User talk:Techana

Your recent edits to remove the same image

Please read this page as you may not be aware for the three revert rule.

So you want me to comply to your rules while you insult me and my beliefs! I cannot accept those images as a Muslim and must act to remove them. Please see my note in the talk page.

If someone has strong enough faith then that person doesn't need to try to censor those that speak out against their faith, instead a person of strong faith will be able to rationally discuss that faith with others in a mutual exchange of views. By repeatedly removing those images without waiting for the results you are trying to circumvent the system, act as censor, instead of entering into a mutual exchange of views. 81.86.194.96 08:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Entering into a mutual exchange of views" about insults?! Insults have no views and are always illogical. What would you do if someone posted a fake naked picture for you? Will you enter into a mutual exchange of views with him? You are going to remove the picture if you can, ask the ISP to remove, or go to the court to force him to remove it. This is how insults are treated. The one who drew the images in question had no scientific reasonings or facts. He did that only because he hates Islam and nothing else. --Techana 13:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are trying to use a straw man. A faith or religion is not a person like you and me who is alive, it cannot be offended. You mention "ask the ISP to remove, or go to the court to force him to remove it" well what you are doing is not following those kinds of rules. What you are doing is forcing your own personal view onto others without following the rules to get what offends you removed. What you should be doing is to let the proposed delete process work. What your actions do indicate is that you do not have faith that the process will work in your favour so you are trying to circumvent it instead. So have the courage of your convictions and do not revert those changes. If you continue to revert then you will be demonstrating that you have no interest in seeing the proposed delete process work and you have no intention of following the rules. 81.86.197.2 16:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings controversy

I initiated conversation regarding the images in question on the talk page. Rather than commenting on the other user's talk page, please comment on the article talk page so other editors can join in. As a formality, I am reminding you to remain civil. I am going to leave a 3RR notice on the other user's page, and, in fairness, on your page, too. I am not going to report the 3RR violation, but you, or anyone, can do so at any time by going to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.--12 Noon 17:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lars Vilks Muhammad drawings controversy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. --12 Noon 17:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your AfD

Regarding your recent AfD. All you've done is draw even more attention to the article and that has the most likely outcome which will confirm that the article and images should stay. Fnag aton 23:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]