User talk:Tariqabjotu/Archive Six

Main	Gallery	Milestones	Barnstars	Links	Final Words	Talk

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Censored RfA comments

Hi Joturner,

Anonymous editor has removed a number of comments regarding your RfA from his user talk page, and materially altered his own comments post-facto, with false date signatures, as is his way. However, they are available on my talk page.

As I was one of the "most opinionated" editors you mentioned in your post to AE, you might be interested to see what I had to say, along with the discussion on Aminz' talk page.

I've been reviewing and commenting on the Admin accountability page as well.

You're also welcome to discuss matters with me by e-mail with the understanding of confidentiality.Timothy Usher 04:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not interested in seeing what you have to say; you've said enough already.

Until you learn what it means to assume good faith, I don't see what could possibly be accomplished from responding to even more of your statements made in bad-faith. I answered one of your questions on my request for adminship and you essentially called me a complete liar because it didn't comply with your pre-conceived answer. On Anonymous Editor's talk page, you held me accountable for not responding to a statement I was never made aware of in the first place. You have made pointed, unwarranted allegations (sound familiar?) against AE stating that "once handed the mop (he wielded) it as a sectarian sword". You have jumped to the conclusion that the section on The Muslim Guild for members to voluntarily (or as you cynically state, by confession) indicate whether they are Muslim was designed to further separate Muslims from everybody else. Perhaps, the voluntary designation was designed to instead help members who wanted to contact a Muslim for an Islamic perspective. But of course, that thought never crossed your mind as that would be an uncharacteristic assumption of good faith. You presumed that Muslims from The Muslim Guild voted for me in my RfA because they wanted me to push some arbitrary Muslim point-of-view, when in fact it could have been possible that they simply saw me as a worthy contributor. Once again, this would go against what seems to be your inability to assume good faith. On Aminz's talk page, when two editors asked you to quit making personal attacks, you claimed that they were stalking you. And also note the accusations of sockpuppetry.

And so now you want me to comment on yet another incident? Audacity, Timothy. Simply audacity. By email? With confidentiality? The only person who should be concerned about how detrimental a response would appear is you. Others may have been convinced by your arguments (as well as a few others that, in my opinion, failed to assume good faith) during my request for adminship, but if you continue in the direction you're heading, your credibility as an editor who can correctly, or at least positively, assess a situation will approach zero very quickly. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 06:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand the meaning of "confession." Confession is a synonym for religious belief[1]. It is not as a "confession" to a crime.

I am surprised by the vitriol of your response - my immediate reaction is that you've confirmed that my decision - a judgement I was forced to make in shorter order than I would have liked - was the right one.

You've commented here on several matters you plainly know nothing of, which is scary behavior for an admin candidate who, if confirmed, would have been empowered to act on behalf of one or another party. It is good when an editor has the wisdom to review a matter in question before coming to a decision, particularly when it involves judgement of another editor's motivations and character. How much more so for one who openly strives to obtain the tools by which one might act upon those judgements to the detriment of the wrongly judged.

Your behavior here is markedly worse than the palpably controlled demeanor during your RfA. Other editors picked up on your anger towards critics; I didn't see it, but it's clear enough here.

Other than that, I shall take a bit to consider your post before responding.Timothy Usher 06:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of archiving my talk page soon (since I always do it sometime after reaching fifty posts) when I noticed a comment I made about a month ago. It had been sitting at the top of my page for a few weeks but I completely forgot about it. Although it has been a month to the day since the comment, I don't want it to end the wrong way when it gets filed in my archives. I intended to make a request - albeit a rather direct request - to assume good faith. When I wrote that comment, I thought I had conveyed the intended message of you have a history of assuming bad faith and so I'm not going to address this assumption of bad faith. But now after giving it a second look, and giving your response a second look, I'm afraid you may have perceived it as a biting indictment of your opinions and a slap in the face along the lines of because of your comments on my RfA, I never want to talk to you again. I understand that you may even consider my intended message a bit harsh, but I felt it needed to be said for the advancement of positive, cooperative relations within the Wikipedia community (not to sound grandiose). I hope you have at least to some degree taken my advice and taken extra care to assume good faith. If I misled you to my intentions the first time I posted the comment or if, even now after this explanation, this comment still comes off a bit harsh, I extend my sincerest apologies. I look forward to seeing great and calculated contributions from you in the future. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I did take your comments as you'd feared, and do still think them rather harsh. But, that was awhile ago, and though I may be a little wary, I harbor no ill-will. Your dove with the olive branch cannot but be recognized, appreciated and returned.Timothy Usher 06:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Editors Failing to assume good faith

Hi Jo, I am very sorry to see the state of your Rfa. It is obivious that it was mudslinging and a classic case of editors failing to assume good faith.. I agree with your comments above 100%. This is not the first time that these editors have failed to assume good faith. Sadly this has become the biggest issue in wikipedia. Please dont be discouraged by these "mind vandals" comments. I also would advice you to stick to your values and what you really believe in.. You dont have to change your user page every now and then just because someone doesn't agree with it. Because there will be always someone who will still disagree.. I like to quote.

• Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers

remember everyone in planet earth is bound by this declaration.. No other law can supercede this.. So people can hold any opinion they want as long as they dont interfere with others.. Happy editing..  «₪Mÿš†íc₪»  ^(T) 08:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

An RFA thank you!

Thank you for supporting my recently successful nomination. I appreciate the comments that you made. If you ever require them, I offer you my assistance (and that of the shiny new buttons), I'm only a talk page message away! Jude (talk) 10:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hi Joturner,

I would like say that I am sorry about your RfA, and, if you decide to go for another one, I will support you again. -- Heptor _talk 13:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Barnstar Award

Thank you for voting to keep the image for the Islamic Barnstar Award at the May 27 voting page. --JuanMuslim ^1m 14:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments in Lar's RfA!

We are here to build an encyclopedia!

Hi Jordan, and thank you for your supportive comments in my request for adminship! With a final tally of (109/5/1), I have been entrusted with adminship. It's been several weeks since the conclusion of the process, so hopefully you've had a chance to see me in action. Please let me know what you think! Thanks again, and I am sorry to see that your RfA came out the way it did. I think if you choose to stand again after some additional seasoning, that you would have my support. ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Adverts: Like The Beatles?... Like LEGO?... In a WikiProject that classifies?... Are you an accountable admin?... Got DYK?...

Indian current events

Hello Joturner, Not sure why you have merged the Indian currents events with the Pakistan even after the consensus did not indicate an unanimous vote of support. Please explain on my talk page. - Ganeshk (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, It was an archive page of the news displayed on the Portal:India news section. - Ganeshk (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, there was no unanimous support, but that unanimous support is not needed to achieve consensus. However, it appeared as though there was a general okay to merge several of the regional current events articles on the merge's discussion page (which, by the way, has been up for a few weeks now). Considering that the page for current events in Pakistan hasn't been updated since March, it only made sense to merge the two related articles into one section. The inclusiveness of all South Asian nations into one article will also allow for events from Bangladesh and Nepal, for example, to be included on one of the regional events pages. Could you please explain the problem you have with the merge? Of course, the Current events in South Asia page needs to cleaned up to reflect the change, so overlook that for now. As the page will still contain past current events for India, is it really a significant problem for Portal:India and Portal:Pakistan. I don't think it's a big deal, but perhaps you disagree. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the merge. As long as the Indian current events page is active, there is no reason to merge. Pakistan related events may have not been updated since March, so it would better to mark it as inactive as is done to inactive wikiprojects. Merging is not the solution and there was no consensus or even proper support to merge the news pages on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Current events =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The merger has resulted in a lot of confusion. For example, the first news of the section now says "Prime minister urges medicos to end strike. Medical students along with students from other institutes are observing strike against the proposed hike in reservation for OBCs in higher educational institutes." Definitely, the news now clearly doesn't mention its scope very well. While if it were on Portal:India's archive of News, the context is clearly present. The Portal:India is very active and per Nichalp there is no need to merge the archives of it to that of South Asia. Even if there might be a need to merge events of South Asia, the archives of News from Portal:India MUST be maintained separately. Just as you wouldn't suggest merging another of South Asian countries portal with Portal:India if they are not "up to the mark", the current event section also should be kept separate. Portal:India is a Featured Portal and for a good reason there are archives of the news. Any kind of changes to the archive will hurt the quality of the portal. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I resplit the articles back into two different articles, one for Pakistan and one for India. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for putting it back. - Ganeshk (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the revert. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop

i know im kinda new hear but i really want to try for admin even if i fail. thanks 03Rotpar 22:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ow...

That is sad considering I pride myself on my grammar, actually I know that I am terrible speller (I think I spelt that wrong). :P Yanksox 01:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 29th.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Blnguyen's RfA

Hello Jo. Thank you for your support at request for adminship which ended at the overwhelming and flattering result of (160/1/0), and leaves me in a position of having to live up to a high standard of community expectation. If you need help with admin powers, feel free to ask me. Of course, if I make any procedural mistakes, feel free to point them out and I look forward to working with you in the future, and a successful RfA too...Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad

I could use some help on the Muhammad page. The usual -- Muhammad was a pedophile, Islam spreads by violent conquest, etc. I'm always trying to keep the article neutral and now it's being pushed towards an anti-Islamic stance. Zora 21:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I responded on the Muhammad talk page. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 5th.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Extra! Extra! Muslim votes for Jew!

Dewey beats Truman! LOL. Can't tell if you're bitter or jovial... Hope for the latter. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If it were the former, I would have voted Oppose or at the very least just a regular Support. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 05:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Islam-related page

Not sure what to do with this, but I thought you'd be able to figure out the appropriate linking and formatting a lot faster than I can, or at least refer it to the appropraite project. Thanks. Cheers and happy editing! --Kchase02 (T) 09:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess it'd be helpful to include the link. Ridha --Kchase02 (T) 09:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes. I hope they help. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jo!--Kchase02 T 23:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for voting in my recently unsuccessful RfA. I plan on working harder in the coming months so that I have a better chance of becoming an admin in the future. I hope you will consider supporting my if I have another RfA. Thank you for your comments. --digital_me^(t/c) 15:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello, Tariqabjotu/Archive Six, and thank you for vote on my recent RfA! With a final vote of 84/1/4, I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. I will be slowly acclimating myself to my new tools over the next months, but welcome any and all feedback and suggestions on how I might be able to use them to help the project. Thanks again for your early and very positive support! Kukini 05:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hugo Chávez FARC

Would you mind having a look at Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Hugo Chávez? Since it was your nomination, I'd like to hear your opinion on the new developments. Regards, Sandy 13:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I personally am not fond of the long revert as it erased months of work on the article, some of which was positive. That seemed to me like a desparate attempt to maintain the article's featured status. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I hope it was just an attempt to restore a better article, even though not good enough for featured status. Well, if it's current state (dead external links, biased sources, missing internal links, unreferenced, massively long, and POV) is enough to keep its featured status, that's not a good sign for Wiki. Thanks for responding, cheers, Sandy 01:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 12th.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 01:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

CrazyRussian's RfA

Hello Joturner, and thank you for your "Dewey beats Truman" support at my request for adminship, which ended with an awe-inspiring 86/1/2 result. I plan to do much with my shiny new tools - but I'll start slow and learn the ropes at first. Please deluge me with assignments and requests - I enjoy helping out. For Mother Russia!! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Mosque article

Someone let me know yesterday that the mosque article is the subject of two disputes. As you're aware, I had scheduled this as tomorrow's main page featured article, but it can't go up while the disputes are going on, so I've taken it off the queue. Please let me know when the disputes are over and I'll fast-track it back onto the queue. Raul654 10:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Message received. Hopefully we'll get everything straightened out soon. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Reversions to Mosque

Thanks you for the note. You may want to ask BhaiSaab to use the talk page to justify his edits. Pecher ^Talk 20:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

IFD and NSD

Please note that recent images that you have tagged with IFD tags already had NSD tags on them. I'm assuming you had a dispute with the NSD tags so you should have removed those before listing them in IFD. The NSD's will expire tomorrow and the images should be deleted when that happens unless those tags are removed. You should probably go ahead and remove them since you went through the process of listing for IFD. I don't personally feel like any discussion was required but if you feel that they should be kept then please do remove the NSD tags. Perhaps you just didn't notice the NSD tag. --Strothra 13:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the above comment only applies to your addition of Image:MammyInBlue.jpg to IFD when it was already tagged with a NSD tag. --Strothra 13:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right; thanks for pointing that out. I'll strike it from the images for deletion page. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jordan

Dear Jordan, thanks so much for your support during my recent successful request for adminship. I really appreciate it, my friend. And your comment on CrazyRussian's RfA was priceless! Take care -- Samir धर्म 08:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

RE:{{fuir}}. Thanks, should be quite useful. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Olympic-rings.png removed from your user page

Thanks, but be a little more careful next time. You actually didn't remove any images at all. But don't worry, I took care of it. Thanks for the notice :o) tiZom_(2¢) 17:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I did remove the image from your page (see here). However, I could completely understand if you thought I didn't remove any images, because there are in fact two images of Olympic rings Olympic-rings.png, the image I said I removed, and Olympic rings.svg, the images you removed. Obviously, the fact that we have two images that depict the exact same thing needs to be rectified. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey Jordan. Thanks for taking care of the image from those template test pages--I'd completely forgotten about them. Out of curiosity, is Image:Flag of the Olympic Movement.svg free to use, or should it be removed from User/Template/Wikipedia space as well? -- Jonel | Speak 23:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... that's a good question. I'll post something on the image pages for those three images. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The image has been retagged as fair use, so it's not free to use. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Jonel | Speak 19:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Mosque

I've responded on the article's talk page. Pecher ^Talk 22:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed Image

I'm definetely not going to read that now - but thanks anyway for letting me know. --Scotteh 22:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Translation work

You requested the translation of pt:Onda de violência no Brasil em Maio de 2006 to English. I can do the job. What should I do with your request at WP:TIE? Do you want any special thing from the article? Regards! Afonso Silva 00:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I honestly didn't have any particular section in mind. It just appears as though the article on the Portuguese Wikipedia is much longer and more comprehensive than the one on the English Wikipedia. Perhaps you could use your best judgement in determining what information in the Portuguese article would be suitable for improving the one here. Thanks in advance. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey

I was just wondering why you have all these religions' symbols on top of your page but not Islam? Islam is like the second largest religion. Is there any specific reason or did you just not think about it? Anyway, I just thought it would be interesting to know. --Scotteh 10:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

See User talk:Kingboyk#My User Page. As can be seen there and in some comments from my last RfA, some thought the page was too Islamo-centric. I most certainly did not "just not think about it" considering - perhaps you just didn't pick up on it - I am a Muslim. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see now. I didn't realise that earlier. Well thanks for informing me. --Scotteh 18:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Category marked for deletion

You may be interested.

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_16#Category:People_killed_by_or_on_behalf_of_Muhammad

BhaiSaab ^talk 00:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Dear Tariqabjotu/Archive Six,
Thank you very much for your support on my recent RfA. I am pleased to announce that it passed with a tally of 72/11/1, and I am now an administrator. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the tools, but please let me know if there are any admin jobs I can do to help you, now or in the future. —Cuiviénen 02:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ka'ba2003.jpg

You stated the image is in the public domain because "[..] the picture is being used on Wikipedia to illustrate an Islamic concept." This might be true but public domain lets you use the image in other contexts, as well. So I doubt that this image really is PD, it might be used under the fair use rationale only. --Matt314 10:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to change the licensing information if you feel it is incorrect. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Categories Which List People Executed by Governments

From Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 16#Category:People killed by or on behalf of Muhammad, you stated...

Should we also delete the several other categories which list people executed by governments or leaders for various reasons? Your reasoning makes no sense. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 15:30

I found Category:People killed by the Third Reich, but that was it. What are the others you had in mind? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I was overly-precise. I've seen other examples, but my only regular experience is with the Category:People executed for heresy. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-18 22:13

I see. I don't believe that's really comprable to the category up for deletion. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a category of people executed by a religious organization. How is that different from a category of people executed by order of a religious leader? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-18 22:20

You are free to disagree, but I would consider Category:People executed by the Roman Catholic Church to be analagous to Category:People killed on behalf of Muhammad and Category:People executed for heresy to be analagous to Category:People killed for rejecting Muhammad's teachings because the former two are by a group (the Church or Muhammad's people) while the later two are for specific offenses. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

But aren't those just subcategories of general categories about being executed by X? If we have every possible category of reasons why people were executed by order of Muhammad or the Catholic Church, wouldn't it make sense to put them all into the obvious category that connects them? — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-18 22:32

Again, you are free to disagree. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

Thanks for voting! Hello Tariqabjotu/Archive Six, and thank you so much for voting in my recent RfA. I am pleased to inform you that it passed with a final tally of (119/1/3), into the WP:100, so I have now been cleared for adminship and will soon be soaring above the clouds. I was overjoyed, shocked, and humbled by the tally, and, most importantly, all the support. Thank you. If there is ever anything you need, you know where you can find me. Take care.

--Pilot|guy 22:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 19th.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Mosque subsection in Islam

Do you think you could write a paragraph or two about mosques here? Thanks. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello Joturner, and thanks for voting in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of (68/19/3). I appreciated your comments, which I hope to take on board in order to gain your respect in my work as an administrator. Best of luck in your continued editing of the encyclopedia! Sam Vimes 17:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Mosque

Thanks for letting me know; I've replied on the article's talk page. Pecher ^Talk 18:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, but I'm indeed watching the article. Pecher ^Talk 06:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Banu Nadir

Assalam-o-Alaikum We are having a problem at Banu Nadir. This article was put on the front page a few days ago, which was very offensive to many Muslims and also inaccurate in facts. This article is under dispute but it seems that the other party is not ready to negotiate. My explanations were based on the articles of Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, who himself has been a student of two great Islamic scholars of twentieth century, Amin Ahsan Islahi[2] who wrote Tadabbur-ul-Qur'an, an accredited Tafsir and Abu ala Maududi, who wrote another Tafsir, Tafhim-ul-Qur'an. Articles written by Javed Ahmad Ghamidi and Amin Ahsan Islahi explain very clearly the reasons of prosecutions by early Muslims. Unfortunately, most of their books are in Urdu, but some of their articles have been translated in English, which can be accessed through links given on Javed Ahmad Ghamidi and [3]. I read some parts of Tadabbur-ul-Qur'an myself and wrote a small paragraph, which I included in Banu Nadir (now removed because the article is under dispute). Just to give you an idea, the paragraph is written below:

Muslims explanation for prosecution

Muslims hold that Constitution of Medina was first broken by Jews. At first instance, by not helping them against invaders and at the second instance, by helping invaders against Muslims. Muslims believe that the responsibility of spreading the religion was now unto Ishmaelites, rather than Israelites. According to Quran, ...(God) said, "I am appointing you (Abraham) a leader for the people". He replied, "and also my descendants"? God said, "My covenant does not include the transgressors" (2:124), You shall strive for the cause of God as you should strive for His cause. He has chosen you and has placed no hardship on you in practicing your religion - the religion of your father Abraham (22:78), and We thus made you an impartial community, that you may serve as witnesses among the people, and the Messenger serves as a witness among you (2:143). The prosection that followed was of special nature. Similar prosections can be found in Bible, when Moses asked his followers to kill all those who worshiped Golden Calf, kill your brother, friend, and neighbor (Exodus Chapter 32 verse 27) or with the principle by which Solomon expanded his empire. Destruction of nations, when they challenge the God (by disobeying the Messenger), either with natural disaster or with prosecution by believers can also be found in many examples from Quran and Bible, like Nation of Noah, Nation of Lot, and finally Jewish miseries after denial of Jesus. Quran also states, ... that whoever took a life, unless it be for murder or for spreading disorder on earth, it would be as if he killed all mankind; and whoever saved a life, it would be as if he saved all mankind (5:32), and And he who kills a believer intentionally, his reward is Hell; he shall remain therein forever... (4:93). Hence prosection of Jews and others was a special case and is no more considered applicable[Amin Ahsan Islahi, Tadabbur-i-Quran (Tafsir on Quran), 2nd ed., (Lahore: Faran Foundation, 1986), [4]][ArRasul and Annabi are not synonymous terms (3rd explanatory note)[5]][6].

I would like you to get involve in this article, as it may help us in coming to a conclusion. SaadSaleem 09:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I may try to contribute to what's going on at Banu Nadir in a bit, but I want to concentrate on trying to improve the Mosque article for now. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 11:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Good article stars

I was wondering if you could take the green star out of the set of stars that you made and split it up like the featured article star so that we can use it over at WP:GA. Thanks. --SomeStranger^(t) 19:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The star is located at Image:Green-star.png:

-- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Crash template

Glad to see someone taking an interest! --Jumbo 02:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Those multiple templates have always annoyed me, especially when I added them to Air India Flight 182, currently on the Main Page. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I just copied from the Airport template(s) and changed a few things around. I figured someone smarter and more knowledgable than me would come along and fix it up if I made a mistake. Thanks! --Jumbo 02:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... perhaps I'll take care of those another day. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A short Esperanzial update

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Your User Page

Hey, I was just randomly perusing UserPages looking for inspiration for my own when I stumbled upon yours. I have to say it's the most aesthetically pleasing page I've ever seen on Wikipedia, period. Did you design it yourself? Very clean, crisp and elegant. Anyway, just thought I'd throw some wikiprops your way. Namaste. Nscheffey^(T/C) 16:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments. Yes, I did design it myself. Good luck on designing your page and if you need or want any help, you can always contact me. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Trading spaces

I personally don't mind you renovating my page. I'm bad in creating them a good userpage. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Some suggestions? I don't have anything to go on right now except an arm surgery, but that doesn't make for a good user page. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I like a rather quiet userpage, maybe a place where I can place several userboxes later on, and one that is small but nicely organized. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, that sounds good. Just one thing; do you have a favorite color? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll like it simple white and black. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I did some changes, but I like it Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey can you help me with that section please, I don't really understand. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Saudi influence in Mosques

Hey... in the end I really don't care. I've lost enough hope in the wiki system at present that I'm not willing to fight for what I think would be a better article because I would have to get into a constant battle to keep it that way... and, it's not worth the time. Creating conversion of houses of worship of other religions into mosques was a mistake because it will never be NPOVed and will be used as a tool... the first thing Pecher did was remove the neutrality tags which the article desperately needs. So, the Saudi section should be cut in half (at least) and the rest should be pushed into another article if it's good information. You may also want to place it under social conflict because nothing makes it more important than other influences of social conflict in history. I'm not really going to invest any work into it, so don't let my opinions keep you back. gren グレン 06:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I or someone else will take care of the section, but I'm not sure the information would go well with the rest of the information in the Social Conflict section. But I won't be tackling it right now; it's past 2:30am (UTC-4). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 06:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Happy first-edit anniversary!

Happy anniversary! Enjoy the cake.

I noticed it's the anniversary of your first edit today, so thought I'd pop by with a cake I made!

EvocativeIntrigue _{TALK | EMAIL} 23:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a million! I can't believe it's been that long... -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem! EvocativeIntrigue (Managed to mess my signature coding up!) 00:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)