Talk:Ziad Abdelnour

From Wikispooks
Jump to: navigation, search


Hi

I would like to change Ziad Abdelnour Content with more reference links and reliable resources. If any admins would like to help me in improving this page. Rajesh Gajula (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2013 (IST)

Your last edits of this page involved deleting most of its content. Given Mr Abdelnours affiliations to US Neocons plus his pronouncements on Syria and other matters, it is highly unlikely that page edits seeking to either justify, minimise or obfuscate these links/positions will be welcome on Wikispooks. Could you explain what you connections to Mr Abdelnour (if any) and your interest in him are please --Peter P (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2013 (IST)
I am a PR professional for Ziad, the content on the wikispook is old which we want to update it with reliable resources. The reference links which you have provided are very old. I request you to improve this page with updated content and resources, can I provide the content in talk page which we want to updateRajesh Gajula (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2013 (IST)
One of the express purposes of Wikispooks is to balance and counter the distortions of the so-called "Public Relations" industry, whose sole purpose is to promote and present its clients in the most favorable light possible. We are especially not interested in a PR professional adjusting any page(s) on behalf of his/her client(s). See Registered User Undertakings. The other Must-Read pages of the the Project will clarify matter further. --Peter P (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2013 (IST)
We just want you to rewrite or edits the page as there are a lot of mistakes in there, not properly documented and outdated too such as:

To be specific:

  1. He is NOT Maronite Christian as stated in there. He is in fact Roman Catholic.
  2. He is NOT a neocon as stated in there... Besides, the link in there pointing to the term “neocon” is broken
  3. He is NOT listed on the Middle East Forum Website .... Not sure where you got this info from
  4. He is NOT co-Publisher of Middle East Intelligence Bulletin...which by the way a publication that closed 15 years ago.
  5. Blackhawk Partners, LLC Link is broken and should be adjusted
  6. Middle East Intelligence Bulletin Link is blank, non existent and should go out
  7. TechCapital Access, LLC Link is blank, non existent and should go out
  8. United States Committee for a Free Lebanon is broken and should be adjusted
  9. Their Who's Who Online Mr. Ziad K. Abdelnour, is way outdated and should be edited...
  10. Plenty of Links and websites that should be there and which aren’t

We want an updated and useful content on the page with relevant links.Rajesh Gajula (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2013 (IST)

Rajesh, being paid to edit on Wikispooks disqualifies you from editing pages related to the payment source - see earlier references. I note your points and will get around to making appropriate edits/updates myself when I get time. --Peter P (talk) 08:18, 2 July 2013 (IST)
Peter, I am not being paid but doing it as a friend and If you want Ziad personally would like to make changes to the existing content with correct information and reliable sources. Rajesh Gajula (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2013 (IST)
Rajesh: See page notice. An email has also been sent direct to Mr Abdelnour. --Peter P (talk) 10:57, 9 July 2013 (IST)
Peter, As we see no edits are happening to the existing content.We just requesting to have accurate content on the Page.Rajesh Gajula (talk) 07:30, 1 August 2013 (IST)
The notice at the top of the page will have to do for now. Otherwise the page will be deleted.

Peter, how should we move forward to get the accurate content(please help), because the 'page notice' on the top of the page is not working..Rajesh Gajula (talk) 12:16, 2 September 2013 (IST)

See above. The page banner IS clear. Two options: 1 - Wait until a WS admin finds time to edit the page proper. or 2, I will remove the page completely --Peter P (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2013 (IST)
Peter P (talk),Yes, please remove this page completely. --John Williams (talk)

SEC legal case

I have reinstated the section about the SEC legal case because it is accurate, factual and in full accord with the Wikispooks objective of publishing supressed information about powerful people. Could User:Vinod Akula please explain why, on his first Wikispooks edit, he felt it necessary to delete it? --Peter P (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2016 (IST)

Discussion of Page deletion nomination

Nominated by User:John Williams on 30 August 2018

Hi Peter P (talk), this page has been nominated for deletion a week back, till now we didn't get any response from anyone. So as per the request can you please go ahead deleting it permanently from wikispooks? -- John Williams (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2018 (EST)

This talk page section is to debate the pro's and con's of deleting the page. Please set out your reasons nominating the page for deletion so that other users can respond. --Peter P (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Peter P, as you said that this page is for debate on pros and cons for deleting this page. So here are my reasons for nominating this page for deletion. 1. The content which is published here is not genuine as there are a lot of edits(58) happened in this page from starting, this page has lost the original and genuine information. 2. Also, this content has been copied from other sites which were removed later as it came under copyright violation and the same thing has been happening here, content published here is not genuine and this was already published in other websites. This comes under a copyright violation act of a content, this should not have happened. This is the actual reason for me to nominate this page for deletion. -- John Williams (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2018 (EST)
'John', please be more specific. i.e. Which information? Where? -- Robin (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Robin, As you asked me to be more specific. Earlier, Wikipedia having the similar profile and content that existing now on the Wikispooks. Due to the copyrights issues, number of editings happen and privacy violation problems which were raised by users, Wikipedia team has been deleted them both, profile and content on their site permanently.
Now, the same content with copyrights and privacy violation issues; still exists on wikispooks. Here is the link where this content was scraped from https://goo.gl/ygnR1m. Also, I'm attaching the image of the content which is published earlier in the Wikipedia. -- John Williams (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2018 (EST)

Wikipedia_image

Who is making which copyright claim? Some at least of this data is surely a matter of public record, and so public domain. -- Robin (talk) 11:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Robin, in wikipedia copyright issue was raised by some of the public users I don't know who they are. As of now in wikispooks I'm the one who raised copyright voilation, the reason why I'm raising this is, the content which was published here(in wikispooks about Ziad) was copied from the website - https://goo.gl/ygnR1m. If you check this link you will clearly userstand that the author of this Ziad page in wikispooks has taken content from that website. Even though wikispooks is a public domain it should not contain the copied content, this comes under a copyright violation act, right?. Even when we make an edit in a page, wikispooks gives a pop-up saying "Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!". In this case how this content was published without taking any permission? I'm really very sorry to say this, but I was really a great fan of wikispooks and the way it sets the standards. So this is the reason why I've nominated this page for deletion. I hope everything is clear -- John Williams (talk)
Unless and until we get a complaint from a copyright holder, then the issue does not arise since everything on the page can reasonably be described as quotation, extract and/or fair comment, all linked - albeit to some sites that are now defunct but which are probably still available on the internet archive. Demonstrably false information is another matter but that could/can be corrected. Deletion would really only be warranted if the page subject were not suitable for Wikispooks and that has not been suggested --Peter P (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Peter P, I have a few questions can you answer them all please. as you said that you need a complaint from the copyright holder, you mean that you want it from Ziad? who is this page about also what kind of format of complaint you are expecting? Is that a legal document saying that this content is copied or you want an email from Ziad? If there is a complaint given about this content will you remove this page from wikispooks? -- John Williams (talk) 2.45 3 October 2019 (EST)

1. Anyone who claims to own copyright needs to specify the text which he/she authored and provide info about the original. 2. The page is (self-evidently) about Ziad Abdelnour. 3. If any of the page content is incorrect, then it is open to correction. 4. Just because portions of a page may have been copied, does not necessarily imply a breach of copyright for at least 3 reasons - 1: The source may be open-source licenced or not licenced at all; 2: Any pre-existing copyright may have expired. 3: quoting portions of copyrighted work is allowable for journalistic/illustrative purposes under copyright law. 5. I for one am not persuaded that the page subject is not relevant to the Wikispooks project. In other words, unless there is a demonstrable gross breach of copyright then, in my opinion the page should remain. --Peter P (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok Peter P I got all your points. But earlier I've given all the points with the copyright text and the URL from where the content is taken from but the page is not removed/deleted. But in reply to that team from wikispooks has re-arraged and changed the content in this page. Also, I've seen that there are many edits happened earlier in this page by so many people/users of wikispooks, in reply to that your team is reverting all those changes back again. Is there any specific reason behind this? Is this done intentionally? Let me know. Because when I see the history of this page, changes that are done by the users are of valid and genuine content but I don't know why those changes are reverting back again and again by your team. As you mentioned above that "If any of the page content is incorrect, then it is open to correction". but in this case all the changes are coming back again. I'm just trying to understand you the situation brother.-- John Williams (talk) 11.00 6 Nov 2018 (EST)

Hi Robin, I see that you are reverting back the changes again and again where ever I'm making them, can I know the reason why you are reverting back again all the changes that I'm doing on this page? As the content which I updated in the page is completely of the geniue information about him, even after producing all the geniue content to the page, you are reverting back again -- John Williams (talk) 05.05 9 Nov 2018 (EST)

Overall, I didn't judge any of your edits to improve the article, I'm afraid. The SEC case, for example, is important enough to have its own section, and deserves prominence in the lede. Language such as "a reliable trader and supplier of a wide range of commodities to industrial and financial consumers globally" is more appropriate on the Blackhawk Partners website than here. Previously I avoided the term "neoconservative", but reading quotes from him, I'm start to wonder. Earlier you stated that Ziad is "NOT a neocon". What prompted your claim? Did you mean "no longer a neocon"? -- Robin (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Even I didn't remove the complete content or text about sec, I've done some modifications and removed the unwanted text and added a few more text in remaining sections where ever it is needed. In addition to that when you look into the previous edits of this page, without making any changes in sec section there are so many edits happened adding additional content to this page with genuine information but at the end of the day wikispooks has removed all the content and highlighted the sec section by placing it in introduction, you can check the previous edits. But if it is really worth of keeping content about sec then the content should be really worthful and genuine. Also, when you look at the older discussion in 2 Septemeber 2013, Peter has given a statement that he will delete this page from wikispooks completely, in continuation to that lot of discussions, editings have happened. Making these many changes for these many times and reverting back all the changes it's better to delete this page completely. As you asked what prompted your claim, to make it clear actually ziad is "NOT a necon" statement was not given by me, it might be from some other user. as this is an open source page where anyone can make edits. -- John Williams (talk) 07.20 12 Nov 2018 (EST)

Hi my friends Robin and Peter P any update, please? there are few concerns which I mentioned in the above comment. Can I know your views on those? -- John Williams (talk) 06.30 23 Nov 2018 (EST)

No Removal

I've removed the page deletion notice, since John's motion had no other backers and such deletions are very rare on this site. I've just restored the information which you removed, John, since I see no reason not to include it. Do please point out if you believe any of it to be factually incorrect. -- Robin (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Robin I'm not any person who is working for anyone personally or to support anyone. The reason I made edits on this page is I've requested you to respond to my previous messages which were mentioned above. either you or Peter didn't give any response to me. This is really painful for me. After waiting for 2 weeks and doing follow-up even then there is no response and once I made the edits on this page, you have reverted all the changes, removed deletion notice and added the additional content immediately. Is the right way to respond to the page user? It is really hurting me a lot, Robin. The notice should not be removed instead of that page should be removed. Reason for this is the information which is projected here is done by someone who is working against to Ziad and making changes intentionally. Why I'm saying this from the date when the page was created whenever the changes are happening in the page you people are reverting back immediately. IMMEDIATELY. Even the same scenario has been repeated yesterday. I've kept 2 messages in the discussion thread on 12th Nov and 23rd Nov, I didn't get any response to them but when I made the changes yesterday on the page immediately those were reverted. Is the right way Robin? Also, may I know why you have restored the information back again?

Also, earlier I've mentioned why this page to be removed again now I'm mentioning those reasons again. 1. The content changes are done by in support of someone who is against to Ziad. 2. Content here is copyrighted 3. Earlier Author(Peter) has said that page will be removed, in continuation to that discussion thread has opened and submitted all the proves but the page was not deleted. 4. The content here is vandalized which is helping in destruction to the personal security. -- John Williams (talk) 2:30, 27 Nov 2018 (EST)

I restored the info because I believe it informative to readers, as per Wikispooks:Policy#Information_removal. If you believe any of it incorrect or misleading then this is the correct place to discuss further. -- Robin (talk) 10:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
But on the other side, I've given 4 reasons why this page should be removed.-- John Williams (talk) 6:30, 27 Nov 2018 (EST)
Your reason 1: Whether an editor supports or 'is against' a page subject is immaterial. Putting it at its mildest, you are clearly a ZA supporter since you appear disinterested in anything else and are intent on making the page as anodyne as possible. That comes close to reason enough to bar you from editing under WS Editor undertakings provisions
Your reason 2: If content is copyrighted then that is a matter for the copyright holder. In any case I would dispute the copyright assertion under normal fair comment provisions.
Your reason 3: My page deletion suggestion was more in exasperation at the time-consuming nature of dealing with all this trivia.
Your reason 4: I have no idea what you mean --Peter P (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)