User talk:Islampedia

Welcome!

Hello, Islampedia, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Simesa 13:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HIV trial in Libya

Regarding your removal of my edit, The article is called "HIV trial in Libya" and that is what it should be about. 426 biographies of children do not belong in this article. IanUK 14:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the main issue in the trial the names of those children must be documented here before the names of the one who killed them at least the 57 dead one Islampedia 14:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, we don't see messages placed on your User Talk page unless I happen to look at it - please put them on ours or on the article's Discussion page (at the bottom). Second, I had made a page just for the names of the children, List of Libyan children in HIV trial in Libya, and placed a link at the appropriate place in HIV trial in Libya - lists that long are usually broken out into linked separate pages that way. Third, you need a reputable cite that says the blood samples didn't come from the children, preferably in English - I follow the news daily but so far haven't spotted that claim. I hope we can come to agreement on how to structure the article - I'm following policy, as I've been working on Wikipedia for close to two years now. Simesa 22:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The names of the children must be on this page and not on the back as u like them to be u can put a link and main article but they must be on that article too. This is the usual in wikipedia ... u have to watch Aljazeera International it is in English There was a lot of talk about the samples ... Also the article in NATURE was not a scientific paper it was and EDITORIAL article where the difference is clear if u know what I mean Islampedia 23:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the Nature page (as cited in the article) it was a "Brief Communication" (their page name) of scientific results, not an editorial. Cites must be verifiable by other editors, which generally means we need something in print from a reputable source - I'm sorry, but TV reports of someone's speculation is insufficient. 400+ names inside an article is NOT the norm - instead, the usual practice is to break out the long list onto its own page - for example, Heritage railway and List of heritage railways. I'm not trying to hide anything: every life is important, especially innocent ones. I hope the preceding helps us to a resolution here - if not, the next step you would try would be the Request for Comment process. Simesa 00:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one name in the list !!! after the list contains 10+ names then could be moved let people see the names of the victims and contribute there are facts hidden behind every child killed. After u see the list large then move it not now

If you can't reasonably complete the list then it doesn't belong in at all - prepare it offline and then paste it in. Three editors have told you to take this to the linked page. Meanwhile, you are in violation of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. If it happens again I will report you to an administrator. Simesa 00:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason of the list is that no one can complete it must be in the main page so that people see and complete no one can make wikipedia by himself. The list must contain contributtion of all people. It is sad that no one is interested in the names of the victims . You can report to administrator as you like I know that I am doing thing which must be here is wikipedia because wikipedia is not a report from CIA or westren media to hide facts wikipedia is the place for all people and the place of children names is exactly in this pageIslampedia 13:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HIV trial in Libya

This is your last 3-revert warning: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- Scientizzle 01:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the names to List of Libyan children in HIV trial in Libya, a page dedicated solely to the unfortunate children in this case. That article is linked in two prominent places in HIV trial in Libya. -- Scientizzle 01:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not linked at the start of the article where the children mentioned at the first line .. It is hidden in the text inside the article. u did many reverts I added valuable text to the article and u r trying to shift the text to another dead page. The list should graw first then shifted to separate article.Islampedia 01:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's linked in the first line now. Why don't you shift your efforts to expanding List of Libyan children in HIV trial in Libya so it's not a "dead page," whatever that means. Why is there only one listed child? -- Scientizzle

I agree on adding it to the first line as a compromise solution. I found only one name on the internet people like to talk about the nurses only they call it the nurses case in europe it is called the children case in libya ! ... The fact that approximately no libya know what is wikipedia is making all the world think that the nurses are not guilty which is not true.Islampedia 01:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was filling out a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR when I noticed you had agreed to the compromise. I've reverted your last change, removing the started list that's duplicated in the new article and restoring one of the 3 links to that article. Please do read Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Similar activity in the future will get you blocked... -- Scientizzle 01:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can fill reports as much as you like. But you can not terrorize authors this way.The article is full of wrong information I do not have that much time to fix all this. It is very sad that the wikipedia is under control by westren media, other sources considered unreliable if they have any small info contradicts with what the westren media is trying to promote. A clear fact is that the bulgarian nurses are guilty , the article is trying to make the reverse as fact without any clear proves just few of articles in journals conrolled by groups u know .Islampedia 13:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "terrorizing" you or anyone...you were breaking a rule about which you had been previously warned. As for whether "wikipedia is under control by westren media" or that it's a "clear fact" that "the bulgarian nurses are guilty", we'll have to agree to disagree. If we all work to acheive a neutral point-of-view, reliably sourcing each claim, the article will improve. -- Scientizzle 23:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify one thing: I mentioned that I was filling out a 3RR claim because I was actually relieved that we were able to compromise and the revert war needn't continue. That statement was not meant to antagonize you in any way, though I can see that it did. To this, I apologize. -- Scientizzle 23:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not breaking a rule I am writing facts which are continously deleted by you. What is reliable to you is not reliable to me. Islampedia 23:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:3RR? It is a rule.

Also, Wikipedia:Verifiability--which is Wikipedia policy--makes it very clear that all claims "should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." If you find claims that support your view of tthe case from a proper source, go right ahead and add it. Removing a properly sourced statement in an effort to promote a certain POV is inappropriate. -- Scientizzle 23:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

21 is less than 5% and u still think it is not few ... What is reliable here and what is fact could u explain ? you are removing this important fact to promote a certain POV Islampedia 23:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the talk page. You've now reverted three times again. Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- Scientizzle 00:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not doing any reversioning. you are reversioning "only" to "approximately" without discussing this here first. Till now you just keep making revrsioning and terrorizing authors of being blocked. Discuss your point of view here then u can make reversioning to "approximately" which is POV till now.

You have now reverted 5 times n 24 hours and I am filing a 3RR-violation report on you. You were warned. Simesa 03:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am just returning ur reversioning. Please do not try to terrorize authors this way Islampedia 03:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is filed. I'm not terrorizing - and you aren't following the rules here. Simesa 04:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is civilized-terror. You deleted the names of the victims and most of the facts from this report, mainly the libyan points of views, arab coutries reaction and AU reactions are deleted by your edits in the past. It is better if you ask government.bg to send you the script which they like. This way you save your time. Islampedia 17:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, those reactions weren't deleted, they are very new (at least the African Union statement is) and no one has put them in yet. I will research the AU's wording and put something in, as it is a notable opinion. Simesa 19:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So u liked the AU reaction and u want to include it . If I did u will bring bulgarian admins to terrorize but cuz u liked it u r going to search very silly actions. It seems that u want to make this article 100% under your control. No one can add without your permission and after choosing the statements which hide as much as possible of the libyan points of views Islampedia 19:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of names

List of Libyan children in HIV trial in Libya has been nominated for deletion (see [1]. What they're basically saying is that if you can't come up with any more than two names out of 426 then the list doesn't belong in Wikipedia at all. Simesa 08:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're also saying that, while the 426 are notable, individual names in the 426 are not. In What Wikipedia is Not, under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information there is Wikipedia is not a memorial. Our compromise of a dedicated page was not approved for the above reasons, nor do individual names belong. (Now, if one of those children had been notable in some significant way above the others, that would be different - for example, we do not list the names of every soldier in an army regiment, but we might list the commander's name.) Simesa 13:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You compare innocent children with army, What a silly example. There are a lot of memorials in wikipedia visit the holocaust museums page and u will see. The list could be made as stories of those children and not as a list if u are looking for fair text but u just play around this article to make it an extension of government.bg Islampedia 17:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a memorial built to the children, we would likely put it in. But to use your own argument, we don't list the names of the 6 million murdered Jews.

I think you are also mistaken about our motives here. I am certainly not beholden in any way to Bulgaria. We simply have stated the facts based on cites. It happens that those facts strongly indicate that the Benghazi Six did not start the HIV epidemic, so we report those facts - and we linked to the dissenting Libyan government report. Simesa 19:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The murdered jews are less than 6 million according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial .

The libyan report is hidden as a small pdf link without stating clearly how many professors involved in it and what is their position. The facts does not indicate that those nurses are not guilty. The facts show that the libyan court worked as it should any court in the world workd and the Bulgarian , EU and US are trying to make the issue political. This is an important fact ignored and the report is trying to say that libya is the one who is making it political if u review the timeline u can see the first one who started to link it with politics is the bulgarian government. They did not show any respect to libyan court when the nurses are arrested they claimed that they are kidnapped which is silly they did not try to phone or fax the libyan government they were interested in political propaganda which they did it very professional. As long as there r few libyan using the web and few of those know what is wikipedia this article will stay and extension to government.bg Islampedia 19:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 24 hours

For a 3 revert rule violation on HIV trial in Libya. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]