"

 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,  
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. Talk | Contribs | 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.  (talk) 
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. Talk | Contribs | 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 - mo