This page 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.
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)
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)
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.
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[1] to United States House elections, 2006here? 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.
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)
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)
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)
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.mt 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.mt 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.mt 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.mt 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 FranklinVoltaire in all honesty. Netscott 23:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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?
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)
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. — Scm83xhook '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
Thanks Tariqabjotu/Archive Four, 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.
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. :)
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... —Preceding unsigned comment 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)
