User talk:Muhammad Mahdi Karim/Archive 2

Kaaba
My edit Hi Muhammad,

I've done an edit as shown here (my edit). I'll let you decide if you think it's better. I was a bit mindful of the size. It definitely benefited from a downsize, but I wanted to keep it above the 1000px rather than right on the limit; I settled on 1200px on the long size. FWIW I stripped the camera data in case of people opposing for no other reason than the camera it was taken with.

I will support whichever you think is best, as suggested on PPR. If you'd like me to create the actual nom I would also be willing to do that. I'll let you decide.

Cheers, --jjron (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll nominate, though no saying I'm going to be able to be any more convincing than you! I'll wait till my current candidates clear though, and hopefully the FPC page quietens down a bit. --jjron (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Gee it's busy on there. Now, having been watching the way recent voting has been going, I must say I somewhat despair for this image. Unfortunately encyclopaedic value seems to be getting driven out at the expense of "quality" at all costs; conversely I am seeing a significant number of images getting promoted because of their so-called quality and despite their lack of encyclopaedic value.
 * What I am saying is that Wikipedia FPC looks to be quite rapidly degenerating into something more like Commons FPC (which I have no interest in). As such, I fear this image will be shot down on quality grounds with very little regard to rarity, encyclopaedic value, etc. I will still nominate and support, but I have to be honest, on current trends I wouldn't say the chances of it getting promoted are high. I also want to have another play around with the fullsize version before nominating, just to see what I can do with it. --jjron (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Muhammad, I'll nominate sometime tomorrow if you think that sounds OK. If not, let me know. In the meantime I have replaced your original with my edit in the five articles it was in for the nomination. --jjron (talk) 01:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, missed your comment on my talkpage re the enc vs prettiness. I basically tried to raise this issue recently (see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates) but only gained moderate support for my proposal. You could raise it again more directly, but a lot of the people that vote on prettiness rather than encyclopaedic value also don't read the talkpage. Conversely some of the culprits that do read the talkpage disagreed with my comments, probably largely in support of their own quality with low encyclopaedic value images. --jjron (talk) 01:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, it's off and running! Good luck. --jjron (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Spinning Dancer
Hi. I am sorry, but I don't see the illusion, and because I have seen other people have said that same thing, I fear that it might no have encyclopediac value if it only works for some people. However, I can see the illusion on the one on the bottom right that bears the letter "R" on it. I do believe that it is just me doing something wrong, and I will continue to try to understand it. Juliancolton (Talk) 13:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I knew I was doing something wrong. Now that I see it, it is in fact amazing. Juliancolton (Talk) 19:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, hadn't been on Wiki for a few days, so was too late to vote. I hadn't voted on it previously as I personally wasn't able to get the illusion to work reliably, even after much trying. On the other hand I wasn't opposed to it; I somehow got it to reverse once, which made it interesting, but then couldn't do so again. Anyway, looks like you didn't need my vote anyway! --jjron (talk) 09:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Muhammad Mahdi Karim,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Tugboat diagram-en edit1a.svg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 23, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-03-23.  howcheng  {chat} 22:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ThanksMuhammad (talk) 06:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi again,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:California-Condor3-Szmurlo edit.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 31, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-03-31.  howcheng  {chat} 23:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Once more,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Snail diagram-en edit1.svg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 5, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-04-05.  howcheng  {chat} 05:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Salaam, --Blechnic (talk) 04:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Valued Pictures Proposal
Hi Muhammad,

Sorry, I'd gone away after dropping that comment re my VP proposal on FPC talk. Anyway, since you expressed an interest in my ideas, I've detailed my thoughts there. Not sure if it's the right direction or not. See Valued Pictures Proposal. Your input would be valued.

Cheers, --jjron (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Vodacom Tanzania Limited
Thanks man for your contribution on the article about Vodacom Tanzania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoLLoMboje (talk • contribs) 17:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Muhammad,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Elephant seal colony edit.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 28, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-04-28.  howcheng  {chat} 21:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Muhammad (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Valued Pictures
Hi Muhammad,

Yeah, not sure about the VP thing atm. I am still steaming a bit about the discussion on the talkpage. I also wasn't sure if there were any administrative hurdles that we'd need to jump to get it up and running, i.e., can we just start this thing, or does it have to be approved somewhere 'higher up'. I don't know, perhaps I just start it and if someone wants to say its not allowed, then so be it.

The other thing was that I hadn't decided on all the details. For example, I'm not totally happy with the 'certified assessors' thing, and I know that that's one area that a number of others seemed to have most difficulty. Perhaps if I changed that to say three supports from anyone, not including the nominator, i.e, that starts making it harder to vote stack, and there's not that much vote-stacking at FPC really.

The other problem with the certified assessors I thought about is that it limits it to a certain group of people. Now say someone comes along with a basketweaving picture; well I don't really know enough to say whether it's valuable, and maybe no one else does either. And if a few people from the basketweaving group come along and agree that it is valuable, well maybe that's what matters. It would become pretty obvious if they started doing that with multiple images that clearly weren't up to scratch, and then you'd have to do something about it.

Anyway, would be glad to hear your thoughts on it. --jjron (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the opinion poll has been open for quite some time. I'm interested that (last time I checked) no one had put an Oppose vote down, yet in the comments a few people clearly opposed. Not sure what to make of that. What do you think should be done? It looks like I think it was Option 2 (basically my proposal without necessarily working in with Commons) had the consensus. --jjron (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you think there's a problem with working it through PPR? I preferred the PPR route for a number of reasons, chiefly to keep things simple, especially to people that don't really deal with these image processes a lot, i.e., the picture projects are still restricted to just two places, but you can choose to have your PPR assessed for Valued status. By contrast I find the Commons system with so many different picture projects going on confusing, so I wanted to avoid that. Did you have a particular reason/s to suggest separating it? --jjron (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. Don't forget my original proposal covered that possible 'conflict' between PPR and VP, and also possible future FP. That would be handled in the nomination template (maybe if I actually created the template it would be clearer to people other than me :-).) To quote: "People putting images up for peer review would also be able to have them assessed as VPs; additionally they would be able to opt out of the VP process, and simply attract comments as per the current PPR process, or only have them assessed for VP."In other words when you put an image up on PPR you specify if you want PPR only, VP only, or both PPR and VP. If it passed VP and was hence nominated at FP (which I suspect wouldn't be uncommon), that's perfectly acceptable. I also said: "VP would not affect FPC in any way, e.g., an image would not need to be a VP in order to be nominated at FPC. However, I would propose that if a VP went on to become an FP, the FP template would replace the VP template in recognition of its higher status (rather than the image being classed as both)."That is, it would stay as a VP, unless that was superseded by success at FPC. It could create a bit of fussing for the closers perhaps (i.e., replace VP template with FP template, and remove from VP gallery to go to FP gallery), but I don't think it's that complex given what else they do. --jjron (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey. I'm pretty busy in real-life atm, but I did spend a bit of time working on templates, wording, etc, last night. I might try to put something together on a draft version over the weekend though, just so people can see what it would actually look like (possibly just on a few subpages of my userpage). Then I'll take the discussion to PPR Talk as Mikaul suggested to try to get a few more people's input, before taking it all 'live'. I'll drop you note when I put up anything substantial. --jjron (talk) 08:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, have done a fair amount of work on this thing. There is a trial version at User:Jjron/VP Trial (hope you don't mind I hijacked your Kaaba image ;-). I have put up a discussion at PPR talk - Wikipedia_talk:Picture_peer_review for comments. Let's see how it goes. --jjron (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, just heading over to have a look at PPR talk now and add some comments. I haven't been on much since putting it up, in fact have only looked at the page once quickly last week. Haven't seen what they're doing on Commons either - do you have a link to where they're doing that (or is it just on the VI pages)? Doesn't have to launch in a week if we're not ready. Do you think we need to do anything in particular about it? --jjron (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured picture
It depends on quality and topic of the photo but until now we haven't declared a nomination standard yet. However, we have already displayed a picture of Kaaba before and i dont think its a good idea to redisplay the same picture topic. But we still request your photo in the Photography department on WP:KSA, OK boss ? Best Regards,   A M M A R   16:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Gallery
Hi Muhammad,

I reckon my favourites out of your gallery are the onion and the banana flower you put up at PPR. I haven't opened them fullsize due to my slow connection, but have viewed at image page size. I suspect the onion may be regarded as too simple for FPC and there's the issue with the tops of the stems being out of focus, but who can really say? Personally I think it's pretty good. The banana one looks pretty good to me, as long as EV was considered OK (e.g., identification); the only other thing that really stands out to me as potentially attracting complaints on that may be that they may not like the bokeh in the background. I think it could be worth a try. If you want me to look at any of them of them 'fullsize' let me know. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, had a look and a bit of fiddle with the banana flower image. It looks different at fullsize compared to smaller sizes. It does seem to have some harsh lighting that only really stands out fullsize. I did a bit of work on it to try to soften the lighting, and darkened the bg to reduce its prominence. I think it looks a bit better, probably more so at larger sizes. Edit 2 is the same as Edit1 but with a slight gaussian blur added to the bg. It probably looks a little better again, but isn't an obvious 'fake' bokeh (the blur also took some noise out of the bg). Let us know what you think - maybe you think something should be done a bit differently as well. I'd say one of them is probably worth nominating at FPC, even if it's just to see how it goes without expecting too much. Who can say? --jjron (talk) 08:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Had a look at your edit - you must have redone it off the original because it's a little bigger. I prefer the sharpness and tone on mine (it has a bit less of the flash harshness that was mentioned at COM:FPC, although it's not completely eliminated). You have given yours a more blurred background, which looks OK; not sure if it doesn't look a little too artificial. I don't mind whichever way you decide to swing, I'll leave it up to you. Good luck with it. --jjron (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Central African Republic - Boy in Birao.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:Central African Republic - Boy in Birao.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sdrtirs (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Re Possible Socks
Hey Muhammad,

Refer to MER-C's comments on my talkpage. Seems like a case of vote canvassing rather than socks as such - the accounts seem too comprehensive and old to be socks anyway (one dates back as far as 2003, most of the others are at least more than a year old, and most have hundreds of edits).

Having said which, good spotting. I had a look at the nom last night as I was thinking it was an unidentified renomination of Featured picture candidates/Keizersgracht Amsterdam, but turns out to be a new version of the photo. However I didn't look closely at the votes and didn't notice all the 'new to FPC' accounts.

Could be worth flagging it on FPC for the poor practise that it is, and maybe to draw the attention of regulars to actually check the image and cast a vote. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Peacetv.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Peacetv.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Missing image Image:Ammar Nakshawani on Mimbar.jpg
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Ammar Nakshawani on Mimbar.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Ammar Nakshawani on Mimbar.jpg is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Ammar Nakshawani on Mimbar.jpg, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 07:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

VI/VP
Hey, yeah, been on a bit of a holiday so not on the computer or wiki much over the last couple of weeks (to the extent that I didn't even see your recent nom that Slaunger referred to on my talkpage). Anyway, will probably make my way back a bit more often next week.

Re the VP proposal it all seemed to go pretty cold. I ended up at a bit of a dead end with Mikaul as I remember. If I remember correctly he pretty much suggested it should be completely separate from PPR; he said he thought my original 'dual' use PPR/VP proposal would be too confusing for newbies who just wanted a PPR style review. His argument made a fair bit of sense, but not sure that I want to a launch a completely different project, as that was a large part of the reason I was co-opting PPR to begin with. So I didn't really know where to proceed and there wasn't really that much interest being shown anyway, so I just let it lay. Thought I would see how the Commons project went, and that seems to be doing pretty well, so perhaps that is enough. Hmm. --jjron (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Featured picture candidates/Mikumi Panorama

 * Congratulations on FP no. 2! Spookily almost a year to the day since the first one, but the ball's rolling again now. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 08:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully you won't have to wait that long for the next FP. :-)

Lens and flash talk
Yeah, I have the Canon 100mm F2.8, which I think is the one Diliff has as well. I saw his comment somewhere (was it Noodle Snack's talkpage or something?) and generally agree. I find it is probably the sharpest lens I have re shooting objects (i.e., not just macro), but to be honest haven't used it much, and am yet to try it for portrait shots, but have seen reviews that say it's good for that, but not as good as specialised portrait prime lenses. I think he suggested that a good zoom, say one of the 70-200mm Canon L zooms, might be more flexible for you (are you still just using the kit lens, or do you have others?), but if you are really keen on getting into macro, then it's worth considering. I think it might have been Dschwen said something about it being good for shooting landscapes, but I've never tried that. The other thing that I don't think anyone else mentioned was the lighting aspect; most macro shots require a flash (I think Fir says something like 90% of his are done with flash). Unfortunately the camera flash tends to be too harsh and lacks flexibility. You can buy a shoe flash, which is what I use (I have the 580 EX II), and what Fir used to use, but I think about a year ago Fir bought a specialist macro flash ring. Again it's what you're willing to spend, what flexibility you want, or how much specialisation you want. Obviously the macro ring is far better for macro work, but next to useless for much else; on the other hand the shoe mount flash is not as ideal for macro, but is far more flexible for general portrait work, indoor shots, etc. --jjron (talk) 07:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not really a flash expert, but it seems as with most camera accessories, that the more you pay the better you get, but what makes something 'ideal' depends a lot on its intended use. Of course it also depends what you can afford. As I said above, if you really want to specialise in macro, then perhaps the type of setup Fir has would be best, but you'll pay for it, and be restricted to the camera flash for everything else. If you think a shoe mount would be more flexible at this stage, I'd say look for something with a fair bit of manual control (you'll use it for most of your macro shots, but will not want it flashing at full power when doing so), something that you can tilt the head on (lets you use bounce flash for less harsh lighting, and also lets you adjust angles of the light better for those close-up macros), and perhaps something that has the capability to remotely control other flashes in case you want to set up multiple light sources (though that's probably not a major concern yet). You probably also want to be able to fit accessories like a diffuser just in case, and stuff like that. The Canon 580 is good, the next model down, the 480 (?) is a bit cheaper but has most of the features you'd need if cost is an issue; it's not as powerful as the 580 and the head doesn't tilt in as many ways as the 580 (I think it's just up and down, but not sure), and there's some other things where it's not as good such as weather sealing. But I guess it comes down to that issue of what you can afford and what you need. I'm sure there's other brands too, which may offer similar features to the Canons at a lesser price. --jjron (talk) 07:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I use a 430ex flash generally when on camera, its head does swivel and tilt but is limited to only swiveling 90 degrees to the right, the power is less than the 580EX but that is hardly critical when the flash is a maximum of 30cm from the subject. I'm not sure if you did see it, but i did mention the lighting at my talk page a fair bit. Your choice in lighting equipment will more than likely have a greater effect on your macro results than your choice in lens configuration. There is no other way to freeze the motion at narrow apertures. I don't know if you got the answer regarding extension tubes, but it is certainly possible to use them on a macro lens in order to achieve greater than 1:1 magnification. I have recently been experimenting with some cheap ebay radio triggers to get the flash off camera and I am quite liking the results as well. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have some cheap radio triggers. It allows my flashes (I have an old manual one as well) to be placed on stands and not mounted directly to the camera, giving more control over the light. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Good job!
Congratulations on Mikumi panorama getting FP status! I don't know if you've ever gotten any others approved, I just remember how hard you tried to get that tortise approved last year. Good job! Unschool (talk) 07:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Muhammad,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Dragonfly macro.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 1, 2008. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2008-11-01.  howcheng  {chat} 17:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The project goes live for nominations on 10 November, 2008 at 0:00 UTC
This Wikipedia Valued pictures project sets out to identify and encourage users' efforts in providing valuable images of high encyclopedic value, and to build up a resource for editors from other Wikimedia projects seeking such educational images for use online. The project also provides recognition to contributors who have made an effort to contribute enyclopedic images of difficult subjects which are very hard or nigh on impossible to obtain. The project will run alongside the existing Wikipedia Featured pictures and Picture peer review projects.

Please visit Valued picture candidates to nominate an image, or to help review the nominations. Anyone with an account on Wikipedia is welcome to nominate images, and also to take part in the open review process.

Elucidate (parlez à moi) Ici pour humor 17:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: COM:FPC satire
is also good for a laugh. I don't mind at all about images not passing there, the only real reason I submitted stuff was to get my images on foreign language wikipedias (they usually pop up on half a dozen when you submit). These days I just add images myself when i can be bothered. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Focus Stacking
Software wise I use CombineZM. As far as flowers go I essentially pick a time when the wind level is minimal; Even a slight breeze will cause most flowers to move around. I would generally recommend a tripod for the task. I haven't done so many with animal subjects but you generally need something fairly cooperative. File:Brown Tree Frog 2.jpg for instance took quite a while to get a set of shots without the frog moving. Most of the cases that I have heard of involving focus stacking and insects in the wild typically involve burst mode and just a couple of shots: The aim being to increase the depth of field rather than get the entire thing in perfect focus. Some people (I think fir does this with his studio focus stacked insects) choose to sedate insects, typically by cooling them down, then placing them back in the wild and photographing them whilst they warm up again. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Aye, I'd just place them in a glass jar or something if I were to do it, I'd keep a close eye on whatever I had in the freezer to minimise the chance of injuring something too. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

New Commons FPX Template
For a bit of a joke we should create a commons FPX template, but instead of rudely pointing out images that don't meet the criteria it would signify votes that don't! Noodle snacks (talk) 10:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: D-fly
Hey Muhammad,

Yeah that's a pretty awesome shot - I've actually had a shot exactly like that in the back of my mind for ages but haven't found a suitable subject! Btw I see you did get the 150mm after all - how are you finding it? Hehe I reckon Sigma should be giving my some kind of sales commission now that both you and Dschwen followed my choice! :D --Fir0002 22:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Re Xmas Greetings
Thanks for the well wishes. Best of the season to you as well.

BTW, I am reading this travel book ATM and the author was on a boat with these Turkish people. He asked one of the guys he met if he'd ever done the Hajj, and the guy said he hadn't, that he was waiting till he was an old man to do it (I think he was mid-40s at the time).

The author said this guy told him that after you've done the Hajj you have to remain pure (or words to that effect), like you couldn't drink alcohol, maybe smoking cigarettes, etc, but you could do those things before you'd done the Hajj. Since he liked doing those things that's why he was waiting till he was old. Does that sound right to you? I guess there's different types of Islam that perhaps treat these things differently?

Anyway, thought you may know. Cheers, --jjron (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, I think the guy may have told this writer that after the hajj his sins would be wiped clean, that may have been his reasoning. As you say though if he knows he's breaking the rules beforehand it rather seems that he's hedging his bets! I might have a closer look tomorrow and see if I can find the actual passage in the book again. Thanks for the info. The book is called The Pillars of Hercules by Paul Theroux. I enjoy good travel books and rather like his writing, though I took a while to get into his style at first. --jjron (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Belated thanks from me too Muhammad. Poking my nose in your above discussion, I suspect that like all religions, there are those who choose to follow only some of the dogma, based on their own personal beliefs. For some, religion affects one's culture more than one's beliefs and they do onlu what is necessary to 'fit in'. I've been to Turkey and while I've only scratched the surface on the country, I got the impression they are quite secular and don't generally force religious beliefs on others. As such, I suppose there will always be those who deviate from original teachings either through laziness or misinterpretation. Just my two cents. :-) Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about what you said and had one more question. You mentioned that after the Hajj you become "like a new born baby". In Christianity (at least Catholicism, but I think most Christian sects believe much the same thing) there is (or at least used to be) IMO a rather unhappy belief that babies are born with Original sin, and if they die before being baptised they can't go to heaven. From your wording Muslims must not have this belief? BTW also had a close recheck of the chapter of the book that I thought the discussion I mentioned above occurred in and I couldn't find it. It may well have been someone from somewhere else on the trip rather than Turkey that made this statement. --jjron (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. That's interesting, I'd be rather interested to know the Jewish belief in this regard now. --jjron (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nose poking again, but if my understanding of Islam is correct, both religions believe in the old testament. That is, they believe in Genesis? If so, doesn't that mean that Muslims should believe that because of Adam and Eve eating the apple, we are born with original sin? Or is it more that Muslims just interpret Genesis in a different way? By the way Jjron, doesn't the article on Original Sin that you linked to already tell you what both Islam and Judaism think about it? "A doctrine of original sin, however, is not found in Jewish theology; original sin is also rejected by the post-Christian Abrahamic religions, Islam." Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Promoted VPC

 * Great job: The first valued picture on Wikipedia! I hope many more are to come. Elucidate ( light up ) 18:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Muhammad (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Congrats
Just wanted to say congrats on getting the first ever en:Wikipedia valued picture! ;) Intothewoods29 (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Valued Pictures Promotion
Thanks for your contributions to WP:VPC and to Wikipedia in general!! Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This got sent to me
I think that was intended for you Noodle snacks (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Muhammad (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Photo request
Hi Muhammad, I just saw your photo of the protests in Bongo and have added my vote to feature it. I do have a request if possible? On [] I have a photo of the Russian embassy but it is not the best quality photo (some guy is standing in half the shot. Is there a chance that you may be able to take a photo of the embassy in your travels sometime in the future? The embassy is located at Plot № 73, Ali Hassan Mwinyi Road. If you are able to get a photo of it sometime in the future, that would be great. Cheers, --Russavia Dialogue 06:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)