Hello, I am writing to protest my being banned by Guanaco, and to request that I be unbanned immediately. All of the charges he made against me ("linkspam, violating 3 revert limit after warning, making threats to call in a puppet army from a message board to push his POV further") are false, which should be made obvious to anyone who reviews the "white nationalism" wikipedia page and its discussion page.
First, I didn't "linkspam." I posted 8 new links, which brought the total to 9. The entry for "Zionism" has 21 external links, of which the vast majority are to Zionist sites.
Second, I have not ever made a single revert to a Wikipedia entry, as a review of the logs should show - I didn't even know what a revert was until a half hour or so ago. My entries HAVE been reverted multiple times by other users, on the other hand, and I think the reverts violate Wikipedia guidelines.
Third, I did not threaten to call a "puppet army," that is patently absurd, which anyone reviewing the discussion page can clearly see.
This harrassment is ridiculous an uncalled-for. It's perfectly clear that I'm being harrassed because of my beliefs.
My IP is 172.173.127.231 My Wikipedia user id is Svigor.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 19:58:56 -0700 (PDT), Svyatoslav Igorevich svyatoslav_igorevich@yahoo.com wrote:
Hello, I am writing to protest my being banned by Guanaco, and to request that I be unbanned immediately.
02:23, 10 Jun 2004, Guanaco blocked Svigor (expires 02:23, 11 Jun 2004) (contribs) (linkspam, violating 3 revert limit after warning, making threats to call in a puppet army from a message board to push his POV further) 03:53, 10 Jun 2004, Guanaco blocked #5653 (expires 03:53, 11 Jun 2004) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "'''Svigor'''". The reason given for Svigor's block is as follows: "'''linkspam, violating 3 revert limit after warning, making threats to call in a puppet army from a message board to push his)
-- from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist
Would it *really* trouble you to wait for the block to expire on its own? Blocks default to 24 hours for a reason- it's rather short, considering. What is the particular urgency in ths situation?
I don't recall that information being included in my block notification. In other words, I had no way of knowing if my ban was for 10 days or permanent or what.
Even in light of this I'm still glad I protested. I'm very used to the censorship that is endemic throughout western society when the subject is frank discussion of racial nationalism in general, and white nationalism in particular.
I'm quite fed up with this thoroughly contemptible behavior, and I intend to fight it whenever possible, as it is with Wikipedia. I don't intend to spread my p.o.v. all over Wikipedia - the entries on racial nationalism and white nationalism are all I'm interested in.
As I stated in the discussion page, I don't expect the entry to become a WNist tract. I DO expect it to be, as the Wikipedia guidlines suggest, from a "neutral" and "sympathetic" p.o.v. I DO expect it to fairly present WNist beliefs as held by WNs themselves, rather than present a anti-WN p.o.v. I DO expect it to contain relevant links and sources for those interested in learning more about WNism from a WN p.o.v., rather than the usual second-hand biased crap which is prevalent in the media. Did I say "prevalent?" I meant to say "endemic," or perhaps "axiomatic."
I think some people need to reread the Wikipedia guidelines, since I seem to be more familiar with them than they.
--- Fennec Foxen fennec@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 19:58:56 -0700 (PDT), Svyatoslav Igorevich svyatoslav_igorevich@yahoo.com wrote:
Hello, I am writing to protest my being banned by
Guanaco,
and to request that I be unbanned immediately.
02:23, 10 Jun 2004, Guanaco blocked Svigor (expires 02:23, 11 Jun 2004) (contribs) (linkspam, violating 3 revert limit after warning, making threats to call in a puppet army from a message board to push his POV further) 03:53, 10 Jun 2004, Guanaco blocked #5653 (expires 03:53, 11 Jun 2004) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "'''Svigor'''". The reason given for Svigor's block is as follows: "'''linkspam, violating 3 revert limit after warning, making threats to call in a puppet army from a message board to push his)
-- from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist
Would it *really* trouble you to wait for the block to expire on its own? Blocks default to 24 hours for a reason- it's rather short, considering. What is the particular urgency in ths situation? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Please note that this user has already threatened to invite posters on a White nationalist website to "visit" WIkipedia in order to make sure that the [[White nationalism]] article matches their POV. And his comment that he has not reverted an article is untrue. See the history of [[White nationalism]]. He has also spam linked the White nationalism article, but I've used up my three reverts.
RickK
Svyatoslav Igorevich svyatoslav_igorevich@yahoo.com wrote: Hello, I am writing to protest my being banned by Guanaco, and to request that I be unbanned immediately. All of the charges he made against me ("linkspam, violating 3 revert limit after warning, making threats to call in a puppet army from a message board to push his POV further") are false, which should be made obvious to anyone who reviews the "white nationalism" wikipedia page and its discussion page.
First, I didn't "linkspam." I posted 8 new links, which brought the total to 9. The entry for "Zionism" has 21 external links, of which the vast majority are to Zionist sites.
Second, I have not ever made a single revert to a Wikipedia entry, as a review of the logs should show - I didn't even know what a revert was until a half hour or so ago. My entries HAVE been reverted multiple times by other users, on the other hand, and I think the reverts violate Wikipedia guidelines.
Third, I did not threaten to call a "puppet army," that is patently absurd, which anyone reviewing the discussion page can clearly see.
This harrassment is ridiculous an uncalled-for. It's perfectly clear that I'm being harrassed because of my beliefs.
My IP is 172.173.127.231 My Wikipedia user id is Svigor.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
Please note that that's a lie, what I really wrote is ready for all to see on the "white nationalism" discussion page.
It's also a lie that I reverted the article. I edited in changes, my changes were reverted against guidelines, and I subsequently edited them back in. This may or may not be a technicality, but judging by what I read on reversions at Wikipedia, it isn't.
This whole thing about the links is plain SILLY. If you want a better balance of anti-WN links, add them yourself. Deleting the links I've added doesn't accomplish your goal, unless your goal is to prevent links to WN or "WNish" sites.
--- Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
Please note that this user has already threatened to invite posters on a White nationalist website to "visit" WIkipedia in order to make sure that the [[White nationalism]] article matches their POV. And his comment that he has not reverted an article is untrue. See the history of [[White nationalism]]. He has also spam linked the White nationalism article, but I've used up my three reverts.
RickK
Svyatoslav Igorevich svyatoslav_igorevich@yahoo.com wrote: Hello, I am writing to protest my being banned by Guanaco, and to request that I be unbanned immediately. All of the charges he made against me ("linkspam, violating 3 revert limit after warning, making threats to call in a puppet army from a message board to push his POV further") are false, which should be made obvious to anyone who reviews the "white nationalism" wikipedia page and its discussion page.
First, I didn't "linkspam." I posted 8 new links, which brought the total to 9. The entry for "Zionism" has 21 external links, of which the vast majority are to Zionist sites.
Second, I have not ever made a single revert to a Wikipedia entry, as a review of the logs should show
I didn't even know what a revert was until a half hour or so ago. My entries HAVE been reverted multiple times by other users, on the other hand, and I think the reverts violate Wikipedia guidelines.
Third, I did not threaten to call a "puppet army," that is patently absurd, which anyone reviewing the discussion page can clearly see.
This harrassment is ridiculous an uncalled-for. It's perfectly clear that I'm being harrassed because of my beliefs.
My IP is 172.173.127.231 My Wikipedia user id is Svigor.
Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Definitely a difficult area you have chosen. I should point out my personal position which is that while theoretically a "white" nationalist organization could exit which is not a neonazi organization, in practice, they do not. Your posting, "Until now I've been relying on fair play. I could of course bring this up at the Stormfront.org board and have dozens of posters there come here and join this controversy.", implies your position is congruent with that of Stormfront.org which appears to be a typical neonazi organization. My personal position is that in the United States, just as in Germany, such advocacy and organizations should be criminalized, illegal, and dealt with in Wikipedia articles in such a way that the racist and totalitarian aspects are emphasized. In other words, I'm not a civil libertarian.
This however is not Wikipedia policy which welcomes all viewpoints and provides that they be dealt with from a neutral point of view.
We recently banned a user with a neonazi orientation on the basis that he had made personal attacks. (Which he did do, many of them, often out of frustration as his viewpoint did not prevail). At that time we piously stated that our action was not based on his point of view editing. (After all, as we have recently discussed in the matter of 172 who edits from a leftist point of view, point of view editing is not grounds for banning).
This statement which you made in a previous post is unarguable, "I DO expect it to fairly present WNist beliefs as held by WNs themselves, rather than present a anti-WN p.o.v." This presents a problem, however, as the premier White Nationalist, Adolf Hitler, consistently misrepresented his position, to put it bluntly, he was a lier on a mass scale. Any article written on White Nationalist positions from a neutral point of view must in fairness point out that history of outrageous lying. It is expressed today, for example, in holocaust denial.
Although I have not examined every edit you made you appear to have consientiously followed the requirements Wikipedia makes for courtesy and while you may, as a new user, have broken the 3 revert rule, I could not find any grounds for banning you, or even disciplining you. You made controverial edits but attempted to discuss them on the talk pages and in large part your assertions were unanswered there.
You appear to be of Slavic ancestry, judging from your name. Why on earth would you support such a philosophy when Hitler's intent was to enslave (and probably ultimately exterminate) all Slavs?
I am not going to unban you, your ban is almost up anyway, and perhaps you did violate the 3 revert rule. However you seem to have been improperly banned and ought not to be provided you continue to edit in a constructive and courteous way. For you own protection you need to continue to attempt to discuss controversial edits on the talk pages as you have been doing.
Fred, (of "mongrel" ancestory).
From: Svyatoslav Igorevich svyatoslav_igorevich@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 22:09:24 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Protesting my ban
Please note that that's a lie, what I really wrote is ready for all to see on the "white nationalism" discussion page.
It's also a lie that I reverted the article. I edited in changes, my changes were reverted against guidelines, and I subsequently edited them back in. This may or may not be a technicality, but judging by what I read on reversions at Wikipedia, it isn't.
This whole thing about the links is plain SILLY. If you want a better balance of anti-WN links, add them yourself. Deleting the links I've added doesn't accomplish your goal, unless your goal is to prevent links to WN or "WNish" sites.
--- Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com wrote:
Please note that this user has already threatened to invite posters on a White nationalist website to "visit" WIkipedia in order to make sure that the [[White nationalism]] article matches their POV. And his comment that he has not reverted an article is untrue. See the history of [[White nationalism]]. He has also spam linked the White nationalism article, but I've used up my three reverts.
RickK
Svyatoslav Igorevich svyatoslav_igorevich@yahoo.com wrote: Hello, I am writing to protest my being banned by Guanaco, and to request that I be unbanned immediately. All of the charges he made against me ("linkspam, violating 3 revert limit after warning, making threats to call in a puppet army from a message board to push his POV further") are false, which should be made obvious to anyone who reviews the "white nationalism" wikipedia page and its discussion page.
First, I didn't "linkspam." I posted 8 new links, which brought the total to 9. The entry for "Zionism" has 21 external links, of which the vast majority are to Zionist sites.
Second, I have not ever made a single revert to a Wikipedia entry, as a review of the logs should show
I didn't even know what a revert was until a half hour or so ago. My entries HAVE been reverted multiple times by other users, on the other hand, and I think the reverts violate Wikipedia guidelines.
Third, I did not threaten to call a "puppet army," that is patently absurd, which anyone reviewing the discussion page can clearly see.
This harrassment is ridiculous an uncalled-for. It's perfectly clear that I'm being harrassed because of my beliefs.
My IP is 172.173.127.231 My Wikipedia user id is Svigor.
Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger>
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Mr. Bauer,
I find extensive parts of your post extremely problematic.
"Definitely a difficult area you have chosen. I should point out my personal position which is that while theoretically a "white" nationalist organization could exit which is not a neonazi organization, in practice, they do not."
This kind of ignorance is precisely why I am so adamant about balancing the Wikipedia entry. The most basic level of white nationalism is advocacy of white civil rights, i.e., a repeal of all racist laws which enfranchise non-whites at the expense of whites: affirmative action laws, the 1965 civil rights act which abrogates freedom of association, federal hiring quotas for minorities, etc. This is neonazism? Creating a National Association for the Advancement of White People would be neonazism? Advocating the idea that white people should advance their interests as a bloc, as Asians, blacks, Hispanics and Jews do is neonazism?
Please review the writing at www.Amren.com and get back to me with the examples of neonazism you find there.
"Your posting, 'Until now I've been relying on fair play. I could of course bring this up at the Stormfront.org board and have dozens of posters there come here and join this controversy.', implies your positionis congruent with that of Stormfront.org which appears to be a typical neonazi organization."
Eh? Stormfront.org is an international white pride Website, not a neonazi organization. It's simply a Web board dedicated to discussion of anything and everything of interest to ethnocentric white people. Again you show that you just don't know what you're talking about.
There is no single position or position-set to BE congruent with at Stormfront.org, as is the case with every forum known to man.
"My personal position is that in the United States, just as in Germany, such advocacy and organizations should be criminalized, illegal, and dealt with in Wikipedia articles in such a way that the racist and totalitarian aspects are emphasized. In other words, I'm not a civil libertarian."
That much is obvious, Mr. Bauer. What you suggests sounds far more totalitarian than libertarian. My gut instinct tells me that you are German, but that's just a stab in the dark. I've encountered much the same "totalitarian democratic" leanings in Germans before.
This sort of belief is distinctly un-American, and frankly will never be legal here, without a further shredding of our Constitution. We don't outlaw ideas here, Mr. Bauer, in fact we consider such proposals morally repugnant.
"This however is not Wikipedia policy which welcomes all viewpoints andprovides that they be dealt with from a neutral point of view."
Wikipedia policy also requires a "sympathetic" treatment of subjects, in addition to a "neutral" one.
"This statement which you made in a previous post is unarguable, "I DO expect it to fairly present WNist beliefs as held by WNs themselves, rather than present a anti-WN p.o.v." This presents a problem, however, as the premier White Nationalist, Adolf Hitler, consistently misrepresented his position, to put it bluntly, he was a lier on a mass scale."
Adolf Hitler presents a single historical example of a single position holdable within white nationalism, but he is anything but "the premier white nationalist."
This kind of ridiculous thinking really baffles me. It's like saying "Nixon, the premier Republican, consistently lied to the American people, therefore any sympathetic presentation of Republican party ideology must consist of a pack of lies."
I'm wondering if this line of argument even meets the threshold of requiring refutation.
"Any article written on White Nationalist positions from a neutral point of view must in fairness point out that history of outrageous lying."
I take that as a challenge. I can see now that this is going to be a full-fledged battle. I propose that this email list is insufficient to the task. I for one am much more comfortable with a Web forum. Unfortunately, I find neutral ground almost non-existent. Perhaps you or another poster could recommend a suitable venue? If you don't know of such a place, I have a free speech forum in mind whose admins might be amenable.
I would be glad to accept your implied challenge and prove you wrong, but I have to warn you this involves a protracted discussion, since white nationalism involves a wide range of subject matter. We can keep this between ourselves or broaden it to whoever seeks involvement, I'll leave that up to you.
edit: after reviewing the paragraph I quoted above again, I realized that you were simply conflating the "lies" of Hitler with the ideology of white nationalism. In that regard, my challenge above is misplaced. White nationalism is only peripherally related to National Socialism Mr. Bauer, and I am in NO way interested in a debate about Hitler, or National Socialism, or the inconsistencies of either. My white nationalism is of the strictly modern kind.
"It is expressed today, for example, in holocaust denial."
What is expressed today in holocaust denial? Holocaust denial and holocaust revisionism are essentially peripheral to white nationalism, at best. I'd be willing to stipulate to the entirety of holocaust orthodoxy for the purposes of argument.
"Although I have not examined every edit you made you appear to have consientiously followed the requirements Wikipedia makes for courtesy and while you may, as a new user, have broken the 3 revert rule, I could not find any grounds for banning you, or even disciplining you."
I appreciate that much at least. I am generally a courteous person. When my blood gets up that changes quickly, but I make every effort to comport myself civilly. I did not make a single revert, as the logs show, unless of course "revert" has meanings outside of that used in the logs, i.e., if it means editing in changes, then repeating those edits once they are reverted again.
"You made controverial edits but attempted to discuss them on the talk pages and in large part your assertions were unanswered there."
Again, thank you for recognizing the truth. I found it exceedingly frustrating to have my edits repeatedly removed, and to subsequently receive a message requesting that I discuss them on the talk page, only to find no one was interested in talking at all.
Imagine how much more frustrated I became when a Wikipedian kindly pointed out a series of links on Wikipedia policy, which I reviewed and found far more supportive of my actions than of the actions of my reverters.
"You appear to be of Slavic ancestry, judging from your name. Why on earth would you support such a philosophy when Hitler's intent was to enslave (and probably ultimately exterminate) all Slavs?"
Hitler was a Germanic nationalist, solely a pro-Germanic racist. I am not. I'm not a National Socialist either. Hitler informs my white nationalist beliefs strictly in a (vague) historical sense - none of my beliefs flow from Hitler. I am a pan-European white nationalist, my ideologies are informed by the present more than the past. In fact, a frequent bone of contention between myself and certain other white nationalists is the relevance of Hitler, the Third Reich, the NSDAP, and National Socialism to modern non-German white nationalism - I frankly think there is little to none.
As for my ancestry, my name is misleading since it's a pseudonym based on an historical figure. My ancestry can best be described as American - my father's family is of English extraction, and landed here before the Revolutionary War. My mother's ancestry is Dutch-Irish.
To be clearer - I consider Slavs to be white, and welcome them to the fold of white nationalism as fully as I do all other groups I consider to be white.
"I am not going to unban you, your ban is almost up anyway, and perhaps you did violate the 3 revert rule."
As I stated before, I didn't even know what a revert was until after the hubbub and just prior to being banned - I have never made a single revert to a Wikipedia entry, in the 'technical' sense. As I said before, I'm not sure of the connotations of the word 'revert' in the common parlance here.
"However you seem to have been improperly banned and ought not to be provided you continue to edit in a constructive and courteous way."
Courtesy and constructive behavior are not binary issues, they exist in a continuum. I feel that I have been treated discourteously, and in an unconstructive way. It is safe to say that without public apologies from all the offenders, that part of my courtesy and constructiveness has been "used up" with regard to these people.
With that exception in mind, I intend to do exactly as you have written.
"For you own protection you need to continue to attempt to discuss controversial edits on the talk pages as you have been doing."
Rest assured that I will do so, in fact I intend to be more scrupulous in that regard.
Thank you for your attention on this, you have at least shown a propensity for fairness in regard to evaluating my behavior, even if you have not done so in informing yourself as to my beliefs.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Wikipedia policy also requires a "sympathetic" treatment of subjects, in addition to a "neutral" one.
Wikipedia does not have a sympathetic point of view policy. Now, your views should definitely be represented in the article, but so should those of your opponents. I haven't looked at the article in question but as long as you're only adding accurate and attributed information about the views of white nationalists you should be fine. On the other hand, deletions of criticism or insertions of unverifiable information are likely to be deleted.
moink
"Wikipedia does not have a sympathetic point of view policy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policy_Library "Key policies
You don't need to read every Wikipedia policy before you contribute! However, the following policies are key to a productive Wikipedia experience, and the sooner you get to grips with them, the better.
1. Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing differing views on a subject fairly and sympathetically."
"Now, your views should definitely be represented in the article, but so should those of your opponents. I haven't looked at the article in question but as long as you're only adding accurate and attributed information about the views of white nationalists you should be fine. On the other hand, deletions of criticism or insertions of unverifiable information are likely to be deleted."
As I'm sure you know well, there's a fine line. I think a careful examination of the talk page and the history page of "white nationalism" will show that my edits have been unfairly reverted, against Wikipedia guidelines.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Perhaps a duel would help? Swords or pistols? ;)
I take that as a challenge. I can see now that this is going to be a full-fledged battle. I propose that this email list is insufficient to the task.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
"Perhaps a duel would help? Swords or pistols? ;)"
:)
As I said, perhaps the gauntlet was best aimed not at Mr. Bauer but at any who feel a grievance towards my stated ideology, in general.
I do feel very strongly that in order to achieve fairness in the WN article, I'm going to be required to engage in a full-blown discussion of all things WN with my Wikipedian opponents.
As much as I dislike giving good advice to potential opponents, I deplore an easy contest even more: if I am fortunate enough to engage them in such a debate, I suggest they bring their "A" game.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Mr. Bauder, I apologize for chronically misspelling your name until now, it was an oversight and not deliberate.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
--- Svyatoslav Igorevich svyatoslav_igorevich@yahoo.com wrote:
Mr. Bauer, ...
Dude, keep it short. This is a mailing list, not a novel.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Mr. Bauer,
I forgot to respond to this statement:
"Fred, (of "mongrel" ancestory)."
I don't approve of referring to people as "mongrels," and I certainly don't use that epithet.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
--- Svyatoslav Igorevich svyatoslav_igorevich@yahoo.com wrote:
Mr. Bauer,
I forgot to respond to this statement:
"Fred, (of "mongrel" ancestory)."
I don't approve of referring to people as "mongrels," and I certainly don't use that epithet.
He did not. He said that about himself. You do approve of his right to say that, right? No need to respond.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
"Dude," do you take me for a fool?
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
--- Svyatoslav Igorevich svyatoslav_igorevich@yahoo.com wrote:
"Dude," do you take me for a fool?
No.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
I replied in haste, after I sent that I reread your email and realized that you'd mistaken my meaning. I didn't mean that Mr. Bauer was referring to me as a "mongrel," I was responding to what I saw as his implied statement that I, as a WN, would view him as a "mongrel."
--- Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Svyatoslav Igorevich svyatoslav_igorevich@yahoo.com wrote:
"Dude," do you take me for a fool?
No.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
--- Svyatoslav Igorevich svyatoslav_igorevich@yahoo.com wrote:
I replied in haste, after I sent that I reread your email and realized that you'd mistaken my meaning. I didn't mean that Mr. Bauer was referring to me as a "mongrel," I was responding to what I saw as his implied statement that I, as a WN, would view him as a "mongrel."
Except of course that I understood your meaning the first time as you have explained.
Anyway.
I suggest you find something else to edit for a while, when your ban expires. Something neutral, like the histories of aircraft manufacturers. Very few edit wars and bannings in that area.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Svyatoslav Igorevich wrote:
Mr. Bauer,
I forgot to respond to this statement:
"Fred, (of "mongrel" ancestory)."
I don't approve of referring to people as "mongrels," and I certainly don't use that epithet.
Fred is certainly known to have strong opinions. He was not applying the term to anyone but himself. The North American population is derived from a wide range of immigrants. For us mongrel ancestry represents acceptable self-deprecating humour. We have no intent to become contestents in a dog show.
Ec
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:25:59 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Fred is certainly known to have strong opinions. He was not applying the term to anyone but himself.
Perhaps the modifier "self-described" would be in order. But this is really something for the article talk page.
Fennec Foxen wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:25:59 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Fred is certainly known to have strong opinions. He was not applying the term to anyone but himself.
Perhaps the modifier "self-described" would be in order. But this is really something for the article talk page.
Fred is entitled to call himself a mongrel. I take pride in my own mongrel roots. Why should there need to be a [[Mongrel]] article and associated talk page?
Ec
He mentioned it as a point in argument. He did not threaten to invite them. And in any event, according to established Wikipedia policy they and their neonazi viewpoints are welcome. He may have technically broken the three revert rule, but that is to be expected from a new user when they first enounter determined opposition. His spam linking is not in itself a violation.
Due to the frustrating nature of dealing with this type of point of view editor, your frustration is understandable, but you can't properly ban folks, even of disagreeable views, if they follow Wikipedia rules.
He tried, in a show of good faith, to discuss many of the controverted points on the talk page of [[white nationalism]] but is not getting much discussion on the points he raised.
Fred
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 21:15:30 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Protesting my ban
Please note that this user has already threatened to invite posters on a White nationalist website to "visit" WIkipedia in order to make sure that the [[White nationalism]] article matches their POV. And his comment that he has not reverted an article is untrue. See the history of [[White nationalism]]. He has also spam linked the White nationalism article, but I've used up my three reverts.
RickK
I did not block Svigor, and have no plans to do so. I agree that so far he has played by the rules, and as long as he does so, I have no problems with him.
RickK
Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote: He mentioned it as a point in argument. He did not threaten to invite them. And in any event, according to established Wikipedia policy they and their neonazi viewpoints are welcome. He may have technically broken the three revert rule, but that is to be expected from a new user when they first enounter determined opposition. His spam linking is not in itself a violation.
Due to the frustrating nature of dealing with this type of point of view editor, your frustration is understandable, but you can't properly ban folks, even of disagreeable views, if they follow Wikipedia rules.
He tried, in a show of good faith, to discuss many of the controverted points on the talk page of [[white nationalism]] but is not getting much discussion on the points he raised.
Fred
From: Rick giantsrick13@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 21:15:30 -0700 (PDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Protesting my ban
Please note that this user has already threatened to invite posters on a White nationalist website to "visit" WIkipedia in order to make sure that the [[White nationalism]] article matches their POV. And his comment that he has not reverted an article is untrue. See the history of [[White nationalism]]. He has also spam linked the White nationalism article, but I've used up my three reverts.
RickK _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger
On 06/10/04 11:51, Fred Bauder wrote:
He mentioned it as a point in argument. He did not threaten to invite them. And in any event, according to established Wikipedia policy they and their neonazi viewpoints are welcome. He may have technically broken the three revert rule, but that is to be expected from a new user when they first enounter determined opposition. His spam linking is not in itself a violation. Due to the frustrating nature of dealing with this type of point of view editor, your frustration is understandable, but you can't properly ban folks, even of disagreeable views, if they follow Wikipedia rules. He tried, in a show of good faith, to discuss many of the controverted points on the talk page of [[white nationalism]] but is not getting much discussion on the points he raised.
I'll have a look too.
I mean, I'd have been happy to put up with Vogel if he didn't revert on crack and whitewash so much. And could construct a grammatical sentence. The tortured grammar is a significant part of the pain.
- d.