User talk:GabrielF/Archives/2012/November

Hi, looks like we are stalled again . . .

Fixed the organization issues you mentioned. Churn and change (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Geonotices

I've tried purging MediaWiki:Geonotice.js and the UK ones are now showing up for me. Hopefully yours is displaying too! Andrew Gray (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted! Ow; terrible error. I've set them all to colons. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Bump about source request

From way back in August. Any hope? --Lexein (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Iranophobia

It wasn't me. Eco84 | Talk 01:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you be able to take up the George M. Stratton review again?

It has been stalled for two weeks. I think the main issue left is checking for original research and sourcing. I went through the refs a second time, fixing page numbers and so on. Granted there is an extraordinary amount of stuff, but now we have come this far, I had much rather have it completed by you. Thanks. Churn and change (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Please reinstate my edits

Dear GabrielF: thank you for your message. I chose the username "Isnaexpert" because I have been exposed to ISNA for nearly my entire life, without being involved in it directly. I have attended conferences for decades, had the opportunity to interview numerous leaders, conducted research through outside sources, all mainly for academic use (I studied ISNA for my master's thesis in non-profit management). By using that username, I'm not trying to suggest in any way that I represent the organization, or that I am editing on behalf of someone. I'm simply expressing my belief that I have more knowledge and understanding about this organization through my own experience and research to be able to provide more accurate information that was in the original text. You'll notice, in fact, that most of original sources were from non-neutral organizations - such as The Investigative Project - and others, which have been found (in defamation lawsuits against them) to have an anti-Muslim or Islamophobic agenda - such that citations to these sources are inherently biased and posting information on Wiki for the purpose of tilting the facts to support their agenda. I did very little editing, and am only trying to make sure that the information posted is accurate - good or bad. I find it frustrating to see inaccuracies posted as facts, even if they are in support of the topic, so I thought I'd edit to reflect reality rather than bias. If you'd prefer I provide a different username, I'm only happy to, but the above is why I believe that my username does not in fact violate your policy. Isnaexpert (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Isnaexpert I would also appreciate your reinstating the edits I made. Isnaexpert (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Thanks. Isnaexpert (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Isnaexpert

Copyright in Yugoslavia

In order to answer the questions concerning the old yugoslav copyright law which appear regularly in the copyright forum on Commons, I want to create a Template like commons:Template:PD-Paraguay for Yugoslavia. It seems that Harvard has the only english translation of the 1978 copyright law [1]. Can you provide it to me?--Antemister (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Eh, sorry, you're right. Seems that it does not contain the law itself. I have the Serbo-Croatian text, so I need someone who translates the relevant phrases for me.--Antemister (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!

Hey, GabrielF. Just stopping by to wish you a Happy Birthday from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Mediran talk to me! 10:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Oceana Law

Gabriel, do you have access to the online contents of Oceana Law?--Antemister (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Norman Finkelstein

Good morning Gabriel; I realize that my edit was bold, even strident, and at first it was placed inappropriately in the Finkelstein page. Therefore, I placed it in the "Criticism" section, with attributions. I was (and I AM) in absolute compliance with the instructions on editing promulgated by Wikipedia, as quoted here:

"The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure wording is accurate, etc. We would like everyone to be bold and help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. How many times have you read something and thought "Why aren't these pages copy-edited?"? Wikipedia not only allows you to add, revise, and edit articles: it wants you to do it. This does require some amount of politeness, but it works. You'll see. Of course, others here will edit what you write. Do not take it personally! They, like all of us, just wish to make Wikipedia as good an encyclopedia as it can possibly be. Also, when you see a conflict in a talk page, do not be just a "mute spectator". Be bold and drop your opinion there!"

It seems pretty clear that my entry was exactly in compliance with these instructions. I'm sorry if it was not to your liking, but what I entered was neither false, nor a baseless ad hominem argument. I was very clear on my sources and attribution. Please revert to my edit, as it is in direct compliance with Wikipedia's rules. Perhaps we should have had this discussion BEFORE you unilaterally decided to edit my free speech rights--which violate no Wikipedia policy. Indeed, I was complying with the instructions quoted above. Thank you, Wolf Ashkenazi (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

mere symbolism paragraph

Hey GabrielF! Thanks for participating in the BCA discussion. I saw that you wanted to delete the "mere symbolism" paragraph. Personally, I don't have strong feelings about the content either way. But in general, I think that that info has been repeated multiple times on the page, and I think that there is way too much material in that article in its current state, so I would support your move to delete it. Since it's not a high importance paragraph and nobody seems to disagree, I think it's okay to go ahead with the deletion now. I'm going to do that. Please revert that if you disagree and let me know if you have a different idea of how to proceed with it. Charles35 (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Oceana Law

Did download the files, you can delete it, thank you, again.--Antemister (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)