User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive Two

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Tariqabjotu. 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.

2006 bin Laden video

I recently started 2006 bin Laden video. Please improve it in any way you see fit. Thanks. KI 13:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...

Thank you for the input recommendations and collaboration above all, which is all I was really after. But thanks for the status vote as well.--Lacatosias 16:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. joturner 16:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Damadola airstrike

Hi. I know you are interested in Current Events and NPOV issues. Could you take a look at this page if you have a chance? It is under what I consider to be vandalistic attack (removal of sourced content) from User:Mistress Selina Kyle and User:BlueTruth. Thanks. --68.223.81.133 19:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure; I'll look at the article. joturner 19:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I did some editing. I hope that helped the situation. joturner 20:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Nicely done. Thanks for your input. --68.223.81.133 20:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Texas articles

Apologies. I was at first a little offended by his comments, most notably by his comments about non-Texas users editing Texas articles. That seemed to me a bit arrogant. Dr. Cash 04:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for GA for Opus Dei

Thanks for putting a GA label for the Opus Dei, Joturner! So happy to see it, and even happier to see that you are a religious person. Yes I agree with you that religion is good for the world. Lafem 05:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem. joturner 14:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Damadola controversy

For the IP poster's bias one only needs to look at one of his statements from two days ago: "The official number of dead is 13, including five women and eight children." This is so wrong it borders on offensive (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Damadola_airstrike&oldid=36164780). He also cites obscure Pakistani tribesmen who claim only civilians were killed and these are obvious attempts to insert his own opinion using them as mouthpieces. For a truly non-biased article, only officials should be cited, as eye-witnesses can lie or distort details and not been held accountable. He is also a sockpuppet and his numerous other IDs have all been blocked.

PS: Sorry, I did not see there was already a section for this on your talkpage.

--BlueTruth 22:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright... that's acceptable rationale. joturner 22:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Xiangqi

Why did you revert? [1] It has been discussed on the article's talk page. enochlau (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. You did mention the change was in accordance with the talk page. I must have missed that comment in your edit summary. joturner 01:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Gay bathhouse

Please avoid removing or modifying messages on articles or article talk pages and then ignoring the article/talk page. Please return to Talk:Gay bathhouse to explain your recent change to a message on that page. Exploding Boy 03:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about. I did explain my change to the message. joturner 03:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Then I suggest you return to the talk page. Exploding Boy 03:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

semi-protection

There's an unwritten policy against protecting the featured article of the day. We're supposed to encourage new users to edit articles, to get them hooked into becoming Wikipedia addicts like the rest of us. In the past I've semi-protected a featured article or two but it got unprotected fairly quickly.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with this, the featured article always gets a lot of vandalism and only a few legitimate newbie edits, but that's how things stand at the moment. -- Curps 06:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Islamic topics

Hi Joturner. There are a few Islamic topics which can be expanded. Please see if you can expand Islamic literature, Islamic poetry and Islamic studies. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I'll see what I can do. joturner 17:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Quran pic deletion

You edited your original comments on the Quran pic controversy. Just out of curiosity, why is the issue irrelavent now? Pepsidrinka 22:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I found the page for requesting de-adminship. I am in the process of writing that request write now. If you would like to support his de-adminship, just tell me and I'll notify you when I complete the request. joturner 22:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please add me to the list. ALso you might want to modify the 3RR violation section in the RFC to include the 4th revert and the deletion as that might qualify as a revert. Jwissick ^(t)^(c) 06:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC

Thank you for notifying me. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking over your userpage and your contributions, I find it amazing that we're in conflict. You're a great contributor to Wikipedia, and I agree with you about just about everything. We're both members of the Muslim League, we're both coders, we're both religious pacifists, and we're probably the only two Wikipedians that declare themselves both pro-legalization and drug-free!

You seem like a great guy and a valuable ally, and it's unfortunate we find ourselves in this position. I hope we can patch things up and work together. Sincerely, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I do hope we can put this behind us. But unlike you, I'm putting the interest of Wikipedia before my personal interests. I am happy the image is gone, but the manner in which you did it, in my opinion, is reprehensible for an administrator. Once this issue is resolved, I'm sure we can get back to being on good terms. I don't believe one bad move makes one bad person. joturner 15:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy, we're in trouble now!! Babajobu 16:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

When I first saw your post (the one above) on my talk page, I had no idea what you were talking about. But when I took a look at the Request for Comment page, it became obvious. I understand if Jimbo disagrees with our point of view, but by no means do we (or maybe I?) owe Quadell an apology for putting up the request for comment. I don't understand how he could consider enforcing the reasonable rules of Wikipedia a "sickness to Wikipedia". What I do think is absurd is that we should be forced to ignore the recent actions by Quadell. Although Quadell may not ultimately be removed from his admin position, initating this request for comment alone means he'll have to face the situation and take accountability.

P.S. I love the addition to your user page. joturner 21:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...I feel like it needed to be said...the RfC deserved a fair hearing and not to be mocked by our God-King. The issues here are important, if only because it sets a potentially disastrous precedent for the GFDL, which is being reduced to something more like fair use. Anyway, I personally don't want Quadell to be deadminned, he seems like a good Wikipedian who was stuck in a very awkward position, but I don't regret certifying the RfC one bit, and I certainly don't think you (or I, or Zora, or Kone) owe anyone an apology for bringing this issue to the attention of the community. Cheers, Babajobu 01:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care either way, to be honest. Whatever you like. Babajobu 05:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for defending me.

Thanks for defending me , I don't know why zora keep saying that I'm Wahhabi, this really upset me , i know and i respect all Muslims trends and i respect every religion and every opinion , all what i tried to do is remove contradiction between the image and the quran , believe me when i tell you there is no single problem if any person was unclean and touch quran , even if he wasn't dressed at all , and the aya in the quran didn't mention physical touching , it means understanding , so if you read the aya again it means "no one can understand (touch) except those who are purified" and purified here means a lot of issues "open minded" , "clean heart" , "kind" , "peaceful", "committing good deeds" ...etc. so my point has nothing to relate the women is standing beside the picture is offending me , NO , she can do what she want , I don't care , My point is "the picture under this key topic gives false interpretation about the figure of women in quran" that's it. again i feel sick for repeating this over and over , i don't want to hurt any body i don't want to hurt Zora or any person , i feel guilty when i see some body attacks me for this , i want to live in peace and to express my beliefs freely. again Jazakom Allah Kol Kheer. Your brother, Waleeed 06:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

No problem. I tried to ask her several weeks ago where she got the idea there a Saudi was making many of the reversions (see User talk: Zora#Why the image is shocking), but she never explained it to me. Instead, she went on to talk about how much she dislikes Saudi Arabia. As you said, you're not a Saudi and so those comments were irrelevent. joturner 06:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

just small recommendation , if you want to discover more about Islam try to read Sufism , you will go deep and deep and you will learn much more about quran , but i don't recommend this for you now as a new convert , just try to enhance articles about Sufism and to cover this beautiful part of Islam,, and later you will discover the real power behind Sufism , later.Waleeed 06:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Qur'an

Perhaps to start off this thing with a clean slate and promote good will the current talk page should be archived as well? Jwissick ^(t)^(c) 06:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You can archive it if you want, but it doesn't look like the discussion on the Talk:Qur'an page relates to the picture. joturner 11:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The last section does.. It talks about the revert war. I don't know how to archive yet.... Jwissick ^(t)^(c) 15:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I archived it so don't worry. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

RFC closure

Thanks, and no hard feelings. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 12:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

kafir

Your vote at Kafir (Islam) has been removed by User:Philip Baird Shearer for some reason. He moved my vote too without explanation. I'm not sure if it was deliberate or by accident by you better check it out. __earth ^(Talk) 16:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Userpage

Hi Jordan. You're new user page is very nice. Good work. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. joturner 14:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving the image

Jordan I replied to your vote on the talk page of the cartoon controversy article. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

cartoons

Showing the figures of Mohammed is disturbing muslims. And it is a insult to Islam. In Islam making and also looking the figures of Mohammed is forbidden.That is raping the holy things of Islam.And it is not about "freedom".PLEASE get back your sıgnature.Thanks.--Erdemsenol 00:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As you may have been able to tell by my user page, I am a Muslim. And judging by the tone of your above post and the fact that you're Turkish, I'm guessing you're a Muslim too (I hope that's correct). I agree that the pictures are blasphemous to Islam and that it is outrageous that they were printed not just in September 2005, but also on February 1. But that does not trump the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for all people. These pictures aren't inoffensive to a large portion of Wikipedians. And even to Muslims, it should not be considered offensive in this context as it is put in the article simply to illustrate the issue at hand. If you want to look at the article, you can do so while averting your eyes from the picture at the top of the article (that's what I do). If you really don't want to look at the pictures, you don't have to visit the page; no one is forcing you to look at the page or the picture.

This is one thing I hope all Muslims can understand: unfortunate as it may be, not everyone is a Muslim and we have to respect that. At the same time, I do think the Europeans that published these cartoons need a lesson in tolerance as well. But, maybe we, and the rest of the world's Muslims, should take the initiative and let the picture be. It is outrageous, yes. It is sacreligious, yes. But the response seen (in the media) throughout the Muslim world as well as the fervent comments on Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy are not going to improve the image of the true religion, Islam.

May Allah bless you in this world and the Hereafter. joturner 01:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

barnstar

I hereby award you this barnstar for your rational speech on User:Erdemsenol's talk page. L33th4x0r 16:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Permission to move barnstar to your main user page?

Would you grant me that permission? L33th4x0r 16:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi

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

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

Ali Nihat Yazici

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

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

Thanks

Dear Joturner:

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

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

Wa Alaikham Salaam!

L33th4x0r 02:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Death penalty

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

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

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

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

Question

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

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

Article 160 of the Constitution of Malaysia

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

Comments

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

see if you can use this link inside wikipedia.

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

Re: Good Article Self-Nominations

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