[JadeNB]

It certainly seems clear that renato_cassutt, who it is clear can taken constructive criticism and who has given very useful replies throughout the comments, meant no-one any harm; and neither I nor, I am sure, kranner meant to impute any ill intent. I can understand the appeal of pictorial representations of one's users; I was just, and I suspect that kranner was also, trying to mention the possible inadvertent offence that might result in this way, not to ruin anyone's fun but to save someone from an inadvertent misstep.

[kranner]

Thanks JadeNB. I'm pretty sure that renato_cassutt didn't mean any harm and that the testimonial is from a real user. The context that many are missing here is that a turban is religious headwear like a yarmulke. As a Sikh you have to be authorised to wear one in a ceremony called a "dastaarbandi", and there are rules of conduct while wearing one in public. It's inadvisable to add one to the depiction of a person unless they choose it themselves. This kind of thing (e.g. inappropriate Sikh representation in movies) regularly becomes a political issue in India. In renato_cassutt's case, it's an unnecessary distraction from the actual product.

[ajolly]

I do very much agree that it's inadvisable to add a turban to depiction of person unless they choose themselves.

That being said, as an pedantic, unshorn hair, turban wearing Sikh I'm not sure I'd describe dastaarbandi as any sort of ceremony granting authorization.

[kranner]

Yes, that was overly loose wording on my part. I wanted to convey that there are rituals and formalisms around wearing turbans.