User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive Five

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.

On Kolkata image explosion

Thank you for helping the article get rid of some images. Could you please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Kolkata/archive1 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 Five, 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 Five, 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)