Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:46, 11 October 2006

3RR violation WARNING for Muhammad article

You have already violate 3RR. Be aware that you could be banned if you continue to do that. Hence stop reverting -- ابراهيم 22:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The picture in Muhammad article

The picture in Muhammad article is not related to conquest of Mecca at all. The incident happened even before Muhammad was a Prophet and Mecca is conquest decades after that. Tell me why you want to add picture when you have no idea that what that picture is about??? Btw I have reported you as you have done enough reverts. --- ابراهيم 22:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocked-3RR Violation

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Having problems with a picture lately??

Well, ok. If you like putting up with your claims being called "dishonest" and sensless ban threats. I don't have a huge amount of time anyway to spend fighting the endless stream of nonsense from certain users.

Why would I want to, Deep Throat? --The Hungry Hun 07:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I will report you for making personal attacks if you continue making comments like "dishonest claim". Making personal attacks are one of the biggest crime here and you could be banned for a very long time. Please consider it as a warning and read WP:AGF and WP:No_personal_attacks. --- ابراهيم 18:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad: Revision of changes by User:Eriksene

Hello,

I noticed that in your reversion of Eriksene's changes, you dropped the entire paragraph of Muhammad's death. I have restored the original paragraph (the one prior to vandalism). Cheers, Vectro 20:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for your input

Since you have worked hard on the pictures, you may want to comment here about picture deletion by this user. It appears that it is the same one who wants to report you for making personal attacks for your 'dishonest claims'. Speak the truth. Cheers Nodekeeper 02:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you want me also to post on other people pages and ask them to comment there? --- ابراهيم 03:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You know I can also gather many people for my support hence please avoid that. --- ابراهيم 03:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. I figured as much. I also understand (very well) your position. I also appreciate your goodwill and forgiveness torwards others. Though I sense that some people take advantage of it to further their POV pushing agenda to wear people down and give in at the end. You are right that they do not understand our cultural values of intellectual freedom that we take for granted. Thanks for your contributions on the Muhummad page. Nodekeeper 10:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't work too hard on this

It's too difficult to fight all the sock puppets meat puppets, anonymous accounts, and the 24 hour patrolling that seems to take place on that page. And edit warring is useless as well, as that will just serve to drag you down (which may be their intent). So, just check in every other day and if you find the pictures aren't there because of a vandal, stick them in. You are more useful participating in that limited sense, rather than being banned (or fighting a ban) for one reason or another. Plus it will have a positive effect in your life as you won't be participating in what you can see, is useless arguments because they ignore them and wikipedia policy concerning censorship anyway. We have all made the valid points that need to be made. It really is better to be brief there, and address the issue of policy enforcement elsewhere on wikipedia.

So yes, go outside and feel the sun on your face. We'll all be better if we do it. Nodekeeper 21:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Nodekeeper do not feel too much sun as it can give you sunburn too :). The Hungry Hun beside reading WP:NOT and H. L. Mencken. Also read guidline regarding Profanity. "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Misplaced Pages readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not." --- ابراهيم 22:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Great comments

I am impress from your these comments on Muhammad talk. Good --- ابراهيم 10:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Mohammed Pic Conflict

Hi, we seem to have different opinions regarding the pic at Mohammed. Are you up for a discussion of how we might resolve this conflict. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA 00:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm glad you are up for it. From my perspective, I am following this guideline which says in part:

"Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Misplaced Pages readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."

In my opinion, the image is a) considered offensive by some Misplaced Pages readers, and b) is not informative. It doesn't illustrate what Mohammed looks like, and we really have no idea what the image is supposed to be illustrating at all.

My question to you is do you believe you are following the guideline by including the image? Or, do you believe the guideline should not be followed? Some third option? Thank you again for your willingness to discuss this matter. --BostonMA 10:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I haven't heard back from you, but I will assume that you are considering a reply. However, I note that after I sent you this message, you reverted the image three times. I would like to propose that neither you nor I revert the image (in either direction) while we discuss, but that we leave the image to whatever fate other editors happen to give it. Please let me know if you would agree to this proposal. Sincerely, --BostonMA 21:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)