User talk:FairNBalanced

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

/Archive 1: May 2006 - June 2006
/Archive 2: June 2006

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)[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]

[1] --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]

A 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)[reply]

Must say, I agree. The original issue was whether you were neutral, and Faisal's userpage, "well-written" and "wikipedian" though it may (or may not) be, shows no intention of approaching the articles he frequents with neutrality.Timothy Usher 08:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netscott used to be somebody who would stand up for what is right regardless of whether agrees with your opinion. Instead he's taken the political route, so I guess those days are over. I'm sure he's impressed a lot of people by claiming my photo was "extremely vile" and "hateful" (which it wasn't). If my demonstration was "hateful" then please tell me who I "hate" ? I'd like to know. I don't even know Crazy Russian. We have never exchanged communication in any form, not even an edit summary. But I'm sure his complaint on Blnguyen's page without even contacting me first scored points with the politically correct crowd in charge.

I cited numerous examples of userpages that were very obviously meant to be "in your face" "shocking" and "inciteful" with pictures that made my image look like a Valentine's day card. Blog-like comments which break WP policy were praised just because they happen to be on the side of the political spectrum that matched those in charge.

Yet all of those pages remain untouched, but somehow my silly parody on Religious pareidolia is worse? I didn't even know I was breaking a policy?

Reason and logic are dead.

Hypocrisy is now the status quo.

--FairNBalanced 16:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request reviewed and denied

I have reviewed and rejected your unblock request, and removed the {{unblock}} template. I disagree with the unblock reason you propose, that you weren't aware that your image upload was against policy, as I believe you have been here long enough to be aware of the inappropriateness of flamebait and hate speech. If you consider yourself so new that you ought to be excused, well, new users do get cut extra slack, but they don't get a free pass; they can be blocked, and if they post inflammatory text or images, they will be. Don't post disgusting stuff like this on your userpage when you return from the block, please; believe it or not, posting disgusting stuff is against policy. Bishonen | talk 13:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Do we want this editor coming back in one week's time and causing more trouble? That inclusion you cite ("disgusting stuff like this" for which he was not blocked) seems to me to justify a much sterner block. Indefinite would be about right; both inclusions were clearly calculated attacks on muslims intended to cause maximum offence. That's just not acceptable. We can't let people continue to abuse Wikipedia in this way. --Tony Sidaway 15:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true, Sidaway, the edit cited by Bishonen was not a "calculated attack on Muslims". Saying it is doesn't make it so. It is satire, not an "attack on Muslims". This charge is profoundly disingenuous. An editor who has been blocked himself recently for misconduct is not the most neutral voice in such claims.

Bishonen, I'd like to believe that "posting disgusting stuff is against policy". However, as I've cited so many examples above, including this one apparently this does not apply equally to every type of "disgusting" (a relative term) picture. But as I understand it, it's against policy for me to post disgusting stuff. Don't worry, when I return, my user page will be blanked. --FairNBalanced 16:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Saying it is ok to pee on the carpet because you saw a drunk do it once is specious reasoning. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably as well not to feed, Killerchihuahua. I'm sure FairNBalanced knows very well that it's his caption that's disgusting. The use of the image that he links to didn't pee anywhere; that one actually is satire. Tony, I entirely agree about the indefinite bann, and have said so on WP:ANI. Bishonen | talk 18:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The pee on the carpet reminds me of this time I saw a cop dealing with some idiot who trespassed private property (it was an office or something and the door wasn't locked). The guy tried to argue that it was okay because it was open & the cop immedietly retaliated, so would you say it's okay for someone to come into your house because it's open? Point being that using silly excuses like I didn't know the rules doesn't help. You need to know the rules and you need to use your common sense. If you are unwilling or unable to do either, it might be best to stay away from wikipedia Nil Einne 19:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to cut this editor some slack on this occasion. If he keeps his nose clean from now on there should be no problems. --Tony Sidaway 20:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FairNBalanced, to try and help you understand I thought I might point out the difference between most of what you've linked to and what you've done. I haven't seen the image that you posted so I cannot comment on it. But your comments and especially the hate speech that Bishonen point out suggest that there is a vast difference from what you're doing and what others are doing. Certain images such as those that contain nudity that you linked to might be regarded as inflammatory by some and personally I think some might be a bit excessive but the clear fact is, they won't generally cause the kind of offense that hate speech causes. If for example, someone were to put a picture containing a nude female and then say "what do you think I should do to this bitch?" this would probably result in a ban and so it should. The person you linked to with the Arab as a chair similarly made no hate speech. If that person had instead captioned the image "Just another American Jew, on a typical day at the office using an Arab as a chair" this would similar be construted as hate speech.

It is true that wikipedian justice is not always consitency. Consistency is rather difficult and even courts have trouble with consistency. Something which operates like wikipedia has even more difficulty. However this doesn't mean that we should let off people who violate rules. Instead, we should endevour to ensure that people who violate rules are punished as they should be. If you're lucky and get a generous admin, just be thankful. If you're not, you have no right to complain.

Nil Einne 18:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary Member of [The Muslim Guild]

I'm puzzled as to what makes you an "Honorary Member" of [The Muslim Guild]. The Guild is open to anyone, and you invited yourself.--Irishpunktom\^talk 10:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And your point? He joined, and listed himself on The Muslim Guild page as requested. This strikes me as "kicking them when they're down." WP:NPA.--Mantanmoreland 12:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, i'm just curious as to where the "Honorary" comes from .. I don't really understand where the "Kicking" is. --Irishpunktom\^talk 12:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do, and I think you do too.--Mantanmoreland 12:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPT, there's a reason I've not commented on your or Raphael1's ArbCom cases, to which Mantanmoreland has spoken. It is unseemly.Timothy Usher 12:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stil don't get it.. whats the Arb-Com cases got to do with this? - Where is the kicking? - and whats with the "Honorary" --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You post a totally gratuitous message below "Unblock request reviewed and denied" and you don't know that he's "down"? Why don't you just leave this him alone? Don't pile on someone who's got serious wiki troubles. WP:NPA.--Mantanmoreland 14:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mantanmoreland, I thought really think your assuming good faith here - Its an honest question, completely unrelated to any other activity.. as far as I'm aware, the users block had nothing to do with their membership of the guild. --Irishpunktom\^{[[User_talk:Irishpunktom|tal--Mantanmoreland 00:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)k]]} 15:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it kill you to let the poor chap alone?--Mantanmoreland 15:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question (as Timothy and Mantanmoreland won't), it's sarcasm. He's clearly what would be considered unwelcome to any gathering of Muslims, given the hate speech he makes use of. [2]. I would suggest every effort be taken to keep people like this off Wikipedia. And Mantanmoreland, had what FairNBalanced said and did been directed at Jews or Christians instead of women, he'd be permenantly banned. He got the least of what he deserved, so spare us the 'poor chap' song. His Excellency... 23:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under your previous username, you were repeatedly blocked for an ongoing pattern of harassment and incivility toward your fellow editors. I suggest you stop, both in regard to me and in regard to this blocked user.Timothy Usher 23:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was blocked for losing patience with you, and what I did then would constitute personal attack. Honest outspoken criticism that is based on fact is permitted though, and the shameless hate speech expressed here deserves more than just vocal criticism. As for you, I'll discuss you elsewhere. This isn't the place for that. His Excellency... 00:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of hate speech

"The Jews took note, and have taken every measure to stop me. They're an active bunch of snots.".Timothy Usher 01:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it could be called hate speech but hardly on the league of what Fair has done Nil Einne 19:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So in other words, "His Excellency," you are confirming my initial impression that this was an effort to kick FairNBalanced while he's down. Thanks for clarifying. --Mantanmoreland 00:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mantanmoreland, please read WP:AGF. You cannot know for certain what Irishpunktom's motivations are, much less tell if that particularly violent euphamism is an appropriate one. WP:AGF asks us to assume Irishpunktom's motives are honorable, unless there's evidence to prove otherwise. We should assume the question is a reasonable one. His Excellency... 00:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spare me the preaching on WP:AGF, given your own conduct on this user page alone.--Mantanmoreland 12:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether His excellency is obeying the policy, this does not excuse you from obeying the policy. If he did not obey the policy, you're welcome to point out the hypocricy but you still have to obey the policy and he still has a right to ask you to obey the policy. BTW, I see no evidence for kicking a user while he's down. Rather it's most likely an honest question based on genuine lack of understanding. The reason Irish came here may be because of the attention that Fair has brought to himself by posting an inflammatory image and then making a big stink when he was rightfully banned but that's hardly Irish's fault. Even if it wasn't a honest question, I wouldn't exactly call it kicking but more of a case of trying to point out the stupidity of FairNBalanced clear attempt at provocking other users since it's clear that there is no honourary title in a group with a completely voluntary membership much less a honourary title when that group in question would not welcome the member in question. This hardly constitutes kicking, more of a case of trying to help a user see sense to hopefully make wikipedia a better place Nil Einne 19:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat the same thing to you: stop kicking FairNBalanced while he's down. Leave the poor guy alone. --Mantanmoreland 21:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Cause_of_the_oil_shortage.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cause_of_the_oil_shortage.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. 10:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Charlie_Sheen_Publicity_Photo2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Charlie_Sheen_Publicity_Photo2.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. 06:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]