User talk:Raphael1: Difference between revisions

I would like to report this user for attempting to suppress the Religion of Peace article, and coming to this page it has become clear that the reasons he lists are not his true motivations, but instead he seeks to use wikipedia for his Muslim-oriented political agenda. Whatever merits such activism has, an encyclopedia is no place for it, escpecially when done by attempting to censor others articles.

Archives
March 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 May 2006 – February 2007

What's up with [1]? Digwuren 09:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael1, you seem to be continually reverting this article. Please learn the lesson from your edits to other pages such as Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy which led to you being banned from editing it for a year. Please do not continually revert this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Young (talk • contribs) 2007-08-10 (UTC)

Raphael, I don't want to see you blocked over this, but if you keep reverting this change, I am going to push for it. You have to understand that refering to this website is not endorsing it, and that you don't have the right to prevent us from discussing something just because you disagree with it. I am happy to discuss this with you further, so please hit my talk page if you want to talk, rather than just reverting again. Alexwoods 02:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a long explanation on the talk page, to which you didn't respond and which you don't seem to understand. You are still reverting, despite a number of users' requests that you not do so. I am going to request mediation. Alexwoods 17:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The legality of the war is relevent, and if the US Government conceded it was illegal that would perhaps warrant a section all its own. But it has not, Richard Perle was not expressing the view of the US Government - which has not conceded, or admitted, that it is illegal. For this reason, Kofi's quote on the legality was moved back where it was originally, the misleading section was removed (its the US Governments job to admit, not a war supporter) and Richard Perle's quote was removed for not being important enough (unlike Kofi's, which is quite important.) There are efforts to scale down the Iraq War page, and adding more oppinions will be counterproductive. It would be much better suited for the article dealing with the legitimacy of the war. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you can get a better understanding of the insult factor if you take a little time to watch this documentry that explains some segment on how the arab israeli conflict has turned into personal lines. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i gave you a reply on my page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you know quite well that is not an appropriate addition to the article and is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Who says he is controversial? Who determines the amount of controversy that warrants such a statement? Should we add "George W. Bush is a controversial president" to his bio? Please revert your edit. - auburnpilot talk 22:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A vote has been called on the decapitalization of "r" in "Commonwealth R/realm." Jonathan David Makepeace 00:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. I think Voice of All is a check user admin though. I think PalestineRemembered needs to contact him directly for those details, and I'm not sure if they give those out. Its a very strange and interesting twist, isn't it? Kyaa the Catlord 10:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NOR, and is an incorrect application of WP:COI. It is being discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Sicko. THF 12:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

would you pleace check whether User:Specialjane is/was indeed a sockpuppet of User:Dereks1x. I can't find User:Specialjane on Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Dereks1x. Thank you. --Raphael1 10:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please inquire of User talk:Jpgordon. He is the one up to speed on this user. Fred Bauder 16:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this OR? Its sourced. Please dont remove stuff like this. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice that a conflict of interest report has been filed against you. ChaplainSvendsen 19:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop deleting the link for the ReligionofPeace.com website, which is being talked about in the article by a reliable source? You've taken this out countless number of times. Its not going to work. Let it go. The information is sourced and relevant and thats all that matters, not your personal feelings about the site. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I got a hang on your concerns regarding linking to www.thereligionofpeace.com, and made an attempt to address them. Please take a look, and I would appreciate a brief overview of the whole issue, if I've missed something. Digwuren 20:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are way over three reverts on this article. I would drop it if I were you. Alexwoods 15:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per my reversion - the reliability of the web site is not at issue, rather the fact that it exists, is notable, and uses the term "religion of peace" in a sarcastic manner. See Stormfront. That is an unreliable source and an offensive site but we link to it because it's the subject of the article. Do you understand? Alexwoods 23:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is bad faith or something else, but I really think you should read my above comment five or six more times and think about it some more. It has nothing to do with selfpub or reliability or anything else. Alexwoods 03:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Verify what? That the website exists? The number of hits it gets? What do you want us to prove? Alexwoods 12:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Look at the website. 2. Look at the website. 3. Look at the website. You don't like it because you don't agree with its message. Not good enough. There is nothing that justifies the fact tag. Alexwoods 14:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you read??? It can't be OR if it's an outside web page! Alexwoods 14:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Gathering of eagles.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 01:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Gathering of eagles.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Sefringle^Talk 02:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Sefringle^Talk 02:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good, you finally settled for mentioning the ROP website in the ROP article. Makes sense, right? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But any religious idea that demands censorship is per definition silly, and it threatens Wikipedias overall goal of collecting knowledge. By the way, remember that it is only a minority of muslims that take offence of the Muhammad cartoons.The.valiant.paladin 22:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fact remains that you and your likeminded wish to edit the article based on religious notions, and not the bareboned facts, the only thing appropiate for Wikipedia. And that's just plain silly, even more so when it's religious ideas that motivate the editing. The.valiant.paladin 22:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry that your feelings are hurt by the truth, but the fact remains that religious people (muslims, cristians and many other religions alike) take offence of the strangest things. Wikipedia cannot take into consideration every little strange and silly religious idea when articles are edited. If we did, Wikipedia would soon be next to useless. That is the point of my argument and my use of the word "silly", a point you have chosen to ignore.The.valiant.paladin 23:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there's plenty of truths out there that I find highly offensive, such as the fact that Muhammad consummated his marriage with a 9 year old girl. I'm disgusted by that fact, but nonetheless do I not try to censor that information or try to make it harder to get that information on Wikipedia. And speaking of red herrings, how do a silly idea become less silly just because a lot of people believe in it? Yes, it makes the idea more dangerous, but not less silly. Regardless, it's really not relevant that you become insulted by the fact that Wikipedia do not take people's silly ideas into consideration when editing an article. What is relevant is how informative and correct the article is and whether or not it conforms to NPOV. If you think the article will become more NPOV or more informative by removing or editing the position of the Muhammad cartoons, then that's the argument you should make. Wasting your time persuing those that consider editing or censoring on Wikipedia based on silly religious notions as irrelevant, pointless and silly is, quite frankly, a giant waste of your time. The.valiant.paladin 09:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Child pornography is illegal. Mocking Muhammad is not. Again, you are wasting your time persuing those that consider editing a work of fact on the basis of irrational and silly religious notions as irrational and silly, instead of making arguments about how the article about the Muhammad Cartoons become more relevant and informative by removing or editing the position of the Muhammad cartoons.The.valiant.paladin 11:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought you might want to know that there is a currently a discussion to delete the category, for Islamophobia. You might be interested in giving your opinion on the matter. Atari400 20:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is one more revert on the article, I will fully protect the page again. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for your reply on the talk page (or do you prefer reverting over discussion) Yahel Guhan 21:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed your revert of my edit to the Downing street memo article regarding the Conyers "hearing". First, neutrality often does involve removing material if it is unsourced and/or POV (this was both). Secondly, I restored my edits and have presented my viewpoint on the article's talk page. I would encourage you to take your viewpoint there and we can, hopefully, find a common ground. Lordjeff06 (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, regarding your edit here, I too was concerned over User:Rastov removing this piece of information.^[1] In case you're worried he might dispute your edit, I've given you the link to the Wikipedia policy that backs you up here, specifically the 2nd paragraph which says;

"Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it."

Keep up the good work :) Ryan4314 (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Muhammad, you will be blocked from editing. Frotz (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that a) Jimbo has no actual authority over content, b) he's not familiar with the situation, and c) his statement is patently false, it's not helpful. Please drop it. WilyD 19:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CON doesn't exactly helpy you out in this case. There is no consensus to change the article, as evident (STRONGLY) in the AfD yesterday of that fork article you wanted. Jmlk17 20:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For repeated tendentious editing despite warnings, I have blocked you for 24 hours. Raul654 (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How did I not WP:AGF there? I started with uw-v1 like standard polices instruct. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I quote from the talk page: "Important notice: Prior discussion has determined that pictures of Muhammad will not be removed from this article, and removal of pictures without discussion at Talk:Muhammad/images will be reverted." does this make you happy? CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at your talk page it looks like this isn't the first time you've had problems with the Muhammad article. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of using a template, try writing something yourself. Welcome templates aren't for established users and it will make you appear pushy (or lazy) and end up reverted, while a thought out message will be more specific to your situation. Just a suggestion. :) vıdıoman 17:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the solution for crazy Islamic radicals is to address them, not to bark at anyone who dares point them out as such. --Cyde Weys 22:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check out WP:DTTR. Jmlk17 23:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. 1. It is grossly inappropriate to put a warning template on an experienced contributor's talk page. It is highly patronising. You are quite capable of making a much more sensible, non-templated warning. 2. Cyde did not say that all Muslims who wanted the images removed are "crazy radicals". The implication of what he said was that crazy radicals would want the images removed, but he did not suggest the reverse. Please be more careful before chucking around accusations of personal attacks. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 09:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]