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:
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
You use this term everywhere. What do you believe it means? Slipgrid 17:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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)
You might want to check out bureaucratic collectivism. That might shed some light on the situation. crazyeddie 03:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
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 |
|
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)
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)
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)
Hi Cerebral Warrior,
You might be interested in joining the LTTE article mediation effort. Many thanks, Elalan 16:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 agree Nielswik (talk) 07:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
As stated before. I strongly agree.-- Burgas00 12:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I know that you directed these remarks at other people, but I feel a need to address them:
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Cerebral, I'm making a final formal request to you to:
If we can agree on this, there will be no need to take these matters further. yandman 07:33, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 | ” |
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.
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)
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)
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:
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.
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.
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)
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)
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?
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? --
T
H
L
07:11, 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)
Using an old version of CW's userpage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Cerebral_Warrior&oldid=84919514
Divided into two issues, after seeing how the voting was going. crazyeddie 16:33, 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.--
T
H
L
22:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
*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. --
T
H
L
22:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
*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. --
T
H
L
01:40, 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. --
T
H
L
05:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's how the results look to me: crazyeddie 21:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
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:
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 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)
can you e-mail me please. Thanks RaveenS
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)
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:
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
You use this term everywhere. What do you believe it means? Slipgrid 17:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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)
You might want to check out bureaucratic collectivism. That might shed some light on the situation. crazyeddie 03:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
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 |
|
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)
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)
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)
Hi Cerebral Warrior,
You might be interested in joining the LTTE article mediation effort. Many thanks, Elalan 16:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 agree Nielswik (talk) 07:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
As stated before. I strongly agree.-- Burgas00 12:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I know that you directed these remarks at other people, but I feel a need to address them:
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Cerebral, I'm making a final formal request to you to:
If we can agree on this, there will be no need to take these matters further. yandman 07:33, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 | ” |
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.
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)
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)
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:
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.
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.
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)
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)
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?
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? --
T
H
L
07:11, 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)
Using an old version of CW's userpage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Cerebral_Warrior&oldid=84919514
Divided into two issues, after seeing how the voting was going. crazyeddie 16:33, 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.--
T
H
L
22:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
*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. --
T
H
L
22:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
*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. --
T
H
L
01:40, 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. --
T
H
L
05:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's how the results look to me: crazyeddie 21:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
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:
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 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)
can you e-mail me please. Thanks RaveenS
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)