Cerebral Warrior

Welcome!

Hello, Cerebral Warrior, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --MONGO 11:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand your feelings, but you need to stop now. The talk page is only for discussing the article, not general political remarks, and certainly not for any personnal remarks about other users. Wikipedia has policies about personal attacks. It might be a good time to step back and take a break. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Legal threat

"Terrorists are terrorists. Any attempt to justify their acts will be reported to local law-enforcment agencies."

I cannot remove this, since it is an edit summary, without deleting the entire edit from history, so I will give you a stern warning - Do NOT make legal threats on Wikipedia, either joking or serious, either vague or concrete. If you want to report them, that is your business, but do NOT mention it here. Period. --Golbez 08:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I figured you were obviously kidding; that's why you were not blocked immediately. ;) --Golbez 08:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Hi Cerebral Warrior,

I'm not quite sure what you mean. My page move was for a different set of articles. Let me know, Tewfik^Talk 13:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. There's actually no consensus for a renaming on that page now, and its probably best not to stir up a hornet's nest since much of the page has reached consensus.

I saw your comment on the Talk page, and I just wanted to point out that while I'm no fan of Hezbollah, and there's no excuse for hateful remarks (which the one you replied to was), you should be careful you about making statements that classify all Muslims as racists, as that could be seen as hateful in its own right (I trust that that wasn't your intent). As someone of Iraqi and Palestinian descent, I'm extremely aware of the complexities of society (and the world in general), and I've come to recognise that there is both bad and good in the Islamic world. I would say that especially in Wikipedia, while there may be a group of editors that push a Muslim POV, their are plenty Muslim editors that are fair and impartial, just like with any other group. Anyways, you might want to clarify your comments to that effect. In general though, if you ever have any questions or comments, you should feel free to approach me, as I've been around for a while (relatively) at this point. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 14:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

CFD notice

The category you created, category:Axis of evil, has been nominated for deletion. You are welcome to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Axis of Evil

Please stop adding this to articles. Just because George Bush calls a country something doesn't mean we force it down people's throats in the introduction of the article. Your editing history here shows a clear bias against things George Bush doesn't like. Please calm your POV down. --Golbez 18:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Seconded. Communist is a system of government. AoE is something a Bush scriptwriter came up with one day. I would hope this is clear now. Deizio talk 10:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not insert this term into North Korea, or the other term you used. Also, it is customary to provide an edit summary, and references for your statements otherwise it can be seen as POV, or even in this case possibly vandalism. As other editors have said, please refrain from inserting your POV. Widefox 16:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject NCSLC

• Hi Cerebral_Warrior, we wanted to invite you to join this project to help clean Sri Lanka ethnic conflict related articles on wikipedia. NCSLC: Neutral Coverage of the Sri Lankan Crisis. Pls let me know your inputs and how to take it forward from here. We eagerly looking fwd to having you there. Cheers, Elalan 13:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Also please use the userbox I created instead of raw source, if you please. It is much easier and will add you to category automatically. Source:{{Wikipedia:WikiProject_NCSLC/User_NCLSC}} -∞Sechzehn16^Talk∞ 07:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cerebralwarrior, I welcome you to NCSLC. Let's get it rolling :-) Sudharsansn 12:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Define Islamofacism Please

You use this term everywhere. What do you believe it means? Slipgrid 17:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User Snowolfd4

Hi Cerebral Warrior, Currently there is complaints regarding snowolf's activities. You might have something to say on this at the following pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Centrx

Trincomanb 15:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Blatant anti-American Rants are Hurtful and Bigotted / Homeland Security

Hi, plese explain what part of this is anti-American, hurtful, or bigotted. Please also explain how your comments that, "guess who's watching? Homeland Security! :-) So cut that anti-American crap before you get packed off to Gitmo," help improve the quality of Wikipedia.

There's not a NPOV; only the governments POV. The Responsibility and Motives section only gives the governments POV, with no evidence. How is a "1998 fatwa issued by Osama bin Laden" related, and where's the evidence that shows it relates? If this is the "day that changed everything," then why are the only Long-term effects the Economic aftermath and Potential health effects? How about a section about the perpetual war? How about some info about this event being used as a reason to invade Iraq? Why is there such a limited amount of media on this page? Right now, there's four different movies in Google Videos top 100 about this day, and I believe they are all public domain videos. Lets add them! We have video of one plane hitting one tower; lets get video of all three towers falling! There's endless hours of video and audio that would be suitable for the media section. Why is the control of this article in the hands of a few, like Tom Harrison? Was Wikipedia meant to be used as propaganda? I only ask, because that's what it seems like it's being used for. Here's a list of about 100 basic and unanswered questions related to this event. I have only one question... why doesn't this article address any of these questions?

Slipgrid 16:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just kidding, and made those comments in a light-hearted way. You're obviously not going to taken away to Gitmo, are you? Cerebral Warrior 16:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I live an hour away from this place. No joke. Slipgrid 16:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And if you believe that, I got a bridge to sell you.--MONGO 14:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Your remarks

Don't call me nazi, racist or genocidal like you did here. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Nielswik_(talk) 16:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Quran 9:29

That verse doesn't mean that Islam encourages violence. Jizya is the equivalent of tax for non-muslim living in an islamic country. I guess government in your country also fight those who don't pay tax, right? And your citation that muhammad order muslims to kill jews is also incorrect. Muslim-Jews relation was maintained well during Muhammad's era. Muslims and Jews drafted Constitution of Medina. However, Jews violated this charter by allying with Quraysh during Battle of the Trench, which leads to a siege on Jewish fortresses by Muslim forces. Nielswik_(talk) 16:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Further, that verse does not say to kill the Jews. Rather the Arabic is far better translated as, "Allah's curse be on them [the Unbelievers]: how they are deluded away from the Truth!" That verse of Surah 9 actually refers more to Christians than it does to Jews. Islam does not accept the idea of the Christian Trinity, nor does Judaism. The verse which directly proceeds the one translated by some to be attacking Jews, discusses the Christian acceptance of Christ as Lord and as the son of both Mary and Allah (the Arabic word for God). The Quran, as the Bible, are filled with contradictions and are not perfectly logical texts. The Quran also states in Surah 5:69 that, "Those who believe (in the Quran), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians, and the Christians, - any who believe in Allah and the Last Day and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."--Strothra 18:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-muslim pays jizya, and muslims pay zakat. Non-muslim doesn't loss anything. No discrimination Nielswik_(talk) 13:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There are two types because non-muslim won't want to pay zakat. If you still think it's discrimination, during Abu Bakr administration there were several muslims that did not pay zakat, and Abu Bakr fought them. Feel themselves subdued means comply to the rule, i think (damn my bad english) Nielswik_(talk) 16:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I did. see the previous commentNielswik_(talk) 13:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Scylla paramamosain Chittering, Western Australia The Terror Timeline National Catholic Reporter Hercule Poirot's Christmas The News International Kiryat Shmona massacre Mount Arafat Cairo agreement Saad bin Laden Opposition to the 2001 Afghanistan War World Islamic Front International security Intelligence (information gathering) National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Languages of Iran France and weapons of mass destruction Emmett, Texas

Cleanup Videos of Osama bin Laden Palestinianism Kim Yongnam Merge Hierarchical organization Worldwide perception of Osama bin Laden Three Secrets of Fatima Add Sources Mohammed Omar Religious war Transportation in North Korea Wikify Sathasivam Krishnakumar Science in Iran Domainsbot Expand Into The Fire White Revolution Upholstery

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

North Korea comments

You might want to check out bureaucratic collectivism. That might shed some light on the situation. crazyeddie 03:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

NCLSC Banner

Prepared this easy-to use code. Please add it to the talk pages in the scope. It also has a category. --∞Sechzehn16^Talk∞ 10:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Code

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject NCSLC/banner}}

Result

This article is within the scope of the NCSLC Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka and to provide a balanced opinion on the ongoing crisis. The primary objective is to contribute and maintain pages pertaining to the Sri Lanka Tamils, LTTE and the Sri Lankan government's efforts towards resolving the crisis. NCSLC stands for Neutral Coverage of the Sri Lankan Crisis. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

9/11 articles

I completely agree with your comments about the conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11...and frankly, I find the stupidity fo their comments to be trolling or at least borderline so...but the best thing to do is to not let them upset you. Many admins do watch those pages and if they folks get out of line, they will be dealt with. Help us by keeping cool as much as possible. Thnaks.--MONGO 14:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Use of terrorist

Saad bin Laden. I removed your inclusion of this term, although I have no problem with the term, this article may not be the best place for it, rather better to confine to the actual terrorists article, so then it doesn't look like implication on another persons article. Widefox 16:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

A Friendly Place

Saw your comment on MONGO's talk page about the 9/11 conspiracy theory advocates using Wikipedia to spread propaganda. During your time here, you will begin to understand that their advocacy violates our rules here against original research, undue weight, no advocacy, and they fail to cite to reliable sources, usually citing to disreputable subjective sources like blogs and conspiracy theory advocacy cites. Here's your toolbox for combatting those articles: WP:NOR, WP:NPOV#Undue weight, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. We hang out at User:GabrielF/911TMCruft where you will find conspiracy theory cruft articles up for deletion frequently. Drop me a line on my talk page if you need any help. Cheers. Morton devonshire 19:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

LTTE Mediation Effort

Hi Cerebral Warrior,

You might be interested in joining the LTTE article mediation effort. Many thanks, Elalan 16:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Indictment

Cerebral Warrior has done more damage than he has contributed to the Wikipedia. He is obviously unable to shake off his ethnocentric views, and attempts to pass them off a legitimate unbiased fact (can fact be unbiased?). His efforts at improving articles concentrate on eliminating the impartiality of articles, and his efforts on talk pages could not be further from constructive discussion. I must question why this user is repeatedly allowed to spread his thinly disguised hateful ideas on Wikipedia articles and talkpages.

North Korea

Really, stop adding 'rogue state' and 'axis of evil' to it. Just stop. Discuss if you must. Don't add it again. --Golbez 03:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to OBL

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! The term "terrorist" is Pov, and should be avoided. yandman 08:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption. yandman 08:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Calling Al-Queda a terrorist organization is not a personal attack. Morton devonshire 18:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. However, calling people "traitors" is. yandman 07:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Calling me a bully is a personal attack. Comment on content not on the contributor. Wikipedia is not the place for personal opinions or emotional release, please try to stay neutral.-Localzuk^(talk) 20:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The tactice of warning CW for vandalism when he in fact did not commit any offense is prohibited by WP rules. CW, you can ignore these kinds of rants -- it's an effort to intimidate you. Morton devonshire 21:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Morton, in fact Yandman has also threatened to block me if I continue to make "biased" edits. Cerebral Warrior 04:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Actully that message was a reference to personal attacks, not vandalism or biased edits. And you have made personal attacks, against myself and others. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 05:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

CW, you should know that this is a common tactic by this editor to allege personal attacks. Morton devonshire 05:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, I think that counts as a personal attack. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 05:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Morton, you're treading on thin ice too. Try not to allege other users of bullying or using "tactics". yandman 07:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Localzuk, where did someone call you a bully? Could you provide a diff? Morton, where was CW erroneously warned about vandalism? Could you provide a diff? CW, calling someone a traitor most certainly is a personal attack. One more personal attack and we'll have to see about getting an RfC together. That's a lot of work, so please save us the effort and play nice, will you? Yandman, while Morton, IMHO, is being slightly unpleasant, I don't think his comments can be construed as a personal attack. Well, that's my two cents in the matter. crazyeddie 14:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[1] is where Morton called Local a bully. I agree with you that Morton has made no serious personal attacks, though. CW, it might be a good idea to remove certain userboxes (I think you know the ones...) before someone else sees them. The guidelines on this are clear, and in my experience, it won't do much for your chances in an RfC. yandman 14:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Has someone reported cerebral? What's the result?Nielswik_(talk) 07:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "report"? Unless the quasi-legal system of the 'pedia has changed radically since last I checked, "reporting" would mean taking out an RfC against him/her - something similar to hauling him before a grand jury for indicitment. Before we, the hypothetical "plantiffs," can take that step, we must be able to provide evidence that we have attempted to settle the dispute like adults and have failed. If CW fails to heed my advice above, then we have that evidence. If he does heed it, we don't have a case. To the best of my knowledge, CW has not violated Wikipedia policy since I put in my two cents. crazyeddie 14:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability Breach

I need your help in explaining Verifiability to Iwazaki here because he is framing up two sections based on nil evidence. Pls check this diff. Thanks Sudharsansn 13:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Use of the Word Terroist

In light of the discussion concerning the use of the word terrorist in relation to the Al-Qaeda organzation, I have made a RfC. If you would like to comment, you can do so here. Thank you Trojan traveler 03:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if any nation has gone on the record saying that they don't consider Al Qaeda to be a terrorist organization. However, do you know if, say, North Korea has gone on the record saying that they do? One thing I have learned during my time on the Wikipedia - there is no belief so strange that there isn't a single person that believes it. Denial of Al Qaeda's terrorist nature doesn't even come close to winning the most bizare belief award.

As far as giving too much weight to such nutballs goes, that would only apply if we used half the article listing reasons why Al Qaeda isn't a terrorist organization. Not using scary labels like "terrorist" while in editorial voice is required by the NPOV policy. However, we can quote or paraphrase other people referring to them as terrorists.

And, for the record, I don't oppose calling Al Qaeda a bunch of terrorists. It's just that, given the NPOV policy, we can't refer to them as such while in editorial voice. crazyeddie 04:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Your userpage

Wow. It gets more inflammatory by the day, doesn't it... While not wanting to repress your need to show people your opinions, may I suggest at this point that it might be a better idea to do this somewhere else than on Wikipedia? Using user pages to campaign for or against anything is a bad idea. yandman 07:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

absolutely agreeNielswik_(talk) 07:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

As stated before. I strongly agree.--Burgas00 12:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree Wikipedia is not for personal attacks on others religions, please consider removing some of your inflammatory comments.--Seadog^Talk 16:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

An additional two cents

I know that you directed these remarks at other people, but I feel a need to address them:

The fact that you are not emotionally disturbed by the horrific deaths of almost 3000 people (among them many little boys and girls) intrigues me. May I know whether you are a follower of stoicism, or whether you (in the words of Russel Crowe in the role of Joh Nash) have been bestowed with "two helpings of mind and just half a helping of heart"?

I was quite disturbed by 9/11. I remember some rather odd web postings I made shortly after. I wanted blood. I wanted to go into Afghanistan, not with cruise missles, but with boots on the ground. I wanted to go into any country where they had a presence and root them out. I also wanted to protect Muslims in this country, because I knew that Muslims as a whole were not responsible for these attacks. I considered holding a candle-light vigil in front of a local Muslim community center, in order to prevent any attacks on it by my fellow citizens, whose loyalty I trusted, but not their judgement or their aim.

Then I saw a certain politician cynically use my beloved country's righteous anger in order to fulfil his own private agenda. First, he declared war, not on Al Qaeda, but on "Terrorism." Then, he named an "Axis of Evil." While all members of this "axis" (which usually implies an alliance - and, to the best of my knowledge, no such alliance exists or has existed) had sponsored terrorism in the past, not a single one of them had strong ties to Al Qaeda.

Then I saw the vast majority of our armed forces sucked into an occupation that had nothing to do with hunting down Al Qaeda - at least at first. You see, Al Qaeda's favorite recruiting tactic only works when a non-Muslim country invades a Muslim one. The got their start when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, and we assisted in their fight to liberate that country (rightly so). They are involved in Chechnya against the Russians. They were involved in Bosnia, until Bill Clinton inadvertantly aided the moderate Muslims in that area in ejecting them. (Remember "Wag the Dog"?) They are involved in the Philippines, aiding Muslim seperatists. By invading Iraq, we handed them a recruiting campaign on a silver platter, as well as convincing moderate Muslims everywhere that we were engaged in an anti-Muslim crusade. (And the Muslims use the word "crusade" the same way we use "jihad.") By invading Iraq, Bush increased bin Laden's credibility immensely.

Since then, I have seen bin Laden take refuge in the backcountry of Pakistan - and that nation has ended its alliance with us. He is effectively beyond our reach. Afghanistan has just seen its most violent month since our invasion. The Taliban are on the rise again. And Al Qaeda is running rampant in Iraq.

Yes, sir, I do remember 9/11. I have a deep and abiding hatred of the planners of the attack. I also have a deep and abiding resentment of those supposed leaders who distracted us from taking our rightful revenge and have caused the deaths of more Americans (many of them teenage boys) than were killed in the 9/11 attacks. crazyeddie 14:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you support terrorism or Islamofascism?

No, I do not support terrorism. Neither has anybody else involved in this dispute expressed support for terrorism. For that matter, nobody has said that they do not consider Al Qaeda to be terrorists. But unless everyone, and I mean everyone, in the world believes that Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization, we can not refer to them as such while in editorial voice. What we can do, however, is cite people who do think they are terrorists. Actually, this is much more effective than our unsupported word. Consider: "People who say Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization: Well, pretty much everyone. People who say Al Qaeda is not a terrorist organization: .... Al Qaeda themselves? Maybe?" Consider how much more effective these would be if we could find an example of Al Qaeda labelling themselves as a terrorist organization. "Al Qaeda is - by its own admission - a terrorist organization."

I am against Islamofacism - as a word, that is. Our first duty in destroying our enemy is understanding them. Islamofacism is a word that obscures more meaning than it conveys. "Al Qaedaism" is a bit more precise, but hardly perfect. You can say meaningful things about what Al Qaeda wants. They want a new pan-Muslim caliphate - their attacks on us are only to rally their base and to provoke a response that will radicalize the Muslim world. (For example, by making it appear that we are on an anti-Muslim crusade instead of merely destroying an organization that has attacked us.) By comparison, what exactly do you mean by "Islamofacism"? IIRC, facism originally was defined as a union between government and business. I see little evidence that this is what Al Qaeda seeks. So what, exactly, does "Islamofacism" mean, other than it is a brand of Islam that you don't like? See Godwin's Law.

Do you not agree that the Koran encourages violence

Perhaps, but it is hardly alone in that. And I would hardly consider Ann Coulter to be an unbiased expert. You loose serious credibility points every time you quote her. As an example of non-Muslim terrorists: Tamil Tigers crazyeddie 15:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

and that Muslims have killed and continue to kill innocent people?

True, but they are hardly alone in that either. The vast majority of Muslims have never killed and will never kill anyone, innocent or not. Christians have killed more Americans than Muslims have any way you look at it.

What exactly, sir, are you proposing? Declaring war on a third of the globe? Locking our own Muslim citizens and legal residents into concentration camps and re-educating them until they are decent Christians or atheists?

And unless you are proposing just that, then what is the sense of beating up the war drums against Islam as a whole? Why not focus on a war we can win (although it will be more difficult now than it was five years ago) - a war against those Al Qaeda bastards that carried out the 9/11 attacks? crazyeddie 15:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Cerebral, just for fun: There are roughly one billion Muslims. 99.99999% of them would leave about a hundred Muslims that you think wouldn't slit your throat in a heartbeat. A hundred. And your second number, 99.9999999%? That would leave a single Muslim. Which one? Who's the one Muslim in the world that wouldn't lynch you? Do you know him? Does he have a name? Perhaps he's a she? Where does he live? Does he speak in generalizations as easily as you? Yeah, you're anti-Muslim. You can talk freely on the internet, but not necessarily on Wikipedia. --Golbez 17:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should actually read today's featured article; it's not .99999 which is equal to 1, but rather .999... repeating forever. --Golbez 20:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's assume that 99.99999% of Muslims are fanatics. So what is your solution? Kill them all? Re-educate them? Is it impossible to let them live unless they accept not being Muslim?

Those who fight monsters must take care, lest they become one.

What is your nationality, btw? And what is this Islamofacism of which you speak? Are all Muslims Islamofacists? Or is this just some obscure sect that I have failed to hear about? crazyeddie 18:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Today's featured article should inform you that 0.999999 is equal to 1. So, in a strictly mathematical sense, my comments were directed at all Muslims. Thus, there is, again in a strictly mathetmatical sense, not one Muslim out there who would not lynch or behead me if given the chance.

I may be an American, but I am not totally isolated from the Muslim community. My uncle used to have a roommate that was a Moroccan and a Muslim. This person introduced me to the Red Hot Chilli Peppers. I'm afraid it didn't take then - I was a bit of a prude at that age. I do own the album now. He also played some Muslim song about Issac ascending into heaven. I never really did like that one. After 9/11, this former roommate called my uncle and asked if they were still friends. (And of course, my uncle said yes.) My uncle is an atheist, and I'm reasonably sure that the roommate knew this. Does this Morroccan sound like somebody who would kill my uncle for not being a Person of the Book, let alone a non-Muslim? Aren't Muslims supposed to convert such pagans by the sword? Especially an apostate, someone who started out as a Person of the Book, but converted away to a "pagan religion?"

I was watching Team America with an acquaintance, when a friend of his, an exchange student from Turkey, came in. I think he enjoyed the movie more than I did - I found it to be in rather poor taste and not, on the whole, funny. I don't know how devout this guy was, but my acquaintance did cook him up a "Jew dog" (a pork-free hotdog). Yes, that certainly sounds like a fanatic to me - to eat a Jew dog while watching Team America!

How about that one secretary for the English department here, the one with the head-dress? I don't know if she is Muslim or not, but I don't know of any other culture that would wear that kind of head-dress. She seems to be nicer than the average public-interfacing employee. Do you think she would kill you, given the chance? I mean, more so than your average disgruntled employee? If so, perhaps you need to work on your people skills.

Would you say that these counter-examples are part of that 0.0000009%+ of yours? It would seem most interesting if I managed to meet three of that 100 without ever meeting a member of that fanatically murderous 99.999999%. Or would you say that they are crypto-Islamofacists, who must be killed, "de-programed," or otherwise neutralized? crazyeddie 22:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

E-Mail

Please enable e-mail. It's best to create a separate account on one of the free services like hotmail.com or gmail.com to ensure your privacy. Thanks. Morton devonshire 19:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked and user page deleted

I have blocked you for 48 hours for your hate speech, and I deleted your user page for the same reason. I suggest you reconsider bringing your hate to Wikipedia.--Konst.able^Talk 00:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC) {{Unblock|What is "hate speech"? I was having a discussion with another user, not engaging in "hate speech". Also, nobody warned me that what I was saying was in violation of policy and this is my first block-it should be less than 48 hours, if at all}}

Who said no one has warned you? Many people have warned you for many times, we have even tried to remove your offensive userboxes. Nielswik_(talk) 04:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You had not warned me about any "hate speech". Cerebral Warrior 04:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I guess it was just in a discussion on another user's talk page not an article talk page. So I have lifted your block. I will restore your user page and just remove some of the content. But be aware that you have offended some people, who have decided that they cannot deal with you and reported you to the administrator noticeboard. I suggest you tone it down.--Konst.able^Talk 05:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not removed anything from the history, so you should be able to revert to an older version as usual. Though I would advise you not to. I will keep out of this from now on, as I do happen to know a lot of Muslims and obviously can't stay objective here.--Konst.able^Talk 06:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to meddle in these issues, as I have strong POVs here. It was wrong of me to get involved with you, and I am not going to go chacing people individually. If you want you can bring that up with the individual. But there is a big difference here, you were insulting over 1 billion people (including some Wikipedians) on the basis of their religion, and he is insulting a single public figure (who is most definitely not a Wikipedian) on the basis of his actions that caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians.--Konst.able^Talk 07:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Last chance

Cerebral, I'm making a final formal request to you to:

• understand that your userpage will appear in a google search, and that racist or other inflammatory content reflects badly on all of us, and therefore remove the more extreme content (I'm referring to the questionable quote and the even more questionable userbox). While many users have pages containing dozens of highly opinionated userboxes (such as "This user thinks Bin Laden should be given a long walk off a short pier" etc..), there is a difference between criticising a person (or even an entire organisation) and blatant racism (such as "Muslims kill people" or "The Quran encourages violence").
• desist from adding biased material to pages (such as "this country is a rogue state") after having been warned by several editors not to.
• respect the WP:WTA guideline and the consensus of editors ([2]) regarding the use of the word "terrorist" in articles.
• stop using appeals to emotion, ad hominem comments and strawman attacks on the article and user talk pages.

If we can agree on this, there will be no need to take these matters further. yandman 07:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Other users endorsing this request

1. Totally Konst.able^Talk 07:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Mostly. Although on one level I despise the stuff on CW's userpage, I can't say he should be required to not have it. I would however hope they have the common sense and courtesy to realize that those kinds of ignorant blanket statements towards an entire group of people are incredibly hurtful and should be removed voluntarily. I seem to doubt this will happen though and I'm not into censoring userspace. Other than that, yes, I agree. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 07:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Totally agree. Ask yourself, does it advance the goals of the project? If the answer is no, it doesn't belong here. --Guinnog 08:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
4. 100% agree. Such a disgusting userboxes are not acceptable Nielswik_(talk) 08:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Agree. Im happy someone is finally taking action.--Burgas00 12:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Agree. Though I haven't had dealings with this user in the past, and we do hold some of the same ideas, he has been rude to many people in our discussions about the use of terrorist, and that was uncalled for. He also tries to appeal to emotion despite the fact that this is an encyclopedia, at the expense of the people who could argue for his side with facts, sources, and a neutral point of view. Racism is always uncalled for; it is one thing to despise a certain political group, but saying that the entire race is that way should be offensive to everyone. THL 15:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Totally; if we allow Islamophobic rants then there would be nothing to stop any other type of hate speech (IE: anti-Semitic anti-Catholic ex…). This would indubitably create a hostile atmosphere in Wikipedia where editors would clash over each other’s userboxes or expressed statements and create a negative more factionalized community. Wikipedia isn’t a blog it’s an information database, it would be a poor idea to mix the two together.Freepsbane 21:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Other users who oppose this request

1. Agree. While I respect the zeal Cerebral brings to this project, I believe his passion may sometimes end up in edits which are somewhat rash. However, I agree with Ungovernable Force in that I do not believe we should be in the business of censoring user pages. Other than that, I'm gameTrojan traveler 03:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Cerebral Warrior's reply

• Many users have far more offensive (and sometimes potentially libellous) content on their userpages. The Ungovernable Force has refered to President Bush as a "neo-Fascist" (even though no reputable source has mentioned anything about the President's afffiliation to fascism), claimed that the US government is "spying" on him and made numerous other anti-American allegations that are offensive to many users. Another editor (a New Zealander, who has posted something about Columbus Day on Ungoverneable Force's talk-page) has openly admitted to being a Neo-Nazi (offensive to the entire Jewish community) who "loves White people" (I'm sure not all users here are Caucasian). If no action is taken against those users, why am I being singled out? Please explain this to me.

• Direct quotes need not reflect my views or those of Wikipedia, they are merely statements I find intriguing. The same applies to the statement that some parts of the Koran encourage violence-I can provide you with links to sites that claim it does. I am, however, open to having disclaimers on my page clarifyig that my opinions (or rather what some people assume are my opinions) need not reflect those of Wikipedia or its contributors.
• Censorship is wrong and should never be encouraged.
• As long as I don't violate policy by adding the factual statement that Iran and North Korea are rogue states that form part of the Axis of Evil to the relevant articles, I see no reason for anybody to single me out and harass me in this manner.
• Terrorists are terrorists and not refering to them as such only reduces the credibility of Wikipedia and would alienate many thousands of users who are offended by Wikipedia not calling people what they are.
• It may be possible for some "people" (if at all they are human) to remain unmoved by the deaths of innocent people. I am, however, a normal human being and hence cannot help becoming emotional at the thought of little children being blown limb from limb by jihadists. Cerebral Warrior 09:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Your comments against me have already been responded to on my talk page. First off, we don't need reputable sources for the information on our user pages. And as mentioned above, there is a difference between making negative comments about an individual and making them about an entire group. And I have been spied on by the government, am I not allowed to say that? As for the nazi on my talk page, I stand by what I said above about not wanting to force someone to censor their user space (including yours, even if I detest it). And unlike you, I even have a message on my userpage saying that if people find my positions offensive they probably don't understand them fully (which is hard when you only have a small box to show it in) and that I will explain in detail on my talk page. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 09:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Cerebral Warrior, I think you are mixing up terrorists, Nazis and Muslims there. Do that in your own free time, Wikipeida is no place for it - it's an Encyclopaedia not a forum for unregulated free speech. Now you were asked to stop by 5 people within just 1 hour, so why don't you just drop it and edit peacefully without accusing Muslims, or anyone else, of anything. Note the word final at the top, this is your clue that it will not be tolerated, and if you push on you will just end up getting banned which will do neither you nor us any good.--Konst.able^Talk 09:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. CW please be careful in choosing word. I'm telling you, bombing doesn't belong to jihad. So if someone kills children or innocents and he claimed that he is a jihadist, that is wrong. Anyways, don't you be emotional when Israel killed more than 1000 Lebanese in recent war, and more than 3000 Palestinians in Al-Aqsa intifada, 1/3 of them are children? And when some groups are emotional just like you and try to resist the aggresion forces with everything they have, would you call them terrorists?Nielswik_(talk) 09:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • you may wish to view this wiktionary definition in jihad (please don't vandalize it) --Nielswik_(talk) 09:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a mullah (or shiekh or whatever you call your priests) so I don't know which suicide bomber is a jihadist and which one isn't. And no, I don't get emotional when "Palestinians" are killed because they are the ones killing innocent Jews who have a right to live in Israel. Chizballah, and the other Islamofascists have killed far more Israelis than the number of collateral damage during the 2006 anti-terrorist operations in Lebanon. Cerebral Warrior 10:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, CW i think I don't get emotional when "Palestinians" are killed was a racist comment. I guess it is unacceptable when someone do wrong, then all of his countrymen deserves to be killedNielswik_(talk) 10:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

They either blow themselves up or the Israelis neutralise them. Atleast in the latter case innocent Jews don't have to die. Cerebral Warrior 10:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

And please show some common sense. 44 Israeli is much smaller than 1187 Lebanese and 3651 Palestinians killed in your "collateral damage" Nielswik_(talk) 10:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Chizballah openly admits to targetting innocent Jews, Israel has stated that the collateral damage in Lebanon and Israel was not intentional. There is a difference between the planned murder of Israeli civilians and a few bombs dropped off target. Cerebral Warrior 10:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah a few bombs dropped off target that killed 4000 people. do a million cluster bombs belong to that 'few' too? Regarding your previous comments that killing palestinians are legal because some of them kill jews, then the Arabs may think so, you can kill Israelis because they kill our children, isn't it? And then there will be no peace on earth. If you are saying Israelis have right to live in the land because they won the war against arabs, you are wrong. If whether everything is legal or not be decided by wars, then we humans are not much better than wild animals who kill others for territory. Or we may be even worse, because animals do not use modern weaponry, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, phosphorus bombs, nor they develop nuclear weapon to kill their enemies Nielswik_(talk) 12:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

To quote Yandman below... "Can we stop the bickering please? This is neither the time nor the place to start arguing about who the bad guys are. So no more comments about who killed who, OK?". By the looks of the current bottom of this section, yandman considers this matter closed. The three big red stop signs add emphasis to the statement, and make it quite prominant. As it was Yandmans formal request, which has now been resolved, it's time to end this. Crimsone 15:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we stop the bickering please? This is neither the time nor the place to start arguing about who the bad guys are. So no more comments about who killed who, OK? CW, I've edited your userpage to show a warning that these opinions are yours and yours only. This warning stays at the top, as is the norm for warnings. Any editor removing content from your page without permission will be treated as harshly as any editor removing the warning from the top of the page. Capisce? As for the rest, you've shown, yet again, that you refuse to accept the rule of consensus by which we abide here. You are violating policy by inserting biased material into articles, specifically WP:NPOV. You are violating policy by inserting the phrase "...is a terrorist..." into articles, specifically WP:NPOV and WP:RFC. You are violating policy by making personal attacks on other users who happen to disagree with you.

Now, will you try to change your behaviour? yandman 09:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree to the warning on the userpage, but I have changed it to a form that is nore neutral as for alleged "NPOV" violations, we shall treat that on a case by case basis. Cerebral Warrior 10:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

All I'm asking you to do is respect policy and consensus. If you insert content into an article that is reverted by other users, you don't put it back in again. You do talk about it on the relevant page, where you don't make personal attacks and you do respect the consensus that emerges. OK? yandman 10:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Cerebral Warrior 10:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant. Your future actions will be under close scrutiny, so make sure you keep your promises. Apart from that, I hope you have fun here on Wikipedia. Don't hesitate to tell me if anyone harasses you or takes advantage of the fact that you're on an (informal) probation. If you've got any personal interests that aren't so controversial (I see you're a goalkeeper) try to contribute to these articles and build up a reputation as a competent editor. This will prevent you from being blocked by trigger happy admins if you ever slip up again. Thanks to everyone for taking part, you all have a nice morning/afternoon/evening now... yandman 11:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:SOAP

Please see my talk page, where you wil find what is hopefully the beginning of the endo of the dispute on that certain page. As that certain member you refered to in the dispute resolution section is yet to come back to that article, and as it may be seen by said user as antagonistic, in the interests of keeping up progress of the dispute and avoiding further disruption, I would very much appreciate it if you could remove your comment about his using the page as a soap box. User:Sudharsansn has quite graciously entered into the dispute resolution process (which is what she wrote the section about), and it would be a shame to spoil it be creating an obstacle to that progress. Many thanks. --Crimsone 12:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Middle-east conflict

CW please go and educate yousrself on the issues of the middle-east, on Israel's war crimes and oppression in Lebanon and Palestine, try to challenge your anti-Muslim bias and then come back and make a useful contribution to these discussions.Nwe 16:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey

hi CW, please don't add more anti-muslim comment on your userpage, as it hurts many people. keep your promise. Nielswik_(talk) 17:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon and Palestine

Are you suggesting that the people who have been forced from their homes or had their homes destroyed; the people who have lost multiple times more dead than Israel;the refugees who have lived in camps for 60 years; the people of Beirut who had their city pulverised by Israel, took twenty years to rebuild their city, then had it destroyed all over again;the people of Palestine who are apparently not entitled to run their own country; that these are not the "real victims"?Nwe 17:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. [3]Calling other editors such names, and making use of such language makes it seem that you are not serious in keeping you’re end of the agreement.Freepsbane 01:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Your user page

Hi. I see this has already been the subject of some discussion. As I said above, I question the relevance of some of the current content of your user page to our goal of writing an encyclopedia. I would encourage you to review Wikipedia:User page, particularly the section "What can I not have on my user page?"

“ libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea ”

- Jimbo Wales[4]

You will also notice (under "Removal"): "If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so - such content is only permitted with the consent of the community. After you've been here for a while, and written lots of great articles, the community may be more inclined to let you get away with it. Alternatively, you could move the content to another site, and link to it.

If you do not cooperate, we will eventually simply remove inappropriate content, either by editing the page (if only part of it is inappropriate), or by redirecting it to your main user page (if it is entirely inappropriate)."

I thought you might prefer to edit it yourself than have others do it; for me the Ann Coulter quote and the mentions of "Islamofascism" are the bits I find objectionable, and as you will see above, other Wikipedians seem to share my concerns. Best wishes, --Guinnog 11:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

After extensive discussion, a compromise has been reached-I can put what I want on my userpage, provided I agree to a disclaimer stating that my views do not reflect those of the community. The disclaimer is prominently displayed, as is the content I see fit to put on my userpage. Thanks for your concern, but like I said the matter has already been resolved.

Thanks for your reply. Where did the discussion take place, and where is the compromise you describe laid out like that? --Guinnog 17:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally have seen userpages edited by administrators which are much less offensive and xenophobic than this one. There is no possible compromise on this issue. The material must be erased, full stop. --Burgas00 19:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Yandman had this to say...

• ...CW, I've edited your userpage to show a warning that these opinions are yours and yours only. This warning stays at the top, as is the norm for warnings. Any editor removing content from your page without permission will be treated as harshly as any editor removing the warning from the top of the page. Capisce?...

... and so it occurs to me (pending an admin wheel war (unlikely), or administrator consensus against the agreement,) that there IS a compromise on the issue that's already been made. Crimsone 19:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yandman isn't an admin, for what it's worth, and that wasn't a consensus but a well-meaning compromise by Yandman personally. I'd still like you, Cerebral Warrior, to take down the material yourself. It is unencyclopedic, people have objected to it, and I've pointed you to the guideline and the quote from Jimbo Wales which support my view that you should remove it. Thanks a lot. --Guinnog 11:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops - my bad. I thought he was, and I was clearly mistaken. Crimsone 19:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I have asked for more comments on this

I have posted a thread on the Administrator Noticeboard asking for people to comment on this issue, as clearly this compromise of a disclaimer does not suit all people.--Konst.able^Talk 14:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No thanks. Keep it off your userpage please.--Konst.able^Talk 10:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Your userpage2

Please see WP:USER for a brief overview of the proper use of your userspace...as all pages on wikipedia belong to the foundation...userspace is essentially "borrowed" and is not to be used to politic against others. I know many people have userboxes that say things like "anti-American" or some other polemic remark, but what we'll do here for you know is establish that you won't stoop to that level. If you look at my page...all I have are some pictures, articles I have worked on and few links...not one userbox, not one polarizing issue. I have also protected your page to end the edit war...work with me and I will be glad to help you...but you must comply. Thanks.--MONGO 11:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A Proposal by crazyeddie

I've had an idea for a way of settling this userpage issue, but I've been waiting to see if yandman's compromise would work. Since it looks like it hasn't, here it goes:

Some legalistic justification

The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for our personal beliefs. Many people do describe their personal beliefs, but I believe that this is for the purpose of giving the audience some idea of who is writting the encyclopedia and for the purpose of giving other editors fair warning about what our personal biases are likely to be. Content that distracts from our actual purpose here should not be allowed.

This is compatible with how the United States, at least, views the right of free speech - the Wikipedia is private property, and we must abide by the rules of the Wikipedia while we are here. If you want to have your own personal soapbox, you are perfectly welcome to create your own website. There are plenty of places that offer free webspace - check out geocities, for example.

According to WP:USER, it appears that We-the-Wikipedians are allowed to edit out inappropriate material. However, what exactly is "inappropriate" is sometimes a matter of taste and there will be disagreements. These disagreements can lead to edit wars. There is also a convention that only the user may edit their userpage. This is only a convention and does not have the weight of policy, but it should be followed unless there is no choice, almost as a last resort.

In this case, the last resort is listing the entire userpage on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. This has the advantage of being quasi-democratic, so it will settle the question of appropriateness with some authority. It has the disadvantage of being rather draconian.

What is usually done, instead of these last-resort methods, is that the user removes, er, alegedly offending material when requested to do so by other contributors. That has been tried in this case, but it has not been entirely successful.

The actual proposal

What I am proposing, as an alternative to the above methods, is that we have something like a miniture Request for Comment for each piece of allegedly offending material on Cerebral Warrior's userpage. If there is a consensus that a particular piece, is, in fact, offending, then Cerebral Warrior should remove that piece of content. Convention roughly defines "consensus" as a 2/3rds vote. I would also like to add that there needs to be at least five people voting Delete before we consider it a consensus. Because a Keep vote might be interpreted as supporting some unpopular view of CW's, I would suggest using a Don't delete vote, meaning "I don't agree with this, but I support allowing him to say it."

If it is established that there is a consensus against a particular piece of content, but CW does not remove it, then we should have an additional mini-RfC to determine if we should list the entire webpage on WP:MfD. I realize that we would be justified in skipping this step and going straight to MfD, but I would like to afford CW full "due process of law" or some convincing simulation thereof.

Comments on the proposal

None of these statements seems appropriate on the user page of an editor in an online encyclopedia. The onus would be on someone wishing to include controversial and provocative statements ("hate-speech") to justify their inclusion, not on the majority of wikipedians to justify their removal. --Guinnog 21:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

My model for this method is Articles for Deletion. If there is no clear consensus (that is to say, 2/3rds majority) either for keeping or deleting, then the whole thing will drag on. If only a simple majority is required, one way or another, then there is the potential that someone would re-open the issue if they think opinion has shifted slightly their way. If we require a strong consensus for keeping something, then that means that we are allowing a minority to dictate what we can or can not say. If something is truly offensive, then I believe there will be a clear consensus against it. I'm more worried that people will vote against something because they don't personally agree with it, rather than really considering whether or not expressing that view is appropriate. crazyeddie 16:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I seriously recommend moving this section to a subpage of this userspace. It would need admin assistance due to the needed history merge, but this has the potential to become long and messy. Crimsone 19:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. While your idea has merit, I suggest we wait on doing that until after voting closes. For now, I think we want as much traffic as possible, and tucking it into a subpage might cut down on that. For example, CW has not commented here himself. If we move this, he might not notice it. crazyeddie 21:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Very true, but a simple link on the user talk page would suffice for that in it's own little section. Anyone likely to vote on it will happily follow such a link. In the meantime, this page is already 76 Kb and it's only going to get longer, and each time a new edit is added, CW gets an annoying little message to say as much. Usrespace is probably not the best place for this anyway, without it being on his actual talk page.This needs to be open for at least 5-7 days, and it's simply not a good idea to have it here until voting closes - it's inappropriate if not plain disruptive to anybody needing to use this talk page. (not a dig at your good intentions there - just ppointing out the effects of CW not knowing whether it's a message directly for him each time "a new messges" is announced in a big red box at the top of whatever page he's looking at.). I'd seriously recomend that you get an admin to move this, even citing the message I left at WP:AN/I about it if you wish. Crimsone 21:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, having been shown the issue from a different perspective that I previously hadn't considered, it may well be the case that there's no problem (or not). Feel free to ignore my above comment for now if you wish (not that you weren't allowed to do that before anyway :) ) Crimsone 23:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

How about a compromise - we can move this thing after CW notices it. So far, he hasn't made any contributions since the 2nd. I hadn't considered the whole spamming the talkpage bit. It would be ironic if he's taken a permanent wiki-vacation just when it looked like we were getting things settled out. crazyeddie 06:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm considering leaving the project. I can't contribute to an encyclopedia that practises censorship. Cerebral Warrior 16:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not censorship - it's respecting the community and the other editors and not being openly hostile toward them. --Strothra 16:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. If you want to make full use of your free speech rights, you are perfectly welcome to create your own website elsewhere. You can even link to it from this page, if you want. But while you are here, you will abide by our policies. If you can't do that, then you are quite right to leave.

But I personally hope you'll stay. I'd like to point out that, barring any major upheavals in the voting, it looks like we are allowing you more freedom than MONGO's current compromise. Consider: You'll have to remove the Ann Coulter quote (and I would highly advise that you not replace it.) You can link to the Muhammad cartoons, but you'll have to loose the Islamofacist language. You can say that you oppose Islamofacism and terrorism (just not while linking to the Muhammad cartoons, apparently.) You can't state that you believe that many parts of the Koran encourage violence or that you DO NOT believe in Allah or Islam, but you are encouraged to tell us all about your own religious beliefs (which would just about have to reveal that you do not believe in Allah or Islam, given Islam's exclusivity). I believe that these limits will more than allow you to voice your opinion and communicate the fact that YOU DO NOT LIKE "ISLAMOFACISM", while not unduly offending people.

Just for kicks, I'm fairly sure that nobody here will have a problem with a notice announcing that this userpage has been censored - provided you link to this discussion in order to put into perspective. And this discussion will pretty much tell anybody interested what exactly was censored. Does this idea suit you?

Okay, just got a message from someone saying they aren't comfortable with the idea. I suppose we could put it to the vote. I must admit, the idea does tickle me some. I'm all for it if you are, CW! crazyeddie 04:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to put this in perspective, what would you want us to do if an Al Qaeda sympathizer wanted to contribute to the Wikipedia? What content would you prefer that they didn't have on their userpage? Would you want us to allow them to express themselves with complete freedom? Turn about is fair play... crazyeddie 04:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It would appear that no one has edited this discussion for a few days. Is it time to count the votes and determine the consensus, or should we let this sit for a little while longer? -- THL 07:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think that there's any point: CW hasn't edited since the 4th. Methinks we've scared him away. yandman 08:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

We still have about 6 hours until a full 7 days are up. You never know, we might get a sudden last-minute flood of anti-deletionists. And I would still like a consensus in place in case CW decides to come back out of hibernation. crazyeddie 15:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

the mini-RfCs

Using an old version of CW's userpage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cerebral_Warrior&oldid=84919514

"The 'offence to Islam' ruse is merely an excuse for Muslims to revert to their default mode: rioting and setting things on fire. - Ann Coulter"

• Delete - 1) the quote makes a blanket characterization of all Muslims. 2) Yes, CW, by having this quote here, you are giving the strong impression that you endorse this view. 3) Given Ann Coulter's statement that the Oklahoma City bombers should have gone after the New York Times, perhaps she shouldn't be quoted by someone who so strongly opposes terrorism. crazyeddie 15:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per crazy eddie --Nielswik_(talk) 16:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per crazy eddie --Strothra 16:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete - While in the context of this userpage this particular quote is used in a fasion to denigrate the whole of Islam, the same quote could equally be used to detract from the impact of those who would say such things. As such, the quote itself is neutral - it is only the way in which it's presented that has the potential for controversy. Crimsone 18:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - unless he can properly source this quotation with links. After all, it is someone else's quote that he is merely posting on his userpage (tasteful or not). Rarelibra 20:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete - it is clearly inflammatory. If CW is trying to declare a POV here (an honourable thing to do), then he could find a more encyclopedic way to do it. --Guinnog 21:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Though the quote itself may be able to count as neutral, through his edits CW himself has made it obvious that he did not post it in good faith. His entire purpose in posting it was to offend a particular group of people and that cannot be tolerated. -- THL 22:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per crimsone. The quote in itself is not a problem. Hell, I can imagine putting it on my page just to illustrate how low the US media has fallen. But we all know this wasn't the reason he put it up... yandman 11:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete It's effectively a racist quote and its placement is intended to be inflammatory; thus it has no place in an encyclopedia. Not only should it be removed on the grounds of WP:CIVIL, but also as per Wikipedia is not a battleground, which states, "Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement." Clearly this user disagrees with Muslims, and clearly his propagation of this quotation is intended to insult them. -- WGee 05:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As above. Statement is intended to inflame, and use of the statement here especially so. BusterD 11:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"If Islamofascists in your area have prevented you from viewing these caricatures, ..."

Divided into two issues, after seeing how the voting was going. crazyeddie 16:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Linking to the caricatures

• Strong Keep - not a big fan of Real World censorship this side of kiddy porn. The cartoons were, IMO, a good-faith attempt to open a dialogue with the Muslim world. Because of this, I believe that linking to them is a justifiable act of civil disobedience. crazyeddie 16:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - this is an illegal picture. Even Denmark's politician feels sorry about this --Nielswik_(talk) 16:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC) (copied over by crazyeddie)
  • Comment - an illegal picture(s)?!? Andjam 23:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply Sorry, looks like a translation prob. I am not considering taking legal action. I meant this picture should not be shown--Nielswik_(talk) 04:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - antagonistic and only incites problems with other editors. --Strothra 16:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and has a non-censorship policy. If the encyclopedia has the pictures (and it should, or at least a link to them, because it is a real life documented event of high notability), it would be utterly farcical to prevent people from linking to them. Crimsone 18:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - there are userboxes with a picture of a penis, for God's sake (see User:Freakofnurture for more good examples!) Rarelibra 20:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as long as the language is appropriate. Per Crazyeddie. --Guinnog 21:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the pictures are not illegal in all areas, and Wikipedia is not censored. As long as he isn't posting the pictures themselves on his page he should be allowed to keep the link. If you are offended by the pictures, don't click the link. Private organization this may be, but are we Jimbo Wales? It isn't our place to remove content that doesn't directly violate Wikipedia's policies or to violate freedom of expression. A simple link doesn't violate them, so... -- THL 22:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Nielswik's "delete". By the way, you should have just put an internal link to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, that way, no one could ever criticise it. yandman 11:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the link is presented in a pejorative manner for the purpose of an attack rather than encyclopaedic value.--Konst.able^Talk 13:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete What useful, encyclopedic purpose does his linking to the caricatures serve? He's exploiting Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, to attack Muslims, as though it were a blog. -- WGee 05:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep What Crazyeddie said, but not felt so strongly. Controversy has made these illos notable, and while I believe linking to them serves an inflamatory purpose, the link itself does not offend this user. BusterD 12:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If his linking to the caricatures is intended to be inflammatory, then it violates WP:CIVIL and WP:NOT. Thus, based on your own reasoning, your vote should be delete. -- WGee 04:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Islamofacist langauge

• Delete - the Islamofacist language + the caricature link is going too far. crazyeddie 16:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per crazyedd--Nielswik_(talk) 16:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - too inflammatory for a userpage, antagonistic and only incites problems - alienates other editors and does not contribute positively. --Strothra 16:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete - Islamofacism does indeed exist - that's why there's a word for it. However, using the word as used on this userpage comment about the images is inflammatory and divisive, and carries an undertone that most muslims have fanaticist or facist tendancies, which is quite clearly defamatory, not to mention overgeneralised. I personally haven't yet a muslim yet with facist or fanatical tendancies, having met a few locally. Crimsone 18:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Again, if there are userboxes like the one on User:Freakofnurture's site, then this one should stay as well. Rarelibra 20:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between calling yourself a facist and calling others facists. yandman 11:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Although this term exists, and we have an article on it, that does not make it appropriate for the user page of a volunteer editor for an online encyclopedia. It is inflammatory and unnecessary. --Guinnog 21:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - obviously offensive statement. -- THL 22:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• delete per Guinnog. yandman 11:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete Use of the term in this context violates WP:SOAPBOX/advocacy (heck we're talking about a soapbox violation top to bottom on this mini rfc process). WP doesn't not guarantee user's right to free speech here. While a user page is in effect a soapbox by usage, user page guidelines clearly indicate this sort of posting is inappropriate. BusterD 12:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"This user believes that many parts of the Koran encourage violence."

• Delete - this could be seen as a blanket characterization of an entire religion. While possibly true (although I'd object to the many wording), it is also true of many religions' sacred texts - including my own. Regardless of the truth of the statement, it is simply too disruptive for a userpage. crazyeddie 15:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong DeleteThis is a black propaganda, an offense against 1 billion muslims, not useful and it is not true. --Nielswik_(talk) 16:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - untrue and inflammatory, antagonizes other editors and does not contribute positively and constructively to wikipedia. --Strothra 16:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - unnessecarily divisive and offensive. "This user" can believe as "this user" likes, and is entitled to an opinion on it, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and normal rules of civility and no personal attacks still apply(applicable to any user).Crimsone 19:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete - like the Bible doesn't say "do unto others..." etc. Enough. Plus, the Koran is actually very peaceful. Rarelibra 20:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete - Again, this is not a statement conducive to collegial debate. Irrelevant and counterproductive. --Guinnog 21:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete - I don't know if it is true or not, and I don't really care. Though this could be taken as him expressing his POV, that obviously isn't his purpose, so it should go. -- THL 22:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• delete. Userboxes give the impression that they're official, which IMHO is one of the problems here. I don't want a bored journalist coming across this page and knocking up 500 words on "Wikipedia: the hate encyclopaedia".. yandman 11:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as per everyone above. -- WGee 06:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Propaganda/Advocacy solely intended to inflame. BusterD 12:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"This user oposses terrorism."

• Keep - no problems here. crazyeddie 15:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - everyone should oppose terrorism --Nielswik_(talk) 16:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - no issues here either. --Strothra 16:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It's fine. I oppose terrorism too generally speaking. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter of course, but as this is a non-specific userbox, this isn't the place to debate that (not that it hasn't been debated to death already elsewhere).Crimsone 19:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - to the end. Rarelibra 20:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - I think it's a silly user box (and would still be if the spelling was corrected, though that would help slightly). Everybody opposes terrorism, by definition. It's like saying "This user opposes murder", or "This user opposes shoplifting". I think user boxes like this create more division among us. When I read this I immediately think: "Here is a person who views the world in simple black-and-white terms like terrorism". However, this one is arguably ok in the context of contemporary userbox usage as far as I can see. Doesn't mean I like it, but I don't mind if this one stays. --Guinnog 21:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

shoplifting? yandman 12:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep - though his purpose in posting it is questionable, it really does get his POV across and deserves to stay. -- THL 01:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Hybrid. While redundant, without the others, this could be seen as just a sort of "twin towers such a horrible day" emotional whatsit, if you see what I mean. yandman 12:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete We can't ignore the the context of the userbox and its anti-Islamic overtones. As others have noted, it is redundant to say that one opposes terrorism, so his only motive for doing so could be to enhance the anti-Islamic theme of his page. -- WGee 06:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It isn't our place to prevent other editors from expressing their POV on their user page, no matter what they have done. If everything else has to go, this one should stay. Misguided this person may be, but it was probably terrorism that made this user racist. This user clearly opposes terrorism, and he should be allowed to say that just as much as I would be allowed to say that I am an atheist on my page. It looks like most everything having to do with Islam will be removed from his page, so it will look like a tribute to 9-11 anyway, so context won't be a problem. Also, it isn't our place to punish this user for what he has done; that falls into the hands of the sysops and should be completely separate from this vote. This is to enforce policy, not punish CW. Besides, opposing terrorism doesn't make you anti-Islam; most muslims oppose terrorism. I don't see anti-Islamic overtones; I see anti-terrorism, which is what the box is supposed to get across about the user. -- THL 06:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    • If that freedom to express one's POV is abused, either through incivility or by using Wikipedia as something that it's not, then it should be curtailed. If all of the other hate speech is removed, leaving only the anti-terrorism userbox, I will not oppose its being there. But I'm not sure that that will be the case. -- WGee 07:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
      • It is our place to curtail it, not overkill it. It is our place to enforce Wikipedia policy, which means taking this user page and making it get the user's POV across without it offending anyone as decided by concensus. It is not our place to go further than that; anything more than bringing his page to code falls to the sysops. -- THL 14:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Still Advocacy/Propaganda, but is as inoffensive to most users as "I like ice cream." BusterD 12:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"This user opposes Islamofacism"

• Reluctant do not delete - at least it isn't a blanket characterization. Since, to the best of my knowledge, nobody actually self-identifies as Islamofacist, you aren't actually opposing anybody. What exactly is an Islamofacist, anyway? crazyeddie
• Modify or Delete define Islamofascist more clearly --Nielswik_(talk) 16:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  Delete fascism has nothing to do with religion --Nielswik_(talk) 14:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Modify - Islamofacism as a term is problematic, it should be modified in a way which does not antagonize others or portray a connection between Islam as a whole and Fascism (a Western concept).--Strothra 16:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

AFAICT, CW believes that all Muslims are Islamofascists. (If I have misrepresented your belief, CW, please speak up.) If CW modifies this userbox to elaborate on what he believes Islamofascism to be, then this userbox might become offensive. As worded, I don't agree with the view (not because I support Islamofascism, but because the term is basically meaningless), but I won't ask that he delete it. The statement is rendered inoffensive by its very lack of coherency. Making it coherent might also make it offensive. crazyeddie 21:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep - Ok, so "this user" opposes a certain type of behaviour. Personally, I too would be against this type of behaviour - not that I know the names of any islamofacists. The only person that should be offended by this are people who self-identify as islamofascists, which I suspect are few and far between. Crimsone 19:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep - no offense in here. Rarelibra 20:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete as above. --Guinnog 21:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

*Strong keep - gets his POV across. Anyone who would be offended by this is just looking for a reason to cry racism. If you aren't an Islamofacist, then you don't have a reason to be offended.-- THL 22:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you're so quick to strip others of their liberties by declaring that people cannot decide for themselves what they shall and shall not be offended by. The very reason we're having this debate is a sign that a good number of people are offended by it. --Strothra 03:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I make judgments off of what I see first hand. There has only been one vote to delete the statement completely. This debate is about everything having to do with Islam on his user page, and this particular statement seems to be far less offensive to people then the others; therefore, logic says that less people are offended by it. As for my statement, that was my opinion; in no way was I trying to strip people of their liberties or decide for them. I was saying that I don't see why anyone would be offended by it unless they themselves fit the description, and nothing else. I don't think that is an attempt to strip people of their liberties. -- THL 05:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• delete, and I think we've already had this one, haven't we? yandman 12:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete there is no such thing as Islamofascism, and using that term is a deliberate attack.--Konst.able^Talk 12:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Anyone with a basic knowledge of political science knows that "Islamofascism" is not an accepted political ideology. Study political theory in university and you will never learn about "Islamofascism", except maybe as a neo-conservative propagandistic phenomenon. It is merely a neologism likely created by the media (not by political scientists) to demonize Islamic theocracies. And whoever first used it in this manner clearly did not understand what Mussolini said about fascism: "The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value." [[5]] This is antithetical to theocracy, which views the state simply as an instrument of God's will, not as an organic entity (God is the only organic entity for theocrats). Thus, since the term bears no academic value, the only motivation for using it could be to demonize Islam by associating it with fascism. And, again, this hate-mongering violates WP:CIVIL and WP:WWIN. -- WGee 05:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per CW's motive. Changing my vote from before -- THL 06:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete This statement is the heart of the advocacy/propaganda. All the other boxes are used to support this specific choice of political rhetoric. If this statement stays, then this process has failed to protect the pedia, IMHO. BusterD 12:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"This user DOES NOT believe in Allah or Islam"

• Delete or modify - instead of saying what you don't believe in, how about stating what you do believe in? What exactly is your religious background? Don't you think what you stand for is a better reflection of who you truly are than what you are opposed to? crazyeddie 15:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• I belive in all religions except 786. Cerebral Warrior 16:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

So you are both a Christian Scientist and an atheist? That must cause some troubles... (What the heck is this 786 thing, anyway? The only likely thing I saw on google was something that put me in mind of the Time Cube.) crazyeddie 04:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Modify Per CrazyEddie Delete per the hybrid below. This userbox intends to insult --Nielswik_(talk) 15:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Modify - per crazyeddie, stating what you do not believe in only alienates and antagonizes other groups, not contributing in a positive way to wikipedia. who cares what someone doesn't believe in anyway? --Strothra 16:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - this userbox can only be intended to serve as a warning to muslims who might mention the name 'God' or 'Allah' to this user. As such, it's somewhat incivil to muslims (Implication being that muslims are likely to want to argue things in the name of their god to this user, or use their god as evidence for something), and generally divisive. Crimsone 19:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - religion is a protected status. It's no different than an athiest saying that they don't believe in God. Rarelibra 20:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's the same thing as someone having a userbox which says, "Athiesm is stupid." The intent is hostile. --Strothra 20:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Strotha. The intent is hostile and divisive (much like those "no cold calling, religion, or sales" notices on peoples doors. The intent is to say "I don't like your type, and I won't have you in my space". Crimsone

We're not debating my vote, people! :) The intent cannot really be proven. If I put a userbox that says "this user does not believe in Christianity or God" would it be as offensive? Would it be as controversial? Rarelibra 21:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would still be needlessly divisive, and so against the spirit of wikipedia. Special attention should be paid to it's formatting. The capitalisation of "does not" indicates an emphasis as the tone, the implication of which is that the user expects believer of Islam or Allah to shove their beliefs down the users troat, so to speak. If it merely stated as a matter of fact in monotone lowercase what it says, it really wouldn't be worth the effort of including on a userpage, adding no value to it at all. But to get to the other point, it is quite commonplace to comment on points behind individual votes. Crimsone 21:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to enforce this, when userboxes exist like those on User:Freakofnurture's site. Rarelibra 21:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I take that page to be somewhat of a satire or other form of joke. A clue or redeeming factor might be in the fact that the user extends the option for visitors to turn of anything offensive, indicating either humour or open arms, depending on how you look at the page. However, this isn't a debate over that users page, it's about this one, and the userbox in the context of this page violates concensus and/or policy through being unnessecarily divisive. Crimsone 22:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus does not rules user pages. And divisive seems to be left up to opinion. All I know is - yes, this isn't about other user pages, but how can a statement like this be banned when other userpages show erect penises, for God's sake. Kinda takes away from "consensus" and "sensitive" or "divisive" user page content. After all, keep in mind that all wars come down to religion, it seems. Rarelibra 22:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it does. If the community clearly states that they want something off a userpage because it is offensive/divisive/derogatory whatever, then off it comes. Consensus creates policy, and consensus drives changes. Consensus isn't the "be all and end all", but it is important. Incidentally, userpages belong to the community as much as articles do - it's only a tradition of good faith that they aren't edited by others...

As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. However, pages in user space still do belong to the community:

Where that good faith has been breached however (as on this page), and the community states it's opposition, the entire page can be removed sometimes where the user refuses to comply (per the guideline WP:USER). This userbox breaches a number of policies and guidelines, such as WP:CIVIL, WP:USER, and WP:NOT. It completely goes against the grain of the essay Wikipedia:Divisiveness, and as the essay says, "Divisiveness on Wikipedia between members of the Wikipedia community is against Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, and reason for existing..."

I suspect that we may have to agree to disagree on this particular element of the page, but none the less, I would have to suggest that "well, that guy just passing is going faster" isn't a good argument when you're stopped at the side of the road for a speeding offence. Just because one person can get away with it for whatever reason, it doesn't make it right. Crimsone 23:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't think we should identify as members of a religion, but I don't care if others do. I suppose I have a vegetarian user box on mine. But saying you don't believe in God, while it seems silly, isn't as bad as saying you don't believe in Allah and Islam. That seems calculated to cause offence. Singling out the Muslim faith and their god by name seems like making a point. And, how is it helping anyone to write an encyclopedia? --Guinnog 21:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

A user stating what religion they are will give others a clue to what their probable biases are. It helps the NPOV policy by laying all of the cards on the table. However, there is a difference between saying "I'm an atheist" and saying "I DO NOT believe in God or Christianity." One is informative, the other is abusive. crazyeddie 21:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Abusive in what way? As a Christian, I would think a statement like that is interesting, yet a user if free to express themself as such as long as it isn't vulgar or threatening. How exactly is "I do not believe in God or Christianity" abusive? Again I point to examples that 'push the limit' on other's userpages. One could easily be offended by pornography, correct? Rarelibra 22:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If the statement "This user DOES NOT believe in God or Christianity" was given by an atheist, it would be reasonable to deduce that it was meant to warn off what that user sees as "bible bashers" or "Christian fundamentalists". However, the statement also generalisis all christians and believers of god through it's wording, making the statement as a whole offensive, and yes, perhaps even abusive. Crimsone 22:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Your arguments regarding pornography versus religion are problematic. Issues of religion are ones that spark much more heated controversy than issues of pornography, particularly in the United States. That wouldn't be true of 30-40 years ago when both issues would spark as much controversy as the other. An image of a penis is not nearly as divisive and little to no hostile intent from it may be interp--Strothra 03:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)reted.

*Modify - the box should say, "This user is not a Muslim", rather than the current wording. Like having a userbox that says "I am a carnivore" is fine, but having one that says "I consume the flesh of weaker beings" is not fine. -- THL 22:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, though it is by definition then a different userbox :). Of course, a box that says "this user is not a muslim" seems a little odd, though it probably exists somewhere. lol. I'd have no problem with it though (provided it lacked the capitalisation. Crimsone 23:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess it would be considered a different userbox, but I figured it would be easier to modify the text in the box already on the page then to track down or create a new box; assuming that it isn't put on the page through a template like {{user:eraser}} or something. -- THL 01:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• delete. Knowing CW, this is obviously a criticism of muslims, not a theological opinion. yandman 12:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete It's obvious that this statement intended to incite the ire of Muslims. This is the epitome of trollish behaviour and a hallmark of a problem editor. Any re-wording would be futile, because the anti-Islamic implications would remain. -- WGee 06:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete User demonstrates his lack of understanding, for assuming CW is a Christian or Jew, he DOES believe in the same god as do Muslims. He doesn't have to like it, but that's not particularly controversial to say. Per WP:SOAPBOX this sort of negativism has no place on the pedia on any page space except reverted space. BusterD 12:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not disputing what you said. Just as a comment, when I was part of the Catholic church, I talked to my priest about that once, and he said Allah was not God, but rather Satan or a demon deceiving people :D -- THL 13:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - No matter how it is modified, the anti-Islamic overtones would remain. -- THL 14:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Replacing "This user DOES NOT believe in Allah or Islam" with "This user believes in all religions except Islam"

*Strongly support - given the fact that I'm a Discordian, who am I to judge a bizarre religious belief? I would also be okay with "This user believes in all religions except for 786" since it may be confusing, but it isn't offensive in any way. crazyeddie 05:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

*Comment - Does he actually believe in every religion other than Islam? If not, Oppose. -- THL 01:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Am I really a Discordian? Who knows? Until he says otherwise, why don't we take him at his word? crazyeddie 04:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

He said it? If so, go for it. -- THL 04:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the proof: I belive in all religions except 786. Cerebral Warrior 16:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC) 786 seems to be some odd reference to Islam. Not sure what it means. crazyeddie 05:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

So he believes in all religions except Islam? Forget doublethink, this guy's obviously mastered parallel processing... yandman 08:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not complaining - this means he's a member of my sect of Discordianism. Hurray, my first convert! On a related topic, as Episkopos and =POPE=, I hereby proclaim the use of the term "Islamofascism" to be a knee-capping offense. Enforcement of this decree is also a knee-capping offense. (I hope I didn't just violate the policy against personal threats...)crazyeddie 16:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

*Support per Crazyeddie's proof. No idea why he would refer to Islam as 786. Not sure I want to know. -- THL 05:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - I felt kind of weird supporting this, and voting to delete the box above. Though I have no problem with this in itself, what WGee says below is true. -- THL 13:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose The anti-Islamic overtones would still remain. -- WGee 06:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and here's the meaning behind "786": [6] I'm still not sure why he's using it, though, as it doesn't appear to be offensive. -- WGee 07:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably for the Dan Brownesque appeal of it. yandman 08:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As long as I know, CW has an understanding that 786 refer to Allah[7][8], because of something related to the link that WGee provided. wikipedia article 786 (number)#In religion says that only South Asians may have such thinking. This can be explained by Neutral Coverage of the Sri Lankan Crisis Project that CW joined.--Nielswik_(talk) 11:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, at one point CW said that I might be more supportive of Muslims because I'm an American (a rather odd point, I thought), and he implied that he wasn't. I think the implication was that he faces persecution from his Muslim neighbors. It could well be that he is a South Asian, maybe even an Sri Lankan. No way of knowing for sure, and it doesn't really matter. crazyeddie 16:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose per WGee, but I don't know what to think if he put 786 instead. --Nielswik_(talk) 11:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Here's[9] an example of CW contradicting his statement that he believes in all religions besides Islam - he confesses to not being Jewish. I suppose we could change it to "This user believes in all religions besides Islam and Judaism." Or maybe we could convince him to retract his bullshit statement. (Assuming he didn't convert between the two statements. I guess that might be possible.) crazyeddie 16:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Another possible explanation - 786 = Allah = the same God Christians and Jews worship. So possibly CW believes in all religions except those that believe in Western monotheism. Ach, who knows. My opposition stands at least until CW explains these contradictions. That should prove entertaining. crazyeddie 17:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - given the evidence that CW did not make this statement in good faith. I would still be willing to support a sincere expression of CW's positive religious views (positive in the sense of what he believes, as opposed to what he doesn't believe). crazyeddie 16:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Results

Here's how the results look to me: crazyeddie 21:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• "The 'offence to Islam' ruse is merely an excuse for Muslims to revert to their default mode: rioting and setting things on fire. - Ann Coulter"

Unanimous delete

• Linking to the Muhammad cartoons

7 in favor of keeping

4 in favor of deleting

no consensus in favor of deleting

• Using the term "Islamofascist" while linking to the Muhammad cartoons

1 in favor of keeping

8 in favor of deleting

consensus in favor of deleting

• "This user believes that many parts of the Koran encourage violence."

Unanimous delete

• "This user oposses terrorism."

8 in favor of keeping

1 in favor of deleting

no consensus in favor of deleting

• "This user opposes Islamofacism"

3 in favor of not deleting

1 in favor of modifying

7 in favor of deleting

close - possibly no consensus in favor of deleting, if modified to suit Strothra.

• "This user DOES NOT believe in Allah or Islam"

7 in favor of deleting

3 in favor of modifying

1 in favor of keeping

no consensus if modified, consensus of deleting if unmodified.

• Replacing "This user DOES NOT believe in Allah or Islam" with "This user believes in all religions except Islam"

Unanimous in favor of opposing. Not binding because it doesn't meet the quorum I specified (at least 5 in favor of deletion with only 4 voting), but should be taken as a sign.

Comment - I believe the main objection is that we did not feel that this statement was sincere. crazyeddie 21:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Post “RfC” Discussion

Okay, it looks like CW hasn't edit since the 4th. There is still a few hours until the unofficial RfC officially ends, but I think it's safe to say that MONGO's version, which is currently up, is within the limits established by the “RfC.” So here's what I think we should do:

1. Request that the userpage be removed from protection.
2. If CW returns, he can edit the userpage, provided that he does not cross the limits laid out by the “RfC.”
3. If he crosses those limits, then we should reconvene and consider whether or not to list the entire userpage on WP:MfD.
4. If he makes a questionable edit that does not explicitly cross those limits, then the objectors should ask him politely to remove the offending material and give him one week to respond.
5. It might be a good idea put something like a NPOV template, complete with a disclaimer, on his userpage until the matter is resolved.
6. If he does not remove the material within the one week period, then we should convene yet another RfC session, this time on a subpage.
7. If he does not follow the consensus of the RfC, then the entire userpage should be listed on MfD.

I know this would all be a pain in the butt, but censorship is a fairly serious matter. I think we need to have some sort of procedure to handle it. It should not be decided by an edit war. What do you all think, and would you recommend that a similar procedure be used elsewhere under similar circumstances? crazyeddie 16:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I would. This process takes a while, but censorship demands enough time and discussion for those involved as well as those looking on to truly understand the issue before it should be instituted. -- THL 04:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I oppose putting an NPOV template on a user page. User pages are for expressing one's POV; therefore, they are not bound by or expected to follow the NPOV policy. Disclaimers are fine, but putting an NPOV template on user pages sets a bad precedent, and could give some false ideas about what user pages are. I'm fine with everything else. Cheers, -- THL 07:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I said something like an NPOV template, not an NPOV template. Something with a disclaimer, plus maybe some mention that someone found something on the page offensive, go to the talk page to discuss. crazyeddie 20:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I misunderstood you, my apologies. I'm fine with that, so long as it isn't actually an NPOV template. -- THL 21:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

E-mail 3

can you e-mail me please. Thanks RaveenS

MedRevise.co.uk

Hey, I thought you might be interested in this, since you are medically active here on wikipedia. With a colleague I have set up a Medical Revision website, called MedRevise.co.uk. It is not trying to compete with Wikipedia, but trying to be something else useful, different and fun. If you are interested, please read our philosophy and just have a little look at our site. I would appreciate your feedback, and some contributions if you have the time. Thanks a lot! MedRevise (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)