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 [http://www.cartoonbodycount.com 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. [[User:Savidan|savidan]]<sup>[[User_talk:Savidan|(talk)]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">(e@)</span>]]</sup> 15:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
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 [http://www.cartoonbodycount.com 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. [[User:Savidan|savidan]]<sup>[[User_talk:Savidan|(talk)]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">(e@)</span>]]</sup> 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 [[List of newspapers that reprinted Jyllands-Posten's Muhammad cartoons|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. [[User:Joturner|joturner]] 17:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Revision as of 17:04, 8 March 2006
Eid ul Adha
Salam -- why is Dec 31 a possible date for Eid ul adha? My apologies for the ignorance on this matter, but I'm simply confused.
Because the Islamic calendar is a lunar calendar, it has only approx. 354 days instead of 365. That means Eid moves up eleven days every Islamic year. Therefore, since this Eid ul-Adha is January 10, next Eid ul-Adha will occur approx. 354 days later, on December 31. They are two different Eid ul-Adhas in two different Islamic years (1426 AH and 1427 AH, respectively). The Eid ul-Adha for 1428 AH will occur December 20, 2007. joturner03:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Green Day
Green Day is not plural in the same way "the group" and "the band" aren't plural
Please note that in British English, group references (such as companies, or bands) are plural. Thus "Microsoft are announcing a new version of Windows very soon" is grammatically correct. The Wikipedia doesn't require one or the other but an informal truce has developed around articles' subject matter (for instance, most of the London bombing article should use British English). In this case, an American band was being interviewed in Germany, so I think using American English makes sense. --Dhartung | Talk 8 July 2005 06:01 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction; I didn't know that. -- joturner 8 July 2005 19:00 (UTC)
Actually, it's not quite as straightforward as Dhartung would have you believe. Microsoft, in British English, is singular. So is Green Day unless, as was the case in this instance, the sentence is construed to imply a reference to "the members of" Green Day. The sentence has been subsequently corrected so it says : "the members of Green day are being interviewed back stage", which is now clear and correct. To say, for example, "Green Day are touring in November", in any other circumstances, while it might be idiomatic, is technically incorrect grammar. You were right in the first place. ElectricRay11:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ramadan
I'll be helping you on Ramadan when I have the time. I greatly appreciate having someone there who isn't as totally pissed off at Striver as I am. It's hard to edit without giving way to anger. I'll try to follow your lead <g>. Zora00:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Muslim
I'm glad you like the change. I very much appreciate it when you make suggestions like that. I'm so upset at Striver at this point that sometimes I fail to see opportunities to compromise. Thanks for being clear-headed. Zora21:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
I know it may get frustrating and I liked your try to eliminate confusion, but most of the time it's good to keep it simple. :) Keep up the good work. --a.n.o.n.y.mt02:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You delisted Geology of the Capitol Reef area and listed Wave-particle duality? Have you seen the size difference between the two? One is certainly much more complete than the other and a much better article. The presense of 'too many red links' is an invalid thing to object to even in the FAC process. Why should it matter here? And the article you promoted did not have a single image while the one you delisted has two (I'll be adding many more once I get my Linux drive back up). How many featured articles are you the main author of? I'm up to 15, including almost all 'geology of...' FAs. --mav19:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Islam
As-Salam Alaykum brother. Congratulations on converting to Islam. I too embraced Islam 4 years ago when I was 16 years old. Best thing to remember is that God wants us all to be on the middle path, not an extremist, not incredibly liberal, moderation is the key in faith and in everything else a well. If you need anything drop me a message anytime. Mustaqbal10:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Conversion to Islam
Asalamu Alykum, Congratulations on your conversion and mashallah you seem like a salafi brother. I am 19, male, going to UNM and as you can tell, also a muslim. Although I had the advantage of being raised Muslim I am very impressed by your coversion. Good Job on the Halal meat thanksgiving but, you might already now, there are lots of fatwas saying that the food here is still of the people of the book and the main debate ppl were worried about was the way the animals are killed. Well anyway sorry if that didn't make any sense its 4am here and I am tired but I would like to start editing with you soon. Salam and Jazaka Allahu Alkhayer for the good guild logo. Angry Ayrab11:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! User:RN moved the article to Arabic numerals despite 28 votes favoring the title "Hindu-Arabic numerals" and only 17 favoring "Arabic numerals." He argues that if we don't count voters with less that 150 (or sth like that) edits, only 56% voters "support changing the title to Hindu-Arabic numerals", while at least 60% support votes are required.
However, it was agreed between all parties in the beginning of the vote that the proposal is to move the article to "Arabic numerals" from "Hindu-Arabic numerals." It was also agreed (though I thought it was very unfair) that:
Those opposing the move have the advantage that it won't be moved unless there's a 60% majority
Those supporting the move have the advantage that the person proposing the move can do the *short* opening statement.
I would definitely have preferred it the other way round, since I think an opening statement makes a HUGE difference, since many people just read the opening statement and understandably don't bother with the discussion below the votes. The present situation was accepted with the agreement that the article will be moved to "Arabic numerals" only if more than 60% voters favored that title. Thus, only 40% oppose votes were sufficient to retain the title "Hindu-Arabic numerals." In the present situation (with over 60% voters opposing the change), I find the move to "Arabic numerals" ridiculous, besides being completely unjust and unfair. Your comments will be appreciated. deeptrivia (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jotourner. I was wondering if you could explain to me why some people believe the image in the Qur'an article is offensive. I understand it has to do with the woman's arm being bare, but there are images of women with bare arms all over Wikipedia. Why is this one in particular such a problem? Is it because a woman with bare arms is being allowed to read the Qur'an? I must confess I know very little about Islam, but I would love to learn more. I doubt I'm going to change my opinion on this particular matter, but it would be nice to at least understand the point of view they are coming from. Cheers. Kaldari21:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the interest in learning about Islam. I personally am not offended per se by the picture, although, as you can see by my vote, I am in favor of removing it and, if possible, replacing it with a new one. Most likely, those Muslims who are offended by the picture are offended because the woman is in the presence of the Qur'an. Yes, there are other pictures with bare arms (and bare other-body-parts) on Wikipedia, but they are not in the presence of the Qur'an or any other holy book.
Muslims do believe in the Bible and the Tanakh in their original forms and therefore it is no surprise that a large part of what is stated in those two books is also stated in the Qur'an. But neither of those can be found today in their original forms; it is fact that they have been altered significantly. Very few, or if not nobody, alive today has even read the Bible in its original language. However, it is a proven fact that the Qur'an remains today as the most preserved book in history; not a single dot or stroke has been altered between the very first rendition of the Qur'an and the copy you can buy from a local bookstore today. By the way, I would like to point out that I am referring to the Qur'an in Arabic as "the Qur'an" in any other language is just a translation; translations can alter significantly.
The main reason for the Qur'an's preservation is that Muslims regard it as the word of God and therefore the most revered item one could ascertain in this world. Before touching or reading the Qur'an, the Muslim must cleanse himself or herself in a process called wudu. The Qur'an must be treated with the utmost respect; it cannot be taken into any unclean place (like the bathroom) or put on an unclean surface (such as the floor without a clean mat underneath). When disposing of the Qur'an, or any other item that bears a name of Allah (especially in Arabic), it must be burned or buried (odd as that may sound). Some Muslims will even go so far as to put the Qur'an higher than them whenever they read it or kiss the Qur'an when he or she sees one. In some countries, such as Pakistan, desecrating the Qur'an is punishable by a life sentence or death. I think you get the point; the Qur'an is respected most highly by Muslims.
Surely you can see why it could be considered sacrilegious to portray the Qur'an next to someone doing something un-Islamic. Non-Muslims are allowed to read the Qur'an. But this person, although presumably a non-Muslim, is dressed in a manner that violates the modest clothing outlined by the Qur'an and example (hadith) of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The degree to which Muslims are offended by this portrayal of the Qur'an, as you can see, varies.
Thanks for the explanation. At least now I understand a bit of the reasoning behind why someone would be offended. As you have described it, the issue seems to be closer to profanity than obscenity, i.e. the problem has more to do with the subject's lack of religious reverance than the fact that her arm is uncovered. Would you say that is accurate? This seems a bit more reasonable, at least to my Westernized mind. The issue is certainly a difficult one, as Wikipedia's purpose is certainly not to be offensive. Reading over Wikipedia:Profanity, it seems the question boils down to whether or not the image adds something of value to the article. Although that is certainly open to debate, my personal opinion is that the image does add something to the article as it is an interesting picture and provides good illustration for the last two paragraphs of "Writing and printing the Qur'an". Of course the issue ultimately boils down to editorial judgement, and that is where I suppose we must agree to disagree. It's unfortunate that the debate on the article talk page has accomplished little in the way of actual communication between the two sides of the issue. I think some of the people involved would be more receptive if the objections were explained better. Kaldari05:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is an admin command that makes it easier, but I'm not an admin. Adminship can be earned by it takes several months and at least 1000 or 2000 edits. But anyone can revert. You can look at the history and click on the timestamp of the last good version (the one you want to revert the page to). Then, the click "edit this page" at the top of that version. You'll get a warning saying you're editing an old version. Just post something like "reverted to someUser version" or "reverted vandalism" in the edit summary, submit, and you're done. joturner03:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kukini
He was warned. I was tired of putting up with his POV pushing. He's a new user whom I kept trying to help, I thought we had cleared things up when he put his item on Current events, but he kept insisting on inserting it into the 2006 article, and I had had enough. I say stop it now before he becomes another problem user. User:Zoe|(talk)03:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can let it go. I just am concerned that the NPOV policy is NOT being followed here. Iraqi deaths under American influence get deleted but not the deaths by insurgents. This seems quite peculiar to me. Kukini21:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you reverted my edit and said "will find source." If you are going to do that, insert the [citation needed] tag and revert, or wait until you have the information until you revert. Incidentally, the new version (25-27) is based on a Sunni hadith that many Shi'a might have a problem attributing to all Muslims. Just to avoid any future incidents, it is best not to attribute a Sunni hadith to an Islamic viewpoint. Actually, there seems to be alot of edit wars that are based on whether the view should be qualified by the term Sunni. See caliph, Hasan ibn Ali and Yazid. Two editors, one who is a Shi'a and I don't know about the other seem to go back and forth inserting Sunni in front of contentous statements. And also, the 25-27 number refers (to my knowledge) to prayer in congregation, it does not neccessitate prayer in a mosque. Pepsidrinka21:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for enlightening me about the use of the {{fact}} tag. Go ahead and remove the reference to a specific number if you feel it is fit. joturner21:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed you have been pushing to make this article better in the more recent past. And I imagine you would like you see this article on the featured status log. The only reservation I have, well let me say this. I think there are two possible options. We could qualify the statement to ascribe it just to a Sunni belief, until we can confirm or deny the belief within other denominations of Islam. Or we can just mention it to be more virtuous and link to the already linked citation you added. I prefer the latter, only because, when someone unfamilar with Islam reads that sentence, it doesn't really add anything unless you know how much reward or how much virtue there is in reading by oneself. Even for a Muslim (i.e. me), it is really ambigous just because, as far as I know, there is nothing explicitly mentioned for you to multiply it by 25 or 27. For example, in giving of charity, of the top of my head I'm inclined to say the reward in ramadan is 70-700 more. So something like that is tangible (i.e. you give $1 and the reward is $70-$700). Whereas in this, looking at it from a non-muslims point of a view, it doesn't add anything. Your thoughts? Pepsidrinka22:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article should be deleted. I know the poster and I know who he is referring to (as you can see by the post he made on my talk page. If you are an admin, go ahead and delete the article. By the way, don't associate the improper addition with me because I know him. I did not put him up to it. joturner02:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joturner, I saw that you added a list of pages that use the Holidays infobox on the talk page. You may also consider joining the holidays WikiProject which is still fairly new and needs as much help as possible! It would be appreciated if you joined! Thanks DaGizzaChat19:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mashallah!
How to perform Eid prayers
I'm not very knowledgable about prayers and I was trying to find an online description of how to perform the Eid-ul-Azha prayers by myself but couldn't find any reliable source (e.g. some come from a Madhi or Shi-a perspective). I think it would be quite useful and beneficial to add a paragraph on how to perform the Eid prayers either here in the Eid-ul-Azha article or on the Salaat article and then link it here.
Thanks to the muslim Guild and yourself for all of your great works relating to the Islamic articles. Keep up the commendable effort.
Hey joturner. It would be appreciated if you could take a look at these two articles where some highly anti-Islam POV is being pushed. Yuber(talk)22:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any anti-Islam point of view in the Islam in the United States article. In the Islamist terrorism article, however, we are walking a fine time. The article is about a topic that by definition is going to have to say some disparaging things about Islam. It will have to talk about interpretations of the Qur'an that promote violence and opinions of these terrorist groups. But at the same time, the article has also mentioned interpretations of the Qur'an that denounce violence as well as Muslim leaders who are against terrorism. In my opinion, it is as neutral as possible. joturner23:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Crusade"
I think your using the word "crusade" is highly suggestive and inappropriate. As I pointed out to User:Anonymous editor, I also changed articles where the Bible is called "the Holy Bible", and will continue to do so. I don't see why applying Wikipedia policies should raise eyebrows.
As far as I know, I have not deleted the definite article when deleting the word "holy"; it probably wasn't there in the first place. I am sorry for not having inserted it here and there. ---Benne ['bɛnə] (talk)23:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was aware of the implications of the word crusade, but it was not used to be offensive. I tried to clarify that with the following sentence in which I plainly state that I'm not saying you're wrong. I do agree that enforcing Wikipedia policy should not raise a few eyebrows, but as I stated, almost all of these edits were in Islam-related articles. It makes me wonder (and certainly it will make others wonder) why you have chosen to enforce the policy in those articles primarily. And there have made some edits in which you have omitted the article when it originally was there. For example, see Sawm of Ramadan and Ramadan (calendar month). joturner23:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about those mistakes. Interesting to note their number seems to have instantly dropped from many to some. But I will try and be more careful.
And I don't think it's relevant which articles I edit. I can't edit them all at once. Like I said, I have edited and will continue to edit those articles where the Bible is called "the Holy Bible" (or the Vedas "the Holy Vedas", for that matter). Undoubtedly, some people won't appreciate that either, but should that stop me from doing so? ---Benne ['bɛnə] (talk)00:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments about the Quran photo. You're right: I don't have any legal control over whether the image is used in the article or not, but I thank you for considering my opinion on the matter. Quadell13:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there was a notice that photography was not allowed, but it wasn't enforced. They searched my bags for security reasons and saw my camera, and I had expected it to be a problem, but it was not. Many people, including me, were taking photos right in front of guards, and no one complained. You're right that that's not a copyright issue, but that's a common mistake to make -- people should assume good faith about such things. All the best, Quadell23:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mecca section reinstated
I have reinstated the section on the "Importance of Mecca". If you feel the wording of the section is incorrect, POV, etc, please edit it (of course) but if you want to remove it altogether please explain to the rest of us why! I personally think it shoul;d be kept because Mecca is a word known to all, whereas Hajj isnt. (Maybe should be, but isnt) so a brief description of the rituals on the Mecca page is useful. Those that want to delve deeper can the go to the Hajj page for greater detail.Jameswilson23:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was not the person who took out the "Importance of Mecca" section. The previous editor, 62.6.139.10, stated in his edit summary that he was restoring an unvandalized version. Clearly, looking at the difference between revisions, he was not reverting vandalism. I was simply reverting to the version that had been accepted for days (which curiously enough did not include the "Importance of Mecca" section). I have no problem with the section at all and believe restoring it was a good decision. joturner00:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding these edits: What does it hurt to have more than one source linked for a story? Reading about events from more than one source can provide useful information or perspective. --Mr. Billion05:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need three sources documenting a volcano erupting? I don't think so. The main point of the source is to verify that the occurence of the event occured. If there is so much information that we have several perspectives on an issue, we should just create a new article on Wikipedia. joturner05:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we don't need so many articles for the volcano thing (although some news sources did conflict on that), but the main point of news sources on Current Events is not simply to verify the entry that's on Current Events, but rather to make additional information available to users. Again, what harm comes from more than one source? --Mr. Billion06:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assalamu alaykum
Assalaamu alaykum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuh,
Akhee, I was just reading your profile. MashaAllah, it nearly brought me to tears. I also reverted to Islam, a little over 2 years ago myself. Just want to say akhee, uhibbuka fillaah. I love you for the sake of Allah.
It wasn't directed at anyone in particular; it was just a general reminder. I'm glad you didn't perceive any negativity -- perhaps I was reading into things. All the best, – Quadell(talk) (bounties)14:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.--Lacatosias16:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Cash04:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Lafem05:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I apologize. You did mention the change was in accordance with the talk page. I must have missed that comment in your edit summary. joturner01:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 Boy03:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- Curps06:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. joturner22:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. joturner15:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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, Babajobu01:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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,
Waleeed06:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
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. joturner06:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.Waleeed06:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.--Erdemsenol00:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. joturner00:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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?--Pecher12:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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? PecherTalk20:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.--KrossTalk13:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. joturner14:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.mt20:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 | Talk09:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 ∙ TC05:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Hitokirishinji15:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.mt20:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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? joturner21:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. joturner21:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.mt21:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 Кинни21:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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. joturner17:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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! abakharev07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. --SeanMcG09:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. LaRevolution15:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot agree to join the project. I personally am overall satisfied with Wikipedia and see no need to call for such radical reform. joturner16:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 [2]
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. TransUtopian02:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I did a 3RR vio. I reverted twice [3][4]. I also did a large edit where I removed a bunch of nonsense [5], but that's not a revert, and even if it is, that's still a total of 3. Did I count incorrectly? Thanks. Phr22:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 [6] 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.) Phr23:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. SeanMD8014:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 -- Tawker04:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is good enough reason to remove it, but if someone else does, it will be removed momentarily. joturner04:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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[7], 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."
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)[reply]
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. joturner17:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
