== Otaheite. == First: I don't appreciate the tone that you took on my talk page. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TaranRampersad] Further, Otaheite is an historical name, and at the least deserves a redirect to the modern island. This is a cultural issue, as well as a historical one - and I believe that it is important to be accurate. Writing the name Otaheite out of history does not seem like a well thought out answer to the issue. Now, we can go through the proper channels and deal with this issue, or we can agree that Otaheite deserves a link with a possible (and likely) redirect and do that. I'll wait to hear back from you within the next week before I proceed - or you can just change it back. ==Many thanks for the catch on Baise-moi== Thanks for removing that nonsense about "only cut film in 2001" from Baise-moi. As soon as I saw your change on my watchlist I thought "who put that nonsense there in the first place" knowing that I had written virtually all the article. To my embarassment I found that ''I'' had added it - but I can't for the life of me figure out what prompted me to think that! Thanks again for the catch. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 19:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) ==Debate with GNAA Popeye== I agree that this is racist bullshit, but unfortunately, it's a real thing in the real world (as real as the Net is.) It would be like deleting the Holocaust article. User:RickKUser talk:RickK 06:30, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC) :I still believe that this "organization" is not noteworthy enough to warrant its inclusion in an encyclopaedia. (As I said earlier, Wikipedia is not Hate Watch.) This is the opinion of a majority of Wikipedia users. But further requests for deletion are not likely to succeed because of the user accounts created for the sole purpose of creating and keeping the article. As such, there is very little to be done - at the moment, at least. -- User:Mike Rosoft 14:00, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::For the last time, the GNAA doesn't hate minorities. In fact, such people aren't allowed in the organization. We make disruptive, racist and anti-semitic comments for the purpose of subverting social norms and ridiculing people's political convictions, among other reasons. Humor is a large part of it. Making fun of society's stereotypes is humorous. Why is it OK to make fun of white male culture in this country but not OK to make fun of gooks, jews or niggers? You can call us racists all you want, but you're being narrowminded. The real racists are the people who think it's OK for a black person to use the word "nigger", but not OK for a white person to, or that "affirmative action" or all-black colleges isn't racism, but Lord of the Rings having an all-white cast is. Or that killing somebody because he was sleeping with your wife isn't a "hate crime" but suddenly becomes one if his skin color isn't the same as yours. The real bigots are the people who play the "anti-semitism" card anytime somebody criticizes Jewish Zionism or brutal Israeli policy. So before you criticise the GNAA as being "racist", perhaps you should take a hard look at American culture and tell me who the real bigots are. User:GNAA Popeye 16:53, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::Making fun of people is one thing. Hate speech is a completely differnt one one. :::::First of all, I'd like to tell you that you don't have unlimited right to freedom of speech. To repeat an often-used example, you are not permitted to shout "Fire!" in a crowded cinema. ::::The GNAA does not hate minorities, ''for the last time''. Get it into your head. We sometimes mimic race-hate groups, but only to parody or otherwise lampoon them. :::::Maybe you don't. But that doesn't mean that you are offensive to most forms of like. If you don't want to be taken for a hate group, don't act like one. ::::I frankly don't care if what we say could be considered "hate speech" because the term is ambiguous and designed to enforce a habitual mental pathway. What exactly the hell is "hate speech", anyway? Suppose George goes to work with a man he doesn't like very much - let's call him "Bob". If, after work, George tells his friend, "Bob was really annoying today. He didn't help with my project at all, and he talked loudly in my cubicle the whole time. He also smells horribly. Now that I think about it, I hate Bob!" Is the preceding comment hate speech? George says he hates Bob; how could it be any clearer? Now, would saying something like that get you arrested in the Czech Republic? Probably not. :::::No, this is no hate speech. As you probably already know, such a statement - if untrue - already has a name: "slander". And you don't have a right to slander or libel either; if your statements cause damage or harm to another person, you can expect a rather unpleasant lawsuit. (As opposed to your example, which is best solved by an apology - and if George refuses, Bob knows what to think about him.) ::::So "hate speech" obviously doesn't mean what it seems to mean, that is, stating you hate something or someone. No, "hate speech" is nothing but a propaganda term used by politicians and other weasels to try to censor people they don't agree with. It's supposed to invoke feelings of disgust and loathing towards the perpetrators, yet, paradoxially, the idea that feeling hatred - for anything - is somehow morally repungnant, or that the "haters" are something less than human. In other words, the concept of "hate speech" was invented as a tool to encourage hate. And outlawing "hate speech" would be a very dangerous thing. Sure, it may be OK when it doesn't conflict with ''your'' views, but what happens when people who don't share your particular definition of what "hate speech" constitutes come into power? :::::Hate speech legislation is NOT meant to suppress unpopular opinions, nor to outlaw some statements just because they are offensive to some people. Rather, the motivation is that such statements are seen as disruptive to society and may even lead to acts of violence. Do you believe that people should be permitted to spread the lie about Jews practicing human sacrifice? If so, I have no other choice but to respectfully disagree. ::::In the United States there was a recent incident where, during a fundraiser for the Kerry campaign, Whoopi Goldberg made a sexually-suggestive joke about George Bush. This benign event was suddenly turned into a "Hollywood hate-fest" by Republicans and much of the media. This example can be easily extrapolated to the larger political scene, where there isn't a week that goes by without some politician referring to his opponents' rhetoric as "hate speech". :::::Any word can be abused. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used at all. ::::I am the victim of hateful speech all the time, but I guess I'm not Jewish enough for the government to come rushing to my aid. For example, I get into arguments frequently with street preachers at my university who tell me I'm "going to hell" for being an atheist. Telling people they deserve eternal torture for their beliefs is the most hateful thing you can say. I'll be damned, though, if I'll let their right to say those things be taken away. Freedom is always a two-way street. :::::You don't have to worry; the U.S. government cannot do anything against anti-Semitic hate speech either because of the first amendment. But I agree that there is a double standard; not in the state's actions, but in the public reaction. :::Saying "nigger" is wrong as long as it offends the person it is directed at, whether or not you are white. ::::Oh, so saying things that offend people is wrong? Let's see. You have explicitly stated earlier that you think "hate speech" should be illegal, and you have accused myself and the GNAA numerous times of practicing hate speech. This incorrigible disdain of my freedom to speak offends me greatly. Furthermore, I'm sure if I got to know you better I could find at least ten additional things about you that offend me. Perhaps you should cease doing these things since they offend me so much. What's that, you say? You won't stop? Then, ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is what's known as a ''double standard''. Listen, I'm not going to stop saying "nigger", and the fact that you or anyone else is offended by it will never change that. I don't let others dictate what I can and can't say. Period. :::::You are confusing a few things together. Using the word "nigger" does not constitute hate speech by itself, but it is often considered rude and offensive. And, if you want me to say that: yes, it is wrong to be rude and offensive. I don't want to be referred to using derogatory terms, and (presumedly) neither do you. And as a wise man said, "do not do to others what you hate." And if that offends you, tough luck. I'll always prefer to offend a small group of troublesome individuals to offending most members of a race. ::::Most people don't think "nigger" is offensive, anyway - ''so long as a nigger is saying it''. That is a racist point of view to hold. :::::This is completely besides the point. What matters is what the person the term is directed at thiks about it. You'll likely find many blacks who would mind even if another black called him a nigger. :::I do not approve of affirmative action or of Israel's actions in the conflict with Palestine. ::::Good for you, but that wasn't the point. The point was that Jews will often dodge the issues by accusing anyone who doesn't agree with Israeli policy of being an anti-Semite. It's all part of the Zionist effort to use the holocaust tragedy and past violence towards Jews as an excuse to murder people. :::::I agree that misuse of the word "anti-Semitism" is a problem. (Compare the controversy caused by the "Snow White and The Madness of Truth".) :::::I already said that I oppose affirmative action. However what I do support is laws banning discrimination in public services. For example, should you own a restaurant, you shouldn't be permitted to decree that you won't serve blacks. :::I DO approve of hate crime legislation. ::::Why don't you get a clue. Almost all crimes of violence are "hate crimes", since it usually requires a great deal of hate to want to hurt people. Making punishments for crimes against minorities or other select groups harsher than crimes against anyone else is a racist and bigoted policy. :::::Hate crime legislation doesn't mean that a crime committed against a member of a minority is to be punished more severely than a crime committed against anybody else. (I agree that it would have been an intolerable act of discrimination; however, no such thing takes place. In fact, an exact opposite is often true - look at the statistic of death penalty use against blacks who murder white victims, as opposed to whites who murder black victims. ) Instead, it means that a crime whose motivation is hatred towards a group of people - whether a minority or a majority - is seen as more dangerous to society and punished more severely. :::::Motivation of a crime already makes a difference in the sentencing. For example, a hitman hired by criminal gang or a robber who kills another person during a bank robbery may be punished more severely than - using your example - a man who murders his neighbor because he slept with his wife. (And to answer your question: it is generally not a hate crime regardless of the victim's race.) :::::By the way, I strongly oppose death penalty - in case you wanted to start discussion about it. :::I am not American. - User:Mike Rosoft 11:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::::Maybe not, but it wouldn't take long for me to criticize Europeans for falling victim to even shittier social norms. User:GNAA Popeye 22:46, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::::If you believe so. - User:Mike Rosoft 14:09, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) == GNAA Popeye takes a forced break from the arguments == GNAA Popeye has been blocked for vandalizing your userpage. User:WhisperToMe 23:38, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Can you give more explanation? I don't see any vandalism in Mike's user page's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Mike_Rosoft&action=history history]. In fact, none of GNAA Popeye's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&hideminor=0&target=GNAA_Popeye&limit=500&offset=0 contributions] seem to qualify as vandalism. User:Sam Hocevar 22:20, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::For what it's worth, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29#GNAA Popeye. - User:Mike Rosoft 22:21, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC) == Re: Leonid Tsypkin == No problem. I ran into it randomly and noticed that it didn't say why the person was worth describing, as if that was somehow implied, so I fixed it up. --User:Joy 10:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) == \"Little Norway\" == Hi. I have disagreed with your asessment of this redirect as useless and taken off the speedy delete tag. Some people search for such things, with the quotes. Besides this one is even more plausible because "Little Norway" is an expression. If you still think it should be deleted, I suggest that you put it on WP:RFD. User:Sjakkalle 15:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC) ==Hitler's Pope== One expects that others will add to it -after a few hours ! User:Fiamekeeper 12:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC) ==User:Vijaypawnarkar== I removed the speedy delete tag from this page. It's a user page, if the user wants it to have nonsense on it he's entitled to. User:Kelly Martin 21:49, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC) *I understand. A few user pages containing nonsense were deleted, but - presumably - the user made (almost) no more edits, and the page was abandoned a long time ago. - User:Mike Rosoft 22:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) == User:Principalityofgalore == I'm not clear why you want to speedily delete a User page. The VfD notice that you had placed there didn't seem to relate to a genuine VfD. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 15:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) *First I wanted to start a VfD discussion on the user page, then I changed my mind and went for speedy deletion instead. I have stated my reasons: it duplicates a deleted article (Principality of galore), and vandalism by the user. If you disagree, I am nominating for regular deletion. - User:Mike Rosoft 15:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Not my problem...== If you check the protect log, you'll see that it was Michael Snow that unprotected the page without removing the notice. User:CryptoDerk 16:03, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC) ==User:Again== The page is listed for VfD. It will be deleted once the vote has run its course. Leave it alone. Ral begged to be blocked, I accomodated. User:RickKUser talk:RickK 06:57, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) * Good luck not getting blocked for what you did. My reverts got me a day because RickK wouldn't listen to what I was saying. You've got balls, though. User:Ral315User talk:Ral315 07:35, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) ** Lucky son of a gun :) I wonder if anything happened causing RickK to leave the page alone. In any event, as long as it's been deleted, I don't care much anymore. Thanks for your help and support. User:Ral315User talk:Ral315 02:40, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC) == Context (retreived from User talk:RickK) == I'm not sure if you have a script reverting Userspace edits by unaffiliated users, but User:Again is violating WP:WIN (Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider, Wikipedia is not Anarchy) In addition, I have an honest belief that the content of User:Again's user page violates the laws of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are stored. Such is explicitly against WP policy, and whatever space it may be in, I believe I have an honest right to revert it. The quote on YOUR user page says it best: ''We need to take due process seriously, but we also need to remember: this is not a democracy, this is not an experiment in anarchy, it's a project to make the world a better place by giving away a free encyclopedia.'' User:Again's page does not make the world a better place, and it specifically fits what happens if anarchy reigns over WP. Until I am explicitly told not to make these edits by someone like Angela, Jimbo, or certain sysops/Wikimedia leaders who I would defer my decision to, I will continue to revert User:Again's page. Sincerely, User:Ral315User talk:Ral315 05:56, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) (P.S. - leave any comments on my talk page; I likely won't travel back to check yours too often) :So be it. Block me from editing. But my edits are not in bad faith; I truly and honestly believe that since WP policies contradict each other, and promoting warez on Wikipedia leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I respect your opinion, but in this case, I do not agree, and if you choose to block me, that's your choice. I did what I believed was right, feel free to do the same. User:Ral315User talk:Ral315 06:14, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) *I fully support User:Ral315's actions. They do not constitute vandalism; to the contrary, it is User:Again who is guilty of vandalism by using Wikipedia for promotion of illegal software. I request unblocking of User:Ral315, and a permanent block on User:Again and speedy deletion of his page. - User:Mike Rosoft 06:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) **I have edited User:Again's page once again: I have removed e-mail addresses which are being used for illegal activities, and marked the page for speedy deletion. As was stated Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Reducing_VfD_load#Speedy_deletion_2, illegal material already gets deleted on sight (presumedly as vandalism). - User:Mike Rosoft 07:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) **P.S. (so that you don't have an excuse): Please don't block me. It is not MY (or User:Ral315's) actions which constitute vandalism. - User:Mike Rosoft 07:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Still no reply about Galore == Can you believe it? After all these weeks I '''still'' haven't had a reply from the City of Port Phillip about the alleged Principality of Galore. Well, that's not quite true. I did recieve the standard ''"Thank you for your enquiry, someone will respond later"'' message, but no-one responded later! User:P Ingerson — User:P Ingerson User talk:P Ingerson 09:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hello! Welcome to Mike Rosoft's user page. A bit of personal information: {| |Gender||Male |- |Born||1980 |- |Location||Prague, Czech Republic |- |Religion||A hard-core atheist, with a bit of an agnostic |- |Paranormal phenomena||A hard-core skeptic |- |Politics||A hard-core liberal |- |E-mail||User:Mike Rosoft/Spambot |} My contributions: *Special:Contributions/Mike Rosoft *Special:Contributions/213.220.234.222 *Special:Contributions/84.42.148.115 [[Image:Canada_flag_large.png|left|thumb|250px|Wikipedia is Democracy!]]
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Mike_Rosoft:
Mike_Rosoft
Mike_Rosoft
Mike_Rosoft/Spambot
Mike_Rosoft/temp
Mike Rosoft
== Otaheite. == First: I don't appreciate the tone that you took on my talk page. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TaranRampersad] Further, Otaheite is an historical name, and at the least deserves a redirect to the modern island. This is a cultural issue, as well as a historical one - and I believe that it is important to be accurate. Writing the name Otaheite out of history does not seem like a well thought out answer to the issue. Now, we can go through the proper channels and deal with this issue, or we can agree that Otaheite deserves a link with a possible (and likely) redirect and do that. I'll wait to hear back from you within the next week before I proceed - or you can just change it back. ==Many thanks for the catch on Baise-moi== Thanks for removing that nonsense about "only cut film in 2001" from Baise-moi. As soon as I saw your change on my watchlist I thought "who put that nonsense there in the first place" knowing that I had written virtually all the article. To my embarassment I found that ''I'' had added it - but I can't for the life of me figure out what prompted me to think that! Thanks again for the catch. User:Pcb21 User_talk:Pcb21 19:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) ==Debate with GNAA Popeye== I agree that this is racist bullshit, but unfortunately, it's a real thing in the real world (as real as the Net is.) It would be like deleting the Holocaust article. User:RickKUser talk:RickK 06:30, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC) :I still believe that this "organization" is not noteworthy enough to warrant its inclusion in an encyclopaedia. (As I said earlier, Wikipedia is not Hate Watch.) This is the opinion of a majority of Wikipedia users. But further requests for deletion are not likely to succeed because of the user accounts created for the sole purpose of creating and keeping the article. As such, there is very little to be done - at the moment, at least. -- User:Mike Rosoft 14:00, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::For the last time, the GNAA doesn't hate minorities. In fact, such people aren't allowed in the organization. We make disruptive, racist and anti-semitic comments for the purpose of subverting social norms and ridiculing people's political convictions, among other reasons. Humor is a large part of it. Making fun of society's stereotypes is humorous. Why is it OK to make fun of white male culture in this country but not OK to make fun of gooks, jews or niggers? You can call us racists all you want, but you're being narrowminded. The real racists are the people who think it's OK for a black person to use the word "nigger", but not OK for a white person to, or that "affirmative action" or all-black colleges isn't racism, but Lord of the Rings having an all-white cast is. Or that killing somebody because he was sleeping with your wife isn't a "hate crime" but suddenly becomes one if his skin color isn't the same as yours. The real bigots are the people who play the "anti-semitism" card anytime somebody criticizes Jewish Zionism or brutal Israeli policy. So before you criticise the GNAA as being "racist", perhaps you should take a hard look at American culture and tell me who the real bigots are. User:GNAA Popeye 16:53, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::Making fun of people is one thing. Hate speech is a completely differnt one one. :::::First of all, I'd like to tell you that you don't have unlimited right to freedom of speech. To repeat an often-used example, you are not permitted to shout "Fire!" in a crowded cinema. ::::The GNAA does not hate minorities, ''for the last time''. Get it into your head. We sometimes mimic race-hate groups, but only to parody or otherwise lampoon them. :::::Maybe you don't. But that doesn't mean that you are offensive to most forms of like. If you don't want to be taken for a hate group, don't act like one. ::::I frankly don't care if what we say could be considered "hate speech" because the term is ambiguous and designed to enforce a habitual mental pathway. What exactly the hell is "hate speech", anyway? Suppose George goes to work with a man he doesn't like very much - let's call him "Bob". If, after work, George tells his friend, "Bob was really annoying today. He didn't help with my project at all, and he talked loudly in my cubicle the whole time. He also smells horribly. Now that I think about it, I hate Bob!" Is the preceding comment hate speech? George says he hates Bob; how could it be any clearer? Now, would saying something like that get you arrested in the Czech Republic? Probably not. :::::No, this is no hate speech. As you probably already know, such a statement - if untrue - already has a name: "slander". And you don't have a right to slander or libel either; if your statements cause damage or harm to another person, you can expect a rather unpleasant lawsuit. (As opposed to your example, which is best solved by an apology - and if George refuses, Bob knows what to think about him.) ::::So "hate speech" obviously doesn't mean what it seems to mean, that is, stating you hate something or someone. No, "hate speech" is nothing but a propaganda term used by politicians and other weasels to try to censor people they don't agree with. It's supposed to invoke feelings of disgust and loathing towards the perpetrators, yet, paradoxially, the idea that feeling hatred - for anything - is somehow morally repungnant, or that the "haters" are something less than human. In other words, the concept of "hate speech" was invented as a tool to encourage hate. And outlawing "hate speech" would be a very dangerous thing. Sure, it may be OK when it doesn't conflict with ''your'' views, but what happens when people who don't share your particular definition of what "hate speech" constitutes come into power? :::::Hate speech legislation is NOT meant to suppress unpopular opinions, nor to outlaw some statements just because they are offensive to some people. Rather, the motivation is that such statements are seen as disruptive to society and may even lead to acts of violence. Do you believe that people should be permitted to spread the lie about Jews practicing human sacrifice? If so, I have no other choice but to respectfully disagree. ::::In the United States there was a recent incident where, during a fundraiser for the Kerry campaign, Whoopi Goldberg made a sexually-suggestive joke about George Bush. This benign event was suddenly turned into a "Hollywood hate-fest" by Republicans and much of the media. This example can be easily extrapolated to the larger political scene, where there isn't a week that goes by without some politician referring to his opponents' rhetoric as "hate speech". :::::Any word can be abused. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be used at all. ::::I am the victim of hateful speech all the time, but I guess I'm not Jewish enough for the government to come rushing to my aid. For example, I get into arguments frequently with street preachers at my university who tell me I'm "going to hell" for being an atheist. Telling people they deserve eternal torture for their beliefs is the most hateful thing you can say. I'll be damned, though, if I'll let their right to say those things be taken away. Freedom is always a two-way street. :::::You don't have to worry; the U.S. government cannot do anything against anti-Semitic hate speech either because of the first amendment. But I agree that there is a double standard; not in the state's actions, but in the public reaction. :::Saying "nigger" is wrong as long as it offends the person it is directed at, whether or not you are white. ::::Oh, so saying things that offend people is wrong? Let's see. You have explicitly stated earlier that you think "hate speech" should be illegal, and you have accused myself and the GNAA numerous times of practicing hate speech. This incorrigible disdain of my freedom to speak offends me greatly. Furthermore, I'm sure if I got to know you better I could find at least ten additional things about you that offend me. Perhaps you should cease doing these things since they offend me so much. What's that, you say? You won't stop? Then, ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is what's known as a ''double standard''. Listen, I'm not going to stop saying "nigger", and the fact that you or anyone else is offended by it will never change that. I don't let others dictate what I can and can't say. Period. :::::You are confusing a few things together. Using the word "nigger" does not constitute hate speech by itself, but it is often considered rude and offensive. And, if you want me to say that: yes, it is wrong to be rude and offensive. I don't want to be referred to using derogatory terms, and (presumedly) neither do you. And as a wise man said, "do not do to others what you hate." And if that offends you, tough luck. I'll always prefer to offend a small group of troublesome individuals to offending most members of a race. ::::Most people don't think "nigger" is offensive, anyway - ''so long as a nigger is saying it''. That is a racist point of view to hold. :::::This is completely besides the point. What matters is what the person the term is directed at thiks about it. You'll likely find many blacks who would mind even if another black called him a nigger. :::I do not approve of affirmative action or of Israel's actions in the conflict with Palestine. ::::Good for you, but that wasn't the point. The point was that Jews will often dodge the issues by accusing anyone who doesn't agree with Israeli policy of being an anti-Semite. It's all part of the Zionist effort to use the holocaust tragedy and past violence towards Jews as an excuse to murder people. :::::I agree that misuse of the word "anti-Semitism" is a problem. (Compare the controversy caused by the "Snow White and The Madness of Truth".) :::::I already said that I oppose affirmative action. However what I do support is laws banning discrimination in public services. For example, should you own a restaurant, you shouldn't be permitted to decree that you won't serve blacks. :::I DO approve of hate crime legislation. ::::Why don't you get a clue. Almost all crimes of violence are "hate crimes", since it usually requires a great deal of hate to want to hurt people. Making punishments for crimes against minorities or other select groups harsher than crimes against anyone else is a racist and bigoted policy. :::::Hate crime legislation doesn't mean that a crime committed against a member of a minority is to be punished more severely than a crime committed against anybody else. (I agree that it would have been an intolerable act of discrimination; however, no such thing takes place. In fact, an exact opposite is often true - look at the statistic of death penalty use against blacks who murder white victims, as opposed to whites who murder black victims. ) Instead, it means that a crime whose motivation is hatred towards a group of people - whether a minority or a majority - is seen as more dangerous to society and punished more severely. :::::Motivation of a crime already makes a difference in the sentencing. For example, a hitman hired by criminal gang or a robber who kills another person during a bank robbery may be punished more severely than - using your example - a man who murders his neighbor because he slept with his wife. (And to answer your question: it is generally not a hate crime regardless of the victim's race.) :::::By the way, I strongly oppose death penalty - in case you wanted to start discussion about it. :::I am not American. - User:Mike Rosoft 11:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::::Maybe not, but it wouldn't take long for me to criticize Europeans for falling victim to even shittier social norms. User:GNAA Popeye 22:46, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::::If you believe so. - User:Mike Rosoft 14:09, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) == GNAA Popeye takes a forced break from the arguments == GNAA Popeye has been blocked for vandalizing your userpage. User:WhisperToMe 23:38, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Can you give more explanation? I don't see any vandalism in Mike's user page's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Mike_Rosoft&action=history history]. In fact, none of GNAA Popeye's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&hideminor=0&target=GNAA_Popeye&limit=500&offset=0 contributions] seem to qualify as vandalism. User:Sam Hocevar 22:20, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::For what it's worth, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29#GNAA Popeye. - User:Mike Rosoft 22:21, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC) == Re: Leonid Tsypkin == No problem. I ran into it randomly and noticed that it didn't say why the person was worth describing, as if that was somehow implied, so I fixed it up. --User:Joy 10:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) == \"Little Norway\" == Hi. I have disagreed with your asessment of this redirect as useless and taken off the speedy delete tag. Some people search for such things, with the quotes. Besides this one is even more plausible because "Little Norway" is an expression. If you still think it should be deleted, I suggest that you put it on WP:RFD. User:Sjakkalle 15:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC) ==Hitler's Pope== One expects that others will add to it -after a few hours ! User:Fiamekeeper 12:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC) ==User:Vijaypawnarkar== I removed the speedy delete tag from this page. It's a user page, if the user wants it to have nonsense on it he's entitled to. User:Kelly Martin 21:49, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC) *I understand. A few user pages containing nonsense were deleted, but - presumably - the user made (almost) no more edits, and the page was abandoned a long time ago. - User:Mike Rosoft 22:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) == User:Principalityofgalore == I'm not clear why you want to speedily delete a User page. The VfD notice that you had placed there didn't seem to relate to a genuine VfD. User:Mel Etitis (Μελ_Ετητης)">User talk:Mel Etitis 15:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) *First I wanted to start a VfD discussion on the user page, then I changed my mind and went for speedy deletion instead. I have stated my reasons: it duplicates a deleted article (Principality of galore), and vandalism by the user. If you disagree, I am nominating for regular deletion. - User:Mike Rosoft 15:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==Not my problem...== If you check the protect log, you'll see that it was Michael Snow that unprotected the page without removing the notice. User:CryptoDerk 16:03, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC) ==User:Again== The page is listed for VfD. It will be deleted once the vote has run its course. Leave it alone. Ral begged to be blocked, I accomodated. User:RickKUser talk:RickK 06:57, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) * Good luck not getting blocked for what you did. My reverts got me a day because RickK wouldn't listen to what I was saying. You've got balls, though. User:Ral315User talk:Ral315 07:35, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) ** Lucky son of a gun :) I wonder if anything happened causing RickK to leave the page alone. In any event, as long as it's been deleted, I don't care much anymore. Thanks for your help and support. User:Ral315User talk:Ral315 02:40, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC) == Context (retreived from User talk:RickK) == I'm not sure if you have a script reverting Userspace edits by unaffiliated users, but User:Again is violating WP:WIN (Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider, Wikipedia is not Anarchy) In addition, I have an honest belief that the content of User:Again's user page violates the laws of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are stored. Such is explicitly against WP policy, and whatever space it may be in, I believe I have an honest right to revert it. The quote on YOUR user page says it best: ''We need to take due process seriously, but we also need to remember: this is not a democracy, this is not an experiment in anarchy, it's a project to make the world a better place by giving away a free encyclopedia.'' User:Again's page does not make the world a better place, and it specifically fits what happens if anarchy reigns over WP. Until I am explicitly told not to make these edits by someone like Angela, Jimbo, or certain sysops/Wikimedia leaders who I would defer my decision to, I will continue to revert User:Again's page. Sincerely, User:Ral315User talk:Ral315 05:56, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) (P.S. - leave any comments on my talk page; I likely won't travel back to check yours too often) :So be it. Block me from editing. But my edits are not in bad faith; I truly and honestly believe that since WP policies contradict each other, and promoting warez on Wikipedia leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I respect your opinion, but in this case, I do not agree, and if you choose to block me, that's your choice. I did what I believed was right, feel free to do the same. User:Ral315User talk:Ral315 06:14, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) *I fully support User:Ral315's actions. They do not constitute vandalism; to the contrary, it is User:Again who is guilty of vandalism by using Wikipedia for promotion of illegal software. I request unblocking of User:Ral315, and a permanent block on User:Again and speedy deletion of his page. - User:Mike Rosoft 06:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) **I have edited User:Again's page once again: I have removed e-mail addresses which are being used for illegal activities, and marked the page for speedy deletion. As was stated Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Reducing_VfD_load#Speedy_deletion_2, illegal material already gets deleted on sight (presumedly as vandalism). - User:Mike Rosoft 07:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) **P.S. (so that you don't have an excuse): Please don't block me. It is not MY (or User:Ral315's) actions which constitute vandalism. - User:Mike Rosoft 07:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Still no reply about Galore == Can you believe it? After all these weeks I '''still'' haven't had a reply from the City of Port Phillip about the alleged Principality of Galore. Well, that's not quite true. I did recieve the standard ''"Thank you for your enquiry, someone will respond later"'' message, but no-one responded later! User:P Ingerson — User:P Ingerson User talk:P Ingerson 09:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Mike Rosoft
Hello! Welcome to Mike Rosoft's user page. A bit of personal information: {| |Gender||Male |- |Born||1980 |- |Location||Prague, Czech Republic |- |Religion||A hard-core atheist, with a bit of an agnostic |- |Paranormal phenomena||A hard-core skeptic |- |Politics||A hard-core liberal |- |E-mail||User:Mike Rosoft/Spambot |} My contributions: *Special:Contributions/Mike Rosoft *Special:Contributions/213.220.234.222 *Special:Contributions/84.42.148.115 [[Image:Canada_flag_large.png|left|thumb|250px|Wikipedia is Democracy!]]
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
M
MA | MB | MC | MD | ME | MF | MG | MH | MI | MJ | MK | ML | MN | MO | MP | MR | MS | MT | MU | MW | MX | MY | MZ |Words begining with Mike_Rosoft:
Mike_Rosoft
Mike_Rosoft
Mike_Rosoft/Spambot
Mike_Rosoft/temp
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
