User talk:FairNBalanced

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

Welcome!--FairNBalanced 06:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)--FairNBalanced 06:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FairNBalanced, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- InvisibleK 20:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Sheen photo

No, I don't mind the replacement at all, and thank you for making it; the previous photo was just the first fair-use promotional photo I could find. There were copyright problems with both the Penthouse photo and the subsequent photo on the page; I was looking for pretty much anything where there was a solid case for fair use. --Hyperbole 07:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

I saw a few of your edits show up on my watchlist and took a look at your contributions. Excellent work, it is appreciated very much!

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(esperanza) 2006-04-29 18:34

mmmmm

sockpuppet?--172.128.213.179 01:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mmmm

no, thanks for playing --FairNBalanced 06:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mmm

that's what you said when I asked your last username, admission of guilt it is then--172.149.250.3 23:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mm

"that's what you said when I asked your last username" ... Mr or Ms. Anonymous I.P. show me a link to where you asked me such a question. If you are telling the truth, you will be able to find it. I've never met you before and your very first user contribution shows up on my talk page.

.... you're running out of "m"s

by the way, my new sockpuppet friend, you might consider getting a log-in --FairNBalanced 21:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cite error on GWB

[1] your citation show up as an error. Kevin Baas^talk 00:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the error before you even left this message... but thanks, drop by any time --FairNBalanced 06:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome and good luck

--Tbeatty 05:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GW

I'd love to see mention of the CBS scandal, but it'd take a lot of tact to craft objectively.

"Media bias", I have to say again, is completely speculative. The media is biased toward ratings, and allegations of a "liberal media" have no place in a GW bio.DBaba 09:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

49 Nobel laureates, 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science, and 171 members of the National Academy of Sciences--this is not the same thing as a group that is paid to protect the interests of the tobacco and fast foods industries.

You cited a group that is paid to lie to counterpoint an apolitical, absurdly well-qualified collective opinion. If you can find a negative perspective from within the Bush administration, that would warrant inclusion.

Still, you really shouldn't be approaching this as a sacred mission to whitewash the tenure of your hero. This is supposed to be "Fair and Balanced", afterall, and everything you contribute seems to be on the same side of the ball. I'm sure it's just a coincidence, as I have no doubts as to your integrity.

Your fix on the Dan Rather incident is still problematic, because you seem to be attributing an agenda to Dan Rather. This is speculative. Like I said, it needs to be in there, so you're on the right track, but it needs to be even-handed---not naive demonizing of what appeared to be failed journalism.DBaba 18:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that 49 Nobel Laureates have day jobs as lobbyists? Really?DBaba 18:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It only makes sense if you stop fighting against the inclusion of the reference to the laureates. Have you seen the talk page? Kevbo is correct.DBaba 19:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we're on to something here. Are you saying that mention of the report is acceptable to you, alongside mention of the Laureates, if reference to UCS itself is omitted (or simply linked to)? That certainly sounds like a rational solution to your objections to UCS itself, and not the Laureates, as "biased". DBaba 23:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Brainstar!

Haha, thanks! You did a great job trying to understand my formatting setup, and I commend you you getting it almost right. ( I just added a line break for clarity and there was one too many td tags The diff Thanks again! --Zsinj^Talk 15:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bono wiki edit?

What's a Bono wiki edit? I've never encountered or heard of that term before. --ElKevbo 19:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind - I see you've explained on the GWB Talk page. Also, fair warning that you've hit your 3 Revert limit on the GWB page (I'm probably close to it, myself). Time to sit back and let others deal with it for now! :) --ElKevbo 23:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tawker Block 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. -- Tawker 20:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush - there's been an edit war going on there and I noticed your name pop up a few times in there, its a friendly little warning, I promise :o -- Tawker 00:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calming Down

You've got to relax. You're shooting off reverts without even reading your own changes, and you're firing off comments without even signing them.

You finally caught the Boston Globe para after reverting to it three times, I see. But it's not "good faith" for you to remove it, as long as you're manically partisan in all your edits. Does it seem OK to you that you didn't even read ANY of the reverted versions you inserted? That three times you accidentally inserted someone else's leftist slant in rabidly pursuing your rightist agenda? Doesn't that make you want to calm down, maybe start proofreading?DBaba 15:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I don't want to touch your science edits. I want you to fix them.

When you make a contribution like that, you reflect on the quality of your own mind and your own capacity for crafting rational thought. It does come down to "balance", a word you're familiar with. And I'd like you to think about that word, "balance", what it means. See the scales, weighted side to side, balanced?

Look at the science section. Does that appear balanced, physically, visually, intellectually? You've repeatedly, vehemently, asserted your perspective of UCS, a perspective that is completely irrelevant because you seem to concede that it is your own. This isn't about competing perspectives, it's about the most clean and pure perspective we, together, can find.

Do we have balance in the representation of UCS's findings relative to administration rebuttal? Do these quantities balance nicely?

Do we state the number of pages in the UCS document as we do for the rebuttal?

Is 25% of Bush's science policy (1/4 the science section of the bio) summed up in M's rebuttal of what you've repeatedly referred to as a meaningless gesture?

Have you added this text to create a balance, or to celebrate your found counterpoint?

Wouldn't two paragraphs highlighting UCS findings give us a greater balance? Aren't two paragraphs of both findings and rebuttal too much?

DBaba 16:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the Ali Sina Issue

The part explainin Ali Sina's views was copied from an article from his site, hence the copyvio allegetion. Someone needs to paraphrase it. Some hope it's going to be me. If you can do it, you are more than welcome.

T User:Politicallyincorrectliberal (unsigned)

FnB

Hey champ, you want to do the legwork on Brit Hume? I'll help, at some point, but it's really a mess over there.DBaba 02:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I didn't mean to sound passive-aggressive with the Fox thing, I just meant that it quoted or cited Media Matters about 40 times in a couple paragraphs, and thought you'd help bite into that. Not to mention, the version I started with had some lunatic plugging himself and his "provocative" views. Something to do with Zionism, Clinton, China, and Hume "never returning his phone calls".DBaba 04:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Right- and Left- wing terrorism articles - have your say

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right-wing terrorism and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing terrorism and have your say, if possible. Thanks.Xemoi 01:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Orlytheowl.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Orlytheowl.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Marxism template

G'day FairNBalanced,

yes. See WP:CSD, specifically T1. That the template must not exist has been confirmed repeatedly after review by several admins and a trip to DRV. There is at least one user, Constanz (talk · contribs), who insists on re-creating it anyway. When this happens, it is deleted again, for the same reason it was deleted in the first place.

If you'd like to display a Marxism-related template that has some bearing on the encyclopaedia, you might like to consider creating something that cannot be considered divisive or inflammatory, and directly relates to your interest and possible expertise in the area: "This user is interested in discussing Marxism", perhaps, or "This user edits articles related to Marxism", or "This user is knowledgeable about the issues surrounding Marxism", or ... well, the possibilities are nearly endless. "This user is/is not opposed to Marxism", however, is clearly inappropriate. Thanks for your time, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 19:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Wiki_newman_mugshot.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wiki_newman_mugshot.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joturner

Thought you might be interested to have a look at [2]. -- Karl Meier 09:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings

Monkeybait has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Hostile message?

Image copyright problem with Image:Islamist hypocrisy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Islamist hypocrisy.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

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. Netscott 05:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was included under Fair Use per the author, see description--FairNBalanced 17:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Fair use to understand why your "fair use" image has been commented out on your user page. Please review http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/beef/ again and understand that the image you've uploaded is most likely covered under: "All copyrights are reserved by their rightful owners. " from their site it is not clear who the copyright owner is for that image therefore the original source for the image is not clear. For this reason I will be marking the image with {{nsd}} which relates to source (particularly original source). By all means establish the original source for the image and when you've done that then feel free to remove the tag I'm adding. Netscott 18:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not so hostile message

You may want to join the conversation over here and express your view on this category for deletion discussion. Netscott 07:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:Islamist hypocrisy.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Islamist hypocrisy.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Netscott 18:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your sense of humor here particularly because I'm accused often enough of being "islamophobic" (remember I'm the one who initiated the Category for deletion for the category named "islamophobia"). Those that have accused me of "islamophobia" will probably grin when they see that diff. Netscott 18:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfoturnately, I've had my own run in with falling afoul of WP:FU. Netscott 18:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FME? FU2! j/k ;) --FairNBalanced 18:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is an odd combo of letters for a Wikipedia guideline (I falsely referred to it as "policy" in my editorial comment) and I've heard others make a similar joke about it. Regarding Ali Sina, you should know that I may end up supporting the idea of Ali Sina as secular humanist. I'm doing some research now to verify that info one way or another, I've yet to determine it. There are some Wikipedia policies that will likely apply in this case that will actually support your editing. Netscott 19:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ...

...for your very nice comment. Another thing is that I noticed that you actually do a lot of good and very much needed work around here, so I thought I'd give you a rotating barnstar for it. Please, keep up the good work and remember to remain cool and calm all the time. -- Karl Meier 19:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar, awarded by Karl Meier to FairNBalanced for his hard work making Wikipedia the unbiased encyclopedia it should be.

Ali Sina

Hi Fair. I don't know why you keep insisting on me blocking you! My ultimate goal is to arrive to a compromise and an understanding. I am not saying neither you are bad nor nice. If you are a critic of a set of beliefs or a supporter of its critics then that doesn't make you look bad! I respect that and myself am a supporter of this attitude. What i am against are the followings:

Lack of respect while handling an issue.
Focusing on personal aspects and losing temper.
Claiming that the other party is contributing in bad faith.

In relation to the issue, i am not saying that humanist is humanitarian. What i am saying is simple. When you hear about X being a humanist is that because academics, critics in the field judged that person according to a certain set of critereon. But when the subject himself decides so than there is a problem. What is logical is there should be something like X refers to himself being a humanist and stop there. Categorizing him is a work of notable critics and not neither himself nor us. This is my logic. Nothing more and nothing less. Feel free to comment on my talk page which is set for that. I like that szvesty pie by the way. ;) I also appreciate the way your userpage looks now. That a good sing of a better interaction w/ the community which is very important. Feel at home and hear from you. Cheers -- Szvest 17:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Critics of Islam

Your input on Critics of Islam is appreciated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Islamic_scholars#Critics_of_Islam OceanSplah 04:47 June 01 2006 [UTC}

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

My similar felicitations for your contributions to this page. There is a lively discussion on the subject of that section in at least two segments of the article's talk page, incidentally.--Mantanmoreland 15:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Yes, I was puzzled by the refusal to acknowledge the obvious anti-Semitism of Ahmadinejad's statements. I hope that informed people (more informed than myself, that is) can present the other side.

Oh, and while I agree with your edit comments and your reversions of the deletions from the Ahmadinejad page, my suggestion would be that you additionally post a comment concerning those quotes on the talk page. One issue that keeps being raised is the supposed "mistranslation" of those quotes, which I trust you have far more expertise than I to address. --Mantanmoreland 21:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of the Muslim Guild and a scholar on these subjects, I invite you to participate in the lively discussion on this person that is continuing on the talk page. My poor, Roman Catholic head is spinning. Jesuit training is not all it is cracked up to be! --Mantanmoreland 21:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you might want to check the talk page for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad specifically the "Anti-Semite, again?" section. User:Irishpunktom swapped out Category:Anti-Semitic people for Category:Anti-Semitism earlier and I've been attempting to explain to User:Mantanmoreland why such a swap makes sense. But unfortunately my logic appears to be falling on "deaf eyes". Hopefully once you get a chance to read the talk you'll understand that until there's some specific wording saying that, "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an anti-Semite" in the article he should not be a part of that category. Cheers! Netscott 21:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you see, Netscott my friend, there indeed are comments to that effect in the article itself. Also I think the discussion has reached its logical limits, if there were any in the first place.--Mantanmoreland 21:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hi FairNBalanced,

Thank you! Your support is much appreciated.

It's nice to have you on the Muhammad page where, as you see, some editors whose misunderstandings of WP:NPOV were indulged in the past are having trouble facing the reality of what we're supposed to be doing here: building a reliable scholarly encyclopedia. Please do stick around.Timothy Usher 22:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarianism

One might think of the Shahada as a bait-n-switch in this regard. Everything's fine until the Rasul part.Timothy Usher 06:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, rasul means "messenger". There is no god but God - well, duh - and Muhammad is the messenger of God. Muslim critiques of Christianity lead with theology; Christian (and Jewish) critiques of Islam lead with Muhammad (I'm not sure what the Muslim critique of Judaism is other than the generic attribution of evil and hypocrisy). General highly-subjective point being, sound theology is only a small part of how we ought evaluate religion. As a rabbi once said, ye shall know it by its fruits. But that's just my opinion.Timothy Usher 07:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

email

I just added an e-mail address to my account, and I believe it should work now. -- Karl Meier 19:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing is that your e-mail doesn't seems to work for me. Have you remembered to authenticate it? -- Karl Meier 19:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin questions

No I am not an admin although I may become one at some point in the future. Please know that I am particularly sensitive to changes regarding topics on Islam. This I have just demonstrated by actually joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam. As a result I tend to be rather aware through the course of my frequent edits on such topics of changes to them (and correspondingly "related changes") to them. This is what I think you may be noticing. Any other questions? Netscott 17:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cat

Hey Frank. Thanks for the cat (miauu). I appreciate it. And, hey, prepare yourself for a heated debate in its CFD (cat for deletion). I am not sure wikipedians would leave the cat alone. Poor cat! Talk to you. -- Szvest 18:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

hehe! That cat looks like a candidate for {{db-nonsense}}. Poor cat. :-) Netscott

Funny how that cat looks more like a seal. Netscott 18:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)][reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam

FNB, I apprise you of recent changes to this project which, as a member of the Muslim Guild, you might find of interest.Timothy Usher 11:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My cuteness

How did you know?--Mantanmoreland 13:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. free advice in return for the compliment. I think you'd be within your rights to delete some of the anonymous early posts on this page with the "mmm" headers. I could be wrong, but I think that would count as a personal attack you would be within your rights to delete, if not vandalism.

To be quite honest, I'm rather amused by my little sockpuppet friends --FairNBalanced 02:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. Great photo.--Mantanmoreland 14:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

I'd much rather show this picture on my user page than the picture of what these Koran abusing scum did to Nick Berg. Allahu Akbar my ass. --FairNBalanced 02:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page on my watch list

Ok, remember the related changes I was talking about previously? Well there's also the fact that like the others who I tend to see frequenting topics I edit on your user and talk page is on my watch list. So...I noticed you've added a photo to your user page and couldn't help but notice that it was lacking actual source details as in, "where did you download it?" Also I noticed the extremely inappropriate comments relative to "72 virgins". Now I'm inclined to tag your image and particularly inclined to remove your nonsense summary but I wanted to give you an opportunity to correct it before I took action, so would you kindly rectify these points? thanks. Netscott 16:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, there's only one way that you're going to rectify that summary and that is to actually re-upload the image as the commentary appears in the "edit commentary" portion of the image. If you do not in fact re-up it I can absolutely guarantee that your image will be summarily deleted for this reason alone. Netscott 16:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking better but I would strongly advise you to avoid inflammatory commentary on your user page as well as it does not tend to foster an encyclopedic environment and is severly frowned upon here on Wikipedia. Also in the future whenever possible do provide an actual link to the page you've downloaded a given image from. Cheers. Netscott 16:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Care to join the discussion on the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or shall you continue arbitrarily? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is now double listed in the anti-semitism cat, why do you want that?--Irishpunktom\^talk 16:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sad

Sad sad sad....— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.174.251 (talk • contribs)

Hey Sockpuppet! Sign your comments! --FairNBalanced 02:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is sad that there is intolerance and hate in this world. I agree with the above anonymous comment and I am pleased that FairNBalanced is so forthright in his editing.--Mantanmoreland 20:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet of Murdoch??

You aren't him, or an impersonator of him, are you? ;-)....?

E-Mail?

FNB, might you consider enabling your e-mail? It's still confidential - you can only see the sender's e-mail; they can't see yours.Timothy Usher 07:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flattery?

They say it will only get you so far. I do try to honestly be balanced in my editing on Wikipedia and perhaps you are in good faith recognizing that. Still, the value of a given award is perhaps measured by the one giving it and as you've said yourself, "(support that you'd probably like to distance yourself from!)" might also apply to Barnstars. I will reserve my final judgement on that last line till I know you better... but so far many of your inflammatory statements do tend to be done with less than good faith in my humble opinion. Netscott 19:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the barnstar you added to my user page as I now believe it was not done in good faith. Netscott 18:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official Response to "Flattery?"

Scott,

Let it be known that I am amazingly clear on some issues. I am also honest, and don't particularly censor myself, when other people would. Just because you have opposed me on many occassions doesn't mean that I can't understand why you would. Unlike some other users who don't like to be "corrected" by you, I don't take it personally. You do what you believe is right, so do I. A few times when I felt you've presented a fair case, I've capitulated with little argument.

As far as my bad faith edits, if I (hypothetically) were to say something like "I think Muhammad should have died an even slower, more agonizing death, and all of his followers were stupid for following him" - That would be an example of "hate" speech made in bad faith; it's not something I would say, nor do I agree with. Let me repeat:I wouldn't make that statement and I don't agree with it. However, if I say "Mohammed had inappropriate sexual relations with a minor, and fits the modern description of a "pedophile"- this is not hate speech. It's a matter of the historical record, from the "mouths of babes" as they say. In fact my own opinion is not even involved in such a sentence. My own opinion is that the religion of Islam has done a lot of good for a lot of people. There are redeeming qualities to Islam despite its founder's less than perfect qualities. Of course, Islam has also been a tool for evil (i.e. al-Zarqawi: someone that killed other Muslims who preached peace, tolerance and unity). That's why it's important to be honest with oneself on what are facts, and what are extreme views.

Like I told you, I am amazingly clear on certain topics. One of those is your character, and another is the character of a certain prophet.

I disagree on a lot of matters, for example, with Faisal. My personal opinion of him is that he is someone with a good heart who tries to do what he believes is right. I think he is honest. I respect him for these characteristics. But he himself has made it clear that Wikipedia policy is not exactly his... shall we say "priority"? To be honest, I think he is a probably a nice guy in person, and if we met in person (& he didn't know I was "FNB") we'd probably get along just dandily.

Let this stand as a matter of public record.

--FairNBalanced 03:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians Who Are Cute

Thank you for considering me to be "cute" enough to be included in the category. :) BhaiSaab ^talk 03:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Norris Template

No, but see how Kotepho's has {{{text|blah}}} around it? That allows people to put {{user Chuck Norris|text=blah}}, so they can have their own fact. In the future, when changing facts, please only remove the "With the rising cost of gasoline, [[Chuck Norris|<span style="color:#FFFFFF">'''Chuck Norris'''</span>]] is beginning to worry about his drinking habit," and not the {{{text| and }}} around it. --Rory096 19:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]