Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Poll Results

= Polls - CLOSED =

How long will these stay in progress? Does anyone seriously think the outcome will change at this point? Can we now draw a line under this, call the poll closed, and archive them? Thparkth 12:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The summary of the poll results are in Old polls

Move to body of article with a link directly to the image on the top (Hipocrite's idea)

 * 1) I feel we should move the image down to a lower part of the article to avoid causing offence.--Fil e  Éireann 22:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) (Cloud02 23:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC))
 * 3) -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 23:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Best solution to stop the few days of continuous revert wars and offence. The cartoon image will still be there + another link to it's main image page.
 * 4) User:slamdac 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Phr 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The cartoons do not illustrate the controversy about the cartoons.  The top picture should be one that shows the controversy.  Move the cartoon pic.
 * 6) BYT 23:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC), though I wish the images did not exist, or, failing that, were not publicized. BYT 23:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * so do i (Cloud02 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC))
 * 1) L33th4x0r 00:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Link to the picture. So that Muslims won't see it. But those who want, could.
 * 2) Since the image is percived as offencive to a large body of people (due in my opion more to the ease with wich it lends itself to a racist interpreation rather then because it depits Mohammad), we should present it in a sensitve way. In doing this we are not censoring the image because it is still there.--JK the unwise 10:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Link--Niels Ø 12:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC) (I think the article is better with drawings at top, but if that provokes repeaed deletions, I can live with this silly compromise)
 * 4) --Uf.Chaos 16:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Have picture lower down the article
Why would that counter the alleged blasphemy? Instead of being offended in the lead paragraph, the article will be offensive at various places throughout its length. Poulsen 01:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Warning after the intro, image further on in the page, no link from the top Put a warning after the intro that the pictural material may be offensive to moslim users, have the complete image somewhat lower and after that individual larger images, each with some text. gidonb 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) As per the Bahá'u'lláh precedent. See the archives of this discussion for more context. --BACbKA 00:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Warning after the intro, image further on in the page, no link from the top This image is extremely offensive to a large part of the world popultation, yet I want to see it. We solve this sort of situation with spoiler warnings in many articles or links to images (see for example autofellatio), by having a warning here would provide a great service to many people. Also note that the picture at the top of the Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy article is not the one showing Jannet Jackson's wardrobe failure and we have no images at child pornography at all. —Ruud 01:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) As per images of child pornography, see Lolicon. Genuine child porn is illegal in Florida, however, where our servers are hosted. Babajobu 02:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Warning after the intro, image further on in the page, no link from the top I can agree with this. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 00:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Warning after the intro, image further on in the page, no link from the top. I would like to ask those below again whether they would advocate the Goatse image being put at the top of Goatse.cx, and if not, why not. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Placing the goatse image at the top of that article is possibly obscenity under Florida law (where the servers are hosted). This image is not obscene under that same law.  Apples and oranges.  MichelleG 22:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC).
 * 1) Place just after the break, with at the top "Note: this page contains images some people (Muslims in particular) may find offensive.  A mirror of this page, without images, is at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (no images)" --GeLuxe 03:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Warning or no warning. There is no consensus among other Wikipedia articles for us to make it "like all other articles," so in that repsect the decision is arbitrary.  But considering the attitudes of those who insist on maintaining the image at the top, all too many show an air of open defiance, which is POV;  this is an encyclopedia, not a manifesto, and so long as "top of the article" is associated with "in your face" the stance is tainted IMO.  Placing it elsewhere on the page is not censorship:  the image still loads in the viewer's browser regardless of where it is placed in the article.  Top of the page is pro-secular and pro-Europe, removal is pro-Islam and pro-censorship, the middle of the article is the only tenable neutral ground. Guppy313 08:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Move image to end of article, add warning at top of article that image is to be found there, as per compromise solution in Bahá'u'lláh article. Whilst this image is not offensive to most readers, and we should avoid self-censorship, we should be aware of how just how offensive this image is to observant Muslims, and take care to avoid causing any unnecessary offence to roughly a sixth of the world's population. -- The Anome 10:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree with The Anome, and posibly GeLuxe's suggestion of offering a redirect to a pictureless article (as long as that article is stoped from being differnt to this one in any other way).--JK the unwise 11:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Agree with The Anome. Wikipedia shouldn't be censored, but we should be sensitive about upsetting people.Veej 17:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6)  I would move the images “below the fold”.  It is legitimate to have it on top but the story/article is no longer primarily about the cartoons but rather the boycott/protests/threats of violence.  I would have the Saudi boycott note on top for now.  --JGGardiner 17:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Move down, as per Jimbo. David Sneek 21:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Move below the fold. Since this was my proposal originally, I'll have to vote for it. :)  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Move to body of article per above, more or less. We're not losing any educational content by this and indeed we're gaining the better will of our diverse readership by a little courtesy.--Pharos 00:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Move to the (sub)section "Publication of the drawings". It should be just beside the no-nonsense bulleted annotations, which contain translations of all Danish (and Farsi) text found in the cartoons as well as a bit of context. That way all the material needed to judge the cartoons (and the decision to publish them) on their merits will be in one place. --Bwiki 07:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Voting move down with note at top of article that image is present lower down, as per my comments prior to this vote. -- The Anome 14:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Move next to explanation (as per 15 above). As for as I'm concerned the argument for keeping the image at top is flawed: the article is about the controversy, not about the image.Dmaftei 16:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) This option would not offend the casual muslim reader, but would still allow the picture to be accessable to anyone who wishes to view it.Bogfjellmo 17:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) We could have both free speech and respect. It's not mutually exclusive and placing the article at lower level is the least we can do.__earth (Talk) 17:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) MoveWhile most of us appear to agree that the image is important, and should be available, I think it is quite clear that it does offend a significant minority of the community; perhaps more so than any other image on Wikipedia. For that reason alone, having it at the top of the page, without any warning, is I think, inappropriate.  In other articles where we have had such issues, it hasn't been an issue to move the image down, make it less prominent, etc.  I don't know why this wouldn't be everyone's automatic reaction here, given that people are genuinely offended!.  Just because it's legal to display the image, doesn't mean that it is proper to do so prominently!  Nfitz 18:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Have picture at top of article

 * 1) Leave it at the top... it's fine where it is and where it's supposed to be Hellznrg 16:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Leave it at the top. Valtam 22:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Kittynboi 22:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Sol. v. Oranje 22:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC), however, I'm for moving the cartoon image down to the middle of the page if we allow larger versions of a sample of the cartoons as some of them are hard to read in the current image format.
 * 5) joturner 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The title warns the user about the picture; putting it some unknown place in the middle may actually surprise the reader.
 * Joturner the image will be linked right at the top. So the image will be shown in the middle and also have a link to the larger wikipedia image page at the top. The user will know.-- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 23:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) --Tatty 23:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The controversy started with the cartoons, therefore it's logical to start the article with them. Individual, clear images of the more controversial cartoons should be further down as well (copyright permitting).
 * 2) Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 23:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) —Ruud 23:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia is not censored and people who are offended by this image will still be offended if it is placed lower down.
 * 4)  Jaco  plane  23:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Snailwalker | talk 23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Keep the image at the top
 * 6) the wub "?!"  23:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) --Anchoress 23:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) The cartoons are the controversy, without the cartoon, the controvery would not exist, so at the top. --KimvdLinde 23:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) as per Jotourner, Babajobu 23:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) --Tasc 23:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) -- Karl Meier 23:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Flcelloguy (A note? ) 23:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Why move it? Arkon 23:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Denoir 23:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC) The controversy is based around the cartoons, so they should have a prominent top position.
 * 15) Vanky 23:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) --Jbull 23:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Keep it at the top.
 * 17) — Peter L &lt;talk|contribs&gt; 23:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC), per joturner and anonymous editor ("the user will know").
 * 18) --Nathan (Talk) 23:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 23:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Leave at top. Anything else is censorship. It's as easy as that. Eixo 00:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) The article is about the cartoons. For the sake of being informative, keep at the top. Cipher Pipe 00:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) The image stays at the top. Passw0rd 00:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Leave at top. In the style of ALL the other wikipedia articles. Wynler 00:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) StuffOfInterest 00:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Hitokirishinji 00:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Not everyone is offended and not everyone obeys Muslim law. No special treatment for any one group of people.
 * 26) Zora 01:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC) As above, no special treatment.
 * 27) Thparkth 01:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC) if this was any other image, nobody would want it moved. therefore to move it is to give special treatment.
 * 28) --*drew 01:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) --MiraLuka 01:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) It should stay at the top. That image is pivotal to the entire story. The.valiant.paladin 01:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 31)  Jtkiefer T   01:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) --Mmmsnouts 02:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Clearly a precedent has been set on wikipedia with Piss Christ, Anti-Semitism, and blackface.  I would be against special treatment for certain groups because they are complain more, more loudly, or more violently.
 * 33) Titanium Dragon 02:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Leave it at the top, where it belongs. We shouldn't self-censor, and frankly, if people are really that disturbed, they should learn how to turn off images on their web browser, as Wikipedia will contain such things. As an aside, why are certain religious leaders' portraits not at the top of their articles? There are a couple, and honestly, they should be formatted the way everyone else's biography is. Titanium Dragon 02:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Jdcooper 03:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Fufthmin 04:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Lankiveil 04:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC).  This article is about the images, it'd be silly to have the image anywhere but at the top.
 * 37) Tbeatty 05:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Article is about the images.  Put it at the top and let the reader decide before he has to read the editors 'filter'/
 * 38) Leave it where it is. Would the image of central importance on any other article be placed anywhere else than at the top-right? Of course not, and this article should not pander itself to those trying to force their religious beliefs on the general style and format of a wiki article. AscendedAnathema 05:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Leave it where it is. The picture is relevant to the article. We DO NOT ever censor articles to keep someone from being offended.--God of War 05:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) AlEX  08:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC) There is no reason not to have it at the top, if the muslims themselves go on tour to show the cartoons, why should wikipedia hide them? Again, this article revolves around the image, and therefore the image should have a prominent position...
 * 41) Kaveh 08:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) It is fine just like it is now. -- Trollkontroll 08:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) The article is about the cartoons. They need to be shown at the top to provide context.Philmurray 09:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) WookMuff I know that a lot of us seem to be "getting our backs up", wanting the pics to be there just because "they" don't want them to be. But this article IS about the cartoon's and the controversy they have caused
 * 45) Keep it on top. Pyro19 09:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Should be on top. Aris Katsaris
 * 47) Article is about the cartoons, they should be on top. Maprieto 12:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) Top right AdamSmithee 12:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) How many polls must we go through? Until Resid and Rajab get their way? Or is it a best out of three... or five... or seven... or... Discus2000 13:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Stays on Top For crying out loud, the article is about the pictures. They belong immediately up top, as any infobox would be as well. Avi 15:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) The article is about the drawings. jni 15:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 52) For obvious reasons. (Entheta 15:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC))
 * 53) This is the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons' controversy page. Anyone navigating here should expect to see the images. Moreover, "hiding" the images out of "respect" shows a misunderstanding of the objection to them.  "Hiding" still means showing them, which means Wikipedia would still violate the "law" against showing pictures of Mumhammed.
 * 54) Keep on Top, for some many reasons already listed above. Skleinjung 16:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 55) Keep on top for obvious reasons and per Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of Muslims: "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." Peyna 16:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In response to comments above, how do those voting to hide the picture feel we should deel with Piss Christ, which contains a highly offensive image at the top of the article. Bear in mind that there are about 8 million more Christians than Muslims in the world.  If we're going to worry about offending people, we had better worry about everyone we offend and not just a small group.  Facts can be offensive, but so long as they are presented following WP:NPOV we should have nothing to worry about. Peyna 17:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Because, as we have seen in the past few days, for every article you name in which the relavent picture is shown at the top of the page, I can name one where it isn't (e. g. Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy). There is no "like all the other articles," the only guideline we have is that placement is arbitrary.  Now, there is a difference between offending and deliberately seeking to cause offense, and too many editors want to keep it at the top in order to "shove it in their faces."  If the decision of where to put the picture is arbitrary, what does it say about our POV when we arbitrarily decide to keep it in the place that obviously causes the most offense? Guppy313 19:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * To be honest Guppy, I haven't seen in the past few days how you have "tit for tat" shown an article with no picture at the top. But even if you have, I vote to keep the picture and the top and moreover, move pictures to the top of articles that have hidden pictures "below the fold". If I click on the Super Bowl Controversy link, I expect to see the moment that caused the controversy. Hitokirishinji 19:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So you would go so far as to alter potentially dozens of otherwise unrelated articles on Wikipedia solely to justify keeping the picture at the top? How is that not POV?  I would call that an agenda.
 * Forget it, I have more satisfying brick walls to bash my head against. I wash my hands of this affair.  Guppy313 20:07, 3 February 2006 (UT
 * I would call that an assumption. It is not "justifying keeping the picture at the top" as you would call it. It is justifying NOT making any concessions regardless of whether pictures and I mean ALL pictures are offensive or not. I do not see wikipedia, as I have said earlier, as a platform to placate groups who should find such images offensive. The day wikipedia gives into one groups demands is the day we fail in our philosophy. Free information without bias and concessions. If we are to apply special consideration for one group, we are to do it with ALL groups Regardless if these groups may be religious, ethnic, racial or even simply social. So if you truely believe that this image should be "linked out" or "go below the fold" then I propose we do the same for all potentially offensive images. Anyways, I hope you use soap, bacteria are quite tenacious creatures. Hitokirishinji 21:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep on top for reasons described above --Donar Reiskoffer 16:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash; Dan | talk 16:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep on top for all the reasons already said. Utopianheaven 16:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) '''Keep at top, it's what the article is about after all.--Lewk_of_Serthic 16:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Keep at top. I agree with Mmmsnouts, precedents have been set. Mess with this and what's next? If this article gets changed to pander to islamic beliefs, but other articles go unchanged, it would be an unfair bias imvho. Cal 18:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) This is what we do with all other articles. I see no valid reason to do otherwise here. Rama 17:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) BMF81 19:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Keep at top. Gérard 20:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Keep Astrotrain 20:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Keep —Aiden 21:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Leave it at the top. That's where it needs to be to establish illustrative context for the rest of the article.  Remember, Wikipedia is not censored and we shouldn't care if people choose to be offended by cartoons fer chrissakes.  -- Cyde Weys  21:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Leave at the top since it is what the article is about. We should not censor it or "soften it up".--Kalsermar 22:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Leave the image at the top. Wikipedia's goal is to make the sum of human knowledge easily available.  Putting the image anywhere but at the top is against that single, noble goal.  The image may offend some people, and that is unfortunate, but it's placement there is not pointless, is not intended as an insult to Moslems, and helps the article.  If a few Moslems choose to take it as an insult, that is unfortunate, but I think I'll be able to sleep at night. MichelleG 22:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC).
 * 14) Keep at top - Puts the entire subject into perspective. Paulb42 23:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) keep at the top the image is the entire point of the article, it should come first. DES (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Keep at top per Peyna. --Aaron 23:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Keep at top - as per Peyna --Bletch 00:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Keep at top for the reasons already said. Kaldari 03:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Keep at top Timrollpickering 03:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Keep at top just where it should be. Argyrios 03:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Keep at top. It IS the context of the article. Peace. Metta Bubble 06:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Keep at top. That's what the article is about. Weregerbil 11:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Keep at top. That's what the article is about. Nick Fraser 12:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Keep at top. That's what the article is about. (Re)moving it would be blunt censorship, against the very basics of Wikipedia. 1652186 15:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Top. I don't see a better place for the image the article is all about. Besides, I don't believe moving it would satisfy anyone genuinely opposed to the images. The protests did't started because masses in Muslim countries saw the pictures, they started because the caricatures have been drawn in the first place. Neurino 16:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Top. That's what the article is about. Tbc2 17:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't care

 * 1) Whatever makes edit warring stop. I prefer the top but do not care enough to vote. Hipocrite - « Talk » 23:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) I second that, but I still voted for keeping the picture at the top as well. joturner 23:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Someone here said that simply moving down the pictures stopped the deletions. I don't mind, as long as the pictures are there somewhere. If it stops the deletion wars, then why not?
 * 4) As long as the pictures are in the article, and are in an appropriate part of the article. That can be the top, that can be in the "Publication of the drawings" section, that can be in another section, as long as it is directly related to the drawings (so not in the section about boycotts for instance, where the image of the notice is appropriate). Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 12:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) I agree with the previous person, either at top or at a relevant section, as long as its not hidden in a hyperlink or down at the bottom or something. Homestarmy 14:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) I don`t care where that particular image is placed, but it is my belief that at least ONE image should be placed atop, whether that be the grocery store image or a protest image.
 * 7) We are here to distribute information. It is that simple. The nature of the picture's content does not have any relevance in determining the placement of the picture. If it does- then we have a POV-slanted problem. Follow the Manual of Style. Last time I checked, we have been doing exactly that for years without many problems. ?  P . Mac Uidhir (t)  (c)  11:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment

 * 1) I fail to see what moving the image further down the article will accomplish. Won't a moval mean that a person taking offence by the images will then necessarily have to skip the part with the image in it anyway? Poulsen 23:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Mirror at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (no images) with link from top, and have image below fold. --GeLuxe 03:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm in favour of GeLuxe's idea. There are spoiler warnings for those who want to read about books or films without being spoiled, and it's a similar situation here. Having a warning would be courteous. Shen 10:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive only. Please do not edit it.

Poll 3 (One Cartoon without the Image of Mohammed vs. Keep All)
It is enough to have just one cartoon without the image of Mohammed. It doesn't include any insult as claimed and enough to represent the dispute. This might lead to a comprimise and worth to try!

In other words, what is asked in this pool is: Instead of putting a cartoon whcih is found offensive by many, can we put another one without the image of Mohammad, but still give the idea about what is happening (an example: an artist drawing a cartoon of Mohammad -lower right corner of the current cartoon)

So, the previous ones was about should we keep the cartoons, this pool is about what should we post there!

'''This poll seems loaded to me. Everything about the above introduction is trying to force people into going along with the views of the person who wanted this poll. That is Just having one cartoon without the image of Muhammed. Which would miss the whole point of the cartoons.''' slamdac 14.22 5th February 2005

No it wouldn't: An artist drawing the cartoon of Mohammad (lower right corner of the current cartoon) is a perfect summary of the contraversy. There is a journalist, we can see what he is doing, we can see his fear because of what he is doing, etc... Please use below section for discussion. Resid Gulerdem 14:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What happens if this poll goes against you? Are we just going to keep having more and more polls until you get the result you want?user:slamdac 14.40 5th feb 2006(UTC)

I respect the decision made by Wikipedians. It is not about who started a poll, do not personalize the issue. It is about asking opinion of the whole community on an idea. Resid Gulerdem 14:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't advocate removal of the cartoons, but I do advocate replacement "below the fold". Wikipedia has broken into the top 20 sites on the web, and in all likelihood, many good-faith, non-violent Muslims visit this site everyday to look up information. The "look" of the page in its present form is deeply hurtful to them.


 * Even if the publishing of these cartoons in WP appears inevitable, the prominence given to them on the page is a matter of judgment on the part of WP editors. The prominence given to them right now - the size even of the image is larger than it originally was - is profoundly hurtful to Muslim visitors. Kindly reconsider. Any polling on this issue is futile, for the same reason that Wikipedia suffers from systemic bias among its editorship. -- Peripatetic 14:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone find it funny that there isn't any indication anywhere when the poll will actaully end? Perhaps when the people who wish to replace the image drum up enough support and tell their friends to register on wikipedia to vote? The decision is overwhelming already. This poll is a waste of our time! Hitokirishinji 19:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Poll 3 Discussion
I have killed Poll 3 since we've had more than enough of these polls and there was a rough consensus to just kill the poll, especially when all the polls say exactly the same thing. Jtkiefer T  05:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You cannot decide about it yourself! This poll is nothing to do with the previous ones. 216.248.125.12 05:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Make peace, not revert war. Kyaa the Catlord 05:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, please ask these vandals stop reverting the poll. If they do not like, they can just ignore. Let users decide!


 * My opinion is that the poll is totally unnecessary and evil. But hey, go for it. Kyaa the Catlord 05:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will try if I can find a way from these vandals all around!


 * An important aspect of a democratic process is not just holding an open election (or, in this case, a poll), but to respect the decision, even if it doesn't go your way, and not continually bombard people with endless poll after poll until you get the decision you want. If unsure, apply the following simple test:  would you be proposing further polls if you had received your preferred resolution the first time around? Yaztromo 06:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sucks for you then that Wikipedia is not a Democracy. Jtkiefer T   06:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim it was. However, the concept of a Straw poll is indeed a democratic process. Yaztromo 06:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Yaztromo. Anybosy has rights to from a poll. It should worth though.... Resid Gulerdem 06:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of poll 3. We have to give it a chance. Resid Gulerdem 06:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think what is missed here is that, the previous poll are different from this one. There is a briliant idea here. The previous ones, as explained at the introduction of the poll was about the existence of the cartoons. Now this time it is about the nature of it. Resid Gulerdem 06:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue is that people will keep rephrasing what they want and create new polls until they either get what they want, and when polls don't work... well I assume you've looked at the article history. Jtkiefer T   06:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I did, but to me the point made quite clear in this poll. In the previoue ones, we decide to have the cartoons, in the first poll. In the second poll we decided where it should be. What we haven't talked about yet is actually the point of this Poll 3. It is exactly asking about, what cartoon should be there. I think it is toatlly different from the prev ones and cannot be considered as 'rephrasing'. Resid Gulerdem 06:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not different. We voted to keep the image as-is, we voted to keep it at the top of the page. No. Bad. Knock this off. This poll is purely unnecessary. And again, a supermajority is showing for "keep the image as is". As it will every time. And if this is to be a "real" poll, it needs to be up at the top. But really, it just needs to not be at all. We already voted on this; we already voted to keep it as-is overwhelmingly. Quit trying to squirm around it and pervert the nature of the article. This image would be misleading anyway, given the image that has spawned the most ire is not even this one. Titanium Dragon 07:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If you agree with me, then you agree that another poll is unnecessary. Considering the results, I would say that the original poll qualifies for Supermajority.  The people who voted for keeping the image know what they were voting for -- they voted to keep that specific image at the top of the page.  Starting further polls to try to get a different result in either image content or image location doesn't respect the previous poll.Yes, you can start new polls, but I'm almost to the point where I'll take over for User:Jtkiefer and remove poll 3 myself. Yaztromo 06:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That is not a correct argument. They are not asked about the nature of the cartoons. They are asked about existence and placement of them. What we should have in those cartoons was not an option to choose in the poll 1 ot 2. Resid Gulerdem 06:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a perfectly cogent argument. The original poll didn't ask people if they wanted some random cartoon at the top of the page, but a specific set of cartoons.  People weren't confused when they voted, thinking that the intent was to put a Peanuts or Superman cartoon on the page -- they voted for the specific image that is currently being used. Yaztromo 07:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please feel free, just because I can't revert for the next 24 hours +/- doesn't mean that you can't remove this blight from the talk page. All these polls are bordering on becoming WP:Point violations.  Jtkiefer T   06:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Let us be more democratic and respectful to other opinions. While we are talking about freedom of speech, we cannot stop discussions we do not like. Resid Gulerdem 07:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You are being inconsistent. First you state above that you agree with my comment about respecting the democratic process by not having endless poll after poll because you didn't get the result you like, but then you try to use "democracy" as a reason why we should have endless poll after poll.  I completely respect your opinion -- but that doesn't mean you're going to get your way, or that you can hijack the process endlessly by starting poll after poll after poll because you don't like the results.  Respect goes both ways -- if you want respect, start by respecting the existing decision of the supermajority. Yaztromo 07:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there is a misunderstanding here. I didn't mean that there is no need to the poll. What I am saying is, this poll has a totally different idea and worth our consideration. I am not saying that anybody can stary a poll as they wish, necessary or unnecessary... Resid Gulerdem 07:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The only thing I'm allowing to stop me right now is merely trying to gain a certain amount of consensus on the subject of endless polls. I'm still hopeful of engendering understanding that the first result makes this poll unnecessary.  Ironically, leaving the poll viewable helps this position at this time, as those who feel it is worthwhile are currently heavily outnumbered by those who disagree. I'm hoping they'll see that and understand why another poll isn't doing them any good. Yaztromo 07:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The artist drawing the cartoon of Mohammad is a perfect summary of the contraversy. There is a journalist, we can see what he is doing, we can see his fear because of what he is doing, etc... An ansiklopedia cannot include an insult to 1.5 billion people's belief, as they claimed. Resid Gulerdem 07:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is, perhaps it's not. But the main image poll clearly decided (82%) that the cartoon should be kept. That is not an ambiguous result. What you are doing here is ignoring that result. I understand that you feel deeply about the issue, but it is obvious that the community consensus is different from your view. You cannot fix the content of this article against community consensus, which is what you are now doing. Where does it say that wikipedia can't include something that has been perceived by many as an insult? Could you please show me that policy? Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 08:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That is the common sense. You cannot write everything down. Can you show me an ensiclopedia that collects pictures which considered as 'insult' by 1.5 billion? Resid Gulerdem 10:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are some example, Resid, and insulting even more people, just verify the Piss Christ, which is by the way way more heavy than a satiric cartoon, and insults christianity (there are more christians on planet). I don't like this example neither, nevertheless, I don't threaten the country of the "artist" or the artist himself, just becuase of this act, neither you will see any global crisis because of that, because I don't FORCE others to think like I do, even I dislike it. RapaNui 15:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The definition of 'insult' may vary from culture to culture. We shouldn't expect the world behave as Americans. They have different traditions, culture, etc. The editors should consider the differences. You wouldn't prefer to slaughter and eat a caw in India, right? Resid Gulerdem 14:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Danish are not American, neither am I (though South American), don't stereotype. On the other hand the recent attacks on embassies in Syria and Lebanonis far beyond "only insulting" and are being critizised by the total rest of the world (except many muslim countries, where its even applauded). I liked your second sentence VERY much, there you say: "You wouldn't prefer to slaughter and eat a caw in India, right?" and I say... YES!!! Exactly!!! And it's ok, if in muslim world this cartoons are not being edited, this is up to you to decide, BUT...the Cartoons are made in Danmark, and you must take the danish standards to make this analogy work! There you consider do satiric cartoons, and are not being persecuted for.RapaNui 21:30, 5 February 2006 (CET)

Please note that the point is to write an article about controversy. One cartoon is enough to that end as explained above. We are not collecting all cartoons, there is no reason for it. There are already millions of copies of these cartoons everywhere. It is not realistic to think that 10 years later, people cannot see it. Resid Gulerdem 08:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Admins do we have permission to delete this poll? or is it seriously considered valid? This thing is entirely pointless and frankly taking up too much space. Hitokirishinji 08:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This poll is totally unnessary. It seems to me that we are just going to keep having polls and polls because certain people (we know who they are) can't accept that people want to keep the images up. The questions on this poll are very loaded towards getting people to vote with the people who don't like the images. Delete this poll User:slamdac 09.01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Look guys: There are couple of things here:
 * I cannot see the reason of your fear?!... If this is not a good idea it will already be rejected.
 * If you think the poll is not necessary, just ignore it, rather than crying out loud: kill it, killl it!
 * It looks to me that you can read and write, but I am not sure if you can understand what you read... The point of this poll is to decide about the nature of the cartoon. The difference from the previous ones are: they were for existence and placement of the cartoons, this one is for 'what cartoon shold be posted': a collection of them, just one of them and which one.
 * There is enough space... That is the last thing you should worry about. Resid Gulerdem 09:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not fear. It's utter frustration and ending patience with attempts to tilt things away from what already has been decided. I guess you're right, we should vote on the "nature" of the cartoons because everyone who voted before probably were thinking that "cartoons" meant these instead. No, everyone who voted clearly knew that THESE were the cartoons they wanted. It was clear what the "nature of the cartoons" were. And regardless, your poll is already severely loosing so stop this nonsense. Hitokirishinji 10:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I was right when I say that you probably having hard time to comprehend. In poll 1 nature of the cartoon was not an option. Why is this that hard to see for you? There is another way to look at it: I would like people think if it is necessary to put all those cartoons there. Can an ensiclopedia include a collection of cartoons which are considered to be an insult by billions of people. Isn't that more wise to have one cartoon whcih summarize the phenomena and yet are not considered as an insult by many people. Do not you think these are all valid arguments? Regarding the result: I respect the decision made by Wikipedians. But I would like to see the result! I hope this helps you to stop crying: kill it!. Resid Gulerdem 10:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you have a heart in the right place, however, you must see though, that one cartoon is not what was in the Danish newspaper. We may as well not show the cartoons at all, rather than just show one. Also, your comments on "billions of people being offended" are unhelpful. It's millions of people might be offended, but they are vastly outnumbered by those who are not offended.Trip: The Light Fantastic 14:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, almost all leaders considered the cartoons as unacceptible. Some add to that by saying that, the reaction is not acceptible as well. So, I eblieve that the people who are ofended is not only Muslims... Some Christian and Jewish leaders said the cartoons were no good. I can see that it was not only one cartoon, but for the purpose of this article, which is presentation of the dispute, it should be enough. WP article is not a collection of cartoons, right? Resid Gulerdem 15:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but even with everyone you said, the vast majority of the world (think China, if it helps) are not on either side: neither "offended" or "protecting free speech". This majority simply want Wikipedia to give them all the information it can. We must serve these people, that is our duty as Wikipedians, no matter which side it upsets. To remove the articles would be to remove important information and fly in the face of the idea of an encyclopedia. Trip: The Light Fantastic 15:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Resid, no one here is arguing about whether Jyllands Posten should have published the images or not. To tell the truth, I think they shouldn't have published them. However, since they did publish them and it turned into such a disproportionate (I know, POV) controversy, informative media (Wikipedia included) should re-publish the images in order to inform their audiences about the cause of this controversy. Cipher Pipe 16:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What I believe is this: As an ensiklopedia, WP should only report the phenomena objectively and need not to have all cartoons. Resid Gulerdem 16:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Resid, the main image poll resulted in a resounding decision to keep the cartoons in the article. Since when does keep include the option of replace? Aecis Mr.Mojorisin' 17:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing the poll! Resid Gulerdem 12:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you feed rgulerdem? He has already banned many times because of vandalism. He is a POV figter and sockpuppetier. (216.248.12*.* seems edits his posts etc. ). And it was clear that poll 1 was about if you want "the" image stay. It was not about if u want "an" image stay. And people said YES I WANT THAT PICTURE IN THE ARTICLE. Now he is just consuming time of community and disturbing. Dont feed him please!!! And this poll is useless. --Robertek 17:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Poll 4: Special-case Labelling
Poll attempts to determine support for labelling of this article. (Format of labelling can be changed after poll, if support is indicated; the template immediately above is an example only.)

Support Labelling
Support a special-case labelling of this article, which improves the quality of information and choices available to wikipedia's readers &mdash; some of whom might prefer an opportunity to avoid the article's content &mdash; without any concession to self-censorship or the reversal of any previous poll decision. (Precedents for special-case treatments at Goatse.cx, Child pornography, Bah%C3%A1%27u%27ll%C3%A1h, Autofellatio, Oral sex etc.)


 * Support  JEREMY 06:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Can't people be a little more sensitive here? The ones who prefer will be able to see the pics with no problem. Why don't we let the ones who do not want to see them, avoid seeing them? Resid Gulerdem 08:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Wikipedia should be a global cross-cultural site where we all can work together, not a site for showing supremacy or fighting a 'clash of civilization'. Let's respect minorites! Bertilvidet 09:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support (although my real choice is moving the image to the Publication of the drawings subsection.) Dmaftei 17:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per User:Rgulerdem. AucamanTalk 00:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose labelling
Oppose this unprecedented "special-case label" template, reject the notion that it improves "quality of information and choices available to Wikipedia's readers" in any way. "Precedents" cited are not precedents at all: child pornography is illegal in Florida, where servers are hosted; autofellatio was resolved by Jimbo's fiat, and is unique in that respect; Oral sex has no warning template and included photograph of woman performing oral sex until photo was removed for copyright reasons; et cetera. Much more analagous are Piss Christ or anti-semitism, where no template exists to genuflect before sensibilities of communities who might find the images offensive. No special treatment for any community, and please no further efforts to evade clear consensus of community with further pollcruft.


 * Gods, please don't start more polls. We can't even get people to bloody follow the consensus gained from the ones we already had... In other words OPPOSE. Kyaa the Catlord 09:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE No need for it, if we go thisway we'll be adding special case templates to everything. Plus as stated the poll isn't well formatted and appears to push one answer over the other, and the use of another poll was against consensus it seems.
 * SPEEDY OPPOSE, per logic. → Aza Toth 14:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE News can censor itself and warn "viewers" all they want. Wikipedia does not, and CANNOT in order to cater toward a truly neutral viewpoint.  Plus, polls have repeatedly verified that wiki will not do this. -Moocats 15:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * STRONG OPPOSE Oppose the template and oppose this poll, this is just another way of weaseling away from clearly expressed community consensus that picture be presented at top of article, as in Piss Christ and so many others. Bottom line: community wants this treated like a normal article. Other must learn to respect community decision. Babajobu 15:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * STRONGLY OPPOSE This poll is terrible. No one comes to these pages by accident.  They shouldn't be surprise to find what they are looking for in the first place! Valtam 19:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * BORED OPPOSE This dead horse can't take any more beating.--Jbull 19:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE Well I didn't get a chance to vote in the other polls so here's my chance!!! :-) This content disclaimer idea doesn't make any sense relative to the rest of WikiPedia... again... wikipedia already has a general disclaimer... that really does cover it all! Please do have a look at this proposal for a more general solution though. Netscott 20:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE For what it's worth from a non-registered user. ;) This is both a bad precedent to set and one I cannot remember seeing a comparable case for in other encyclopedias I have read. Richard 129.244.128.134 22:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE; Don't set a precedent...
 * OPPOSE; Personally I wouldn't mind moving the image down alongside the descriptions, and even stating in the preamble that the images are shown below. But the template would be overkill. And I think this poll is counterproductive - it seems to only be hardening attitudes against any change. -- Avenue 02:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC) "Your preferred option would be counter to the second poll. The label seemed the only option still available. It will clearly lose, but I disagree it has hardened attitudes. I just think it's too late, because alternative viewpoints have already fled the article in the face of principled opposition.  JEREMY 08:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC) You mean the silent majority of users who would have supported the template have left the page because they are too decent to debate all the soapboxers? I think that's wishful thinking, Jeremy. From the very beginning a supermajority of users plainly rejected the idea that there should be special treatment for any community on Wikipedia, and argued that this article should be treated like any other. The only principle involved is that Wikipedia is a neutral source of information, and doesn't pick particular communities to protect and honor. That's not getting on a soapbox, it's trying to protect the integrity of the project from those who make unreasonable demands on it. Personally, I think that as time has passed and the violence (embassy-burnings, et cetera) has produced more central and salient images from the controversy than the cartoons themselves, it has become more reasonable to move the cartoons lower in the article, to the 'Publication of the cartoons' section. Not because Wikipedia must honor religious sensibilities, or because Wikipedia's content disclaimer is not enough and we must provide more warnings in specific articles, but because the cartoons are no longer the central image from the controversy. But I agree with Avenue that the ceaseless efforts to circumvent the polls by censoring in a slightly different way, providing different content disclaimers than were initially suggested by Hipocrite, et cetera, are annoying people and pushing back the time at which people will be ready to explore the idea of moving the image down for the normal reason that another image would be better at the top. Babajobu 17:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)"
 * OPPOSE; or else no picture will be left in wikipedia. Even the article itself could be removed because some find it offensive. For those that have missed recent events: censoring information went out of style with the inquisition and the fall of the Berlin wall.[[Image:Flag_of_the_Netherlands.svg|25px|Holland]] Nomen Nescio 09:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE. Unless images of women driving bicycles also get a warning, as those may be insulting to people in countries where it is illegal for women to drive a bicycle on a public road. Also oppose dumb polls trying to sneak in erosion of freedom of speech. Weregerbil 10:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * STRONGLY OPPOSE. 1652186 17:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I fear some parties will never accept that concensus was long ago reached. --StuffOfInterest 21:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose despite stating that I'd never take part in another one of these idiotic polls again. Stop with the freakin polls.  Jtkiefer T   06:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * oppose. No precedent. I'd prefer moving it down to the section where the images are described, for more conveniant viewing when reading the section. This may also counter vandalism to some degree. Azate 06:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose ...but move the cartoons down. I agree with Azate. --PeR 09:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Do we really need another poll? MiraLuka 16:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Enough with these silly polls Jdonnis 18:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose The recentness of events is having too much bearing on the idea of applying a special label. Given time, it will be clear that no special labeling should have been added. For the sake of neutrality and conformity, I oppose.--Metron4 21:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment

 * Jeremy, first of all, if you are trying to conduct another poll, please have a look at how previous polls were formatted. Secondly, the wording of the poll cannot be constructed so as to argue for a particular position. Thirdly, your option of having a "warning" at the top of the article was one of the options in Poll 2, and received little support. Do you have any reason to think people will feel differently now? If not, please don't create another poll for no reason. Babajobu 06:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've reformatted the header, but there is only one question here: label or not; Support or Oppose?  JEREMY 06:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * And yes, determine that there is consensus to override old consensus before making the change, Jeremy. Babajobu 06:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * None of the previous three polls addressed such a label (although quite a lot of people mentioned their support for such an idea in their comments).  JEREMY 06:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jeremygbyrne please see this. Netscott 07:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm... That seems a bit like censorship of my poll suggestion, although I'll assume good faith and trust that you are trying to improve the quality of the information on wikipedia, rather than defending a position for some other purpose.  JEREMY 07:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Jeremy, if you want to run a poll, please present options in an NPOV manner without arguing for a particular option, as creators of previous polls managed to do, but you have not. Babajobu 07:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please show me the wikipedia guideline you're referring to. Naturally I have a POV, and I'm voting for my own poll. I'd be happy for you to present a "case for the negative", and to reformat this poll in just about any way you'd like, but I'm not happy for you to simply decide that it's invalid and thus gag the debate. I'm sure you don't want to do that either, however, and I look forward to reaching a win:win compromise over this.  JEREMY 07:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * About 5 different people told you not to re-create a poll and you did anyway. What's not to get?  There is no "win-win", there's you and a few others who want to "protect" people who don't need protecting (I don't see any newspaper editors rioting in the streets) and the other side of the house telling you it's just information (which it is).  No warning label is needed for a specific sect of people...or wanted. -Moocats 14:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a warning on the Bahá'u'lláh page, no? I don't see why this would be any different... --The tooth 18:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That would perhaps be analagous to the Muhammad article, where the only image of Muhammad is included part way down the page. But if there was an article The Famous Picture of Bahá'u'lláh, you can bet your money the picture would be at the top, just as the cartoons are at the top of the article about the cartoons. Also, FWIW, the arrangement at Bahá'u'lláh was determined by a relatively small group of editors with little community input. Babajobu 18:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

But this is the "..cartoons CONTROVERSY."Mkaycomputer 22:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, you're right, mea culpa. :) --The tooth 18:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Rgulerdem just reverted to Jeremy's version. Do not do that while this is still underway, and consensus is clearly against that. Do NOT do that again. NSL E (T+C) 09:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Blocked after second revert on grounds of disruption. NSL E (T+C) 09:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This seems unusual use of administrative blocking powers. The circumstances of Rgulerdem's two edits do not appear to resemble the normal criteria for the "controversial" and thus rarely used disruption block. He was not warned (other than via a post to this talk page three minutes prior to his blocking) and has not been offered the chance to be unblocked should he agree not to reintroduce his changes. I invite you to reconsider your block.  JEREMY 15:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not used to hear a voice like this here? It is totally surprising to me that someone is talking about some standards... Jeremy, you cannot imagine how many times I am vandalized by some people with admis privillidges... Whatever they do is the rule here! Whoever they call vandal, he sure is! After you are blocked you cannot express yourself and say 'hey, what went wrong?' They either blocked me many times or just deleted my contribution from discussion page set the article itself aside. I almost lost my sympathy and trust to the philosophy behind Wikipedia... Resid Gulerdem 00:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Why? They've got more warnings about not removing the image than on any other image EVER.  They have REAMS of information on the talk page, comments section of the image and archived discussions.  It's also of the only edits for that account to have been made aside from a post to a topic that has been apparently archived for at least a week (I've been guilty of that btw :).  I think common sense won out over nitpicking rules in vandalisms' favor. -Moocats 15:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Archival of poll
I move for a removal to archive of this poll on the basis that it,

-Moocats 21:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Is headed for defeat (how long were past polls? It looks like only 2-3 days, could be wrong though)
 * Would be overruled by the previous 3 polls, which I'm positive would be brought up as a (well founded) reason for overrule of this current poll in the unlikely case that it succeeded.

Disagree with qualification not sure how long polls typically run on Wikipedia but regardless... as the votes so far show... nothing is going to change... with that said, archiving this poll would make sense. Netscott 22:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean deletion, my mistake, changed wording to archive as that's what I meant, oops :) -Moocat


 * I expect the poll will lose, but why remove it before the case is clarified? Let's give it a couple of days more.  JEREMY 04:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You are asking something impossible Jeremy! Poll 3 could survive only one night... You are lucky that it has not been vandalized as Poll 3 had 100 times. Some people here do not want to see a different opinion. I think they fear that a better idea which is closer to a comprimise may get approval from majority... It was a nice trial though! Resid Gulerdem 21:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh, Resid, if you take a look you will notice the both this poll and yours got pwned. They lost. Badly. People voted against them. They didn't like the options you presented. That's what happens when a supermajority votes against you. Babajobu 21:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Why to keep such pages
Is Democracy means to publish anything, where are the wikipedia guidelines to be polite & no personal attacks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahim999 (talk • contribs) 08:45, August 26, 2007 (UTC)