Raphael1, Seeing as you are the only editor who truly is pushing for a change regarding the display of the cartoons, the lines you are citing in WP:NBD do not apply. Where is this supposed change in consensus? I realize now how hypocritical you are and how much of an equivocator you are. You have yourself in these threads said that you'd be fine if the cartoons were on display in the "Islamophobia" article. Your equivocation is utterly illogical and borderline asinine. If you can not see this then there truly is no hope for you and it will not be long before you truly will have "exhausted the community's patience". How can you reconcile this difference? I can only imagine that you'd agree with displaying the cartoons on that articel for informational purposes. Why can you not get it through your mind that the same logic applies on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy article, that they are displayed there as they are for informational purposes? The display of the cartoons there is not a moral affront by Wikipedia.
Here's a quick lesson in logic about why Wikipedia doesn't insult muslims by displaying the cartoons:
Let's say that I were to tell Vkasdg that you were a complete idiot who wasted his time (and others) by constantly droning on about the display of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons on Wikpedia. So then Vkasdg goes and tells Rgulerdem that I said you were an idiot (even mimicing exactly the way that I said it). Rgulerdem subsequently comes to you and mimics what I said when explaining that he'd heard that I called you an idiot. Has Rgulerdem insulted you? Clearly not. This same logic applies to Wikipedia does it not?
-Scott Stevenson [[User:Netscott]]
</snip>
Yes, it's a clearly laid out warning, but it's not a policy, instead it actually contradicts [[WP:NBD]], which states:
Later objections to a decision might represent a change in consensus that may need to be taken in account, regardless of whether that earlier decision was made by a poll or other method.
-- Raphael