On 5/31/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Lord Voldemort wrote:
On 5/31/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
In theory you are right, but experience shows, that most editors who feel offended by it, will get blocked sooner or later, because no policy tells them, that the results of 3 month old poll is a binding decision and ignoring it will as likely as not result in a block.
From the page in question:
<!--
NOTE ABOUT THE IMAGE: For many days, discussions occurred and polls were conducted on the talk pages of this article and in February 2006 the super majority (over 80% of contributing editors) decision was to keep the image displayed as it currently is without a "linkimage" and with no added warning template or text. Thus based upon this, unilateral (without general consensus) removal, hiding, relocation or resizing of this image (particularly in a repetitive fashion) will be considered disruptive editing, detrimental to Wikipedia, and may result in a block of your account and/or IP address.
<snip/> > --> > > Is this not ample enough warning? Seems fairly clearly laid out to me.
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.
Except you snipped the key part: "If you wish to discuss aspects of the display of the image of the cartoons, please do so in a civil manner by posting in the image discussion area of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controve... Do not unilaterally remove images or add image warnings. Thanks!"
If consensus changes, by all means, remove the image. But until consensus shows differently, it should probably stay. And frankly, I'm not sure this is even the right place to be discussing this. On that note, I am done. I'll give you the last word if you want it. Cheers. --LV