User talk:Gauharjk

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Gauharjk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Nehwyn 15:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About your recent edits

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Depictions of Muhammad. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Nehwyn 15:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Depictions of Muhammad, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Don't make major deletions without discussing first on the article talk page. NawlinWiki 17:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see nobody has mentioned this so please be aware of Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} I wanted to convey my message that depiction of Prophet Muhammad is forbidden in Islam, and tends to antagonize Muslims across the world. IMHO, it would be better to remove any paintings. Cartoons and other indecent stuff should be removed immediately. Muslims are sensitive people. I'm sure many would have conveyed their displeasure by now.

Check out http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4674864.stm and http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/02/02/national/a140548S76.DTL for further confirmation of this fact. Please act upon this request and remove depictions of the Prophet asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauharjk (talk • contribs)

Hello there. I do understand the amount of discomfort that depictions of the Prophet may cause to muslims. However, depictions of the Prophet cannot be removed from the Depictions of Muhammad article, as they are central to that particular subject. This point has been discussed repeatedly on the talk page for that article, and consensus has been repeatedly reached that since Wikipedia refuses censorship, an article specifically dealing about depictions of Muhammad cannot be deprived of those depictions purely on religious grounds. I would be however in favour of removing all non-veiled pictures of him from the more general Muhammad article; that way, muslims that feel offended by pictures of the Prophet could read that article without problems, and simply abstain from visiting the page about his depictions. --Nehwyn (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - I see you're trying to sign your comments, but not quite doing it right. There is an easy way: just press the signature button, it's the tenth from the left in the row of buttons just above the editing space. Thanks! --Nehwyn (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to take a look at the Islam and blasphemy article. --Nehwyn (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That would be sufficient, considering Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia. But what about that image from South Park? Is it kept there intentionally to make fun? Or those danish cartoons. I have serious reservations against them. What is your opinion? How does South Park image of the prophet relate to the subject in any way, other than making fun of the Prophet? --Gauhar 15:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

--Gauharjk (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As-Salāmu `Alaykum. I've thought about this, and I've come to think they should stay there. It is important for people to know that media can be disrespectful of other people's religion, and that when they do that will only generate hostility. (Given the current world situation, I think hostility on these matters is just what we do not need.) After all, they are Depictions of Muhammad and therefore within the scope of that article. --Nehwyn (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a lot of discussion of this question, as you'll see on the article's talk page. Consensus is important at Wikipedia, and the consensus has been that Wikipedia is not censored to conform with any one religion's rules, but instead tries to fairly and accurately explain everything as completely and neutrally as possible. You are welcome to participate in the discussion on the talk page, but in a matter as difficult to decide as this one, you should remember that you are only one of many people making this decision, and it is made by the whole community, and not by you alone. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chemtrials

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Chemtrials, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Chemtrials. J Milburn (talk) 12:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to edit it and make corrections asap. I'm still having a hard time using the Wikiedia interface, i'm not familiar with it yet. I'll make corrections asap. --Gauharjk (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some answers to your comment at Talk:Chemtrials. The article itself has been redirected to an article we already have on the subject. J Milburn (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Chemtrials8.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Chemtrials8.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]