User talk:Cajun tiger

November 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Template:GenderChristianity, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Wperdue (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Template:GenderChristianity, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  D C E dwards 1966  21:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Your edits
What offends you personally is not an issue. This is an online encyclopedia. Please get consensus from the community before making unilateral decisions about what should or should not be included. If you continue on your current course of action, you could find yourself getting further warnings up to and including a block. Wperdue (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

=
=== I doubt you will read this if you will not even consider my viewpoint. How can you not see that a picture of two nudes is offensive to a large portion of Christianity? It isn't just a personal offense with me, it is an offesne to many, many Christians I know. They generally do not participate in editing of Wikipedia or sites like it for the very attitude you are giving here. You are refusing to acknowledge that people who do not particiate in large numbers have an opinion that matters. It is unfortunate because, as I mentioned in the email I sent, I consider Wikipedia a valuable resourse to link to in my blog. Unfortunately, attitudes and concepts like this prevent a large number of people from using the resourse for what it is intended to be used for. That is sad. Cajun tiger (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Go to the template's talk page, discuss your concerns, build a consensus, then make the change. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 21:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you and others find it offensive to see a depiction of Adam and Eve wearing fig leaves in the Garden of Eden. However, as suggested, please discuss it in the appropriate section and come to an understanding with other editors. This is the way things work on Wikipedia. If one editor has a problem with content, it is discussed first to build a consensus and then action is taken. Wperdue (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:CENSOR. Wikipedia is not censored for Christianity, any more than we would censor pictures of Mohammad for Muslims. Do a news search on Google or Yahoo, there was a big fracas over it. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit war
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Template:GenderChristianity. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Toddst1 (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Your contributions history shows that you have been aggressively cross-posting in order to influence Template:GenderChristianity. Although the Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice"1, such cross-posting should adhere to specific guidelines. In the past, aggressively worded cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that resulted in blocking2. It is best not to game the system, and instead respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building, by ceasing to further crosspost, and instead allowing the process to reflect the opinions of editors that were already actively involved in the matter at hand. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this constitutes canvassing. He's posted one time on one other page that directly relates to the current discussion. As the original editor who requested that he discuss this issue before making further edits to the image, I think he is acting in good-faith. Wperdue (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See the discussion on ANI. S/He has posted an off-wiki call to action to lobby wikipedians to sway the discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information. I was unaware of the off-wiki postings. Wperdue (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The off-wiki postings have been removed.Cajun tiger (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe I am partially to blame for this. I directed you to get "community support" for the change. What I meant by that was the Wikipedia community and not the community at-large. I'm sorry for the confusion. Wperdue (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Images
From the tone of your last message on the Template Talk page, I wasn't sure if you would be returning there or not, so I'm crossposting this here just in case.


 * There are still options available. This page gives instructions for blocking the display of images. You would have to have your readers set up accounts for some of the options it lists, but if they do not mind doing that they would be able to read without seeing images. While the majority consensus is that we will not remove images at request, there are enough problem images that people have set up ways around it. Sodam Yat (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you had such a rocky start here. To put a bit of context into the situation, in the last year or so, there have been a very large number of people trying to get images removed or changed here, and the community has gotten a little touchy about it. Imagine if a neighbour had been hounding you about a tree in your yard for a year or more, trying to get you to remove it, and then a random person walking by just mentioned that it needed a trim. You might be a little shorter with them than you normally would be, because you were tired of hearing about it. It's not an excuse, but hopefully you understand that we don't mean harm, or to be rude. If you have any questions, or need any help getting settings to block the images put in place, please feel free to ask.

I've actually been looking at it since my last message, and probably the best way to keep people from seeing the images would be to include instructions for how to disable them in the browser. The blacklists are actually intended to keep vandals from using the images to horrify and disgust people on normal articles, and don't block standard "acceptable" nudity. I can't speak for all browsers, but I use Firefox and when I disable the images, it leaves a link to the picture, so that if they want to see it they still can click on it. If you are linking to an article that has an offensive image, you could simply mention which links not to click on, and it would prevent them from seeing it. Sodam Yat (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information. I'll definitely keep it in mind as I move forwardCajun tiger (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)