to have been settled correctly. Too bad User:Irishpunktom doesn't follow WP:AGF more and instead wastes people's time (admin's etc.) filing inaccurate 3RR reports. But I suppose that makes sense for him as he and I have had our differences. Cheers! Netscott 15:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove Seal of the Prophets? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, it wasn't an important addition to the article. But go ahead an re-add it. Like I said to Netscott earlier, it's not going to cause me to toss and turn in my sleep. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

We need to be careful in the links we put in. Any suggestions for this? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm okay with what's there now. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think it's fine for now. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick comment here, I'm very appreciative of the "balance in reporting" you've expressed here Joturner... despite your beliefs... that's very commendable. Netscott 22:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"Balance in reporting?" --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

From just above, this bit : "In fact, none of those links focus on any articles on an opposing, less respectful viewpoints of the Prophet (although Depictions of Muhammad comes close).". For some reason that makes me think of Benjamin Franklin Voltaire in all honesty. Netscott 23:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

A comparison to Ben Franklin? That may be a stretch, but I appreciate your comments. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Netscott heads over to a little RfA he's heard about... heh Netscott 23:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Map of cartoon republication and violence.

I'm not completely sure, but looking at the map and your description it looks like how red or how blue a country is is a function of just how much violence and how many republications there have been. This is a problematic way of dealing with it since it naturally makes larger countries (such as the US which has comparatively few republications) more likely to be be very blue and very red. However, I still think that it is a very well done image that should be moved to commons.JoshuaZ 14:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA

I just wanted to give you a vote of support on your userpage for your RfA, as well as on your RfA. I've looked at your edits to Islam related articles, and they look to be really good, and you've kept your cool and helped others keep their cool on some heated topics. Don't let the oppose votes get to you. Cheers, Makemi 04:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

My reply

See my reply to you on my talk page. Merecat 05:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Again Merecat 05:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Once more. Merecat 06:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Good article

Template:Good article has been listed for deletion. Please vote to keep this template at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_25#Template:Good_article. —RJN 10:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr Turner

Muslims on rajput page have claimed rajputs are descendants of islamic jihaadis, Slahuddin of crusades, they are descendants of Muhammads descendants, quereshis etc. These are blatant lies. Would you disagree?

Here are the links for your perusal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_%282%29#Charge_9

DPSingh 12:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It must be noted that the link you gave me comes from three months ago. On the current version of the article, I don't see any real cause for concern. I believe your actions are an over-reaction and unreasonable as your edit summaries attack others. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't help but notice an edit summary...

(See Zsinj). :-D --Zsinj^Talk 17:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you so much for supporting me in my recent RfA, which passed with a final tally of 56/1/0. I thank you for your confidence in my abilities. If you ever need anything or find that I have made an error, please let me know on my talk page. — Scm83x hook 'em 21:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

your message

hi Joturner, thanks for pointing that out *lol* sorry it's getting really late here that's why. Thanks for your vote, I hope it works out... with kind regards Gryffindor 05:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Buck up!

I voted against your RfA but I'm hoping that this won't dishearten you. I've seen you grow and change since you got here and I think you're going to be a great Wikipedian. You might be feeling a little battered right now but ... this will pass and much better things will come in time. Zora 06:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem really concerned that your vote will dishearten me. It won't, especially because you raise legitimate points. Some of the rationales for the other oppose votes I find quite interesting (I have to watch the word choice), but even those won't discourage me. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 06:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks

I would like to once again express my thanks to you for my RfA. It was a success. Normally, I would extend a hand in the case you need any type of help, but it looks like you are on your own way to becoming an admin in the matter of a few days. Pepsidrinka 07:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

MBTI "good" reverts

Hi! I noticed you have been reverted a couple of times after adding the "good" tag to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator article. The reason it is being reverted is because the article does not meet the requirement of stability. There is an ongoing discussion about NPOV with that article, as the criticisms of MBTI are not (in the opinion of many edotrs) representative. The article also appears likely to fail its featured article nomination for the same reasons. If you would like to discuss this, we can all do so on the Talk page for the article or on the FAC talk page. PS: I like the layout on your user page! Jokestress 22:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Tariqabjotu/Archive Three, thank you you so much for supporting my RfA, which passed successfully 49/6/3. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have taken people's suggestions to heart. I will do my best to live up to people's expectations. If I can ever make any improvements or help out in any way, please feel free to let me know! Thanks again for your much appreciated support.

¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 05:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

interesting life

Hi Joturner, i just see and read your userpage. You really had an interesting life despite your age. Cheers Ugur Basak 09:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

	My RfA
	Thank you for supporting/opposing/commenting on my request of adminship, sadly the result was 54/20/7 an thus only 73% support votes, resulting in that the nomination failed. As many of you commenting that I have to few main-space edits, I'll try to better my self on that part. If you have any ideas on what kind of articles I could edit, pleas send me a line. :)	→AzaToth 09:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Impressive

Just a note to tell you that you're an awesome individual. The criticism of this userpage at RfA is ill-founded; please do continue quoting the Quran, as its wisdom needs to be shared. Best wishes, Xoloz 18:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Not true. You changed to CltFn's version - Muslims believe that Muhammad is God's final prophet, not the other way around. RedCrescent 03:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I switched them back, but I believe either one will work just fine. And really, the way you said above statement sounds as though you are the authoritative source on Islam, especially on a minor technicality. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I like to believe I know much of Islam since I am raised Muslim, but I do not wish to present myself that way. I just think that some of these articles are not so accurate and there is double standard when you compare with Jesus Christ and Abraham and Siddhartha Gautama. RedCrescent 03:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

But also it is important to say that Islam is the last revelation since Muslims believe that Islam existed even before Adam. Many people do not know this, they think that Islam was started by Muhammad and that Muslims accept this too. Even non-Muslims, what do they say about Muhammad - do they say he is founder? I have read much of non-Muslim writing, and they do not say that. They write that Muhammad was a prophet, or thought himself to be prophet and brought a "new" revelation. Hope that is not confusing. RedCrescent 04:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I need a favour

I need a favour, thi sis in part due to your faith (no offence, I hope). User talk:NSLE#Zakir Naik - a new Muslim editor has (apparently) been pushing POV at the Zakir Naik article, and whom I've just blocked for 3RR. I'd like to ask you if you could help me explain to him our NPOV and 3RR policies, as he may be more willing to listen to a Muslim editor. Cheers, NSLE _(T+C) at 09:35 UTC (2006-03-28)

Addendum: I see that you've encountered this user before. Whether that complicates things or makes it easier... NSLE _(T+C) at 09:36 UTC (2006-03-28)

Second addendum: RedCrescent has now accused me of misusing my powers. This smells a whole lot like what Resid would do. Since you (in my view) managed to amicably handle that situation, your help here would be appreciated (I understand the timezones). NSLE _(T+C) at 09:43 UTC (2006-03-28)

By the way, I hope you don't feel offended that I never got back to you on this one. I didn't talk to RedCrescent about this issue, because he appeared to have stopped at the time I first read this and because I was/am already dealing with him in an issue at the Muhammad article. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 11:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

my support

I'm an atheist, but I respect everyone's faith and choices, I just want to congratulate you for having the courage of facing that mob of anti-islamic radicals. The american "anti-terrorist" brainwash is showing its results, a bunch of zombies, ready to kill the first arab they see. Regards. Afonso Silva 19:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA and Mike

I suspect that you will get the RfA after Mike's behavior. People will probably support you just out of reaction to his bad behavior. Ah well, one would hope that they would support candidates for the right reasons... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JoshuaZ (talk • contribs).

Thanks for the support, but I'm skeptical that what you say will happen. It is unfortunate that my RfA has turned into a discussion and debate over my religion rather than a discussion and debate over my merits. But interestingly enough, this experience is not discouraging at all, but rather empowering. If this RfA fails, you can expect me to be back in a couple months running for adminship again. I will, if I cannot now, prove the detractors wrong. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

On Kolkata image explosion

Thank you for helping the article get rid of some images. Could you please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Kolkata and comment there? There may be some re-inserting of images in the article. So please comment on the peer review. That would be very much helpful. Thanks.

DaGizza's RfA

Thanks!

Hi Tariqabjotu/Archive Three, thank you for supporting me in my RfA which passed with a tally of (93/1/2). If you need any help or wish discuss something with me, you are always welcome to talk to me. --Gizza^{Chat ©} 11:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Attacks at your RfA

Hi Joturner, please be assured that when it comes to the Bureaucrats, your RfA will be decided on policy, and if in the "Bureaucrat discretion" area, it will receive the same analysis of community sentiment as any other RfA. I am bound to express no personal opinion on the overall RfA until a decision must be made, in the event I am the closing bureaucrat.

Making no judgment at all on your personal quest and not personally knowing you or your family, I hope you can have understanding in your heart for your mom. Speaking as a parent with a daughter about your age, I would be upset if she were to adopt an intense and life-altering interest of any kind, whether it were a religion, a political philosophy or a boyfriend. Parents may also fear that a rejection of their own religion, no matter how heartfelt your conversion or how lightly they themselves take it, is a rejection of them. I hope you don't feel I'm preaching to you, just hoping you can understand a loved one's upset. As to your adopted religion, may it lead you to peace and a love for the world and humanity. -- Cecropia 16:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Shameful display of bigotry. Remove all references to Islam on your user page and you'd be a shoo-in. I'd like to think you would never do that; and I'd like to think it would never be necessary. John Reid 01:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless it is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policies (and given that this hasn't really been a problem, I don't think it is), you will not see me remove the content from my user page. I would much rather not be an admin than submit to those intolerant of Islam or any other religious or cultural belief. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Don't back down against ignoramuses. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:57 UTC (2006-03-30)

I wrote the comment above in haste; I hope it's clear which side I'm on. If not, see my comments on the pending matter. I cannot imagine how anyone could think your user page violated any policy; it upsets me to think many users seem to manage to extract offense from it. John Reid 03:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Frenchriot-18-mar-06.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Frenchriot-18-mar-06.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Image legality questions. 10:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I took care of the source on this one by uploading a new image where I could easily find the source. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 11:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandal tags

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia!

Be sure to put warning tags on the vandal's user talk page (such as {{subst:test}}, {{subst:test2}}, {{subst:test3}}, {{subst:test4}}). Add each of these tags on the vandal's talk page, in sequential order, after each instance of vandalism. Adding warnings to the talk page assists administrators in determining whether or not the user should be blocked. If the user continues to vandalize pages after you add the {{subst:test4}} tag, request administrator assistance at Request for Intervention. Again, thank you for helping to make Wikipedia better. --Casper2k3 00:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder. Sometimes I just don't bother doing that, particularly when I'm not intentionally doing RC patrol. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA

My condolences on your RfA. JoshuaZ 06:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's okay; no one died. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 06:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For outstanding contributions to a variety of articles, for maintaining neutrality even on controversial subjects, and for maintaining a cool demeanour, even when the heat was turned on in discussions, I award you The Original Barnstar! -- Samir (the scope) 06:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Your contributions to the project are appreciated by many! You show wisdom far beyond your years. Don't let recent setbacks get you down. -- Samir (the scope) 06:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You're welcome, and keep up the good work! All the best -- Samir (the scope) 07:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA

Your adminship nomination didn't achieve consensus. Please look at the reasons voters opposed your nomination and this will be a big aid to succeeding in the future. Many initially failed nominees have gone on to be admins later.

Above is my standard advice for RfAs that haven't reached consensus. Since this became a controversy early, I looked at the support votes, and read each of the oppose votes. I also noted that most of the opposers were substantial editors and there was no indication of fraud or sockpuppetry. I hope you will want to try again and note that most of the opposers raised concerns other than your user page in opposing, including that you are a fairly new user. When next you come to RfA you might want to address specific concerns, whether they may be fair or not. The only personal opinion I will give is that I feel that one's user page is their personal turf and there is very little that is out of line, and yours specifically is not, IMO, out of line, but it has antagonized some people, and only they can address their attitudes toward it. Cheers, Cecropia 06:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

In regards to your failed nomination; please accept my apologies for your hurt feelings if any. I know from your comments that you do not agree with my assessment that your thinking is rigid. Please understand that I do not mean this as an insult, nor do I think you can't change this. Suffice it to say, if you want to dialog with me towards the aim of understanding my thinking on this point better, I invite your comments on my talk page. Six months will pass rapidly and I suspect that if you patiently dialog over that suggested period of time with a few of those who opposed you this time, you will pass next time. I'd like to give you every opportunity and I extend to you a handshake of friendship. You are always welcome at my talk page. Merecat 06:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep up your good edit and you will still have my supporting vote. Please do not become discouraged.--Jusjih 11:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to you not getting promoted . I think you just need to modify your user page a little bit , & make it less-fundamentalist (lol). Peace . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 15:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking at your rfa again shows how hard it is for a Muslim editor to pass without opposition of the sort. Anyone who has checked your edits knows that you are definitely nothing like a fundamentalist :). Don't you dare touch that userpage, it's very interesting and fine as it is. Good job remaining civil and I hope next time will be much better. Regards --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I too was sorry to hear you failed. I'd like to second Anonymous Editor's comments about your user page; I found it fascinating, one of the most interesting I have seen, all the more so because my convictions in matters of religion are very different from yours. Palmiro | Talk 21:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Clarification

Sorry. I hate telling people they are not promoted. I spent over an hour reading over your RfA and I guess you were on my mind. Good luck, Cecropia 06:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi, you made the comment that my participation has dropped since December. Too true, I got a job :( Stevage 09:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA

Looking at the oppose-side, the vast majority only mentioned experience, so they will probably come around. Is 100% consensus needed? Since there were many votes, that could be a hard thing to achieve.DanielDemaret 12:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Only about 75-80% of all support and oppose votes combined need to be support votes. In other words, there needs to be at least three to four times as many support votes as there are oppose votes to secure adminship. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not go around looking at the rfa pages, so when you are up for rfa again, please call me on my talk page. Providing I am active at the time, you will get my vote. DanielDemaret 12:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And mine. I wanted to commend you for the maturity and poise that you showed through that RfA. I hope that you are not discouraged by the outcome. There's not much you can do to placate people who opposed you because of your beliefs, but if you keep up your high level of contributions I have confidence that more people will see the truth. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I voted neutral, but I have to say lesser candidates than you have been promoted on many occasions. Keep up the good work, show your face in a few other areas of Wikipedia, and I will happily support you next time. --kingboyk 11:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

		The Resilient Barnstar
		I award this barnstar to you for remaining civil during your RfA and not letting it escalate into a war of words over the undue criticism of your user page and your indivduality. And remember, things will always work themselves out. Pepsidrinka 15:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I recommend returning to RFA in 3 months, otherwise people may oppose because: "to close to last nom"; and let me know when you have your next RFA. Happy editing! Prodego ^talk 15:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: RfA Results and Thanks

I am disappointed that you failed in your recent RFA. But do not give up hope and try again in a month or two. You will always have my support!

P.S. - I am surprised to view the contents in your user page. It is always nice to meet a person who is liberal in his/her spiritual beliefs. For example, there is a healthy mixture of different qoutes from the various religions and beliefs. You seem to be a Muslim who is quite liberal in his views. Are you a Sufi by heart? (I have yet to meet a Sufi personally despite living in Singapore!) --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't be disappointed by theRfA outcome, it may have been no consensus but the majority of votes were positive ones. Some of the oppose votes and most of the neutral votes were more concerned about the length of time. So keep up the good work and try again soon. I may even nominate you myself :) Green Giant 22:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Try again, Jo!

I voted against you, but it really had more to do with length of time. IMHO, you've matured a lot since you arrived on WP and I'm guessing the process will continue. There's nothing like trying to collaborate with people from all over the world to widen your horizons and stretch your mind. Good luck, keep growing. Zora 23:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry...

I feel bad that your RFA failed, but hey, you're in good company as far as first-time losers go ;). Anyways, even though I voted for you, I can see why many people didn't... it might not be a bad idea to diversify your editing interests (Special:Random is always a great starting point!). The greater your positive impact on the 'pedia, the better your chances, I think. Anyways, keep the faith (metaphorically, of course ) and drop me a line the next time you're up for adminship. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the confustion

Sorry I was not aware that that was the policy\procedure. :) xxpor ( Talk | Contribs ) 06:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

My (HereToHelp’s) RfA

Thank you for supporting my RfA. I’m proud to inform you that it passed with 75 support to 1 oppose to 2 neutral. I promise to make some great edits in the future (with edit summaries!) and use these powers to do all that I can to help. After all, that’s what I’m here for! (You didn’t think I could send a thank you note without a bad joke, could I?) --HereToHelp 12:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Life is dynamic

Hello, I know you are a nice editor. I was not against you - I wanted to give you more time: time to talk more, to discuss more, and to continue to see more pages to have better feel of the Project. I am sure that you shall one day graduate to the adminship... life is dynamic. --Bhadani 13:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your message

Sure, Joturner. I am assured that you are not illusioned into thinking that so many opposition votes on your RfA had anything to do with your being a Muslim, since that would be a rather simplistic and naive conclusion. Of course, you should request for adminship again after working on the points raised on your RfA. And, who knows, by that time, you'd realize that there's no single and exclusive "most righteous path". Regards and good luck, deeptrivia (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message re: your RFA. I'm sure that with another three months of solid editing and Wikispace participation you'll fly through your next nomination. See you around. —thames 20:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for recreating Indian current events. --Just my 2 cents -- Hemanshu 17:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:your RfA

Don't let this set you back, you're gonna make a great admin in the future isA, just keep up your good work. Best regards from Egypt :) --Mido 18:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Come back in a few months with your additional experience you should have no problem with a new vote.--Alabamaboy 19:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't agree more. If you had had another month or two of history at the recent rate, I would have supported you. I will if you reapply around mid May or so. Keep it up. --Mmounties (Talk) 16:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

My Neutral Comment

I am sorry I was neutral on your request for adminship. I did not know you very well, but I knew you were a Muslim and were very kind. I should have supported you, I just looked at the "Oppose" votes and got iffy about support. I did not want to oppose you because you were nice, so I went with neutral. I really regret what I did. Jonathan235 21:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it stinks

John Reid 22:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Esperanza

Welcome, Tariqabjotu/Archive Three, to Esperanza, the Wikipedia member association! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member, you might be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is the StressUnit, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Possibles.

I encourage you to take an active voice in the running of Esperanza. We have a small government system, headed by our Administrator general, Celestianpower, and guided by the Advisory Committee , KnowledgeOfSelf, JoanneB, Titoxd and FireFox. The elections have ended.

Thanks! _-M ^o P-_ 07:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (88/3/1), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you require assistance, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an administrator. Once again thank you and with kind regards Gryffindor 16:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

can you help me

see whats wrong here [[1]] and correct it Mystic 17:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain to me what the issue is? It appears as though the conversation is going just fine and therefore there is no reason for me to butt me. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 20:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

FYI

Take off every ZIG!! is from Zero Wing, a late 80s arcade game that has evolved into a popular internet meme. -- Samir (the scope) 04:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I did look at the "All Your Base are Belong to Us" article after the troll sent the link to me. Heard the titular phrase, but not the term zig she was referencing. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

At least it was a cultured troll :) -- Samir (the scope) 04:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The Farewell Sermon

Assalamo alikum . The article is in need of attention . I have added some useful links , whenever you get time plz take a look at it . See also Sermon on the Mount to get an idea of what can more be done with the article . Thanks . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 19:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I did a bit of editing, as requested. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 20:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks . A question waiting for you here[2] . What do you say . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

From Hemmings

Was my article deleted? Check my discussion for the response. Hemmings 22:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. Made anotherHemmings 22:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

From BlueGoose

Sorry, I couldn't get back to you quickly. The reason I opposed your RfA is because I felt you would take too confrontational an approach in dealing with potential disruptors as evidenced in your answers. The fact that somebody claims a scientific theory is false does not mean he is a bad-faith disruptor and banning him immediately without having a dialouge much less giving him the usual number of warnings only antagonizes people against Wikipedia. I believe a better solution would be to revert the user's changes and explain to him why the article in Wikipedia is written the way it is, hopefully by citing our relevant policies as well. He may come back and say that criticisms of the theory are not cited in the article, and you may come back and say that Wikipedia does have a way of outlining the minority view as the minority view. Then, you may act as a mentor for him to edit Wikipedia within the constraints of our policies. I believe this would work better than to play the role of police officer with a stick. BlueGoose 03:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Not to carry on this discussion extensively, but it seems like you weren't aware of Cyde's entire question. The hypothetical situation involved a vandal who in addition to proclaiming that a scientific theory was false (as you explained thoroughly in the above statement) also vandalized a page with a Goatse image. It was the part about the Goatse image that, in my opinion, makes the user a particularly harmful vandal. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Current events

Thanks for the note on my talk page about the new WPCE. I have made a couple of comments as a start and will do more later. Pcb21 Pete 10:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #2