would you consider this useful jesse? 13:12, 17 May 2006 62.129.121.63 (added section on flag, the m population of muslims and famous chinese muslims) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islam_in_China&action=history p.s here is the wikipedia policy on amaturism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Replies_to_common_objections#Amateurs "Many ignorant people who think they know stuff will riddle articles with errors and serious omissions." In all honesty, Wikipedia has a fair bit of well-meaning, but ill-informed and amateurish work. In fact, we welcome it — an amateurish article to be improved later is better than nothing. In any case, when new hands (particularly, experts on the subjects in question) arrive and go to work, the amateurish work is usually straightened out. Really egregious errors are fixed quickly by the thousands of people who read Wikipedia every day. In general, the worse the error, the faster it will be noticed and fixed. As Linus' Law states, "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow." The editor base of Wikipedia is large enough that errors are usually small. _________________________________________________________________ Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters! http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters

Anyone thinking about whether the indefinite block of Abu Hamza is justified ought to consider (apart from the various policy violations) his determination to add to the introduction of [[Harold Shipman]] that he was a *Jewish* British serial killer. It's not just that there are no reliable sources for this. It's the obsession with trying to add an entirely non-notable reference to a person's ethnicity in order to make that ethnicity look bad. We regularly have anons turn up at [[Ron Karenga]], the founder of the African-American holiday [[Kwaanza]], who try to describe him in the first sentence as a "convicted felon," http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Karenga&diff=45070575&… and they do it because he's black and they're racists. That makes them useless Wikipedians, not because they're racist, because no one cares if they keep it to themselves, but because they're not willing to be Wikipedians. I could give scores of examples of the persistent addition of racist, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, misogynist slurs designed to make a person look bad, or to make Islam look terroristic or Judaism fascist. That kind of editing is the polar opposite of what it is to be a Wikipedian. In Abu Hamza's case, it's compounded by the sockpuppetry and the deceit about it, the reverting, the bad use of sources, and so on. But it's the lack of even the most basic grasp of what it is to be a Wikipedian that makes me support an indefinite block. Sarah

On 5/24/06, abu hamza <abuhamza1970(a)hotmail.com> wrote: (a) Can you show me diffs to its previous inclusion in the article? (b) Can you please explain why you felt it was relevant, and not only that, but so relevant that it had to be in the first sentence? Sarah

On 5/24/06, Sarah <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: Can you clarify: when you say "determination" do you mean "he was determined to do this" or "he is determined to do this". If he overstepped the mark and got hit for 3RR, that's one thing. If you think he's going to do the same thing to the same article, that's another. We regularly have anons turn up at [[Ron Karenga]], the founder of the Useless? Nah, no reason they couldn't sort stubs, fight vandalism or work on Pokemon articles. Has anyone seriously made a push for Mediawiki supporting article-level bans? As awful as it sounds, it would actually be useful for us to tag articles [[Black people]] and blocking certain people from editing such articles. if they keep it to themselves, but because they're not willing to be If that's their *only* goal at Wikipedia, that's one thing. If they just happen to strongly believe that and attempt to "correct" these articles when they come across them, well, they need guidance. That kind of editing is the polar opposite of what it is to be a Also from looking at his contributions, virtually every single one was reverted. Useless indeed. Steve

abu hamza wrote: Why is showing Shipman's religion relevant or important? Ec

G'day Prasad, [Why aren't you quoting any more? It's not possible to tell who you're replying to, or what they said.] I disagree. If it has to be brought up, it should be introduced in a way that shows it's very significant indeed. Because if we can't honestly say it's relevant, we should not be saying it at all. -- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse

On 5/24/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au> wrote: Fwiw, this line "Why is..." was actually quoted, it wasn't a rhetorical question. Gmail is good at that - it shows any line which appeared verbatim in a previous message in purple, whether or not it was actually preceded by Now, back to Shipman's mother. Steve

Björn Lindqvist wrote: Because that information is contained in a paragraph about his early life, not in the lede... HTH HAND -- Phil -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Saladin1970+%28new+thread%29-t1668512.html#a4540436 Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com.

On 5/24/06, Phil Boswell <phil.boswell(a)gmail.com> wrote: It's not only not in the intro, it's arguably relevant, because I assume the point of the way the early life section is written is to emphasize that he was born into poverty to a 15-year-old girl, and may therefore have had an unstable start in life. That the family were poor immigrants is therefore not an irrelevance. I'd have no objection to including in the [[Harold Shipman]] early life section that he was Jewish if it could be sourced and if it was in any way relevant. But there would still be no need for it in the first sentence. It's particularly jarring when writing about a British person, because the British don't as a rule identify themselves as "Jewish British," in the way an American might say Jewish American, and as Abu Hamza is based in the UK, he certainly knows that. Sarah

So what you are claiming is that Adolfo Constanzo's poor immigrant family is relevant TO HIS CRIMES? That is nothing short of racism. No one has, so far, claimed that Harold Shipman's possible Jewish refugee background is in any way relevant to his crimes. Anyone doing so would be rightly called an anti-Semite. What people have claimed is that Harold Shipmans family background is an interesting tidbit of knowledge, which I agree with. What I have showed is that it is not taboo for articles about (non-Jewish) serial killers to include information about their family background. In the early life section of the Adolfo Constanzo article it says: "... His mother, Delia Aurora Gonzalez del Valle, was a widowed Cuban immigrant." With Saladin1970's last edit to Harold Shipman, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harold_Shipman&diff=53826041&…53825304, the early life section said: "... His mother, Vera, died in 1963 from [[lung cancer]], when he was 17.She came to Britain as a Jewish Asylum Seeker." So you are wrong, with Saladin1970's last few edits, it was not stated in the first sentence, it was stated in the "early life" section. Exactly like it is written in the Adolfo Constanzo article. It is very telling of your attitude that you, on one hand, defends the mention of ethnicity in the Adolfo Constanzo article and on the other says it cannot be mentioned in the Harold Shipman article and then also using that to accuse Saladin1970 of anti-Semitism. -- mvh Björn

On 5/24/06, BJörn Lindqvist <bjourne(a)gmail.com> wrote: Don't be disingenuous. It may definitely be relevant to Constanzo's personality and sense of self (how could it not be?) that he was born to a 15-year-old girl from a poor immigrant family and that his other two siblings each had different fathers. This is not a good start in life, by any standard. If you can show me something similar about the effect on his life of Shipman's alleged Jewish background (assuming you can find a source showing he had one), I'll go and add it myself. Abu Hamza ended up adding it to the early life section, but started by several times trying to add it to the very first sentence, and with no source. I repeat: with no source. We stlll have no idea whether it's true, never mind relevant. Sarah

On 5/24/06, Sarah <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: Indeed. That was a disingenuous and dishonest accusation, and, frankly, typical trolling from this "contributor". Now that we have Jimbo's fiat on this, perhaps the list mods could get involved in fixing this as well. Jay.

On May 24, 2006, at 12:21 AM, abu hamza wrote: Usually, one is (a) either supposed to get the hint and stop adding it back in, or (b) attempt to discuss the issue instead if just revert warring over it. If the only references available aren't usable in Wikipedia, then the information in question is not verifiable and should not be included in Wikipedia. No, not at all. First off, if you look at pages like [[John Allen Muhammed]], there's nothing in the lead paragraph (which is where you kept putting it in the Shipman article) indicating that he is Muslim. Secondly, it is a verifiable fact that John Muhammed is Muslim. It is not verifiable fact that Harold Shipman is Jewish or is of Jewish ancestry. Wikipedia is not a corporate bureaucracy operating solely by written procedures and policies. There's a consensus of administrators to block your account indefinitely. That's enough. It takes two to edit war. Besides, there's a consensus between multiple parties to take it out. You're the only one obsessed with keeping it in. -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

On 5/24/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia(a)philwelch.net> wrote: I sort of think we're losing sight of the fact that he had less than 50 edits total. Basically, what it comes down to is, is he willing to accept that he violated our code of behaviour (whether or not he knew about it), and is he willing to totally change his way of editing. Abu, don't even think about arguing that you did nothing wrong - editing articles in the way you did is totally unacceptable to WIkipedia. Your only defence here is ignorance and pleading remorse, and promising never to do it again. The Oracle has spoken. Steve

I agree. Why don't you just apologise and agree to mend your ways? You're only wasting time by trying to justify those edits.

On 5/24/06, Philip Welch <wikipedia(a)philwelch.net> wrote: Yeah, but it's funny - it's "offensive" (presumably to Jewish people) but it's not libellous. Saying that a murderer is Jewish isn't actually saying anything bad about the murderer. It's a bit of a weird one, really. Steve

On May 24, 2006, at 3:21 PM, Delirium wrote: Yup, but it wasn't sourceable. -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

G'day Alphax, Oh, *damn*. I knew there was a reason Wikipedia Review wouldn't have me ... -- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse

Philip Welch wrote: That makes things easy then. We don't have to argue about whether a fact is "relevant or important" when we don't even know it to be true; just remove it (or move it to the talk page) pending someone finding a source. -Mark

Conversely, I'm astonished that people are willing to accuse the poster Abu Hamza when they haven't even gotten the basic facts straight. False. The poster abuhamza used the screen name Saladin1970. I don't understand how is email address is in any way relevant. Most people here didn't know there is a real Abu Hamza that incites hatred and most people wouldn't have cared about his email address unless someone had accused him for it. Calling editors Zionists is no good. Btw, I believe the extract from "Zionism The Real Enemy of the Jews" was only inserted in one article, [[Alan Hart]]. It is easy to build a castle of air. Everyone can do that, but when you analyze each part of it you see that it is nothing more than a castle of air. It is false that abuhamza didn't do any useful edits, he did. It is false that his screen name was Abu Hamza, it was Saladin1970. The user is indefinitely banned, there is no way for him to improve his behaviour anyway. -- mvh Björn

On 5/26/06, Rob <gamaliel8(a)gmail.com> wrote: Yes. But please use the more exact term "email address," for his email address. Screen name is a very ambiguous term in this context. Since you know that his Wikipedia user name was Saladin1970, and you probably also know that he didn't begin posting on this mailing list before he was indefinitely banned, then you should be able to conclude that his email address had nothing, whatsoever, to do with his indefinite ban. Also, you are comparing David Duke, which I assume is a well known racist in the US, to a Muslim clerk, who, in an international context, is definitely not well known. Saying that "some people might not know who Abu Hamza is," is an understatement. You can also take a look at the article about [[Abu Hamza]], and maybe you will understand why I find it hard that anyone would want to impersonate or idolize that guy. There are many way "cooler" al-Qaeida supporters out there. Apply Occam's Razor, is it more believable that Saladin1970's real name is Abu Hamza, or is it more believable that he choose the address abuhamza1970(a)hotmail.com to show his support for the real Abu Hamza? First, recall that "abu" is Arabic and means father of, so every father who has a child named Hamza would be an "Abu Hamza." Second, recall that the guy himself has explained that and has claimed that Abu Hamza is his real name. Third: Quote Dan Rosenthal: "n my time spent in the middle east, I've met a large number of men with the nickname Abu Hamza. I'm no Arabic naming expert, but from what I understand, Abu _________ is a common nickname scheme over there. I wouldn't be surprised to find multiple Abu Hamzas in the arabic wikipedia community. Coincidence in name is just that: coincidence, AFAICT" And last, even *if* the guy choose the email address abuhamza1970(a)hotmail.com because he likes Abu Hamza, that is no reason for indefinitely banning him - we allow people who like al-Qaeida to contribute. Yeah, I assume so. Alan Hart is the author of Zionism The Real Enemy of Jews. The quote was 4-5 paragraphs which is to much for Wikipedia articles. One or two paragraphs would have been appropriate. It is a common mistake many new to Wikipedia do. So before you try to stick up for the guy by helping him improve his behaviour, you have to get him unbanned. Don't you agree? Or are you saying that his behaviour on this mailing list is particularly bad? -- mvh Björn

This case is under arbitration. Please put evidence on the evidence page of the arbitration case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Saladin1970… Some arbitrators may not read this mailing list. (Yes, I'm being a good clerk today)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ilmari Karonen stated for the record: I can assure you that he's more than "marginally notable" here, well outside the UK. - -- Sean Barrett | Hunde, wollt ihr ewig leben? sean(a)epoptic.com | --Frederick the Great, Kolin, 18 June 1757