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]
Ali Nihat Yazici
Why do you call a campaign biography freely available for distribution a "copyright violation"? Who are you and what do you have for or against Turkish diplomats? Sam Sloan12:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against Turkish diplomats, but the website I brought up has a copyright notice at the bottom. I don't see any information about the campaign biography being free for distrubtion anyway. In addition, the website in question is not even referenced in the article. If you can produce the notice that contradicts that, feel free to remove the copyright violation notice and restore the page to its original condition. joturner13:03, 25 March 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 [1]
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 [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. 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 [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.) 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[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."
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]
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)[reply]
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. Zora03:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. joturner03:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. joturner21:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Pepsidrinka02:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. joturner02:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Jim62sch00:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Jim62sch00:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. PiCo00:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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:
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.
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.
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. joturner22:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 Devil22:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Capitalistroadster06:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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? Jim62sch00:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Jim62sch00:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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
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. Pepsidrinka03:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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. Pepsidrinka05:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was very happy to read of your conversion to Islam. You have been guided to the true path alhamdulillah. Always remember that Islam is a religion of moderation. Wasalam. Zain12:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you take an interest in articles on Prophets of Islam, you might like to look at the article Nuh. There's a proposal that it be merged with the article Noah, and I think someone is working on it. Since Nuh is identical with the Nuh section in Noah it might be hard to argue against a merge. The major difference is all those links at the bottom of Nuh. Worth keeping. But perhaps they should be moved to Noah? PiCo07:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Substituting templates
When using template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.
It's easily forgotten (when I was still fairly new, I failed to subst my Welcome notice, and couldn't work out why the template kept being deleted ot amended...). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, what still isn't working? Someone had moved to page to a different location, but I have since moved it back so there shouldn't be any more problems. If something specific isn't working though, let me know and I'll have a look. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama(spit)23:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks alright now. For a couple of minutes it showed the page history blank and the discussion page as a red link. I'm not sure what could have possibly caused that. joturner23:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you were probably just looking at a version of the page while I was in the middle of fixing things. For some reason the talk page wasn't moved back when I moved the main article, so the discussion page appeared as a redlink for a few minutes while I went back and manually moved the talk page back where it belonged. --PeruvianLlama(spit)23:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First time Vandalism
Please don't WP:BITE - a lot of people make mistakes first time / experiment but quicky stop when given a softer warning - no need to threaten with blocking right away. With proper coaching more people will become valued contributers. Agathoclea23:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which particular warning you considered biting the newcomers. But I will assess the last several {{bv}} warnings I have given.
24.118.176.35 blanked the Newbie page three times in what was clearly blatant vandalism (note once, twice, and the worst one of all, thrice)
I gave 136.153.2.6 a harsh warning only after giving him/her a less harsh warning. This user blanked the Pope Benedict XVI article and replaced the Internet article with the word "porn." This user was subsequently blocked after continued vandalism.
Note also, though, that I do give less harsh warnings as well (see here, here, here, and here). In my opinion, using the {{bv}} template (which stands for "blatant vandalism") was appropriate in all four cases above since the actions prescribed were blantant, clear forms of vandalism. Although it is inappropriate to bite newcomers and chastise them for not understand how Wikipedia works, I stand by my belief that these four editors knew exactly what they were doing: trying to disrupt Wikipedia with harmful edits.
I was refering to 24.118.176.35 who stopped his vandalizm within 2 minutes from the first warning which you did after his first edit. As blatant as it might seem a {{test}} would have been sufficient. This also covers bases, if a blanking is eg a content dispute, something that sadly keeps appearing on WP:AIV as well. But I don't want to start an argument - just wanted to give you something to think about. Agathoclea07:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry; I'm not insulted. I have been and will continue to be more careful with warning users. If you thought that warning was too harsh, newcomers might and I do not want that. Salaam. joturner19:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
United States House elections, 2006
Would you be willing to discuss your recent reversion[7] to United States House elections, 2006here? The very existence of the section in an oversized article has been seriously questioned on the talk page for several weeks, but removal seems to be met with reversion without comment.
Just in case you're still looking for opinions on whether to move the map to the Commons, I think you certainly should. It's very well thought out, and looks clean. Also, more importantly, there aren't high quality bars that must be for an image to be placed on Commons — any image that has a free license and might be useful in an article anywhere on the project ought to be there. If there is more than one version of an image in the commons, so much the better, as it allows the different projects to choose the most suitable. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC)17:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We started a proposal Wikipedia:Wikiethics to state the existing policies coherently and make suggestions on improving the editorial standards in Wiki. I thought you might be interested in contributing to that proposal.
Unfortunately, a pro-porn and pro-offense lobby is trying to make this proposal a failure. They unilaterally started an approval poll although almost no one including me believe that it is time for a vote, simply because the policy is not ready. It is not even written completely.
Editors who thinks that the policy needs to be improved rather than killed by an unfair poll at the beginning of the proposal, started another poll ('Do we really need a poll at this stage?') at the same time. The poll is vandalized for a while but it is stable now. A NO vote on this ('Do we really need a poll now?') poll will strengthen the position of the editors who are willing to improve the ethics policy further.
If you have concerns about the ethics and editorial standards in Wiki, please visit the page Wikipedia:Wikiethics with your suggestions on the policy. We have two subpages: Arguments and Sections. You might want to consider reviewing these pages as well...
I have Resid's talk page watched and saw your message to him, and came to your userpage (fascinating journey, by the way...). I am not part of the Wikiethics proposal (for or against), but have been one of the stronger voices in the general scheme of things due to my blocking of Resid about a week ago. Since he's appealing to Christian and Muslim Wikipedians, perhaps you could help me, since you're quite a well-known Wikipedia editor (I've seen you around, have you ever considered adminship?), explain to him our policies of WP:SOCK, WP:3RR and WP:POINT? (My talk page is protected, but I'll be watching your page for replies). NSLE(T+C) at 05:24 UTC (2006-03-23)
Yes; I have actually considered adminship. I just don't want to nominate myself as self-noms often don't get the same respect as nominations from other users. Now that I have seen the numerous comments regarding Resid's inappropriate actions on Wikipedia, I am becoming increasingly concerned that a proposal regarding ethics is coming from him. It seems to be a decent attempt to encapsulate some of the ethical practices that intrinsically exist within Wikipedia, but I am reluctant to agree with a policy developed by someone who fails to understand and doesn't want to follow the rules already established. But then again, I don't want to make an ad hominem attack. joturner05:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked over your contributions, would you accept an adminship nomination from me then? NSLE(T+C) at 06:01 UTC (2006-03-23)
I understand the timezone problem. I'll write something up, then leave a link on your talk page. I've also seen the reply to Resid. Thanks, and good luck :) NSLE(T+C) at 06:21 UTC (2006-03-23)
Hi Jordan,
I see you've been active around the GA pages. You'll see a new look proposal for the GA page on the talk page. I'd really appreciate it if you take a look and post your feedback. TheGrappler has done some sterling work on categorisations within the section which I think will make it much easier to find articles for viewing, and easier for editors to include and remove articles. Cheers SeanMack17:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the changes be, but here was what I was saying in terms of point of view. I don't think the articles being linked to were written in neutral point of view; I simply think the selection of links were. For example, the link to The 100, whose only purpose is to demonstrates one author's view of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as the most influential person in history, is not balanced by another link about criticism of him. In fact, none of those links focus on any articles on an opposing, less respectful viewpoints of the Prophet (although Depictions of Muhammad comes close). The least we could do is relieve the See Also section of some of its piety (Seal of the Prophets) and unnecessary praise (The 100). joturner02:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I couldn't agree with you more. Those two articles do belong; it must have had to do with the edit conflict that occured during my first edit attempt (I was editing AE's version while you were making your edit). I was only attempting to remove Ya Muhammad, Zulfiqar, The 100, and Seal of the Prophets. Do you contest those removals? But absolutely, Depictions of Muhammad and List of films about Muhammad should remain; I mistakenly presumed that when AE noted back to keeping the links in his edit summary, those links include the latter two. joturner02:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed The 100, after your explanation, your removal of that one seemed logical to me. But I'll let you and the other editors work out the other "see also"s. Netscott03:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update: You may want to review the report regardless but it appears to have been settled correctly. Too bad User:Irishpunktom doesn't follow WP:AGF more and instead wastes people's time (admin's etc.) filing inaccurate 3RR reports. But I suppose that makes sense for him as he and I have had our differences. Cheers! Netscott15:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it wasn't an important addition to the article. But go ahead an re-add it. Like I said to Netscott earlier, it's not going to cause me to toss and turn in my sleep. joturner22:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick comment here, I'm very appreciative of the "balance in reporting" you've expressed here Joturner... despite your beliefs... that's very commendable. Netscott22:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From just above, this bit : "In fact, none of those links focus on any articles on an opposing, less respectful viewpoints of the Prophet (although Depictions of Muhammad comes close).". For some reason that makes me think of Benjamin FranklinVoltaire in all honesty. Netscott23:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not completely sure, but looking at the map and your description it looks like how red or how blue a country is is a function of just how much violence and how many republications there have been. This is a problematic way of dealing with it since it naturally makes larger countries (such as the US which has comparatively few republications) more likely to be be very blue and very red. However, I still think that it is a very well done image that should be moved to commons.JoshuaZ14:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your RfA
I just wanted to give you a vote of support on your userpage for your RfA, as well as on your RfA. I've looked at your edits to Islam related articles, and they look to be really good, and you've kept your cool and helped others keep their cool on some heated topics. Don't let the oppose votes get to you. Cheers, Makemi04:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Muslims on rajput page have claimed rajputs are descendants of islamic jihaadis, Slahuddin of crusades, they are descendants of Muhammads descendants, quereshis etc. These are blatant lies. Would you disagree?
It must be noted that the link you gave me comes from three months ago. On the current version of the article, I don't see any real cause for concern. I believe your actions are an over-reaction and unreasonable as your edit summaries attack others. joturner12:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for supporting me in my recent RfA, which passed with a final tally of 56/1/0. I thank you for your confidence in my abilities. If you ever need anything or find that I have made an error, please let me know on my talk page. — Scm83xhook 'em21:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
your message
hi Joturner, thanks for pointing that out *lol* sorry it's getting really late here that's why. Thanks for your vote, I hope it works out... with kind regards Gryffindor05:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Buck up!
I voted against your RfA but I'm hoping that this won't dishearten you. I've seen you grow and change since you got here and I think you're going to be a great Wikipedian. You might be feeling a little battered right now but ... this will pass and much better things will come in time. Zora06:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
