User talk:GabrielF/Archives/2010/December

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Elie Wiesel

Is it possible to protect his article? It really shocked me how vulnerable Wikipedia is to vandalism. Thank you.

Thanks for your answer!Wintceas 23:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan

Great summary of the Matthews interview on the Cindy Sheehan page. I only hope the anonymous poster doesn't revert it back to the full transcript. He's been pulling similar nonsense for hours. --Eleemosynary 02:16, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Dittos, the summary is far more informative than a long transcript. Reports have it Ellemosynary has an injured Wiki mouse clicking finger with all the reverts. Kyle Andrew Brown 02:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


Not sure if you figured it out, but this is Tim Cama.

I thought the llama was unofficial. I don't remember where I read it, though.

Jesuschex 16:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, isn't the average entering age 16, not 15?

Jesuschex 18:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: SRC Stuff

The llama is probably one of those "not really official, but might as well be" things. It was the athletic department, not the administration that bought the llama suit. I think that at most universities, the Board of Trustees has to approve the mascot for it to be "official." I doubt they (well, Overseers in our case) wouldn't approve it.

I'm not sure of the enrollment either.

Maybe we should just clear up the discrepancies one way or another, whether they're right or wrong.

Jesuschex 19:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


You're probably right. The units and multipliers from the table might have confused me. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Sharon's alleged death

Already got it. I undid your edit because it restored the red links. Thanks for keeping an eye on the article (also note that haaretz are actively updating their main article here). Regards, El_C 20:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:Illness of Ariel Sharon

Hi, Gabriel. I'm completely baffled! All I wanted to do in the article, for the time being, was add the tag for the discussion of my proposed merge. To that effect, I clicked the regular "edit this page" button (not the oldedit link in the history). I did not intend to revert anything, and didn't notice that I had. I apologize for that, but all I can think of is either a glitch in the system or that I might have been distracted somehow and clicked in the wrong place...can't see how though, since the procedures are quite different. I'll fix it, if it hasn't been fixed already. I'll also post in the article's talk page explaining this. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Regards, Redux 13:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Norman Finkelstein

Hey, Gabriel. This morning I was following recent changes and noted the editor making drastic changes to a number of articles concerning historical actions of Germany. Little did I know that in reverting the large numbers of apparently POV comments that I was landing myself in a mudhole of a POV conflict between two very drastically oppositional sides of a conflict in which one seems to be pushing a historically inaccurate pro-German revisionist POV and others are out with other issues in mind that conflict. By any means, I just wanted to get a second opinion and perhaps some information, if you follow the controversy, regarding the whole branch of German History and modern-day pro-German rhetoric thing that seems to be happening. As I said, I was rather suddenly plopped into the middle of this whole to-do, and it's rather bewildering for someone who knows little outside of the fragmentary pieces of historical information I've been able to piece together from the articles available. Thanks! --Kuzaar 06:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement, Gabriel. I'll just keep doing what seems the right thing to do, then. :) --Kuzaar 22:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Notes from Adel: It's nice to see you and Kuzaar discussing this issue, I didn't know Norman F until I came across his name somewhere, then came to my favorite place to read about him and what do you know, I can see turf wars that are pushing agenda. I once again removed the comment about Haaretz paper in there, first of all "it is an Isreali" paper and it will be "Biased". Second, you can just reference a "paper" with out date and article number and so forth. If you guys claim to be editors on this cool site called "wiki" then make sure to get your references accurate other wise you are pushing agenda and opinions instead of "FACTS". so go ahead and add that comment in again but make sure you have link to the specifics of the article. Thank you sir. Unisgned post by User:adelhaj GabrielF 00:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-Semitic people

Vote They are attempting to close the +cat AGAIN, please vote to KEEP. SirIsaacBrock 11:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


Haaretz (thanks)

Thanks for changing that 2nd time. I didn't realize there was another instance in the article spelt Ha'Aretz, so my edit summary may have been harsh. Thanks for fixing it. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Doublecheck Tic edit

Thanks for the edit on the Tic page: can you please doublecheck your information? I attended the conference referenced below, and although I don't have either of the Sacks' books, this is the bio info that was included in the conference literature and pamphlets for Mort Doran:

The Tourette Syndrome Association, Inc., Connecticut Chapter 1998 Educators' Conference
Understanding and Managing Tourette Syndrome, and the Associated Disorders, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder & Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in the Classroom.
Friday, November 6, 1998
With Keynote Speaker Morton L. Doran, MD,
Surgeon written about in
The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat by Oliver Sacks, MD
at Western Connecticut State University
Westside Campus, Danbury, CT
"This year's keynote speaker is Morton L. Doran, MD. Dr. Doran is a practicing surgeon, professor of medicine and recreational pilot who has had Tourette Syndrome since early childhood. He was featured in a book, The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat by Oliver Sacks, MD, a perceptive look at living successfully with neurobiological disorders. Dr. Doran was the featured surgeon in New Yorker magazine's article about a surgeon with TS. He is a dynamic and highly respected spokesperson for the Tourette Syndrome Association in the USA and Canada."

Thanks ! Sandy 03:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Gabriel ... I just found an online copy of the table of contents, and you're right! OK, so the surgeon (Mort Doran aka Carl Bennett) was in "Anthropologist ... ", and Witty Ticcy Ray (the drummer also referred to in the article) was in "The Man ... " ... I have to make those changes in several places. How embarrassing that the conference bio was wrong ! Thanks again! Sandy 04:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice contribution

Very thoughtful wording added to the top of the ant-Semitic people category page. Perhaps you might want to weigh in on a parallel and rather endless discussion taking place in the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talk page concerning his listing in that category.--Mantanmoreland 15:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


Tnx for the note, I guess updating the article has slipped my mind. I have now specificed that one of the sources is a clear reference.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther

I can appreciate the effort, but you've missed out on months of debate here. I'm afraid you're setting off another firestorm, where the proponents of labeling Luther anti-semitic will insist on listing him in both. I would very much prefer if you would just leave him in the antisemitic catagory and let the dust settle on this article. --CTSWyneken 19:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Gabriel

Thank you Gabriel for your help with formatting!


Glad to see someone working on Bibliography of Jorge Luis Borges, but could you please see my note at Talk:Bibliography of Jorge Luis Borges#Confusion? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 18:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi JMabel,
Thanks for your note. Unfortunately I'm at work now and can't check my source for the bibliography (Collected Fictions translated by Hurley, which I believe is considered authoritative). I may have misread Hurley or made a typo somewhere, its possible that I meant to list the stories by the collection in which they first appeared in Spanish. I will check later tonight. Either way, I chose to list them by collection because that's where most readers will encounter them, but now that I think about it that might not have been the best choice. Also, I'm curious if you think the table format is appropriate and if not, if you have any ideas to improve it.
GabrielF 18:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Gabriel, this is one of the few areas where I will claim to be genuinely expert. I started reading Borges about 35 years ago. Although I'm a native English speaker, I first encountered his work in Spanish, and, as it happens "Jardín de Senderos" was the first thing I read. I was hooked. At that time, large amounts of his work were not yet available in English translation; the first English translations date from about 1960, and the bulk of it was first translated between about 1968 and 1975. Our featured article on "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius" is 90% my work.

I also have Collected Fictions at home, and I'm also at work right now. I think you will find that you are listing Spanish-language dates (which, in my view is as it should be, but we should say that is what we are doing: date of initial publication is far more important than date of first translation into a particular language, even the readers' language). Yes, most of those stories are now readily available in volumes more or less corresponding to the original Spanish-language publications (or somewhat grouped together, as was the case even in later Spanish-language editions), but (for example) quite a few of the most famous stories had their first book-form English language publication in Labyrinths (1962), which was a bit of a hodge-podge (especially in that it brought together work of multiple translators of various qualities; for example, James Irby's translation of "Tlön…" is certainly not on a par with more recent translations, including Hurley's). Quite a few of these had appeared in magazines in the two or three years before that; I believe that Labyrinths lists all of those in the front of the book. Unfortunately, a good chunk of my personal library is in storage at the moment, but I do plan to dig out all the Borges some time in the next few weeks. - Jmabel | Talk 18:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


Gabriel, would you mind e-mailing me? Jayjg (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Your note

I responded on my talk page. Pecher Talk 18:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah casualties

The three sources currently cited for the Hezbollah casualty number of eight do not contain that information. Cheers, TewfikTalk 15:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for explaining. TewfikTalk 15:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Lebanese Casualties

That is fair. I was hesitant to alter the format of the conflict box, but if you are WP:Bold, I'll support that. Cheers, TewfikTalk 22:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Six day war

Thank you. Can you also please take a look at the second point in mismatches in Talk:Operation Focus. Tintin (talk) 04:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


Gabriel, cut-and-paste moves are best avoided, because they mean we lose the page history, and the article then has to be deleted and the histories merged. I've just done it, but the server can take some time to catch up, in case it looks wrong in the meantime. Nice work on the article, by the way. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries. It all came out in the wash. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Category: Anti-Semitic People

Gabriel, you may be interested in the discussion in the talk page of this category, particularly the latest entry.--Mantanmoreland 16:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Seeking programmer/techie input

We need your advice at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Sidebar redesign proposal. --Nexus Seven 03:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Response to Programming Question

Hi Nexus Seven,

I am a programmer, but unfortunately I'm probably not the right person to answer your question since I know very little about MediaWiki. However, I do think your idea is a good one and I'm almost sure that the work involved to implement it would be minimal. Probably the biggest difficulty would be getting the right people to agree to it, since it is a change that would effect all of wikipedia. I'd suggest talking about it on the IRC channel #wikipedia on freenode. Someone there should at least be able to point you in the right direction. GabrielF 13:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I just took a brief look at some of the documentation for MediaWiki and it seems to me that this would require no code changes at all, just a change to the template wikipedia uses. GabrielF 17:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Would you provide links to the specific pages you referred to above, so that I can point others to them? Where is the template to which you referred, and the documentation on it which you found? --Nexus Seven 20:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Please remember

When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:test}} instead of {{test}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. - Glen 21:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

A few more

. . . that you might be interested in[1]. Morton devonshire 23:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

CT List

Great idea. --Sloane 01:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you feel the "Mo"? Got the bastards on the run matey. Morton devonshire 01:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Dylan Avery

As nobody really seems to want to speak up for this, I've gone with WP:Bold and merged. I'd do the same with the other two crew members, but I'm not sure if I should if they're up for AfD. Your thoughts?--Rosicrucian 00:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Voting vs Discussing

Hi there, I'd just like to comment on your remark "19 deletes vs 7 keeps is no consensus apparantly". Well, apparently not, since AfDs (and in general straw polls in Wikipedia) are not votes. Best wishes in your campaign. PizzaMargherita 06:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually User:Sloane left the comment you're referring to. The page is in my userspace but others have edited it. GabrielF 12:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll remove these inflammatory and meaningless statistics. PizzaMargherita 12:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Notability (books)

Hi, you were recently involved in a debate where Wikipedia:Notability (books) was cited. This proposal is under development and would benefit from being assessed by more editors. Perhaps you would be interested in expressing an opinion at the project talk page. NB This does not have any bearing on the previous debate in which you were involved. JackyR | Talk 19:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry

After stumbling upon Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, I had no choice, I had to do something, anything. AlexeiSeptimus 04:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I don't have time to keep track of all articles-for-deletion on wikipedia; is there a general place to discuss the deletion of 911-related articles?

I am not amused by the many deletions. Wikipedia is the place I go to when I need a balanced opinion on things that may be controversial. On the rest of the internet, everything is POV. If wikipedia would give undue credibility to any theory, book, DVD, author, researcher, then the wording of the article must be POV. Deletion cannot be the answer.

The notability criterium is meant to avoid articles on `nobody´s`, not to avoid articles on specific people. — Xiutwel (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Xiutwel,
There really isn't a great place for you to comment on the 911 conspiracy AfDs because although they are all related, the discussions are separate for each of them. However, I've come up with a few options if you want to put something on the record. You could try posting a message on the Wikipedia:Village Pump, you could try going through the Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution process, although I personally think that this step is a bit extreme. You can also comment on the AfDs that are still open.
I'd like to point out that wikipedia functions by consensus and in every single case (23 by my count) where consensus was reached on an AfD nomination the consensus was to delete or either delete the article or to merge and redirect. Please understand that these articles were not deleted because they were poorly written or unsourced but because they dealt with non-notable topics, such as books that are in a total of 10 libraries, movies that have generated no press coverage, people whose only claim to notability is that they helped produce movies that generated no press coverage, etc. I can appreciate from your message that you have a clear vision of what wikipedia should be, but I hope you understand that your vision doesn't really conform to WP:NOT, which is the official policy that describes what wikipedia is and isn't. For example, wikipedia isn't an indescriminate collection of information. Also, please note that wikipedia is not a soapbox. When someone creates an article about a completely non-notable book it has the effect of promoting that book and that is contrary to our mission.
Please note I've copied this comment to my talk page so I can better keep track of the conversation. 22:26, GabrielF 22:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


Re: no more Afds. Now what, I feel empty inside.  : ) Morton devonshire 22:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Kenneth L. Kuttler

If Kenneth Kuttler is notable for anything it is putting his 300-something page Linear Algebra textbook on his personal website for free in pdf form: That's pretty awesome. AlexeiSeptimus 00:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, a Calculus textbook and a pattern for a gingerbread house AlexeiSeptimus 01:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Controlled-demolition article

The AfD closing recommendations are not being implimented and the article is just getting longer. Some more involvement may be necessary. AlexeiSeptimus 02:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Carcharoth's comments

See his comment re The War on Freedom Afd at [2]. Morton devonshire 00:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Strange Close & Re-List

The Afd that you voted on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter has been closed and relisted by an Admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter (second nomination). Before re-listing, the vote was 19 delete, 5 keep. Morton devonshire 22:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Esperanza!


Welcome, GabrielF, to Esperanza! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is Stressbusters, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Proposals.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact our administrator general Natalya by email or talk page. Consider introducing yourself at the Esperanza talk page! Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). If you're new to IRC, you may find help at an IRC tutorial. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!

Húsönd 23:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair Warning

[3] Charming, no?--Rosicrucian 04:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, history PROVES you FOLLOWED THE HELPFUL LINK I POSTED ON the PUBLIC GABRIELF911CRUFT page and took action on the homosexual anal sex act article. Thank you sir! NBGPWS 04:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)



As you know, there has been some heat over your subpage recently, and I have been among the heated. I have never questioned your good faith on the matter, and have indeed explicitly affirmed my belief in yours personally two or three times. I also have voted to delete quite a few of the articles listed there, so my objection is not one of personal prejudices. I would also like to turn down the heat and resolve a systemic problem on AFD.

My problem is with transparency, because notifications clearly aren't going away. Right now, there is a debate on the SPA template, and the main justification for keeping it is transparency. I would like transparency in all dimensions of AFD, including first edits, single purpose accounts, vote solicitations, and noticeboards. The last applies here. Can't Sleep has pointed out the relevant AFD projects interested in topic sorting noticeboards, I believe they are linked somewhere on the page talk. I would be satisfied if you moved your page to main space under one of those projects, or at a minimum linked it from there. If you do so, or allow me to, I will withdraw my objections to this. I'm not going to pursue this matter further for a week or two, possibly longer, as I have some serious stresses in real life. Some time will allow things to cool down all round, so take a bit before responding.

I'm not sure if the notification & sorting projects on AFD are active at present. If they are not, I intend to get them activated. Derex 01:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Great timing on your first edit to Allegations of Israeli apartheid

Hi GabrielF. I was looking through the history of the AoIA article and it seems that your first edit to the article, a revert in a widespread revert war (this edit [4]) happened today -- see [5]. It's timing was impeccable. I was wondering how it is you happened upon that article at that exact time - can you explain? Just trying to understand the strangeness that has been going on with that article. --Ben 01:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have anything to do with this [6], does it? --Ben 01:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. It is really frustating since that revert war was based on a misunderstanding. No one did undo all of SV's edits and I had taken the changes to the talk page. Going forward, it is best to use the talk page rather than have a pile one, pile ones only encourage one side to be left with bad taste of feeling bullied, as SV mentioned on the AoIA talk page [7] -- something that needs to be avoided. --Ben 02:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Japanese Tank Articles

Wikipedia would become a marvel if all its article were as ridiculously thorough as Type 97 Chi-Ha, Development of diesel engines in World War II (Japan), and the best of all List of Japanese HEAT Shells in WW2, but just about every single article involving WWII Japanese Tanks needs to be wikified in the extreme. I am not even sure verifying this type of data is going to even be possible. AlexeiSeptimus 05:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

So basically most of the info that needs verification and wikification comes from User:Torb37, who is very prolific, indeed. It is clear that he must have some major source material infront of him as he edits. Some of these articles are probably going to need to go given how unbelievably esoteric their subjects are: List of Japanese carriers and land air corps equipped with the Mitsubishi Zero, Japanese Army Railways and Shipping Section, List of foreign residents in Japan (December 1941), Military instructors and trainers of the Empire of Japan. AlexeiSeptimus 06:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

village pump

Hi, I don't know if you check out the village pump but since there's a comment on your conspiracy deletion list, I thought you might want to look at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Politically motivated AfD's: the elephant in the room. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 01:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

November Esperanza Newsletter

Program Feature: Admin Coaching (needs coaches!)
Admin Coaching needs coaches!!! If you are an administrator, or even a generally experienced user, do consider signing up to be a coach.

Admin Coaching, now being coordinated by HighwayCello, is a program for people who want help learning some of the more subtle aspects of Wikipedia policy and culture. People are matched with experienced users who are willing to offer coaching. The program is designed for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins.

What's New?
The Tutorial Drive is a new Esperanza program! In an effort to make complicated processes on Wikipedia easier for everyone, Esperanza working to create and compile a list of tutorials about processes here on Wikipedia. Consider writing one!
A discussion on how Esperanza relates to the encyclopedia has been started; please add your thoughts.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.
  • The list of proposed programs has been updated, with some proposals being archived.
  • There is now a new program: the Tutorial Drive! Consider writing a tutorial on something you are good at doing on Wikipedia.
  • The suggestion of adding a cohesive look to all the Esperanza pages is being considered; join the discussion if you are interested!
  • In order to make a useful interlanguage welcome template, those involved in translation projects will be asked what English Wikipedia policies are most important and confusing to editors coming from other language Wikipedias.
  • A discussion of Esperanza's role in Wikipedia is being held, with all thoughts of all Esperanzians wanted!
  • Shreshth91 informed everyone that he will be leaving the Esperanza council as life is rather busy; his spot will be filled by the runner up from the last election, HighwayCello.
Natalya, Banes, Celestianpower, EWS23, FireFox, The Halo, Shreshth91 and HighwayCello
20:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.


I opened an RfC regarding Fairness And Accuracy For All, it is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fairness And Accuracy For All and would appreciate you comments if you have any. This message is being posted to anyone's talk page who it seems has had much contact with the user in question. --NuclearZer0 22:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony J. Hilder

You may want to correct your signature. JoshuaZ 20:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

David Spangler Kaufman

This was one of a whole string of articles on Texas county namesakes that I did back in 2004 as an unexperienced, 12-year-old editor. Feel free to delete it. --- Dralwik|Have a Chat My "Great Project" 02:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Moving from my user page GabrielF 02:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Need your extreme help

I am reallyin need of your extreme help.

There are some fake votes polled at

I would be extremely thankful to your highness, if you could help me in voting on this article as Strong Delete or Speedy Delete.

Not only this, I would like you to help me in gaining more votes. The article wasn;t nominated by me but it seems to be extremely personalised one. I would appreciate your urgent and kind help.

Begu Khel 22:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, the above person himself is a sock puppet. So before you take any action, look into the genuineness of this person and his own motives for voting on the above AFD page.--Mina Khel 22:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Never knew, thanks anyway.

I never knew that it is unfair to ask for votes. I also never knew that without a consensus the votes be counted at per side.

Thanks, I am happy to have your quick and positive response with kindness.

If there is anything for me to do, let me inform. Begu Khel 22:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


I know this is early but... == A Happy Birthday From Randfan ==

Balloons-aj.png Dear {{subst:BASEPAGENAME}},

The Wikipedia Birthday Committee, myself, and Bearly541 wish you a very happy birthday! Enjoy your special day. Hooray! --Randfan please talk talk to me!

This guy is your personal B-day red panda! Congrats for being one year older and staying with Wikipedia this long. Much too many people create new accounts, do a few minor edits, and just quit. Happy B-day! —¡Randfan! {{subst:CURRENTTIME}}, {{subst:CURRENTDAY}} {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC); so how does it feel? :)
Happy b-day! Hope it's a good one! Cheers! :)Randfan!! {{subst:CURRENTTIME}}, {{subst:CURRENTDAY}} {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)
I also would like to wish you a happy birthday! Hope you have a great day! – Heaven's Wrath   Talk  05:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
My happy birthdays here! --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 05:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Happy birthday! Enjoy your day! Jam01 06:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Happy birthday Gabriel! I hope you have a good day, and that you enjoy your (large) cake. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 14:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Birthday cake.jpg


Updated DYK query On 20 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anne Frank Tree, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--LordAmeth 23:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Photo Matching project

Hey, about the Photo matching project, should the people who are in the photo wikiproject be notified by talk page? Regards, --Gphototalk 18:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll notify everyone who is on the wikiproject photography project list. --Gphototalk 18:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Regards --Gphototalk 18:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This was great idea! Good job! Several people have already added item to the list and it looks to me like this type of thing is finally going to work out. Regards --Gphototalk 19:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have notified every "A" name user from the list of photographers that you provided me with. Regards --Gphototalk 19:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there an automated way to post messages to user talk pages? --Gphototalk 21:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Photo matching proposal

Hi - It seems you're thinking along rather the same lines as User:Gphoto and me who are trying to revisalize Wikipedia:WikiProject Photography. Your idea is a good one, though place-level photo requests are already available via {{reqphotoin}}, with volunteers and their locations listed at Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Photographers. The existing setup can certainly be improved, though, and in particular I'm hoping to get some way of grouping requests not only by location but also by subject-matter (nature, household objects etc) as well as by type of photo (close-up etc). That's being worked on by User:Doug Bell. How about joining forces for a team effort? --MichaelMaggs 18:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark Clifford

Unfortunately, I don't really have much correspondence from Mr Clifford. The SCMP's representative contacted us to ask if we could put the SCMP article on protected status because of vandalism re: the firings controversy; I examined the article history and ascertained that it was not necessary. In my reply to the SCMP rep, I mentioned that I had also examined the article on Clifford himself, and that the data on which college he attended had been changed, and could the rep possibly ask Mr Clifford for a clarification here. DS 02:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Islamic jurisprudence

The subarticles articles in the Fiqh series are not looking particularly encyclopedic at the moment. A number of them are a simple statement of facts followed by a list of Qu'ranic verses and quotations, often without commentary. Consider the case of Islam and pork, a sub-article of Islamic dietary laws, a sub-article of Islamic hygienical jurisprudence, a sub-article of Fiqh. The article contains a single line of encyclopedic information: "In Islam, Pork is forbidden to eat" followed by thirty lines of Quranic verse.(A grammatical review is also in order in all of the articles in the series, Islamic dietary laws contains the gem "Carnivores are prohibited to eat." and Islamic political jurisprudence includes the incredibly informative description "Islamic politics is the profession of Muslim politicians. It is the field of politics within the bounds of Islam.") I am not an expert in these matters, but these articles are just bad and it's a pretty important set of topics. AlexeiSeptimus 01:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I was about to create and write my first Wikipedia article, and then I saw that today's featured article was Torchic and I realized how I would be making a much larger contribution to humanity by playing Guild Wars instead. AlexeiSeptimus 01:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
List of British politicians by wealth at death?!?!?!?!? AlexeiSeptimus 03:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

WW 2 Casualties Sort Programe

The routine you applied is a dud. It does not sort in proper order. Please check your work before you make any changes. If you want to sort the data drop it into an excel spreadsheet or make your routine work properly.--Woogie10w 00:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard and an AfD note

They huffed, and puffed, . . .

Three little pigs - third pig builds a house - Project Gutenberg eText 15661.jpg
Thank you for offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard (2nd mfd). Look forward to seeing you around in 2007 at Conspiracy Central! For a little fun, check out Brad Greux's video blog at The Most Brilliant and Flawlessly Executed Plan, Ever, Ever. Good cheer from The Mad Dog, Morton devonshire 20:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Articles related to quackery

I saw that you weighed in on a similar AfD today, and thought that you may want to share your wisdom here:[8]. Thanks. Levine2112 22:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nicole Jordan Article

In an attempt to write an article on Romance Author Nicole Jordan, listing her novels and including a link to her web site, I've gotten into a fix. Originally I created an account under the name of Nicjord. When I wrote the article, I didn't Create a Page Name. So I created a second page, naming it Nicole Jordan, and copied the article to it. It was deleted. So, I created another account; this one, Nicole Jordan. I began to type the article, but it went to speedy deletion and was protected against recreating the article. The User:Nicjord account has my article in full, but a Nicole Jordan search won't take me to the page. Wikipedia has a long list of romance authors with similar info; therefore I don't understand why this article would be a conflict of interest. What to do now? Your help would be so very much appreciated. Nicole Jordan 07:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Apple Inc (no comma)

Grammar aside, look at the screenshot from their own slideshow here: [9] --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[10] Aww, here it goes. AlexeiSeptimus 23:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Etiquette

Three Revert Rule Warning

I am issuing a (possibly pre-) 3RR warning to you re: your unnecessary deletions of earlier editors' hard work in the article Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. You are reverting previously written information back to your own earlier POV, which was previously discussed by many others, without concern for their objections. Read the whole talk page since you last edited the article some time ago. You are not up-to-date on the consensus about this article. I have spent a great deal of time contributing recently (not a long time ago) to this article, and you are wasting my time and contributions by deleting them.

Please do not delete sections of text or valid links from Wikipedia articles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Updated --NYScholar 06:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the surprise

RE: User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard [11] Thanks for the surprise. Only Nuclear's sudden change was more surprising in my 15 months on wikipedia.

I am unwatching your user page, and I won't watch the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Conspiracy theories page, so our contact will be limited. As I mentioned several times before, most of these CT I think are BS anyway, and I have no desire to speculate about such drivel.

I appreciate your civility and willingness to comprimise. You are an example for all wikipedians, including and especially me.

I sometimes wonder if I would have never been involved with your userpage, that this userpage would have been moved to deletion sorting anyway, with less bad feelings and drama. I need to reflect more on this, and how I can be a better, more civil wikipedian.

I am happy to see that both Fair and Striver are becoming more civil. I probably can learn a lot from them too. The older I get the less drama I want in my life.

Have a great week. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Trav,
I appreciate your kind thoughts. We'll see how this new system works out. Hopefully, now we can go back to improving articles. GabrielF 17:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Ha ha, Not bloody likely, after I unwatched your page, I was in the process of unwatching Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America and it was put up for a third deletion, in less than a month. I might as well tell those who watch your page, writing you this, because they will find out soon enough. I look forward to seeing how Nuclear will vote on this AfD, since his change, but I dread the entire drama again.
I am currently writing an essay on deleting sections and AfDs. This is ridiculous.
I am in an edit war right now on Firestone, same situation as Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America, someone is deleting large sections of the article.
Why can't people see that having two opposing sides in an article actually makes their own position stronger?
If you are interested in my past ranting on the subject, here is my new user page: User:Travb/D. Please for the love of God, don't put it up for deletion. That would be so ironic I would be laughing all the way down the building I would jump off of. The only reason I supported your userpage being deleted was because it dealt with deletions. I need another wikivacation.
But the Firestone page protection and third party opinion await. If I leave, all my constrbutions gets deleted. Yeah. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ref Nicole Jordan Article

You asked me to write to you once I got my username changed. This went through beautifully, thank you so much. My username is now Anneb. You said you would help me get my article unprotected. As it stands now, it says it is protected against recreating. I didn't get that far when I began writing it, so I don't need to retrieve it per se, but my fear is that once I begin writing it, another administor will send it to speedy deletion. Should I be concerned with this? I wrote to other administrators who never answered, so I have to tell you how very appreciative I am of your help. Anneb 08:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (science)

Your input at this topic would be useful, relative to the provision #, 4under "Notability within the scientific community" which says " Conference topic. It has been the primary topic of a conference with notable participants from the same field." Any pseudoscience or tinfoil hat theory (say for example theories of what brought down some building) would acquire scientifica notability if there were a conference put on by persons (say physicists) who had their own scientific notability. I have argued on the discussion page '"Conference topic" is a backdoor"' that this provision might unintentionally provide automatic notability for scientific topics which otherwise could not be shown to have it. Edison 21:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Nicole Jordan Article

I'm so sorry to have to bother you again. I have written the article in its entirety and it is now saying it needs to be wikified and a date of Jan 07 was added to it. Do I understand that to mean it will be blocked from others being able to edit? I got on the wikify site, and read that the first para, the bio, might be too long. I shortened it. However, I can't tell what more it is that I need to do. Is it normal that it has disappeared from my Anneb user page? I am able to find it again when I search for it, but I fear that won't last long. You've been so very helpful. I thank you once more. Anneb 07:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Hi, The article has been renamed and is again being considered for deletion. You are invited to vote again, if you are interested:


Thanks Steth 04:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Israeli Nuclear First Strike on Natanz Facility rewrite

Hi GabrielF. I have spent some time to rewrite most of the article you nominated for AfD. Do you still feel it is mostly OR? There are numerous citations of people commenting on it in high profile articles, not just AP syndication articles. I unfortunately do not have that much time to continue improving it today though. -- 04:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi GabrielF. I'm going to assume good faith and believe that it is just a coincidence that we had a disagreement on Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, and article we both happened to edit yesterday, and then you appeared later that day on another article I choose to edit and quickly nominated it for deletion rather than trying to fix the main issues with it. It is my hope that such coincidences do not continue to occur. Best. -- 14:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
It isn't unusual for two users who edit on the same topic to run into each other. I have a pretty long history of working on articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I came upon the Natanz article because I saw that someone was creating links to it on articles that I have on my watchlist. I did not realize that you were the same editor who worked on the Carter book article. I might have reason to see what other articles User:NYScholar has contributed to, but my impression is that your edits on both articles have been reasonable and well-thought out and I don't see why you would think I would want to take revenge (or whatever) on you. GabrielF 19:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming

I found two reviews of the book in independent reliable publications. Please take another look. I do not agree with the authors, but it is good to have a devil's advocate for accepted wisdom about global warming. I hate "Science by jump on the bandwagon," and remember a few decades ago when we were menaced with the prospect of uncontrollable global cooling. Edison 18:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Pilots for 9/11 Truth

You might want to take a look at this article. Edison 15:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


I have been away a while, but what happened to the conspiracy AfD board? I wanted to add this to it, Nairobi and Bukavu documents, more Wayne Madsen garbage. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. It's up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nairobi and Bukavu documents. Morton DevonshireYo 17:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Donaldson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC).


by the way, it's more than $40k now! ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Tempering with other people's comments

You removed Sa.vakilian's comments [12], that's highly inappropriate. Please don't temper with other people's comments. --Mardavich 19:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. That deletion was the entirely accidental result of an edit conflict. GabrielF 19:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


Hi Black Falcon,

I just wanted to say that I'm not 100% sure how to deal with anti-Iranianism but I really appreciate your thoughtful comments on the AfD. I have to give some thought to what the best course of action is. GabrielF 20:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. If the article were to remain as it currently is, I would support deletion. It basically reads like a political history of which groups/countries Iran has had problems with! The only reason I voted to keep was that there is (in my opinion) some salvageable content in the article and that I also think the topic is worthy of an article (but certainly not the one that is there now). I also appreciate your bringing this to the community's attention as the article had essentially remained in the same state for over 7 months and will probably need help from persons familiar with Iranian-related topics. I can perhaps cleanup the article and add info about modern anti-Iranianism, but I certainly do not have sufficient knowledge to give a historical background of anti-Persianism. Cheers, Black Falcon 20:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of his reasons for adding the section, it does improve the article. While you may be the nominator, I ask that you consider the merits of the additions outside of the Afd context. It adds a lot of information that directly pertains to the topic, and could very well be the base for an improved article version in the near future. Please reinstate unless you can demonstrate why the revision itself is not appropriate. The Behnam 01:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I responded at Talk:Anti-Iranianism GabrielF 02:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

GabrielF, in light of the great amount of debate your nomination has spurred, perhaps you would consider withdrawing your nomination to allow some time for the article to be improved. Hopefully, some contributors will attempt to correct the problems noted in the discussion (I, for one, will) regarding clarity, possible OR, and NPOV. You can always nominate it again for AfD if it is not improved after some time (I fear that any attempt by me or anyone else to delete the political history sections (essentially most of the article) may be reverted). You can, of course, note this in the AfD itself--that if the article is not improved, it will be renominated for AfD. I do not feel that Zereshk's additions suffice in improving the article (in fact, not all of the sources seem really useful), but I still maintain that the topic (renamed to "anti-Iranian sentiments") is article-worthy even without it. However, if you feel that there hasn't been sufficient discussion (that is productive), then let's of course have the AfD proceed. -- Black Falcon 02:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi again,
The ideal solution is for someone who really understands the material to rewrite the article based on scholarly secondary sources about the topic, but of course that's not very likely to happen. The reason that I don't think withdrawing the AfD is a good idea is that I just don't see how the suggestions that you and others made can be implemented if there is a group of editors who think that the arguments that I and others have made amount to racism. I'll withdraw my nomination if the changes that you recommended on the AfD page are implemented, but I really don't see that happening. I'm not prepared to withdraw the AfD if someone can add an unencyclopedic list of everyone who has ever used the term "anti-Iranianism" and then prevent its removal. GabrielF 02:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I understand. I am working on a cleanup from a merge right now, but I will edit the anti-Iranianism article and see if anyone reverts it. If not, then that may be a sign of the possibility of future improvement. -- Black Falcon 02:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Done! I removed the content from the article and put it here. It has been reverted once, but reinstated by User:The Benham (sp?). Let's hope no one reverts it to the previous version. If no one does after a few days, I will start a new thread on the talk page requesting a cleanup, may post to the WikiProject:Iran requesting help, will try to find new/sourced info for "anti-Iranian sentiments in the US" (note: "in" not "by"), and may even ask for expert opinion for the historical part (anti-Persian). Black Falcon 05:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
GabrielF , could you please withdraw the AfD now that most of your concerns have been addressed and the political bits have been removed from the article. --Mardavich 05:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Commons Picture of the Year competition

Commons Picture of the Year competition

Voting is now open at Commons to choose the finalists for Picture of the Year 2006. The voting page is at Commons:Picture of the Year/2006. All editors having at least 100 edits either here or on any Wikimedia Wiki are welcome to participate. --MichaelMaggs 07:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

About Anti-Iranianism

Hi GabrielF!

I have seen your note where you seperated Persia and Iran as two seperate entities: "Persia before it became Iran". I just wanted to make a comment on this point. Iran has been always Iran in Iranian literature. Persia is the word used in western literature. Such seperation is artificial.Sangak 15:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yes, in Persian language we translate "Persia" and "Iran" to the single word "Iran". Disputes over naming exist when it comes to official English name of "Iran". About the article, there were three main concerns NOR, NPOV and Neologism. I think Neologism is not relevant as wikipedia is neither an English dictionary nor an encyclopedia of western world. You may find it interesting that the words Holocaust and Anti-semitism have no entries in Persian language and I have to say I have not seen the words in Persian books or articles before 2006. But I started an article on it in Persian wikipedia. No one could say this is Neologism. There are much more examples like this.
  • NPOV is indeed my concern. It is very difficult to write such articles and avoid POV. But we have to work on it.
  • NOR: is not relevant to my mind. There are many studies on the issue in our literature. One can not say that a source in French is more valuable than a source in Russian or Japanese.

In summary I think NPOV is an issue here. And I suggest keeping the article and tagging it as NPOV and then help in improving it using reliable sources. Sangak 15:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: My ineterest is mainly in culture, science, art and music. I have always been reluctant to work on political articles. But I will try to help. Let's see how far we can go. Take care. Sangak 15:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes but I had put a comment for Tewfiq to come and write his idea there.--Sa.vakilian 17:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


Apparently there has been canvassing by people for "Keep" at the Anti-Iranianism Afd. A random Ip [13] did some; also HighInBC mentioned this [14]. Also, while that IP appears anonymous, there was an interesting reference to Mardavich that did not appear to concern an actual edit by Mardavich [15]. I can't figure out where this notification occurred; Mardavich's contribs page didn't yield anything. I cannot help but wonder if perhaps he had something to do with the alleged email. In any case, how does canvassing affect the Afd ruling, in most cases? The Behnam 02:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

GabrielF, I hope you don't mind that I am responding to The Behnam on your talk page--I added it to my watchlist during our discussion above. As for the canvassing issue, see WP:CANVASSING. The canvassing by the IP seems (to me) to be more or less acceptable as
  1. There was limited posting (only 4 users).
  2. The text of the message is neutral (only an invitation to participate).
  3. The persons contacted are all interested in Iranian subjects, but I couldn't find anything on their userpages that might constitute being "on the record with a specific opinion (such as via a userbox or other user categorization)". User:Soroush83 admits to being from Iran, but expresses no specific opinion.
Furthermore, by and large those users canvassed had already posted to the AfD beforehand. See: (all times UTC)
  • User:Kaveh voted at 16:13 on 1 February, and was canvassed at 01:20 on 2 February.
  • User:Sa.vakilian voted at 19:12 on 31 January, and was canvassed at 01:19 on 2 February.
  • User:Agha Nader voted at 22:02 on 1 February, and was canvassed at 01:19 on 2 February.
  • User:Soroush83 voted at 22:26 on 31 January 2007, and was canvassed at 01:18 on 2 February.
Thus, I don't think this canvassing (at least that by the IP user) should affect the AfD in any way. Black Falcon 03:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The ipuser in question is the same guy who posted on the AfD and identified himself as an editor I had worked with on two previous articles. I know this because both IPs belong to Bell Canada. The comment on Mardavich's talk page leads me to believe that he emailed users who he knew would be friendly which is a bit more serious. I have no idea who emailed HighinBC. I'm not sure that canvassing will effect the outcome of the AfD, but it may be worth pointing out the note on Mardavich's talk page on the AfD page to alert the closing admin. GabrielF 03:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we should Wikipedia:assume good faith for now. All we have is pretty harmless canvassing by an IP (see above--no actual effect, limited, and neutral message), a message to HighInBC (I have no clue as to why anyone--either supporting keep or delete--would canvass him; see my comment at the bottom of the AfD page), and a comment to Mardavich by Agha Nader, which may in fact have been solicited sometime in the past. If you think it should be noted in the AfD for the closing admin (or if that is the common WP procedure--I have never encountered a situation like this before as I've only really been active on AFD for a little over a month), then go ahead and feel free to copy from my post above. Black Falcon 03:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I said it may be worth it for Benham to point it out on the talk page if he was concerned. Personally, I'd rather wait and see. GabrielF 03:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I was just wondering what it means. I have seen nominations receive a speedy close because of canvassing, but I wasn't sure what the deal is if the defendant canvasses. It doesn't seem acceptable at all, but I wasn't sure how it should affect the debate. Perhaps I should just post my original comment on the Afd page. The Behnam 03:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
And yes, the suspected Mardavich email is of much more concern than the anonymous after-canvasser. The Behnam 03:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello all. I was the user who canvased the users after the fact. I was just trying to get them to contribute to the article's content. In many ways, I was merely mimicking GabrielF's after-the-fact canvasing of voters, see:
I apologize for any confusion. -- 00:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but that isn't canvassing for the AFD. Gabriel was asking them to come over to the article itself and help with the improvement process, since they voted keep but said it needed improvement. The Behnam 02:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Granted, but I still don't think this type of canvassing (limited, neutral message, nonpartisan) is problematic. Black Falcon 03:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Proactive and Preemptive Operations Group

Wanted to get some feedback before listing this article for Afd Proactive and Preemptive Operations Group. I cannot seem to find any credible sources and info on this, most of the sources coming from Prison Planet and the like. What do you think? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverting to User:Tom harrison at Anti-Iranianism

I have no problem with your reversion. The only real problem I had with Tom's reversion was that s/he deleted the Greek section as well. Btw, I will see if I can add a sentence or two about anti-Iranian sentiment in the US post-1979, to sort of start a new section for the US. Cheers, Black Falcon 23:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Wikipedia talk:Notability (news)

On the Wikipedia talk page for Wikipedia:Notability you expressed some opinions about whether things covered by news media should be entitled to Wikipedia articles for having met the criteria of multiple coverage in reliable independent sources I have created a draft of a proposed guideline Wikipedia talk:Notability (news) looking at the question of whether "newsworty" equals "encyclopedic." Your input is welcome. Thanks.Edison 01:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


Please see my most recent comments on the talk page. i don't see much improvement. If you agree with any of my recent comments perhaps it would help if you chimed in and explained further what the problems are. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: User:GabrielF/AfDs

I thought you agreed Gabriel to close down the AfD user page and create a conspiracy Deletion sorting page here:

New page: * Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Conspiracy_theories

Now you have created: User:GabrielF/AfDs, which despite the blurb:

"A list of articles I have nominated for deletion:"

Morton is now actively adding AfDs too.[16] Please explain. Travb (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted Morton. I wanted a page to keep track of MY AfDs. He should NOT have added his own. GabrielF 21:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your timely response.
You may want to remove {{incompletelist}} because maybe Morton was confused. I know Morton wrote that he missed User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard.
I just wrote TDC,[17] who commented on Morton's recent AfD. Him and I have argued for years about AfDs and deleting material.
I know you probably disagree me too. Thats okay. Except for User:Zer0faults most people's behavior changes glacially.
I just wanted to let you know that I e-mailed three users who were in some of your recent AfDs. Also here: User_talk: (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Took the imperative 'this is incomplete' 'you can expand it' on the page too literally. My mistake.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 23:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

FYI up for deletion. Travb (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Gabe

How's it going- Tim —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 12:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

License tagging for Image:TheUsualIrishWayofDoingThings.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TheUsualIrishWayofDoingThings.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wolf Blitzer

Care to explain on talk for the article why you RV'd my changes? "Highly POV" in the comment isnt much of a description. Oh and I solved your conundrum over his involvement with AIPAC, establishing at least that he was an employee for them in 1970s. 00:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Recognizing that an editor has
  • difficulty in comprehending facts presented to them,
  • made a racist comment intended to insult another editor on a talkpage,
  • problems in conducting research, and
  • a demonstrated bias in editing a particular article,
does not infringe on WP:NPA.
That you find these constructive comments insulting is of severe regret to me. Nevertheless I hope they assist you in becoming a better editor. Hopefully on the next occassion when you decide to promote what you think above physical and sourced evidence you will remember how embarassing it was to see that attempt fall to pieces. I am glad to have helped you with that.
By way of being constructive again, can I suggest you actually read WP:NPA, apply it to your own public comments, then when you believe you have a firm grasp of it, come back and we can discuss how applying it to your own work will improve you as an editor. 19:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
User received a 48 hour block for personal attacks. GabrielF 12:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan 2/19/07

You reverted my edit of Cindy Sheehans trip to Cuba claiming POV. It shows how selective she is in her protesting. Please explain.Giza D 19:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Megan Marshak

I noticed you removed a category from Megan Marshak the other day. I've been looking at that article, it has been a conspiracy theory article, a copyvio and now a stub, pretty much everything but a biography. Outside of one night of her life she doesn't seem very notable and I suggested that it be merged with Nelson Rockefeller's article. Not much has been said on the proposed merger, I was thinking about an AfD to make the article a redirect to Nelson Rockefeller, but I thought I'd ask for a second opinion, since you're the last person to edit the article, I thought you might have a comment. I'll watch here if you have anything to add. Thanks. --Dual Freq 02:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


Hi GabrielF. Your recent edits on Anti-Zionism and other pages have raised concerns with me and others that you and User:Tewfik are the same user. I'm laying out the basis for the concern below, so you can respond, before I file a request for checkuser. If there is some odd explanation for this, I apologize, and will gladly see this deleted.

My concern was raised by the following series of edits on Anti-Zionism on February 21, before which neither Tewfik nor GabrielF appear to have edited the page in several weeks or months:

  • Edit 1: 20:44 21 Feb 2007 - Tewfik enters content dispute to revert Reinhart paragraph
  • Edit 2 (Talk page): 20:47 21 Feb 2007 - Three minutes later, not Tewfik, but GabrielF leaves message "explaining revert" of Reinhart paragraph (see edit summary).

Huh? Ok, we wait.

  • Edit 3 (Talk page): 21:03 21 Feb 2007 - Tewfik leaves message with nearly identical sentiment to GabrielF (but without acknowledging that GabrielF just said the same thing).
  • Edit 4: 21:50 21 Feb 2007 - Tiamut reverts Tewfik back to Mackan
  • Edit 5: 22:17 21 Feb 2007 - GabrielF finally reverts Tiamut in first edit on page since 13 September 2006

Ok, so specifically: What revert were you explaining at 20:47 21 Feb 2007? It appears Tewfik was the only individual who had just reverted the page, 3 minutes ago. You had not reverted the page for several months prior. So it a coincidence that you show up for the first time, 3 minutes after Tewfik's also-first revert on the page to directly explain it?

In this regard I also found another sequence of interest, which I recalled from Zionism.

  • Edit 1: 15:54, 16 Feb 2007 - GabrielF reverts material for POV concerns.
  • Edit 2 (Talk page): 15:58, 16 Feb 2007 - Four minutes later, GabrielF leaves message "explaining my last revert further" (see edit summary)

And then on Racism by country:

  • Edit 1: 15:48, 12 Feb 2007 - GabrielF reverts, wanting more discussion
  • Edit 2 (Talk page): 15:55, 12 Feb 2007 - Seven minutes later, GabrielF leaves comment with "explanation of revert" in talk.

Two points:

  1. A person generally does not say they are "explaining revert" unless they have actually reverted. Rather, they post an explanation, and then revert "per talk." "Explaining revert" generally suggests one has already reverted, not that one plans to do so.
  2. Your previous editing indeed seems to show that your pattern is to revert and then "explain" your revert, not to "explain revert" and then assume the material will still be there to do so.

Based on these issues, I took a look through each of your edit logs (Tewfik [18] and GabrielF [19]), and was interested to find a very strong correlation. That is, when GabrielF is editing, Tewfik is not. In fact, despite rather heavy editing by both accounts, I could not find a single day among the first seven months of Tewfik's account where you were editing at the same time. This held true until 25 May 2006. On that day, you (GabrielF) inexplicably went on a spree reverting vandalism on many random pages, something you hadn't done before, along with placing a series of "test" templates on user pages in very close succession. Tewfik, during this period, went on editing as normal.

In other words, the one time you edited at the same time, it was done in the way that would most likely have been orchestrated with a friend (or alone) to cover your tracks, and in a way that was highly inconsistent with your previous style of editing.

In sum, I find this very frustrating, because you seem to be a dedicated editor, if also somewhat of a dedicated edit warrior as Tewfik. In fact, I did not plan to report this based on the first incident on anti-Zionism, despite having seen the events unfold, because I did not want to deal with the hassle. Unfortunately, your continued reversions on the same page force my hand. Ultimately, if this is a misunderstanding, I will be happy to find out why, and will apologize fully. Alternatively, if you would like to admit that you are the same user, and that it was simply a mistake on your part (technical and/or judgment) that you ended up editing on the same page a few times, I will be happy to simply see Tewfik retired, along with his combative style of editing. If there is a poor explanation, however, with all respect, I think a checkuser and any subsequent remedies may be necessary.

I hope we can deal with this constructively. I'm also posting this on User:Tewfik. Mackan79 03:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for checkuser has been placed here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/GabrielF Mackan79 19:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Alright, if you want to go down that road go ahead. Maybe when we get this cleared up we can collaborate on an investigation of just why Jimbo used an elevator to visit the roof of the Reichstag instead of climbing up the side of the building dressed as spiderman. GabrielF 19:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(I was just going to post this, and see you've posed on my page now. I'll post anyway, and respond later) Apologies for the misunderstanding. Incidentally, you may want to temper your assumptions about the wild beliefs of people you don't know. The fact that there are a lot of conspiracy theorists on the internet does not make everyones so. I asked if you were the same user, based on what you now say was a computer glitch by which you happened to make the same revert at the exact same time as another user, both of you newly arrived, and not only that, but you then apparently actually believed you were explaining a revert which it turns out only he made. Did this not warrant a question? I then decided it made more sense to actually look into the situation than simply to throw out accusations as a starting point. If you think that makes me a conspiracy theorist, I guess it would seem to me that your imagination is actually a lot more active than mine. Mackan79 16:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, are you?  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 05:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
User:GabrielF, Don't listen to the Honeypot/False Flag. {{unsigned|::User:GabrielF, Don't listen to the Honeypot/False Flag. Guerillamarketing 14:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
14:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

List of pubs

As someone who has contributed to the talk page discussion on List of publications in philosophy and/or that article's previous deletion debate, I thought you might be interested in participating in its new nomination for deletion which can be found here. Thanks. - KSchutte 17:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The neo-lachrymose conception of Jewish-Arab history

Thanks for voting in the AfD. I have responded to the comments on the AfD. Your description was per above. Can you please take a look it again (also at the details I have provided under my keep vote). Thanks --Aminz 07:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Peace --Aminz 06:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ward Churchill

I made the change; sorry for the confusion. CMummert · talk 14:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:your note

Thanks for your feedback.

  • Concerning Gass rationing article: It is by no means a well written article. I just started a draft and added a current event tag. I do think that this is a reaction to the proposed bill and I can provide sources for that. They were very well aware of the US plan. One can easily find sources directly refering to this point. (I myself read several of them in the past.) They knew that the bill is going to be proposed in two days and they wanted to neutralize it in advance. The fact that an issue is not throughly covered in English media does not make it OR. Please see my note on the talk page. You wrote: "So to assume that the ISEA is a US government policy or that it had some impact on Iran's internal decisions is really dubious, especially since it didn't exist until two days after the rationing took place." The point is that Iranian politicians had a different impression. They felt a big threat and also they wanted to make a gesture and take a pre-emptive measure. By this decision Ahmadinejad destroyed his own future. He will not be elected for the next term for sure. I can not even imagine, he did this for the sake of Iran's economy because his party was a critic of the very same plan during last decades. They made the decision overnight. They announced it at 9:00 PM suddenly. That was the best time as Iranian parliament was going on holidays for three weeks and also the US bill was scheduled to be proposed in two days. Reformists immediately proposed an urgent bill to stop Ahmadinejad's plan. The bill was given to the parliament secretaries but soon disappeared. It was stollen by Ahmad Tavakkoli, a conservative MP associated with Ahmadinejad. A few hours later the parliament was closed for three weeks! [20]
  • Concerning Lyndon Larouche's organization: I am not familiar with it. So I assume you are right. But anyways Al-Baradei's quote is important and must be kept.
  • Concerning "terrorism in Iran": The article was a POV fork. The article should cover "terrorism occured in Iran" during 19th and 20th centuries (at least). But it was mainly covering accusation of terrorism by US. Sorry but we can not go like that. Just yesterday I read that Iranian leader Ali Khamenei said that US is giving weapons to Al-Qaeda. Personaly I do not think Bush's comment is more valuable that Khamenei's one or vice versa. Let's not enter this funny game between politicians. "Terrorism in Iran" has to cover mainly the incidents in Iran (no matter who was the sponsor). However there is still a section at the end of the page covering the accusations. Please read the new version. I have only rearranged the material and provided balanced information. The leading section as it is now only contains facts.
  • I think your are right about not redirecting the US plan to Iran's plan. I have also heard that the bill should pass numerous steps before being accepted. But as this particular bill is targeting Irans gasoline supply which accounts for half of Iran's annual budget, it might be notable enough to have its own page.

Honestly if you see my previous works, you would admit that I do not consider my own POV in writing. For instance I spent some time to find positive aspects of life of some people whom I personally hate.

Finally I think we have to admit that any "start-state" wiki article contains pov issues and some policy problems. We have to give time to ourselves and others so that we can improve them gradually. Please add information to neutralize my edits if you feel they are still POV. Take care. Sina Kardar 11:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Dayan Rabin and Narkis enter Lions Gate.jpg

Hi, you misunderstand the deletion reason of the previous version of this image. It's not because the fair use rationale was lacking, it's because non-free images may not be used for decorative purposes. If the photo is truly iconic as you say, then there should be literature about the image itself and what sort of impact it has had on Israeli (or other) culture, and we should be able to write an article (or at least a section of an article) devoted solely to the photo itself (see Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima or The Falling Man for examples). Or more specifically, look at WP:NFCC #8, which requires that the image significantly increases the reader's understanding in a way that words alone cannot. Here we have a picture of three people walking -- how exactly can this not be explicated in text? Anyway, I'm deleting the image again under CSD G4. Regards, howcheng {chat} 18:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Steve Jobs

Can't sleep clown will eat me indefinitely sprotected the article in April according to the protection logs, and I just checked, it is still protected.--VectorPotentialTalk 18:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it does look like the user is just copying the protection template to random articles, however in this case, they hit one that was actually protected (-: though I think I'm going to trim their commented out message, since the article probably isn't "monitored regularly for nonsense and vandalism.." as the comment claims.--VectorPotentialTalk 18:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Faris Odeh

Regarding your comments on my talk page, the material quoted in the article was indeed from Ha'aretz, as relayed in the WRMEA report (for which the citation was provided). Accordingly, I have reverted your deletion of some 700 bytes of material and added an introductory sentence fragment attributing the material to WRMEA's report as taken from the Ha'aretz article. Please refrain from simply deleting sourced material in the future. Thank you. Tiamat 16:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you pointing out that the second part of the quote was from WRMEA itself, and while based on the Ha'aretz article was not a direct quote. I will indeed be more careful in the future. However, as I stated above, deleting the material, rather than attributing it to the source cited, a fairly simple exercise, might be better received by other editors in the future. Also, could you please discuss your appendage of the POV tage on the article at the talk page there? Thanks. Tiamat 17:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Happy Birthday


--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Anthropologist on Mars cover.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:Anthropologist on Mars cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
  • That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism related deletion

An article who voted on in the past concerning to delete it or not, has been recreated and nommed for deletion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignatz Lichtenstein 3rd nom --Joseph3333 (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Michael Chabon

I have reviewed this article as part of the GA sweeps process. The article is basically OK, but there are a number of dead links which need fixing. I have put the assessment on hold whilst these are addressed. Comments at Talk:Michael Chabon/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Happy birthday!

Have a great birthday, GabrielF! Good health, and good luck! —what a crazy random happenstance 03:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Naveed Afzal Haq

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Naveed Afzal Haq. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naveed Afzal Haq. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Peretz page


I started a discussion regarding his quote about not trusting Arabs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy Birthday! Sorry for Delay :)

« CA » What your problem? 21:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Spring 2011 Campus Ambassadors

Hi, thanks for expressing interest in becoming a campus ambassador for the spring 2011 semester. If you have any questions feel free to send them my way, otherwise just let me know where I can email the application. Thanks! Pjthepiano (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:JewishFederationOfGreaterSeattleLogo.png


Thank you for uploading File:JewishFederationOfGreaterSeattleLogo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Nilton Bonder

I'm removing the CSD for Copyvio at Nilton Bonder It may be a copyvio, but at the moment, I'm not entirely sure.

Here's why - much of the text goes back to 2006.

I can find an earlier version of here. This one dates to July of 2008. I don't find an earlier one, but that is short of proving anything. However, given that some of the WP text predates the earliest version I can find for, there is at least the possibility that the latter is copied form the WP site, or possibly the same person wrote both.

I can see that the WP article changed over time, as did the site. Someone with more experience may be able to work out more clearly which happened first - I haven't yet figured it out, so I plan to post it at WP:Copyright Problems.--SPhilbrickT 21:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, GabrielF. You have new messages at Rosiestep's talk page.
Message added 03:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Hortense Sparks Ward

Materialscientist (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)