User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive Seven

Page moves and changes
Hey Jordan. Timothy has been making many abritrary changes to articles recently like moving Isa to Jesus in Islam and blanking and redirecting Jibril to Gabriel. He is making many changes and breaking rules while doing it. Feel free to step in and give your opinion. This should not continue like this. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No location, he's just doing it as he wants and ignoring the discussion that took place over the last few days on the Qur'an page. For now you can discuss on the talk page of Isa. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Now he's just arguing for his sake. He moved the page arbitrarily, edited it several times and changed all the names. Completely ignores all discussion and expects us to keep his edits. Please join in. This is silly and he's just doing it to ruin the Islamic pages. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 05:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't want to step foot in these rapidly-moving waters because I feared I'd be swept in by the undertow, but it looks like I'll have to just walk right in and hope this river is really just a shallow creek. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 05:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. He really doesn't understand and keeps making useless arguments. See talk:Isa. He will face consequences if he does what he's been doing over the last few days. He's outright ruining the articles. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 06:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Jibril. He blanked the article and redirected it to Gabriel. Probably others too. IMO every single edit he makes usually has this effect. It's pretty silly. -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 06:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Jordan, AE's charge above is incorrect. The situation was, first, that the Jibril article was a duplication of the section Gabriel, with a bit more information. The Gabriel article gave too little coverage to Gabriel in Islam. So, I 1) merged the two texts, with improvements and adding linked citations 2) redirected Jibril to Gabriel (unfortunately, section redirects aren't currently supported.)


 * In the new version of Gabriel, the Islamic view is longer than the Christian view, as it should be (Gabriel only pops up briefly, if memorably, in Christianity).


 * No useful text has been lost. The only question is whether the name should be translated, and whether Gabriel's role in Islam ought be segregated from the Judaic and Christian roles.


 * Jews would most likely not agree that Gabriel foretold the birth of John the Baptist or Jesus. For some reason, this has not proved a problem on Gabriel.


 * There is no question that Gabriel and Jibril refer to the same figure, indeed the roots are straightfowardly cognate. There is no difference in the way the function of this angel (as a messenger) is conceived. There is no problem with article length in Gabriel. The only things being defended here are the arbitrarily untranslated Arabic nomenclature, the duplication of text and the segregation of wikipedia by religion.


 * Jibril is also a figure in Judaism and Christianity, under the name Gabriel (English < Hebrew). The situation is that there's one article with all three POV's, and one with only one. There is no difference between these articles other than this exclusion of POV, which is why I'd called it a POV fork. If Jibril remains as such, we're obliged to discuss his role in other Abrahamic traditions generally, with the absurd note, "Jibril (English Gabriel)...", and the absurd result of two articles identical in every respect other than their titles.Timothy Usher 08:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Islam Peer Review
I am requesting a peer review for the Islam article. If you have any suggestions, please let us know. Thank you very much. BhaiSaab 01:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright; I'll take a look later or perhaps tomorrow. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 01:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jazakallah Khair brother. BhaiSaab 01:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The new look
Are you a universalist now? :) — Aiden 01:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There was never a point where I was not a universalist; I just didn't express that as clearly as my Muslimness before. Similarly, I know the Interstate Highway System (essentially) by heart, but I choose not to depict that on my user page. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 04:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Just curious. :) I find it pretty interesting. I have many Muslim friends but none that are universalist. If you don't mind me asking, wow do you reconcile your beliefs with say, the image of a cross, when you do not believe Jesus died on a cross? — Aiden 05:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We must be thinking of separate definitions of universalism. From the universalism article...


 * In comparative religion, universalism is the belief that true and valuable insights are available in many of the religious traditions which have grown up in various human cultures. It posits that a spiritually aware person will respect religious traditions other than his own and will be open to learning from them. It does not deny that immersion in one tradition is a useful anchor for an individual's spiritual development. While it celebrates the richness and value to be found among humankind's religious traditions, it does not necessarily deny that some things done in the name of religion, and some religious practices, are not constructive. But it distinguishes itself from the view that there is only one true faith, one uniquely chosen people, or one final prophet superseding all others.


 * I would have to have to distance myself from that last statement, of course. I do believe that there was a final prophet superseding all others. As for the one true faith and one uniquely chosen people, I will withhold my opinions on that. I'll just say that I believe there are many paths to peace in this world and the Hereafter. I don't exactly subscribe to the belief that all non-Muslims will go to Hell.


 * The universalism article as another definition states...


 * Universalism can also mean the wish for a closer union between all people of the world (the emergence of world citizens) and/or the aim of creating common global institutions (democratic globalization)


 * In these two manners, I believe I am a universalist. I don't believe that I have to believe that Jesus died on the cross to be a universalist. Unfortunately, I have encountered a closed-minded approach to other religions and beliefs among many Muslims. It bothers me greatly when religious people don't take of advantage of independent thought. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 05:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well said. I was thinking of the "all paths are valid" universalism. Nonetheless, thanks for explaining. — Aiden 06:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Rant...
Big big big horrible rant coming up so be warned :) -- Mindspillage is Kat Walsh, she's a lady and she even has a picture on her user page.  - nice looking user / user talk pages by the way :) -- Tawker 05:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I wrote he but then, as usual, checked his her userpage to see if there was any indication of gender. I meant to change the gender pronouns, but it must have slipped my mind as I was completing my comment. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 05:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Project Page under construction
Hello Jordan,

I have created a project page for the Arabic/English translation issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aminz/Project_Page

I believe even if we don’t arrive at consensus, it is very important to discuss this issue there. Any comments? Thanks --Aminz 10:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't think the project page is a good idea. In fact, I am downright insulted by the way you portray non-Muslims (as well as the way you portray the viewpoints of Muslims as anti-non-Muslim)


 * Jordan, I removed the project page per your feedback but I believe you misunderstood me and made a quick judgement. I portrayed views of SOME Non-Muslims. I am trying to make sure people will not misunderstand Islam. God knows I have good intentions. MY ANALYSIS IS PURELY THEORETICAL. Using two words for the same thing will produce confusion among unknowledagble people. Let me show you another example: It is about the words "Messiah", "christ" and "anointed". You know they are all the same. According to Gary Miller:" The meaning of the Hebrew word "Messiah" is "God's anointed." Gary Miller claims that "Even Cyrus the Persian is called 'Messiah,' or 'the anointed,' in Isaiah Chapter 45. This verse has been translated in a misleading way...Here, when it refers to Cyrus, they translated the Hebrew word "Messiah" with "God's anointed." But in places where the Bible is talking about Jesus, when the term "Messiah" appears, instead of translating it as "anointed," they simply transliterate it so that it reads "Messiah." This word "Messiah" is in the Greek equivalent written as "Christ" and in fact often appears this way in the Greek Septuagint. Miller claims that there is a conspiracy to give us the impression that there is only one Messiah, one Christ and no other."
 * You are familiar with christianity. Don't people think that the title "Messiah" by itself implies divinity? See, we are talking about a serious issue here. We have to make sure different words do not increase misunderstanding among Non-Muslims. --Aminz 21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * First off, although project pages don't really need to have NPOV (I don't think), the project page is extraordinarily biased.


 * If you are not a Muslim editor, please do not leave any messages here. Thanks


 * In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful


 * Horribly biased and unnecessarily unwelcoming.
 * Of course and I made it clear at the beginning so that nobody doubts about it. I want it to be a place that Muslims talk about this issue. --Aminz 21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The goal of this discussion is to find the solution that is most beneficial to Islam.


 * No, the goal of this discussion should be to find the solution that is most beneficial to Wikipedia. We are not supposed to be pandering to Muslims.
 * Okay, I removed the page. What I was trying to do was an "un-wikipediaic" work. But I had good intentions. --Aminz 21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So, unlike wikipedia, we are not supposed to be NPOV here


 * Uh... why not? The discussion there will affect what happens in the mainspace and therefore we should be neutral.


 * The unknowledgeable Non-Muslims will think that Muslims worship Allah rather than God.


 * Don't call non-Muslims unknowledgable. There are many non-Muslims who are knowledgeable about Islam. And just because someone may not be very knowledgeable about one thing (Islam in this case) does not mean they're completely unknowledgeable.
 * Why are you changing my words from their true positions and doing Tahrif to my text? My text says that "those Non-Muslims who are unknowledgeable will think ..."? --Aminz 21:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 2. Some hostile people towards Islam spread the belief that "Allah" is not "God" but Satan, a jinn etc. You may have heard about these if you are living in US. Most of typical Non-Muslims are ignorant about Islam and will believe in such things and then now we will have a tough job to prove that No, Allah is God. The latest rumor is that Allah is the Moon God. 3. A linguist argument based on the way Qur’an chooses the words to talk to people. I think having this in mind will help us looking at our problem here. I am still working on this, but the main idea is this: Consider the situation at the early times of Islam, people were worshipping idols, they had totally wrong conceptions about God. They knew nothing about many Islamic concepts. The Qur’an itself had to correct all these views and teach them about the concept of a unique God and being a monotheist, teach them about the prophet Jesus and so on. Imagine that situation. Qur’an had two choices in my mind: 1.Give a new term for God and define its meaning for people. 2. Takes a term that people are already familiar with and is close enough the desired concept and then try to correct the view of people about that term. – I want to prove that Qur’an chooses the second approach.


 * And more of the same. More generalizations. More demeaning non-Muslims. I don't like it at all. My favorite statement there is Some hostile people towards Islam spread the belief that "Allah" is not "God" but Satan, a jinn etc. Well, sure, that's why they're hostile. Some hostile people towards Americans think they all hate all Muslims and Arabs.


 * No, Again you are doing Tahrif to my text. I think you are doing this deliberately. There are group of Non-Muslims who say so and so? Where did I generalized it to all Non-Muslims? --Aminz 21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Right here: Most of typical Non-Muslims are ignorant about Islam and will believe in such things... --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 22:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * See, I said "Most of typical Non-Muslims" which still believe is true. Tell me, how many people are interested in religon? Among those how many people have studied Islam? Let me ask you another question: The Qur'an repeadly say: "But most of them know not". I believe any humble person will confess his/her "ignorance". --Aminz 22:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me start with an experience: I was moving around changing some of the words "Allah" to "God". Guess what? Someone asked me: "Just want to be clear on this... When Jews refer to Yahweh they are actually referring to Allah?" Then I provided quotes from Maimoinds and so on to PROVE that they are the same. Another experience: An admin said: “it isn't so clear to me that Garbiel is referring to the angel that talked to Muhammad. However, it is clear that Jibril is."


 * Prove that they are the same? Uh... we're talking about religion here. Nothing can be proven. I believe in Islam, but I dare not attempt to prove its truthfulness to anybody.
 * YES! This can be proved. We may not be able to prove the existence of God to anybody. Yes, there are several statements that could not be proved but this one can. My whole feeling about your analysis of my text is that you are not open-minded to my text. You want to find faults in it. If it wasn't this way, you would have asked me to show you the evidences. --Aminz 21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You may have heard that some hostile Christians toward Islam have propagated the view that God of Islam is Satan. 


 * Again, that's what hostile people do.


 * Martin Luther, the protestant leader, referred to Muhammad (pbuh) as "a devil and first-born child of Satan".


 * Martin Luther lived five hundred years ago. Pre-Slavery in the United States, pre-Holocaust. If you needed to go back five hundred years to find a well-known, influential leader who has said something demeaning about Islam, I would be happy. I, however, need to go back to just last month (Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Zacharias Moussaoui, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) to find outspoken Muslims demeaning non-Muslims. We have Muslims bombing trains and flying planes into buildings. Clearly, there are some issues in Islam that need to be cleared up before we disparage respected figures from centuries ago who happened to say one comment that insulted the the Prophet Muhammad.
 * See, you missed my point. You are mixing up my ideas with your perspective. Yes, there are some fool Muslims like Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Zacharias Moussaoui, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But what does it have to do with my argument? You should look at my arguments from a theoretical point of view. Ask yourself again, why did I provide this example? What was its connection with previous sentences. Sorry my brother, you misunderstood me again. --Aminz 21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Imagine that one believes that Muhammad (pbuh) was possessed by Satan and that Allah has revealed Qur’an to Muhammad (pbuh). They mix these two and conclude that Allah is Satan.


 * That very well may be a non-sequitur.


 * On a final note, I'd like to copy the comment I made to User:Aiden, just a couple hours ago (see here):


 * Unfortunately, I have encountered a closed-minded approach to other religions and beliefs among many Muslims. It bothers me greatly when religious people don't take of advantage of independent thought.


 * You, Aminz, have provided a textbook example of that. Perhaps if Muslims (as a whole; not all Muslims are like this) were to stop thinking so negatively about every non-Muslim, everyone Western, those who don't think highly of Islam will change there ways. The project page you created just fuels hate and strengthens the tensions between the Muslim and non-Muslim communities. I do not support the project page at all. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 13:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel sad to see your argument since I feel you have had something in your mind and then with that perspective you have looked at my page and have misunderstood everything. --Aminz 21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have seen many people who thought Muslims are worshipping Allah rather than Yahew (the God of jews). If you don't believe me, take a jewish article and replace the names of God with Allah.

Yes, there is no reason to continue the discussion which to me means that you still believe your judgment about me is true but you find me so off that even having discussion with me is useless. Well, POV of everybody is respectable. I need to go now. Salam --Aminz 22:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry; I can't let this go. I don't want this to end the wrong way. I'd like to state that I still believe the page was insulting to non-Muslims, even if that was not what you intended. The comment about the truthfulness of Islam was irrelevant and so I struck that out. But other than that, I stand by everything I said. Note that this post was about the project page and not you at all; I said You, Aminz, have provided a textbook example of [closed-mindedness] instead of You, Aminz, are a textbook example of that for a reason. Since the comment was about the project page, I feel there is no need to continue the discussion, not because I find you "so off", but because the project page is gone. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 23:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Page being insulting to non-Muslims is a claim that can be true, but the way you were substantiating the claim is unacceptable to me, i.e. most of your arguments are unacceptable to me.
 * Let me take a sentence from my text that you alluded to and maybe most controversial one: “Most of typical Non-Muslims are ignorant about Islam and will believe in such things...” Regarding the sentence:”
 * I said most of typical Non-Muslims are ignorant about Islam. Let me ask you a question: How much do you know about for example the Bahai faith or Hinduism faith? Since it is not our religion, you don’t know much, am I right?. The same goes for Islam. If it is insulting to you that you are ignorant about Bahai faith, then I’ll accept that it will be insulting to Non-Muslims that they are ignorant about Islam.
 * Regarding your sentence: You, Aminz, have provided a textbook example of [closed-mindedness] and your argument. I can see the stress is on “You, Aminz,”. Anyways, that particular sentence criticizes what I have provided. Here is the context:”Unfortunately, I have encountered a closed-minded approach to other religions and beliefs among many Muslims. It bothers me greatly when religious people don't take of advantage of independent thought.”
 * Let’s try to avoid talking with each other as much as possible. That is the best solution. Salam -- Aminz 02:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Fictional claims?
D'oh! If there was a "lacks common sense" barnstar, I'd definitely deserve it. I saw this edit in the my watchlist and meant to revert it because the name Will Trost failed the Google test so the claim that he plays Navy Lacrosse is probably fictional. So, I didn't want to use rollback because then I couldn't explain my rationale. So (I use Firefox) I switched to that tab (or so I thought) and went to revert it manually... and, well, I must have done it in the wrong tab. I'm really sorry! But, going to the Asian vs white and Asian thing, Blair has about 3200 students, about 400 of whom are magnet. Now, I would say that most non-magnet students are Hispanic, black, or white with few Asians. Greatschool shows that 14% of Blair students are Asian. This is about 1/8, or 400 students. If there are few Asians in the non-magnet, then all 400 Asians must be in the magnet program, meaning that almost 100% of magnet students are Asian. Granted, maybe 10% are white, but 10% is still not "mostly white." But again, I goofed with the edit summary so I couldn't clarify that earlier. Thanks for catching me! -- M @  th  wiz  20  20  21:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll fix the phrase then. By the way, the magnet at Montgomery Blair is approximately 52% Asian, 44% white, 5% African-American, 1% Hispanic (adjusted a bit from 4-Apr-2004 source: Beyond Black and White; Washington Post Magazine). Certainly that should qualify as "mostly white and Asian". --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 21:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Only 52%? Wow... -- M @  th  wiz  20  20  21:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Viswanathan
Sorry, all the edit box showed was "BALLS" written, nothing else. I figured a blank article was better than one composed entirely of BALLS. I realize the problem and I'm sorry for the confusion. Thanks.

~Matt


 * I agree. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 02:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

A few comments
I wrote in the 'favorite dish are leeks' part then wrote what I found to be a humorous comment to myself since I thought someone had edited from what I thought I'd written: 'favorite food are leeks' to see how fast someone would react or just remove it myself in ten minutes.

hhmmmm, sandbox warning bit snappy, eh?



PS. There's no e-mail, but who am I to complain. PPS. Making a map over a single specific political controversy after featuring the broad generalities of all official major world religions seems either very specialist informative or ... overzealous. But I felt the map was very informative and kewl as well so keep it up! (Christian myself, and approved of the cartoons because I don't believe in the Qua'ran at all, but I can understand your anger and I do not respect the purely flammatory parts of my brotherly people (am half-Norwegian, half-Chinese myself) although I believe that all free speech that does not directly or strongly indirectly encourage violence should be restricted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toteone (talk • contribs).


 * I'm not sure where I warned you (as your talk page is blank), but that's a standard warning message. In fact, it is one of the lightest. About the e-mail, I'm not sure what you're talking about there. About your last comment, I don't think I'm featuring any broad generalities about religions on my user page (unless you mean "broad facts"). People have found the map very useful and it is not rare for maps to be made for articles and subjects that could be improved by them. I don't find the use of religion as "overzealous" as I find it accepting of all beliefs, but you are more than entitled to your opinion. Additionally, even if you were to believe in the Qur'an there would be nothing in it to comprimise your ability to be okay with the cartoons. I'm not sure where you get the impression that I'm angry at the cartoons. I'm not. At all. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 04:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

American Patrol Edits Revert
Reason One: "radical English only policy" According to Merriam Webster, radical means "extreme". That's an opinion. Reason Two: "is against American politicians of Hispanic descent no matter their political stance". Prove it. Been to his site several times. Reason Three: "Although Spencer denies being racist, he has close ties with the White Nationalist group American Renaissance". Part A: Unless it can be proven, sounds like slander to me. Part B: Remark about "racist organization": Quick question, has nothing to do with article reallyb but, How come blacks, hispanics, Chinese, eqyptians, can have organizations just for them, and talking about other races, and its just a pro-(certain race), and it is considered perfectly fine. Yet if whites have an organization doing the same thing or less, it is a white supremacy group? I use this tool way too much to vandalize it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.145.225 (talk • contribs)

Help
Hi Joturner, Could you help me learn some programming stuff in wikipedia. Where could I find help for this? I want to learn the expression language you used in Template:Three digit in detail. Thanks. « ₪ M ÿ š † í c ₪ » (T) 08:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem. There's one page on qif conditionals (which I did not use in ) and then there's another page on Parser Functions (which I did use in ). Essentially what the statement in does is check to see if the initial condition and then, if it is true, execute the first statement or otherwise execute the second statement.  is the first parameter of the template (in , 570 would be  while in  , 69 wold be  ). The #ifexpr: checks to see whether  is greater than 99.5. If that is the case it executes the first statement,  which is printing out the first parameter (the number). If that is not the case and the expression is false, it goes to the second statement, another embedded #ifexpr: . Once again, if the first parameter is greater than 9.5, it executes the first statement (printing out a zero followed by the first parameter). If the first parameter is not greater than 9.5, it executes the second statement (printing out two zeros followed by the first parameter). There are more functions you can learn about on the Parser Functions page. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 14:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for the explanation I'll get in touch with you if I need more help, if that is okay with you.. Thank you very much..  « ₪ M ÿ š † í c ₪ »  (T) 18:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

5,000 Edits!

 * Thanks for the barnstar; I have added it to my user page. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 14:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Smiley Template
After some thought I decided to create this smiley template, as I thought most of the arguments in the talk pages are due to misinterpretaion of what is being said, hopefully these smileys will help us (at least me !!) communicate in a much more friendly manner. Hope you all will like it.

(Friendly smile) (Confident) (Mocking) (Hysterical) (Hurt) (Very Sorry) (Sleepy) (You are Nive) (I am not happy) (No Comments)
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce
 * will produce

Thanks a lot for directing me to the functions help. thanks. « ₪ M ÿ š † í c ₪ » (T) 20:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Expand template
Jacoplane has repeatedly removed the template because he doesnt like how it looks. He has no idea what he's doing. In addition, I've seen plenty of pages with the expand template on the article, rather than the talk, page. KI 02:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Listen, KI, I'm getting rather tired of you going around claiming I'm a clueless newbie. I posted a message over a week ago saying I wouldn't mind if you put the template back on the article if you really wanted it there. Why didn't you? You never responded to my message except today where you reverted and accused me of vandalism once again. Like Joturner, I've told you that these accusations of vandalism are totally inappropriate on good-faith edits. Regards, jaco ♫ plane  02:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting in my RfA!
I read your comments and considerations through the RfA with great interest, and I appreciate the time and effort you put into it. Thanks! It did not gain consensus, but I'm glad I accepted it. - Amgine 17:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to WP:ERRORS
Thank you for pointing me towards WP:ERRORS. I never knew it existed, heh. I will use it in future, thanks for the help! --Doug (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Edit: And it was in a box at the top of the page. Gah, that will teach me to skip reading infoboxes. Cheers! --Doug (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

vandalism
I forgot to login. wasnt vandalism to my user page. Thanks for looking out for me though. -- Chris   Ccool2ax  04:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 04:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Answering the RFA questions
I am very, very sorry I hadn't answered the questions: I would have, but I really had to leave (I had to be up by 6:40 this morning). I know how much you love those answers (and I know it's really my civic duty to answer them), so I went on and answered them. Enjoy! — THIS IS M ESSED OCKER  (TALK) 11:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Curious about music
Hi, I was reading your very interesting userpage and noticed that you stopped to listen to "music." Firstly, out of curiousity, are you referring to "Western music" and secondly why did you stop? Thank you GizzaChat  © 08:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure what "Western music" would be. Nevertheless, you're not the only one to have this question. See my 25-April response to David Kernow. I copy this response to your talk page, but I'm unable to do that because I'm posting from a location where the IP address has been blocked. When I get home, I'll copy it to your user page. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 18:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Your vote on my RFA
Thank you for voting on my RFA, however I've decided to withdraw my nomination. I'll perhaps nominate myself in the future once I have more experience, and not to immaturely release RFAs. Until then, I'll continue working on Wikipedia. — THIS IS M ESSED OCKER  (TALK) 21:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Userpage
Wow. I must say, I absolutely love your userpage. Splendid job! Oran  e    (t)   (c)   (e)  04:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the positive feedback. I appreciate it greatly. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 15:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Hi ,

Thank you for any constructive criticism you may have given in my recent unsuccesful RFA. I will strive to overcome any shortcomings you may have mentioned & will try & prove myself worthy of your vote in the future.

Cheers

Srik e it ( talk ¦  ✉  )  09:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:user page
Hi Joturner - obviously the "conversion to Islam" bit is much sobered, although I'd like that you basically write a brief para describing becoming a Muslim, instead of the bit of timeline that you retain. Your axioms are good - the point of contention is, that there are people on Wikipedia who feel that political issues of all kinds must not be pushed/discussed via userboxes or otherwise. Some of these guys might feel that admins should not have political userboxes or commentary of any kind on display. However I'm entirely fine with your userpage and your position as an editor - you have the perfect right to share your experiences and identity with us. You have my support for adminship, whenever you choose to seek it. I recommend soliciting comments from some of your Rfa detractors for your ER. Cheers, Rama&#39;s Arrow 14:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point; I was going to eliminate it altogether, but there were so many people who liked reading it (you can see numerous comments regarding or inquiring about my conversion on my user talk page). No one has ever placed a negative comment on my talk page about it. Thus, I went with this comprimise. Nevertheless, I'll seek some comment from detractors. About the axioms, I was trying to be open to others opinions by offering the opportunity to suggest an axiom, even if I don't agree with it. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 14:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add that I was most impressed to see you condemn the cartoon controversy riots. Your analysis is perfect as regards to the real problems society faces and how Muslims should have responded ideally - I was disappointed to find virtually no Muslim voice like yours amongst the Muslim community's leaders. Rama&#39;s Arrow 14:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

My dear
My dear Joturner, I had not opposed you on account of the information contained in your User Page – I had made my point very clear in my long comments. I believe that each one of us has a right to believe and practice a faith of one’s choice, and your personal faith and belief did not guide me to oppose your nomination. The contents of your user page as it had existed then had no effect on me. I think that you have since diversified your edits to wikipedia, and I do believe that you shall emerge as one of the best wikipedians in the years to come. I believe that you have always been a nice person and you shall always be a nice wikipedian. I thank you for coming to my page. All the best. --Bhadani 15:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, I think you look quite inspirational and your eyes are deep, clear and reflect light, integrity and honesty. I am talking of the picture on your user page.

--Bhadani 15:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I noticed your comment, which brought up mostly tenure and lack of diversity in edits at that point in time. The only reason I thought I would contact you was because you stated that you agreed with all the above comments pertaining to reasons for oppose" votes. But thanks for the clarification. You can still, of course, make a comment on my editor review page if you like. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 15:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I stand corrected. I promise that I shall make comments on your review page. In case, I forget to do so, please copy my above comments there. Thank you. --Bhadani 15:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Editor / User Page Review
Hey Stifle – You opposed my last RfA in March on rationale I believe may have been related to my user page. In the time since then, I have changed my page to be more universalist (which still conforms with my personal beliefs) and removed the majority of information regarding my conversion to Islam in favor of a section on my philosophy (as well as yours if you desire). Now, I'm looking for your feedback on what you think of the redesign of the page and whether it is sufficient in quelling the March controversy over the page as well as solving the issue about possible inability to maintain a neutral point of view, especially in religion-related articles. For what it's worth, the reason I kept a condensed version of the timeline was because there were, and still are, many people who find it interesting instead of a form of proselytization. Many people have also given me positive feedback on my talk page regarding the look of the page. I personally believe that it is okay to insert individuality onto user pages, especially if it still promotes a sense of community. That is what I was going for with this current version of my user page.

Please make comments regarding the user page on my editor review page. Thanks in advance. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 15:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. I won't comment on the editor review, but I would support an RFA now if you were nominated. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Islam
Hi, I have included a new image in the talk page of the Islam template, please make your comments about it to be included in the template, thanks « ₪ M ÿ š † í c ₪ » (T) 19:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

User page
Hi Joturner,

I read your comments about your user page on User:Bhadani's talk page. I am very impressed by your user page. It looks beautiful and very well organised. - Aksi_great (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks


Hi Jordan - I'm very sorry to have disappointed your expectation in me, but it had become impossible for me to compromise my principles. I don't covet adminship at all, so it wasn't a difficult decision. However, I cannot tell you how greatly joyous I feel at the support you expressed for me. Your comment tells one more than anything that to make a helpful, positive contribution one doesn't have to be an admin at all. I don't know how hard it will be to understand that your supports means extremely a lot to me. I thank you from my heart, and please let me know if I can ever be assistance or help in anything. Rama&#39;s Arrow 19:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: The Past Has Passed
Jordan, from an NPOV perspective that issue was only a disagreement on something which can always happen between two persons. However from my perspective (in which I am right and I don't consider the case minor + we are brothers in faith), I decided not to have any interaction with you and asked you not to do so. This is not supposed to have any other meanings or implications. God knows, perhaps you were right. In any case, I am going to resign from wikipedia as soon as I am done with the current conflicts I am involved in. So, in practice there will be no difference. --Aminz 23:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)