This is an archive of past discussions with User:Raphael1. 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.
Your repeated accusations against other editors as being "persecutors of Muslims" because they won't let you vandalize the Muhammad pictures article has gone on long enough. I've blocked you for a week. Live with it. User:Zoe|(talk)19:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
My apologies for having taken so long to reply to your query; I undertook to complete a few "small" tasks here, and, as I am wont to do, spent more time than I ought to have. In any event, I've followed your posts to the mailing list, and, to the extent that I think some of the advice given you is good, I'll not recapitulate it here. I think, though, that I would mainly counsel that, in the future, you would do well to focus your comments on content, rather than on contributors. Not only, for example, did the title of your subpage seem tendentious, but it also unnecessarily impugned the neutrality of other users. You may, perhaps, think the actions of other editors to follow from their hatred for/indifference to the suffering of Muslims, but you ought, consistent with WP:AGF, to conclude that, at worst, other editors are avolitionally biased (see, e.g., systemic bias), such that a better title might be Edits evincing an incomplete worldview (or even Edits evidencing a malappreciation for the concerns, inter al., of Muslims). I am a fan of dichotmous, even Manichean, systems of argument, and often enjoy attempting to prevail on the broadest possible grounds, but you would do well (at least on Wikipedia) to focus on narrower grounds and to assume good faith in other editors (if only in view of Ockham's razor; it's not realistic, IMHO, to think that sundry admins and other editors are conspiring to persecute Muslims). I am an atheist and generally look with disfavor on religion and religious people (often, though incorrectly, imputing intellectual infirmity to those who have faith), but I am also able to appreciate that there are areas in which Wikipedia's coverage is lacking (although I could not disagree more strongly with you apropos of the cartoons controversy and the attendant display of the "offensive" images); you would certainly attract more editors such as me (including, I think, most of the admins with whom you have had conflicts, many of whom I know to be deliberative, moderate, and sensible people) to consider whether there is an anti-Muslim systemic bias in certain articles were you to focus on those edits you think to evidence such bias rather than on editors whom you think to hold such a bias and intentionally to exercise it. Many of us have criticisms of Wikipedia (I, for example, have often voiced objections to WP:BLP, believing it improperly to substitute, at times and inappropriately, the judgment of a few for the judgment of many, and in any case not to reflect the proper dispassion and disinterest [in external outgrowths of our editing] with which we ought to write), but we express them in a decorous fashion, believing other users to share encyclopedic goals, and seek to contribute propitiously, not deleteriously. Because I don't find most personal attacks to be disruptive, and because I've long since pledged never to seek a block on another user for a personal attack perpetrated against me (since my editing isn't interrupted or otherwise affected), I'd not likely have cared had you listed me as a persecutor of Muslims here, but you surely must understand that others take offense at the levelling of such appellative and that your page had the feel of an angry screed rather than of a constructive criticism. Not only does one catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, but so also is vinegar inappropriate in this situation; I am confident that those with whom you have conflicts are acting in view of encyclopedic and not sectarian concerns, and I am certain that they'd react differently were you to raise your criticisms in a different fashion (there is, though, the concern that, for those of us who believe that the encyclopedic ought never to budge vis-à-vis the display of the cartoons in the article, you'll never be able to effect a successful dialogue with us; nevertheless, you might alert us to other areas on which we ought to work and you'll surely convince us of your good faith). Joe04:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately the title of my page has been missunderstood. Call me naive, but I've never even thought about, whether admins could think, that I would assume them to deliberately persecute Muslims. It is a fact, that presumably Muslims have been blocked in the minute they removed the cartoons the first time, and in that sense I've used the title. It reminds me of a missunderstanding that happened to me before, when editors were claiming, that they have no plan to "get the muslims here". I thought, that they must have meant "get the muslims away", when they actually meant "get them" in the meaning of "To take revenge on, especially to kill in revenge for a wrong."[1] Anyway, I've been blocked days after I've repeatedly agreed to change the title. I don't know, whether I should take Zoes warning serious, where she told, that I'll be blocked indefinitely should I recreate the page in any fashion. Would you care to ask her, whether I can recreate the page using your title for it? Raphael116:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Raphael1, quick to tell a half truth are we? Here's what was added shortly after the wrong definition of "get them" was indicated:
I wonder what difference that would make, since I haven't thought of the meaning "to overcome or destroy" either. Raphael116:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
There's no effort "to overcome" the Muslims here. Raphael1, isn't it time to move on already? Seriously at this rate it won't be long before "the community's patience" will be exhausted. Netscott17:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This came very close to being a taunt, Netscott. Let's refrain from this in future. Arno03:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
No, sorry, those names are as offensive as anything else he's called them. I still don't see why he feels the need to be making this list anyway, since it has nothing to do with creating an encyclopedia. User:Zoe|(talk)01:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Would one not look foolish when writing in support of a highly disruptive editor like Resid Gulerdem particularly when in a completely independent fashion he's been repeatedly blocked in the Wikipedia of his own native language (Turkish)? It's as if any particular person writing in support of him wasn't aware of his disruptive nature or was just doing so blindly because it's a cause!. Netscott17:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Being that you have a prior pattern of canvassing those who tend to share your views in search of support regarding various articles/topics of discussion on Wikipedia I would recommend that you not continue to do this as it is rather frowned upon. Netscott16:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Others have done this with apparent impunity, netscott, so I'm not sure what objective reason there is for Raphael1 being an exception. Arno03:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Raphael1, hi. I had actually seen that deletion discussion as well. I think you might want to consider going about this differently. I think I see what problems you're addressing with these pages, and actually, I've been thinking about some suggestions of my own to address some of the same issues. Can we, you and I, have a conversation about what exactly needs to happen, and how Wikipedia can get there? I would suggest that these particular policy proposals aren't the path that's going to get us out of these woods, if for no other reason than the opposition they draw because of association with a banned editor.
So tell me - what do you see as the primary problem that you want to address with a policy proposal for Wikipedia? -GTBacchus(talk)20:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Personally, my suggestion (as voiced on GT's talk page) is that you cool your heels for a while, then make your proposal again, addressing the complaints that were made about it previously. --tjstrf00:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
re: too much frustration
As I explained at DRV, I assumed Netscott was being straightforward with me, until you contradicted him, at which point I'm just suspending judgement. I'm not claiming that you're acting as proxy, nor am I claiming that you aren't. See? That's how I can keep assuming good faith on both your parts. Apparently, Netscott believes you are acting as proxy for a banned user, and you believe you are not. Me, I don't know.
Your explanation regarding the reasons the proposal has been deleted strike me as slightly paranoid. You can "assure" me what the "true reason" is, but I have to make a judgement based on evidence that I actually see, not just assurances, however sincere. Then you say that "this proposal tried to incorporate decency in this encyclopedia and unfortunately there are a lot of Wikipedians who prefer profanity," and I think now that your proposal isn't anything like what I was imagining. Still if you want to talk about it sometime when you're less frustrated, I'd be happy to listen and let you know what I think. My inital reaction is that I didn't realize we had a big problem with profanity here - I haven't seen any that I can think of, except in appropriate places (e.g., articles about certain words). -GTBacchus(talk)18:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Bad faith revert
Raphael1, this revert you did was very bad faith in view of the editorial commentary you made, "rv Netscotts vandalism". I made that shortcut if you hadn't noticed. I changed the shortcut after I made the additional shortcut WP:NOVOTE. I'm thinking that the only way that you would have become aware of my editing on that particular shortcut would be if you were tracking my edits (something others tend to call "wikistalking"). I would recommend that you refrain from such demonstrations of bad faith as they will tend to result in your being blocked. Netscott15:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
You are fixing for a block. Now that you are edit warring with me over a shortcut that I created this looks like a decent reason for posting on WP:ANI. If you're not blocked you'll likely be warned. I just created that shortcut yesterday which means that there are no wikilinks to it. Cease your bad faith reverting. Netscott16:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there's any call to start talking about blocks; Raphael just needs to be reminded that we have a very narrow definition of vandalism here. If there's a chance that the person isn't trying to make Wikipedia worse, it's not vandalism. I can see how changing a redirect like that would be a rather nasty trick if it were already an established shortcut that lots of people were using to point to one place, and you suddenly move it on them. This is why it's important to look a little bit into the history - like checking the "what links here" page - before you jump to accusing another editor of vandalism. Think of the slight amount of extra work as a kind of "Wiki-ethics". -GTBacchus(talk)16:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
So? Every time you start talking about another block, you just started talking about it. I think a light handed approach is not inadvisable here. It turns out the most effective way to deal with someone who's been blocked many times before isn't necessarily to threaten them with another block. Sometimes, giving them more dignity is a good idea. -GTBacchus(talk)00:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I suppose when a certain measure of good faith has been expressed relative to an individual and such measures of good faith haven't been expressed in kind it'll tend to lead to things like an ArbCom case. Netscott00:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
So every time someone comes back from a block, we just forget everything that has transpired before and give them a blank slate? User:Zoe|(talk)01:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Just for the benefit of anyone reading this page in the future: Good God no, that's not what I said, nor what I meant, nor what I would ever mean. I actually meant the literal meanings of my words above, and not Zoe's radically incorrect recasting of my words. When someone is back from a block, just like any other time, a wise editor will treat them with a full measure of dignity, and never act thuggishly. Period. I said nothing about forgetting, and nothing about a clean slate. Zoe and I have interacted a few times, and most of those interactions are characterized by her reading meanings I never dreamed of into the words I write. I think she isn't very accustomed to dealing with people who just say precisely what they mean, so she looks for hidden meanings where there sometimes aren't any. -GTBacchus(talk)19:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Proxy
It appears that you are not understanding what the word proxy means. Until such time as you come to fully understand what that word means I would recommend that you cease from making NPA warnings. If my response here does not correspond to your wishes, then I invite you to seek a third opinion or file a request for comment. Like the NPA warning you've just left me on my talk page any further NPA warnings from you will be summarily deleted with no further discussion on my part. Netscott17:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
3RR Warning
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. Netscott19:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Raphael1, I really don't know what you're trying to accomplish, exactly. Some people choose to get things done; others choose to make lots of waves in the appearance of trying to get things done. It seems to me you're doing the latter. Would you rather be effective, or appear righteous? -GTBacchus(talk)19:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I can see that your frustrated, but I also see where the others are coming from. It's hard to see that you're not representing a banned user when you start pages just like the ones he started, with the same titles and everything. This approach seems to be rubbing people the wrong way, whether or not that's fair. If you have some suggestions for improvements to Wikipedia, let's talk about that, but your best response to the situation with being accused of being a proxy for Rgulerdem is to walk away from those pages. -GTBacchus(talk)19:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Why should you have to? Because you prefer accomplishing something to looking like a martyr maybe? Because you'd rather be effective than appear righteous? Because it's silly to try to knock a hole in a wall with your head when you could just walk around it instead? Are you familiar with the term realpolitik? -GTBacchus(talk)20:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm a realist; I don't crucify myself or anyone else. I intend to still be working harmoniously with others on this site in a year. The last thing I'd do is block someone because I don't like what they say. If I think someone is attacking someone else, I'll talk to them. I don't see that you're really being attacked here; it seems much more likely to me that there's some kind of misunderstanding. I don't really go through life looking for "bad guys", you see. I think it's very understandable why Netscott and many others get the impression that you're representing a banned editor. I think, if you're more interested in results than in drama (are you?), you'll realize that, yeah it kinda might look that way, and you'll decide this isn't a hill you want to die on. We choose our battles in this life. I asked you before and you didn't answer: is it more important to you to improve Wikipedia, or to do it in this particular way, using a page with a title and structure that seem not to sit well with your fellow editors? -GTBacchus(talk)21:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, when I use the word "righteous", I don't mean something good. "Appearing righteous" as opposed to being right, is what fools do. I got it from a line in The Eumenides -GTBacchus(talk)21:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
So, this is all about the cartoons, is that what's going on? Is that the direction you and Rgulerdem are going with these policy proposals? -GTBacchus(talk)03:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
You told me it was somehow about "decency" versus "profanity" and I have no idea what you're talking about. Show me the profanity you think shouldn't be here. Explain to me what you mean by decency. If you don't communicate clearly, how will people ever know what you mean? I'm willing to work with you, and meet you halfway, and ask and answer questions, but if we're going to work together, you have to tell me what on Earth you're thinking. -GTBacchus(talk)00:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for that explanation. That was very helpful. Are there other examples of profanity that you're thinking about, too?
Regardless, I think I can see where you're coming from about the cartoons. You're saying, if they're visible in the article, that discourages Moslem editors from looking at the article at all, much less contributing to it. If they decide to remove the cartoons, they get driven away, or blocked or whatever, and your "consequences" page was evidence of this phenomenon. Am I understanding you correctly? -GTBacchus(talk)01:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Good, I'm glad we have some common understanding to work from. Before going further into it - and I'm going to have to read up on the history of this controversy - I have a small concern about you recent post at my talk page, in which you listed diffs pointing to Netscott's "denouncements" of you. The fourth link you provided, here is a polite and gracious compliment from one editor to another on their eloquence and clear expression. I find it difficult to see that as a denouncement.
If you're going to teach others how to be decent, are you prepared to lead by example? It's hard work, being decent, but if you're up to it, I'm in your corner. -GTBacchus(talk)01:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I cannot send any email to you. Because I think your mail box is full? I am waiting for your reply regarding my last email. --- Faisal12:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your position and welcome further discussion, but you need to quit harping on that particular subject, which is settled for now. Fred Bauder15:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand the bit about sanity and Islam. MX44 wishes to show that there can be sanity within Islam. Fred Bauder19:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Raphael1, you really need to stop mischaracterizing the motives and goals of your "opponents" in content disputes. Are you saying being reasonable is on the "lunatic fringe" in Islam? That's quite a ... uh ... negative view of the religion, actually. --Cyde↔Weys19:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
re:Your Closing of the CfD Category:People killed by or on behalf of Muhammad
That doesn't really work because there were so many "votes" that one or two more would not sway the decision in either direction; and there is nothing to stop the category for being renominated for deletion. Tim!17:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Raphael, according to User:MX44 your recent attempt at including text from this source would have constituted a copyright violation. This makes your attemtps at adding a {{POV}} tag to the article very dubious to say the least. Even when you brought that new text to the talk page you didn't specifically spell out the origin of it. What is your explanation for this behavior? Netscott13:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Please harass somebody else
Raphael, could you please stop spamming other users talkpages with your silly mudthrowing against me? It's a bit annoying. Maybe you could go trolling on the article regarding the cartoons or something like that instead? I don't really have time for any of your nonsens. -- Karl Meier 21:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
.
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Abdelkweli19:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Raphael1, would you kindly transfer the Esposito quotes over to http://en.wikiquote.org/ where they belong? Also I believe User:Karl Meier removed Pat Robertson because there was no specific mention of "islamophobia" in the citation that corresponded to his inclusion there. Perhaps you could find a citation? Netscott00:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Raphael1, after reviewing your edits, I see no logic for thier inclusion in that article. They have very little relationship to President Bush. From the way the article read it was as though one was to imply that Bush invited Graham. I've removed that text in agreement with User:Karl Meier. Since both Karl and I believe that text is out of place would you kindly explain to us why it should be there? Thanks. Netscott23:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
This arbitration case is closed, and the final decision has been published at the link above. For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway23:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Please offer your opinion, vote, or whatever about your choice for the image to be used with the Islamic Barnstar Award at the Barnstar proposals page. Although there is consensus for the concept of an Islamic Barnstar Award, some editors would like to change the image for the award. I was just thinking you should be aware of this discussion because you have contributed to Islamic-related articles, received the Islamic Barnstar Award, or have contributed to the Islam-related Wikiprojects, etc.--JuanMuslim1m03:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Additionally see this talk. (→Netscott)15:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
In Irishpunktom case a motion passed and is published at the above link.
The article ban (remedy 1) for Dbiv (talk·contribs) and Irishpunktom (talk·contribs) from Peter Tatchell is lifted, and replaced with Probation for Dbiv also. Any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban Dbiv from any page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. He must be notified on his talk page of any bans, and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. Violations of these bans or paroles imposed shall be enforced by appropriate blocks, up to a month in the event of repeat violations. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom#Log of blocks and bans.
Raphael1, I think you are headed in the right direction with your recent change to the Ann Coulter article. I think that if you do some things differently, though, people will be more willing to accept your edits. I have some constructive ideas that I think would help you get your points across. Would you be receptive to seeing them? Lou Sander02:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
You have made an edit to Ann Coulter that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you restore this material to the article or its talk page once more, you will be blocked for disruption. See Blocking policy: Biographies of living people.
Sorry. But the WP:BLP rules require that all defamatory content be cited. Every last comment. If they can't be cited, they are supposed to be removed. The reason has to do with legal liability. I can't accept your argument. Will (Talk - contribs) 02:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, it is good to see your post in AFD of Ali-sina. I think you have been not active that much and good to see you back. :) --- ALM15:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Since late last year, articles on living individuals have been held to a much higher standard than other articles, for obvious reasons. The onus is, as with all articles, on the editor seeking to include content, to gain consensus for its addition. That means the text comes out, goes to Talk (unless it's poorly sourced in which case it goes out period), and then you discuss until you reach agreement. If the consensus is against inclusion your options are (a) get over it or (b) go to mediation. Edit warring over the insertion of negative material in a biography of a living individual is absolutely and unambiguously forbidden, and if you do this then you will be blocked, so please don't. Guy (Help!) 17:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Censorship Quote
As a liberal, I am completely against censorship, and I am responsible for many of the Floyd Abrams articles on here, including his biography, which I wrote. Regardless, three editors have deemed the quote you keep putting up on the Censorship in the United States page to be irrelevant, and if you revert a third time you will be in violation of the three revert rule. Consensus is that it is irrelevant. I personally don't know why you are so stuck on this quote; I don't think it a particularly illuminating one. --DavidShankBone19:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
