User talk:Winged Blades of Godric/Archive 12

Operation Pawan
Actually never mind. As I was typing I saw my removed edits restored, thanks (I was wondering if there's something wrong with Pearson India, fortunately not). Cheers, Alex ShihTalk 07:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * --Your source was pretty good.Actually, I was tinkering with the sources and suddenly got into an edit conflict with you.And my sloppy workflow meant that I failed to successfully resolve the conflict and deleted your sources out too!(: Winged Blades of Godric On leave 13:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Polemic contents
I think the materials in your userpage, i.e. "Religion, a medieval form of unreason...," are polemical statements. Those are "unrelated to Wikipedia" and attack or vilify "groups of editors, persons, or other entities." Please remove them. Thanks. -- M h hossein   talk 17:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this in the strongest terms possible. The comment is a quotation which is permitted under WP:UPYES. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean one should be forced to remove it. Nihlus 17:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree he's not obligated to remove it under our rules, though it is strongly advised to not use your userpage to make political statements. Especially when the goal of Wikipedia is to really maintain neutral and a high level of academic standards - one man's Muhammad cartoon is another man's Holocaust cartoon contest. Rising above it to maintain a high academic standard, abstract reasoning capability and objectivity is the challenge - so I don't think posting this really offers much to Wikipedia, but he is free to use his userpage for whatever he likes. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 17:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to note OP's user page states in big type at the top - "The Prophet of Islam said: A hopeful sinner is closer to the mercy of Allah than a hopeless worshipper.".Icewhiz (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The comment on his page is certainly an attack sentence calling "Religion", "a medieval form of unreason". Meaning those who believe in religion, believe in "a medieval form of unreason." This should be removed per WP:POLEMIC. This is while the comment on my user page does not insult anyone be it believer or not. We don't have the right the attack others. Per WP:POLEMIC, "users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason." -- M h hossein   talk 07:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Describing broad classes of people as sinners, is definitely judgmental towards such people and possibly even WP:PERSONAL ATTACK if people can be assumed to belong to the category. Describing all people as being subject to the mercy of Allah, may be seen as WP:LEGAL, as Allah is alleged to pass judgement (between Jahannam and Jinn), and even seen as a threat / intimidation of great harm (both in this world and in other alleged worlds). And obviously there are issues with ascribing divine connections to historical geopolitical figures.Icewhiz (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Um, no. Salman Rushdie's pronouncements cannot be WP:NOTCENSORED off Wikipedia. Instead of badgering Godric, please open an ANI report about this issue, if you think that your case has any merits. Otherwise, please find something else to do, other than badgering Godric for using Rushdie's words. Dr.   K.  16:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes,, I earnestly entreat you to get more eyes on this at AN/I- it would settle the issue of user page quotes that slag off a broad demographic, once and for all :) &mdash;  fortuna  velut luna  16:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you Fortuna, I may do it sometimes later. It's clear that we're not going to censor anything off wikipedia, rather we're talking about omission of WP:POLEMIC contents from editor user pages. -- M h hossein   talk 18:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just so. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  18:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * @Everbody in this discussion:--Regrets for arriving so late.I am not keeping any watch over this t/p currently.As far as I am concerned, I don't see any immediate problems . Winged Blades of Godric On leave 13:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * --Thanks for your support. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 13:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * -I am tempted to say that the statement on your user-page attacks or vilifies hopeless worshippers.Regards:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 13:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * --What's your thoughts on the issue? Do you think that it violates POLEMIC ? Winged Blades of Godric On leave 13:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Untrue. In an age of reason, such statements are a rallying cry to help the blind see. They are, A Good Thing, and should be Mandated By Policy. Cheers! &mdash; fortuna  velut luna (Currently not receiving (most) pings, sorry) 13:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * -Thanks! Your reply, irrespective of it's content, pleased me quite a lot! By the way, it seems from your t/p thread, that you missed my e-mail, day before yesterday. Winged Blades of Godric On leave 14:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Godric asked me to comment here after I asked him about something else wiki-related. The statement is not a polemic, and I disagree with it pretty strongly (and no, that's not revealing my personal belief or lack of belief in a divinity.) A quote by a very famous author is not a polemic here. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ooops :)
 * Thanks! Winged Blades of Godric On leave 14:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Winged Blades of Godric On leave 14:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Every one can bring his voice to ANI since I'm motivated to take it there some day. regards. -- M h hossein   talk 14:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be definitely looking forward:) Winged Blades of Godric On leave 14:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I echo Godric's comment. Farewell until that day comes. Dr.   K.  18:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)