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.
On 26 Jul 2006 at 15:31, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
> mboverload wrote:
> >I'm not sure why you're mentioning it, but I recently changed every mention
> >of Pokemon to Pok?mon.
> A few years ago there was a big debate over whether names should include
> accents, and I believe that was settled back then. This doesn't meant
> that we don't have a few retro-luddites who would still believe that the
> results should have been different.
I guess whoever programmed the system that produces and distributes
the digest form of this list is among those "luddites", since the
digest is done in strict US-ASCII, and the accented letter above
shows up as a question mark.
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
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
There are two problems with letting just anybody upload images:
1) Copyright law is very complex. Most people don't understand it.
2) Most people *aren't aware* that they don't understand it.
By letting everyone upload images to Wikipedia, we're telling them
that we trust them to understand what is and is not allowed. Then, we
turn around and bite them by deleting their images when, inevitably,
they make mistakes. It confuses people no end to be told that they
both are and aren't able to upload images correctly.
I see this confusion every day, in the questions on my talkpage, or on
OrphanBot's user and talkpages, or on the image-related pages in
Wikipedia:-space. I haven't had OrphanBot go through the 35,000 talk
pages that it's left messages on, but I expect that if I did, I'd find
hundreds more questions, unanswered because nobody ever saw them.
I also see this in the form of users floundering around, trying out
different templates to see which one will get the bot off their back,
or using clearly-incorrect templates based on a misunderstanding of
copyright, or making up template-like statements because they don't
understand what a template is, or providing "fair use rationales" that
amount to little more than a statement of "I once heard these words in
a copyright context".
I don't have the time to deal with this confusion by explaining
Wikipedia's policies to everyone, and most uploaders don't stick
around long enough to learn. The best I can do is respond to the
occasional user who finds their way to my talkpage.
Much of the image deletion policy is based around the fact that there
are maybe a dozen people on Wikipedia who understand the image use
policy well enough to enforce it, and are willing to take the time to
do so. At the same time, over two thousand new images are uploaded
each day, adding to the 553,000 images already on Wikipedia.
By making image uploading a privilege to be earned rather than a right
conferred by registering an account, we can relax the policy and deal
with uploaders individually, rather than automated notification of
problems and nearly-automated deletion of problematic images.
Sorry if this has been discussed before. I just noticed
that [[Abdominal thrusts]] gives detailed advice on how to
perform a medical procedure. Maybe there are other such
articles too. Given the fashionable practice of filing
suit whenever a medical procedure fails to work, it seems
to me that this is rather dangerous for Wikipedia.
Wouldn't it be legally safer (and more likely to be
medically correct) if the actual procedure in such articles
was presented as a direct quotation from a named medical
authority? With permission, of course. Maybe there should
also be a disclaimer.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
They copyright policy adopted by the contributors to Wikipedia is more
restrictive than strictly required by law. This is a good thing for
two primary reasons: The first is that we have a commitment to Free
Content where the law has no objection to us distributing content with
outrageous restrictions, and the second is that a restrictive policy
removes grey areas which make enforcement difficult.
The existence of a strict policy encourages people to create free
images where they are possible and has greatly increased the number of
free images available to the world. An easy example is the articles on
automobile models on enwiki... in the last year substantial progress
has been made in creating and using free images and in many places
this progress was directly driven by editors refusing to accept unfree
images in the articles.
However, there are a number of cases such as the recent thread on the
image of Treanna where common sense would tell us to permit the
image... that it represents no compromise of our goals and no legal
threat. There have been quite a few examples that I've run into...
The challenge is that if we permit this sort of decision making we
find that for almost any image there is someone who will find
inclusion reasonable. This is substantiated by the fact that we
delete over 30,000 images per month on enwiki... after all, at least
the *uploader* thought it was reasonable to inclued the image. A
widespread permission to heed the 'common sense' of individual
contributors in these matters would simply result in chaos and likely
a massive regression in the overall freeness of our content.
I would like to propose a solution:
We should appoint or elect someone to make exceptions to our policy.
Ideally this person would carry a strong commitment to keeping our
content maximally free... but my view is that even if we appointed
someone with poor judgement that the bad calls of one person are
highly preferable to the bad calls of all our contributors.
Much like the arbcom acts as a consensus tool to help us achieve
consensus on bans and other such methods, a person in this position
would help us achieve consensus for exceptions to our image use
policy. They would not exist to make determinations on matters of
policy, but only to permit things which are legally permissible,
obviously non-harmful to our goals, but clearly against our policy.
In this manner the strict 'bright lines' policy can remain, preserving
the sanity of those who work to keep our content free, but we do not
suffer the harm of rejecting material which would be permitted by
How would people feel about a "Submit review" tab that is only shown
to unregistered users, and that would result in a page showing
a) A brief excerpt (~1000 characters) of the article from which the
user clicked "Submit review", and a link to open the whole article in
a separate window
b) A note that we encourage people to directly correct errors, with
further links on how to get started
c) A form with the following elements
Reviewer's e-mail address
Reviewer's professional background / affiliation (if any)
[ ] You agree that text of your review may be quoted, copied and
under the terms of the GNU FDL
The reviews would be sent to a to-be-created mailing list, e.g.
reviews-l(a)wikipedia.org. Besides the form information, the messages
would include an exact revision ID of the article that was being
Might such a strategy be a way to bridge the gap between experts and
the larger wiki world? One reason why experts may not want to
participate directly is that they simply do not want to waste their
time arguing with Wikipedians about what is right and wrong --
instead, they feel that their expertise should carry some weight. We
could even put out a press release: "Wikipedia solicits experts
With a mailing list, volunteers could look at each submission, and act
upon the ones which are legitimate (perhaps posting excerpts to the
talk page etc.). At the same time, such a system would not undermine
the regular community processes. It would also be easier to use than
talk pages, and encourage providing credentials.
Another advantage of such a solution is that it's almost trivial to
code -- in fact Angela wrote a "Contact us" extension that could be
used as a basis for such a form.
To prevent spam and abuse, e-mail confirmation could be required
before a review is processed. But perhaps it should be tried first