[Foundation-l] Israel article (was: Quran in Sitenotice)

Thu Jul 13 21:30:25 UTC 2006

----- Original Message ----
From: geni <geniice at gmail.com>
To: andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 11:20:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Israel article (was: Quran in Sitenotice)

>No one sane?

>It has been edited by:
>http://ur.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%D8%AE%D8%A7%D9%88%D8%B1

>One of the buracrats on that wikipedia.

this guy argued that if you are against Qur'anic verses in the Sitenotice
 means you are against Qur'an.

>It was created by:
>http://ur.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%D8%B3%DB%8C%D9%81_%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%DB%81

>The admin we have contected over the sitenotice issue.

Doesn't surprise me, because he added the Quranic verse into the Sitenotice
in the first place.

--heema

On 7/13/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> (I apologise this won't show up in threading - I've only just
> subscribed and I'm reading old mesages through the archives)
>
> Heema Khan:
>
> > On Urdu Wikipedia, article on Israel is very short:
> > http://ur.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A6%DB%8C%D9%84
> > I can translate it:
> > "Israel, a palce where jews live. In addition to Pakistan there are many other
> > countries that do not recognize this place of Jews as a country.
> > Majority of the Urdu speaking public believes that there
> > is no country by the name of Israel exists. But there is
> > a country named Palestine, whose some part is captured
> > by Jews and they call it Israel. And the English speaking
> > world says that in a country called Israel some
> > Palestenians want to create a country called Palestine."
> >
> > This is the whole article. Quite extraordinary, nothing to add more.
>
> In this specific case, if my reading of the page is right, this
> article has had a grand total of 21 edits, the ten most recent of them
> in a single three-day period in June. Every single bit of the content
> has been contributed by one single registered user; all anon edits
> have been vandalism (well, one was pageblanking, that might count as
> justified!) No discussion page, of course.
>
> On the whole, while it's still a pretty terrible article, it scares me
> less once I know that it's the work of one guy and it's just that
> no-one sane has managed to look at it yet...
>