User talk:Gilbert04

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)
 * 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)

Did you translate organ harvesting article?
Did you translate this article: Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China into German, here: ??--Asdfg12345 21:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, most of it. I put a corresponding note on the discussion page . 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Thanks for the hint - maybe later... Greetings --Gilbert04 (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * Thanks, I used all these arguments in the discussion 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)
 * 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)
 * Actually, that's what I did - 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)