Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:42, 29 April 2009

Help

in my watchlist page there are numbers in green if they are positive and red if they are negative what they mean

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 10:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia

Hello, Kasaalan! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions to this 💕. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Tiamut 11:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Rachel Corrie

Hi there. I've asked Wehwalt and IronDuke to explain their deletions on the talk page. I hope that once they do, we can engage in a discussion on how to proceed. Do not try readding that information again for the time being. It will just get you into trouble or edit-warring (See also WP:3RR. We achieve agreement here by pursuing WP:CONSENSUS. Unfortunately, Wehwalt and IronDuke have not taken the time to explain these things to you, nor have they bothered to explain their edits thus far. I'm hopeful though, that they join in the discussion soon and that we will find a way to introduce the material you would like to add. Cheers. Tiamut 15:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, if you can help explain, I'm all ears. IronDuke 01:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey IronDuke, I can and will right now.

Kasaalan, I'll see you at the talk page. Tiamut 13:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please also be aware that reverting an article in the I-P area more than once in 24 hours can expose you to discretionary sanctions by an uninvolved administrator. You've done it twice now. I'm just suggesting you be more careful and not be so insistent on seeing your language on the page right here right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

When did I revert the article once, let alone twice? I edit the article, you objected one part and I leave that objection as your edit for a later discussion, yet your second summarizing is fully wrong and not acceptable in any way, because you are trimming off the expert's conclusion on the subject, which is most possibly because you don't even know what the terms mean, so I put the full quote as supposed to. What is I-P area? What language you refer? Kasaalan (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Being bold

Hi Kasaalan. I just wanted to drop you a note here because I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding at the talk page. It is okay for you to edit articles directly. In fact, that's what people want you to do (Be WP:BOLD). The problem with the Rachel Corrie article is that it is subject to special guidelines because of WP:edit wars that have taken place there in the past. As a result, it has a special set of rules governing the usage of sources, which I honestly, personally, do not quite understand. So I'm of little help to you there really. The thing is, I suggest that if you do not want to see your work reverted, to start at other less controversial articles where there are no special restrictions and where our generally policies and guidelines about WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc. are all you need to know. I really appreciate your enthusiasm and do sympathize with many of your complaints about the present article, but it seems to be a difficult one to edit using sources like the ISM. In general, it's not appropriate to use them as a source (see WP:RS) though it depends in what context and where. Anyway, I hope you do not get discouraged. Just take a look around and see where else you might find things to improve and try to use book sources if you have them from scholars or experts in the subject. It helps. Good luck. Tiamut 23:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Self publishing

At WP:RSN you mentioned that you were looking for help with regard to determining whether certain self-published sources are reliable. I would recommend starting a separate thread on that page and provide all the major details, such as what source you would like to use and on what article. This will help get more responses to your question. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

HRW report

Could I ask for your cooperation in allowing any opposing viewpoints to respond to its use, by giving them time to do so before launching a new argument? I'd also like to see it used - but you've said that it's been objected to in the past, which means that before it can be used there has to be a good-faith effort to allow objections. Additionally, it's much easier to address objections before making a change than it is after the change is made. Thank you, arimareiji (talk) 13:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually if you read our previous discussion you can locate the objections, the objections were near countless yet the same generally focused on reliability. Read to the top, you can locate easily. We finally concluded on using the source by referencing it from the UN webpage. But that took my hours of research with long discussion. What I am trying to explain is there aren't much editors around so waiting not always help. I don't edit much before I state my future edits in discussion page generally, I have reseached and published near half of the current discussion page, yet I only made a few changes, and most are just facts like middle name of Rachel, or finding exact serie of D9 that used in the area then switching the picture to a D9R, or publishing medical reports. I am searching the case through, before I make edits on opposing claims of the sides. I still have lots to read for the case, before reading them I won't edit on the incident much. Kasaalan (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The Skies are Weeping

You might like to check the section "Student Threath Case and Cancellation" - the section heading seems to have a typo, and you've got 3 paras of blockquotes some of which look not to be quotes! PamD (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am just building the article, I will leave the blockquotes untill I can paraphrase them and turn into a real article if it is not a big matter because it helps distinction. The article does still requires hard work to turn into good shape. Kasaalan (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Philip Munger's blog. You may be interested to know that the composer, Philip Munger, came across your article & mentions it on his blog. PA Arts Sunday - February 8, 2009 - Part 2 -- The Skies Are Weeping Makes Misplaced Pages. Some suggestions there for improving the article too. Good work. Regards. -- Yksin (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Update. I've made some updates on the article, mostly on reference style. I've also had some correspondence with Philip Munger via comments on his blog, which you may want to take a look at. I've found some additional sources & plan on doing some substantive work on the article. Don't want to step on your toes, but I do have some ideas for improvement of the article -- especially it seems to me that a reorganization of the article might be in order, chiefly to put the UAA controversy after the description of the work rather than before it. Particularly as the work was created before the controversy occurred.

Anyway, I will work on it as I can, but please talk with me either on my talk page or the article's talk page if you have any concerns about how I'm doing things. Although I haven't been actively editing Misplaced Pages for awhile, I'm a fairly experience editor, & am interested in making this a good article. I'm in Anchorage and, as the discussion between Mr. Munger & me indicates, remember the controversy quite well, though I wasn't directly involved in it. Best wishes. --Yksin (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Your help is appreciated, go on ahead. The article is already improved by your contribution. I mainly rebuilding Rachel Corrie article page with some other editors help. Yet not every user has good motives there, so we may have hard time on solving issues on Rachel's article. In archived discussions, they objected too much on The Skies are Weeping part so I decided to build its own page. I may also share my links about the cantata in discussion page if you willing to integrate the info on the article. You may also help on Rachel Corrie and My Name is Rachel Corrie pages, if you have time. After the continous IDF based objections I build a complete reference for every stage performed for the play at Talk:My_Name_Is_Rachel_Corrie yet cannot decide how to integrate that in the article. Kasaalan (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will probably pretty much restrict myself to the cantata article for the time being, & perhaps some other personal interest pages -- I can't afford to get too caught up in Misplaced Pages editing as I did a couple years back, because it distracted me from a lot else in my life. I became involved in this article as a result of having become involved in some pretty heavy discussions about it back in 2004 when it became such a controversy here. I'm especially interested in giving an accurate account that is fully compliant with WP:NPOV, which is certainly not how the issue was aired at the time. I'm also in touch with Mr. Munger for other info that I haven't found to fill out the picture. I should have more time to work on it tonight.

I will take a look at the Rachel Corrie & related pages though, including discussion, esp. in line with NPOV issues. It's sometimes difficult when people feel strongly about an issue to maintain neutrality in presenting an encyclopedia article. --Yksin (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Please don't let IronDuke goad you into making comments that will get you blocked. It may not be his goal to do so, but it would help him if that happens. The only way to "win" a fight like this is to step away. You (and Misplaced Pages) lose if he makes you so angry that you say things he can use to get you blocked. arimareiji (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Arimareiji, please don't think I fail to appreciate your astonishingly bad faith, because I do. It's rather rich that Kasalaan repeatedly insults me, and yet I am somehow "goading" him. Indeed he, Untwirl, and yourself are all getting increasingly nasty in the thread in question; I'm going to assume you are not in fact goading me. And BTW, I fail to see how having Kasalaan blocked would help me, but then you may have a different outlook. IronDuke 01:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I know that, but some users become so harmful to the content damaging wikipedia big time if you ask me, whether I blocked or not I have to speak up somehow, some users wastes so much time without even bothering showing any proof or doing any research. They just throw some wikiguides which they misinterpret anyway. If they try to constantly sabotaging even tiniest details as another way of censorship then I wont budge another inch. Misplaced Pages loses content and neutrality, while users loses time, if they will act like these I may also use some precautions too. Kasaalan (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that you're doing a good job of not using overtly uncivil language, IronDuke. That isn't the same as being an innocent victim. Kasaalan isn't one either, nor am I. But it's not good faith to keep egging someone on to be uncivil when you see someone else trying to calm it down. arimareiji (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where I'm egging Kasalaan on -- I did I ask him to keep contributing (after you suggested he not), but also asked that he not insult people. Was that out of line? IronDuke 01:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Commenting someone speak hatefully is not insult to me by any terms. And that is my sincere comment after you nickname Rachel Corrie as "St. Rachel" in a derogatory way, calling us a crowd, claiming our actions turning the article into a shrine and ridiculously on the verge hagiography, just like we worship Rachel or something, for helping some causes with a conflict of interest against the case. Your reason to say these is our additions to artistic tributes by world famous singers or theater plays and our previous actions that improve the article by solid referencing. And by saying that your contributions to the article is only limited to wordplaying while the rest done extensive research and reading for the big improvement lately. You are one of the leading users that fueling the fire if one of the other is me. Kasaalan (talk) 01:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

But I never said anything about you specifically. If I say the article is turning into a srhine, you can be insulted by that, but that's on you, not me. I'm allowed to criticize the article. What I can't do is say, "Kasalaan hates Israelis and that's why he's editing the way he is," even if I secretly believe it to be true. You see the difference? And I meant nothing derogatory by "St. Rachel," I was just using it as shorthand. It certainly wasn't meant to inflame you, and I'm sorry if it did. But talking about how hateful I am is an insult - even arimareiji sees that, which is why he's here. We can disagree without insulting each other. IronDuke 02:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts may only change by your actions. You speak in a derogatory way about Rachel more than once. I cannot call you ironduck as a shorthand, just as you cannot call Rachel as "St. Rachel" just as racists and zionists do. If you do I refer to your comments hateful, I cannot comment you on real life, but I can comment on your comments. Kasaalan (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Also you may say this or that, but over the time the strong objections you make on the discussion page is near everytime on Rachel side articles even if they are notable and reliable, and I couldnt locate much of your same wikiguides applied to idf sided articles the same way. That is my impression one way or other over the long discussions. You mainly put effort to object addition of the sources even reliable and critical ones. Kasaalan (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, even if was being disparaging about RC (and that was far from my intention) that in no way gives you leave to insult me. Do you see why that would be? You can say, "IronDuke, I find your characterization of RC disrespectful and upsetting, would you mind referring to her in some other way." I'm always open to polite requests. My feeling, recently, is that much avowedly and unnotable pro-RC material has been stuck into the article, and it's important not to let that happen. Sometimes, anti-RC material gets stuck in there, or good sections taken out, and I try to fight that when I see it. You're free to critique any and all of my edits, just please don't critique me as a person. It doesn't help either of us. IronDuke 02:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't need my polite request for not nicknaming dead people in derogatory ways. Also your express of opinions were never calm, just go reread hagiography title from archive if you like. Also what I interested in more is finding documents, legal papers, primary sources. If I would find IDF report I would put it too. That is not my objective to select primary sources by favor of which side they support. You objected HRW, eyewitness accounts, and every other little piece of information with only personal arguments while some referenced pro-IDF sources violating already your arguments. Removing content is not a good solution for balancing article. It is not my fault IDF didnt publishes its report or not much reliable sources around against Rachel. I mention what she has done. If she make a speech on world hunger I use it, if she burns American flag I use it. It is not my job to labeling people as saints or sinners. Kasaalan (talk) 02:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I do, actually need your polite request -- so that I can understand where you're coming from. I wasn't nicknaming anyone, I was pointing out that trying to make RC out to be some kind of saint wasn't going to work for WP. I still believe that, and see nothing wrong with the point. If you can suggest tome how to make that point in a way you'd like better, I'm all ears. As for your other points, I think we differ on what to include in RC's life: you appear to be an inclusionist, and I a deletionist. I don't think this makes either of us bad people, just people who are emphasizing different ideas for WP. (Though I ask you, where did I say we shouldn't have eyewitness accounts? ) I'd like to ask you, again, to please strike through the comments you made that were personally insulting to me. I'd really appreciate it. IronDuke 03:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not as simple as that you know. Manners are very important especially in cases deaths are involved. In all cultures that is same. As I said I am not agree with saying someone talks hatefully is insult. Also before asking me to strike my comments, you should first go read your old writings where you fuel others temper. But changing past is no good for achival purposes, what I said is said, I may only revise my writings after fully believe your intentions were good. I dont feel anything bad for you right now, when you lose temper, but you were disrespectful and constantly time consuming at billy bragg discussion while there is really no need yet, anything you say about you didnt mean them doesnt change the way you wrote about Rachel and accusing me and arimareiji previously. PR and you were fighting with each other the same way, so your current calm doesnt resolve anything unless it remains. Being Deleted Here are your constant objections on eyewitness accounts approving Wehwalt, where I couldn't find even a tiny effort on helping the research originating true source to affidavits or to HRW report, yet constantly objecting the source. You may say you were just objecting the source, but generally Wehwalt was objecting the accounts while you came time to time and nodding Wehwalt, yet you two made no shared effort in helping the research. So before I believe in good faith first I have to believe you made some research before you object things and help out the improvement of the references in general along with the wording. Kasaalan (talk) 10:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Phil Goldvarg

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Phil Goldvarg, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.eskimopie.net/phil.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The new pages

		The Human Rights Barnstar
		~ Great work on Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie and The Skies are Weeping. arimareiji (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you help me out with the articles. I found references but articles may be improved further. Your editing and reading experience in English is better than me, can you help me converting the references into article in a better way. Kasaalan (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I did extended the artistic tributes section a lot. Kasaalan (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Phil Goldvarg

Hi Kasaalan, can you please address my concerns about this article on the talk page? Thanks, Somno (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied. What you did is only removing info without replacing better quality info. You did not edit, you just cut out. Kasaalan (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

re: tributes pages

I'm sorry it took so long to reply; I've been on a self-imposed Wikibreak. I'll be glad to help, but first I should probably start tackling the areas where people ran riot in other articles. I'll see you soon at those articles, which I'm sure will be blessedly-quiet by comparison. arimareiji (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

re: your request

I'm a little bbusy with other things right now, but if you need help with a specific issue at one of those articles, let me know and I'll do what I can. Good luck with everything. Tiamut 15:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie

I have nominated Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I have argued to overturn the decision and keep the article, which seems really to me what has to be the logical conclusion of the AfD.

A little advice : you should try to argue with less words. Sometimes too long message are not read.

Good luck ! Ceedjee (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Enigma 23:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)