User talk:The Hungry Hun

3RR violation WARNING for Muhammad article
You have already violate 3RR. Be aware that you could be banned if you continue to do that. Hence stop reverting -- ابراهيم 22:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The picture in Muhammad article
The picture in Muhammad article is not related to conquest of Mecca at all. The incident happened even before Muhammad was a Prophet and Mecca is conquest decades after that. Tell me why you want to add picture when you have no idea that what that picture is about??? Btw I have reported you as you have done enough reverts. --- ابراهيم 22:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Having problems with a picture lately??
Well, ok. If you like putting up with your claims being called "dishonest" and senseless ban threats. I don't have a huge amount of time anyway to spend fighting the endless stream of nonsense from certain users.


 * Why would I want to, Deep Throat? --The Hungry Hun 07:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I will report you for making personal attacks if you continue making comments like "dishonest claim". Making personal attacks are one of the biggest crime here and you could be banned for a very long time. Please consider it as a warning and read WP:AGF and WP:No_personal_attacks. --- ابراهيم 18:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * He's right you know personal attacks are unacceptable here so watch what you say. User:Agent008 Sunday 27th January 2008 AD;15:44.

Muhammad: Revision of changes by User:Eriksene
Hello,

I noticed that in your reversion of Eriksene's changes, you dropped the entire paragraph of Muhammad's death. I have restored the original paragraph (the one prior to vandalism). Cheers, Vectro 20:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for your input
Since you have worked hard on the pictures, you may want to comment here about picture deletion by this user. It appears that it is the same one who wants to report you for making personal attacks for your 'dishonest claims'. Speak the truth. Cheers Nodekeeper 02:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you want me also to post on other people pages and ask them to comment there? --- ابراهيم 03:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You know I can also gather many people for my support hence please avoid that. --- ابراهيم 03:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. I figured as much. I also understand (very well) your position. I also appreciate your goodwill and forgiveness torwards others. Though I sense that some people take advantage of it to further their POV pushing agenda to wear people down and give in at the end. You are right that they do not understand our cultural values of intellectual freedom that we take for granted. Thanks for your contributions on the Muhummad page. Nodekeeper 10:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't work too hard on this
It's too difficult to fight all the sock puppets meat puppets, anonymous accounts, and the 24 hour patrolling that seems to take place on that page. And edit warring is useless as well, as that will just serve to drag you down (which may be their intent). So, just check in every other day and if you find the pictures aren't there because of a vandal, stick them in. You are more useful participating in that limited sense, rather than being banned (or fighting a ban) for one reason or another. Plus it will have a positive effect in your life as you won't be participating in what you can see, is useless arguments because they ignore them and wikipedia policy concerning censorship anyway. We have all made the valid points that need to be made. It really is better to be brief there, and address the issue of policy enforcement elsewhere on wikipedia.

So yes, go outside and feel the sun on your face. We'll all be better if we do it. Nodekeeper 21:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Nodekeeper do not feel too much sun as it can give you sunburn too :). The Hungry Hun beside reading WP:NOT and H. L. Mencken. Also read guidline regarding Profanity. "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not." --- ابراهيم 22:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Great comments
I am impress from your these comments on Muhammad talk. Good --- ابراهيم 10:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

General & m.o.
Hi, we seem to have different opinions regarding the pic at Mohammed. Are you up for a discussion of how we might resolve this conflict. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 00:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, always open for discussion.
 * Best, The Hungry Hun 09:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I haven't heard back from you, but I will assume that you are considering a reply. However, I note that after I sent you this message, you reverted the image three times.  I would like to propose that neither you nor I revert the image (in either direction) while we discuss, but that we leave the image to whatever fate other editors happen to give it.  Please let me know if you would agree to this proposal.  Sincerely, --BostonMA talk  21:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Basically, you're right: I agreed to discuss the topic, yet didn't deliver any input so far, not even as an answer to the questions you raised - sorry for that, I simply lacked the time so far and could only take quick glances at the article & re-insert the pic when deleted.
 * Tomorrow, I'll have much more spare time and cover my points extensively; I believe that you can see from the article's talk page that I'm not afraid of lengthy discussions (a good part of it is already archived, though).
 * However, I beg to differ on the modus operandi: There was a somewhat stable article version with pictures. Plus, not a single objection has been raised in the last weeks beyond a general rejection of images in general. Hence I'll regard further deletions still as vandalism and will retracted revert them if appropriate added. Please understand this approach of mine.
 * I propose having the discussion entirely on my talk page for the sake of a coherent thread. If you agree, I kindly suggest that put the page on your watchlist.
 * Best, The Hungry Hun 23:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. It is fine with me to keep the discussion on your talk page.  I also appreciate organization.  I do have your talk page on my watch list, so just respond here.  I'm sorry that you will not agree for us each to avoid reverts.  There is no rule that says you must, but it seems that we are just cancelling each other out, and that doesn't seem useful to me.  You are entitled to regard your opinion of other peoples edits as vandalism.  However, you should be aware that edits made in good faith are not vandalism (according to Wikipolicy), and calling them such is a violation of  Assume Good Faith and  No Personal Attacks.  So you should be careful what you put in edit summaries.  I personally forgive such things, but you may run accross editors who will strenously object and you may find yourself blocked.  I'm just letting you know as an FYI.  I look forward to hearing your response to my previous comments.  --BostonMA talk  23:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about this. I sort of let you know in a polite way that you had already made three reverts today.  This last one was your fourth.  Please forgive me, but I am about to report the violation.  Sincerely, --BostonMA talk  23:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand your point (although I don't share it). As a sign of good faith from my side, I'll keep a considerably lower profile in editing the article for the duration of this discussion. I can't, however, promise to do no changes at all. --The Hungry Hun 07:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
In keeping with this, please don't refer to good faith edits by established contributors as vandalism, like you did here. Irishpunktom may have a checkered history, but that edit clearly was not an attempt to diminish the quality of an encyclopedia. He's absolutely wrong, in every sense of the word, and I completely reject his arguments, but that's not license for me, or you, or anyone else to call the edit vandalism. Captainktainer * Talk 23:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith gets a little difficult lately, especially when considering all the pretext arguments against the pictures; nonetheless, I understand your point and retract my accusation of vandalism. --The Hungry Hun 07:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Arguments
Hi, I'm glad you are up for it. From my perspective, I am following this guideline which says in part: "'Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not.'" In my opinion, the image is a) considered offensive by some Wikipedia readers, and b) is not informative. It doesn't illustrate what Mohammed looks like, and we really have no idea what the image is supposed to be illustrating at all. My question to you is do you believe you are following the guideline by including the image? Or, do you believe the guideline should not be followed? Some third option? Thank you again for your willingness to discuss this matter. --BostonMA talk 10:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, up for a starter; a little short on time again, but I'll just lay out the framework of my ideas here, partly repeating my argumentation from the article's discussion page:


 * This specific picture
 * It helps people understanding and imagining the concrete event that is described. Many readers appreciate some visual assistance on complex and difficult matters, especially schoolchildren, who are an important target audience of Wikipedia.
 * In general, it is considered good style to enrich a textual wasteland with some visual hookups.
 * Such pictures simply help understanding the historical context, both the contexts of the event and the depiction itself. That’s specifically why these illustrations were crafted after all, to help posterity understand their history - we get an impression of both the subject and the artist's view of it.
 * Reasoning that the image doesn’t depict the historical Muhammad is slightly awkward to me. Would you only accept detailed portraits or photographs to supplement an article? As mentioned, this is not about giving an impression of bodily characteristics but of the historic dimensions and events.
 * Pictures in general
 * And on the larger point of whether pictures at all should be used: As far as I can tell after a quick glance in the article discussion archives & researching the internet, different schools of Islam have different interpretations of whether a picture ban exists (actually, right now, there are Muhammad icons being sold in Iran to believers - with full face and everything). All Muslims agree that idolatry is forbidden. Some therefore believe that no pictures of Muhammad show be shown in order to prevent such idolatry. If Muslim law were applied to Wikipedia (to which I strongly object, since Wikipedia is not a religious project - see below), why should it be the strictest interpretation which is being adopted. not only banning derogatory, but any pictures of Muhammad?
 * The latter is probably the more important point, too: An encyclopedia is by definition a project in the spirit of enlightenment - knowledge being collected, edited and published in absence of restricting or censoring powers, be they of religious, governmental or whatever else nature. I can imagine that you feel embarrassed by something that you consider a violation of your beliefs. But actually, those beliefs are not the standard to apply here - Wikipedia is not subject to Islamic or any other religious law. Christianity, for example, has a similar ban on pictures, the Second Commandment. Yet, if some hard-core evangelical zealots demanded enforcement of this Commandment in Wikipedia, nobody would even consider it seriously for a second. Why should other beliefs be granted a preferential treatment? To put this point to an extreme: Imagine a cult that forbids its adherents any scripture of their beliefs, e.g. in order to prevent revealing their mystic secrets to non-believers (cults close to this do exist, actually!). By your standards, it would be forbidden to even mention this cult in Wikipedia. Would you feel bound by this rule? Would you observe it just to satisfy those cultists? And we can take this even further: If some strange belief forbade any written knowledge, would you scrap Wikipedia just for the sake of not hurting their beliefs? Wouldn't this be the logical consequence of blindly following the "no profanity" guideline" you quoted? Wikipedia's Muhammad article is an article on a muslim, not (exclusively) by or for them. I respect that you feel obliged not to draw or look at Muhammad images. But I am not bound by these rules and have no obligation to follow them.
 * Furthermore, I, too, find a lot of things rude, especially on Wikipedia. What do we need an article on butt plugs for? What gain of insight does it deliver? How does it help us understand our world in a better way? Actually, I consider that article gross, perverted and dispensable. Yet, the object undeniably exists, and it wouldn’t go away if the article was scrapped. So, if some perverts want to describe their favorite toys, well, have fun.
 * As a matter of fact, Wikipedia - and especially it's English language part - is a product of Western culture; you cannot demand enforcement of this Western product's "no profanity" guideline, yet in the same moment demand the guideline to be gauged by a non-Western set of standards - this is an absolutely incoherent mix-up. The correct measure to be applied here is the common Western one: Pictures of persons are fine in general; exceptions may be applicable to derogatory / satirical pictures.
 * On a different, yet related note: Recently, in several Western cities incidents have been reported where Muslim cabbies denied service to blind people - they just wouldn't transport those disabled and extremely vulnerable persons - an action that is despicable to me and should be to any decent human being. The reason for this? Well, in these cases, those people had their guide dogs with them and the taxi drivers claimed that their belief forbade them to be anywhere these animals, so they couldn't transport them. Do you approve of this? Can a society tolerate such behavior? To me, demanding others to adhere to one's own religious beliefs in such a manner is incompatible with Western values. I think that these cabbies should either get used to dogs or look for another job. And yes, I also think that you should get used to the fact that these pictures are considered perfectly harmless in the Western world. They are not purposefully denigrating or deragatory and shall stay in their places.
 * --The Hungry Hun 19:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your lengthy reply. I understand that you copied much (all?) of these arguments from your contributions to the article talk page, and that therefore, some of the comments may be directed at other editors, and not toward me.  I will take that into consideration in my reply.  Also, I am still very much interested in your answers to the specific questions I asked above.  You hint, but do not make it completely clear to me that you do not believe the guideline should be followed.  I get that impression from your comment:
 * "you cannot demand enforcement of this Western product's "no profanity" guideline, yet in the same moment demand the guideline to be gauged by a non-Western set of standards - this is an absolutely incoherent mix-up."
 * Again, I don't know whether the "you" in your comment is supposed to refer to me, or not. However, if you disagree with the Profanity guideline, I would very much like to know exactly what you disagree with, and how you would change it.  Do you agree with the section that states "Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."  If not, why not? Do you agree with the section that states "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available."  If not, why not?
 * Censorship Again, I will allow for the fact that your comments may not be addressed to me. However, if they are, they seem to me to be directed at strawman arguments.  For example, you write:
 * "Imagine a cult that forbids its adherents any scripture of their beliefs, e.g. in order to prevent revealing their mystic secrets to non-believers... By your standards, it would be forbidden to even mention this cult in Wikipedia."
 * Please take a look again at the line "Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not." If a cult is noteworthy, it should be mentioned in the encyclopedia.  Wikipedia's mission includes  "including information about offensive material".  We thus include images such as Piss Christ, even though that image is offensive to a great number of people.  It is noteworthy, and that is basically the end of the matter.  But although we include images such as Piss Christ we do not include it in the Jesus article.  The fact that some Muslim trends accept images of Muhammed, while others do not, makes images of Muhammed notable, even if they were not already notable as art.  However, if a particular image is appropriate for one article, it does not follow that it is appropriate everywhere.  Appropriate placement of information does not constitute censorship.  I am afraid you are not distinguishing the two, and that is why I believe the censorhip argument is a straw-man argument.  The word "penis" is found in the "penis" article, but it shouldn't be found in an article about a high school.  If that were not so, I should give up recent change patrol!
 * (I'm done for the day. Please respond to what I have written so far.  Thanks.  --BostonMA talk  00:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

More talk here User_talk:Briangotts. Your input would be appreciated. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)