I am aware that many of you are concerned with the non-stop
harassment from "Mr Natural Health". As many of you have
noted, he has made threats against me, and has made what
appear to be death threats to many others on Usenet
newsgroups. Also, a Wikipedia committee has repeatredly
found him to be a harasser, and has reccomended action
against him. Many Wikipedians have complained about his
personal attacks and harassment.
In recent days he has started going back to harass his
older self-imagined enemies, including me. MNH is again out
of control, and is engaged in edit wars, personal attacks
and vandalism of talk pages. He needs to be banned,
immediately, as many of you already suggested.
Also, Martin Harper (MyRedDice) is still censoring the
article on Palestinian Views of the Peace Process. While he
disingenuously claimed to be engage in mediation, in point
of fact, the "mediation committee" refused to take any
action at all, and effectively supported his non-stop
vandalism. I tried for over two weeks to "mediate", only to
find out that the process was a hoax.
In regards to the article, ""Palestinian views of the peace
process", Martin Harper is _still_ censoring vast amounts
of historical facts and verified quotes. Instead of
working with others to make improvements, he is hiding
facts that he finds inconvenient. This is totally
unacceptable.
We should heed the words of Jimbo Wales on this issue: On
Fri Jan 9 14:48:08 UTC 2004 Jimbo writes about this
situation:
"But in tems of actual content, I don't see the problem.
There is no question that a full understanding of the
Palestinian situation requires understanding what
Palestinian views of the peace process actually are. There
is no question that one point of contention is whether
Palestinian leaders, in particular, view the peace process
as "permanent and irrevocable" (or similar) or whether they
view it merely as a short-term negotiating tactic in a
longterm effort to destroy Israel. Simply omitting
information on that question is unacceptable. This is an
important part of one of the major questions of our time."
On Fri Jan 9 16:24:36 UTC 2004 Jim also wrote:
"I don't really see how it's original historical research
in any way shape or form. Palestinian attitudes are well
documented and discussed -- except on Wikipedia, where
people have chosen to delete rather than work for
neutrality."
My own comment Martin Harper is deliberately violating NPOV
by only mentioning viewpoints from a limited number of
people. Viewpoints that he disagrees with, even if they are
majority views, are censored. In contrast, the material
censored actually shows a wide range of views from a wide
range of Palestinian leaders, so that Wikipedia readers can
read the range of views and make up their own mind. Should
we allow Wikipedia to maintain NPOV? Yes! range of views
presented within the article, Jimbo Wales writes:
Fri Jan 9 17:11:56 UTC 2004
"The text could be improved, of course. But it is very good
precisely becasue it presents "balanced and balancing
viewpoints with the proper historical context". The quotes
are dated and exact references are given. Alternative views
and background information is given.
Many in the West are uncomfortable with this kind of
information because it doesn't comport well with the
prevailing liberal view that the Palestinians are solely
victims. Rationally, of course we can say that Palestinians
are indeed victims while simultaneously holding and
expressing reprehensible views. What we must not do is
simply omit information about Palestinian attitudes because
it doesn't match up too our rosy view of noble rebels
fighting a racist apartheid state. What I'm primarily
arguing, though, is not the content of the material. I
think that the material is good, though not excellent, but
my real point is that it can in no way be characterized as
something that ought to be simply *deleted* outright. It
should be *improved*.
In the present case, we see why deletion is bad. We are
left with a horribly broken presentation in which readers
are unable to discover why it might be that, despite the
PLO officially no longer calling for the destruction of
Israel, and Arafat himself announcing a right to exist, the
majority of Palestinians polled support the destruction of
Israel.
We can only come to understand that better when we come to
understand Arafat's duplicity, and the anti-Israel
propaganda that is rampant in the Palestinian culture. But
because some supporters of Palestine are uncomfortable with
that material, it is censored from Wikipedia. No, I don't
think censorship is too strong a word."
-- end quote --
(Again, I would have been happy to engage in mediation. I
was saddened to see that in fact, it does not exist.)
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
Hi,
I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, but I've recently become interested in
helping to fix spelling errors in the English wiki. Using a database dump,
I put up a list of articles with commonly misspelled words in my user
space at [[User:Wmahan/Articles with commonly misspelled words]].
In an effort to go through this monstrous list more quickly, I made a
script that loads the edit page of an article from the list and fixes any
commonly misspelled words. It also displays a list of all words not found
in a spelling dictionary, and I can substitute from of a list of suggested
replacements with the click of a button. I review all changes before they
are submitted.
I asked for approval of this plan on [[Wikipedia_talk:Bots]], and it was
suggested that I mail this list. I think that this human-controlled script
will be:
1. harmless, because I review and discard any incorrect fixes
2. useful, because I can easily correct not only misspellings on the list,
but any clear misspellings I notice
3. not a server hog, because it is limited by how fast I can approve
changes. It should use less overall bandwidth than fixing every article by
hand because I only request the edit page for the article, rather than
loading the article and then following the "edit" link.
Do others agree? I'm open to any suggestions about whether this idea is
worthwhile, possible improvements, etc. The script uses a web interface,
so I can make it available for people to examine if there is interest.
-- Wil
You removed Helga's name -- now remove mine.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
Fan mail that leads me to think that a few pages should be checked for
accuracy. I normally anonymize these things, but in this case, the
fan in question has had edits reverted in the past, and seems eager to
get his message out to the world. Additionally, your understanding
what I'm saying without me having to come right out and say it will
be enhanced if you read this. :-)
----- Forwarded message from Father Jerome FIWD <fatherjerome(a)fiwd.org> -----
From: "Father Jerome FIWD" <fatherjerome(a)fiwd.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 19:38:44 -0700
To: <jwales(a)bomis.com>
Subject: Wikipedia
J Wales
Hi! Noticed your contact info on the Wikipedia Contact Page. I appreciate
the participatory democracy aspect of Wikipedia, but I am just not used to
possibly posting something on a BB (as I once did on a Wikipedia page!),
only to have it immediately removed by someone who did not understand it!
Anyway, I guess I'd just like to pass along some compliments, primarily on
your 'Systems Theory' page. I have website links to both your 'Systems
Theory' main page and the Discussion page, where I did successfully (several
months back!) post a quite lengthy 'discussion' regarding Systems Theory,
the new Science of Quantum Systemics and QUFD. And I think someone must
have at least read some of the gigantic database which is the QUFD website
(listed in the Top 1% worldwide!), because it seems that the main 'Systems
Theory' page on Wikipedia has been recently up-dated by someone to
explicitly include the definitions of QUFD and Quantum Systemics in the
overall definition, to wit: "Systems theory focuses on complexity and
interdependance. It has a strong philosophical dimension, because applied to
the human mind and society, it results in unusual perspectives." Ouch, and
Wow! Or rather, Congratulations! Because that is about as close to
defining QUFD as one can get in so few words!
As I said, I am no expert nor connoisseur at 'fighting the battle' for
postings, but I do appreciate the quite accurate definition that Wikipedia
gives of QUFD and Quantum Systemics via your 'Systems Theory' page.
Incidentally, I've recently added a new 'definition page' to the over 1610
webpages (according to Google!) of the QUFD 'Textbook' , entitled, "QUFD: An
Introspective!" Perhaps you might find it interesting reading. Note: I've
already been notified that it is being considered for a feature article in a
quite famous national/international magazine, as well as being looked at for
consideration of a movie by LucasArts! It can be found at:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/sanmateoissues/Qufdspec.html
I do hope this communication reaches you, as it seems that malicious
viruses-emails and 'spam' are abundant nowadays and if you are having to do
as I am, and deleting almost all 'unknown-sender' emails, perhaps your
auto-delete will delete this message too! But I hope not!
Sincerely,
Aum, Peace, Amen
Namaste
Jerome
Father Jerome, OA/OWB
D.Th.(In Esse-the Theology of Reality),
D.Sc.(Quantum Physics)
Father Jerome USA,
Author of the world-renown 'textbook-on-the-Web'
(listed in the TOP 1% of worldwide websites),
the QUFD (Quantum Unitary Field Dynamics) website, at:
http://go.to/QUFD
An Affiliate of the
Freedom, Independence & World Democracy (FIWD) Institute,
London (OA/OWB)
----- End forwarded message -----
(Had to censor this to get it past my corporate firewall)
-----Original Message-----
From: Poor, Edmund W.
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 2:17 PM
To: 'wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org'
Subject: Sex forum
There seems to be a sexual 'bulletin board' in progress: [[I am
s***/WikiS**]]. It is supposedly in the Votes for Deletion page, but I
cannot find any trace of it there.
Could someone please get rid of it? I firmly believe
that it does NOT belong in an encyclopedia.
----
I deleted the user page and subpage.
Martin, was I wrong? Fred, may I block the user?
Ed Poor, prudish bureaucrat
I've grown up a lot in the last year or two. I used to
want to volunteer and help people learn stuff - I no
longer care, you people are scum.
Some of you are ok -- Users like CPrompt seem like
really good people. But what a bunch of self-righteous
lying fools there are here! Its a real shame that
Jimbo failed to provide better leadership.
I wash my hands of the lot of you. I once thought that
it would be possible to have a website where anyone
could edit, it just doesn't work. Trolls and vandals
are the problem -- its the control freaks who are the
real problem.
Im better than you. Im better than this. This site is
better than Everything2, but its not that good. The
wiki is a great idea, but the wikipedia has failed to
evolve. I wash my hands of this nonsense.
Please delete all references to me or my name. Doing
so is the best way of ensuring I don't come back.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/
There seems to be a sexual 'bulletin board' in progress: [[I am sexy/WikiSex]]. It is supposedly
in the Votes for Deletion page, but I cannot find any
trace of it there.
Could someone please get rid of it? I firmly believe
that it does NOT belong in an encyclopedia.
This "I am sexy" writer has alraedy been in trouble for
trolling - this sems to be her latest line of attack.
____________________________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…