User talk:Raphael1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Religion of Peace

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

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

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)

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)

[edit] Yea

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)

[edit] better understanding of the conflict and insult

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)

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

[edit] Donald Rumsfeld

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)

[edit] vote on decapitalizing Commonwealth R/realm

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

[edit] SpecialJane

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)

[edit] Your reversion

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)

[edit] checkuser

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)

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

[edit] OR?

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

[edit] WHINSEC ARTICLE

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

[edit] Religion of Peace

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Gathering of eagles.jpg

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)

[edit] Image:Gathering of eagles.jpg listed for deletion

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)

[edit] ROP

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)

[edit] Sorry

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Category:Islamophobia

• 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)

[edit] Islamophobia

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

[edit] Islamophobia

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

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)

[edit] Downing street memo

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)

[edit] Human rights in post-invasion Iraq edit

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)

[edit] February 2008

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)

[edit] Muhammad

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)

[edit] Muhammad

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)

[edit] Blocked

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

[edit] AGF

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Your comment to Cyde

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)

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)

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

[edit] User talk:Cyde

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)

Cydes post clearly implied, that all Muslims who wanted the images removed are crazy radicals. His post starts with "1/6 the world's population is not seriously offended by these images." and ends "Don't be so quick to assume that all Muslims are crazy radicals." So yes, this is a clear implication of what he said. Since his post is an answer to User:Sp's comment, that putting the images in one of those hide/show boxes would show sensitivity towards 1/6th of the Earth population, Cyde's "crazy radicals" can hardly be put in any other context. --Raphael1 21:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

People's goodwill is going to wear out really really fast, if you keep templating the regulars with inappropriate patronising messages, as you currently doing. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop templating regulars just to prove a point... gets old fast. Jmlk17 10:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Templated messages

Hi. You are repeatedly adding and readding templated messages on users' talk pages. When they are established users, do not do this. It is highly incivil and totally indefensible. Please stop it. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You have just threatened someone with a block on the grounds of "vandalism" for removing talk page comments. I am sure that you realise that this is inappropriate. Stop it. I would appreciate some acknowledgment that you have read this message. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? How is it inappropriate to threaten someone with a block, who engaged in repeated discussion page vandalism? [2] [3] [4] --Raphael1 22:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

On the off-chance that you are open to reason on this, removing incivil messages (which these arguably are) is entirely justified. Even if it were not, it is well-intentioned and thereby clearly not vandalism. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) —Preceding comment was added at 23:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk page template messages are arguably incivil and can justifiably be removed? Are you sure about that? --Raphael1 00:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No, your use of talk page template messages was arguably incivil. Don't misquote me. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 01:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, let me quote from WP:DTTR "... it can be misconstrued as being patronising and uncivil. [...] those who receive a template message should not assume bad faith regarding the user of said template. They may not be aware how familiar the user is with policy, or may not consider it rude themselves. They may also simply be trying to save time by avoiding writing out a lengthy message that basically says the same thing as the template, which is, after all, the purpose of a template." Is there any rule how experienced an editor has to be for talk page template messages to become incivil? Is it after 1 year, 10.000 posts or less than that? I just want to know, when it gets entirely justified for me to remove others' talk page template comments from 3rd parties talk pages. --Raphael1 02:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I warily submit that after you have been told repeated times that what you are doing is uncivil, then it most likely is. The answer to how you know is that you use common sense and politeness, which I think you have demonstrated are qualities you lack. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 08:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It might as well be, that you violated WP:AGF and misconstrued my comment as being uncivil. Wikipedia:There is no common sense and I don't consider the practice of removing other editors' comments from 3rd parties talk pages particularly polite. --Raphael1 12:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The policy is along the lines of "assume good faith until the evidence forces you to another conclusion", not "assume good faith in all circumstances and at all times". If it had only been me commenting, you might have a point. There have, however, been many people who asked you about this beforehand. You completely ignored all comments. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did ignore those comments, because I don't have the time to discuss my politeness (why do you think, I use templates?) and because it has been discussed before. Apparently there is(was?) a consensus, that using templates on regulars' talk pages is neither vandalism nor a personal attack. Believe it or not, but my personal message to Cyde probably wouldn't have been nearly as nice as the text of those templates. Why do you suddenly start to use unwritten policies to block users? For heaven's sake if you want to block users for using templates on regulars' talk pages, write it down! --Raphael1 23:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sam; templates only get you so far, and are generally geared toward general messages for newer users who may not be familiar with community norms. At some point we seem to have passed, it's far more effective (not to mention clearer) to actually write out our messages to each other. Just food for thought. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that a personal message might have been more polite. OTOH I regard the template messages to be respectful already and an editor, who removes my comments from others' talk pages, doesn't seem all familiar with community norms to me.--Raphael1 22:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am very familar with community norms - that's why I know templating an Admin, who has over 30,000+ edits, 6 years service with a message that says Welcome to Wikipedia. and Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. is taking the piss. You are making a misleading statement in suggesting that I was acting alone - two other editors (here and here) also reverted you, other editors also asked you to stop (here and here). - at that point you should have stopped or discussed our concerns but instead you decided to template a few more of the regulars. What did you expect the outcome to be? In total something like six seperate editors plus the blocking admin plus the admin declining your unblock have warned you again templating the regulars - it's therefore grossly misleading to make this about a) me or suggest b) I'm wikistalking you - unless all of those people are doing that. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That you don't want me to welcome other editors to Wikipedia or commend them to Wikipedia:Introduction does not give you the right to blank my posts from their talk pages. And yes, the other two editors did violate WP:VANDAL as well, which is why I informed them, that deleting my comments from others' talk pages is considered bad practice. I expect to be able to freely communicate with other editors, without you wiki-stalking me and removing my comments. Besides all of my posts on User_talk:Cyde had additional personal text. --Raphael1 23:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Raphael, you were warned previously about being disruptive, were blocked a little while ago for being disruptive, and were blocked a bunch a couple of years ago for being very disruptive.

You know the difference between contributing to the community positively and being disruptive. That difference is between what you did in the last week or so over the Muhammad image, and what you did in the couple of years previously, where you weren't raising excess controversy or drama.

It's up to you to either live by our community norms of behavior or not. If you don't want to again, the community's patience with you is probably close to up. There's nothing wrong with being a critical dissenter - it can be done without disruption. You're disrupting apparently on purpose. That has to stop. It's up to you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It hard for me to see how my todays conduct is in any way comparable to what I did 2006. How is using talk page templates more disruptive than removing other editors comments from 3rd parties talk pages? Apropos 2006: I never received a reply to my post at the end of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Raphael1/Workshop. I consider that very unfortunate. --Raphael1 00:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

To some degree, we expect experienced users to avoid behavior which they are expected to know is going to be rude and disruptive, where new users simply may not be as aware of the significance or consequences.

I cannot speak to a lack of response on the Arbcom workshop - I wasn't closely involved at the time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Fredrick day is not that new and should have known about his wrongdoing after I warned him twice. User:Tarc joined WP only a few months after I did, so he should have known as well. User:Jmlk17, User:Cyde and User:Kbdank71 are even administrators so at least they should known, that it is inappropriate to remove other editors' comments from 3rd parties talk pages. I would expect from an experienced administrator like User:Cyde not to post highly incivil comments like this --Raphael1 01:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the short path to a community ban. Whether you walk down it or not is up to you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

When I cannot even edit user talk pages without being reverted, I am already community banned.--Raphael1 02:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You cannot disrupt without being reverted, and if you disrupt enough you'll be blocked. You knew that already from two years ago.

There were a hundred ways to make your point that would not have been disruptive or rude or personal attacks - you have no entitlement or right to try and make the point in disruptive and rude ways. When you feel that you do have an entitlement to do that, you are abusing the community, and when you abuse the community you are making yourself unwelcome.

Again: This is the short path to the community ban. You know what behaviors are not disruptive. Nobody is censoring the viewpoint you want to express. But if you cannot express it in a manner that is positive rather than abusive, you will be shown the door.

This is your choice. You can chose to behave non-disruptively, or not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

<---- indent reset

If you consider the talk page templates particularly disruptive or rude, wouldn't you expect them to appear on WP:TfD? If using those templates on regulars is uncivil or a personal attack on them, wouldn't you expect WP:DTTR to state as such? Is it a personal attack to welcome a regular and commend them to Wikipedia:Introduction? Why does WP:DTTR state, that editors are not obliged to follow it, when you can get blocked 48h solely for using talk page templates on regulars?

When editors engage in persistent blanking of my comments from 3rd parties talk pages, they are disrupting Wikipedia. In fact this is what started the whole turmoil.--Raphael1 11:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you like some advice? When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing that you should do is stop digging. It is the consensus opinion here that you were being disruptive in templating regulars. The opinion that we were being disruptive in removing your templated messages is a minority opinion, held only by you. It may be worth noting the parallels between this situation and the one regarding your opinion in the Muhammad images, where you were also swimming against the tide of a broad, community consensus regarding the images. This is a pattern that is beginning to be seriously contrary to the encyclopedia's basis of collaborative editing. Just stop. Please. Tarc (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you seem to be seriously mistaken about the fundamental principles of this project. "Wikipedia's contributors come from many different countries and cultures. We have many different views, perspectives, opinions, and backgrounds, sometimes varying widely. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an international online encyclopedia." This is from Wikipedias code of conduct, one of the 5 fundamental principles here. You are working against that fundamental principle, when you tell people to go away, because they don't share your POV. You are working against that principle, when you plead for blocking every editor who removes a Muhammad image, even when there are valid reasons from longstanding editors of Muhammad. When it comes to pushing your POV on those images, you don't even refrain from censoring Jimmy Wales opinion. So please don't tell me to stop, but reconsider your own conduct here instead. --Raphael1 00:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Look here to see how Raphael1 blanked my serious question on this page. He decries such action, yet does it himself. Dear Raphael1, when you scrawl graffiti on someone else's talk page, how in the world can you decry if a neighbor helps out by cleaning up the graffiti? And I'm confident you aren't so naive as to think your graffiti is anything but graffiti. You know the difference, but like to pretend you don't. You fool none of us. Anyway, I repeat my serious question below, which I am earnestly seeking an answer to. Thanks. Art Smart (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well Arthur Smart, the thing is, that this is my user talk-page, which is why it is perfectly valid for me to remove any comment I like. What I decry is when editor A removes comments from editor B on editor C's talk page. If talk page templates would be indeed "graffiti" (I assume, that you mean "vandalic writings"), it would be valid for you to remove hundreds of talk page template messages from anybodies talk page. Do you honestly believe this would not disrupt Wikipedia? Regarding your question: If you want to ask me a question, please address the question to me and I'll be happy to answer it here. --Raphael1 18:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Question: Is Raphael1's main issue his attempt to remove images from Wikipedia? With all the fuss he's making, I really REALLY would like to see all those images and share them with my friends. Where do I look? Please advise. Thanks. Art Smart (talk) 04:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You aren't asking me, therefore I will not answer. --Raphael1 20:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If I thought that you would answer me, and truthfully, then I would have asked you. My question is addressed to everyone. Art Smart (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

My guess for a starting point is all the nice images that I see here. But I'm just getting started. Art Smart (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct. He was dinged a few days ago for repeatedly vandalising the Muhammad article. In particular here and here. Frotz (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Needling him isn't going to solve anything. --Kbdank71 20:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I agree that needling won't solve anything. That would be like kicking a man while he's down. But everyone has also proven that reasoning has been less than a resounding success.

I abhor censorship in any form. The more anyone tries to censor me from seeing or hearing something, the more I desire to see or hear it. This case has cost a lot of people a lot of time. Someone must be trying to hide something worth seeing, and I intend to do my best not only to see it, but to make sure others do too. Nothing more, nothing less. Art Smart (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed someone must be trying to hide something worth seeing, and you seem to be defending those who tried: [5][6][7] --Raphael1 23:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

People poking at Raphael here - stop poking. You're just as subject to harrassment sanctions as Raphael here has been, if you pester him here. If he continues being disruptive then more formal response will be necessary, but pestering him is not legitimately part of that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Kbdank71 15:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop templating the regulars and then edit warring about it. If you have something to say to someone, type it up in your own words. You'll usually get a much better response. --Kbdank71 15:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, your block was for violating WP:3RR with the following edits: [8], [9], and [10]. Edit warring is not constructive. If you have issues with another editor, I suggest you discuss it with them instead of reverting. --Kbdank71 16:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

--Raphael1 19:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary cut off?

Hiya. Just wondering, your latest edit summary seems to end abruptly. Was it cut off somehow? Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 10:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Voltaire

Hello Raphael. Your most recent edit to the Votaire article is an extraordinary one although I have no doubts that it's true. Do you have any references for your claim? Thank you. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)