User talk:Raphael1

Archives
March 2006 – April 2006

3RR

You have 4R on Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations. Revert yourself, or get reported, and blocked. William M. Connolley 12:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing I could revert there. Raphael1 13:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, cos I reverted first. Please make sure to stay within the rules in future. Even now you could be blocked if someone chooses to report you William M. Connolley 14:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 24+24 hours for 3RR violations to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and, apparently, also Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations. In addition your continual removal/hiding of the image on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (for many months) against strong community consensus is very disturbing. --Cyde Weys 18:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Greetings Raphael1, please be aware of this Request for Check User. Netscott 00:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1, your evasion of WP:3RR and resultant blocks with sockpuppets in the pursuit of vandalism has eroded my respect for you as an editor. Please play by the rules. Thanks.Timothy Usher 05:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1, User:Vkasdg has been impersonating you; see User:Raphael101. Apologies for the above.Timothy Usher 07:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Timioty Usher, I made it pretty clear that I was not Raphael1. You chose not to believe me. 147.91.173.31 22:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

the image

Raphael1 if you can get a consensus that the image should be linkimaged by means of a straw poll or otherwise then feel free to linkimage it, otherwise leave the image as it is until you can gain said consensus. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 20:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed with Pegasus. While WP:NBD is policy it should not be used as a convenient means of ignoring prior consensus and taking actions based on your own opinion on the matter. If you want to have the image removed from the article or only linked to it, then by all means engage in consensus building mechanisms to achieve that balance. Without it, you will be engaging in revert warring. You've been blocked twice already for WP:3RR violations. Please, don't let it happen again. Thank you, --Durin 20:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• I couldn't put what these lads said better myself. Please respect the consensus, or try and form a new one. Snoutwood (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As I have stated before, if you would like you are welcome to try to overturn the current consensus by garnering comment on the article's talk page and/or starting a straw poll to determine if there has been a chance in consensus and if consensus has changed then so be it but until that time the consensus is to keep the image as is and any removal of them is disruption. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree with those three other fellows. Netscott 03:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation in New anti-Semitism

More to the point, I don't have a position on the dispute, and am not familiar with the specific contreversy (even know I am aware of the disputes regarding Israel in general). I know I can reasonably claim NPOV in my examination of the article. Call me sheltered or something.  :-) Coren 03:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Islamic scripture template news=

1) Template:Quran-usc has been altered in two respects:

a) it’s no longer required to input three digits - this is automated thanks to joturner.

b) the template no longer includes “Qur’an” in the bluelighted display. Editor may choose to write it or not (or “Sura”, or “verse”, etc.) according to context.

c) thus the “-num” variants are redundant and should not be used.

2) The “range display” problem is still not solved - more information coming soon.

3) Template:Bukhari-usc is operative, with three variables (volume, book, hadith), and automated tridigitation as per Quran-usc.

4) Template:Quran-usc-num, Template:Quran-usc-numrange and Template:Buhari are defunct and should be deleted.Timothy Usher 07:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Nomination revert

Please DO NOT change the rules of the nominations, we have reached consensus on them so no change can be made without group consensus. You cannot change the rules for your own whim. Cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 16:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever Anjoe did or didn't do has nothing to do with me! You cannot change to your whim, the disputes and nominations are opposite areas. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 17:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, Anjoe's edit were an update in policy. Your's weren't. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 17:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

WP: NOT evil

Hi Raphael, The proposal itself, and more importantly where it is going looks pretty strange to me. I however can see that proposers are trying to do something good. It was my quick impression in 5 min, I was not aware of it before. What is your take on it? The statement you quoted is completely French to me: either I cannot see what it means or if I understand correctly it is hard for me to believe that it can be stated. By the way, I will organize the Wikiethics and ask for community approval soon. Best, Resid Gulerdem 04:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Religious racism

Raphael, that concept does not exist. The semites can, if you insist, be considered a race, but how is that related to their religion.

What race is the Muslims? MX44 16:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

African Jews who are not semites ... What race would that be? (Reference please!) MX44 16:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Great! :-D So the Jews are not targeted because of their race, but because of their religion (or more likely, the political idea of Zionism), which apparently is not the same as race, as you have now conveniently proven!

Have a nice evening. MX44 17:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You say that there are many kinds of racism? I believe that I understand what you are after and to a certain extent, I actually agree ... just that "racism" is the wrong word to use when we are not talking about race. Give me a better description, will you? MX44 00:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons

I won't be the first to warn you, and I don't think I'll be the last. Earlier today, you moved the cartoons of Muhammad behind a link. It was clear to you that there is an overwhelming consensus against that option. You may disagree with it, you may desire/request a new poll, but you may not ignore it. On User talk:Nausate, you wrote "I really can understand, why you did remove the cartoons. Unfortunately the non-muslim majority here is full of ignorance. I will not revert your changes and will probably remove the cartoons again myself." I'll be very straight-forward to you: don't. Don't. Try to get people on your side on the article's talk page, but until there is a new consensus, the one we have reached in the past counts. Regardless of whether that consensus was reached last week, three months ago or twenty years ago. You are not the wikipedia community. The next time you make any such edit to the image of the Muhammad cartoons (whether that is linkimaging, outright deletion or any other means), I will block you. I'll start mildly, at 12 hours. I will double the block at each new violation. The choice is yours: will you accept the rules of wikipedia and play by them, or will you be blocked? Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 16:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:82.36.48.237

I unblocked him. It had been long enough anyway. --Woohookitty^(meow) 09:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Spurious warning templates

Raphael1, please stop leaving spurious warning templates on my User talk page. Thanks.Timothy Usher 23:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to remove Lionking's initial comment along with responses thereto.Timothy Usher 00:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are free - that is once you're unblocked - to remove Lionking's inappropriate statement, along with my and Kyaa the Catlord's responses thereto.Timothy Usher 01:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Warning!

The joke is getting old. Humor's great, but Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia. It is time to straighten up and make serious contributions.

I didn't count, but it must have been about the 20th or 30th time you removed the image. Dedicating that action to somebody, however, was novel and very, very bizarre. Is that some sort of martyrdom complex you're harbouring? From now on, you will receive the warning above for any deletion of relevant content. This talk page will fill up real quick if you intend to continue at your present pace. Remember that you may be blocked. Azate 01:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This is no joke. I am very serious about linkimageing the cartoons. I am trying to help make Wikipedia a place, where members of the 2nd largest faith can feel welcome and won't get offended such as LionKing, whom I dedicated my last change. Raphael1 02:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Guess what, there are plenty of things on this site for members of the world's first largest faith to get offended at too. --Cyde Weys 02:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 1 week. The next time he does it the block will be indefinite. This continued nonsense goes beyond all bounds of what is to be expected. He has been pulling this same shtick for months now, ever since the original story broke. I wouldn't even want to guess how many dozens of his edits are solely removing or modifying the display of that image, which had an overwhelming consensus to display normally. This is a continuing pattern of disruption and the community is not going to put up with it any longer. --Cyde Weys 01:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Please remove my block. You are violating WP:BP#When_blocking_may_not_be_used since you are yourself engaged in this content dispute. Raphael1 01:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Then consider it a block from me, I've been watching you from afar (I have your talk page watched), and the block is correct in principle if wrong per policy. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:46 UTC (2006-04-29)

You are engaged in the cartoon image dispute too. Raphael1 01:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Then consider it a block from me as well (and yes, I am probably involved). I had blocked you for 12 hours for linkimaging the cartoons, until I found out that Cyde had already blocked you for a week. I restored his block, so for the next week, you will not be able to edit wikipedia. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 12:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, indeed you are involved as well and already abused your administrator privilege before. Raphael1 12:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

So anyone who has ever reverted any kind of fiddling with the image (note: this doesn't apply to me) is automatically involved in the entire dispute and can't ever do anything against you and the likes of you? That would exclude about the entire admin community on wikipedia, which would mean that you would be able to roam around freely. How convenient :) But do you know what I find most funny? You could have come up with my votes on the polls to prove my involvement, you could have come up with my messages on the article's talk page and talk subpages, you could have come up with many other things. But instead, you came up with one meager revert that barely shows any involvement. The block of 83.238.213.26 was within my discretion. He or she was properly warned to cease his/her more than disruptive behaviour, but continued to do so. And if users do so, blocks are but one tool in our shed. If you do feel that I abused my privileges, feel free to report me. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 15:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, everybody can read about your strong opinion on that issue on the Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display page. Though I've found out that some of your rather revealing posts got lost, when Netscott moved the text and created the new image-display talk page. Raphael1 17:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a content dispute when it is vandalism. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:56 UTC (2006-04-29)

How predictable (and how boring), Raphael1 is trying to game the system by Wikilawyering. It ain't gonna work. --Cyde Weys 02:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not involved, so consider it a block from me. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are too. Raphael1 02:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

So anyone who has ever reverted a vandal such as yourself is eliminated? I think not. It's done, get past it, live your life, stop pushing your view of the world on other people. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think it's a good sign that, for any user who comes in here supporting the block, you're able to find a diff where that user has been in opposition to you in the past. That alone should tell you something. --Cyde Weys 22:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It does indeed tell me something: It tells me, that there are Wikipedia administrators, who deliberately abuse their administrator privileges to push their position in a content dispute. Raphael1 22:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it tells you that you are clearly in the wrong since you have people coming out of the woodwork left and right who disagree with your past interactions with the article and support this latest remedy. And let me tell you what we're looking to hear: that you're sorry and you won't mess with that article anymore. Instead, we're hearing accusations of administrator abuse and rationalizations of your disruptive actions. That hardly makes us think you're ready to get your editing privileges back. --Cyde Weys 22:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You are editing the JP-article, even though you don't know what blasphemy is. Still you are confident, that it does not exist in the US. And you are proud of our "collective cojones" to republish something you compare with a Catholic priest scandal. You are not very fond of new ideas and don't like compromises at all. You believe, that it is American to disrespect religions. You don't like to read about other religions, even if you don't seem to know much about them. And you like to provoke, but you know ... get over it.

I can live with all that, as long as you don't enforce your position in that content dispute by abusing your administrator privileges. Raphael1 01:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Gidday

Raphael, did you want to see me? Sorry I have not replied until now. I don't come to this site much and did not see your message until today. E-mail me if you like. BTW, Cyde, your comment above was far more snide than constructive. Arno 02:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Raphael, my e-mail address has been reconfirmed. Somoen did something to my e-ail setup during one og my absences, and I had to do some admin-style stuff do reset my e-mail address. To get to it, just click on "E-Mail this user" on my user page. It's best to wrote to me directly, so that the said epistle won't be torn to shreds or smoke screened the way my initial greeting was below. Arno 07:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Not gidday

This nonsense with the image has been going on for months. Pardon me if I'm not going to put up with it anymore. --Cyde Weys 02:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You sound surprised. It's likely to go on for a long while yet. The "nonsense" would stop if you just took the wretched thing off and stopped constantly stirring up and maintaining a pointless hornet's nest. Arno 07:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the nonsense would stop when the people committing the nonsense would stop committing the nonsense. The only people responsible for removing the cartoons are those who remove the cartoons. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 09:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If you desperately try to put that cartoons on the article, even if you insult thousands of people, what did you expect? I can't say it better than JEREMY, who said: "Consensus is not discovered or arrived at via straw polls; it is only achieved through empathy, compromise and civility." Raphael1 02:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh-huh, so you're basically adopting an ends justify the means approach; vandalism is an acceptable method of getting what you want and screw consensus. Uh-huh. Those are the words of an indefinitely-blocked user. --Cyde Weys 02:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh-huh! I have not gone over raphael's editing history, but it seems that an atrmept to form wikiethics went astray and got uprooted. At least at first glance, he's tried to go by the system. Arno 07:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Then you're going to need to get Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which is official policy, changed first, since it says Wikipedia is not censored. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It also says that this wikipedia is not a soapbox for change. By putting it on and enforcing it, far too many persons on this website have mounted a massive soapbox indeed on this issue. Arno 07:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Unblock denied. NSLE _(T+C) at 03:54 UTC (2006-04-29)

This diff's for you

[1]Timothy Usher 07:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which. Netscott 07:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that changes. I actually expected some of my own rude posts. :-) Raphael1 12:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Rude posts I can deal with, as can you. The issue appears to be, on one side, that you must stop what most everyone rightly or wrongly considers vandalizing wikipedia, and on the other, that you be unblocked upon recognition of this fact. I know from other pages that you've much to accomplish here besides kamikaze (so they are) missions against images; I may find you annoying and vice-versa but that's okay. You are smart, passionate, and earnest which are good things. You just need to agree to stop image vandalism, even if you don't think that's what it is. Part of working together is accepting that some things can really suck, but agreeing to follow the rules anyhow. It's not dishonorable; and I speak from personal experience when I say that there's no honor in crashing and burning without purpose. The cartoons are staying whether you like it or not. That should be obvious by now. There's nothing you can do, and if I wished to join your cause, there'd be nothing I could do, either. Don't love it. Just accept it. That's my advice.Timothy Usher 13:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to tell you, that I don't find you annoying, though I might have percieved some of your comments as such. I never had any intention to crash or burn anything here, and I've never shied away from any discussion. As you might know Wikipedia is not a democracy IMHO for very good reasons. Why should I accept February 4th decision of an angry mob to use Wikipedia as a platform for advocating religious hatred? I cannot see any reason, why I should stop my efforts to make Wikipedia an encyclopedia for all faiths. If you want to help me with that, I'd appreciate it very much. Btw. I have e-mail enabled. Raphael1 01:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't feel that Raphael1 bit my hand of friendship. Though I see his fixation on the cartoons as objectively unproductive, in that the only result is that he will be blocked, he was more gracious to me personally than he had to be.Timothy Usher 09:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it that pessemistic. At least the image-display controversy uncovered abusive administrators as you can see above. Raphael1 11:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

userboxes

I'd like to share my view on userboxes to all, who watch my talk page: I don't like them, because they devide all Wikipedians in categories, which can easily be used to organize campaigns to push a particular viewpoint i.e. by getting the "right" people behind a vote. I don't have any userpage at all because I don't think, that my skin colour, sex, religion or nationality is revealing who I am. If anyone wants to judge me, please judge me by my contributions. I have a suggestion to Cyde: When you start deleting userboxes from the religion category, please remove the {{user freespeech}} template as well. If publishing profanity becomes ones creed, decency becomes blasphemous. Raphael1 22:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Please respond to mediation

Hi Raphael1. Natalya has asked for responses to her mediation questions from the participants in the GA criteria dispute. Hope to see you there. — JEREMY 08:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I cannot answer because I have been blocked. Raphael1 08:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

How long are you blocked for? If you leave your answers here, I'll paste them over there for you. — JEREMY 10:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been blocked for a week (see User_talk:Raphael1#Warning.21).

Here are my answers:

• Only articles that meet the Good Article Criteria should be granted Good Article status.

Agree. The criterias are important and it would be bad i.e. to have an unstable article listed. Raphael1 09:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Impartial reviewing allows the best determination of Good Article status.

Agree. Having a strong POV on an article might reduce the judgement quality. Raphael1 09:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• It is easiest for users who have not contributed to the article to be impartial.

Agree. Contributing to an article easily results in some kind of affection towards it. Raphael1 09:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• It is possible for significant contributors to be impartial about an article they worked on if they want to be.

Agree. Even a contributing editor can check the criterias and i.e. find out, that there are many revert wars. Raphael1 09:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Significant contributors to an article may understand the reasons why it may or may not be good, since they have worked intimately with it.

Agree. Editors, who have not contributed, might not be that interested on the articles topic at all. Raphael1 09:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• The opinions of significant contributors should be considered when it comes to granting/failing Good Article status.

Agree. Everybodys opinion is important in Wikipedia culture. Raphael1 09:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Significant contributors should not have the final decision when it comes to granting/failing Good Article status.

Disagree. Nobody alone should have the final decision on granting Good Article status. But everybody should agree, that the article is good for granting it Good Article status. Raphael1 09:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• If they have demonstrated impartiality, significant contributors should be able to grant/fail Good Article status.

Disagree. They should be able to fail it, but not be able to pass it. Raphael1 09:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. — JEREMY 13:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. It seems, that there are only 2 disputed issues, namely:

• It is possible for significant contributors to be impartial about an article they worked on if they want to be.
• Significant contributors should not have the final decision when it comes to granting/failing Good Article status.

I'm curious to see the further approach Natalya will take. Raphael1 14:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy would you please enable e-mail, since I'd like to contact you privately. Raphael1 22:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not keen on discussing anything to do with wikipedia anywhere other than on wikipedia talk pages, where everything is out in the open and fully documented. If you'd like to contact me about non-wikipedian matters, let me know. — JEREMY 02:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

IMHO that's unfortunate, because I'd like to suggest some rather interesting tactics. OTOH maybe all discussions regarding WP should generally be open and nothing should be planed behind the curtains. Raphael1 10:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Curtains. Sorry for assuming you were a Muslim, btw. I should have paid closer attention, but I've been seeing too many people (several of whom were Muslims) bullied and derided for expressing the views you're supporting, and I acted in haste. (I just did the same to some poor guy on housecleaning duty too; this stuff must be getting to me.) I'd be interested to read a summary of your views on the cartoons thing. Personally, I favour correcting the emphasis in the article to better encompass the global impact of the cartoons — which would result in the appearance of the images themselves lower in the article. The freedom fighters who want to slap everyone in the face with this will tend to be short-term wikipedians, and the problem can be dealt with over time. (That said, the sooner the better to minimise the harm it's doing to wikipedia's long-term credibility.) You? — JEREMY 08:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Hi Raphael, I hope you are doing fine... We are about to finalize the revision of Wikiethics proposal. I was wondering if you have some time to review the last form of it. Any comments are appreciated. Best, Resid Gulerdem 01:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Raphael, it looks to be that the same admin did block you. Do you know what: I have seen somewhere I cannot recall now that if there is two editors complaining about an admin, they may file a complaint about him. If you would like to check it and file such a complaint, I will definitely support you in that action. Thanks for the suggestion about Wikiethics. Wikilove looks interesting and fine too. Best, Resid Gulerdem 02:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, that would be WP:RFC. NSLE _(T+C) at 03:08 UTC (2006-05-07)

No it was this one I was talking about. Resid Gulerdem 06:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Cyde2

The log shows you were blocked by Cyde, Aecis and Stifle; two of them specifically cited the 3RR, and the other stated he was blocking for "Continuous removal of image from Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, despite having been warned numerous times not to do so". Johnleemk | Talk 16:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The statement I endorsed says you were blocked by three admins on separate occasions for violating the 3RR. It does not say whether you actually violated the 3RR or not. (Also, please note that what is considered important is violating the spirit of the 3RR instead of the letter; depending on how you conduct yourself, you may fall foul of the 3RR in spirit but not in letter.) Johnleemk | Talk 16:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop spamming user's talk pages. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for mediation

I have indicated my disagreement with your request for mediation. I strongly believe that there is nothing to mediate: you simply need to stop the disruptive behaviour which got you blocked. A consensus over the issue of displaying the cartoons has been reached. You may disagree with it, and you may argue your case on the article's talk page. But that is all that you may do. You may not singlehandedly fiddle with the image of the cartoons in any way, shape or form. What is needed is a change in the behaviour on your side. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 22:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• I never said that you should do it, I said that you may do it. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 08:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Dead horses are better left resting in peace. Netscott 09:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

JPMCC fix

Please do a diff to see what I was actually targetting. Netscott 16:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Karl Meier 13:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I don't find the rationalization "I commented on your edit not you" terribly convincing. Would you appreciate your edits being called by derogatory names? That is not constructive, and I would suggest you please refrain from such edit comments in the future. Thanks! Weregerbil 13:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Now I notice that you continue your mud-throwing campaign agaist me: [2]. How long is it since you returned from your latest week-long block for disruption? -- Karl Meier 13:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: We are so sorry!!!: I think a certain sense of humor is called for there. And I'm not sure if that is somehow related to or reason for uncivil edit comments? Weregerbil 14:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not the one that is making uncivil comments in edit summaries, and when I ask you to stop violating policy and stop making personal attacks against me, I expect you to listen. -- Karl Meier 14:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: "you consider that web site funny": per "assume good faith" (not the Wikipedia concept, the real life concept), why yes, I assume it was done at least partly tongue in cheek. Social issues are occasionally discussed with a certain amount of (somewhat stinging) levity in the West. That's actually pretty mild, especially in the times of the WWW. It is best to try and not get "offended" when dealing with such matters. Weregerbil 14:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: "blatant racism": it saddens me that you cannot see things any other way. And that you are so quick to jump into assumptions about the character of other people. Weregerbil 15:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Another thing is that when you finish your trolling, then there is questions for you at the talkpage re your latest reverts. -- Karl Meier 14:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't responded to the questions that I added to the talkpage re your revert? You seems to have a awful lot of wiki-time, commenting on other Wikipedian's "character" [3]. I can only suggest that you stop trolling. -- Karl Meier 15:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamophobia

Greetings Raphael1, I was wondering if you might express your editorial view on this bottom section of talk on this article? Thanks. Netscott 13:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict I actually was going to self revert. Please just add the parties defining it as racism to the article. Netscott 19:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just edited the article for NPOV, the way that it stands now is fine by me without any particular organizations/parties being cited for it's definition. Netscott 19:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of English (ODE) (copyrighted 2003), on the Casio XD-H9200 electronic dictionary says: "Islamophobia > noun [mass noun] a hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force." doesn't mention race anywhere. Netscott 21:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Obfuscation? You're forgetting muslims aren't a race. So if a black muslim is victimized by "islamophobia" then the raciscm is directed at her black race and if a white muslim is hurt in an "islamophobic" attack then the racism is directed to his white race. Is that making sense for you? Netscott 21:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1, in terms of your editing relative to the "islamophobia" neologism please be aware of these guidelines: Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Thanks. Netscott 08:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Vote stacking spam

Raphael1, please cease from the vote stacking spam you are spreading regarding deletion of the Religion of Peace article. Netscott 20:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Persecution of Muslims

Your user page User:Raphael1/Persecution_of_Muslims strikes me as a prime example of original research. How could you ever possibly demonstrate that the anon IPs were Muslims? Netscott 01:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a prime example of incivility and personal attacks if you ask me. Why don't you notify the editors that is mentioned that you suspect them of "prosecuting Muslims"? Or maybe I should do that? -- Karl Meier 12:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

islamophobia

[4] --> says who? Do you have a source that support that? That is what I am looking for. -- Karl Meier 10:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we need references for the obvious, but please tell me, when you're successful in your search. Raphael1 10:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Raphael1 please cease from editing on the Islamophobia article while User:Irishpunktom and I make efforts towards dispute resolution. Netscott 11:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I know that we do. That you believe that it is islamophobic doesn't matter. If we don't have a source that allege that the image is somehow related to the concept of islamophobia, then it is original research, and that is not allowed here. -- Karl Meier 12:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There is already sources presented which claim the BNP, as a party, are islamophobic - and this poster can stay as it has been issued by the named party. --Irishpunktom\^talk 12:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This section of WP:NOR may be of pertinence to this discussion. Netscott 12:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediation on Islamophobia

Raphael1, please review this request for mediation and agree to it. Thanks. Netscott 17:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)