User talk:Gilbert04

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Welcome!

Hello, Gilbert04! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Reference names

Hi. To answer the question you posed in your edit summary, this is how to reference the same source twice in the same article, using a reference name. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for changing - I tried something like that but it did not work and I did not have a clue why. Well, I usually write in German Wikipedia and some things are a bit different there. Greetings --Gilbert04 (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you translate organ harvesting article?

Did you translate this article: Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China into German, here: [1] ??--Asdfg12345 21:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most of it. I put a corresponding note on the discussion page [2]. I did leave out all the pictures, though. Could we use them in the German page as well? --Gilbert04 (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the German wikipedia's policy on Fair Use images. If they are allowed, you can re-upload them and translation the original justification--that's a suggestion. Well done on the translation, in any case. There was a lot of text there.--Asdfg12345 10:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, hopefully, it is well done... And yes it was a bit work but I think this is an important subject. --Gilbert04 (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right that it is an important subject. I just checked, and this page is also missing in German, in case you were not aware of that.--Asdfg12345 05:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hint - maybe later... Greetings --Gilbert04 (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a joke. There are United Nations reports, a Congressional Research Service report, an independent investigation by two well-known Canadian lawyers, several mentions in scholarly journals, and dozens, if not hundreds, of newspaper articles--including a front page, 5000 word feature article in The Weekly Standard, an influential political magazine in Washington. The subject clearly passes WP:RS. One problem may be that there are not enough dissenting views (i.e., arguing that the story is fake, or untrue). This is because there aren't many sources which uphold this view, and the weight of sources is either inconclusive, or supportive of the argument that the organ harvesting is a reality. Can you mention all this in German and provide these sources. There really aren't any grounds for deleting the article. I am beginning to suspect that certain editors of the German encyclopedia have some bias on this subject..--Asdfg12345 01:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Begründung: Inhalt und Form scheinen für eine Enzyklopädie nicht geeignet" is a very vague reason. You can simply state the weight of the sources (as I mention a little above), which proves that it clearly passes wikipedia's notability and reliable sources requirements. I think the case is quite simple. --Asdfg12345 01:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I used all these arguments in the discussion [3] but it looks like some people are not really open for arguments. Well, as the German Wikipedia is known for deleting lots of articles, I expected something like that. Therefore, the German article is far more neutral than the English: the title reads Organ Removal instead of Organ Harvesting, I did put more emphasis on government arguments, added the view of German Christian communities that Falun Gong has structures similar to sects, and removed most of the Epoch Times articles (knowing they would be critizied for not being neutral). Anyway, there will be a vote next weekend and depending on the outcome it will be deleted or not - no matter that I did disprove every single argument of the deleters. --Gilbert04 (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My personal thought is that you should appeal the decision and reinforce the independence of the sources. They are actually all independent, and Falun Gong sources don't need to be used at all. Kilgour/Matas, the Congressional Research Service, the United Nations Committee Against Torture, Manfred Nowak, Kirk Allison (a professor), Tom Treasure (a heart surgeon), articles in mainstream newspapers... there is a wealth of sources, all independent, which have commented on this issue or even written lengthily on it. It's just very obvious that it qualifies for notability. That's all I can suggest, really. It's obviously a nonsense decision, hopefully someone else will realise that if someone states the case clearly. --Asdfg12345 01:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's what I did [4] - we will see what's going to happen. The last argument was that the title sounds like an essay's article. Thus, it should be deleted (the German rules are that the title is no argument for deletion). --Gilbert04 (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi Gilbert04! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules.

The rule that affects you most as a new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict unless you are logged into an account and that account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits.

This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.

The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.

Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to you being blocked from editing.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Well, as you realized I was not quite sure how to discuss my ideas about this article. Gilbert04 (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Until you are extended-confirmed you cannot discuss that on the English Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Hi, Gilbert04. As SFR says, due to WP:ECR, you can only discuss this by way of Wikipedia:Edit requests. I did read your message, but I think it's best for me not to specifically comment on the content of it right now. If you have further thoughts you want to share with me, you can send me a private email. But I'm afraid that I probably can't address everything you shared in your message. Also, I don't speak German, and Germany isn't a place that I have much specific knowledge of. But, I appreciate you reaching out, and I wish you the best of luck in the future. My advice would be to edit on less contentious topics for now and learn more abut Wikipedia's norms, processes, and policies. Andre🚐 19:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrevan, Thanks for your answer and sorry for trying to reach out to you. Usuually, I do not have much time to write here. Thus, I only correct mistakes and add extra content ever once in a while in German Wikipedia as well. Gilbert04 (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]