User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive Two

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.

Hi

Some revert warrings & discussions are going on on Kafir, Infidel, Dhimmi & People of the book . Your presence might be helpful . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 09:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I've already commented on kafir significantly, but I made some changes and added some comments to People of the Book. By the way, I did see your message earlier, but I just didn't get around to addressing any of those issues until now. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ali Nihat Yazici

Why do you call a campaign biography freely available for distribution a "copyright violation"? Who are you and what do you have for or against Turkish diplomats? Sam Sloan 12:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against Turkish diplomats, but the website I brought up has a copyright notice at the bottom. I don't see any information about the campaign biography being free for distrubtion anyway. In addition, the website in question is not even referenced in the article. If you can produce the notice that contradicts that, feel free to remove the copyright violation notice and restore the page to its original condition. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear Joturner:

Thank you for moving the barnstar to such a well-found position of your user page, and for decorating it with green borders.

I feel so honored. Looking forward to more of your rational expositions in the future.

Wa Alaikham Salaam!

L33th4x0r 02:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all. May Allah bless you in this world and the Hereafter. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Death penalty

Hi, I've seen on your user page that you're both a Muslim and you oppose death penalty. Does that mean that you also oppose death penalty in coutries implementing sharia in cases like apostasy from Islam? Or, for example, when a non-Muslim kills a Muslim?--Pecher 12:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to popular belief, it is possible for me to oppose the death penalty but still uphold Sharia. In Islam, although the death penalty is allowed, it is not required. It is permissible for and encouraged that one forgive the perpetrator or commute the punishment to one of lesser severity. I do not think the death penalty is correct because flaws do exist within the justice system; the death penalty cannot be reversed if one is convicted wrongfully. Ending someone's life is ending someone's life no matter what the rationale. Although all "Islamic" countries use the death penalty, I believe that less harsh punishments should be used. That viewpoint still conforms with Sharia.

For more, see About.com, Submission.org, and Capital punishment#Islam and capital punishment. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Site Submission.org seems to deny the holiness of hadith and sunna and this site does not subscribe to the doctrine of abrogation? Do you agree with these principles? Pecher^Talk 20:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Question

I don't suppose you could check the Arab Wikipedia and see if they have an article on Adhan? The reason I ask is because someone asked if there was Arab language version on there and I haven't a clue.--Kross^Talk 13:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know Arabic, but judging by the language links on the left side of the adhan article and by a simple search in the Arabic wikipedia for the Arabic word, it does not exists. But I find that very surprising. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Article 160 of the Constitution of Malaysia

Please review. Johnleemk | Talk 09:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Hello Jordan. I commented on the talk page and I there's a discussion going on about it. Yours and the original version are neutral and show both attitudes. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

see if you can use this link inside wikipedia.

Alsalam Alikom, see this link if you can find any good info relevant to islam that can be used in wikipedia . http://www.turntoislam.com/ Salam, Waleeed 06:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Good Article Self-Nominations

Well, sorry. I really did think most of those articles were good enough to qualify as GAs. I guess it's back to the drawing board for them. Johnleemk | Talk 09:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for deletion

I want to test the opinion of page editors before passing the vote to the general public. Pecher ^Talk 22:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD

ASAK, I just wanted to commend you on your calmness regarding the AfD that you recently recommended. I understand that some users are trying to downgrade the points that you've made, in a questionable manner. Your arguments were cogently stated and we appreciate that more than the sophomoric attempts of others to dismiss them. Please keep up the good work. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 05:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comment and support. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 06:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

map

I would like to coordinate with you on the map? I think we can make a better one and even more specific one but right now the events keep rolling and unfortunately, I don't have the time to keep up with it everyday. I'm fine with making just the colorblind version. Hitokirishinji 15:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Afd

You nominated several of Striver's articles for deletion. I recommend keeping the ones that are a "List of" things because they are very useful, but keep the afd for all the ones that don't say list. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to change the AfD midway. What I'll probably do is compile the List of Muslims page similar to List of Jews and then request deletion for the articles that don't fit into that scheme well (which will probably end up being the ones without list of). By closing this request and making a new one so soon, many people are going to accuse me of fervor. By the way, I think a Wikipedia policy denouncing fervor (a lá Striver's edits around 5:00am UTC). There is being bold and then there's being too bold. How could I go about getting that proposed? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You can cross out ones that you have decided to remove from the nomination. The policy you are talking about is point policy. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose I should have known that, considering I accused Striver of violating that. Also, many who have already voted who might have voted differently under difference circumstances probably will not change their votes. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you could remove your nomination right now and start it again with nominations of the pages that don't start with list because a good idea is to have a list of Muslims with everything on it including athletes and others. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Creation and the Qu'ran

Thank you for your reply, it was most interesting. I don't know much about Islam, nor the Qu'ran, and what studying I have done on the Book led me to the conclusion it supported Creation. But like in Christianity, there are several sects which believe otherwise within those religions, and it was interesting to note that Islam and Christianity share that facet. Hope you well in the meantime. Эйрон Кинни 21:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Afd note

Sure, no problem :) --Striver 02:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

AfD

You're welcome to copy my vote. I don't really care that much about those AfD deletions to do so myself at the moment. Maybe later I'll go look at them individually. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Athletes AfD

I don't agree that my notice was in 'too prominent' a location. In my opinion, the Afd is irretrievably spoiled by these irregularities of process. I will be probably taking it to Deletion Review to relist it once it is complete, no matter the outcome.

You might do well to look over other AfDs to see how they are usually conducted. To my mind, constant, repetitious haranguing of other voters with opinions that you have expressed repeatedly is inappropriate. It weakens your case, because it suggests that you do not understand how the process operates and do not care to learn.

In case you were wondering, I have no interest in Islamic athletics or in fact in athleticism of any kind. My goal in commenting on this AfD is only that it proceed in a transparent, proper way in accordance with Wikipedia policies and consensus.

-ikkyu2 (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't intend to carry on long conversations in AfDs. I realize that my recent AfDs have tended to be a little longer than preferred. But that is only because User:Striver has responded with several comments which attempt to disparage legitimate requests for deletion...

Bro, queit it will ya? Why are you so gang ho on deleting? Stop making me answer to all of this, please!

So what are we doing now that the afd is all of the sudden about 4 articles? Must i spend 4 houres RIGHT NOW to show that there is potential in the articles? Bro, please end this! Go and make yourself usefull, go and google some information and help me CREAT article about Islam, rather than wasting everyones energy one afds!

Instead of deleting his statements (which in my opinion would be immoral), I simply balanced out the opinions by clarifying my opinion. Yes, the addition of the related articles was probably not a good thing to do, but it seems like that part of the issue has been cleared up. Suggesting that I would add additional comments to sway votes in my direction would be absurd considering at the time of those postings, the votes were already in favor of deleting the article. Even now, the votes are in favor of deleting the article. My recent actions do not indicate that I "do not understand how the process operates and do not care to learn." They simply indicate that I am making an attempt to prevent User:Striver from poisoning the water by adding comments that don't actually relate to the article, but instead to me personally. In my opinion, if I saw someone attacking the requestor (especially if the requestor didn't respond), I would be weary of agreeing with him even if the request is legitimate. That quite possibly may have been Striver's intention.

However, feel free to call the AfD to the attention of the deletion committee. At worst, the AfD will have to be resubmitted and the result will be the same. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your voting!

If you feel I can help you or Wikipedia as a human, as an editor or with my newly acquired cleaning tools, then just ask and I will be happy to assist. If you will feel that I do not live up to your expectation and renegade on my promises, please contact me. Maybe it was not a malice but just ignorance or a short temper. Thank you very much, once more! abakharev 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Salaam brother

Just thought it was interesting that you also speak some Spanish and are a Muslim as well. I'm not Latino but learning languages is always fun. --SeanMcG 09:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Reform

Wikipedia began as an open effort to create an encyclopedia of the people, by the people, for the people. Sadly, its bureaucracy has put an end to those goals. To this end, we must promote a peaceful revolution to reform it. We must eliminate the undue influence of certain people and remake Wikipedia as a people's encyclopedia. We, the reformers, are led by TJWhite who endured only briefly before suffering an indefinite block. Visit his user page to see our ideology, roughly outlined. I for one do not condone his call to vandalism. Instead, by using the power of the people, we can reform wikipedia. Join us to recreate an encyclopedia where all are equal; an encyclopedia that does not strive to become Brittannica, but rather seeks to be a one of kind encyclopedia for all of the people of the world. Please pass this message in some form to as many people as you can. Secondly, petition for the unblock of TJWhite, the one who began our glorious movement. Finally, link to his page from your user page and express your sentiments for reform on your page. Thank You, fellow wikipedians. LaRevolution 15:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I cannot agree to join the project. I personally am overall satisfied with Wikipedia and see no need to call for such radical reform. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

look like u came across shia islam aricle download this file that have more than 60 books in the topic shiasm and sunnism it may be useful for u [1]

Tughra.jpg

Updated copyright info on the Suleiman tughra. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tughra_Suleiman.jpg --Thadswanek 22:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Current Events talk move

I was hesitant to move it back because I wasn't sure if that was normal or not, and wasn't sure how to do it and preserve history, as I've never moved before. Yeah, I'll probably read up on it eventually. TransUtopian 02:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Most standard moves can be done by clicking the move tab at the top of the page. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Edward G. Winter article

I don't think I did a 3RR vio. I reverted twice [2] [3]. I also did a large edit where I removed a bunch of nonsense [4], but that's not a revert, and even if it is, that's still a total of 3. Did I count incorrectly? Thanks. Phr 22:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct; my mistake. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm aware of 3RR and I've been counting edits carefully. Note that Sloan has reverted 3 times now. I'd like to ask whether my initial edit counts as a revert. If not I want to remove the Kingston and Keene stuff again. Kingston is a Usenet poster who Sloan likes to fight with and the point of the Winter article seems to be for Sloan to attack Kingston on Wikipedia, in this case by claiming that Kingston and Winter are the same person (not totally impossible, but speculative and IMO about 98% unlikely). So I feel the smear should be removed. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Dorsch for another Sloan attack article (now deleted), and Sloan's rejected RFAR over that article [5] to understand what we're dealing with. (Actually I'll probably just wait for someone else to edit the current version of the Winter article but I wanted to let you know what's going on.) Phr 23:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Muslim Islamic jurists

The reason I closed that discussion early was because I found that the article has already been deleted. One of the things I do on AfD is I scroll through the list and close the discussions on all the articles that have been deleted for other reasons before the AfD is complete. In this case, it happened to also have been listed on WP:PROD, and it was deleted due to its being listed on there. I was not closing it based on any votes or discussion; it's pretty much autopilot on my part when I do this, I just want any discussion with a red header to be closed, since if the article's deleted, there's no real need for discussion on AfD; that moves it into the realm of Deletion review. I hope this is a good explanation for my actions. Have a great day, Mo0[talk] 17:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

I just wanted to say thanks for the kind welcome you gave me, and also for the objective viewpoint on the talk page. SeanMD80 14:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Crash

Not sure about putting a spoiler there, its on tape delay elsewhere, I'm not touching it but you might want to re-consider posting it on current events so soon -- Tawker 04:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that is good enough reason to remove it, but if someone else does, it will be removed momentarily. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Another AfD on a list

Just a heads up since you have been heavily involved in these Muslim-related lists as of late. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Muslim Christianity scholars. Pepsidrinka 20:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Abraham on List of people known as father or mother of something

I noticed your comments regarding listing Muhammed on List of people known as father or mother of something.

I recently added Abraham to the page, noting that he has been called "Father of Islam" as well as "Father of Israel". Another user removed these changes[6], contesting that only within Islam has Abraham been considered a Father of Islam. He (or she) further contested that father means "founder", and that Muhammed should be called the Father of Islam. The list is not meant to be an exclusive one and specifically states "that this does not always mean they invented, discovered or originated the thing with which they are associated, nor that they always have been or currently are considered a father or mother of it."

If you wish, please contribute at Talk:List_of_people_known_as_father_or_mother_of_something#Religious_Figures. --Dforest 07:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

I like the map you created for republications and protests. I was wondering if you could make available the methodology that you used to determine levels of republication and protests. Just by looking at Cartoon Body Count it seems to me that there is some controversy over what to define as an incident (i.e. whether the cartoons caused a given protest) as well as what constitutes a republication (1 or all 12 of the cartoons). Anything you could tell me would be appreciated. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 15:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it would be appropriate that I used a bit of my own opinion to determine what qualified as a "protest". I essentially used the major demonstrations mentioned throughout the timeline article as well as the newspaper reprints article. I also considered the boycotts against Danish products as a major protest as they were nationwide in some countries. As the timeline was my primary source of protest information, I didn't decide myself whether the sources of certain protests and demonstrations were the cartoons. In some countries, like Pakistan, where protests have been very common, the sources became irrelevant because they have already reached the highest degree of red. For the reprints, it didn't matter to me whether it was just one cartoon or twelve cartoons that were printing; I decided to ignore that aspect as it was literally impossible to include every detail one map. I would hope that the map would give a general overview of the situation and that the reader would look at the appropriate article to find out more information if he or she is looking for that. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, you might want to make a quick note on the image itself, but then again I'm probably the only one on Wikipedia who cares about these things. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 17:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

POV, pious tone

You used Abdul Wahhab instead of independently verifying the hadith. The second one I could not verify through the MCSA search engine. I would not send ANYONE to Abdul Wahhab for a neutral depiction of pictorial representation.

You said that most Muslims agreed that depiction was wrong -- that is clearly not the case. Not only do Shi'a allow it, most moderate Muslims do too. Howling mobs whipped up by Islamists are not evidence for majority opinion.

You wrote, "Muhammad, being the deliverer of Islam's holiest book, the Qur'an, is revered by Muslims more than any other person in history". There are people who believe that Muhammad created the Qur'an, not just "delivered" it; there are people who believe that he didn't create it at all. Nor can you speak for all Muslims when you say that they revere Muhammad above all other people. Some might not. Some might think that he's in an entirely different category, and not to be compared with anyone else.

If you asked a Christian, "which historical figure do you admire the most?", he or she might say "Abraham Lincoln" or "Einstein". If you say, "What about Jesus?", you might get a blank state. Jesus is another category entirely. I think that this might hold for Muslims. But we can't be sure, can we? In which case it's better not to make claims for all Muslims. Zora 03:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I have taken your comments into account and reinstated information from the version before the revert. I reworded the intro (which seemed to be where most of your issues were) and omitted the additional hadith. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

This puffin looks friendly.

Thanks for your support in my RfA. It passed, with a final tally of 62/0/1. I'm touched by all the kind comments it attracted, and hope I'll be of some use with the new tools. You know where I am if you need to shout at me. Flowerparty? 15:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Prophets

Are you still shortening the article? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 18:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I starting making those changes during my lunch break at school (yes, I've become addicted). I had to interrupt the endeavor since I had to go to class. Now that I am at home, I will continue. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are addicted, but good work. See my comment on Talk:Mosque. I think we can make it into a featured article, but I need some suggestions. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You may as well delete all the links if that is what you plan on doing. It causes an unneccessary strain on the servers to load up the page in its current excessive size, every time you reload the page. Pepsidrinka 02:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it really that noticable? I'll move all the links to the talk page in case anyone wants to help in moving them to their respective articles. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Adam split

I didn't see that, sorry. However, I still strongly object to the section being taken out. Yes, one can discuss Adam as a prophet, but that is not the purpose of the Adam and Eve article. Linking to the Adam only article would be fine, but removing the entire section is not. It's not as if the Qur'an is silent on the issue, the difference is that Adam is a prophet and Eve is just, well, Eve. Nonetheless, given the title of the article, we need to keep the whole story in there. Jim62sch 00:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW: I just read the story on your user page -- I'm happy for you that you had the desire, drive and stubbornness to see it through. Good luck with the Saudi embassy, as the hajj seems to be so very important to you. Jim62sch 00:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess you two are talking about the deletion from Adam and Eve? Joyurner, I was curious why you edited that out - it seemed quite relevant to me. The point to be made is that in each of the major Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - extra stories grow up later around the basic story, filling in details or (sometimes) trying to prove a point (the discussion under the Christianity subsection of how St Paul and St Augustine between them managed to create a doctrine of original sin out of the Adam and Eve story that's really not in the Book of Genesis is an example of how this can happen). In Other words, tradition means more what happens after the main text is given, than what's in that text. PiCo 00:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

(Read your user page - interesting story. Maybe you can write the book one day. Good luck PiCo 00:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC) )

WP:POINT

Yes, I saw you commenting on an afd to Irishpunktom about the claims of this for "keeping" an article. Unfortunately he always votes keep on Striver's articles no matter how bad they are or what wikipedia policy stands against it (because he feels it is an attack on muslims) and whilst he accuses me of trying to make a point (which I am not since all of those articles do warrant an afd), no one ever says anything about Striver explicitly listing afd's on good articles to make a point. See the following:

wtf, why not including this as well:

• List of Jews
• List of Christians
• List of Hindus
• List of atheists
• List of Buddhists

Lets vote on all of them, why only the Muslim lists? --Striver 04:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC) (For quote see AFD for Muslim Athletes)

And he went through with it as well by putting up Afds for all those articles out of revenge for them putting an afd on his article and without even putting afd on the page history.

• List of Hindus Afd
• List of Jews Afd
• List of Christians Afd
• List of atheists Afd
• List of Buddists Afd

When the contibutors to this pages saw what he was doing they went to take off the afd tags that he put up to make a point and he reverted it and again put Rv Vandalism on the edit history.

• Rv Vandalism List of Christians
• Rv Vandalism List of Jews
• Rv Vandalism List of Hindus
• Rv Vandalism List of atheists
• Rv Vandalism List of Buddists--Jersey Devil 20:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I am familiar with that incident, considering I was the one who originally created that AfD. I ran into a similar issue when I nominated those articles (and several other by him) for deletion. Some people mistook a problem with his articles with a problem with him. I'm not (and I'm sure you're not either) deleting those articles simply because Striver created them. Striver just happens to create a large number of articles, many of which get deleted. Note that he has had nearly nine hundred deleted edits, or 7.3% of all his edits, deleted. Compare that to my 1.8% and your 1.5%. Considering that Striver is clearly an inclusionist, and both you are I are at least somewhat deletionists, that seems to indicate that his additions get deleted at a disproportionally high rate. So to say that your recent actions have been an attack on Striver would be unfounded; historically a surprisingly high number of his pages have been deleted. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What I find often is that the defenders of Striver always say "he makes stub articles, but he always works on them and builds them up later" which simply is incorrect. Check out this page on the userspace of Zora User talk:Zora/Striver new article. A very large portion of the articles he had created long ago have remained incredibly small and not updated.--Jersey Devil 22:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sexual orientation

Oh well, we'll see what happens. I have already delt with this on Khomeini. Its getting rediculous. --Scaife ^(Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 06:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

• The reason that I removed it was it simply wasn't a speedy criteria that covered it. I think that this is a case where the Articles for Deletion process is best suited to discuss the issue. There has been at least one case when such an article has been kept. As it happens, the article touches on one of the key issues between the Shi'ites and Sunni so it is an important topic, inadequate as the article currently is. Capitalistroadster 06:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Islamic science

Jo, I just stumbled across this article, Islamic_science and did some copyediting, but I don't know enough about it to really get it into shape. Right now, it needs some work. Interested? Jim62sch 00:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, but it looks like a re-organization is what it really needs. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitely a reorg is called for, but it needs more depth, too. If you want to work on it together, let me know. I'm sympathetic to this article because while the West was wallowing in disarray, the Islamic world was on fire, especially scientifically. Also, the article doesn't mention Ibn Rushd or Avicenna. Jim62sch 00:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Friendly contact

You corrected my entry in "Current events" yesterday. So I looked into your user page. You are one of the most dedicated Wikipedians whose discussions and articles I’d like to subscribe to. Also would love to discuss faith, society, race relations, politics, and other academic subjects with you. So if you are interested in keeping in touch, give me a shout. I am Kan-Je, I speak English and Chinese and am conversant in rudimentary Arabic, French and several other languages. Faith, languages, ethnic/cultural diversity are my favorite subjects. We can also have chats on Islam and cultures over email. Best wishes! Bestlyriccollection

And best wishes to you too. Feel free to drop me a message on my talk page whenever you want. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 11:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

University of Texas at Austin

Hello, thanks for reviewing The University of Texas at Austin for Good article status. Please let us know if you have any suggestions for how to make the article better. Thanks also for your other work on Wikipedia. Best, Johntex\^talk 17:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA

Asalaam wa laikum. Thanks for the RfA, though I'm going to have to give it some thought prior to accpeting or declining. In earnestness, I'd like to be an admin, and ideally, I'd like to be promoted in my first RfA. Only three months of experience might detract some voters. Nonetheless, I'll give it some thought and I appreciate the nomination. Pepsidrinka 03:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Despite my previous tone, I thought about it, and decided to go ahead and begin the nomination. If it fails, it fails. Life goes on. Thanks again for the nom. Pepsidrinka 05:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. And besides, Makemi hasn't faced significant opposition for his edit count. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 05:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

My Rfc

Please comment on my Rfc. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 02:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I commented on your RfC. The RfC was a bit unnecessary. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Salamun Alaikum

I was very happy to read of your conversion to Islam. You have been guided to the true path alhamdulillah. Always remember that Islam is a religion of moderation. Wasalam. Zain 12:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Peace be upon you as well. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Article Nuh

Since you take an interest in articles on Prophets of Islam, you might like to look at the article Nuh. There's a proposal that it be merged with the article Noah, and I think someone is working on it. Since Nuh is identical with the Nuh section in Noah it might be hard to argue against a merge. The major difference is all those links at the bottom of Nuh. Worth keeping. But perhaps they should be moved to Noah? PiCo 07:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Substituting templates

When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

Thanks for the reminder. I think I may have done that with a few test tags accidentally as you indicated (particularly in User talk:Larah). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It's easily forgotten (when I was still fairly new, I failed to subst my Welcome notice, and couldn't work out why the template kept being deleted ot amended...). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Specifically, what still isn't working? Someone had moved to page to a different location, but I have since moved it back so there shouldn't be any more problems. If something specific isn't working though, let me know and I'll have a look. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 23:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Everything looks alright now. For a couple of minutes it showed the page history blank and the discussion page as a red link. I'm not sure what could have possibly caused that. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, you were probably just looking at a version of the page while I was in the middle of fixing things. For some reason the talk page wasn't moved back when I moved the main article, so the discussion page appeared as a redlink for a few minutes while I went back and manually moved the talk page back where it belonged. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 23:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

First time Vandalism

Please don't WP:BITE - a lot of people make mistakes first time / experiment but quicky stop when given a softer warning - no need to threaten with blocking right away. With proper coaching more people will become valued contributers. Agathoclea 23:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure which particular warning you considered biting the newcomers. But I will assess the last several {{bv}} warnings I have given.

• 24.118.176.35 blanked the Newbie page three times in what was clearly blatant vandalism (note once, twice, and the worst one of all, thrice)
• I gave 136.153.2.6 a harsh warning only after giving him/her a less harsh warning. This user blanked the Pope Benedict XVI article and replaced the Internet article with the word "porn." This user was subsequently blocked after continued vandalism.
• 143.92.1.40 blanked the Warcraft III article twice (once and again).
• Maths cours blanked and moved the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article, which is linked from the main page. This editor was subsequently blocked indefinitely for the action.

Note also, though, that I do give less harsh warnings as well (see here, here, here, and here). In my opinion, using the {{bv}} template (which stands for "blatant vandalism") was appropriate in all four cases above since the actions prescribed were blantant, clear forms of vandalism. Although it is inappropriate to bite newcomers and chastise them for not understand how Wikipedia works, I stand by my belief that these four editors knew exactly what they were doing: trying to disrupt Wikipedia with harmful edits.

I hope you reconsider the allegation that biting and may Allah bless you in this world and the Hereafter. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the third one might have been a little too harsh. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 01:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I was refering to 24.118.176.35 who stopped his vandalizm within 2 minutes from the first warning which you did after his first edit. As blatant as it might seem a {{test}} would have been sufficient. This also covers bases, if a blanking is eg a content dispute, something that sadly keeps appearing on WP:AIV as well. But I don't want to start an argument - just wanted to give you something to think about. Agathoclea 07:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry; I'm not insulted. I have been and will continue to be more careful with warning users. If you thought that warning was too harsh, newcomers might and I do not want that. Salaam. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

United States House elections, 2006

Would you be willing to discuss your recent reversion[7] to United States House elections, 2006 here? The very existence of the section in an oversized article has been seriously questioned on the talk page for several weeks, but removal seems to be met with reversion without comment.

Thanks! --Ajdz 04:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I responded on the article's talk page. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Cartoon map

Hi Joturner —

Just in case you're still looking for opinions on whether to move the map to the Commons, I think you certainly should. It's very well thought out, and looks clean. Also, more importantly, there aren't high quality bars that must be for an image to be placed on Commons — any image that has a free license and might be useful in an article anywhere on the project ought to be there. If there is more than one version of an image in the commons, so much the better, as it allows the different projects to choose the most suitable. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 17:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiethics

Hi,

We started a proposal Wikipedia:Wikiethics to state the existing policies coherently and make suggestions on improving the editorial standards in Wiki. I thought you might be interested in contributing to that proposal.

Unfortunately, a pro-porn and pro-offense lobby is trying to make this proposal a failure. They unilaterally started an approval poll although almost no one including me believe that it is time for a vote, simply because the policy is not ready. It is not even written completely.

Editors who thinks that the policy needs to be improved rather than killed by an unfair poll at the beginning of the proposal, started another poll ('Do we really need a poll at this stage?') at the same time. The poll is vandalized for a while but it is stable now. A NO vote on this ('Do we really need a poll now?') poll will strengthen the position of the editors who are willing to improve the ethics policy further.

If you have concerns about the ethics and editorial standards in Wiki, please visit the page Wikipedia:Wikiethics with your suggestions on the policy. We have two subpages: Arguments and Sections. You might want to consider reviewing these pages as well...

Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem 21:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting... would it be a violation of Wikiethics to offer a biased vote request like this one? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 05:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I have Resid's talk page watched and saw your message to him, and came to your userpage (fascinating journey, by the way...). I am not part of the Wikiethics proposal (for or against), but have been one of the stronger voices in the general scheme of things due to my blocking of Resid about a week ago. Since he's appealing to Christian and Muslim Wikipedians, perhaps you could help me, since you're quite a well-known Wikipedia editor (I've seen you around, have you ever considered adminship?), explain to him our policies of WP:SOCK, WP:3RR and WP:POINT? (My talk page is protected, but I'll be watching your page for replies). NSLE _(T+C) at 05:24 UTC (2006-03-23)

Yes; I have actually considered adminship. I just don't want to nominate myself as self-noms often don't get the same respect as nominations from other users. Now that I have seen the numerous comments regarding Resid's inappropriate actions on Wikipedia, I am becoming increasingly concerned that a proposal regarding ethics is coming from him. It seems to be a decent attempt to encapsulate some of the ethical practices that intrinsically exist within Wikipedia, but I am reluctant to agree with a policy developed by someone who fails to understand and doesn't want to follow the rules already established. But then again, I don't want to make an ad hominem attack. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 05:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I've looked over your contributions, would you accept an adminship nomination from me then? NSLE _(T+C) at 06:01 UTC (2006-03-23)

Gladly; Jazakallahu Khayran. I won't be able to follow up on the nomination immediately though (as it is 1:15am where I am). By the way, I have responded to Resid again on his talk page. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 06:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand the timezone problem. I'll write something up, then leave a link on your talk page. I've also seen the reply to Resid. Thanks, and good luck :) NSLE _(T+C) at 06:21 UTC (2006-03-23)

Your RFA nomination is here. Good luck! NSLE _(T+C) at 06:43 UTC (2006-03-23)

I have officially accepted your nomination and responded to the standard RfA questions. I can't thank you enough! -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Good Articles - proposed change of look...

Hi Jordan, I see you've been active around the GA pages. You'll see a new look proposal for the GA page on the talk page. I'd really appreciate it if you take a look and post your feedback. TheGrappler has done some sterling work on categorisations within the section which I think will make it much easier to find articles for viewing, and easier for editors to include and remove articles. Cheers SeanMack 17:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I have posting some comments regarding your proposal on the Good Articles talk page. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)