Rajab

Welcome!

Hello, Rajab, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! SoothingR 10:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Rajab, Thanks for creating a new title like 'picture should be removed'. Prophet Mohammed deserves nothing but respect. Resid Gulerdem 21:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Rajab, please do not blank content against solid consensus. Thank you. Babajobu 21:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Babajobu - unfortunately there is no consensus

Currently 38 people have voted to keep the image where it is, 2 have voted to remove it. That is consensus. Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 21:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop removing the pictures please. Wikipedia is an encylopedia. The article is about the pictures, not having them in the article is unencylopdic. If you find it offensive I suggest you simplt do not read the article. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Rajab, please read WP:Consensus. By Wikipedia standards, we absolutely have consensus to keep the image in the article. It's not even close. Babajobu 22:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

how long did you run the poll?? 5 hours? a day? That's not a consensu! Rajab 22:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

test3

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No he won't be blocked for anything to do with vandalism. The only policy here is 3rr and not vandalism. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't vandalise - I moved the picture from the beginning to the middle. See the discussion! Rajab 22:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. It wasn't vandalism. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Rajab, please be aware that if you are in danger of violating the three revert rule, or WP:3RR. If you revert four times, you will be blocked for 24 hours. Babajobu 22:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't revert, I offered a compromise. The picture is still in the article

Will re-examine your last edit. If I was wrong, my apologies....regardless, if you get to four reverts (I believe you are now at three, but I will check), you will be blocked. Babajobu 22:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• I will echo what was said above, and admonish all parties to stop revert warring on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Continued actions in this regard will result in a block. --Durin 22:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

i MOVED the picture, I didn't revert. Please read the discussion! Rajab 22:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• It is STILL a revert war. Stop. --Durin 22:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Rajab, without counting the instances in which you moved the pic, you have now simply deleted it three times. One more, and you're blocked for WP:3RR Babajobu 22:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You will NOT be blocked unless you violate the 3rr (per above). Please participate in discussion and ignore any incivil or racist behavior. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Racist behaviour? Please remember WP:AGF.

Block for 3RR violation

You may now go to bed. Sleep well, Mark¹ 22:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[1] this was a disruptive edit. Good night. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• As was this. Physchim62 (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked for vandalism for 1 hour. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

Please do not erase warnings on this page. Doing so is also considered vandalism. 1 hour

--File Éireann 00:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

{{unblock}} Firstly, I wasn't warned & secondly someone vandalised the picture I inserted (cartoon of Jordanian Newspaper) -> so I "vandalised" their picture too.

Relaliation is never an acceptable excuse. --pgk^(talk) 20:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Pool 3

Rajab, Can you please vote on the Pool 3. Thanks... 216.248.122.217 13:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Images

If somebdoy uploaded a picture of my sister it would be removed because it would be a violation of her personality rights. I would be willing to consider a site-wide policy of moving offensive images below the fold, but I am not willing to make a unique exception for one group of people. Muslim concerns are no more important than the concerns of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Scientologists, or anyone else. Babajobu 15:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly support moving offensive images below the fold no matter whether they offend you, your sister, christians, jews, whoever. If there is another article with this kind of discussion then by all means move the offensive pictures below the fold. But those other articles have nothing to do with this current one - so please do go ahead, insert a warning & move the picture Rajab 15:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

While we respect the strong feelings of some Muslim editors in this matter, Wikipedia is not censored. There is a strong consensus that the image of the cartoon should remain on Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia by removing the image. If you do so, we may have no choice but to block you from further editing. This may be your only warning.

Babajobu 16:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove the picture!! I decreased the offense by moving it from the very top to the middle. See discussion. Rajab 16:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Removal of image from Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

You are well aware of the revert war that has gone on on this article. You know what you are doing is disruptive and you know it should be discussed on the talk page, where indeed discussion is taking place and a poll is running. STOP removing the image. If you remove it again, I will block you for a longer period than the prior two blocks as they were obviously ineffective. I encourage you to contribute positively, and not destructively. Wikipedia works through consensus building, not through revert warring. The revert warring is pointless and futile. STOP. --Durin 16:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

how long would you consider blocking me?Rajab 16:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• How long isn't the point. What is the point is to attempt some means of getting you to adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines and encourage you to engage in consensus building. I gather you are unhappy with the consensus that is building, and thus have continued revert warring. This is unacceptable behavior. If you do not like the consensus, I'm sorry but the reality here is that we work through consensus. This isn't about religion. It isn't about offending someone. It's about how we build an encyclopedia. We don't do it by effectively having you rip a page out, having it put back in, and having you rip it out again. Surely you can see this isn't constructive. If your arguments to have the image removed from the article have not been persuasive to date, then I encourage you to review Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines and find some basis in them under which it would be appropriate to have the image removed. --Durin 16:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Image on userpage

Could you please remove the image from your user page. You can link to it in the form [[:Image:Arabcartoon.jpg]] but it violates fair use to have it as you do. Thanks. gren グレン ^? 10:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Better? What's the difference? & How does it violate fair use?Rajab 10:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Usage under fair use has to be explained by specific reasons. Showing the image on the article about the "Mohamed cartoons" can be justified by the fact that they are illustrative of a particular viewpoint, of the way that the image of Mohamed is censored, etc. Showing it on your personal user page because you like it, on the other hand, is not a valid justification. Rama 11:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

now they're illustrative of a viewpoint that I wish to make. Is that acceptable? Rajab 11:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry. Rama 11:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

See Fair use for more information on this. Notably, "reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticise, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy". Rama 11:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What if I use it here & as an explanation of what our controversy was about? Ironically this is the argument of the proponents of re-posting the JP cartoons on wikipedia... Rajab 12:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC) BTW, I removed the picture from my user page.

escalation

According to the BBC "It is the satirical intent of the cartoonists, and the association of the Prophet with terrorism, that is so offensive to the vast majority of Muslims." [2] As Muhammad is the proto-typical Muslim this association with terrorism is essentially a generalisation to all Muslims. Furthermore the cartoons were published in a mainstream newspaper in the context of what many Muslims perceive as an islamophobic mood in many of the western countries involved [3], [4], [5], [6] [7]. In this context the effect and danger of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons to Muslims differs significantly from the danger presented by comparable cartoons of Jesus to a Christian living in the west. Rajab 16:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent Rajab , we have to contribute to the article adding the our viewpoint .. that is the good work, nice section u have written --Chaos 12:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice work

Hi Rajab, though I disagree with you on a lot of issues, just want to say that you and Chaos have both done some very good work on the article. Thanks! Babajobu 21:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

That's more of less what I came here to say. From the notes you have left on the talk page, I can also say that you have kept a very civil tone even when the discussion got ugly. Well done. --201.34.236.198 22:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

I would like to congratulate you on your rapidly improving English-language skills! You are making far better progress than I would if I needed to start using Arabic. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with them , You did great Jop , that is what muslims begin to make actively , that is the manner that they should behave with , I like to invite u to join the arabic Wikipedia ... Salamz for now --Chaos 11:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Rajab, I think pervasive works better in that sentance than Islamophobic and avoids the baggage of the I word. Pervasive means that it is worming its way into society, like a poison or a disease. What do you think? Kyaa the Catlord 11:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

an excellent word! :) Rajab 11:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please educate me

I think you mentioned about the Holocaust being a "Holy Cow". I fear I am a bit ignorant about this. I know that they seemed reticent about talking about many things when in germany, but I think that few in Denmark and Sweden know about it being a "Holy Cow". Freedom of speech, I think is a "holy cow" in Denmark, which seems a bit at odds with their Xenophobia (they are not only islamophobic, they can feel the same way about swedes :) ) In what way is the Holocaust a "Holy Cow"? And where? DanielDemaret 21:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

'Holy cow' is figural speech; it means 'untouchable'. You can talk about holy cows as much (or as little) as you like, but never in a disrespectfull way.

I think the Holocaust is a holy cow in Europe, in the sense that it was total evil, and left behind a deep imprint on the European psyche, that it is unheard of to make jokes about it, or relativate its importance, let alone deny its history. It is so holy, there is no freedom of speech on that issue. (I think the Holocaust should be a holy cow, since the recognizion of absolute evil could help us to orientate and better the world. It is not coincidence that it is racist islamophobic war-mongering neo-nazi's who deny the Holocaust)

But it is very strange and very hypocritical of European institutes themselves demand respect for its own holy cows, but at the same time insults the holy cows of others (like the Prophet, who helps Muslims to recognize the absolute good, and helps them to orientate and better the world). Suddenly this particular holy cow can be vandalized in the name of "freedom of speech". That is inconsistent, rude, and insulting.

-- ActiveSelective 22:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Daniel :) You'll notice that I removed that comment again - because it's too controversial. But here's one example of what i meant: Most ppl would agree that the holocaust was a major contributing factor to the creation of Israel. In essence the Jewish ppl fled Europe because of the atrocities that were committed in Europe by the Nazis. Very recently the Iranian President made very public accusation that it's a a historical injustice that the Palestinians had their land taken away because of evils committed in Europe by the Germans... however this was never discussed. The mechanics which link the holocaust with the creation of israel are "taboo"... historical justice would have been to take Bavaria & turn it into a Jewish country. In this way the holocaust is a "sacred cow" :) Rajab 00:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh...Rajab, I don't know where you're getting your info about Western media, but the claim that "it's a historical injustice that the Palestinians had their land taken away because of evils committed in Europe by the Germans" is heard all the time in Western newspapers and magazines (especially those of a leftish persuasion). The link between the holocaust and creation of Israel is also par for the course in Western media. One thing I've encountered a lot when in Muslim countries is that people have a very silly perception of what goes on in Western media. There are topics that certain publications will not cover (e.g., a very pro-Israel publication may not discuss Palestinian suffering, a pro-Palestinian publication will certainly not discuss the suffering of Israelis after a suicide bombing), but there just isn't anything that is a "taboo" or "Holy Cow" across the entire spectrum. That's the benefit of a free press. Babajobu 07:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've given you an example of a taboo on your dicussion page - I can't bring myself to write it on mine ;) Rajab 18:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Source

Hi Rajab,

Thanks for the great cartoon Image:Arabcartoon.jpg. I think it clarifies the whole situation very much. I would like to know the precise source including the accompanying text. I need it for the Dutch (NL) page on the cartoons: nl:Cartoons_van_Mohammed_in_Jyllands-Posten. My own analysis about the anger is exactly like in the cartoon says: European racism/islamophobia and hypocracy about Freedom of Speech. But the NL-wikipedia only allows official sources. I need to quote the source. I tried to search www.alghad.jo, also on the date of the picture (3rd february) but I couldnt find it. Please let me know. Thanks.

-- ActiveSelective 21:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

THanks

Hi Rajab,

Thank you for your prompt and informative answer.

The part that I know very litte about, and which told me now again was that: You wrote: "Discussing the mechanics which link the holocaust with the creation of Israel and the morale behind those mechanics are "taboo"".

You see, that discussion about holocaust is NOT taboo here in Scandinavia. We would happily discuss it if they thought it were an interesting or fun discussion. If Iran starts distributing just pictures, the only reason that they might not be reprinted in Scandinavia is that few would care. That is why I hope they are good art, so we can make posters of the "holocaust-denial" cartoons and hang them up in our livingrooms. Because nobody really cares very much about the holocaust in scandinavia. Only a few of us geeks care about it. I care since I have personal feelings about it since my mother had to care for the holocaust victims assigned to her at St Mary's Hospital in London after WWII, and my father cares since he saved several jews from when the germans marched into France. He saw whole villages of jews beeing terminated while cycling down from Flanders to reach the resistance. But Scandinavians in general don't care , and they would rather watch football than a boring holocaust or denial-of-holocaust documentary. They are both allowed in Sweden, it is just that they are very boring.

So if Iran publish the pictures they will not be attacking the Danish Cartoons. If the Danish Cartoonists care at all, they will *praise* Iran for bringing down "Holy Cows" in other countries.

What I really asked you about was: "Where is that taboo, and how is it expressed"? I think that I shall have to guess the answer to that in that there are laws against it in certain countries like germany, and that people there are simply afraid of braking the laws. Personally, I think it is time they took away those laws. In Sweden, we took away laws that made nazism forbidden many years ago, and guess what happened? We have about five Nazi parties here now, with about 50 members in each party. Who cares? DanielDemaret 08:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The same is true in U.S. Nazi parties are perfectly legal, and moreover, unlike in Scandinavia, they can publish all the Holocaust denial literature they want...and what is the consequence of this? There are twenty Nazi parties, each with a handful of members. And hardly anyone reads their Holocaust denial nonsense. It's also true that in U.S. every other newspaper and magazine (i.e., the Democrat-leaning ones) publish unflattering or insulting caricatures of Bush. And there is no "incitment to hatred" legislation to outlaw racist speech in the U.S., as there is in many European countries. Are there even any European countries that have a freedom of speech explicitly written in to their constitutions? Just curious. Babajobu 17:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

what is wrong

Why do you keep trying to delete the cartoons? Best

04:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)60.225.202.61

because they're deeply insulting.

limits of free speech - (even in scandinavia)

As you say, there are limits to free speech even in Scandinavia. Limits by law in Sweden are eg

1. "Hets mot folkgrupp", which basically means that you are not allowed to say anything about any ethnic group that might incite people to do really bad things, like violence, towards that ethnic group.
2. Intentionally lying in such a way that it hurts someone enough. The line can be hard to draw, for a lot of reasons, but if it leads to violence then its over the top.
3. Inciting anyone to commit a crime, especially violent crimes or theft.

If someones feelings is all that is hurt, however, it can be hard to press the case sometimes.

As you see, anything that leads to violence in real life is restricted.

As for the laws in Denmark and Norway, I really dont know enough.

However, the images that you mentioned in your message to me are allowed as far as I know. I have seen them all in public newspapers here, at one time or another. They would be permitted, and have been. Sometimes they have been scolded for "bad taste", that's all. Times change, of course. Perhaps we are getting more stringent now than when I was young. Whether they would be admitted in wikipedia, I don't know. We will just have to see if wikipedia is as "free press minded" as the Danes are, I suppose. Do you intend to upload any gross animal sex to find out? If you can't find any, I know at least one grocery store where you could go and buy them. And yes, it was quite legal. At least at that time. But perhaps I am too old. DanielDemaret 18:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

*haha* maybe you are right (not about too old - I mean the free press!). Rajab 19:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, Child porn is illegal in sweden nowadays. I didnt think about that one. Only a couple of years ago, prostitution was legal here. It still is in Denmark. The laws are getting harder on sex.DanielDemaret 20:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Other viewpoints and other cartoons

I should perhaps mention that there are plenty of people in Scandinavia that, as soon as they heard about the reaction to the cartoons thought they should never have been published. Curisosly, those who had first seen the pictures, and then heard about the reaction, often scratched their heads to try and think what the reaction was all about. Nobody that I have talked to here would want to insult for the sake of the insult. You should also know that cartoons that depict muslims in a bad light are not very common in Sweden, but those that depict president Bush in as a silly donkey are commonplace, everywhere, every day, and made with much gusto. DanielDemaret 18:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

George

If 70% is all that is needed for Concensus, then I think I can safely say that the Swedish population had a concensus in that George should not have entered Iraq. DanielDemaret 19:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

;) -Rajab 19:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

May I ask you what your personal opinion is about this lead?

http://www.neandernews.com/?p=54 It came as a surprise to me.DanielDemaret 21:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I read the same story on the BBC website. It's now clear that certain ppl artificially incite hatred amongst muslims by using false information. It would have to be someone who gains politically from escalating the controversy... (e.g. the radicals). In any case this is absolutely deplorable! Rajab 21:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Japanese pictures

I saw that you were distressed by the japanese children drawings. Japanese drawings tend to much more obscene, and are read openly on the street and trains, as we read daily newspapers here. There is even a very short scene of this in the movie "lost in translation". Am I correct in assuming by your comment in the discussion, that you reacted strongly to those, at least by Japanese and Scandinavian standards, harmless pictures in the wikipedia Lolicon article? DanielDemaret 22:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rajab, yes, many people are offended by the pictures. Alas, the pictures are not universally regarded as offensive, as DanielDemaret points out, and seem not to be considered offensive in Japan at all. Most importantly, they are legal under Florida law, and since they are clearly relevant to the Lolicon article, there is really no justification for removing them. So, it's a similar deal to the Muhammad cartoons, really. All of us have the right to avoid any article topic that offends us, or to turn off the images in our browser. Otherwise, we just have to recognize Wikipedia:Content disclaimer..."this site may include material that you find offensive". But I understand your dislike of such images, believe me. Babajobu 02:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

what can I say? It's the wikipedia... ;) But if Jimbo ever plans to make wikipedia available on print for free to libraries in Africa (I think that's one plan of his wikimedia foundation) I'd recommend we find the LEAST common denominator in terms of offending ppl. But that's a project for the future though, I suppose Rajab 10:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes...actually, any printed version of Wikipedia will remove all fair use pictures, anyway, for copyright reasons. And that would include both the lolicon pictures, the Muhammad cartoons, and probably the large majority of potentially offensive pictures on Wikipedia. Babajobu 12:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Counter-cartoons

File:SenseOfHumorAEL.jpg

one of the counter-cartoons of the AEL

I found this cartoon. I think you'll like it. I like it.

It is the only good one among a lot of bad cartoons made by a Belgium organization Arab-European League (AEL). They reacted to the Muhammed cartoons in an strange way: by publishing racist cartoons under the banner of "freedom of speech" too. Tooth-for-a-tooth, eye-for-an-eye. They are right to protest, but that doesnt make it right to be racist oneself of course.

-- ActiveSelective 11:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

*haha* it's funny but of course also very sad... Rajab 15:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Danish humour

"People hardly ever make use of the freedom they have. For example, the freedom of thought. Instead they demand freedom of speech as a compensation." Søren Kierkegaard DanielDemaret 17:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiethics

Hi,

We started a proposal Wikipedia:Wikiethics to state the existing policies coherently and make suggestions on improving the editorial standards in Wiki. I thought you might be interested in contributing to that proposal.

Unfortunately, a pro-porn and pro-offense lobby is trying to make this proposal a failure. They unilaterally started an approval poll although almost no one including me believe that it is time for a vote, simply because the policy is not ready. It is not even written completely.

Editors who thinks that the policy needs to be improved rather than killed by an unfair poll at the beginning of the proposal, started another poll ('Do we really need a poll at this stage?') at the same time. The poll is vandalized for a while but it is stable now. A NO vote on this ('Do we really need a poll now?') poll will strengthen the position of the editors who are willing to improve the ethics policy further.

If you have concerns about the ethics and editorial standards in Wiki, please visit the page Wikipedia:Wikiethics with your suggestions on the policy. We have two subpages: Arguments and Sections. You might want to consider reviewing these pages as well...

Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem 22:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use Images and user pages

Greetings, I'm writing you to inform you that I've commented out the section on your user talk page that showed this image as under Wikipedia:Fair use rules such utilization isn't permitted. Netscott 10:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Superficial inguinal pouch

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Superficial inguinal pouch, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. --Miskwito 20:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Nectrobiosis lipoidica diabeticorum

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Nectrobiosis lipoidica diabeticorum, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 172.136.147.177 12:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Arabcartoon.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Arabcartoon.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)