User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive Three

Request for deletion I want to test the opinion of page editors before passing the vote to the general public. Pecher Talk 22:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC) AfD ASAK, I just wanted to commend you on your calmness regarding the AfD that you recently recommended. I understand that some users are trying to downgrade the points that you've made, in a questionable manner. Your arguments were cogently stated and we appreciate that more than the sophomoric attempts of others to dismiss them. Please keep up the good work. -- Samir ∙ TC 05:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Thank you very much for your comment and support. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 06:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC) map I would like to coordinate with you on the map? I think we can make a better one and even more specific one but right now the events keep rolling and unfortunately, I don't have the time to keep up with it everyday. I'm fine with making just the colorblind version. Hitokirishinji 15:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Afd You nominated several of Striver's articles for deletion. I recommend keeping the ones that are a "List of" things because they are very useful, but keep the afd for all the ones that don't say list. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC) I don't want to change the AfD midway. What I'll probably do is compile the List of Muslims page similar to List of Jews and then request deletion for the articles that don't fit into that scheme well (which will probably end up being the ones without list of). By closing this request and making a new one so soon, many people are going to accuse me of fervor. By the way, I think a Wikipedia policy denouncing fervor (a lá Striver's edits around 5:00am UTC). There is being bold and then there's being too bold. How could I go about getting that proposed? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC) You can cross out ones that you have decided to remove from the nomination. The policy you are talking about is point policy. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Yes, I suppose I should have known that, considering I accused Striver of violating that. Also, many who have already voted who might have voted differently under difference circumstances probably will not change their votes. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC) I think you could remove your nomination right now and start it again with nominations of the pages that don't start with list because a good idea is to have a list of Muslims with everything on it including athletes and others. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Creation and the Qu'ran Thank you for your reply, it was most interesting. I don't know much about Islam, nor the Qu'ran, and what studying I have done on the Book led me to the conclusion it supported Creation. But like in Christianity, there are several sects which believe otherwise within those religions, and it was interesting to note that Islam and Christianity share that facet. Hope you well in the meantime. Эйрон Кинни 21:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Afd note Sure, no problem :) --Striver 02:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC) AfD You're welcome to copy my vote. I don't really care that much about those AfD deletions to do so myself at the moment. Maybe later I'll go look at them individually. savidan(talk) (e@) 05:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC) Islamic Athletes AfD I don't agree that my notice was in 'too prominent' a location. In my opinion, the Afd is irretrievably spoiled by these irregularities of process. I will be probably taking it to Deletion Review to relist it once it is complete, no matter the outcome. You might do well to look over other AfDs to see how they are usually conducted. To my mind, constant, repetitious haranguing of other voters with opinions that you have expressed repeatedly is inappropriate. It weakens your case, because it suggests that you do not understand how the process operates and do not care to learn. In case you were wondering, I have no interest in Islamic athletics or in fact in athleticism of any kind. My goal in commenting on this AfD is only that it proceed in a transparent, proper way in accordance with Wikipedia policies and consensus. -ikkyu2 (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC) I don't intend to carry on long conversations in AfDs. I realize that my recent AfDs have tended to be a little longer than preferred. But that is only because User:Striver has responded with several comments which attempt to disparage legitimate requests for deletion... Bro, queit it will ya? Why are you so gang ho on deleting? Stop making me answer to all of this, please! So what are we doing now that the afd is all of the sudden about 4 articles? Must i spend 4 houres RIGHT NOW to show that there is potential in the articles? Bro, please end this! Go and make yourself usefull, go and google some information and help me CREAT article about Islam, rather than wasting everyones energy one afds! Instead of deleting his statements (which in my opinion would be immoral), I simply balanced out the opinions by clarifying my opinion. Yes, the addition of the related articles was probably not a good thing to do, but it seems like that part of the issue has been cleared up. Suggesting that I would add additional comments to sway votes in my direction would be absurd considering at the time of those postings, the votes were already in favor of deleting the article. Even now, the votes are in favor of deleting the article. My recent actions do not indicate that I "do not understand how the process operates and do not care to learn." They simply indicate that I am making an attempt to prevent User:Striver from poisoning the water by adding comments that don't actually relate to the article, but instead to me personally. In my opinion, if I saw someone attacking the requestor (especially if the requestor didn't respond), I would be weary of agreeing with him even if the request is legitimate. That quite possibly may have been Striver's intention. However, feel free to call the AfD to the attention of the deletion committee. At worst, the AfD will have to be resubmitted and the result will be the same. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your voting! Thanks! Hi, thanks for your voting on my RFA. It has finished with the result 88/14/9, and I am promoted. I am really overwhelmed with the amount of support I have got. With some of you we have edited many articles as a team, with some I had bitter arguments in the past, some of you I consider to be living legends of Wikipedia and some nicks I in my ignorance never heard before. I love you all and I am really grateful to you. If you feel I can help you or Wikipedia as a human, as an editor or with my newly acquired cleaning tools, then just ask and I will be happy to assist. If you will feel that I do not live up to your expectation and renegade on my promises, please contact me. Maybe it was not a malice but just ignorance or a short temper. Thank you very much, once more! abakharev 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Salaam brother Just thought it was interesting that you also speak some Spanish and are a Muslim as well. I'm not Latino but learning languages is always fun. --SeanMcG 09:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC) Reform Wikipedia began as an open effort to create an encyclopedia of the people, by the people, for the people. Sadly, its bureaucracy has put an end to those goals. To this end, we must promote a peaceful revolution to reform it. We must eliminate the undue influence of certain people and remake Wikipedia as a people's encyclopedia. We, the reformers, are led by TJWhite who endured only briefly before suffering an indefinite block. Visit his user page to see our ideology, roughly outlined. I for one do not condone his call to vandalism. Instead, by using the power of the people, we can reform wikipedia. Join us to recreate an encyclopedia where all are equal; an encyclopedia that does not strive to become Brittannica, but rather seeks to be a one of kind encyclopedia for all of the people of the world. Please pass this message in some form to as many people as you can. Secondly, petition for the unblock of TJWhite, the one who began our glorious movement. Finally, link to his page from your user page and express your sentiments for reform on your page. Thank You, fellow wikipedians. LaRevolution 15:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC) I cannot agree to join the project. I personally am overall satisfied with Wikipedia and see no need to call for such radical reform. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC) look like u came across shia islam aricle download this file that have more than 60 books in the topic shiasm and sunnism it may be useful for u [1] Tughra.jpg Updated copyright info on the Suleiman tughra. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tughra_Suleiman.jpg --Thadswanek 22:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the Current Events talk move I was hesitant to move it back because I wasn't sure if that was normal or not, and wasn't sure how to do it and preserve history, as I've never moved before. Yeah, I'll probably read up on it eventually. TransUtopian 02:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC) No problem. Most standard moves can be done by clicking the move tab at the top of the page. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Edward G. Winter article I don't think I did a 3RR vio. I reverted twice [2] [3]. I also did a large edit where I removed a bunch of nonsense [4], but that's not a revert, and even if it is, that's still a total of 3. Did I count incorrectly? Thanks. Phr 22:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Yes, you are correct; my mistake. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Thanks, I'm aware of 3RR and I've been counting edits carefully. Note that Sloan has reverted 3 times now. I'd like to ask whether my initial edit counts as a revert. If not I want to remove the Kingston and Keene stuff again. Kingston is a Usenet poster who Sloan likes to fight with and the point of the Winter article seems to be for Sloan to attack Kingston on Wikipedia, in this case by claiming that Kingston and Winter are the same person (not totally impossible, but speculative and IMO about 98% unlikely). So I feel the smear should be removed. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Dorsch for another Sloan attack article (now deleted), and Sloan's rejected RFAR over that article [5] to understand what we're dealing with. (Actually I'll probably just wait for someone else to edit the current version of the Winter article but I wanted to let you know what's going on.) Phr 23:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Articles for deletion/List of Muslim Islamic jurists The reason I closed that discussion early was because I found that the article has already been deleted. One of the things I do on AfD is I scroll through the list and close the discussions on all the articles that have been deleted for other reasons before the AfD is complete. In this case, it happened to also have been listed on WP:PROD, and it was deleted due to its being listed on there. I was not closing it based on any votes or discussion; it's pretty much autopilot on my part when I do this, I just want any discussion with a red header to be closed, since if the article's deleted, there's no real need for discussion on AfD; that moves it into the realm of Deletion review. I hope this is a good explanation for my actions. Have a great day, Mo0[talk] 17:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Thank You I just wanted to say thanks for the kind welcome you gave me, and also for the objective viewpoint on the talk page. SeanMD80 14:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC) Crash Not sure about putting a spoiler there, its on tape delay elsewhere, I'm not touching it but you might want to re-consider posting it on current events so soon -- Tawker 04:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC) I don't think that is good enough reason to remove it, but if someone else does, it will be removed momentarily. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Another AfD on a list Just a heads up since you have been heavily involved in these Muslim-related lists as of late. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Muslim Christianity scholars. Pepsidrinka 20:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Abraham on List of people known as father or mother of something I noticed your comments regarding listing Muhammed on List of people known as father or mother of something. I recently added Abraham to the page, noting that he has been called "Father of Islam" as well as "Father of Israel". Another user removed these changes[6], contesting that only within Islam has Abraham been considered a Father of Islam. He (or she) further contested that father means "founder", and that Muhammed should be called the Father of Islam. The list is not meant to be an exclusive one and specifically states "that this does not always mean they invented, discovered or originated the thing with which they are associated, nor that they always have been or currently are considered a father or mother of it." If you wish, please contribute at Talk:List_of_people_known_as_father_or_mother_of_something#Religious_Figures. --Dforest 07:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy I like the map you created for republications and protests. I was wondering if you could make available the methodology that you used to determine levels of republication and protests. Just by looking at Cartoon Body Count it seems to me that there is some controversy over what to define as an incident (i.e. whether the cartoons caused a given protest) as well as what constitutes a republication (1 or all 12 of the cartoons). Anything you could tell me would be appreciated. savidan(talk) (e@) 15:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC) I suppose it would be appropriate that I used a bit of my own opinion to determine what qualified as a "protest". I essentially used the major demonstrations mentioned throughout the timeline article as well as the newspaper reprints article. I also considered the boycotts against Danish products as a major protest as they were nationwide in some countries. As the timeline was my primary source of protest information, I didn't decide myself whether the sources of certain protests and demonstrations were the cartoons. In some countries, like Pakistan, where protests have been very common, the sources became irrelevant because they have already reached the highest degree of red. For the reprints, it didn't matter to me whether it was just one cartoon or twelve cartoons that were printing; I decided to ignore that aspect as it was literally impossible to include every detail one map. I would hope that the map would give a general overview of the situation and that the reader would look at the appropriate article to find out more information if he or she is looking for that. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Thanks, you might want to make a quick note on the image itself, but then again I'm probably the only one on Wikipedia who cares about these things. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC) POV, pious tone You used Abdul Wahhab instead of independently verifying the hadith. The second one I could not verify through the MCSA search engine. I would not send ANYONE to Abdul Wahhab for a neutral depiction of pictorial representation. You said that most Muslims agreed that depiction was wrong -- that is clearly not the case. Not only do Shi'a allow it, most moderate Muslims do too. Howling mobs whipped up by Islamists are not evidence for majority opinion. You wrote, "Muhammad, being the deliverer of Islam's holiest book, the Qur'an, is revered by Muslims more than any other person in history". There are people who believe that Muhammad created the Qur'an, not just "delivered" it; there are people who believe that he didn't create it at all. Nor can you speak for all Muslims when you say that they revere Muhammad above all other people. Some might not. Some might think that he's in an entirely different category, and not to be compared with anyone else. If you asked a Christian, "which historical figure do you admire the most?", he or she might say "Abraham Lincoln" or "Einstein". If you say, "What about Jesus?", you might get a blank state. Jesus is another category entirely. I think that this might hold for Muslims. But we can't be sure, can we? In which case it's better not to make claims for all Muslims. Zora 03:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC) I have taken your comments into account and reinstated information from the version before the revert. I reworded the intro (which seemed to be where most of your issues were) and omitted the additional hadith. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC) My RfA File:Atlanticpuffin4.jpg This puffin looks friendly. Thanks for your support in my RfA. It passed, with a final tally of 62/0/1. I'm touched by all the kind comments it attracted, and hope I'll be of some use with the new tools. You know where I am if you need to shout at me. Flowerparty? 15:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC) Prophets Are you still shortening the article? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC) I starting making those changes during my lunch break at school (yes, I've become addicted). I had to interrupt the endeavor since I had to go to class. Now that I am at home, I will continue. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Yes you are addicted, but good work. See my comment on Talk:Mosque. I think we can make it into a featured article, but I need some suggestions. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC) You may as well delete all the links if that is what you plan on doing. It causes an unneccessary strain on the servers to load up the page in its current excessive size, every time you reload the page. Pepsidrinka 02:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Is it really that noticable? I'll move all the links to the talk page in case anyone wants to help in moving them to their respective articles. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Adam split I didn't see that, sorry. However, I still strongly object to the section being taken out. Yes, one can discuss Adam as a prophet, but that is not the purpose of the Adam and Eve article. Linking to the Adam only article would be fine, but removing the entire section is not. It's not as if the Qur'an is silent on the issue, the difference is that Adam is a prophet and Eve is just, well, Eve. Nonetheless, given the title of the article, we need to keep the whole story in there. Jim62sch 00:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC) BTW: I just read the story on your user page -- I'm happy for you that you had the desire, drive and stubbornness to see it through. Good luck with the Saudi embassy, as the hajj seems to be so very important to you. Jim62sch 00:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the support. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC) I guess you two are talking about the deletion from Adam and Eve? Joyurner, I was curious why you edited that out - it seemed quite relevant to me. The point to be made is that in each of the major Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - extra stories grow up later around the basic story, filling in details or (sometimes) trying to prove a point (the discussion under the Christianity subsection of how St Paul and St Augustine between them managed to create a doctrine of original sin out of the Adam and Eve story that's really not in the Book of Genesis is an example of how this can happen). In Other words, tradition means more what happens after the main text is given, than what's in that text. PiCo 00:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC) (Read your user page - interesting story. Maybe you can write the book one day. Good luck PiCo 00:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC) ) WP:POINT Yes, I saw you commenting on an afd to Irishpunktom about the claims of this for "keeping" an article. Unfortunately he always votes keep on Striver's articles no matter how bad they are or what wikipedia policy stands against it (because he feels it is an attack on muslims) and whilst he accuses me of trying to make a point (which I am not since all of those articles do warrant an afd), no one ever says anything about Striver explicitly listing afd's on good articles to make a point. See the following: wtf, why not including this as well: List of Jews List of Christians List of Hindus List of atheists List of Buddhists Lets vote on all of them, why only the Muslim lists? --Striver 04:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC) (For quote see AFD for Muslim Athletes) And he went through with it as well by putting up Afds for all those articles out of revenge for them putting an afd on his article and without even putting afd on the page history. List of Hindus Afd List of Jews Afd List of Christians Afd List of atheists Afd List of Buddists Afd When the contibutors to this pages saw what he was doing they went to take off the afd tags that he put up to make a point and he reverted it and again put Rv Vandalism on the edit history. Rv Vandalism List of Christians Rv Vandalism List of Jews Rv Vandalism List of Hindus Rv Vandalism List of atheists Rv Vandalism List of Buddists--Jersey Devil 20:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC) I am familiar with that incident, considering I was the one who originally created that AfD. I ran into a similar issue when I nominated those articles (and several other by him) for deletion. Some people mistook a problem with his articles with a problem with him. I'm not (and I'm sure you're not either) deleting those articles simply because Striver created them. Striver just happens to create a large number of articles, many of which get deleted. Note that he has had nearly nine hundred deleted edits, or 7.3% of all his edits, deleted. Compare that to my 1.8% and your 1.5%. Considering that Striver is clearly an inclusionist, and both you are I are at least somewhat deletionists, that seems to indicate that his additions get deleted at a disproportionally high rate. So to say that your recent actions have been an attack on Striver would be unfounded; historically a surprisingly high number of his pages have been deleted. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC) What I find often is that the defenders of Striver always say "he makes stub articles, but he always works on them and builds them up later" which simply is incorrect. Check out this page on the userspace of Zora User talk:Zora/Striver new article. A very large portion of the articles he had created long ago have remained incredibly small and not updated.--Jersey Devil 22:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC) Sexual orientation Oh well, we'll see what happens. I have already delt with this on Khomeini. Its getting rediculous. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 06:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC) The reason that I removed it was it simply wasn't a speedy criteria that covered it. I think that this is a case where the Articles for Deletion process is best suited to discuss the issue. There has been at least one case when such an article has been kept. As it happens, the article touches on one of the key issues between the Shi'ites and Sunni so it is an important topic, inadequate as the article currently is. Capitalistroadster 06:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Islamic science Jo, I just stumbled across this article, Islamic_science and did some copyediting, but I don't know enough about it to really get it into shape. Right now, it needs some work. Interested? Jim62sch 00:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC) I'll see what I can do, but it looks like a re-organization is what it really needs. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Definitely a reorg is called for, but it needs more depth, too. If you want to work on it together, let me know. I'm sympathetic to this article because while the West was wallowing in disarray, the Islamic world was on fire, especially scientifically. Also, the article doesn't mention Ibn Rushd or Avicenna. Jim62sch 00:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Friendly contact You corrected my entry in "Current events" yesterday. So I looked into your user page. You are one of the most dedicated Wikipedians whose discussions and articles I’d like to subscribe to. Also would love to discuss faith, society, race relations, politics, and other academic subjects with you. So if you are interested in keeping in touch, give me a shout. I am Kan-Je, I speak English and Chinese and am conversant in rudimentary Arabic, French and several other languages. Faith, languages, ethnic/cultural diversity are my favorite subjects. We can also have chats on Islam and cultures over email. Best wishes! Bestlyriccollection And best wishes to you too. Feel free to drop me a message on my talk page whenever you want. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 11:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC) University of Texas at Austin Hello, thanks for reviewing The University of Texas at Austin for Good article status. Please let us know if you have any suggestions for how to make the article better. Thanks also for your other work on Wikipedia. Best, Johntex\talk 17:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC) RfA Asalaam wa laikum. Thanks for the RfA, though I'm going to have to give it some thought prior to accpeting or declining. In earnestness, I'd like to be an admin, and ideally, I'd like to be promoted in my first RfA. Only three months of experience might detract some voters. Nonetheless, I'll give it some thought and I appreciate the nomination. Pepsidrinka 03:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Despite my previous tone, I thought about it, and decided to go ahead and begin the nomination. If it fails, it fails. Life goes on. Thanks again for the nom. Pepsidrinka 05:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC) No problem. And besides, Makemi hasn't faced significant opposition for his edit count. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 05:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)