The IP address you were using, 62.252.0.4, has a long history of nothing but vandalism. The IP has been warned time and time again. Your addition of the weasel words "It is claimed that members of the [[al-Qaida]] militant [[Islamism]] group hijacked four aircraft." and "The '''attacks of September 11, 2001''', are described by the Ubited States Government to be a series of coordinated [[terrorism|terrorist]] attacks against the [[United States]] " was read as more of the same. I don't know if you also edited the [[Playboy]] article earlier today, but the same IP was used to insert the words "gay gay gay" into the article. The problem is that you were using an anonymous IP address with a long history of vandalism. RickK R E Broadley <20041111(a)stardate.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: Hi, I recently discovered Wikipedia, and I am very impressed by the vast range of information, and by the neutrality of many of the definitions. I have only today started to contribute to Wikipedia, and made a few additions of links to some of the articles. I noticed that the definition of the September 11 attacks was claiming as fact some information that is widely disputed, and so a few minutes ago inserted information making it clear who claims these facts, and I was going to elaborate further with information on which facts are being disputed and by who, only to find that my IP address had been blocked by a user "Flockmeal". This user was claiming the reason for the block was "repeated vandalism". I went on to check what the blocking policy was, and then the Wikipedia definition of vandalism, to discover that by input was in no way anything close to vandalism. I was stating nothing than the facts, with no bias whatsoever. The entries I made were made entirely in good faith, and I am very disappointed that such abuse of the blocking policy has been made. Since the block, I have registered and now have a username and am contactable at my email address. I would ask that the IP address block be removed, and a discussion started as to why elaborating on facts and remaining factual can be classed as vandalism. Many thanks, Edmund Broadley _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Discover all that�s new in My Yahoo!

Moments after I sent my initial reply here, my attention was drawn to other replies here, making most of my reply pointless. Don't panic; you've done the right thing by contacting us. :) ~Grunt (Steven Melenchuk) R E Broadley wrote:

After looking around the Internet, I found a full transcript of President Bush's speech at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/b… It certainly appears that the article was wrongly reverted. I would correct the mistake, but the article was protected from changes shortly after the revert was applied, and so far has not been unprotected. Might it be possible to allow registered users to still be allowed to make changes to this article? At least that way only people who can be held accountable will be able to make changes. Regards, Edmund R E Broadley wrote:

Rick (giantsrick13(a)yahoo.com) [041121 10:34]: That IP address is glfd-cache-1.server.ntli.net - a proxy for NTL, a huge cable broadband provider in the UK. Blocking NTL proxies is not quite as broad in its effects as blocking an AOL proxy - it tends to be per geographical area, rather than possibly almost any user and not necessarily the one you blocked - but does take out rather a lot of people as collateral damage. So such blocks, when necessary, should (I suggest) be applied for 24 hours maximum and, most importantly, with a clear reason to explain the problem to anyone blocked inadvertently. - d.

Hi, I notice there seem to be lots of different wikipedias. (Sorry I'm new). I was surprised to see that I need to register a usercode on each one separately. Why is this please? Where do I go to access wikisource and wikiquote please? And would I be helping by relocating all quotes from all articles over to wikiquote? ...Or would some people object to this being done? Cheers, Rebroad John Lee wrote:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:26:47 +0000, R E Broadley <20041111(a)stardate.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: To be precise, there are multiple language versions of Wikipedia, and various other projects run by the same organisation (the Wikimedia Foundation), some of which are also split into multiple language variants. (Some, like 'meta' and 'Wikisource' combine multiple languages within one site). See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Complete_list_of_Wikimedia_projects for a (rather overwhelming) list. Each project is currently housed in a seperate database, and has a seperate copy of the software to run it. This makes some things easier (e.g. keeping things like software settings and translations, and indeed articles, seperate) but, obviously, has drawbacks. There are currently plans underway to create a unified login system for all these projects, but there are problems still to be sorted out - not least, that the same name will currently be in use by different people on different projects. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Single_signon_transition for some more details; also, there is currently a discussion on the "foundation-l" mailing list, which you can read at http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-November/thread.html http://en.wikisource.org (for the English version) and http://wikiquote.org I'm not sure what exact decisions have been reached (you might want to look around and see what previous discussions you can find) but removing "all quotes from all articles" sounds like going a bit too far. I think the idea is that Wikiquote should form a Dictionary of Quotations, and Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should contain only those quotes relevant to encyclopedic articles. So quotes included in Wikipedia articles *just for the sake of including them* should probably be relocated to Wikiquote, and replaced with a link to the relevant page there; but quotes that are included to illustrate a point in the article, or which are so noteworthy that you would expect to find them in an encyclopedia article, can be left where they are. Or, that would be my opinion, anyway. -- Rowan Collins BSc [IMSoP]