User talk:Kasaalan/Archive/rachel

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.  T i a m u t talk 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.  T i a m u t talk 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)

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.  T i a m u t talk 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)

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 Wikipedia) 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. Wikipedia 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)

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.  T i a m u t talk 15:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie question
Per this edit: Not sure if you're referring to my statement I just added, but if you have questions I would be happy to answer them. If you're asking about Jclemens statement in that section, he's asking people already editing or discussing the page not to post there so that when the WP:RfC is filed we can see what people who don't regularly edit the page have to say without our comments muddying the waters. AniMate talk  17:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)