User talk:Raphael1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:43, 22 March 2006

A belated welcome

Hello, Raphael1, 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)[reply]

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):

I believe a majority of editors will agree that there should be no offensive material on Wikipedia unless for a very good reason.
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.
I believe a majority of editors will agree that suppression as well as publication of information is a deliberate act.
I beleive a majority of editors will agree that deliberate publication has a purpose, to make information accessible.
I beleive a majority of editors will agree that deliberate publication has another purpose, to make information readily accessible.
I believe a majority of editors will not object to structural changes that still allows the editor to make offensive/objectionable material inaccessible.
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.
I believe it is in Wikipedia's best interest to pursue the largest audience possible.

Raphael1 18:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I would appreciate for your further contributions on Wikipedia:Wikiethics. Thanks. Resid Gulerdem 06:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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... 128.255.45.117 18:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 05:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. NSL E _(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. NSL E _(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 113: / Line 113: @@
 :: I would appreciate for your further contributions on [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]. Thanks. [[User:Rgulerdem|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... [[User:128.255.45.117|128.255.45.117]] 18:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 == your vandalism of [[Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]] ==