User talk:Organ123

in re: political views of barack obama

Sorry, i'm supposed to be asleep and don't have enough time to format a citation, but I believe that this video is where i've seen obama predict the sectarian violence in 2002 that another editor added to his political views article. since i'm half-asleep i didn't re-watch to verify that's the right video, and if you don't have the time/inclination to verify it, i'll hopefully get to it tomorrow. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 07:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm tired too. Thanks for adding the information. Organ123 07:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my talk

Just to let you know. I've replied to you on my talk. It keeps the conversation in one place. Cheers <<-armon->> 00:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the barnstar, Organ123; I greatly appreciate receiving it. --NYScholar 20:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

rudy

Thanks for the edit - I was so focused on moving it out of the intro where it so obviously doesn't belong, that I forgot to then de-POV it. Glad you did. Tvoz |talk 19:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! Organ123 19:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goldman Sachs

Hi, I looked at the section that you flagged for edit and tried to clean it up a bit more and added some supporting references. Please let me know if you like the changes and that you will remove the advert flag. --Thesilence 19:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message and updating the section. I have removed the advert flag. I'm still not too comfortable with the section because all of the information in it is positive, and I've read criticism of GS's role in what could be called "corporate citizenship", so I'm concerned that the section might be unbalanced. I'll decide whether to take further action on this after I put some more thought into it. Organ123 19:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. The article has received that criticism before so we created a Criticism and Controversy section that can be used to reference anything along those lines. I know that one critic of the environmental policy was a few guys from the Cato Institute. I can't remember the guy's name but he did create a mutual fund that bought Goldman stock and raised it as an issue at two consecutive shareholders meetings. If you can find a reference feel free to either put it in the Corporate citizenship section or the Criticism and Controversy section, but I feel like it should go in the latter as it helps to organize all criticism in one place. It's up to you, though. --Thesilence 14:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gore

I think we need to write about: Al Gore és Richard Branson 25 millió dollar co2 competition- --Tamás Kádár 18:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for writing. I think you may be having keyboard troubles because the English language characters are not showing up properly. Anyhow, the topic I think you're mentioning already exists on the Al Gore page -- see Al_Gore#The_Virgin_Earth_Challenge. Organ123 19:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three reverts?

Wikipedia's three revert rule says you cna;t revert MORE than 3 times in a 24 hour period, and I have not violated it. There is a discussion on the Talk page that explains why this quote is irrelevant. Your contribution to that discussion is that you don't think a distinction should be made between demolitions of buildings without permit and military demolitions. Please recognize that this is a personal and highly disputed point of view, and keep it out of the article. 221.231.137.190 17:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected -- not sure why I had it in my mind all this time that it was 3 reverts max. Anyway, I didn't report you or anything. I don't think it's a good idea to revert 3 times in a row though in general. Sometimes you have to let the edits you don't like sit there for a while until you can come up with a consensus. Either that or you try to edit instead of revert. Organ123 18:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My contribution to that discussion was specific to the case of Israel/Palestine, which I believe I stated. I'd prefer to discuss that topic on the article's talk page instead of my own. Organ123 18:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STOP IT

STOP DELETING MY IMAGE. PLEASE!!!!!!! The Oopsaapteirmere 18:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but your image is blatant vandalism. It's obviously not helping the encyclopedia. Anyway, if I don't delete it someone else will. Organ123 18:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Hamas

Good work making this new article. However..... i didn't notice the change before making a few edits to the hamas page lol. Take a look at the two edits I made (and the links i used) and see if they can be worked into the new page. Especially since I expect they will be reverted by certain people. Take my edit comments on board as well if possible. If you need any help let me know. Cheers. Wayne 01:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wayne -- I'll take a closer look at this tomorrow. Organ123 03:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of POV

Organ123, you managed to write a history of Hamas that didn't even mention suicide bombing. I think that pretty much says it all. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg, I am disappointed in the above reply to my post on your talk page, which continues to disregard AGF and even WP:Civility. Please note that the Hamas page already had an entire section called "Suicide attacks" and already mentioned suicide bombings roughly 20 times. No reader could possibly read the article without being made fully aware that Hamas uses suicide bombings. I am not fundamentally opposed to mentioning suicide bombings in the "History" section -- I was just trying to make the article more concise in a good-faith manner. Administrators especially should please adhere to WP behavioral policies and guidelines. Organ123 19:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organ123, I'm sure you mean well, but Hamas was notorious for its use of suicide bombing as a tactic in the conflict; a history of Hamas that fails to even mention suicided bombing, regardless of how many times it is mentioned elsewhere in the article, is absurdly biased. As another example, you wrote Hamas rejects "so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences" as incapable of realizing justice or restoring rights to the oppressed, but that is not what they say at all. In fact, they say "so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences" are "in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement". You have filtered Hamas's views through the lens of liberal-left activism, when its goals are, in fact, Islamist, and in particular it specifically quotes the hadith The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharqad tree would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews. Finally, I'm willing to engage in dialog with you, but any further posts of your that assert violations of AGF or Civility, or refer in any way to my role as an administrator, will trigger immediate removal of all our correspondence from my Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg replied to me: "I'm willing to engage in dialog with you, but any further posts of your that assert violations of AGF or Civility, or refer in any way to my role as an administrator, will trigger immediate removal of all our correspondence from my Talk: page." Jayjg, where should I mention these topics if not on your talk page? I'm not saying that rhetorically; I'd really like to know the answer. Your talk page seemed like the most polite place to approach it. Organ123 21:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg replied to me: you wrote "Hamas rejects 'so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences' as incapable of realizing justice or restoring rights to the oppressed, but that is not what they say at all.". Actually, that quote predates my first edit to the page. When I created the condensed history section and created the History of Hamas page, I recall almost entirely deleting sentences, not writing new ones. I intentionally did not write new sentences to avoid POV accusations like the ones I am receiving. I do not appreciate being told that I have "filtered Hamas's views through the lens of liberal-left activism"; I do not self-identify as a "liberal left activist" and do not like to be pigeonholed by others. On my talk page and on other pages, you continue to falsely assume that I am violating WP:NPOV -- I do not appreciate it and I think you are out of bounds. Also, you are now trying to censor my genuine concerns from your talk page. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do here. Organ123 21:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that I appreciate your statement that you are sure I mean well. Organ123 21:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organ123, there is no need for our dialog to contain these kinds of bad faith accusations etc. There is not point in these kinds of topics, therefore it is best to focus on others. Regarding the sentence in question, you are right, it predates you, and I apologize for attributing it to you. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the apology about the sentence. I am willing to stop this dialog, for now, as well. It stresses me out.... Organ123 03:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism

I have responded to one of your comments, hopefully also giving at least an idea of the answer to the other, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism#Rename project to "Non-state terrorism". I would appreciate any comment you might see fit to make in response. Thank you. John Carter 18:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Organ123 18:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage vandalism

No problem. At least they were decent enough to revert it. Hut 8.5 19:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Qai-logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Qai-logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]