Jump to content

User talk:Raphael1/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

A belated welcome

Hello, Raphael1/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — Kimchi.sg | Talk 14:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved user talk content to user talk page

I hope you don't mind, but I made a few changes to your list (1-6 are changed):

  1. I believe a majority of editors will agree that there should be no offensive material on Wikipedia unless for a very good reason.
  2. I believe a majority of editors will agree that offensive/objectionable material should be removed, if there's a way to bring the same information in a non-offensive way.
  3. I believe a majority of editors will agree that suppression as well as publication of information is a deliberate act.
  4. I beleive a majority of editors will agree that deliberate publication has a purpose, to make information accessible.
  5. I beleive a majority of editors will agree that deliberate publication has another purpose, to make information readily accessible.
  6. I believe a majority of editors will not object to structural changes that still allows the editor to make offensive/objectionable material inaccessible.
  7. I believe a majority of editors will not object to allowing those that do not wish to view particularly objectionable material to still be able to utilize and enjoy Wikipedia.
  8. I believe it is in Wikipedia's best interest to pursue the largest audience possible.

Raphael1 18:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I want it moved. If you want to make your own list, make another thread, don't clutter mine. People are supposed to comment on the list, not make alterations. Haizum 19:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved user talk

If you would have read my list, you would have found out, that I did not copy your list. Do you want to censor my comments? Raphael1 19:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want to say things like this, put them on my talk page. Stop disrupting my thread. Haizum 19:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You copied my list. You didn't come up with the idea, and you only added words to the end of each point. Haizum 19:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again you ignore the definition of a word. I didn't remove anything from Wikipedia, I moved your comment to your talk page because it was user talk content. It had nothing to do with my thread or the topic in general, therefore it was disruptive. If you want to post that type of comment, it must be done on a user talk page. Haizum 20:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should move a little more slowly?

Hello Raphael1. I assume you are the former 62.116.76.117. I apologize if I am mistaken. Regarding your listing of the cartoon for deletion, I urge you to rethink your approach. There is absolutely no way that you will get consensus on Wikipedia to completely delete the content. You are bound to fail in that approach. All you do is make people view you as an extremist, so they will not listen to any potential compromise. Why not modify your approach and work towards getting the image linked instead? We were getting some good responses to that proposed solution. However, I fear that you are just undoing the work that we did by antagonizing people needlessly. Best, Johntex\talk 21:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Another example of something that is not helping is to change other people's talk comments, such as this: [1]. I certainly don't think you were vandalizing the comments, because you clearly indicated that you were changing them. However, it does not help discussion when one user's proposal is being editing by another user while additional users are trying to comment on the first user's proposal. Thanks for your consideration of my input. Johntex\talk 21:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
As you can see in the diff, I did not touch the list of Haizum, but I rather comment his list by adding my (changed) list. Raphael1 21:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Raphael, I was mistaken. I was trying to be in too many places at once, I think. From the comments below, it seems there was no harm done.Johntex\talk 18:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Raphael, JOhntex and Haizum.

I should have explained more about the editing. It sounds a bit worse than it was. Let me repeat what I told you before Johntex, that what Raphael did, I do not think it was intentional. I would not have brought it up at all, if it were not for the fact that he kept doing it after I asked him not to.

What was done repeatedly I think might be better termed "slashing into my text". The problem with this, was that when I, or anyone else read it, since he did not always put his signature, it looked as if I had signed some of his text, and and sometimes it looked as if he had signed some of my text.

So it looked as if Raphael had changed my text at several places. Again, not intentionally. It is the kind of thing one does sometimes with email, but it really doesnt work here, especially if not every line is signed by the slasher.

I should also note that when I asked him to clean it up, Raphaels did try to do this. Unfortunately, it was not enough. Some of my text was gone. So, I added a note to the section that it would be better to start anew that to try to salvage the old.

And then, unfortunately, slashing happened again. I still do not think that it was intentional, so there is not point in tedious looking into history to look for it. I have also seen it being done after that in the mohammed talks, and there, since no cleaning was done, when last I looked, one can find instances of slashing into Haizum's text. I did not check whether the texts there were confused or not.

I hope this clarifies things. I accept the apology that Raphael has made me, of course, and I will apologize for being unclear about the exact nature of my accusation. DanielDemaret 21:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


(After edit conflict with Daniel)
Hi, I was leaving you a message at the same time you were leaving me a message. I sympathize with your frustration. I don't want to presume anything about you, like where you live, or what contact you regularly have with the type of people on Wikipedia. Therefore, forgive me if the following is not new to you - a lot of people here are very idealist in the sense that they feel very strongly about "information needs to be free". By "free" in this context, they mean not only "free from cost" but also "untethered". (see free beer). While I applaud this general sentiment, anything can be taken too far. I think that is what we see happening in this case.
Please remember that there was a "straw poll" taken on this very question soon after the cartoon controversy errupted. Therefore, some people view this issue as "settled". Of course, that straw poll occurred when emotions were running very high. Many people (presumable Muslims) were posting very extreme things here about how we have no right to publish such things. This tends to galvanize people towards the opposite extreme: that we have every right to publish the cartoons, and that no one is going to stop us.
What we need to do is diffuse tenstion. Then people will feel like they are not being pushed into doing something.
Thanks for your understanding. Hopefully we will get to a better compromise, but it is going to take a lot of time and patience. We have to be careful or we will just galvanize the opposition.
I think it would be good for you to withdraw your request that the image be deleted, as a show of your willingness to compromise with people.
Best, Johntex\talk 21:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

That you for withdrawing your request to delete the image. I think that might help a bit. Johntex\talk 18:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Another Idea

It is hard to tell if we are making any progress at swaying people towards the compromise of in-lining. Maybe, and this is just a thought for discussion: Maybe you could start a new section at the Talk page summarizing what you believe and why you are willing to compromise. It might read something like this:

==Support for the Compromise Proposal==
I Raphael1, am a Muslim who is offended by the existence of these photos. I would prefer them to be deleted. I know there are mnay Muslims who will read this article because it has the picture, yet they would benefit from reading it. However, I understand that others are not offended, and would like to view them. That is why I now support the compromise to "in-line" the photos (have them on a subpage here, with a prominent link from the main article. I feel this is a reasonable compromise to allow people like me to read the article without offense, yet also allow the images to be available to everyone. This balances freedom of religion with freedom of speech. Please join with those of us who support the compromise.

Of course, I don't want to put words in your mouth. I don't know if this accurately reflects your thoughts or not. It is just an idea for you to consider. I don't even know it it would help. I'm just brainstorming here. Johntex\talk 18:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of comments

Raphael, I notice you deleted numerous comments to your nomination on the Images for deletion page. Those comments were written by other people, and it is not your place to delete them. I have restored them. If you would like to withdraw your nomination, leave a comment to that effect under your original nomination or at the bottom of the comments, and an admin will process your request accordingly. Don't just go around deleting comments, please. Thank you. Babajobu 23:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't know about the common procedure for withdrawing a deletion request. Raphael1 23:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

MX44

Thanks for your note - I'm sorry to hear you are being misquoted. It is clear to me you weren't suggesting that anyone's wife be raped. I think MX44 misconstrued your comments. Perhaps he did this delliberately, as a way to discredit your argument - I don't know.
I left a message on that thread saying it is pretty clear what you were trying to say. However, I don't think his reply can be construed as a personal attack. In my opinion, he either made a mistake about what you were saying, or he was using a rhetorical device. I personally think a comment has to be more obvious than that to qualify - other people may have different opinions.
If you still feel it was a personal attack, remedies are at WP:NPA#Remedies.
For my part, I am largely taking a break from that particular controversy for the moment. I intend to raise the issue of in-lining again in a few months time. By all means though, if there are important developments you wish me to see or respond to in the meantime, please don't hesitate to get back in touch. Johntex\talk 17:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR Notice

Just a notice, you are very close to violating WP:3RR on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. --Cyde Weys 04:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

"US occupied"

That fatwa from Sistani is just an example; it is not a change in Shi'a policy. Shi'a have been depicting Muhammad (and Ali and Husayn and Fatima, etc.) for centuries. It's traditional to have emotional sermons at Ashurah, designed to make the hearers weep for Husayn, and they're often backed by huge banners showing scenes from early Islamic history, which can include pictures of Muhammad. Heck, the Shi'a put on plays, called taziyeh, reenacting the Battle of Karbala.

I agree with you that Bush's Iraq war is an outrage, a scandal, a source of shame to Americans. I just don't think that it changed the Shi'a policy on pictorialism. Zora 05:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Still it's interesting, that the Shi'a policy gets backed by US forces. Raphael1 05:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Censorship

I am trying to make some improvements in the project Censorship. I thought you might want to know about it. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem 16:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to write a new policy Wikipedia:Wikiethics. I am very busy but believe strongly on having some standards in Wiki. I would appreciate if you can review it and incoorporate new ideas you might want to add. Your contribution is greatly appreciated. I cannot finish it without help. Best. Resid Gulerdem 00:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate for your further contributions on Wikipedia:Wikiethics. Thanks. Resid Gulerdem 06:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Raphael, I tried but couldn't email you somehow. Anyways thanks for your support. I would appreciate if you could visit wikiethics with your suggestions. You know there are Arguments and Sections subpages at the top. I think that would be great if they are active. We should improve the policy futher. Thanks... Resid Gulerdem 18:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

your vandalism of Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 05:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Bad reputation

Hello Raphael, I'm sorry to have to write this note but I fear that due to some of your previous edits that you've needed to be warned about (ie: above) relative to the Jyllands-Posten cartoons controversy, there now might be a spirit to instantly revert your contributions without properly reviewing them. This is unfortunate because as I've said before I think you can make frutiful contributions to that article however, if you make further edits that require warnings, you may find that it will become more and more difficult to contribute at all. Your latest contribution (especially the fact that Sunni's make up 90% of the muslim population) was good, please do continue to make good faith, NPOV contributions like that for the betterment of the article! Netscott 14:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


Thank you

Thank you for leaving the info about the poll on my User Talk page. The info is in line with other info I have seen. But why inform me about this particular link?

The link seems dead at the moment, so I can not read it. Was there something you wanted me to see there? DanielDemaret 00:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Still can't get there. It does not matter. Why inform me? And why do you not sign your messages?DanielDemaret 00:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


Yes, the link probably worked all along, but I could not get there. I have seen similar information in several hundred articles, in different languages before. So for the third time: Why did you inform me about this? What is it you want me to see in particular? DanielDemaret 08:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


Lieber Rafael1,

Ich weiss, es geht mich nichts an, aber ich bin etwas besorgt. Du kannst nicht einfach Leute der Lüge bezichtigen, wenn sie nur Tatsachen beschreiben, die allgemein bekannt sind. Wieso? Glaubst Du dass Muslime ohne Deine "Verteidigung" nicht auskommen? Solidarität kann, wenn im Exzess betrieben, auch fehlgeleitet und kontraproduktiv sein. Ich bin fast fünfzig, selbst Muslim, und habe davon mehr als dreßig Jahre in Deutschland verbracht, und glaube mir, Du tust niemandem damit einen Gefallen, wenn Du Extremismus verteidigst, wenn Du eigentlich nur Solidarität zeigen wolltest. Azate 01:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Du musst mich falsch verstanden haben. Ich hab' ihn nicht der Lüge bezichtigt, weil er schreibt, dass die Taliban die Buddhas zerstört haben, sondern weil er behauptet hat, dass Irishpunktom das in den Artikel eingebaut hat. Keine Sorge ich verteidige keine Extremisten. Allerdings ist Islamophobie hier so stark vertreten, dass mir gar nichts anderes übrig bleibt als "die Seite der Muslime" zu verteidigen. Raphael1 01:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Schönschön. Aber übertreib's nicht, ja? Hier geht's nicht um Verteidigung von irgendwas, sondern um Objektivität. Das mit der Lügenbezichtigung war nicht der erste Beitrag, der dich ziemlich blöd aussehen lässt. Azate 02:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent complaints

There have been some recent complaints toward your conduct against community consensus and an apparent mis-interpretation of the No Personal Attacks policy. Please note that those cartoon images are not personal attacks in anyway shape or form. Also note the policy of Wikipedia is not censored especially the section "Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are appropriate for children or adhere to specific social or religious norms...some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links, provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where the servers are hosted." With that, I leave you with this message: most of us realise that the cartoons are offensive to a segment of the population but it is not Wikipedia's job to censor itself against offensive things. Our goal is to provide both sides to the issue focusing on WP:NPOV. WP:NPA only refers to when another user has made a specific attack on you (e.g. defamatory claim, cursing) but not generic things that appear in society. It would be greatly appreciated if you cease from trying to remove these images from Wikipedia as they are not in violation of any policy. Sasquatch t|c 06:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, regarding your revert warring on Islamophobia, please read WP:3RR. Forcing your view on the community is not an acceptable way to reach consensus. jacoplane 04:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop trolling and making us Muslims look like trolls by trolling!

You'll cause even more Islamophobia.--143.92.1.33 06:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Stifle 12:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing spam from your page

Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism. Removing spam from a blocked IP isn't vandalism. Misuse of warning templates is, and that can get you blocked from Wikipedia. As a side note, every time you use a warning template, please substitute them. NSLE (T+C) at 00:25 UTC (2006-03-19)

Also, when warning anyone over anything, please never start with a third-level warning, start with a first-level warning unless they have previously been warned. NSLE (T+C) at 00:28 UTC (2006-03-19)

dont waste your time there admins who always keep banning people who try to explain their opinions they using their privileges for their business like you writing in jungle. Qatarson 11:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR at Islamophobia

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- pm_shef 20:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Good Spam-Removal Progess

Raphael1, you seem to be doing well erasing all of that User_talk spam you previously posted on all those user's talk pages, keep up the good work! ;-) Netscott 13:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Provocation?

How is the image in you keep deleting in Muhammad provocation? There are far worse depictions of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and an article on him should probably have some depiction of him. This image was created by Muslims and was intended to depict the Prophet in a positive, respectful manner. Compared to some of the other pictures of the Prophet on Wikipedia and in the world, this image is rather respectful. If you feel the picture is unnecessarily offensive, please discuss your views on Talk:Muhammad; please don't carry on discussions in edit summaries. joturner 02:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Warning against vandalism

Raphael1, your altering of the display characteristics of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons counters consensus regarding them. The consensus is doing this constitues vandalism. This is your first warning against that. Netscott 02:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The citation you mentioned is true... but in this case such logic would only apply to the first instance of a "good faith" edit. You've already been previously warned about altering the display characteristics of the cartoons... therefore any additional manipulation of them on your part would constitue vandalism.

The follow warning at the head of the article relative to the cartoons was put there for a reason Raphael1.

NOTE ABOUT THE IMAGE:

For over three days, discussions have occurred and polls have been taken on the talk pages of this article and, during the entire three day time span, the general consensus has been and continues to be to keep the image as it is with no warning template or text. Thus, removal, relocation or resizing of this image is considered vandalism and is detrimental to Wikipedia, and may result in blocking. Additionally, polls were taken regarding adding warnings to this article with the polls deciding that like the rest of Wikipedia's articles no warning shall be added to this one. If you wish to contribute to this discussion, please do so in a civil manner by posting in the discussion area of this article rather than by unilaterally removing this image or adding warnings. Thanks!

If you find this image offensive: For people who would wish to hide such as this, follow those steps:

The image will not show. Following these steps does not edit the article itself, just how it is presented to you personally. However there is a slight risk of disrupting your browser's presentation of other articles which contain similar code. Further details available on the Talk Page.

REMOVAL, RELOCATION OR RESIZING OF THIS IMAGE WITHOUT CONSENSUS CONSTITUTES VANDALISM! DO NOT REMOVE, RELOCATE OR RESIZE THIS IMAGE WITHOUT CONSENSUS. ADDITIONALLY, DO NOT ADD A WARNING(S) WITHOUT CONSENSUS ABOUT ANY OF THE IMAGES ON THIS ARTICLE. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE! YOU MAY BE BLOCKED FROM WIKIPEDIA OTHERWISE.

Do respect what it says there relative to the cartoons and everyone stays happy. Thanks!... Netscott 18:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Remain Civil

Raphael1, the editorial comment directed to me that you made here ("This is not about gender roles, but rather your oral sex phantasies."), is completely unacceptable on WikiPedia. All WikiPedia editors must abide by WP:NPA and remain civil otherwise you demonstrate that you are not inclined to assume good faith which will require a posting on WP:AN. Mmmmkay? Netscott 19:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

oral sex phantasies

I'm sorry, if you feel personally attacked by my comment. I didn't expect, that you feel ashamed about oral sex phantasies since you are so desperate to write about oral sex on the Gender roles article. Raphael1 00:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll at a different article

There is a straw poll at Talk:Lolicon regarding linking a drawing vs. displaying it. Johntex\talk 21:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Muslim?

Please note, that I've added my part of the dialog to this page so it becomes understandable. Raphael1 01:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I couldn't help but notice your numerous edits related to Muslim/Islam topics but you don't have a Muslim name so I'm wondering are you Muslim? Luchador 72.21.33.130 03:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

no Raphael1 03:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Christian? Come on... no one edits like you do with out some sort of religious motivation! Luchador 72.21.33.130 03:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

neither christian nor atheist.
I just can't stand, when people get hurt in their religious beliefs. Raphael1 03:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Have you always had such strong (and somehow admirable) convictions? I'm strong enough in my faith to not be worried by such minor outside forces... it seems silly to me to watch editors like you quash perfectly intellectual content because it causes 'offense'? In fact such acts are offensive to me. Luchador 72.21.33.130 04:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"perfectly intellectual content"?? Come on... that can't be your intellectual level. How comes you admire my conviction, but get offended by my deeds? Raphael1 04:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well what is admirable is your 'drive' and singleness of purpose.. your edits really show how you really don't want anyoned offended (which I admit does seem rather infantile). Do you not have faith that adults can't mentally protect themselves from being "offended"? Luchador 72.21.33.130 04:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you regard offense as a sign for maturity?

Where do you live? Your English seems good. Luchador 72.21.33.130

Austria

Oops, you may want to sign your last comment, your question doesn't seem to make sense. In fact you seem slightly hypocritical when you're talking about "offending". I'm looking at your talk page here and you said, "This is not about gender roles, but rather your oral sex phantasies." that seems very vulgar and mean spirited. Maybe you offended that guy? Luchador 72.21.33.130 04:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Netscott is hard-bitten. He can handle that. Raphael1 05:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well that guy does not seem happy, I think he's probably offended... I would be. You definitely offended him... that's too bad... because it makes you look bad and others will see that you are a mean spirited person who is hypocritical. You seem friendly to me though... but maybe young? How old are you? Also, what is that Netscott link you sent me to? Luchador 72.21.33.130 05:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

33. Is that old enough for being offensive? Raphael1 05:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem mad. I'm sorry I didn't mean to make you mad. What is that link you sent me too? That seems really odd. Has that guy ever offended you? Luchador 72.21.33.130 05:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm probably to old to get offended by some characters on a screen. But Netscott is truly a nice guy admin.Raphael1 06:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a funny link you provided... "believer".. very funny. It seems you really don't llike him... I wonder what his POV is when he makes those kinds of edits? If I was a fundamentalist, I would be furious. But he does make a good point, no? How is life in Austria? You live in Vienna? Oh! Please add to my User Page. Luchador 72.21.33.130 06:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Raphael1, are you there? I'm wondering if you were going to answer my last message? Luchador 72.21.33.130 19:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes

  1. Option 1 seems better defined. I'd rater that.
  2. Regarding 72.21.33.130, "Luchador" - Tell me if you see a pattern in his editing. - His first ever Wikipedia edit is this: [2], compare it to Netscotts last edit, his third revert, [3], Then, note these curious coincidences: [4], [5] - Here he is reverting you [6], but, look whos version he is reverting to: [7]. Again reverting you: [8], but, look who to: [9]. How very odd! --Irishpunktom\talk 09:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes... Well, I just thought I'd bring it to your attention. The intro to Islamophobia has been re-jigged. I think its better now.--Irishpunktom\talk 10:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
And, again, it happens [10]. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Cindy sheehan.jpg may be deleted shortly because it has been uploaded under a noncommercial license. Please try to use images under a free license, like {{GFDL}}, {{NoRightsReserved}}, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}.

Furthermore, when you add {{hangon}} to a page that is tagged for speedy deletion, you must immediately write your reason on the talk page and then remove the {{hangon}} tag. Adding the tag and doing nothing is useless. Stifle 16:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you please restore the image, so I can add the Fair Use attribute. In fact I added my reason on the talk page. I've just forgotten to remove the hangon tag. Raphael1 22:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The Sheehan picture was originally licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License when it was posted on Flicker. (cc) is a free license. The picture has since fallen off of their record since Flicker is a pipe where pictures fall off into the bit bucket after new ones are posted. {{hangon}} Kgrr 19:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Islamism

Head over to Talk:Islamism. I added a new opening paragraph that I feel better defines the article however I've refused to committing the change until I can address any concerns the editors have. I'd like your input as well. 24.7.141.159 12:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1 = Irishpunktom

After reviewing both the edits of Raphael1 and Irishpunktom I'm beginning to think that one is just a sockpuppet of the other. Your edit histories show how both users frequently do reverts to previous versions done by one or the other. Both of your editing styles show serious lack in terms of English ability. You both are inclined to make edits of a "trollish" nature and you both seem to be active around the same times. I probably should make a case for sockpuppetry and see what checkuser turns up. Luchador 72.21.33.130 19:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hehe that was funny :) Do you realise that if these users were one person they must spend pretty much their entire free time on Wikipedia.. You think it's at all possible that there are two users who just happen to agree with each other and have similar interests? jacoplane 19:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Well Raphael1 is supposedly "Non-Muslim", wouldn't such a sockpuppet make the perfect foil to Irishpunktom's muslim POV edits? I seriously doubt that Raphael1 is non-muslim, from reviewing his edits it's amazing how focused on pro Islamist POV they tend to be. Additionally there's no reason that there isn't two individuals involved but one has merely given the other a password for their account (proxy sockpuppetry). Luchador 72.21.33.130 19:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't you have something better to do? jacoplane 19:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't we all? Of course Raphael1 could be applying a variant of the principal of Taqiyya for some un-explained reason. Luchador 72.21.33.130 20:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I accept, that you feel suspicious, after I accused you of being a sockpuppet yourself and I agree to alot of things Irishpunkom suggests. Go ahead and request an IP-check. I can assure you, that it's nothing but work for an admin. Btw. as you know, I live in Austria, so I have no reason to fear for my life. Raphael1 22:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion (Excellent to my mind :D )

Hi Raphael1,

This is regarding the dhimmi, jizya and rules of war in islam articles. I think RFC is not a good idea since we are not sure if both articles are free from any problems. I have a suggestion: All editors involved in this mediation nominate a few editors(not among themselves). They are better to be administrator or at least experienced editors(e.g. Zora ) and concede their editing right to their nominated editors. These people will form the editor committee. All the editors have to promise not to edit the articles directly anymore, but just try to convince the editor committee if they want to make any change to the article(The articles can be blocked from editing). The final decisions are however made by the editor committee(maybe voting). I hope that concensus could be achieved easier there. How is my idea? Please post your opinion at [11] Thanks --Aminz 06:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1, I have made an slot for you on the mediation page.[12] Please post your opinion there. thx--Aminz 07:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of admin powers

I saw you agreed that no user subpages should be deleted because certain admins do not like the opinions expressed on them. User:Dmcdevit however redeleted User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/User against Iraq war of aggression and User:ROGNNTUDJUU!/GOP criminal. I will file a complaint at RFC if another user fails to convince him that he violates policy. De mortuis... 01:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiethics

Hi Raphael, the discussion on the Wikipedia:Wikiethics page is continuing at the personal confict level. If you believe the important of the proposal I would appreciate for your contributions and appearance on the discussion page. Please note that this proposal cannot be completed or become successful without your contributions. Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem 03:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up!--Irishpunktom\talk 15:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Charities accused rename

You may be interested in the proposed rename of Charities accused of ties to terrorism. I think your input could help. -- GRuban 17:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

On your vote you stated: "Wikipedia is repeating the accusing by reporting it and therefore should say so." I'm not sure what your saying, but by my interpretation, if we were to follow that argument then we would have to change every article to "accused" or "alleged." We KNOW Osama bin Laden is a terrorist. We KNOW when charities give money to terrorist organizations. Wikipedia is not a rumor mill. "Accused" or "alleged" are not needed. KI 14:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
How do you KNOW that? And if it is KNOWN how comes, that these organisations are still operative in the US? Raphael1 17:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
You know Raphael1 you're Oppose vote relative to your comment was contradictory. I can only surmise that you voted Oppose to align yourself with User:Anonymous editor but in reality if you're serious about Wikipedia not accusing charities of ties to terrorsim you'd actually support the title change. I can understand User:KI's puzzlement due to this. Netscott 17:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm oppose to Wikipedia accusing charities of ties to terrorsim, but if WP does it, they should say so in the title. Raphael1 17:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
That's the whole point! Wikipedia is not accusing anyone of anything but merely has an article that says who is accusing charities of ties to terrorism, hence the title should be changed in accord with this truth. Netscott 17:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Repeating an accusation is an accusation itself, just like repeating an offense (JP cartoons) is offensive too. Raphael1 18:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Well due to concerns relative to logic it appears that we don't have an arguement here. Netscott 18:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
It appears, that you don't understand my argument. Raphael1 18:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Your statement isn't an argument and is in fact illogical. Netscott 18:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Well ... that's possible, but it's as well possible, that you don't understand my logic. Raphael1 18:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Re-reading the comment it's quite clear and consistent. Reporting the accusations is repeating the accusations, whatever we call the page, so we may as well be honest about it. Raphael1 doesn't want to change the title, he wants to delete the article altogether. See his request for the AfD on Talk:WP:CSB. -- GRuban 17:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The AfD was actually my idea due to neutrality concerns and Raphael1 merely concurred... but obviously for different reasons. Netscott 17:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Was that fun?

Nothing like a bit of jousting I always say. ;-) Netscott 22:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

A lesson in logic

Well based upon the illogical statement you've made up above wherein you contend that for one to repeat an accusation is to be making the accusation itself, I will attempt to teach you how this isn't so:

Let's say that I were to tell User:Freakofnurture that you were an open-proxy using Wikipedia vandal (User:Vkasdg) who has repeatedly tried to keep the cartoons from properly displaying on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article without providing him direct proof. I would be making the accusation that you were an open-proxy using Wikipedia vandal. So then User:Freakofnurture goes and tells User:Flcelloguy that I made such an accusation and describes to User:Flcelloguy exactly what my accusation was. If User:Flcelloguy wanted to pursue my accusation he would not go to User:Freakofnurture for the reasoning of such an accusation because User:Freakofnurture explained that it was my (User:Netscott) accusation and obviously without my ever having given User:Freakofnurture proof he would not know the reasoning behind my accusation. Therefore User:Flcelloguy would have to come to me the accuser. In this sense User:Freakofnurture merely reported my accusation to User:Flcelloguy. QED
Does this make sense to you or shall I deepen this explanation? Netscott 19:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Still it'd be very wrong for User:Freakofnurture to tell User:Flcelloguy, that you made such an accusation, without verifying the reasons behind your accusation. Imagine the NY-Times would repeat random accusations from anybody without verifying them first. Wouldn't they be responsible to verify them before they report them? Claiming that Mr. or Mrs. Nobody did an accusation can be nothing more than an easy excuse for publishing your very own accusations. Raphael1 19:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
That's not what you contended so you haven't refuted my 'lesson'. The NY-Times reports on accusations all of the time and you can be sure that such accusations are well cited. The reason they can legally report on such accusations is because they come from reliable sources (ie: governmental/legal authorities), they aren't reported otherwise. If User:Freakofnurture knew me as a reliable source, you can be sure he'd have no qualms about reporting on my accusation. Netscott 19:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Even if User:Freakofnurture knew you well, he could still make a mistake. Raphael1 00:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Raphael1 if you're not able to understand logic then I'm afraid there's no point in trying to argue with you. Netscott 01:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamism

This is the old User:24.7.141.159. Listen, in your discussion with Timothy Usher, it is easier for you to attack Kramer's record of being an Israeli-American with ties other other Islamophobes than it is to argue the actual definition of Islamism. Kramer has proclaimed on Wikipedia and his website that he does not consider himself a journalist nor historian. He is merely a Jew with an opinion. The real question you need to ask Timothy Usher is why a pundits opinion is being used to falsely label the world's 1 billion+ Muslims? Let me know if that reasoning works for you. I also posted a quote by John Esposito questioning the validity of Kramer's viewpoint. Remember the M.O. of user Timothy Usher is to get into protracted and meaningless discussions to prevent the article from being edited. Let's get a better introduction ready for Islamism and we can garner support for it fairly easily. User247 16:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

Please see Islamophobia's talk page. Netscott 11:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


Islamic fundamentalism

Come on over to Islamic fundamentalism if you have the chance. This pathetic article needs your help.Timothy Usher 10:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Raphael1/Archive_1&oldid=1072748860"