User talk:Elbarck

Unexplained deletion

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to criticism of Islam, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I got a message from you about deleting paragraphs criticism of Islam,((without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive)) First I'm sorry about not noting about it but I'm not very familiar with wikipedia & tried to put a note or even messaging the supervisor but couldn't.... Second, The changes I made was necessary because the content had wrong information, I'm an Egyptian & Muslim too.... I know those facts more than anyone here & unfortunately people will put in their mind false information about Islam Laws & unfortunately I read them on facebook which were referred by that page.... So I put the facts & removed opinions.... I'm doing Masters in History in addition to reporting to some newspapers & I know what's the differences between facts & opinions.... I wanted to put some Arabic pages as a reference but what it'd be for if it's in Arabic.... For Example & not as Exclusively: (apostate) ON that article, it divided between man & woman which is wrong because the rules are for both of them.... Also apostate for The four Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence doesn't say of apostate killing except he fights the Muslims, The issue is simple, the blood of the Muslim is forbidden for the Muslims so how about a person apostates Even though he is still considered a Muslim, they all agreed if he's only fighting the Muslims with a gun then he is considered officially not a Muslim....

That was one fact that article didn't show right, so I edited some & may removed some which I don't remember any of them now (editing & removing) but didn't betray the Scientific integrity....

Hope you understand.... --elbarck (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply at User talk:Amatulic#Criticism of Islam. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Organization Islamic Cooperation Summit.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Organization Islamic Cooperation Summit.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 01:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a free image from the Egypt Presidential Spokesman here.... https://www.facebook.com/egpres.sm/posts/211789675627448

Official Egyptian President page https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.470934606295795.109342.377633175625939&type=1 --elbarck (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Just being on a facebook page does not make it free. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 01:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the official page for the presidency, It doesn't have a logo because it's free for everyone to publish.... The presidency didn't say anything about not sharing its pics, They even send those images to the newspapers.... Do you've their refuse for publishing???? --elbarck (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Official page For Egypt presidential Spokesman Dr.Yasser Ali https://www.facebook.com/egpres.sm --elbarck (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright has not worked that way for some 20+ years, copyright is assumed on every work unless an explicit release is issued. LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 01:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I worked in journalism for 10 years, we always considered any image, statement or video released from an official Spokesman as an official explicit release of publishing :).... It would be weird to ask the Spokesman for his Permission for publishing :).... DUDE HE'S THE OFFICIAL SPOKESMAN :)

If Reuters published that image it'd say released from the Egyptian presidency as CBS NEWS did in this link with an image in the same album I put your link to you :) CBS NEWS titled the image with "AP Photo/Egyptian Presidency" http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57568313/islamic-summit-backs-syria-dialogue/--elbarck (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same Yahoo News did here (AP Photo/Egyptian Presidency) http://news.yahoo.com/islamic-summit-urges-dialogue-syria-121723036.html --elbarck (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Hello, I'm NottNott. I noticed that you recently removed some content from New Suez Canal with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. NottNott talk|contrib 11:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]