my wiki name is saladin1970. I joined just 3 days but find myself banned.
i was banned by Jayjg . He cited the following reasons
1) 3RR rule
2) No useful edits
3) Copyright violoations
4) attacks on talk pages
They all seem very serious. yet when we look into each of the reasons, they
really have no substance.
1) I have two pc's one is shared at work - hence the same ip address and
the othe is my home pc. I only reverted 3 times, as did my collegue at work.
2) I have made many contributions, including a section on moors in the
spanish inquisition, additions to the islam in china section, background
info on harold shipman and contributions to alan harts page and zionism
page, and turkic.
3) There have been NO copyright violations. Every post was referenced to a
website or to a book. All of whom allow references to as part of their
copyright. So there was NO copy right violation
4) there were no personal attacks on talk pages. The worst that could be
said was that i called someone a 'zionist'.
Clearly there is something more to this than the above, as these at best are
minor violations that would carry warnings.
however I contend that this blocking falls under the "not advised to block
my posts in the zionism forum have illicited strong responses . Including
the person that banned me jayjg. These posts included
a) a section on the talmudic three oaths - which is the reason behind
orthodox jews who oppose political zionism. This was reverted many times by
jayjg amongst others
also i added a further reading section book entitled "zionism the enemy of
the jews by alan hart",
who was a itv corrospondent during the 80's. His book is well researched
'historical and political' of the lead up to the creation of israel.
Given that Jayjg was part of this debate, i can see no other reason for my
ban (as the reasons given are spurious) other than to eliminate a user who
has a different view of zionism.
for this reason i am asking a moderator to look at the material posted by
me, and make a fair decisions as to whether i should be banned indefinately
Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger
7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview
"Thus, to avoid future problems, Wales plans to bar anonymous users from
creating new articles; only registered members will be able to do so.
That change will go into effect Monday, he said, adding that anonymous
users will still be able to edit existing entries."
Why were Wikipedians the last to know about this? I only saw some
discussion on the mailing list about this, but nothing final. Why do we
have to learn of this from the media instead of straight from Jimbo?
This is really disturbing.
Wikipedia has followed a policy whereby it's content is not censored
for children. Having said that would it be useful to put a
warning/advisory on the website to make it clear to users that though
it is legal for them to enter the site, they should be aware that
Wikipedia's content is not censored for minors and the latter may come
across some sexual or other adult material so it is advisable for them
to be careful what they view? As Wikipedia's popularity increases, so
do the njmber of kids who access it-mainly for homework help. As a
result the chances of young users coming across such material are high
so perhaps a warning like this will be for the best? Also there may
also be some adults who for various reasons would prefer not to view
Amanda Congdon (rocketboom.com) was gracious enough to be our press
representative at the recent Time 100 party in New York. She got a lot
of footage of the guests, which was quite a group of famous people,
probably at least 100 people at the party already have wikipedia
articles, many with no photos or fair use photos.
As a condition of being invited, I asked that she release her footage
and photos under a free license.
I do not know yet exactly how we will get this, but based on what I saw,
her team was mostly just doing filming, so it will probably be raw video
(I asked for the highest possible resolution, so that would be the raw
tape). To get good screen caps, someone will have to take this raw
footage and import it into something and do captures or whatever.
My guess is that, due to the size of it all, we will get a tape rather
than a downloadable file. I am looking for someone with good experience
with video to do something useful with it. :)
Please volunteer by emailing me directly. Since I will probably just
have them mail a tape copy to you, you must be reliable and known to me,
because I don't want to have them mail the tape to someone who vanishes. :)
# Office: 1-727-231-0101 | Free Culture and Free Knowledge #
# http://www.wikipedia.org | Building a free world #
Protection is a hack. When it was first implemented in early 2003, it
was noted as such; from the start, there has been the idea of
improving on protection by "reduc[ing] the requirements for sysop
intervention for useful things to happen".
Wikis are designed to be editable; the ideal wiki is as open to
incoming content as possible -- a metric of a wikis success at
wiki-nature might be how long it takes first-time contributors to make
typical edits, and how long it takes them to get/see feedback.
"Open to incoming content" isn't the same as "open to changes in what
everyone else sees as outgoing content". We should strive to increase
our openness to inboud content, even as we tighten quality controls on
outbound content. Articles for Creation is an even worse hack than
protection, and regularly fails silently and completely [the user
never comes back, or thinks their work is lost; their work *is* lost].
Semi-protection is also a hack. One way to make these protection
hacks work more effectively is to recognize that they are *not* the
desired solution, but a quick way to implement something close.
Protection is a 'reasonable' hack because anyone can still edit the
talk page, leave comments for page-contributors on *their* talk pages,
&c. New editors don't know any of this. Old editors and vandals
don't need to be told what protection's all about.
Suggestions for improving these hacks through more information :
* make protection templates very short and inobtrusive; not in the
header, to maintain a clean interface : most readers don't need to
know about them (an NPOV or Disputed template can be placed there if
needed, that's separate. If an article's being protected just b/c it
was on slashdot, that's different).
* keep the "edit" button for protected pages. add a little icon in
that tab if needed, to denote the protected nature. Offer a message
on editing, varying by protection type, explaining briefly why the
protection, and where to post edits and suggestions (the talk page),
with a link to a longer explanation of who can edit where, how to
request unprotection, how to ask for help, &c.
* update the "this page is protected from editing" message one gets
when viewing the source of a protected page. make it friendlier,
again linking to where one *can* suggest changes and explaining this
in postive rather than negative terms.
* make it more clear than it is now who applied protection when, and
what their protection-summary was. pull this information into the
notices listed above.
I would like to start by applauding Mr. Wales for his
wonderful idea of writing a free online encyclopedia
by the contribution of volunteers. I am hoping that it
can be improved to a reliable source of information as
At this point, it is evident that, there are some
structural problems in Wikipedia. Ignoring these
problems doesn't lead to a reasonable solution and
The main problem I can see is the unbalance between
the user rights and admin privileges. It can be
adjusted and corrected but the problem needs to be
identified first. It might not seem to be a
serious issue for one who is not effected, but it
really is. It is of paramount importance to realize
that motivation of ordinary users from any background
can be stimulated only by a fair treatment of
It is also equally important to realize that the
conjuncture has a strong influence on the editors
without an exclusion of the admins. Some people feel
marginalized and faced to bias actions from some
admins. Isn't this important enough to address? The
answer to the question is strongly related to the
strategic call of being inclusive or exclusive.
Please note that any person leave Wikimedia is not
only a minus to the community, in general, is a plus
to the anti-Wikipedia community. I, myself, am at or
around that border line and before crossing it I
wanted to make a friendly call for a discussion of the
issue. I would be glad to discuss the issue and make
some suggestions for the solution if you are
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
Dear RC patrollers and vandal hunters,
This is a desperate plea for help!
The few people who work at "Articles For Creation" are getting overworked.
They almost can't keep up with the new requests and a lot of dubious
submission are left
with no idea how to handle them. Even worse, occasionally
"Wikipedia:Articles for creation"
and "Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today" get blanked by a newbie who
isn't reading the
instructions. Unfortunately, those blankings aren't always discovered in
time, and this way
a lot of good submissions are missed. Once they get archived, they're almost
I want to ask vandalhunters to keep their eyes open for blankings and revert
them on the spot
so they're going unnoticed any longer. And I hope RC patrollers can be
pursuaded to fulfill
some requests when they come across them.
We need your help!
Mgm (in name of the overworked Meegs)
There's been some discussion on a development mailing list regarding
the namespace selector in contributions pages, which is expensive due
to our schema arrangement.
One of our database administrators has posed this question, which I
thought I'd forward to this list, since it's full of users.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Domas Mituzas <midom.lists(a)gmail.com>
Date: 23-May-2006 11:28
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Special:Contributions: index missing?
To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)wikimedia.org>
It can be a task for tool server, and can be as well derived from our
We have all that information in recentchanges (without an index for
this exact operation), but even then, I'm not convinced it has to be
used his way.
What is the point of per-namespace contribution feature on live site?
What are the applications of it?
On May 23, 2006, at 2:00 PM, BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> When you say "no useful edits," does that mean that you are "able to
> provide evidence of your accusations?" It seems to be that Saladin1970
> definitely has made useful contribution(s):
I can't comment on the 2nd link you gave, but this one at least...
This one is already addressed *directly* below, and links to a quite
long, and apparently well-referenced article on the subject:
[[Xiongnu]]. While I, personally can't comment on the good faith or
lack of such in the edit, it was, in fact, not useful where it was put,
and was redundant (as best as I can tell) in the article where it
should have been put.