Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

Whilst the ban is due to spam-abuse coming from the IP address in question, the fact that this belongs to the country's sole high-speed internet provider has the unintended consequence of stopping Qatarese from editing the wiki.

Actually, according to wikipedia, the correct word is Qatarded, not Qatarese.

Let's show Qatar that unlike Wikipedia, Slashdot is not a haven of ignorance.

Says the guy who uses a Wikipedia link to back up his assertions... : p

Let's show Qatar that unlike Wikipedia, Slashdot is not a haven of ignorance.

What the hell Slashdot have you been reading?

I cant resist to suggest the use of the following tags:

• !funny
• !YourBusiness
• !vatican
• !mattingHabitOfPurpleTurtles
• ...

So we can be sure what the story is not talking about. So the article "U.S. Mass Declassified Documents At Midnight" could use the tags !mattingHabitOfPurpleTurtles, !DanceLesson, !FreedomFriesRecipe, !WOWGoldFarming, !KillingOfKittens, !Cthulluh^wd, !takeOverTheWorld^wd, !LOL, ...

What is your favorite nontag?

What is your favorite nontag?

!nontag

Those from Qatar are Qatari. Plural is Qataris. "Qatarese", while sounding the same, would actually be the language of Qatar, if they did not speak Arabic and such a thing actually existed. This is a classic error made by someone who doesn't read much, or doesn't understand what he reads.

You're right, of course. This isn't a case of someone just not knowing a single obscure English word, it's a failure to intuit and apply a universal rule of the language. I mean, if there's one thing English has, it's simple, consistent rules. It clearly follows that they'd be called Qataris from the names of other peoples that everyone has heard of, like the Chinis, Japanis, Sudanis, Portugis, and Burmis.

Fortunately, I'm not from Qatar, so I CAN edit wikipedia. Give me a few minutes and Qatar WILL be part of the UAE.

If you don't provide a link to the article in question, the situation you describe will continue forever. If you do provide the link then it's possible it will be fixed. It also reduces your credibility significantly to be so vague.

I'm guessing that the article you're referring to is Foreskin [wikipedia.org] which looks reasonably well balanced to me right now.