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]]
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.