User talk:FairNBalanced

It appears Chuck Norris has just left you a hostile message since your last login.

• /Archive 1: June 2004 – May 2005

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Blnguyen for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "FairNBalanced". The reason given for FairNBalanced's block is: "trolling- created an iflammatory pig image about Islam". --FairNBalanced 04:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:I found Allah.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:I found Allah.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Netscott 18:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The photo has been deleted and resulted in a one week block. When it expires, please refrain from flame-baiting. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC).

• .

Hi Everybody. I had no idea my userpage would cause such a stir! I didn't know anybody really looked at it except for a couple people. I figured Netscott would see it because he's been "stalking" me for a while (which I'm O.K. with, I have nothing to hide). Apparently some people felt the image in their eyes was worse than the strike of a sword? I don't know. I've never even heard of or ran across 'crzyrussion' (as far as I know).

Anyway, I want to apologize if anyone truly felt hurt by my uploaded "image". While it certainly didn't violate any copyright issues, apparently it was taken much more seriously than it should have been. To claim it was some kind of extremely vile picture, I think it extremely misleading. My very cute allah pig was rated G compared to the stuff over at extreme Muhammad.

So why did I do it? For starters, I have relatively speaking, not been around here that long. I wasn't aware that this upload was against any policy. As a matter of fact, my impression was that Wikipedia was "not censored". Perhaps I just misunderstood the policy? I knew no blogs were allowed and didn't break that rule. I knew that attacking other Wikipedians is strictly prohibited, and I did not attack any user here.

About being "vile" or "shocking" or indecent or "flame baiting"... these are all relative terms. Before uploading my photo, I had recently come across some userpages that inspired me to not "censor" myself. For example this user page contains a gallery of photos that could easily be considered "vile" "disgusting" "inciteful" "provoking a reaction" depending on who came across it (i.e. a strict Christian or strict Muslim). In Iran, single unmarried women are not allowed at public soccer matches. It is considered "indecent" for unmarried women to see men (who are not their husbands) wearing shorts because so much of the mens' legs are showing. Here's another example of pictures that could enrage all kinds of people. This page belongs to an admin. I COMPLETELY support his freedom to post these shocking and disturbing pictures on a website that I keep hearing is supposed to be against censorship. In his words on that very page he says "And some people want to keep censoring this page, so my response is to add even more."

Also please read the message on this user's userpage.

We keep a picture of "Piss Christ" on Wikipedia- which arguably is more offensive than my contribution.

I was also inspired by this particular edit here that Wikipedia user pages are not censored from flame-baiting comments. However, I support this user's right to free speech on his own Wiki user page. But perhaps this is against policy? Where do you draw the line? I never commented on this user's talk page or complained to anyone about his edit which I thought was "over the top". Nobody forced me to go to his user page (and happen upon what was there). Nobody forced me to stay and look at something I didn't like, either. So I didn't.

To be honest, I was a little surprised not to get even a warning, as I've made some very useful and good faith contributions to Wikipedia. Netscott and I often don't agree and obviously we have different opinions on what is "acceptable or unacceptable". However I respect him that he seems to try to be as fair as he can. If he had any problems with me, he need only ask, but unfortunately I was away at work all day so I couldn't respond to these issues as they came up.

I certainly wasn't breaking any new ground by adding questionable material. However, could I have broken new ground by actually having it deleted and getting banned for a week for an edit that others proudly display on their page without reprimand?

If you believe it is right to block me for a week despite my own perception of a dubious policy, I will accept it without further question. In the meantime, I will go back and read WP:NOT to make sure I understand Wikipedia policy. If I have any questions on that I'll ask an experienced admin to please clarify the part of the policy in question first. --FairNBalanced 06:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for the blocking admin, and it's beyond by power to stop what I see as WP-wide ongoing violations of the userspace policy as well as WP:NOT (not censored, but also not a soapbox)...but what I'd like to hear from you is that you're going to be better than that. Don't use other editors’ questionable usage of userspace to justify lowering the bar for your own. Instead ask, whether in userspace or elsewhere: have I improved wikipedia with my last edit? Better still, ask it before you hit save, and certainly before you upload an image, particularly one that's potentially inflammatory. That's my advice.

I propose this specific plan, which, if you agree to, I believe, though cannot guarantee, that you should be unblocked: 1) Admit that your upload constituted an error in judgement, and not just because you were blocked, 2) Indicate that you understand why the block was made, and how admins were acting in good faith by doing it (that’s a different question from it being "fair", as in equally applied by all admins to all users) 3) No image uploads of any kind for one week, and after that...well, think three times before uploading. 4) no false copyright information, ever. This is serious business for the office. 5) no potentially controversial material added to your userpage for one week. After that, it’s allowed in practice, within limits (as you see), but consult WP:USER for the guidelines we’re supposed to follow even though all too many people don’t...and again, think three times before making any changes. Unblocked or not, these principles will make you a more valuable contributor for whenever you are allowed to edit again, and that, not unblocking, is what I’d like you consider. Thanks for reading.Timothy Usher 10:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[1] --FairNBalanced 04:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Help get it mentioned

Hey Netscott, recently I attempted adding the Islam Comic Book under "Comparable references" on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, but some Muslim or politically correct jerk apparently deleted it. Do you think it's worth mentioning? If you do, please refer to this on the talk page -Politicallyincorrectliberal 17:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

An shining example of hypocrisy and double-standard

This vs. this.

Apparently "neutrality" is a euphemism for "politically correct". It seems logic has gone out of style for making coherent arguments these days  :(

Those who can't debate with logic will just try to shut you down because there's nothing else to do when emotionalism overrides the rational mind. --FairNBalanced 08:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)