Rkbauer

January 2015

Your recent editing history at Muhammad shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DeCausa (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Furthermore, the community consensus is that the infobox should contain a calligraphic representation and any changes to images in that article must be discussed first on the article talk page. The talk page has this faq:

Why does the info box contain a stylized logo and not a picture of Muhammad?

This has been discussed many times on Talk:Muhammad and many debates can be found in the archives. Because calligraphic depictions of Muhammad are the most common and recognizable worldwide, the current consensus is to include a calligraphic depiction of Muhammad in the infobox and artist's depictions further down in the article. An RFC discussion confirmed this consensus.

For further information on Images Arbitration and Community consensus, see Arbitration remedy and appended Community discussion. I suggest you self-revert in case you are seen as being merely disruptive. DeCausa (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The community consensus is not that the infobox should contain a calligraphic representation. The appended Community discussion shows that more are in favor of an unveiled photo of Muhammad. rkbauer (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions and Muhammad images

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Muhammad, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Tarc (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)