| Revision as of 00:48, 15 December 2007 editPeter Deer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers2,802 editsm →3RR: removing comment I have no intention of replying to← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:20, 15 January 2008 edit undoLambaJan (talk | contribs)1,316 edits new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| **** I sympathize with your views; however, the image is not there because of one editor's view -- if you look through the talkpage archives, I think you'll see that many editors have discussed this. Some may be more, hmm, passionate about it than others, but there's still a clear consensus that the image should be kept. Of course, ], but for the time being, if you feel strongly that the image should be removed, the best way to is to bring articulate and logical arguments to the talkpage about it. If people aren't convinced, well, bring better arguments. :) But edit-warring is really an extremely ineffective way to proceed. --]]] 00:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | **** I sympathize with your views; however, the image is not there because of one editor's view -- if you look through the talkpage archives, I think you'll see that many editors have discussed this. Some may be more, hmm, passionate about it than others, but there's still a clear consensus that the image should be kept. Of course, ], but for the time being, if you feel strongly that the image should be removed, the best way to is to bring articulate and logical arguments to the talkpage about it. If people aren't convinced, well, bring better arguments. :) But edit-warring is really an extremely ineffective way to proceed. --]]] 00:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *****Yes it is quite clear to me right now that I got too angry and behaved childishly. Quite frankly, however, I doubt that any of my arguments will have any effect. As you can see by the notes, the point which I was arguing was almost universally ignored in favor of the "religion vs. freedom" argument, and my opinions were generally lumped into the former category. An insufficient excuse of course, but nevertheless. ] (]) 00:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | *****Yes it is quite clear to me right now that I got too angry and behaved childishly. Quite frankly, however, I doubt that any of my arguments will have any effect. As you can see by the notes, the point which I was arguing was almost universally ignored in favor of the "religion vs. freedom" argument, and my opinions were generally lumped into the former category. An insufficient excuse of course, but nevertheless. ] (]) 00:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==Baha'i Articles== | |||
| Thank you for contributing. Your comment about how the government verified `Abdu'l-Baha's LW&T was insightful and helpful. I feel though that I should pass along a bit of information that was told to me several times when I was new here and it's that you shouldn't respond to closed conversations. Some of these that you responded to were inactive for years before your message. There is no need to get the last word and there is no need to spell out every fact. It's good to think of the general reader as being intelligent and capable of telling for themselves which arguments are sound and which are faulty. And it's inappropriate to assume that the people who made a comment a few years ago are even still interested or are on wikipedia at all. | |||
| As to making a Guardianship article, it sounds like a good idea to me and I tried to do this at one time but my life got in the way so I lost momentum. The difficulty is that you should have it up and running in its own right before you move any information from the Shoghi Effendi article. There is a lot of information that overlaps because his life was defined by his station and if too much gets removed from his page it turns into a short boring article. I don't think I have a problem with that but that is a concern that I heard before when I tried to do this. Best of luck. -] (]) 20:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:20, 15 January 2008
Misplaced Pages is not censored
Why dont you read this and WP:CENSOR. The issue has been discussed a lot in the past. Simply put, Misplaced Pages is not censored and does not cater to religious demands or customers. The purpose here is to give information. Be aware of the WP:3RR policy as well. If you violate this policy, you'll be blocked. If you're removing something that consensus has decided once, that is considered vandalism. --Matt57 23:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok friend, I'm going to explain this to you nicely: Misplaced Pages is not censored for religious reasons. Thats a policy: WP:CENSOR. If a certain group comes and says that a certain image or text is offensive to them, that content cannot be removed for those reasons. This is not a war on the religion which you are assuming it it. Please do read this. It explains everything. --Matt57 23:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- That image meets the guidelines of profanity and does not meet the guidelines for inclusion. If you read the quoted portions of that article you cited, you would see that the image detracts from the article for several reasons. It causes it to be less informative because it prevents a percentage of the populace from being able to view the article. It is less accurate because it provides a fantastical depiction which is neither photographic nor abstracted from the actual scene of the event but instead imagined by an unrelated author. The official ruling on use of images of Muhammad are "emoving these images is against Misplaced Pages policy provided they meet Misplaced Pages's guidelines for inclusion." By my understanding, they do NOT meet the guidelines of inclusion, any more than a racist depiction of Martin Luther King merits being depicted as an accurate portrayal under his wiki page. Peter Deer (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Personal attacks
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Black Stone. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Elonka 23:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- My apologies, I let my frustrations at the issue become too personal. Peter Deer (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Blocked
I've blocked you for 24 hours for edit warring on Black Stone. Your post here was a clear threat to continue reverting until the page was protected. Given your attempt to game the system coupled with a clear unwillingness to discuss things on the talkpage and respect any consensus there, a block seems a far more sensible option that protection. When your block expires, I hope you will contribute constructively to the ongoing talkpage discussions. Further edit warring will not be tolerated. WjBscribe 23:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're correct, that was out of line on my part. I let it get too personal. However, I you are mistaken if you think I have not discussed this on the talk page. Peter Deer (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, I didn't say you didn't discuss it - but your comments indicate you were going to keep reverting regardless of what was said on the talkpage. There isn't much point in your participating if you aren't willing to accept that you may ultimately not get your own way. WjBscribe 00:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps. I may have been too hardline about keeping it deleted based on a misunderstanding of policy. I am quite willing to accept that Misplaced Pages might rule in favor of the image being used, and I am already familiar with Misplaced Pages's policy regarding images of Muhammad in general, but my edits are continually reverted on the incorrect basis that my only reason for removing it is to keep it religiously 'kosher' (if you will) and by an individual who's work is almost entirely devoted to promoting a critical and adversarial view to that religion in his edits. From what I can see the only purpose the image serves is as a tool used by individuals who are attempting to use wikipedia's non-censorship policy to hide behind while using their edits to promote an aggressive agenda. Peter Deer (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I sympathize with your views; however, the image is not there because of one editor's view -- if you look through the talkpage archives, I think you'll see that many editors have discussed this. Some may be more, hmm, passionate about it than others, but there's still a clear consensus that the image should be kept. Of course, consensus can change, but for the time being, if you feel strongly that the image should be removed, the best way to is to bring articulate and logical arguments to the talkpage about it. If people aren't convinced, well, bring better arguments. :) But edit-warring is really an extremely ineffective way to proceed. --Elonka 00:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes it is quite clear to me right now that I got too angry and behaved childishly. Quite frankly, however, I doubt that any of my arguments will have any effect. As you can see by the notes, the point which I was arguing was almost universally ignored in favor of the "religion vs. freedom" argument, and my opinions were generally lumped into the former category. An insufficient excuse of course, but nevertheless. Peter Deer (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I sympathize with your views; however, the image is not there because of one editor's view -- if you look through the talkpage archives, I think you'll see that many editors have discussed this. Some may be more, hmm, passionate about it than others, but there's still a clear consensus that the image should be kept. Of course, consensus can change, but for the time being, if you feel strongly that the image should be removed, the best way to is to bring articulate and logical arguments to the talkpage about it. If people aren't convinced, well, bring better arguments. :) But edit-warring is really an extremely ineffective way to proceed. --Elonka 00:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps. I may have been too hardline about keeping it deleted based on a misunderstanding of policy. I am quite willing to accept that Misplaced Pages might rule in favor of the image being used, and I am already familiar with Misplaced Pages's policy regarding images of Muhammad in general, but my edits are continually reverted on the incorrect basis that my only reason for removing it is to keep it religiously 'kosher' (if you will) and by an individual who's work is almost entirely devoted to promoting a critical and adversarial view to that religion in his edits. From what I can see the only purpose the image serves is as a tool used by individuals who are attempting to use wikipedia's non-censorship policy to hide behind while using their edits to promote an aggressive agenda. Peter Deer (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, I didn't say you didn't discuss it - but your comments indicate you were going to keep reverting regardless of what was said on the talkpage. There isn't much point in your participating if you aren't willing to accept that you may ultimately not get your own way. WjBscribe 00:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Baha'i Articles
Thank you for contributing. Your comment about how the government verified `Abdu'l-Baha's LW&T was insightful and helpful. I feel though that I should pass along a bit of information that was told to me several times when I was new here and it's that you shouldn't respond to closed conversations. Some of these that you responded to were inactive for years before your message. There is no need to get the last word and there is no need to spell out every fact. It's good to think of the general reader as being intelligent and capable of telling for themselves which arguments are sound and which are faulty. And it's inappropriate to assume that the people who made a comment a few years ago are even still interested or are on wikipedia at all.
As to making a Guardianship article, it sounds like a good idea to me and I tried to do this at one time but my life got in the way so I lost momentum. The difficulty is that you should have it up and running in its own right before you move any information from the Shoghi Effendi article. There is a lot of information that overlaps because his life was defined by his station and if too much gets removed from his page it turns into a short boring article. I don't think I have a problem with that but that is a concern that I heard before when I tried to do this. Best of luck. -LambaJan (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)