Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Quadell

message: This RfC was withdrawn on February 1, 2006 (UTC) by the requestor following approximately thirty hours of discussion. For the rationale on the withdrawal, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Quadell#Withdrawal. If you believe Quadell has done something warranting comment, please begin the process from the beginning. joturner 05:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO admin reverting and manual reverting is still reverting. How it was done is immaterial. That is was done is relevant. Jwissick(t)(c) 18:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

message: RfC has a process.  If you disagree with a statement, you make one of your own or sign someone else's.  The current trend for explicitly "not endorsing" a comment is ridiculous.  That is apart from its logical madness: you have the users endorsing, the users not endorsing, and all the other users.  How do you tag them?  They obviously haven't endorsed it.  Add to this that they bulk out the page and make it even more fractious.
Thus I am removing all "Users who do not endorse this summary" sections and placing them here for perusal.
Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without rules there are no rights.  Rights are rules. Jwissick(t)(c) 18:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm also mystified as to which human rights were violated. The right to retract images submitted to wikimedia commons under GFDL has not yet made it into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so far as I am aware (though it is a reasonable request, just not a reasonable demand or a "right"). Babajobu 18:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Waleeed, what human rights were violated? joturner 22:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  We (I) have the image still.  I suspected something like this would happen and saved it localy. Jwissick(t)(c) 19:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then for you the issue becomes one for your own conscience, doesn't it. ElectricRay 22:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disendorsements removed from main page 

message: Users who do not endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
# -- I think all of us can sympathize with Quadell's anxieties here. It was out of respect for his concerns that we all agreed to attempt to find a replacement picture of the folio, one that did not include his wife (an effort that has now been thwarted by Quadell's out-of-process deletion). Regardless, here's another thing to keep in mind: it's true that there were editors of the Muslim faith who found the juxtaposition of the Quran and a female arm to be upsetting. But it's also true that Wikipedia will/has angered numerous female and/or feminist editors by allowing itself to be bullied into complying with (what they view) as misogynistic demands. Respect the pieties of one of those groups, and we will trample on the pieties of the other. That's just the way it is, and neither course of action is more "respectful". Babajobu 08:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on Curps's statement

message: Users who do not endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
# Somtimes it's good to ignore all the GFDL stuff and just give in to common courtesy. --Deathphoenix 16:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without rules there are no rights.  Rights are rules. Jwissick(t)(c) 18:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm also mystified as to which human rights were violated. The right to retract images submitted to wikimedia commons under GFDL has not yet made it into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so far as I am aware (though it is a reasonable request, just not a reasonable demand or a "right"). Babajobu 18:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Waleeed, what human rights were violated? joturner 22:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on Kaldari's statement

message: Users who do not endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
# Somtimes it's good to ignore all the GFDL stuff and just give in to common courtesy. I do agree that perhaps he should have asked someone else to do it (Jimbo probably would be a good person to do so, and in retrospect, he certainly seems like he would have been open to it), but I don't think it was really all that inappropriate for him to delete it. --Deathphoenix 16:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We (I) have the image still.  I suspected something like this would happen and saved it localy. Jwissick(t)(c) 19:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then for you the issue becomes one for your own conscience, doesn't it. ElectricRay 22:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on Dragonflight's statement

message: We had several Muslim editors, who have made substantial contributions to the Islam-related articles, saying that they did not find the image of the woman offensive. She was dressed appropriately for a museum in Washington DC in the summer. The museum guards let her enter without demur -- whereas they probably would have stopped her had she been wearing a bikini. We had one Muslim, someone who says he is a Saudi, objecting, on the grounds that she wasn't sufficiently covered. He has made no other contributions to Wikipedia. 
Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi Muslims are an anomaly in the Muslim world. They are a MINORITY. A noisy minority, but a minority nonetheless. I am distressed that so many Wikipedians are willing to accept one Saudi's bee-in-the-bonnet obsession with a bare arm next to a page from the Qur'an as representative of all Muslims, and to demand that the picture be censored as offensive to Muslims. It is not offensive to Muslims. It is offensive to Waleeed, and possibly to other Salafis/Wahhabis. 
It is not fair to Western Muslims, who understand Western sartorial standards and what is and what isn't intended as a sign of sartorial disrespect, to dismiss their views in favor of the views of someone from a country where women are beaten for not wearing abayas in public. 
Waleeed is now posting various messages of support for Quadell. This upsets me considerably, as Waleeed was the one who initially targeted Quadell's wife and embarrassed Quadell into trying to retract the picture. Waleeed should be apologizing to Quadell. Zora 23:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure I don't represent all muslims , this is simple fact and simple logic.Waleeed 23:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  BTW i'm not from saudia arabia!. Waleeed 23:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  read my appology to Quadell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Qur%27an/Picture_Controversy#A_Message_to_the_photographer_and_the_model.
Waleeed 23:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waleeed does not represent all Muslims