User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive Four
My RfcPlease comment on my Rfc. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 02:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Salamun AlaikumI 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)
Article NuhSince 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. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversySpecifically, 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)
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 VandalismPlease 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)
United States House elections, 2006Would you be willing to discuss your recent reversion[1] to United States House elections, 2006 here? 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. Thanks! --Ajdz 04:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Cartoon mapHi 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)
Hi, 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)
Your RFA nomination is here. Good luck! NSLE (T+C) at 06:43 UTC (2006-03-23)
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)
Regarding the Links in MuhammadI'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)
Map of cartoon republication and violence.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 RfAI 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 replySee my reply to you on my talk page. Merecat 05:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Again Merecat 05:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Once more. Merecat 06:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Template:Good articleTemplate:Good article has been listed for deletion. Please vote to keep this template at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_25#Template:Good_article. —RJN 10:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Mr TurnerMuslims 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? Here are the links for your perusal: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_%282%29#Charge_9 DPSingh 12:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't help but notice an edit summary...(See Zsinj). :-D --ZsinjTalk 17:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC) My RfA
your messagehi 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)
Many thanksI 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" revertsHi! 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 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.
interesting lifeHi 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
ImpressiveJust 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)
Hey, I need a favourI 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)
my supportI'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 MikeI 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)
|