User talk:62.116.76.117

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so, as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and edit articles; however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 62.116.76.117). Logging in does not require any personal details. There are many other benefits for logging in to Wikipedia. For now, if you are stuck, you can type {{helpme}} on this page and an experienced Wikipedian will be around to answer any questions you may have.

Please note these points:

  • Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
  • Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
  • Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Both adding such unreasonable information and editing articles maliciously are considered vandalism.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, ask me on [[User_talk:{{{1}}}|my Talk page]] – I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Wikipedia:Censorship

Your changes to this page have been reverted twice. You are welcome to discuss the changes you want to make on the talk page. Thanks, Gerard Foley 20:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

Your edits to this article have been reverted. The issue of whether to show the image or not has been discussed on the Talk page and consensus has been reached. You are welcome to post on the Talk page in an effort to change the consensus, but deletion of the image in violation of the Talk page consensus can be considered vandalism. Johntex\talk 22:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. DanielDemaret 22:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It may not be a democracy, but it is not your playground either. Johntex\talk 22:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you can convince people of your point of view by discussion on the Talk page. From what I can see there, the sentiment is to keep the photos. Perhaps you could push for them to be hidden behind a link instead of automatically visible? I think that would be a great solution myself. Why put the photos in front of people who don't want to see them and have those people scream religeous persecution? On the other hand, why hide them from people who want to see them and have the scream censorship? Put them one-click away and every one wins. Johntex\talk 23:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Just curious about something - Do you think it is moral to imprison people because they published a cartoon? Johntex\talk 00:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to [[:]], you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Repeated changing the meaning of other peoples texts so that not even the people who wrote them are clear of what is being sad by inserting your texts in the middle of the texts, even when you have been asked to stop, constitutes Vandalism. DanielDemaret 09:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --tasc 06:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Tasc. First of all please let me say right up front that I admire your taking the time to combat what you see as vandalism. Secondly, while the above anonymous poster has sometimes gotten a little bit ahead of himself, he is trying to discuss these issues on the relevant talk pages. As such, I don't think his attempts to change these articles can be construed as vandalism. At worst, he deserved a lower level warning. I encourage you to consider reducing your warning to a {{subst:test}} or at worst a {{subst:test2}}. Thanks for your consideration. Johntex\talk 00:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I urge you not to get discouraged. The comments here so far represent a small portion of the number of people working on or watching this article. The may not even be watching this sub-page. I encourage you to post to the main Talk page and invite them to come over here and join the discussion. We need to get more viewpoints and more agreement before we can claim we have consensus. Johntex\talk 00:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

If I may make a suggestion - I encourage you to register for a user account. This has several advantages. First of all, even though policy says that anyone can edit, human experience shows that anonymous editors make more than their fair share of edits. Secondly, it would help others interact with you. It is more difficult for the human brain to recognize a name than a series of numbers. Third, it means you can edit from any IP on any computer and have a continuous experience. Getting an account is quick, free, and easy. You don't have to divulge anything about yourself. You just have to pick a username and a password. Best, Johntex\talk 00:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

You said on User talk:Johntex: "I followed the talk pages <of Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy> for quite a while and can't see a consensus at all." The consensus can be found at Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Poll Results. The poll on keeping the image in the article resulted in 202 keep votes (81.8%), 26 delete votes (10.5%) and 19 "move to subpage" votes (7.7%). Consensus in wikipedia is defined as 70 to 80 percent of the votes. This means that there is a consensus to keep the image in the article, and the lack of support for the other options (10.5% and 7.7%) is what makes the consensus overwhelming. Add to that the immense input in the poll (polls normally gather about a dozen votes at best). I can't ask you to agree with the outcome, but I want to urge you to respect it. Wikipedia is indeed not an experiment in democracy, but it's not an ochlocracy either. The views of these 247 voters, and of the wider wikipedia community they represent, ought to be taken very seriously. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 09:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)