This is an archive of past discussions about User:Tariqabjotu. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Current events
Aren't you the student who expanded the Mosque article? Great work on that, you took the lead and turned out some great work there!
No problem; I was hoping for some discussion, but as you can see, the discussion on the proposed current events changes aren't getting anywhere. I replied to your comment on Talk:Current events, by the way. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Well if you want to self-nom I'm not going to stop you :) But if you still want me to review and possibly nominate I'm still willing to do it. Nominated EWS23 doesn't really make much difference- I did his contributions review a while ago and now it's one RfA there isn't much more for me to do there. Let me know either way Petros47107:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Mmm, missed that one didn't I? I started off today by replying to my new messages rather than a watchlist review (which is what I usually do, and looks like I should return to doing that...). Anyway looks like you're doing fine so I'll leave you to it. Petros47109:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll respond to you here. If you want my reply to appear on my RfA, you can move it there — I don't much mind either way. However, I'd like to tell the truth.
I do curse occasionally in edit summaries. Edit summaries, to me at least, are self-reflective and notative; as such, I do say things in them that I do not say on talk pages. Nonetheless, I still don't violate attack policy with them. I do admit that I'm not surprised that you might not be acquainted with Alice's Restaurant. I can't excuse my rude and possibly uncivil comments on the AfD that you linked to...after all, "Excuses are the nails that you use to build your house of failure," or so the saying goes.
I won't deny that I don't revert much vandalism. I'm always beaten to reversion on Special:Recentchanges, and only occasionally am I the first one to notice vandalism on my Watchlist. However, I do patrol Special:Newpages often, and mark or tag articles as they are created. I usually don't warn editors because I've found that if I actually focus on assuming good faith, I notice that many articles are not created maliciously. They're created by ignorant newcomers who deserve a {{welcome}}, not a {{warn}}.
Actown is a friend and student who works with me fixing computers. He's the one that insisted I join Esperanza. My comment on his talk page was an expression of incredulity, as we had been discussing adminship earlier in the day. I am well aware of the policies on voting and vote stacking, and I am also aware that Actown may well vote against me if he votes at all.
Thanks for your comments — they make me a better editor! CorbinSimpson06:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The thing about him saying he was nonimated for a RFA was not votestacking. He was letting me know. The story he said about me being a student and a friend is 100% correct. --Actowne00:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Esperanza User Page Awards
Joturner, thanks for signing up for the Esperanza User Page Contest. The judges have received the fifteen entries, and are ready to start judging. The judges will take a week to complete the judging process, and they will contact all the participants when the judging is done.
Axiom 21, subpoint: Shakespeare's works are accounted by most as the bridge between Middle and Modern English, and are most certainly not Old English (for which, see The Canterbury Tales in the original.)
Thanks for the correction. Unfortunately, I cannot make the change at the moment because I am reading / editing from a location where the IP address is blocked. If you want, you can change the language to the appropriate one (that part of the page is not transcluded through a template). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
RfA thanks
Thanks
Tariqabjotu/Archive Eight, thank you you so much for validatingmy RfA! I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have taken both the positive and constructive on board. If I can ever make any improvements or help out in any way, please let me know, ditto if you see me stumble! Thanks again for your much appreciated support.
Deiziotalk18:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Changed to no vote
I have nothing personal against you. I made a comment on your Rfa and now abstain from voting. Good luck.--MONGO00:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
User Page Changes
Per the numerous comments regarding potential proselytization on my user page, I have decided to remove entirely the section regarding the steps in my conversion to Islam. I welcome additional comments on what you believe may be construed as proselytization. Thanks in advance. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I think rmving it was a good idea, though it wasn't the proselytization per se that I found objectionable, but the stridency that called your judgment into question, so to that extent the damage had been done. I am very sorry to put you through RfA purgatory, but that's what you get for standing! :) One day I will be scrutinized as well... BTW, have you ever read The Autobiography of an Ex-Colored Man by James Weldon Johnson? The autobiographic portion of your page is extremely well written, and is strangely reminiscent of that book. If you haven't read it, I recommend it strongly. - CrazyRussiantalk/contribs/email03:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jordan. Just a note to say thanks for responding so quickly and equably to the comments about your user page. I won't be changing my RfA vote from neutral, but it's always good to see people dealing with criticism in an enlightened and friendly manner. Cheers, --Nick Boalch12:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
My RFA
I appreciate your feedback, but, after thinking about it, I choose to withdraw from the candidacy. I will try to address your points in the future. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Definitely, evidence of NPOV edits would be helpful as well : ) Mostly from what I've seen, I lean toward supporting your RFA, but since people have voiced concerns based on your obvious POV (which everyone has, you are just open about yours), I thought I'd provide opportunity for someone to show me evidence that your POV has interfered with NPOV editing. If no such evidence is forthcoming, and no other concerns are raised, I intend to support. --MPerel ( talk | contrib)22:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll presume you're looking for information about point-of-view as it relates to Islam-related topics. And so...
Here is what I put in my last RfA:
In my request for adminship, above, I said "I try my best to make sure that I judge all articles and edits not on the character of the author but on the content of the edit." It's unfortunate that others will not do that for me. Up until this point, I've received only positive comments on my user page, but now it looks like it is causing large issues. If they continue and appear to be significant enough, I will change it, although I feel the prohibition of point of view and bias, even on user pages, shouldn't extend to a ban on individuality. We are all Wikipedians, but we are all people too.
Although I am personally passionate about my religion, that zeal has never extended to my contributions to Wikipedia. I realize that as an encyclopedia and website that is supposed to appeal to all people around the world and all faiths and backgrounds that we are supposed to remain neutral.
Last month, during the early days of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, I voted to keep the cartoons on the article page, at the top, with no special notification despite my personal objection to them (see poll results). I talked to users who repeatedly removed the cartoons from the article, most notably in User talk: Erdemsenol ([1], [2], [3]). My rational speech on that page even caused me to earn a barnstar.
My sixth most edited article is Depictions of Muhammad, which again is something I personally oppose, but yet find useful for Wikipedia. For that article, I uploaded several pictures of the Prophet ((1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6)), including one that depicts him in hell (that would be number six). Again, my personal religious objections didn't extend to Wikipedia. In addition to uploading those images, I contributed to writing that article.
I have always done my best to correct shows of piety, especially in Muhammad where it is most prevalent ([4], [5]) as well as in other articles ([6]). I've attempted to improve the neutral point of view in Islamic articles, as recently as just a few hours ago when I brought up the potential bias created by presenting so many articles that shout hosannas toward Muhammad ([7]). I also around the same time talked to a user about his reasoning for repeatedly deleting the picture of the Prophet[8].
I will continue to show that neutrality if I were to become an admin and even if I were not to. Your concerns are certainly very valid, as religious bias (as well as all bias) would impede to delivery of information. I may be confident about my religion or a pious (or if you must, "fundamentalist") Muslim, but you will see that those beliefs do not extend into the article content of Wikipedia. My user page, which has not up until this moment been an issue, simply documents an ongoing event in my life. I don't intend to proselytize, as it simply documents facts and does not do anything to lambaste the views of other religions. Although I may have committed to one religion, I find all religions fascinating (hence the userbox saying "This user believes the world is a happier, safer and saner place because of religion."). The introduction of my religious views into articles will not be an issue as an admin or otherwise. joturner11:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Fewer examples can come from more recently as I have not spent as much time on Islam-related articles. However:
And lastly, I feel my user page is a testament to not being biased towards Islam (although some disagree). I use religious symbols from several religions because I find religion in general fascinating.
If you're referring to edits on different topics, that's a bit harder for me to demonstrate. Not because I haven't been able to maintain a neutral point-of-view, but because it's different to pinpoint specific edits to demonstrate that. I hope that helps out with your decision. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, no one has yet jumped in with evidence of POV editing, and everything I've seen is impressive. I've changed to support. Good luck! : ) --MPerel ( talk | contrib)22:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for the misunderstanding, but Demosthenes_1 is my other username. I'm sorry and I'll log onto that account to make my alterations. Thanks, GH05T01:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, one (Demosthenes_1) is focused more on article creation and research, while the other (GH05T) is for editing/proofreading articles. So, basically, that was really a roundabout way of saying that I have two because I was bored. ;) Thanks, GH05T
Re: Joturner
I don't want you to feel that you are being required to suppress your religious beliefs. From your first userspace (with the Islamic colors and blog), to the redesign, and now with the removal of the Islamic Star & Crescent, it appears as if you are doing so. I don't know if this is because you have had a change of heart about expressing your religion on your userspace or if you simply desire adminship that much. Now, I realize you may seem in a bit of a Catch-22, but the previous overexpression of your religion on your userspace raised a few eyebrows to say the least. As I said on my comment, however, I think you'd make a good admin; my primary concern was simply your ability to be perceived as a neutral party, especially on Islam related articles. I think a secular userspace allows an admin to be such. Based on the changes you have made, I am more inclined to support your nomination, but it's difficult to gauge your motives for such changes. That said, your userspace aside, you've always been an even-minded editor. —Aiden14:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it's better now Jordan (removing the "Identity" header altogether was a smart move; I don't feel you needed to remove the crescent). Aiden: his motivations AFAIK are that he doesn't want to be considered partisan, and he wants to be an admin. Good enough motives. Good luck with your RFA, I think you'll pass this time and be a good admin. --kingboyk16:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Just as a note to anyone reading my page... I am at a computer that is blocked from editing Wikipedia. However, I would appreciate it if someone would add {{db|The user for this userspace (see [[User talk:Joturner#Re: Joturner]]) requested that the page be deleted, but is attempting to edit from a blocked location.}} to User:Joturner/The Full Path. I moved the info to that page during the most recent redesign on my page, but when I removed the mention of it completely off the main page of my userspace, I forgot to delete that. As you can see (by clicking the page's what links here link), nothing actually links to the page. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The change was made and I was able to see the update after redisplaying the Main Page. If you are still are having problems seeing the change I would recommend you purge your web browser's cache using the instructions at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. --Allen3talk01:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey there, just wanted to point out that BucketsofG's nom had 98.13% with 8 minutes to go, I don't think there is a problem a bureaucrat closing it eight minutes early. Hell.. Illyanep closed mine an hour early.
You never know... it could happen. Anyway, I wasn't trying to shoot Essjay; just point it out. I especially wouldn't want him to be thinking it's an hour ahead than it really is and then two hours down the line, he remembers oh wait... that clock's broken or something like that. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 05:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank-you
The count is in, and now I join the crew who wield the mops and pails.
Thanks for your support! I pledge to serve both you and Jimbo Wales.
If you have anything you need, then please don't think to hesitate.
For I am the very model of a grateful admin designate!
Although there is no definition on what really constitutes an edit war, based on the proposed wheel warring examples, one edit / revision, especially if it beckons the involved parties to the talk page, does not constitute warring.
April 16: Pecher puts the template back at the top again. [11]Pepsidrinka reverts to original again. [12]Pecher reverts, putting the template back at the top. [13] I make the final revert, back to the original, simultaneously referring to the talk page.
That's not an edit war, or at least not one that I participated in, because I only reverted once (back to the original) and requested discussion on the talk page to stop temporarily halt any more changes.[14] The template was never moved again after the surprisingly brief discussion over its location. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I never considered this insident serious, this is of course nothing like the edit wars that pollute Wikipedia elsewhere. Perhaps I abused the term lame edit war? I meant "lame" as it doesn't have any serious meaning to anyone, like the edit war over the color of a table border (or was it something else?) on Jimbo's user page. --Heptortalk17:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh okay; thanks for clarifying that. I guess I should have gotten that impression when you put worst in "quotes". -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Evidence of NPOV
It seems like you are trying to gauge my ability to maintain a neutral point-of-view despite my religious beliefs. And so, I will state my side of the issue, presenting the same evidence I presented to User:MPerel upon request:
I'll presume you're looking for information about point-of-view as it relates to Islam-related topics. And so...
Here is what I put in my last RfA:
In my request for adminship, above, I said "I try my best to make sure that I judge all articles and edits not on the character of the author but on the content of the edit." It's unfortunate that others will not do that for me. Up until this point, I've received only positive comments on my user page, but now it looks like it is causing large issues. If they continue and appear to be significant enough, I will change it, although I feel the prohibition of point of view and bias, even on user pages, shouldn't extend to a ban on individuality. We are all Wikipedians, but we are all people too.
Although I am personally passionate about my religion, that zeal has never extended to my contributions to Wikipedia. I realize that as an encyclopedia and website that is supposed to appeal to all people around the world and all faiths and backgrounds that we are supposed to remain neutral.
Last month, during the early days of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, I voted to keep the cartoons on the article page, at the top, with no special notification despite my personal objection to them (see poll results). I talked to users who repeatedly removed the cartoons from the article, most notably in User talk: Erdemsenol ([15], [16], [17]). My rational speech on that page even caused me to earn a barnstar.
My sixth most edited article is Depictions of Muhammad, which again is something I personally oppose, but yet find useful for Wikipedia. For that article, I uploaded several pictures of the Prophet ((1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6)), including one that depicts him in hell (that would be number six). Again, my personal religious objections didn't extend to Wikipedia. In addition to uploading those images, I contributed to writing that article.
I have always done my best to correct shows of piety, especially in Muhammad where it is most prevalent ([18], [19]) as well as in other articles ([20]). I've attempted to improve the neutral point of view in Islamic articles, as recently as just a few hours ago when I brought up the potential bias created by presenting so many articles that shout hosannas toward Muhammad ([21]). I also around the same time talked to a user about his reasoning for repeatedly deleting the picture of the Prophet[22].
I will continue to show that neutrality if I were to become an admin and even if I were not to. Your concerns are certainly very valid, as religious bias (as well as all bias) would impede to delivery of information. I may be confident about my religion or a pious (or if you must, "fundamentalist") Muslim, but you will see that those beliefs do not extend into the article content of Wikipedia. My user page, which has not up until this moment been an issue, simply documents an ongoing event in my life. I don't intend to proselytize, as it simply documents facts and does not do anything to lambaste the views of other religions. Although I may have committed to one religion, I find all religions fascinating (hence the userbox saying "This user believes the world is a happier, safer and saner place because of religion."). The introduction of my religious views into articles will not be an issue as an admin or otherwise. joturner11:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Fewer examples can come from more recently as I have not spent as much time on Islam-related articles. However:
And lastly, I feel my user page is a testament to not being biased towards Islam (although some disagree). I use religious symbols from several religions because I find religion in general fascinating.
If you're referring to edits on different topics, that's a bit harder for me to demonstrate. Not because I haven't been able to maintain a neutral point-of-view, but because it's different to pinpoint specific edits to demonstrate that. I hope that helps out with your decision. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 02:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I can respect the fact that you removed the advertising of your adminship from all user talk pages. However I still think it might not have been such a good idea, people can sometimes treat their user pages like their car radio, and it probably couldn't undo whatever damage Aminz might have done.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk10:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
J--I am really sorry for opposing you. I was recently attacked by a few admins on a contentious page and I feel really nervous about admins with strong ideology. You seem like a great guy and I think the mosque article is outstanding. Elizmr00:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I think you will make it however I vote. (my brother is a convert to Islam by the way, and has also gotten a lot of strength from it)Elizmr00:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Please accept my premature-by-5 hours congratulations on becoming WP's newest administrator, as well as for garnering more than 100 votes! All the best with the tools! Rama's Arrow20:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Could you please stop by Talk:Christianity and give your opinion? We are debating whether the word 'monotheism' should be included in the intro to the Christianity article. According to most dictionaries, the definition of monotheism is The dogma or belief that there is one God. Now, all Christians believe there is one God and all Christian creeds (such as the Nicene Creed and Chalcedonian Creed) profess a belief in one God. The point of contention is the Holy Trinity. Christians believe that God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit all make up one essense of God, i.e. are three parts of one God (known as hypostasis). Now, several editors think that because this is different from the Islamic view of Tawhid--and they alledge Muslims think Christians are not monotheistic, but tritheistic--we cannot say Christianity is monotheistic like is done in the Islam article. Many editors content, however, that the definition of monotheism is based solely on belief, not truth. So if Christians believe their God is one God, they are by definition monotheistic, even if they may not be right. All it takes to be monotheistic is to believe there is one God. Others, however, think we can only say "Christianity is a monotheistic religion according to its followers." Again, some editors (including myself) have issue with this because it's basically like saying "Christianity believes it believes that there is one God," which of course is redundant. In my opinion, monotheism by definition is the belief! None-the-less, we would like to know from a Muslim editor: 1) Do Muslims view Christianity as tritheistic? 2) Even if so, considering Christians still believe there is one God, are they still not monotheistic? Sorry for the long post, but there's a lot of debate I had to summarize. Thanks, —Aiden21:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
