On 5/19/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote: Agreed that it justifies a block, but an indefinite block? For his second block EVER? Ryan

hi MacGyver. I wrote the section. Someone else added a request for citations, and i provided them. I didn't delete any citiations,I deleted the citations an put the references in their place and for the jews against zionism - there was no reason given why it is not a good source other than that it was "propoganda", which is subjective.. The talmudic oaths are part of the talmud and the jews against zionism page referenced just quotes the talmud. Surely this cannot be classified as 'propoganda'. And if i broke the 3R rule by reverting 3 times and adding something another time, then fine. but surely this carries just a 24 hour ban, not indefinate. I appreciate that zionism is a 'hot topic', but that surely should mean being as fair as possible to the contributors, not imposing an extremely harsh ban for reasons with little or no substance. Also Jayjg suggested i had broken copy right rules and used this as one of the reasons. I cannot find any examples, perhaps you can have a look. thanks saladin1970 _________________________________________________________________ Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger 7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview

You did delete citations, I linked the edits in which you did. And I also linked the edit in which you replaced a perfectly fine source with your link. The 3RR violation is because you keep adding the same link when several people have asked you not to. In such cases, you should engage in discussion, not revert back. I've asked Jaiyg to comment on the copyvio thing. Mgm On 5/19/06, abu hamza <abuhamza1970(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

ok, i have looked at the links properly. If you could read the whole post before reply , it would be gratefully appreciated yes, in my reversion to the previous page , a citation was removed . Given the notes stated it was just a reversion from the one before mine, i was unaware that extra information had been added. One has to ask the question, what about my citation that was delted. To the second point about the applicability of using the website "z-ionism the real enemy of the jews". I am a little confused. A forum member says it is anti - zionism. I say that it is a historical and factual account of the run up to the creation of israel , not the historical and factual account of the movement of anti - zionism (whatever that is). Another user then says it is a POV. Yet this was a book written by the itv middle east corrospondence of ten years, who spent 5 years documenting and researching this book using factual, referencable material. Someone who had a working relationship with the presidents and gola meir Now if someone says it is pov and i say it is a factual account, how comes my assertion gets used as evidence of banning me indefinately. Shouldn't the question be why is this reference to this book being continuously deleted Anyhow, the above is really only relevant, in that it highlioghts the subjectiveness of this case. the real crux of the matter is that i have been banned indefinately (in my first ban -as the ban by thomas harrison was for the same 3rr). Jaygy has said i broke copy right rules - yet after 10 hours or so he still hasn't produced any evidence of this. It would be extremely unfair for me to have been banned for something a moderator made up . One would have thought that if this was one of the reasons he would have the evidence at hand. Jaygy also said i did not post any useful posts - this is highly subjective and one has to wonder about the fairness of being banned because of an administrators subjective view my posts were 'useless'. Jaygy also said i conducted 'attacks' in the talk pages. My statement that some one is a zionist can hardly be in the hall of fame of attacks, especially to merit banning indefinately Unless Jaygy has been able to produce this evidence of my copy right violations or show you evidence of my profound attacks on others, then it would be extremely unfair and against wikipedia policies to ban me indefinatly. Thanks once again for taking the time to read my points, your sincerely Saladin _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN Search Toolbar now includes Desktop search! http://join.msn.com/toolbar/overview

hi ryan, why am i being blocked for a week? on what grounds? there has to be grounds. Otherwise it is entirely unfair. and why do i have to have the threat of the community banning me permanently over my head. Again there has to be grounds for this. I can't see any. I have only been a wikipedia member for 3 days, and i have been banned permanently, recommended to be banned for a week pending community judgement, and yet there is no evidence that i violated any rules to call for such justification. There has to be fairness in wikipedia, otherwise it doesn't work _________________________________________________________________ Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters! http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters

Saladin1970 added a whole bunch of text to the Alan Hart article which was copied directly from a website about his book: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Hart&diff=53330262&o…] He then reverted it in twice. I consider that copyvio and advertising. He has also insisted on labelling Harold Shipman, "the most prolific known serial killer in the history of Britain (and possibly the world)" as a "Jew", insisting he be described as a "Jewish British general practitioner" in the introduction [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Shipman&diff=52931256&…] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Shipman&diff=53056969&…] , and reverted it in 7 more times. His talk comments contain personal attacks on various editors, insisting that they, among other things "stop pushing their Zionist agenda" and stop "vandalising", and stating "never mind, this is to be expected from zionists". He offers to edit-war on behalf of other editors [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Amibidhrohi&diff=pr…] and edit wars himself, violating 3RR on more than one occasion. Oh wait, I forgot, after three reverts he actually stopped editing, and "someone else" from his work just happened to spontaneously revert as an IP editor on his behalf. And when someone was also reverting from Saladin1970's home IP, that must have been when that "someone else" was visiting him at home. Saladin1970's actual article "contributions" have all been POV, usually not relevant to the article, extremely poorly written, generally unsourced, and, when sourced, taken from non-reliable sources; that's when they haven't been POV copyvios. Moreover, they have been reverted by 9 different editors. He has managed all of this in under 50 edits. I'm having difficulty understanding what value he could possibly bring to the project. Jay. On 5/19/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Ryan, please don't undo other admins' blocks. Discuss it with the blocking admin and ask him or her to reconsider. See the blocking policy. Sarah

On 5/19/06, slimvirgin(a)gmail.com <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: You know if we had had this attitude about a year back I would probably have had the you have new messages thing perminatly stuck at the top of my screen. -- geni

On 5/19/06, slimvirgin(a)gmail.com <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: Because he's a newbie and no one bothered to give him short blocks. This isn't simple vandalism and he's not willy on wheels. Someone misunderstanding our policies doesn't give anyone precedent to railroad him rather than giving him a chance. We tell people to be bold, and then indefinite block them for doing it? Is Ryan prepared to mentor him? No, I'm not prepared to mentor everyone I unblock. Ryan

On 5/19/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com> wrote: Then kindly stay out of it. Cleaning up after this very poor editor is going to involve a lot of work, and if you're not prepared to do that work yourself, don't expect anyone else to.

On 5/19/06, slimvirgin(a)gmail.com <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: Listen, we don't have to bite each other's heads off over this. I shortened his block to 1 week so that people could talk about this and figure out whether there is actually consensus for a community ban. If an indefinite block is uncontroversial with most admins who are not me (disappointing as that may be), I'll re-apply it myself. So let's talk about it, not get territorial about our fiefdoms. Ryan

On 5/19/06, Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com> wrote: Ryan, we could have talked about it just the same without you undoing Jay's block. I did seriously mean it about the mentoring thing. If you think this editor should be allowed to edit, with all the trouble that will entail, you should be willing to volunteer to monitor his edits and help to correct them. Sarah

jayjg wrote: <snip> Entertainment value? -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

On 5/20/06, abu hamza &lt;abuhamza1970(a)hotmail.com&gt; wrote: The first source is the "dodgy website" I referred to earlier. It's an extreme partisan website. It should not be used as a source. The second is Wikipedia. It's not allowed to be used as a source in our articles, for obvious reasons. The third is a personal website http://www.fsmitha.com/about.html -- also not allowed. The use of poor sources should be placed in the context of you trying to add six times to the introduction of [[Harold Shipman]], the British doctor who murdered his patients, that he was Jewish or that his mother was a Jewish asylum seeker, without a source, although even with one, why is that fact so relevant to his notability that it has to go in the intro? Plus the reverting with a sockpuppet, or, if you prefer, a workmate with the same IP and same browser, who reverts to the same version of the same page just in time to stop you from violating 3RR. Sarah

On May 20, 2006, at 1:23 AM, abu hamza wrote: This man is a notorious murderer. To claim that he was Jewish when he is not, or when there is no proof that he is, constitutes anti-Semitism. Wikipedia will never be used to further a bigoted, racist agenda. I am willing to do anything it takes to prevent it. Be glad you were blocked for a week. I would have blocked indefinitely. -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

On 20 May 2006, at 02:01, abu hamza wrote: Out of interest, is your name actually Abu Hamza? Justinc

On May 19, 2006, at 1:09 PM, Ryan Delaney wrote: All of his edits seem to fall within a POV-pushing, anti-Semitic agenda. From denouncing Zionism to trying to publicly identify (without proof) a convicted murderer as Jewish, it's pretty clear that he's trying to turn Wikipedia content into racist propaganda. I am quite firm about this--he should be blocked indefinitely. If he is willing to apologize for his past edits I'd have no problem with reinstating him. But Wikipedia is not a hate site. On May 19, 2006, at 7:42 PM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote: I don't find anti-Semitism entertaining, thanks. -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

being anti zionism isnt being anti semetic. likewise some of the most antisemetic people are christian zionists. you are slandering me to muddy the water, please refrain from personal attacks. I am not anti semetic and could never be p.s mycontributions included chinese muslims, turkic people and a moors section in the spanish inquisition _________________________________________________________________ Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters! http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters

good point steve _________________________________________________________________ Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters! http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters

On 5/20/06, Philip Welch &lt;wikipedia(a)philwelch.net&gt; wrote: The only reference I've found to Harold Shipman being Jewish is a BBC news site reporting a comment by [[Abu Hamza al-Masri]], an Islamist cleric in the UK, who was convicted in February of racial hatred and incitement to murder. Abu Hamza told the court that the British Foreign Office and media are controlled by Jews, and part of his evidence was that, referring to Harold Shipman, "If a doctor kills 250 of his patients there is not a single word about his religion." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4644030.stm This is the attitude that User:Saladin1970 (posting here as Abu Hamza) brings to Wikipedia. We see it a lot. A few weeks ago, another user, User:Jamaissur, created a number of articles about British Jews who were caught up in a financial scandal. There were other people caught up in it too, but he didn't create articles about them, only the Jewish ones, and some of the articles ended up consisting only of the allegations with practically no other information. When he couldn't find a source saying they were Jews, he'd add things like "is one of the 'British friends' of the "Israel Center for Social and Economic Progress," which made the same point. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barry_Townsley&oldid=44187414 Or that the person was married to someone whose father was Jewish. He even created an article about the charity [[Jewish care]] because one of the men caught up in the scandal was a major fundraiser, and for a while that's all the page said: British charity, looks after Jewish people, controversial Lord X was a major fundraiser. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_Care&oldid=44486804 Even if Harold Shipman was Jewish and there's a good source for it, there's no reason it should be in the intro. His ethnicity/religion wasn't in any way relevant to his notabilty. Sarah

Also out of interest, what is the reason behind your interest? Hope it is nothing ulterior.

On 5/20/06, Sarah &lt;slimvirgin(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I'm probably straying into dangerous territory here, but I do notice that ethnic origin is very frequently cited in the intro for people with, shall we say, more positive contributions to humanity. "Jim Smith was a Jewish scientist of Polish origin best known for his studies of geraniums" seems like something you would come across fairly often. There's really no policy or guideline at all for what shouldn't go in the lead section. There are vague guidelines for what *should* go in it, but whether or not to mention a religion or ethnic origin is largely a question of taste and common sense. Steve

On 5/20/06, Steve Bennett &lt;stevagewp(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I agree that it's a matter of editorial common sense. If the ethnicity is relevant to the person's notability, it's fine to mention it in the intro. If it's harmless, ditto. But if it's irrelevant and arguably racist, anti-Semitic, or Islamophobic, then it's important not to mention it with unseemly haste. We shouldn't have articles starting with: "John Doe is a British Muslim convicted of child rape," or "Jane Doe is an Afro-American who murdered all four of her husbands." There's no harm in mentioning ethnic background in the bio section, but it shouldn't be used as a stick to beat people with (or to beat their ethnicity with). Sarah

On May 20, 2006, at 6:26 AM, abu hamza wrote: Convenient excuses, anyhow. You use the same name as an avowed anti- Semite and al-Qaeda sympathizer, and then pretend it was a coincidence? -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

On 5/20/06, Sarah &lt;slimvirgin(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: "John Allen Muhammad (born John Allen Williams on December 31, 1960) is an American serial killer. Together with his younger partner Lee Boyd Malvo, he carried out the Beltway sniper attacks in an apparent attempt to extort $10 million dollars during his shooting spree." Not "John Allen Muhammed is a Muslim African-American serial killer". "Lee Boyd Malvo (alias John Lee Malvo or Malik Malvo) (born February 18, 1985), along with John Allen Muhammad, was arrested on October 24, 2002 in connection with the Beltway sniper attacks. A jury convicted Malvo of capital murder on December 18, 2003, and recommended a sentence of life imprisonment without parole on December 23, 2003," Race again not mentioned -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

On 5/20/06, Steve Bennett &lt;stevagewp(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I personally don't mind if it's a positive association, or a very interesting one, though again you have to be careful. Pointing out that someone is a British Muslim mathematician sounds a bit odd. And we wouldn't say a person was a Celtic scientist, so why a Jewish one? I prefer to add it only when it's relevant to their bio. For example, saying that Freud was a Jewish psychoanalyst would be okay because his background in Judaism played a large part in the development of his ideas (though the current intro doesn't mention it). Sarah

On 5/20/06, Sarah &lt;slimvirgin(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: You may be confused by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_mathematicians then. Steve

Steve Bennett wrote: ... unless it's a minority POV. -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

On May 20, 2006, at 7:40 AM, Prasad J wrote: "Islamist" does not mean "Muslim". Wikipedia states: "Islamism describes a set of political ideologies derived from Islamic fundamentalism." Abu Hamza is an adherent to those political ideologies, notorious for anti-Semitism, sympathies with al-Qaeda, etc. He's using Wikipedia to promote his bias--trying to turn Wikipedia into propaganda for his cause. The cause of demolishing skyscrapers in Manhattan, slaughtering Indians in Kashmir, and trying to drive the entire nation of Israel into the sea. I'm glad you can tolerate that, because I can't. There's a line to be crossed here, Prasad. White supremacists aren't welcome on Wikipedia either, especially if they edit Wikipedia towards a white supremacy bias. This person and his anti-Semitic ideology is no different. If someone came on here and used "David Duke" as his nom de plume, and made a bunch of anti-Semitic edits, he would be banned for life very quickly. We hesitate here because the racist ideology in question claims to follow the Islamic religion? Please. -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

As always, Wikipedia is not concerned with the political views of its contributors. -- mvh Björn

On May 20, 2006, at 8:02 AM, BJörn Lindqvist wrote: As always, Wikipedia is concerned with contributors editing Wikipedia to further a political agenda. -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

No. -- mvh Björn

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Prasad J stated for the record: If all Islamists (which is not the same as Muslim) were notorious, there wouldn't be any point in adding that word, would there? Abu Hamza is a notorious Islamist, in contrast to all the merely vile Islamists. But you knew that. He does not have the right to use an offensive user name on Wikipedia, regardless of where he claim it is his real name or not. But you knew that. I suggest you quit telling administrators who know policy far better than you how to enforce policy. Your strawman attacks, claiming bigotry where none exists, will not get you what you want. Except that what trolls want is attention, so perhaps I'm wrong. - -- Sean Barrett | A thunder of jets in an open sky, sean(a)epoptic.com | A streak of gray and a cheerful "Hi!" | A loop, a whirl, a vertical climb, | And once again you know it's time....

Hang on. It looks to me like that statement above is trolling. If you look at [[Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse]], then you will see that the most we claim is "Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture." You seem to be implying that this poor chap was actually electrocuted to death when there doesn't seem to be any evidence supporting it. Pete, who doesn't support such abstractions either

In message &lt;D9BCB5E9-F76A-401E-830B-3EDB22236C87(a)philwelch.net&gt;et>, Philip Welch &lt;wikipedia-RE/bwZxTIQaLZ21kGMrzwg(a)public.gmane.org&gt; writes Indeed, I live in the same TV broadcast area as Hyde, where Shipman committed his murders, so it was BIG news locally - and as far as I can recall Shipman's religious affiliation if any was NEVER mentioned in the exhaustive reporting of his crimes, the trial, and the public enquiry. It simply was completely irrelevant to the commission of his crimes and anyone seeking to introduce this religious/ethnic characterisation into his article should be required to prove relevance as well as incontrovertible prove the truth of the assertion with high-quality references. -- Arwel Parry http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/

just for the record, and for all of those who have suggested it is wrong to use a controversial name. My name is abu hamza.. However it is not my wiki name, it is the name on the email. Several people have drawn attention to the fact that i am called abu hamza as a mechanism to accuse me of supporting 911, being anti semetic, of flying to the moon and wearing green pants, or whatever other obscure accusation that can be made at me. i am quite shocked at the lack of redress when certain people are allowed to fling false statements around . such as welch calling me anti semetic. Shame on you. of jaygy and then slimline saying i have written copyright infringments - yet are unable to produce any evidence. so for now , i will await my 10 day. Any questions can be directed to my email at abuhamza1970(a)hotmail.com salaam _________________________________________________________________ Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger 7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview

On 5/20/06, abu hamza &lt;abuhamza1970(a)hotmail.com&gt; wrote: That's as believable as your claims that your friends at work and home simply reverted for you as IPs. It wasn't you at all, it was all your "friends". Right. Your wiki name is Saladin1970, Saladin being the Muslim conquerer who drove the Crusaders out of Palestine. I suppose that's your real name too, and there's no political implication there? Nonsense; your copyright infringements on Alan Hart (where you repeatedly inserted large amounts of text copied verbatim from http://zionism-realenemyofthejews.com/ ) have already been shown. Even a modicum of verisimilitude on your part would be quite helpful; so far your posts have failed dismally in this respect. Jay.

On May 20, 2006, at 8:32 PM, Prasad J wrote: I don't even disagree with you about Abu Ghraib. I just think it's completely off-topic to bring it up. It *is* trolling. -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

I can think of at least one admin who could be described in such a fashion. If he doesn't like even the most innocuous change, it's vandalism and quickly reverted. Pete, not mentioning names

Steve Bennett wrote: In this case it is probably harmless. It localizes events in the killer's own country. It would be a little trickier if the killer were not American. The fact that he adopted the name Muhammad (a typically islamic name) could be problematical. Ec

On May 20, 2006, at 8:37 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote: "Hamza has publicly expressed support for al-Qaeda [and] Osama bin Laden." Again, I'm not claiming he was connected to 9/11, only that he supports that kind of violence. Consider: "John Doe has publicly expressed support for the Khmer Rouge [and] Pol Pot." If anyone came on this listserv publicly identifying with such a John Doe, I'd want to run him out for the same reason. -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

You find the username Abu Hamza offensive, tomorrow if someone adopts the pseudonym Lynddie England, then what will your reaction be? Just like some Muslims support Hamza, there are Americans (I have met these people on the internet) who condone what England did to POWs in Abu Ghraib.

Let's respect everyone's privacy please. I find an inquiry to reveal the real name too personal for a public forum. Thanks Humus sapiens On 5/20/06, Justin Cormack &lt;justin(a)specialbusservice.com&gt; wrote:

Humus Sapiens wrote: [fixed top posting] It's a relevant question. If I were to post under the name "Richard Stallman", you'd want to know if it were really *the* Richard Stallman or not, wouldn't you? -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

On May 20, 2006, at 10:27 PM, Prasad J wrote: Exactly the same. Just like if someone came here calling himself "David Duke". -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

On 5/21/06, jayjg &lt;jayjg99(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: He pretty much had consensus here on the list though. There were what, three of four admins that thought that an indefinite block was way over the top. And he didn't do anything totally unreasonable, it's still a one week block, plenty of time for you to explain your reasons to the rest of us. Why are we even fighting here? We all agree that this guy should be blocked, the only issue is for how long, and I'm sure that if we stop using inflammatory terms (wheel war, that is) and just calmed down we could come to an agreement. Can we please stop screaming "Wheel warrior!" to anyone who does anything slightly resembling a wheel war, but is in actuality, pretty reasonable. You know, "Don't let process stand in the way of common sense", that kind of a thing. I know Ryan Delaney meant no offence, so lets not do the hurt-feelings thing. --Oskar

I'm sorry Prasad, I never said I identify with SPC. England: In fact, I condemn her actions as strongly as possible. I do think it is shameful for users to refer to US soldiers with disrespect: I also feel it's shameful for people to refer to ANY soldiers with disrespect. I believe the Bushido code, the Way of the Warrior is alive and well amongst soldiers. As for your side note, you're entitled to your beliefs. -Dan/Swatjester On 5/21/06, Prasad J &lt;prasad59(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On 5/21/06, BJörn Lindqvist &lt;bjourne(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: You're at cross purposes. Richard Stallman is famous. If someone is posting as "Richard Stallman", we really do want to know if it's him or not. We could simply ask him to give us proof that it's really him, but if it's not - or he declines to say so - we don't need any further info. Steve

On 5/21/06, abu hamza &lt;abuhamza1970(a)hotmail.com&gt; wrote: For the 3rd time, you copied large sections of text verbatim 3 times from the zionism-realenemyofthejews.com into the Alan Hart article. Here are the links where you did it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Hart&diff=53330262&o… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Hart&diff=next&oldid… http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Hart&diff=next&oldid… I also listed in previous e-mails your attacks on Talk: pages etc. Do you plan to claim for a 4th time that I have produced no evidence of your copyright violations? Do you plan to yet again claim it was your "friends" who were reverting for you from your home and workplace? Do you plan to again claim that the fact that the real Abu Hamza claims Harold Shipman is a Jew, and you keep inserting that claim into the article on Harold Shipman, has nothing to do with your chosen name "Abu Hamza"? Your continued denials of behavior that has already been documented show quite well why your indefinite ban is justified. Jay.

On 5/21/06, jayjg &lt;jayjg99(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: You don't get consensus for reducing community bans or indefinite blocks. You get consensus for making them. Ryan

On 5/21/06, Rob &lt;gamaliel8(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Apart from the reverting, the 3RR violation, the sockpuppetry, the copyright violation, the repeated unsourced insertion that a serial killer was Jewish, and the all-round obsession with Jews, there was this comment in response to an October 2004 post from banned user Alberuni (who had similar problems): "well he [Jayjg] seems to be stalking me to put his zionist POV, saladin, but never mind this is to be expected of zionists." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Occupied_Palestinian_Territo… This is exactly the kind of comment and attitude we can do without. Sarah

On 5/22/06, Sarah &lt;slimvirgin(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Don't think I don't entirely agree, but I was trying to get through to him that wikilaywering and threats of a mass uprising won't help his case. His case, such as it is, depends upon him convincing us that he's not here to use Wikipedia to fight Jews. I don't think he's convinced anyone of that yet, but he's not going to do it by arguing about fair use.

As a side-note have any of you noticed that the 9/11 Memorial Wiki has not been deleted despite ample consensus being achieved towards its deletion? Don't you guys feel that there were far greater tragedies which occured during the 20th century-like World War 2 or the Holocaust or the Nagasaki-Hiroshima Nuclear bombing, apartheid in Africa, to name a few? Making such a big deal about the loss of 3000 lives while fully neglecting much more horrific incidents is a shockingly clear example of how America-centric Wikipedia has become. I urge someone to please delete this absurd memorial which seems (in a way) to place the people who died on 9/11 on a much higher pedestal than (for example) the 7 million who were murdered in Nazi Germany.

G'day Prasad, It may have escaped your notice, but the "9/11 Memorial Wiki" is not a part of Wikipedia (IIRC it's on Wikicities, but ICBW). It therefore slots neatly into that segment of the Internet that I like to pleasantly describe as "my not-giving-a-fuck zone". I'm sure most Wikipedians have a similar view. It is *not* our problem, *not* our business, and *not* our fault that it exists. Now, there are good reasons for it to be created, and good reasons for it to not have been created. And it's my pleasant duty, as a good (I hope) Wikipedian, to happily Not Give A Fuck about those reasons, or indeed any other project on the Internet that happens to have the word "wiki" in it somewhere. You cannot infer anything about Wikipedia from the existence of an unrelated project, and I'll thank you not to even make the attempt. And for what it's worth, we are getting *less* America-centric, not more. The project began in America, and for a time (with a few brave exceptions) was largely American. We still bear the scars! But slowly we're getting more viewpoints, better spellers, etc., etc. In a way, it's rather frustrating to have someone from a non-Western culture show up and immediately begin behaving incredibly badly, screaming about "Zionist conspiracies on Wikipedia" and so on. We *need* editors who don't share the same worldview, but we *don't* need lunatics. Do you think you could muster up some people who can combat our systemic bias problem but also wouldn't go flying off the deep end and start confusing neutrality with Zionism? Because that would be very welcome. -- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/344 - Release Date: 19/05/2006

On 5/22/06, Prasad J &lt;prasad59(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Ignorant has more letters in it. -- geni

"Prasad J" wrote I agree. We need much, much more work on systemic bias on the English Wikipedia. We are effectively the flagship Wikipedia, and it would be also good to be the one most on top of the systemic bias issue. And we have to be careful to keep it non-politicised. Systemic bias is a blot on the claim to be 'encyclopedic', to give a genuine panorama. It improves the 'pedia for everyone, to bear down on it. Charles

"Steve Bennett" wrote Yes, a chapter in the early history. In fact a 'historic debate': is everyone who died in 9/11 automatically notable? WP was young in 2001. Charles

On 5/22/06, abu hamza &lt;abuhamza1970(a)hotmail.com&gt; wrote: Please stop dissembling. You were not blocked because of your e-mail name, but for multiple policy violations and general poor editing. Sarah

common-sense systemic bias Common sense shows that the U.S would have major geo-politcal motives for orchecstrating the 9/11 attacks. You will agree that the occuaption of the oil-rich country of Iraq,the extension of U.S military presence in Afghanistan [which provides America with a certain amount of significance in the Indian Subcontinent (a highly important area in terms of political significance)] will be enough motive for the U.S to fake the "terrorist attacks" on 9/11.

On 5/22/06, Prasad J &lt;prasad59(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: No, by common sense, I meant the ability to decide which sources are worth paying attention to, and which should be ignored. Sarah

On 5/22/06, Prasad J &lt;prasad59(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Please you don't seriouly think I haven't been keeping a vauge eye on the conspirocy theorists that belive this one (the "moon landings were faked bunch" have become two easy to debunk and the kennedy asasination mob appear to be fadeing away). I see they make the olkd the twoers fell in free fall claim. Of course the problem with this one is that if you look at deberies around the towers that is in free fall it falls faster than the towers. Still since argument by link seems popular at the moment: http://www.911myths.com/ -- geni

Humus Sapiens wrote: Check again what he actually asked. The question was not "what is your real name?" it was "is that name you are using actually your real name?" which is not necessarily the same thing. FYI, and just in case you were wondering, the likely reason for wanting to know this can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri This is not a name without connotations, and the reasons for choosing it might make interesting reading. HTH HAND -- Phil -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Unblock+request-t1648883.html#a4502537 Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.

On 5/22/06, Prasad J &lt;prasad59(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Not really. If the US wanted a solid motive for invading Iraq it would be fairly trivial to plant some WMD for the inspectors to find. Or allow them to shoot down one of the planes patrolling the no fly zone. Fair trivial and produces a much stronger case than the unrelated 9/11 If the US wanted a military presence in the Indian sub continent they could of, Oh to chose a random country, paid Tajikistan to put a base there. Could have been sold as supporting about the only democracy amongst all those former bits of the USSR. Or they could have gone to Nepal to sort out the Maoist lot. -- geni

I did not start the arguement. I was only asking why the 9/11 Memorial Wiki had not been deleted despite obvious consensus toward it's deletion. That is (in my opinion) Wikipedia-related since the Memorial Wiki has .wikipedia in it's URL.

Oh to chose a random country, paid Tajikistan to put a base India already has bases there-the sudden entry of the U.S would offend the former , and I'm pretty sure a former Soviet-block country like Tajikistan, or any other country in proximity to the Subcontinent, would not really allow U.S military presence on it's soil. Or they could have gone to Nepal to sort out the Maoist lot. That would make it appear as if America was supporting the King-who has always been viewed as somewhat of a dictator. the US wanted a solid motive for invading Iraq it would be fairly trivial to plant some WMD for the inspectors to find. Or allow them to shoot down one of the planes patrolling the no fly zone. Fair trivial and produces a much stronger case than the unrelated 9/11 These would not have evoked as strong a reaction in the U.S as the killing of 3000 Americans ON American soil would. As for WMDs- it is not really all that easy to "plant" them without the act being noticed. Or allow them to shoot down one of the planes patrolling the no fly zone. The Iraqis are not foolhardy enough to actively provoke the U.S by shooting down one of the latter's planes. Also, by analysing the plane's flight-path it would be obvious that the pilot did not make any effort to dodge the missile. Also the lack of flares (used to avoid heat-seeking missiles) or chaffs would be noticed. Thus, it would be obvious that the American pilot was not making any effort to evade the attack-a very unusual occurence indeed. More importantly I doubt whether the U.S. airforce has a kamikaze squadron. Good arguements nontheless.

Methylphosphonyl difluoride onto a pipe that the Weapons inspctors wanted to cheack or the like And you think that the Iraqis would allow that? They wouldn't be (heavily) guarding the areas that the U.N Inspectors wanted to check? Heh!, you don't know much about security-systems do you? So? Cut a few wirers and the pilot would never see the thing comming. There would be various other methods. Send a B-52 over for example. Soldiers would be willing to cut the wires and kill their own colleagues? Anyway the pilot would probably do a pre-flight check so it wouldn't work. B-52s are bombers- fighters are used as patrol-craft not bombers, how would the U.S explain why they were using a bomber to patrol the no-fly-zone?

I was responding to Geni. Sorry if it strayed off topic too much.

On 5/22/06, geni &lt;geniice(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Hi geni, This message too has nothing to do with the English Wikipedia. Maybe you could carry on the conversation in private? Steve

I agree with Bjorn, if Islamism is a political agenda that is to be avoided, then so is anti-Islamism.

Hear hear! All of the above are tragedies of immense proportions and should be known and understood by as many as possible. We should have MORE memorial wikis, not fewer. I visited the Holocaust Museum in Washington last year and it was a distressing and sobering experience. Last month I was in Hiroshima, where the scars of the attack remain beneath the cherry blossoms, and it was a poignant but beautiful moment in my life. We should learn about these and other tragedies and say "NEVER AGAIN!" Pete, unable to think of a tagline

Philip Welch wrote: To me the issue is not whether he supports these causes, but how he does so. NPOV allows a place for supporters of al-Qaeda to make their pitch about whatever may be good about it. Rather than run them out it would be to our broad advantage if these individuals learned to express these views in a more constructive manner. For someone like our Abu Hamza (who at first appearance seems to have indeed engaged in unacceptable editing) it would help if we had mentors available who are sympathetic but rationale in dealing with such points of view. Perhaps they could pull aside and counsel these wilder newbies in techniques for constructively presenting their opinions. Ec

jayjg wrote: This seems highly disrespectful to disbelieve a person who claims to be using his own name. There needs to be more to that than your personal finding that the name is objectionable. If you doubt that it is his name you should provide evidence that he is lying. There may certainly be political implications, but Western teaching about the Crusades rarely mention the names of the Muslim leaders. The tone in [[Saladin]] emphasizes his chivalrous character. He was, however, intolerant of Christian terrorists. Ec

Not until they put the gun down...

On May 22, 2006, at 11:29 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: So you're willing to have Islamists, white supremacists, etc. openly editing Wikipedia as long as they attempt to follow NPOV? I don't. I think the presence of such individuals is harmful to the community. -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

On May 22, 2006, at 2:29 PM, Peter Mackay wrote: That's a reasonable thing to say about communists, anarchists, radical feminists, furries, polyamorous transsexuals, anarcho- capitalists, or almost any fringe group. The difference with anti- Semites is that we have Jewish editors. If there were people on Wikipedia who happened to be white supremacists or Islamists and you had no way to tell they were either of these things from their edits, that would be one thing. If you make your anti-semitism known, however, I don't see why you should be welcome on Wikipedia. The very act of accepting these types into the community would be an insult. -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

On 5/22/06, Philip Welch &lt;wikipedia(a)philwelch.net&gt; wrote: It's a pity we're using the example of anti-Semitism. Maybe we could keep this more abstract? Say I'm a rabid anti-Pokemonite (not far from the truth :)). Does the existence of Pokemon fans on Wikipedia make me unwelcome? Nah, I just keep my distance. You might find similarities in the fact that we have both sides of various ethnic conflicts, in Yugoslavia or Israel and whatever. We also have anti-abortionists and pro-abortionists. Do they bicker? Yep. Does the very fabric of Wikipedia fall apart? Nah. Steve

Perhaps we should ban all intolerant users. Pete, pegging the first yonnie

On May 22, 2006, at 2:54 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: That's different for so many important reasons. One big reason is that there are no actual Pokemon editing Wikipedia, because Pokemon don't exist in reality. Jews do. Imagine if we had editors who belonged to the KKK as well as large numbers of black editors. Still don't see the problem? -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

On May 22, 2006, at 4:47 PM, Peter Mackay wrote: That's precisely my proposal. -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

On 5/22/06, Ryan Delaney &lt;ryan.delaney(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Right. Which, of course, was not the case here; quite the opposite in fact, as there is no evidence of even a single "good edit". Jay.

On 5/22/06, Prasad J &lt;prasad59(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Do you understand the difference between "Hamza" and "Abu Hamza". Or what a "strawman argument" is? LOL! So Prasad says even as he personally attacks me by calling me "immature". Hey Prasad, this will be both the first and last time I respond to any of your posts on this list. I'm sure you can undersand why; you're well enough fed here as it is. Jay.

Philip Welch wrote: We have people who spent the entire Cold War thinking that communists were going to to nuke them. We have single fathers. We have people who hate them too. Your POV is showing... The act of openly rejecting these types is just as big an insult. Who's next? Non-Americans? -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

On May 22, 2006, at 7:32 PM, Ryan Delaney wrote: Alright. I see you weren't keeping up with the context of the discussion, so let me fill you in: Imagine if we had editors who belonged to the KKK and made it obvious they belonged to the KKK with the following pattern of behavior: making contributions about European history while making biased edits against pro-African or African-American political causes, along with a rigid obsession with mentioning in the lead paragraphs of [[OJ Simpson]], [[John Muhammed]], et. al. that these convicted or suspected murderers were black, and making posts to the listserv under the pseudonym of "David Duke". Now do you see the problem? -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

Jay: I didn't call you immature, I informed you that acting immature was unbecoming of a (mature) person like you. Also refusing to engage people who do not share your point of view and dismissing them as "trolls" is a rather childish thing to do. Or what a "strawman argument" is? Don't dismiss everything you disagree with as a "strawman arguement". By the way, I'm sure the concerned teacher has a relative named Abu Hamza, considering Abu is a pretty common Muslim name. Philip: OH MY GOD. Prasad, we've put up with your shit for long enough. Since I am not a hick or a hillbilly you will understand that I do not appreciate the use of profanities against me. I ask that you not use your "git-r-done" lingo whilst communicating with me.

On May 22, 2006, at 11:12 PM, Prasad J wrote: I don't know about where you live, but in most places people use profanity in cities too. In North America, it's generally only backwards rural people who get offended by profanity. However, as a special favor to you, I've rephrased what I said: Prasad, we've put up with your non-sequitur outbursts for long enough. This list is about Wikipedia. This list is not about denouncing America or arguing about whether the World Trade Center was destroyed by planted explosives. Everybody who isn't from the United States hates America. We get it. Now please kindly cease and desist. -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

For god's sake, can you guys give this all a rest? There are lots of places where you can argue about this stuff, but this isn't one of them. Steve

We'll stop arguing when Muslim users like Abu are treated fairly.

Philip Welch wrote: If a white supremacist is editing an article not related to race, I don't see any problem with them editing Wikipedia. If that person were editing an article on racial relations in the U.S. or another country, I would be highly suspect of anything they would add to that article. We all have biases. Some users choose to wear those biases on their sleeves (i.e., user boxes on their user page). Others tend not to openly share those biases. I actually would prefer to know someone's biases and be overly cautious of any of their edits vs. have someone push POV and be unaware. Sue Anne

Prasad J wrote: "Posh" seems like a peculiar word in these circumstances. These words are a part of the language like any other. They can be most effective when used sparingly. When a person overuses "fuck" as every other word in a sentence it limits his credibility. I don't agree with you that it's only in North America where profanities are so widespread. Ec

Admit it, you banned me because any balanced view of zionism is not acceptable to you, only pro zionism is, and so all those who attempt to make the zionist page a NPOV should be banned indefinately on his first ever ban due to trumped up charges and false accusations I actually would prefer to know someone's biases and be overly cautious of any of their edits vs. have someone push POV and be unaware. Sue Anne I'm not a Muslim but I must agree with Abu's view. Why not just admit that some of you are biased against him on account of his religion?

On May 23, 2006, at 12:30 AM, Prasad J wrote: It's an insult to sensible Muslims worldwide to characterize him as a typical Muslim Wikipedian. -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

On 5/23/06, Philip Welch &lt;wikipedia(a)philwelch.net&gt; wrote: If that's the case, then they should be asked to stop it, and perhaps forced to do so. But you're stretching if you want to suggest that the presence of a white supremacist *by itself* creates a hostile environment for any black editors. The debacle caused by the admin who threatened to ban any user of {{user pedophile}} demonstrated that banning for ideology or membership is not practical or desirable. Incivil actions or undesirable edits, yes. But not memberships or ideologies. Steve

On May 23, 2006, at 12:51 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: It is pretty narrow. In general discourse, "Islamist" refers to a rather sophisticated political ideology. But I'm using the term provisionally. -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

On May 23, 2006, at 2:03 AM, BJörn Lindqvist wrote: It is pretty telling. For instance, I change "explain why" to "argue that", removing the biased implication that LFL's position is correct. I also remove a largely unnecessary paragraph and make some style improvements. The net result of that diff is a more neutral and better written article. Thanks for posting it--I'm rather proud of it. -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

On May 23, 2006, at 2:03 AM, BJörn Lindqvist wrote: I'd like to add something here. The only political agenda I've been advocating is (a) not denouncing the Jews (b) not blowing up inhabited office buildings, and (c) when pressed, I've also denounced the excesses of the Iraq War. But really, the only agenda I've been advocating on this list with regards to Wikipedia is (a) not using Wikipedia to denounce the Jews and (b) not using Wikipedia to advocate political agendas. I've been especially vehement about not using Wikipedia to advocate anti- Semitic political agendas because that's the intersection of the two. -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

On May 22, 2006, at 8:54 PM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote: How is that POV? Look, if you're on Wikipedia and you make it known that you're an anti-Semite, doesn't that count as being pretty damned uncivil to the Jews? The difference with communists, anarcho- capitalists, furries, et. al. is that saying "I'm an anarcho- capitalist" doesn't constitute an attack on anyone else. Saying (or otherwise making clear) "I am an anti-Semite" is, by definition, the same as saying, "I hate Jewish people". If you don't see that as uncivil I don't know what you can see as uncivil. I don't worry about insulting anti-Semites, thanks. Please stop using up all the straw. -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

On 5/23/06, Philip Welch &lt;wikipedia(a)philwelch.net&gt; wrote: I don't see that as particularly uncivil, actually. Wikistalking, leaving messages on user talk pages, personal attacks on article talk pages, excessive reverting - these things fall much better into that category. Stating that you hate jews on your user page is more in the nature of generally unpleasant and inflammatory, whereas incivility has more to do with being unpleasant on an individual basis. Steve

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Prasad J stated for the record: Or when all the trolling posters are put on moderation. - -- Sean Barrett | Most people who need to be shot sean(a)epoptic.com | need to be shot soon and a lot. | Very few people need to be shot | later or just a little.

well, it seems that there is no end to the indefinate bans. And any discussions on my case are to be stifled out (user page blocked) slimline (the original person to request jaygy ban me) has just UNILATERY revoked tom harrisons 1 week ban, and placed me on indefinate ban, with the usual long list. The additional reason given is sock puppetry , as i have logged on to wikipedia - without using my saladin, to discuss the ban with the various administrators involved. My request is to have my user page unblocked, as i was going to use it to put my case for this week ban, and once my week ban is finished on the 26th . If there is no consenus to have me banned indefinately it should be revoked Now the wikipedia guideline for sock puppetry are Jimbo Wales has said: There's no specific policy against it, but it's generally considered uncool unless you have a good reason. I would say that multiple usernames are really only a problem if they are used as a method of troublemaking of some sort. For example, to generate an appearance of consensus, or to vote more than once, or to hide from public scrutiny.[1] (2003) here are the reasons sock puppetry is not allowed Voting Wikipedia uses a "one person, one vote" principle for all votes and similar discussions where individual preferences are counted in any fashion. Accordingly, sock puppets may not be used to give the impression of more support for a viewpoint. This includes voting multiple times in any election, or using more than one account in a discussion at polls and surveys, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Proven sock puppets may be permanently blocked if used in this manner. [edit] Deception and impersonation In addition to double-voting, sock puppets should not be used for purposes of deception, or to create the illusion of broader support for a position. This kind of behavior is disruptive and unnecessary for any potentially legitimate use of sock puppets. In particular, accounts that are used to maliciously impersonate another Wikipedian should be blocked permanently. [edit] Circumventing policy Policies apply per person, not per account. Policies such as 3RR are for each person's edits. Similarly, using a second account for policy violations will cause any penalties to also be applied to your main account. Users who are banned from editing or temporarily subject to a legitimate block may not use sock puppets to circumvent this. Evading a ban in this manner causes the timer on the ban to restart, and may further lengthen the ban ********** So the only one applicable is the last "Users who are banned from editing or temporarily subject to a legitimate block may not use sock puppets to circumvent this. Evading a ban in this manner causes the timer on the ban to restart, and may further lengthen the ban" I would suggest i wasn't circumventing the ban, as it was only used to discuss my case with administrators. And even then it means ban restart or a lengthening of the ban. (again i don't see any indefinate ban guidelines) *********** _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN Search Toolbar now includes Desktop search! http://join.msn.com/toolbar/overview

On 5/23/06, abu hamza &lt;abuhamza1970(a)hotmail.com&gt; wrote: You seem to have no problem posting here, nor have you refrained from addressing these topics. Why should you be unblocked on this basis?

On 5/23/06, Philip Welch &lt;wikipedia(a)philwelch.net&gt; wrote: Mm. I disagree. The majority of usages of "Islamist" I see out in the mainstream media and by actual people seem to boil down "a Muslim terrorist who hates America, its allies, and its ideals", and only rarely and generally in sophisticated, if not downright academic, discourse, does it refer to the ideology descended in large part from Salafi thinkers and others such as Sayyid Qutb. ~maru

Prasad J wrote: Please could you avoid muddling between quotes and your own responses. Also, in the last sentence that you "quoted" from me, you should be reminded that I had the adverb "sparingly" at the end. It makes a big difference to the meaning. Your observation that profanities are so prevalent in American entertainment is inconsistent with the European view that Americans are prudish. However I can see that any entertainment that deviates from the politically correct monotony of Bollywood could be interpreted as profanity. Remember too that much of European entertainment is not in English, and I don't know the extent to which these films are translated for audiences in India. Even if they are translated, it is difficult to compete against the American marketting behemoth. Ec

Is you and your collegue using the same wiki-account? That is, AFAIK, a no-no. Maybe you can get your collegue to "testify" on the list? It can't make your situation any worse and should prove the allegations of sock puppetry wrong. -- mvh Björn

How is this related to Wikipedia?

However I can see that any entertainment that deviates from the politically correct monotony of Bollywood could be interpreted as profanity Not really, we get "Will & Grace" here which is based on homosexuality-which is still taboo in India. Nobody has objected to that show being aired. The same applies for shows like "Sex and the City", "Desperate Housewives", "Six Feet Under", among others which have sexual references the likes of which are generally frowned upon in this country. As for Bollywood being politically correct, Hindi movies have been made on everything from lesbianism to nuns having affairs with married men. As such "profanity" refers to the use of word which can be described as lewd or uncivil. Remember too that much of European entertainment is not in English, and I don't know the extent to which these films are translated for audiences in India. Even if they are translated, it is difficult to compete against the American marketting behemoth. Quite a few BBC serials like "Little Britain", "The Office" etc. are aired in India and have done reasonably well even though they got as much (or rather as little) publicity as their American counterparts.

Prasad J wrote: Unlike the others, "Six Feet Under" is not in the mainstream of American entertainment. While the themes followed in the others may be objectionable to some, they very much avoid the use of profanity. The language in "Six Feet Under" is unrestricted. Sorry, I sometimes have the tendency to view Britain as somewhat different from Europe. ;-) I really had continental Europe in mind. There are some exciting new directors in Indian film like Deepa Mehta and Karan Razdan. There are very few great Indian films despite the fact that India produces more films than any other country. An amusing sidelight about profanity. The Catholic Church in Quebec has undertaken an advertising campaign to curb the use of profanity there. French Canadian cursing is often done by invoking the names of liturgical objects. These oaths (even when translated) are completely meaningless and ineffectual among English Canadians. There is a great deal of cultural variation in what people consider to be profane. Ec

G'day Angela, Yeah, as Prasad pointed out, that was a case of shooting the ol' mouth off without checking if the facts backed me up first (fear not, I don't do this while writing *articles* ...). Whoops. While the Wikimedia Foundation is, of course, free to host what it likes, I don't think something like this belongs at wiki*pedia*.org. -- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse

Please just delete this obvious example of merica-centric bias. It is an insult to the many other people across the world who have died in terror attacks for you to make such a big deal about one incident, just because it happened in America.

On May 25, 2006, at 9:44 PM, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote: C'mon, Alphax, you know better than this. "You have been trolled. You have lost. Have a nice day." Sound familiar? I've been sending these messages off-list for days and it hasn't helped. So I'm taking it on-list. Don't feed the trolls. -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

You'd think, wouldn't you? And yet they seem remarkably reluctant to take action...

On 5/26/06, jayjg &lt;jayjg99(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Wikien-l-owner(a)wikipedia.org is the place to send formal complaints about other list members. So far, we haven't received any. But as I said, the best response to trolls is usually to ignore them. Feeding them and complaining that they keep trolling isn't helping a lot. Steve

G'day Selina, "Liberalism" and the daemonisation thereof, gone crazy or otherwise, is an American concept and I do not subscribe to it. You may wish to call me a leftist no-goodnik, if you like; it's not true, but it gets the same concept across. I'm advocating the deletion of nothing. I agree that there's nothing wrong with a Sep11 memorial, and I don't even have a problem with the WMF hosting it. I just don't think it belongs under the Wikipedia domain name; WP:NOT a memorial, after all. Note that I'm not arguing this particularly strenuously, and not starting any movements to have it moved (heh) to .wikimedia.org or wikia/wikicities. That's the problem with us chardonnay socialists, we're too busy sipping lattes in inner-city Melbourne to actually get off our well-toned arses and do something ... (If you got half the jokes in this post, you're probably Australian. If you thought they were funny, the cheque is in the mail.) -- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse

G'day Prasad, <snip/> Okay, there's "making rational but unpopular arguments" and then there's "digging a hole and sealing yourself into it". Guess which one you're doing. Wrong. Guess again. -- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse

G'day Prasad, Ahh, I think I see where you're going wrong: Care != "build towers with stupid names". Just remember that little factoid, and you should be jake. Forgetting it is what leads you to do silly things like make statements that look very much like you're saying only the Americans agree Sep11 was a Bad Thing. -- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse