`  == 3RR ==  You have 4R on Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations. Revert yourself, or get reported, and blocked.    :There's nothing I could revert there.    :: Yes, cos I reverted first. Please make sure to stay within the rules in future. Even now you could be blocked if someone chooses to report you    I have blocked you for 24+24 hours for 3RR violations to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy and, apparently, also Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations.  In addition your continual removal/hiding of the image on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (for many months) against strong community consensus is very disturbing.    ==Sockpuppetry on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy== Greetings Raphael1, please be aware of this Request for Check User.    Raphael1, your evasion of WP:3RR and resultant blocks with sockpuppets in the pursuit of vandalism has eroded my respect for you as an editor.  Please play by the rules.  Thanks.  :Raphael1,  has been impersonating you; see .  Apologies for the above.  :Timioty Usher, I made it pretty clear that I was not Raphael1. You chose not to believe me.    == the image ==  Raphael1 if you can get a consensus that the image should be linkimaged by means of a straw poll or otherwise then feel free to linkimage it, otherwise leave the image as it is until you can gain said consensus.  |  | Email   *Agreed with Pegasus. While WP:NBD is policy it should not be used as a convenient means of ignoring prior consensus and taking actions based on your own opinion on the matter. If you want to have the image removed from the article or only linked to it, then by all means engage in consensus building mechanisms to achieve that balance. Without it, you will be engaging in revert warring. You've been blocked twice already for WP:3RR violations. Please, don't let it happen again. Thank you,   * I couldn't put what these lads said better myself. Please respect the consensus, or try and form a new one.    **As I have stated before, if you would like you are welcome to try to overturn the current consensus by garnering comment on the article's talk page and/or starting a straw poll to determine if there has been a chance in consensus and if consensus has changed then so be it but until that time the consensus is to keep the image as is and any removal of them is disruption.  |  | Email   :Totally agree with those three other fellows.    == Mediation in New anti-Semitism ==  More to the point, I don't have a position on the dispute, and am not familiar with the specific contreversy (even know I am aware of the disputes regarding Israel in general).  I know I can reasonably claim NPOV in my examination of the article.  Call me sheltered or something.  -)    ==Islamic scripture template news===  1) Template:Quran-usc has been altered in two respects: :a) it’s no longer required to input three digits - this is automated thanks to . :b) the template no longer includes “Qur’an” in the bluelighted display.  Editor may choose to write it or not (or “Sura”, or “verse”, etc.) according to context. :c) thus the “-num” variants are redundant and should not be used.  2) The “range display” problem is still not solved - more information coming soon.  3) Template:Bukhari-usc is operative, with three variables (volume, book, hadith), and automated tridigitation as per Quran-usc.  4) Template:Quran-usc-num, Template:Quran-usc-numrange and Template:Buhari are defunct and should be deleted.   == Nomination revert ==  Please DO NOT change the rules of the nominations, we have reached consensus on them so no change can be made without group consensus. You cannot change the rules for your own whim. Cheers,     :Whatever Anjoe did or didn't do has nothing to do with me! You cannot change to your whim, the disputes and nominations are opposite areas.     ::Ah, Anjoe's edit were an update in policy. Your's weren't.     == WP: NOT evil ==  Hi Raphael, The proposal itself, and more importantly where it is going looks pretty strange to me. I however can see that proposers are trying to do something good. It was my quick impression in 5 min, I was not aware of it before. What is your take on it? The statement you quoted is completely French to me: either I cannot see what it means or if I understand correctly it is hard for me to believe that it can be stated. By the way, I will organize the Wikiethics and ask for community approval soon. Best,    == Religious racism ==  Raphael, that concept does not exist. The semites can, if you insist, be considered a race, but how is that related to their religion.  What race is the Muslims?     :African Jews who are not semites ... What race would that be? (Reference please!)    ::Great! -D So the Jews are not targeted because of their race, but because of their religion (or more likely, the political idea of Zionism), which apparently is not the same as race, as you have now conveniently proven!  ::Have a nice evening.    :::You say that there are many kinds of racism? I believe that I understand what you are after and to a certain extent, I actually agree ... just that ``racism`` is the wrong word to use when we are not talking about race. Give me a better description, will you?    == Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons  ==  I won't be the first to warn you, and I don't think I'll be the last. Earlier today, you moved the cartoons of Muhammad behind a link. It was clear to you that there is an overwhelming consensus against that option. You may disagree with it, you may desire/request a new poll, but you may not ignore it. On , you wrote ``I really can understand, why you did remove the cartoons. Unfortunately the non-muslim majority here is full of ignorance. I will not revert your changes and will probably remove the cartoons again myself.`` I'll be very straight-forward to you: don't. Don't. Try to get people on your side on the article's talk page, but until there is a new consensus, the one we have reached in the past counts. Regardless of whether that consensus was reached last week, three months ago or twenty years ago. You are not the wikipedia community. The next time you make any such edit to the image of the Muhammad cartoons (whether that is linkimaging, outright deletion or any other means), I will block you. I'll start mildly, at 12 hours. I will double the block at each new violation. The choice is yours: will you accept the rules of wikipedia and play by them, or will you be blocked?     == User:82.36.48.237 == I unblocked him. It had been long enough anyway.     ==Spurious warning templates==  Raphael1, please stop leaving spurious warning templates on my User talk page.  Thanks.   :Fee