User talk:User6854/Archive3

whoosh
Not that I disagree with any of your sentiments, but perhaps the Al Qaeda simile is a bit over the top when describing non-murderous nuisances? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Your analogy with "terrorism" is absolutely correct (JPG it is one you have made to me previously, so somewhat rich for you to say this now); it is simply your prescription that is mistaken. What propagates Al Qaeda in the western world is not people engaging in constructive dialogue with it, but people in a position of authority in the western world trying to suppress it. anyone who seems to be "sticking it to the Man" becomes a rallying point for the disenfranchised. I commend you the book "Al Qaeda - the True History of Radical Islam" by Jason Burke (the UK Observer newspaper's foreign correspondent in Afghanistan and Iraq for five years, so hardly a crackpot) see Amazon Listing - see the customer review by Olly Buxton - that's me. From my review:


 * Burke is convincing in his arguments that Al-Qaeda *the actual organisation* was never more than a hard-core of twenty or thirty militants, was not more than indirectly associated with many of the terrorist acts attributed to them, and was dispersed, incapacitated and in large part eliminated after the war in Afghanistan. But Al Qaeda *the idea* - which is the creation of western conservative political classes - has spread virus-like amongst the Islamic world, and is a much more threatening spectacle. Ideas are a whole lot harder to kill off than individuals.

And so it is with Wikipedia. Note that, since I have been engaging with Zephram, his "terrorism" has pretty much abated. It opnly takes a modicum of imagination to appreciate this. However, imagination seems to be in short supply at Wikipedia.

PS I will be the judge of whether "Wikipedia is the right place for me". You should mind your own business. ElectricRay 09:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

(Moved from front user page) Greeting from Laserbeast
Hey, big guy! How ya doing? Well, I'm doin' fine. Just checking up on ya. Laserbeast 21:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Flavius vanillus
Thank you! D'oh! :) I'll get it taken care of. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Shamkovich.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Shamkovich.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam ( T / C ) 19:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Please come and vote.
I fully understand your position, after two yers in cs.wiki and more than one and half year beeing sysop there I interrupted my work there in January - because beeing attacked in the same way by the person involved here. It should be changed. There is a new quick opinion poll that is now posted on the Talk page there. Your input is appreciated! See Thx, -jkb- 11:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks