User talk:Kasaalan/Archive

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kasaalan/Archive/Rachel
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kasaalan/Archive/Usage
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kasaalan/Archive/Conflicts

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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

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)

Welcome to wikipedia

Hello, Kasaalan! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. 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! Tiamuttalk 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 Wikipedia 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

		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)

Chava Alberstein

Nice work on the table. I'm trying to help bring David D'Or up to FA status, so perhaps I'll give thought to how to do the same for his table. Nicely done.--Ethelh (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I heard a song of her and it was really beautiful. My efforts mainly focus on peace culture art and politics. Anyway table is not that hard, you can just copy a part of it and replace the text. If you cannot handle it, tell me and I put a table here so that you can implement it in the article. Kasaalan (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Table you ask

Number	Album Name	(English)	Release Date	Language	References
1	a	b	c	d
2	e	f	g	h

Just copy the table and add more lines in however style you like. Kasaalan (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Done! Tx.--Ethelh (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

True. I made some long search effort to find his uncited platinium records, but apparently no google page has a reference. Kasaalan (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hints as to how I can find the info for David D'Or?--Ethelh (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I generally use search engines, try to find reliable secondary sources. I made an extensive research for you, but I couldn't find his platinium record info yet but his own page mentioning them. But don't worry if it somehow exists I find eventually. But you may somehow find more info in Hebrew, so you can also check Hebrew version of the article first and ask there. Kasaalan (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Tx.--Ethelh (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 3

Hello, I just happened to notice your revert of User:Xeno on the above RFA. You might want to double check, but I believe all Xeno did was fix the formatting, not remove any of your comments. The way it is now, the next person who opposes will show up as #1 in the numbered list, instead of you #1, and the next #2. I think if you self revert you'll still have your comments and the format will work too. Regards.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I can tell he was adding and perhaps over-wrote the numbering fix in the ec. So, I've fixed it again. –xeno^talk 18:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, if that's it feel free to ignore.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

So did the matter resolved. Kasaalan (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Your comments at the voting part of this RfA are getting to be very excessive. I note another editor has complained also about this. You have been asked politely before and I now repeat that request to please take any further comments regarding your particular issue of concern to the talk page of the RfA.--VS ^talk 09:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you possibly refer who are the other editors concerning it is getting excessive but you and rootman, who also happen to be supporter of his adminship. Also some other admins asked me to refer more of my concerns. His list of doings are long. Kasaalan (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

VirtualSteve in history for a "double comment". If there will be rest of the concerns that will build up, I will hide the comments or use talk page. Kasaalan (talk) 09:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to upset you Kasaalan - there is a place for your interest in wikipedia but Enigmaman's RfA is not it. Admins Tan, Myself and now SoWhy have all either made a comment or (as has just happened) have moved your comments to the talk page. As I said earlier you have made your point - let it rest now and others will consider that point as required.--VS ^talk 09:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I will move all my discussions to talk page of the adminship vote. But my concerns are serious. And the user committed weak edits according to his clear Israeli bias over multiple pages. And that cover up attempt of him was a clear and serious wikipedia scandal. Kasaalan (talk) 09:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussions page is not so bad idea, I am adding more cases here, and left a summary in main page. Kasaalan (talk) 09:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As you like Kasaalan - you obviously have taken a set against Enigmaman and are using this opportunity to make life difficult for him at all costs, by inflicting some form of payback based on your analysis. If you really think that your continued commenting is fair and required that is something for your conscience to justify and to bear. I note that others have undertaken an analysis and do not have the same view as you but I can see that you do not agree with them also, if that is the way you wish to attend to this matter, then so be it.--VS ^talk 10:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No I don't use "this opportunity to make life difficult for him at all costs", if I were I would take other measures. I might have wikihound edits like he did, which I never bothered to waste my time on. I claimed a certain case, other admins asked if there are more cases, I wasted my time and replied. His bias level might be "somehow acceptable" for a regular user, but certainly in a level not acceptable for an admin. Most of all he do weak biased religious based editing in political pages he contributed. User has a certain religious bias, so he shouldn't be in any adminship position related to Israeli-Palestine related cases. I have every right to voice his wikihounding case, which he silently approved during our various discussions, or systematical cover up for rabbi sex scandal or criticism deletion from Israeli pages. Kasaalan (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

[OD]Actually Kasaalan I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you - indeed it looks like you are hounding him now and have been awaiting your opportunity to make him suffer the consequences after he displeased you.--VS ^talk 10:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Will he suffer that much by criticism of his own actions by examples. Adminship requires full neutrality. He doesn't have neutrality at all, but a clear bias on near all of the Judaism related articles he edited. Kasaalan (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan, I have read, re-read and investigated the (plentiful) evidence that you have supplied throughout this RfA, and I have to say that it appears that you are grossly over-reacting. There is no solid evidence to suggest either that Enigmaman editing articles to which you contributed was anything other than coincidence, or that Enigmaman's edits to those articles carried a particular bias. What is clear from the discussion is that you are pursuing a drawn-out personal attack against this editor. This has gone far enough. You have voiced your objections; now it is time to stand back and discontinue your stream of accusations. haz (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

He tracked my multiple edits, he tried to revert or reedit near a dozen edits of mine in just 3 days in multiple pages some of which he hadn't any edit before. They were not by coincidence, but by wikihounding of my edits, and only Judaism related pages. (if you can count you can easily tell they are not limited to 3 or 4) But if you feel like I am mistaken, you can directly ask the user publicly. If he answers honestly, we can later discuss who is right or wrong according to his reply. Why don't you go ahead and ask user this question publicly, if you really want to clear out the issue. Kasaalan (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

He made 25 k edits, which highly consists of reverts, spam or page protection work. He edited more than 9000 pages, again which mostly consists of reverts, spam or page protection work. However this is not related to the 3 days of his wikihounding I refer.

After he first began to revert my edits to he stopped it after I strictly warn him within 3 days time (beginning at 19:44, 11 May 2009) He made 76 edits in total (including anti spam actions), except minor ones (tagged as minor by himself) and talk pages, he made 37 edits (1 minor edit Israeli related and 3 talk page edits related to mine) more than 8 article edits+3 talk page of them (since had done some more edits in deleted pages which are not included to the list) are happen to be coincidence right, but how can you explain he coincidencely met even in an orphan entry (tagged as such by himself) like List of Jewish pacifists and peace activists‎ where he cannot reach anyway but to track my edits.

Also by "high" number of page edits you referred, it is still weird our only coincidence edits are where addition Judaism religious practice or mentioning of Jewish peace activism (who Israeli state doesn't like much) related info is involved where he try to take a stand or edited-reverted just to reedit my edits. And this attempts are not limited to 3-4 pages as suggested by admin but more than a dozen pages, 1 category (about Category:Jewish_anti-occupation_groups), 3 public discussions, 2 deletion review and 1 user review related to my work of Rachel Corrie (peace activist killed by Israel) (dated 5 May), 3 insistent edit over trivial issue (resigning of my unsignatured comment), 8 articles (+more if you count deleted ones) (including 1 play about Rachel Corrie, 2 anti Israeli "rational" racist David Duke and related Racial realism) within 1 week of May 2009. So it is better when you talk about facts, not assumptions.

It is true my edits within referred 1 week, were mostly about jew-israeli related ones, but his edits were not, also his edits were not "right" he tracked my edits, he tried to edit near my every edit that is related to Israel (who criticizes them), and if you have any doubt you can publicly ask him here, if he tracked my edits or not, why don't you.

Once again

You have been asked by many editors to use the talk page of the Enigmaman 3 RfA project. You have agreed to do so. I am asking you again formally to abide by those requests.--VS ^talk 06:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

1 tried to hide my nonrelevant question, which takes up space unnecessarily. Which is in favor of space.

2 I am using talk page exactly, but he doesn't answer a direct question accurately, that 1 line deserves to be in main page. He claims he doesn't have any serious conflict since his last review, yet he had a serious conflict with me. So that needs to be known. Kasaalan (talk) 06:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact you are trying to stir up trouble by adding long biased edit summaries. I have placed a warning below because your continued refactoring of talk page messages is inappropriate and should cease immediately. As I said before I am not trying to upset you but now having made your point over 60 or so edits you should realise enough is enough.--VS ^talk 06:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What refactoring means. Also if there is a length limitation for edit summaries just refer me the guideline so I can apply them. I don't know every guideline in the wikipedia. Kasaalan (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please look up refactor. Also edit summaries should not be used to add tendentiousness to your post. I will also add that it is only you that considers you had a serious conflict. Many others have now commented that they do not agree with you as to this interpretation. Move on now please Kasaalan your edits are appearing to be more and more like a concerted effort to harass the editor in question and continuing such a level of attack can result in your account being blocked.--VS ^talk 06:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I interpret refactoring, my hidden text (which includes the text to be clicked to see) with my comment(misunderstood non relevant question by me) is nowhere near to a refactor in any way. I don't even figure out how can you interpret collapsing a text to be refactoring after reading the guideline you refer.

You claim I continously harrass user, after I proved he committed wikihounding to me for 3 days, untill I seriously warn him, but you continously advocating him. (All this time, even when I bring that out in our personal talks, he chosed not to reply directly.) He may reply publicly anytime here or elsewhere, to my claims freely, which he choses not to.

If stating someone has a religious bias, and adding more examples when its supporter admins claim "nothing wrong with them" you may use ANI whenever you feel like. All I am saying is he has a religious bias, so he should be avoided from political (and especially Israeli related) adminship duties.

I had no intention to spent any time to raise more questions, possibly I won't because I will spend my time on editing. Yet claiming having no serious conflict is not an accurate answer. One way or other he should have mention it. Kasaalan (talk) 07:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• You just said the most reasonable thing for some time - possibly I won't because I will spend my time on editing. Please do so Kasaalan - that will show us that you are not just intent on derailing the RfA. You have put in at least 62 edits just on continuing this situation - and it would now be good to see you doing some other editing that assists the project.--VS ^talk 07:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I have accomplished near 3000 edits within 1 year. (I have only I few reverts or like) I always rearch hard, find the reliable sources needed, build the case or page. I have much edits because English is not my native language, and I have to change grammar a lot. Some other time I prefer to neutralize my sentences. But for this case of course I spent time, to build a case. I claimed he has bias. You supporter claimed don't. So I need example cases. Kasaalan (talk) 07:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • You were given those examples before. Tan explained the number of edits Enigmaman has made. I think it is great that you have 3000 edits in 1 year - even if you are coming back and forth to change your own edits BUT have you noticed that Enigmaman has made as many as 4477 edits in one single month. Do you not understand that Engimaman does not consider that he had a "serious" conflict with you? It has now been explained to you many times that (as the statistic tools of wikipedia show) Enigmaman has not been following you inappropriately - and I do not intend again to repeat that material in full.--VS ^talk 07:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
      • If he didn't consider he had serious conflict with me. He wouldn't bother to perform wikihounding on my edits as I claim. Most of his edits are regular "work" of spam and vandalism undo. So his "actual" edits are even less. Furthermore his "political and religious" edits only a fraction compared to mine, yet I alleged near all of his edits contains religious bias to keep a certain stand. Kasaalan (talk) 07:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, you will be blocked for vandalism. please do not again refactor public pages as you did here --VS ^talk 06:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Why exactly I am getting a warning since I hide a non relevant question of mine to save up space. (By the way you are the one who said it is non relevant and my comments takes up space. I did not commit any vandalism, the link you refer shows that anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hi, I dropped a note on ANI here about your recent editing on Enigma's RFA. Your slightly excessive work there is getting a tiny bit disruptive, and I asked additional uninvolved admins to take a look to see if they can help out. Thanks. Please weigh in on that link. rootology (C)(T) 06:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have reverted your latest commentary regarding Evula's removal of inappropriate bolding at your posts. I have commented also at ANI. As offered above by Rootology please weigh in on that discussion there.--VS ^talk 07:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Well I stated I have no intention with adminship discussion anyway, but my previous research on mentioned users' edits will be a basis. If there is going to be an ANI, we can discuss it in there. Kasaalan (talk) 07:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • There is no 'if'; Rootology has commenced the ANI as detailed in the link above.--VS ^talk 07:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I am not a native English speaker, that is how I talk. Kasaalan (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you Kasaalan for trying to help. We are debating about Illyrian-Albanian continuity.[1] Most of the users are bringing a lot of sources [2] and we can still not use them. That’s wrong (in my opinion) but honestly I don't feel I did anything inappropriate to be called like that. He wants to use Genetics and I am saying let's use linguistic, books and other sources.--Taulant23 (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well linguistics is definitely not in my expertise area, yet if you bring reliable academic sources, you can freely add even minority views. If both views are reliably sourced, both views should be mentioned accordingly. Anyone can't avoid that. You may also ask 3rd opinion about your case. Do your dispute over just lead, or for rest of the article too. If I have time and knowledge after I read maybe I can help more. Kasaalan (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Racism template at Holocaust shooting article

Hey there: I agree with your position, but edit warring over it is a lose-lose proposition. I think I probably erred when I said there was a consensus to add it. Sentiment seems evenly divided. I'd suggest starting an RfC over it. cheers, --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts

As per your additional comments at wikipedia alerts regarding the asshole slur I have removed the resolved tag and opened up the discussion here [[3]] for you to attempt to find resolution. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

Forget the apology here is no kindergarden, but admin at least should strike his comments before we can tell ourselves anything is resolved. I don't feel like commenting more, yet he can just strike his swear and insults to close the case, it is the least he can do. Kasaalan (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie RFC

Please read WP:RFC. An RFC is not a vote. By setting up a "keep vote" and "delete vote" section, putting the RFC question itself into the delete section where it did not belong, and soapboxing your own comments that even go so far as to claim you (and also whoever voted keep) advised the RFC, you are skewing the process, and conducting quite a fair bit of misrepresentation to boot. I have added a note to indicate where the RFC impetus came from (and for the record it was untwirl's revert of my edit), I have noted you did not attribute your initial position statement to yourself (even though it shouldn't even be there), and I fixed the formatting so it adheres basically to the RFC guidelines. MSJapan (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You turned it into a vote yourself, but if you feel any unease for the word vote you may change it. You soapbox your POV statements by your edit style. Instead showing any good faith on improving the article, you came by, completely erase see also section without bothering to discuss it previously, then blame others for reverting your came-edit-go attitude. We advised you to RFC before removing the see also section that has been kept during years of consensus. Since you didn't read or understand my comments at all, you even try to object we told you to take RFC, like it matters. You added a false note about our advise, which you try to discredit according to your own bias. I just proved that in the article's discussion page. Also your RFC was improper, you didn't tag or post it in relevant RFC section, so I had to build the RFC myself. Try to make your further comments in RFC, so everyone can read. Kasaalan (talk) 10:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Bob Geldof

As one of the recent major contr., I wanted to let you know that I'm scrubbing this article a bit especially in re: cites. A couple of the ref's are just opinions (no cites) and other statements need them (only 2 tickets sold?). EBY (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie

It seems that anyone attempting to reopen discussion is being branded a sock and immediately blocked. I wonder if you would consider starting a new discussion at DRV. Nobody should allow a 3-day closure against all consensus. -- Ricky28618 (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I can create a real DRV, but not so soon. I may work on the article, improve then I may post a proposal or DRV for a real discussion with interested parties' help. However I am busy with other articles for a while. By the way why are you blocked, are you the editor who nominates the article for AFD in the first place or anyone else similar to his nick. Kasaalan (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

T-shirt AfD page

Your last post, starting with the words in bold, "categorical deletion," looks as though you may have changed your mind and now want to delete. Reading it through, that probably isn't what you meant. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Categorical deletion attempts for the article per IDF side claims

does new title do what you ask, my english is not so good, you may change the title any way you like, or propose here so I can change. IDF side tries to categorically delete the article, that was what I mean. Kasaalan (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That's much better. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I was away and admin resulted deleting article as standalone, and from IDF page, how that even possible.

How can we start a deletion review now, can you help me about it.

I am really getting more and more convinced about systematical deletion in wikipedia, how can anyone clearly waste days of editing work of others that easily. Kasaalan (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Irgun article

You cannot have a list of purported violent attacks without a reputable source. It is not only libel, but can be blood libel, you know.Tallicfan20 (talk) 06:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Use hidden text feature as I advised. If text is hidden, other editors may find sources, if you delete they can't simple and easy. I tagged them as citation needed for myself. Or at least put a copy of attacks you want to remove in discussion page so others may check it. I don't assume the entries came out of nowhere. If you like try tracking which users added the entries, and ask them about their source. Kasaalan (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Why should random dates and attacks be up if they haven't been sourced for a lot of time? So they can just be there unsourced, even tho their existence hasn't actually been verified? No. Maybe you can save the supposed attacks, and when you find reputable sources, then you can add them. But for now, without attribution to a source, it is sheer libel.Tallicfan20 (talk) 09:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong saving attacks as hidden is beneficial, if you remove noone can search for controversial attacks, if you hide text they can

As you can clearly tell, 2 editors found proper sources for attacks added them and tells you stop deleting attacks. "As I said before, all items without a separate citation are from the book of Amrami&Melitz in the refs. They are not unsourced and the labeling will be fixed. Stop deleting." "restore deleted entries acknowledged in Amrami & Melitz, 1951" Kasaalan (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually read the books, articles, or whatever, or did you just pick it up, and "source" them from there? You must be a very fast reader.Tallicfan20 (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the books, talk to the other editors. I may search about the book if needed. Kasaalan (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Citation templates

Hi. Thanks for your recent edits to Tom Hurndall. I just wanted to suggest that you consider using citation templates when adding references to the article in future to keep the citations consistent. Many thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I am trying, however at first I try to improve article, then I try to improve layout parts. Thanks for pointing the link. Kasaalan (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way if you want to improve the article I have some links to share. Kasaalan (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do. I edited the article a fair bit a while back but I'm happy to put some more work in on it. By the way, were you aware of the refTools gadget? It makes using citation templates much easier. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Added some links to external links section if you can read and implement them into article it will improve, I will add some links here.

Links might be helpful. However I couldn't read, categorized links or check if they already exist in the article yet, just tried to pick useful ones. Kasaalan (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi.

Your edits at Washington Report on Middle East Affairs are rather confusing. You continue to add titles to organizations that are either unnecessary or inaccurate. The Anti-Defamation League is not a pro-Israel organization specifically, it defends civil liberties regardless of gender, race, or ethnicity. It has habitually fought against anti-Arab/Muslim bigotry and promotes interfaith dialogue. Your edits our simply OR. Can you please self-revert? Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I won't self revert over a fact, but other editors should also add their opinions in discussion page

While ADL has other stated goals against bigotry, they are pro-Israel by self statement.

• ADL "defends the security of Israel and Jews worldwide" http://www.adl.org/about.asp
• ADL "[advocates] for Israel [...] with policymakers, the media and the public." http://www.adl.org/about.asp

My edits are completely accurate, per self stated goals of the pro-Israel organisations which copied from Wiki article lead section. You may add their other stated goals if you like that much.

ADL has self stated goals as defending Israel. If ADL which is a self stated pro-Israeli organisation, is not pro-Israel I do not know a thing about Middle Eastern Conflicts. Kasaalan (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This is bordering OR. ADL describes itself as supporting many Israel-related causes, but it also spends a considerably amount of time promoting the civil liberties of gays, Muslims, Arabs, Christians, etc... Point is, the organization is not exclusively pro-Israel. I could just as well pull out a statement they made on behalf of a non-Israel subject and claim they are a pro-Arab organization. It's pure fallacy man. If there is any organization that should begin with pro, it's WMREA. It has proven itself to be an extremely anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian organization. In fact, the group describes itself as such routinely. Applying your logic, we should naturally apply the same treatment to WMREA, no? Wikifan12345 (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

When an editor bordering POV the facts may look as OR

ADL states ADL "defends the security of Israel and Jews worldwide" that line alone is a prove for pro-Israel label

WMREA may be pro-Palestine however it is not related to the ADL's pro-Israel views it is not something to be discussed since the organisations self-stated pro-Israel defending goals by themselves

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League#Criticism

By the way I only read WRMEA for a few articles and since I don't read WRMEA much so I can't tell if they have pro-Israel bias or not.

Yet in criticism section the claims properly and broadly given

As you can tell by WRMEA article its criticism section is considerably long within the article, however we should note the criticism came from pro-Israel parties. And in criticism section it is widely claimed by pro-Israel parties that way already

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Report_on_Middle_East_Affairs#Criticism

I don't care about claimed self-claims and self-stated goals by organisations themselves much. I copied the pro-Israeli parts clearly from lead section of the wiki articles. Kasaalan (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi Kasaalan! I have been alerted to your edits regarding topics related to Jews and Judaism, such as this one. I won't delve too deep into what's wrong with this edit and others, but I hope you realize what you are implying by such edits. Please refrain from making such edits in the future. Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all try not to make assumptions before reading the cases.

The topic is not related to Judaism, actually not even Jews, but right wing Israel lobby in US.

The accusing party is a POV Israel defender who doesn't even read the articles. ADL is not only pro Israel if you can read the pro Israel lobby in US, it also depicted as core of pro Israel lobby in US.

Delve or not your decision, however try not accusing me without proving anything.

What you imply I don't know, I also don't care much since there is nothing wrong with my edit. ADL is pro-Israel, there is no doubt about it. If you like to discuss about it use discussion page. There is nothing wrong with that edit and it is accurate.

My recent edits are about Middle Eastern conflict, organisations and casualties and they all are due to RS. Kasaalan (talk) 09:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understood my post. I don't care about the ADL or what either you or Wikifan think of it. However, it is a problem when you try to make headings like 'Criticism by Jews' or 'Criticism by Jewish parties'. Are you implying that 'Jewish parties' are different from 'non-Jewish parties' so their criticism is less important? Again, I hope you realize what edits like this can be, and have been, seen as. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I have looked at the article again and it further concerns me that you have separated criticism by Jews from criticism by non-Jews in the same section. Please revert yourself. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No not less important, however you can't add pro-Israeli media watchdog groups' comments like they are not POV or 3rd party views

Only 1 non-Jewish party criticism exists and it came from National Post (note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Post#Criticism which is criticised for being anti-muslim etc. but by a COI party Canadian Islamic Congress so not sure if criticism is accurate)

The definitions taken from lead sections of the wiki articles per RS

ADL is a self stated Israel defender and pro-Israel lobby organization

Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America is a Pro-Israel media watchdog group

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America#CAMERA_Israeli_lobby_campaign_in_Wikipedia also proves CAMERA has covert actions in wiki

Honest Reporting is another Pro-Israel media watchdog

So noting the origin of the sources is required. Only 1 source is not Jewish (not it is also critcized as anti-Arab).

I posted notes on wiki israel palestine and collaboration projects. Without consensus or RFC I won't revert myself. Kasaalan (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)r RFC I won't revert myself. Kasaalan (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please separate the content dispute with the behavioral problems. I have filed an ANI report. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you get offended by "criticism by jewish parties" title, if so offer a general, better and more NPOV title, however since all the parties and Jewish and their criticism is being anti-Israel or antisemitic, they have a conflict of interest to the case per ethnically and religiously one way or another. We are offering a vast criticism section which consumes more than half of the article, and the organisations origin should be noted one way or another. I tried to generelize the title, if anyone offers a better one we can use it. Kasaalan (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan - you are editing in a disruptive manner. You need to stop that and stop throwing threats and acusations at other users. This is not an appropriate or acceptable way to participate here at Wikipedia. Please try to cooperate with the other editors on those article and talk pages, and do not accuse other editors of bias or abuse. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I am constantly and blatantly being accused over my clean edits which I transparently put in ANI by (conflict of interested parties who has certain tendencies or personal conflict with me)

For being fair, you should first stop personal attacks and false accusations against me in ANI

Being called as "manically obsessive" which is a clear personal attack by Wikifan many times now (did you also warned Wikifan12345, no, why), I know his edits. Not only I discussed per talk pages, I specifically proved my point clearly per references, while he choses to ignore, later called a meatpuppet for ANI process and accused me in his talk page behind my back.

He repeatedly accuses me as being anti-Jewish or such by my edit which is a serious attack, newcomer or not, he has conflict of interest to the area and blatantly accuses me, skipping discussion page process or waiting any 3rd party comment. Kasaalan (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand you feel you're being picked on here. What I am saying, however, is that as an uninvolved administrator who is not active in these topic areas, reviewing the ANI thread and the things that seem to have lead to it, it appears that you are the initiating party starting the problem.

The discussion has not been clinical and entirely friendly - neither your comments nor those of your detractors. I don't support the way some of the comments against you were phrased. But you are firing right on back with comments just as bad, and introducing content disruption as well.

You have to calm down and work in a more cooperative and less confrontational manner going forwards. If you continue to be this aggressive and confrontational, someone is going to have to take action about it.

I would much rather have you just calm down and continue to argue your case on content issues in a constructive and cooperative way. Please take a bit of time off and look back at your own writing and comments, and try to engage without so much anger next time.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If any uninvolved party comments or judges I have no issue with it. If you closely read the cases and inspect my edits linked I can only respect the outcome, however casting suspicion on a user for his clear edits [I may have controversial edits like any user, however I have been even accused for my clean and accurate edits just because personal reasons] should also be something to be warned I am calmer now, when uninvolved parties joined the discussion
Try reading the case fully, and if you have any questions regarding any troublesome edits ask in ANI so I can detailedly reply

However one way or not, the origin of criticism came from a particular stance (however you word it), that should also be noted The thing is I know the user's previous edits, you may check their latest contributions list of wikifan or ynhockey (just by name is enough) which is just limited to Palestine-Israel titles themselves (one thing I am being accused by them is "being obsessed with Jews"), this is neither about accusing or guessing but their political stance in the Palestine-Israel conflict is obvious to the case however you word it.

When being accused I even being called as a user with a few good contributions without any proof. Noone has any right to blatantly and publicly cast false suspicions over other editor's hard work. I have over 4.200 progressive edits (over 40 percent are article edits) within wikipedia and for over 575 articles. Just by creating Casa del Vento article I made 50 edits. That kind of lie (or misleading false insult however you call it), is what I cannot tolerate by any means. Kasaalan (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Bolding and brevity

A general comment: if you could try and keep your comments briefer, you would be less tempted to use bolding to highlight the key points. Both the verbosity and the bolding are a bit annoying and unhelpful for discussion. Try and stay brief, whilst saying what you want to say. Rd232 ^talk 11:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, remember WP:DEADLINE, and consider taking a break from controversial topics once in a while - it's very draining (which is why I mostly avoid it altogether). Try editing something else that interests you for a week, then come back with a fresh look. Rd232 ^talk 11:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Rd232's suggestions above. Your following them would be very helpful to others and yourself.--VS ^talk 11:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. However there is much more going on. Summer time, I have free time left from academical papers.

Now consider you have to discuss even weeks long over addition of a Human Rights Watch report that critics Israel army or instant reverts that removes criticism Gaza War HRW IDF critical report readded by undo, yet I have no difficulty when I add HRW report in Hamas page HRW Hamas critical report or Hamas criticism under Gaza War article HRW Hamas critical report by HRW report noone reverts it. Or again weeks long discussions (with 1 of the accuser party) over adding reference to the affidavit eyewitness testimony blockquotes which left unreferenced in Rachel Corrie page. Is that neutral disputes, no not at all. And I can clearly tell some users has conflict of interest to the Israel-Palestine issues. I specifically asked, yet noone bothered to answer.

I am strictly accused even as "clear cut POV warrior" "having only a few useful edits" publicly by a clearly conflicted party like Moshe, how can anyone publicly and blatantly lie in ANI for casting shadow over another user while he doesn't even know anything about my edits. He may have issues with my edits, it may be natural and even may be true, however noone can claim I only made a few useful edits, it is a blantant lie by any means

Just check latest 500 contributions of Wikifan12345 or YnHockey or older, which are the ANI starter parties(YnHockey started ANI per Wikifan's request in his talk page). They are strictly and only edit in Israel-Palestine-Middle East-Arab titles, while they accuse me over being "manically obsessive" with Jews.

I didn't check their edit's accuracy per tracking (I only know some of their edits from common articles we edited and per voting processes), they might only be interested in area and it is perfectly fine, however how can they accuse me when they only edit in Jew related articles themselves, while I do various other edits under different titles

The credibility of the middle eastern articles are low and contains POV and unbalanced info, and a joined effort on especially by 3rd party users from non-COI parties or colloborating efforts should be implemented. If there is a rule about only conflicted parties allowed to edit I-P articles just let me know so I can quit. And I can't stay back just because COI parties raised issues about my edits (which bothering any serious proof)

Just check Middle East Quarterly Before I edit After I edit another user's contribution

without proper criticism by reliable sources the article it gives the impression of an internationally credible peer reviewed journal. However peer review is intended to be implemented to the journal (founded in 1994) only in 2009. And published by a self-statedly POV party Middle East Forum in the first place.

Jewish Virtual Library My edits Before I edit After I edit

I never subtract any information, I only add information which is a progressive editing style.

If I were a POV party, I could easily tag, delete or AFD many of the articles or views in the articles about the I-P issues (that has contradictory views to mine). Can they proof, any AFD nomination by mine, or any deletion of info. I only delete info if it is stricly false (not by opinion and only limited to a few cases).

Again I remind COI users chose to focus on their own opinion pieces, and tone in discussions (while ignoring their own ignorant attitudes against strict RS in discussion pages)

They didn't provide any of my edit, which substracts any information from any I-P article in favor of my stance, or any negative improvement with my edits (which generally are properly sourced by RS), any of my "POV" vote against opposing article deletion (even for opposing political views, I always vote in favor of keeping accurate info to save edit efforts of editors). Kasaalan (talk) 11:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"The credibility of the middle eastern articles are low" - yes, I think that's very widely accepted. Emotions run high here and it is difficult to have productive discussion, and especially difficult to find WP:CONSENSUS. Generally, though, complaining about other editors isn't helpful unless you are trying to achieve something specific with particular criticism. "Grin and bear it" is about the best advice going. You can also resort to dispute resolution, but this doesn't necessarily solve anything. Just keep at it, try and keep discussion productive, and bring in other editors via WP:RFC etc where necessary. Also remember that when a number of people complain about your edits and comments, there may be something to that (and even if there isn't, it's probably better to take their views into account). cheers, Rd232 ^talk 13:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rafael_Medoff&diff=302088437&oldid=300393870 The thing is some inbetween edits for info removal per changing the accuracy of the titles. Since I improved [4] Rafael Medoff article I checked his history. And his PHD titles removed from article with no explanation or no possible good reason. Kasaalan (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

WRMEA

Before you do the entire Contributors section, please discuss at Talk:Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. cheers Rd232 ^talk 14:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, good, but you should really use a subpage in your userspace for this sort of drafting - it's much tidier than Talk, and less problematic than doing it in the article itself. See WP:SUBPAGE. Rd232 ^talk 15:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried to do that so others can review, but I can create a sandbox for it. Kasaalan (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, others can still review/input - just provide a link from the Talk page and clarify what you expect from others. Rd232 ^talk 15:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

After I finish lists, I can post a link, still requires lots of work, time consuming job. Kasaalan (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Props

Nice touchups on the Latuff article. Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Latuff article requires some criticism too. I follow his caricatures time to time, time to time he lost balance at criticism and praise. He needs a better understanding of the Middle Eastern conflicts. Depicting Juba, the Baghdad sniper as a "superhero" will not help solving the issues much. Kasaalan (talk) 10:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Seven Jewish Children

Thank you for your comprehensive response to Roland Rance on this page. Beganlocal (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are interested with the article, I advise you to read full text and watch 10 video of the play as a start. Kasaalan (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Jesse James

Excuse me, but it is not the responsibility of another editor to go in and try to write enough content in the main article to justify the inclusion of your addition to the lead of the article. Besides that, This reference is a blog-type entry that has nothing whatsoever to with Jesse James, only someone named Jesse James Forrey. This is a self-published website that doesn't pass WP:RS. This source is very much like the former, it talks a lot but offers nothing in the way of sourcing for the claims in it to allow vetting. None of these sources meet the WP:RS mandate. As for the quote you added - it adds nothing whatsoever that isn't already stated in the lead and includes something that is irrelevant: "He did have some manners, and in noisy frontier towns he was spotted strolling with a walking stick." That has nothing to do with the article. This is not an improvement. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all the text that adapted into the lead doesn't even require any source, since it is a common fact. Some parties praise him, some parties criticize him, some parties are sceptical. The revision you try to keep highly violates WP:POV, since it tries to assert Jesse James was only a thief, by a single source http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2003885037_jessejames17.html, yet even according to the reference it misquotes to insert a POV point as the only truth or argument about the case. Some parties, argues he is a thief, some argues he is Robin Hood, all aspects should be included into the lead as WP:LEAD. If you don't like sources, why don't you provide better ones. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Clay+Coppedge&go=Go Clay Coppedge used already in wikipedia as a source for Texas related articles. And a good source for Jesse James' Texas days. http://www.tc.indymedia.org/2009/apr/support-jesse-james-and-rnc-others is completely my mistake, you are right about that reference. http://www.folkarchive.de/jesse1.html has the praising songs about Jesse James. All sources reliable enough, since they don't assert any unknown fact anyway. Your revert is POV to the extreme, and unhelpful which deserves a revert. Kasaalan (talk) 10:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. As I explained, the lead is only a section that is used to summarize the rest of the article. If it isn't covered in the article, it can't be included in the lead. It is not my responsibility, or anyone else's, to find sources and rewrite content in order to support some content you decided to add. This is a self-published website that doesn't pass WP:RS. This source is very much like the former, it talks a lot but offers nothing in the way of sourcing for the claims in it to allow vetting. Because some article somewhere on Wikipedia uses that as a source does not make it reliable. None of those sources meet the WP:RS mandate. As for the quote you added - it adds nothing whatsoever that isn't already stated in the lead and includes something that is irrelevant: "He did have some manners, and in noisy frontier towns he was spotted strolling with a walking stick." That has nothing to do with the article.The first part of the quote just repeats the first sentence of that paragraph: "A belief circulated that he robbed from the rich to give to the poor." How is that different from "Jesse James has often been portrayed, even prior to his death, as a kind of Robin Hood, robbing from the rich and giving to the poor."? It isn't, so you're being redundant. The addition also contained an incomplete sentence and a misspelling. That was not an improvement. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources required for bold claims, they are not essential for something everyone knows. Some people praise him, some others not. The version your try to keep is highly WP:POV and blatantly misleading depending a single source, yet WP:CENSOR other views. While even the WP:MINORITY views should be included. WP:OTHERSTUFF is another policy which is not realated. http://www.folkarchive.de/jesse1.html is a good source. And it is only used as a source for praising songs, some parties praising him is already mentioned in the article. Kasaalan (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources are required for any content challenged, and adding sources that are not reliable is against Wikipedia policy. There is nothing POV in the lead of that article and there is no censorship. What there is would be removing your insertion of sourcing that is not reliable, removing irrelevant and meaningless quotes and edit warring. Perhaps you should go read WP:RS because you do not demonstrate an understanding of the difference. folkarchive.de is a self-published source and is therefore not permitted by WP:RS. It doesn't matter what songs are quoted there, they have no relevance in an article as a main source. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Lucky Luke

Please have a look at Talk:Lucky Luke with regard to the "controversies" section. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jesse James. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not nice to threaten others as engaging edit war to be blocked, while you are not reading the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_James#Legacy Lecacy section already includes the controversies. While you don't bother to read, you begin an unnecessary edit war yourself, trying to WP:OWN the article to your own WP:POV point while trying to WP:CENSOR other views. Kasaalan (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a threat, it's a fact. You've reverted me 3 times and after the last one, an administrator reverted your needless edit, removed your unreliable sources and irrelevant quote. If you revert it again, the adminstrator will block you. You do this and don't even pay attention to the fact that both sides have already been mentioned in the lead. I've tried to explain to you twice on this page and once on the article talk page that the sourcing you've added does not meet the criteria under WP:RS, that your addition is poorly worded and adds nothing that is not already present, and that one part of the quote that you add has nothing whatsoever to do with anything in the article. I didn't add poor quality content, I only removed it. Since, as you say, the article already includes both viewpoints, how would I be censoring anything? If an addition does nothing to improve the article, as the change you made, and relies on sources not considered by Wikipedia policy to be reliable, it should be removed. As I said, the adminstrator spoke and shared the view the sources you are using are unreliable. Let it go. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't even bother to read the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_James#Legacy in the first place, or try correct to WP:LEAD yet try to keep 1 single point of view. It is a fact some people praise him, some criticize him, some doubts both sides. Yet you have to use your WP:COMMONSENSE to reach such a conclusion. Anyway http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesse_James&diff=310241187&oldid=310226665 that is how you edit things when you bother to read at least article sections. Try to be progressive and summarize more if you really have WP:GOODFAITH about the case. Yet again misinterpreting some historians claims as the single fact, and there is no other view is highly POV. Articles should be WP:NPOV including leading views about the case. You can't just say "while people praise him he is not so." by a single source. Kasaalan (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Copy and pasting wholesale an entire section into the lead is not how one edits the lead to summarize the entire article. You're just copy and pasting and adding nothing. I agree with the other editors, let it go. You are not adding anything of value to the article. The article shows that there is no evidence that Jesse James did anything that was intended to benefit the public, it was not Robin Hood, that is only a myth. I'm quite sure the other editor has read the article, she has edited it at length. You are not helping the article. LaVidaLoca (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I read the section fully, copied selectively with important aspects, while merging and trimming some parts. The public image of the Jesse James has changed a lot during the centuries. The lead is not only weak but POV. Why don't you bother to edit and summarize more if you have good faith. Kasaalan (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the lead that you left:

After 1873 he was covered by the national media as part of social banditry.[2] During his lifetime, James was celebrated chiefly by former Confederates, to whom he appealed directly in his letters to the pressand displaced by Reconstruction, the antebellum political leadership mythologized the James Gang exploits. [3] Some historians credit James' myth as contributing to the rise of former Confederates to dominance in Missouri politics[citation needed] In the 1880s, after James' death, the James Gang became the subject of dime novels which set the bandits up as preindustrial models of resistance.[3] During the Populist and Progressive eras, James became a symbol as America's Robin Hood, standing up against corporations in defense of the small farmer, robbing from the rich and giving to the poor. Wil Haygood from The Washington Post argued this is incorrect. [4] His robberies benefited only him and his band, and they attacked small banks that benefited local farmers.[citation needed] This "heroic outlaw" image is still commonly portrayed in films, as well as in songs and folklore. Jesse James remains a controversial symbol, one who can always be interpreted in various ways, according to cultural tensions and needs. Renewed cultural battles over the place of the Civil War in American history have replaced the longstanding interpretation of James as a Western frontier hero. Some of the neo-Confederate movement regard him as a hero.[5][6][7] Recent historians place him as a self-aware vigilante and terrorist who used local tensions to create his own myth among the widespread insurgent guerrillas and vigilantes following the Civil War.[1]

This is the legacy section from where it came:

James's turn to crime after the end of Reconstruction helped cement his place in American life and memory as a simple but remarkably effective bandit. After 1873 he was covered by the national media as part of social banditry.[2] During his lifetime, James was celebrated chiefly by former Confederates, to whom he appealed directly in his letters to the press. Displaced by Reconstruction, the antebellum political leadership mythologized the James Gang exploits. Frank Triplett wrote about James as a "progressive neo-aristocrat" with purity of race.[3] Indeed, some historians credit James' myth as contributing to the rise of former Confederates to dominance in Missouri politics[citation needed] (in the 1880s, for example, both U.S. Senators from the state, Confederate military commander Francis Cockrell and Confederate Congressman George Graham Vest, were identified with the Confederate cause).

In the 1880s, after James' death, the James Gang became the subject of dime novels which set the bandits up as preindustrial models of resistance.[3] During the Populist and Progressive eras, James became a symbol as America's Robin Hood, standing up against corporations in defense of the small farmer, robbing from the rich and giving to the poor. Wil Haygood from The Washington Post argued this is incorrect. [4] His robberies benefited only him and his band, and they attacked small banks that benefited local farmers.[citation needed] This "heroic outlaw" image is still commonly portrayed in films, as well as in songs and folklore.

:In portrayals of the 1950s, James was pictured as a psychologically troubled individual rather than a social rebel. Some filmmakers portrayed the former outlaw as a revenger, replacing "social with exclusively personal motives."[61]

Jesse James remains a controversial symbol, one who can always be interpreted in various ways, according to cultural tensions and needs. Renewed cultural battles over the place of the Civil War in American history have replaced the longstanding interpretation of James as a Western frontier hero. Some of the neo-Confederate movement regard him as a hero.[5][6][7] Recent historians place him as a self-aware vigilante and terrorist who used local tensions to create his own myth among the widespread insurgent guerrillas and vigilantes following the Civil War.[1]

Where's the summarization? You removed a few sentences and left the rest intact. That isn't writing, it's copy and pasting. It doesn't add anything. LaVidaLoca (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You could have helped the summary part, which you didn't bother and reverted with an unprogressive manner. Your revert not only deleted lead, but it also deleted my reference naming and reference merging in the section. For the lead, I removed some sentences, for a summary style sentences, merged 2 references, merged some sentences for a first draft lead proposal. You could have edited it better, if you had WP:GOODFAITH, yet you just fully reverted which is pretty much anyone can do with a simple click, not even keeping the references I named in the section.

After 1873 he was covered by the national media as part of social banditry. During his lifetime, James was celebrated chiefly by former Confederates, the antebellum political leadership mythologized the James Gang exploits. Some historians credit James' myth as contributing to the rise of former Confederates to dominance in Missouri politics In the 1880s, after James' death, his gang became the subject of dime novels which set the bandits up as pre-industrial models of resistance. During the Populist and Progressive eras, James became a symbol as America's Robin Hood, standing up against corporations in defense of the small farmer, robbing from the rich and giving to the poor while there is no evidence that his robberies enriched anyone other than his gang and himself, though they attacked small banks that benefited local farmers. Jesse James remains a controversial symbol. Renewed cultural battles over the place of the Civil War in American history have replaced his longstanding interpretation, while some of the neo-Confederate movement still regard him as a Western frontier hero and his "heroic outlaw" image is still commonly portrayed in films, songs and folklore. Recent historians place him as a self-aware vigilante and terrorist who used local tensions to create his own myth among the widespread insurgent guerrillas and vigilantes following the Civil War.

Last version of the lead. Again bother to read or edit and helping, instead reverting. Instead arguing with me to raise a personal conflict, try editing to improve article. Kasaalan (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm already tired of your assertions that disagreeing with your wholesale copy and pasting from other sections is not good faith. Just trying to cut parts of what you're copy and pasting is in no way a summary of the article. You're still just copy and pasting. And I've lost any good faith vibes from you from the first time you reverted to the point of 3RR violation. It is of no benefit to simply keep cutting parts from the already existing section and call that summarization of an article's content. Go read WP:LEAD. LaVidaLoca (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually you are the one that doesn't read WP:LEAD since the lead should contain all important aspects. Of course it will contain some copy paste along with summary and paraphrasing, should I made up lead out of my mind. Already existed in the section and somebody should summarize them. If you can do it do it, if you can't do it at least stop critisizing other's work, since you have no right to talk when you only criticize and revert with no edit attempt to improve them. Kasaalan (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Mediation request

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Jesse James has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jesse James and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Wildhartlivie (talk)

Robert Ford

As a reference source you are using an interview in the Seattle Times with fiction author Ron Hanson. His book, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is a fictional novel based on true events, not a non-fiction history book, thus it cannot be used as a reference source for factual events. Please use reliable sources before adding more information. Thank you. Jeff Smith (talk) 04:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the info. That doesn't he is mistaken for sure, yet I will note he is a historical fiction author for better clarity, so reader has a reasonable doubt, yet we keep details and arguments. Some critics about his book. http://mockingbird.creighton.edu/Ncw/hanscrit.htm Kasaalan (talk) 10:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Changing your added information to historical fiction does not advance it any closer to the truth. What you are adding is fiction based on historical events, which has absolutely no place in any non-fictional article. Jeff Smith (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding historical fiction implies the novel contains fiction with historical events which is a fact. Seattle Times article, is not about the fictional novel, but more about the writer's own research and views on the event in his interview. You should also talk it with other editors opinion. Kasaalan (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Historical fiction implies a fictional novel (not true) based on historical (true) events. The problem is deciphering what is true and what is not true. The Seattle Times article is an interview with Ron Hansen who writes fiction novels. The author has never stated he is a historian or that his books are historic biographies. They are clearly published as novels, not history books. To use the Seattle Times article as a reference source on a biographical article is to imply that it is historically accurate and this is simply not the case. Jeff Smith (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Ron Hansen, is a literary professor and not a historian, yet possibly he made a research before writing his novel, also historical fiction books doesn't necessarily written by historians

"Historical fiction is a sub-genre of fiction that often portrays fictional accounts or dramatization of historical figures or events. Writers of stories in this genre, while penning fiction, nominally attempt to capture the spirit, manners, and social conditions of the persons or time(s) presented in the story, with due attention paid to period detail and fidelity. ... In some historical fiction, famous events appear from points of view not recorded in history, showing historical figures dealing with actual events while depicting them in a way that is not recorded in history. Other times, the historical event complements a story's narrative, occurring in the background while characters deal with events (personal or otherwise) wholly unrelated to recorded history. Sometimes, the names of people and places have been in some way altered. As this is fiction, artistic license is permitted in regard to presentation and subject matter, so long as it does not deviate in significant ways from established history."

Historical fiction as a note is enough for me, can you also ask other editors' opinion with talk page of Robert Ford and Jesse James, so we may have a broader debate. Also you may also search for a better quality reference for the issue, either for supporting or objecting the view, instead debating. That will help more, I am an inclusionist, so if you provide a good source, I will also support adding other opposing views to the article. Yet the source, even though it might not be scholar, already says it is a "circulated rumour" and I added he is a historical fiction author, that is enough by my standards, and removing his view is more like a censor to me. Kasaalan (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• • • I'm not interested in a debate. I was trying to keep you from messing up the articles with fiction. What you wrote in bold is also my argument, "not recorded in history." Apparently you seem to think this is ok and I'm not going to go around in circles with you. Jeff Smith (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jesse James. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 10:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Your child labour links on diamond page

Hello I left one link in and took the others out for the following reasons:

• No references to child labour were made in the article at all
• As per wikipedia guidelines, Wikipedia is not a directory. External sources are added because of the discussion of the topic in the text and because the text itself cannot sufficiently represent all facts as given in the external source
• Many links were old for current news links (topic still being debated). Some were from 2003.
• POV topic: why not blood diamond links or environment links. Then again: referring to guidelines: wikipedia is not a link directory

Gem-fanat (talk) 12:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Child labour in diamond industry

• Human Rights Watch Child Labor News
  • Report Diamonds in the Rough Human Rights Abuses in the Marange Diamond Fields of Zimbabwe
• "Child Labour in the Diamond Industry". International Labour Organization. 1997.
• "Children working in Sierra Leone mines". BBC news. August 28, 2003. During Sierra Leone's 10 year civil war, children were used as combatants and labourers in the diamond mines of Koidu in the north-eastern district of Kono. ... The children aged between seven and 16 go to the mines as early as 08.00 and work through to 18.00. They do hard labour, like digging in soil and gravel, before sifting with a pan for gemstones and shifting heavy mud believed to contain diamonds. ... The ministry of gender and children affairs, in collaboration with non-governmental organisations, World Vision and Aim Sierra Leone, have registered 1,200 child miners, with the aim of taking them out of the mines.
• "Diamonds Are Forever, But Not The Lives Of Child Workers". November 2006. Mines in South Africa and India are notorious locations of various sweatshops that produce exquisite diamonds that were made by the hands of child slaves. Diamonds are symbols of love, dedication and wealth. To young couples, a diamond ring is the perfect gift to the woman you love. The bigger the diamond, the more a man loves his woman. These gems do not come cheap though. A one eighth cut; round diamond solitaire promise ring in 10K gold alone costs two hundred and twenty-nine dollars. However, an extravagant gift such as this ring does come at a higher price; the price of blood and health. Child slaves have suffered to make a diamond which is overpriced and funded for wars. The question is, "is it worth buying a small gem that slaves worked arduously for"? Diamond mines are first and foremost a dangerous work site. These mines are nothing more than open pits of heavy minerals, oil, machinery exhaust, and any other rubbish seeps into.

"Child Labour in the Diamond Industry" by International Labor Organization or BBC article are clearly relevant, you may add environment links too if you like. You may read guidelines again, all the WP:RS links are relevant, date doesn't change the case since child labour issues haven't improved during 1997-2009, if you like you may research for better links and add them too. External links used for expanding, then they may removed when an article section developed for the case. I have no tolerance for any kind for removal of directly relevant information. Child labour is a known issue in the diamond industry, try not to hide the facts. Kasaalan (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Kasalaan, no-one is trying to hide the facts, and a balanced, neutral point of view addition to the text of the article, in relation to production would be appropriate. Gem-fanat is right about this doing being a directory though, and there are no references in the text. WP guidelines on external links encourage them to be focussed on key areas for further information. In this case the article is the top-level article about the physical substance diamond in all rspects. I will look at a way to introduce the subject appropriately in the text and then remove the extrenal links. If you want to create an article on Child labour in the diamond industry, with a neutral point of view and reliable sources, that is also a possibility, but what you are doing might also be seen by some editors as POV-pushing or link-spamming. As I say, i'll try and assist. regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 05:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I will create one since I have no tolerance for child labour on the other hands links are there for creating such a section in long term, yet I am doing all the work, while others POV reverting for cover up the child labour issue in diamond industry. Kasaalan (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

diamond page

I am not going to start a debate with you on this. If you don't like it, start a procedure and we'll have the admins sort it out. For now those links are out. If you care so much about child labor than write a NON Point of View (POV) entry and use these pages as a resource. Not add them blindly in directory form.

Once again: external links are there to provide extra insight in the topics discussed in the article not vice versa. For that matter one could add "green mining", "human rights", "blood diamonds", "Al Qaeda" and what not in the mix and create a directory of 30 links. They are all perfectly fine topics and all would have that same "right" to be listed.

In order to prevent such a discussion the external links are always within the context and framework of the article itself, not vice versa.

And I agree with author above: I DO consider it both POV pushing and link spamming.

Gem-fanat (talk) 10:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You talk like a gem-fanatic truly. On the other hand I have 0 tolerance for cover up attempts on child labour abuse. Therfore instead pointless arguments, I will create sections, which you can't revert anyway. Try to act NPOV, and don't come to me with pointless arguments like sources are dated or "unrelated to diamonds" which indicate you don't read or understand the sources. Kasaalan (talk) 11:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan, I think you are being most unfair to editors here. You are not assuming good faith, and you were not following guidelines on the use of external links. You are however on the right track by trying to create some text within the article - I think it should be a paragraph, or at most a subsection, under the heading "controversial sources". In case you're not sure why someone removed your draft work on this, please see the article talk page, where materialscientist has given an explanation. I support his reasoning. This is a feature article which has just gone through a review, and it would best if we developed the text on the talk page, then moved it into the main article once consensus amongst editors is achieved. Provided there are reliable sources (which there appear to be), I am supportive of some text being added, as long as it does not give undue weight to the issue, remembering this is an article about all aspects of the mineral diamond. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

User materialscientist suggested developing this material on the article talk page. I agreed. User gem-fanat does not support the approach you are taking. You are not working with other editors or seeking consensus. Can I encourage you please to work on the material on hte article talk page, where others can also discuss it? This is a Feature Article and it would be great if experienced editors who have worked hard on this piece could be included in the process. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You all said build a section, I am building a section progressively. None of you helped, that is why I build alone. Human Rights Watch report will be done in 1 hour. Do not rush, talk page is not needed. Kasaalan (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

My mistake you are right on featured article issue. Kasaalan (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Child labour in the diamond industry

I have nominated Child labour in the diamond industry, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child labour in the diamond industry. 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. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Result is keep after unnecessary AFD nomination. Kasaalan (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Jesse James

I am sure you are well aware that you have reverted three times today, which is pushing WP:3RR very hard. If you do it again you will be blocked from editing. The whole reason for page protection was to stop the edit warring. Restoring your contentious material as soon as you realized the protection ended is not a productive way of editing. Please stop now, so that additional measures don't need to be taken.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediation case

Hello Kasaalan. I've agreed to take on your mediation case and have opened with questions. Your input there would be very much appreciated. Thanks! [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 16:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Jim Carrey

Template:Jim Carrey has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for deletion page. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hobsbawm

Extended content

Number Book Date Publisher ISBN Notes References 1 Labour's Turning Point: Extracts from Contemporary Sources 1948 2 Primitive Rebels: Studies in Archaic Forms of Social Movement in the 19th and 20th Centuries 1959 3 The Age of Revolution: Europe 1789-1848 1962 Abacus (UK) Vintage Books (U.S.) ISBN 0679772537 4 Labouring Men: Studies in the History of Labour 1964 5 Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations 1965 editor; essays by Karl Marx 6 Industry and Empire 1968 7 Bandits 1969 8 Captain Swing 1968 with George Rude 9 Revolutionaries: Contemporary Essays' 1973 10 The Age of Capital: 1848-1875 1975 11 The Invention of Tradition 1983 ISBN 0521437733 editor, with Terence Ranger 12 Workers: Worlds of Labor 1985 13 The Age of Empire: 1875-1914 1987 ISBN 0521437733 14 The Jazz Scene 1989 15 Echoes of the Marseillaise: Two Centuries Look Back on the French Revolution 1990 16 Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality 1990 Cambridge University Press ISBN 0-521-43961-2 17 The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914-1991 1994 Michael Joseph (UK) Vintage Books (U.S.) ISBN 0679730052 18 On History 1997 19 Uncommon People: Resistance, Rebellion and Jazz 1998 20 On the Edge of the New Century 2000 21 Interesting Times: A Twentieth-Century Life 2002 autobiography 22 Globalisation, Democracy and Terrorism 2007 23 On Empire: America, War, and Global Supremacy 2008 Labour's Turning Point: Extracts from Contemporary Sources (1948) Primitive Rebels: Studies in Archaic Forms of Social Movement in the 19th and 20th Centuries (1959) The Age of Revolution: Europe 1789-1848 (1962) ISBN 0679772537 Labouring Men: Studies in the History of Labour (1964) Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations (1965; editor; essays by Karl Marx) Industry and Empire (1968) Bandits (1969) Captain Swing (1968; with George Rude) Revolutionaries: Contemporary Essays (1973) The Age of Capital: 1848-1875 (1975) The Invention of Tradition (1983; editor, with Terence Ranger) ISBN 0521437733 Workers: Worlds of Labor (1985) The Age of Empire: 1875-1914 (1987) ISBN 0521437733 The Jazz Scene (1989) Echoes of the Marseillaise: Two Centuries Look Back on the French Revolution (1990) Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990) ISBN 0-521-43961-2 The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914-1991 (1994) ISBN 0679730052 On History (1997) Uncommon People: Resistance, Rebellion and Jazz (1998) On the Edge of the New Century (2000) Interesting Times: A Twentieth-Century Life (2002; autobiography) Globalisation, Democracy and Terrorism (2007) On Empire: America, War, and Global Supremacy (2008)

Answer from WP:INC

If I correctly undertood your question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inclusion (the question being "how can I contest the deletion of many templates"), then your recourse is Deletion review. - Draeco (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Answer from WP:INC

If I correctly undertood your question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Inclusion (the question being "how can I contest the deletion of many templates"), then your recourse is Deletion review. - Draeco (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

So...

Arabs and Jews are different races? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Surely yes. Myths and history are 2 different matters. Kasaalan (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

re: post

If you want to take a wikibreak to work on your thesis and postpone all of this until later, that's absolutely acceptable to me and may decrease the stress for a while. Having told you this, I would really appreciate it if you would delete this after you've read it so it isn't just sitting here for everyone to see. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted your personal explanation, if it is enough for you. Same thing happen to me, I really cooled off from wikipedia for the same reason. My intentions were good, and I really spend dozens of hours for researching and making long proposals, and when the review-mediation process lengthened to my busy thesis time I really become frustrated. But your issue we talked, giving you a clear reason not to review or research such a complicated matter.

I really don't have much time for articles anymore much, I may have time occasionally but cannot really tell. So practically one way or another I took a wikibreak. And as I said since summer, I tried to rush things since I wouldn't have time after that period. And all research I made in the meantime was to improve article, I don't have any other reason to edit James article to improve it as a non-US citizen.

And james article become a burden for both of us, I really couldn't edit much other articles without solving this one we both got so much frustrated.

We can discuss past, but it won't go anywhere. We made a bad start, but if you have time or intention to fix case, if you make a step forward I really think we can solve issue. I really made an extensive research for facts that we can both use. What I seek from the start is if you don't rely on me over my factual claims, either evaulate sources I provided, or someoneelse to evaulate them so we can progress cases one by one.

So my approach to history is. Whoever right or wrong, doesn't matter, what I really care is what is right or wrong about history so all readers including me will get benefit from our editing. Yet there is not anyone but 2 of us, who really read and understand the article.

Therefore basically, either we will discuss matter between you and me

Find some history-related users to give opinion as 3rd party

Or both of the options

If you can review some of my proposals, to lessen number of contradictions, it would be really helpful. If you cannot do it for the reasons you talk it is also fine. But in the long run I need someone to evaluate-discuss my claims and additions with me that need to be made into article. About grammar issues, your or anyone else's help will be much appreciated. Yet if you could find time to read, you can tell I tried to back up my claims with better and additional RS over first draft proposals for critical facts. And I really spent time over referencing unreferenced parts of the article.

I had my reasons to got frustrated, you got yours, but I really would appreciate a doctorate graduate's help if you have time. I am not a history expert, but if you have a look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kasaalan#Citation_templates

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Ford_(outlaw)&action=history

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesse_James_in_music&action=history

you can tell how much I research and read for any case I involved. And the proposals I made, was not to frustrate others but to clarify things with details. We should find a common ground, as both post graduate wiki editors, if you come 1 step forward and change your decision about not-discussing with me, you will see we will really improve article. Kasaalan (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Need your opinion on some photographs

Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Since it moved I couldn't guess which case was yours. But you can ask anything if it is about photography. Kasaalan (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP/N#Need_opinions_on_which_photos_are_better found it. Don't worry I can comment on photography. Kasaalan (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there

Enigmaman (Enigmaman) think we are lookalikes [5]. Saw you had thoughts about him as a admin at his RFA. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

First of all you should spare your words when you call other people for your own good. Even if you think someone is "racist", it is considered an insult and it is hard to proof such a claim. Users tend to even take WP:POV as an insult even they act so. I don't know you or your edits, but if you like to orient in wikipedia, try getting help from established projects or senior editors if you have trouble with edit wars. But it is also hard to avoid edit wars in such conflict articles, especially 1 or both sides tend to revert or ignore facts/references. Also try to user less humour http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jiujitsuguy&curid=24184566&diff=323557933&oldid=323554785 isn't a mature thing to do and isn't funny. Also try not refer any swear/slang words to other editors to keep wikipedia clean. Question: Did anyone mention my name, and how. I read the talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Enigmaman#Read but my name wasn't there, maybe anyone deleted. I don't track his edits anyway, so if there is any comment that interests me just share it here. I am not like any other user by any means, and if it is any issue about politics he isn't eligible to compare or judge me by any means, since his expertise level or edit count in politics related articles isn't sufficient. I commented at his RFA, simply because I didn't feel he is neutral to Israel-Palestine cases and weight in Israeli side (for his reasons). Morever he still haven't answered my direct questions at RFA yet he has been avoiding to declare his level of relation with the conflicted sides, anyway. You can read my provided examples as my reasons to object his adminship. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Enigmaman_3#Oppose and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Enigmaman_3#Content_discussion_forked_from_Kasaalan.27s_oppose Additions: To cover up a case, excusing a personal insult does not give anyone the right to wipe another user's talk page, while you can only remove that sentence. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKasaalan&action=historysubmit&diff=323810398&oldid=323806206 I found the part you refer http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Enigmaman&oldid=323810095#Read but I won't go personal and even reply since I don't even care anyone's personal comments unless it is article-editing related. I didn't like "A mutual friend informed me that you might be able to help ..." part as a beginning either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Enigmaman#Censorship_and_Vandalism_on_Gaza_War_.28Operation_Cast_Lead.29 As I suggest earlier he shouldn't involved Israel-Palestine articles without stating what is his level involvement with Israel-Palestine conflict. If you refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Gaza_.22Wikipedia_Edit_War.22, I don't have the time right now to read case. If I have time and the case is serious I may comment later, but without reading the case through, I can't help the mediation much. And when you go arbitrary committee mostly both sides get penalty. I didn't read the edits of neither party, so cannot tell which one of you is right or wrong. I don't know what you have in mind by starting a thread, but if you have any specific fact case about any article, (for example whether Israel used white phosphorus in Gaza Strike or not, I proved that months ago, and United Nations reported in similar way later). I may help checking both sides' claims' integrity. Yet if there is any admin level involvement by him in Arbitration as a jury or judge, he should first state if he has any religious, racial or WP:COI related connection to the either side of the Israel-Palestine conflict (as I asked him directly many times before) if he hasn't done yet. And I detracted from Gaza War and similar articles for some time, because some WP:POV editors from either Palestine or Israeli side weights in (it is not much different in Catholic sex abuse cases or other religion involved cases anyway), or uninvolved but non-expert users who acts like experts and too much revert-edit wars are only time waste. Yet from my experience it is much easier to came by a POV Israeli (side) user in wikipedia articles possibly because internet usage in Israel/internationally (by Israel supporters) is much more higher, (Palestinians possibly don't even have a widespread free internet) read List of countries by number of Internet users [6], and there are Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America#CAMERA Israeli lobby campaign in Wikipedia like organizations even pay money for shadow users. Religious or racial fanaticism generally harms wikipedia, I tried to involve the Israel-Palestine conflict as a 3rd party. I accomplished to bust many covert racially-religiously motivated actions which involves removing or altering facts and I personally improved many articles by solid references, Palestine-Israel, Catholicism or Scientology isn't different. I may help improving accuracy in such articles later, but lately I don't have much time for the cases. Kasaalan (talk) 01:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#See_also, Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, Wikipedia:Regional notice boards, Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration may help in finding a solution. Kasaalan (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC) I have no connection. I don't edit Israeli/Palestinian articles. You do, almost exclusively. I didn't answer your ramblings at my RfA, since it wouldn't help my cause to get involved in an argument with you. I am a third party, and it's pretty clear you are not. The guy who brought this to your page is a continually uncivil user who will probably end up blocked indefinitely for continued personal attacks. Aside from calling someone a racist, he called at least one other person a "retard" and a "fool". Enigmamsg 18:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC) First of all you have edited a number of Israel-Palestine related articles, if you claim you didn't that is an obvious lie, if you say you don't edit in general or lately that might be true, you possibly don't have the knowledge/expertise to do so anyway. You didn't answer at that time, because you didn't want to and you are no 3rd party whatsoever, I know it, you know it, that is why you didn't declare you have no religious, racial, citizenship etc. connection (in detail) to either conflicting party in the first place where you could do and close the case easily, but always talked in general terms. You claim now you have "no connection" in general terms, by "no connection" do you only refer not being citizen of Israel for example, you know there are lots of other terms of involvement. In politics related articles yes I exclusively edit Israel-Palestine related articles simply because it is my area of interest and expertise in International Politics. Yes I am 3rd party, and I exclusively support any peace movement in the world both Palestinian and Israeli ones. I also personally improved dozens of Jewish artists, musicians, authors, scientists, politicians etc. simply because Jewish culture, religion and people is another area of interest-knowledge of mine, I couldn't do same for Arabs much since they are not in my area of knowledge. The editors might get banned, I don't like people getting banned but they should also learn proper way of editing. I didn't review the case much, though I warned the editor myself, not to swear others exclusively. Kasaalan (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC) You are not a third party, period. This is the opinion of the community whenever your WP:TE has come up. I don't edit I/P articles, period, because I don't care. In the past, I edited a few articles in passing, but they were no more than 50 edits total, and I haven't touched any in quite a while. In case you haven't noticed, I have over 28,000 edits. For you to claim you're a third party is absurd. You're as biased as any user I've seen. Enigmamsg 00:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC) All WP:TE complaints coming from non-3rd party WP:POV editors who does WP:TE themselves anyway. Also your 50 edits were non WP:NPOV and biased too which makes you even more WP:POV since you don't even edit I/P articles in general but when you do you do POV edits. Your "28.000 edit" means nothing to me, since a considerable amount of that edits coming from reverts and WP:SPAM related quick-easy edits, and rest is not at serious politics or any other kind of article. You lack any kind of experience to evaulate my edits anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 11:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC) I have far more experience here than you will ever have. I also can use English coherently, which makes me infinitely more qualified to edit than you are. At AN/I and at RfA, the community has shown that they do not agree with your extremely biased opinion of your edits or of my edits. Enigmamsg 16:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC) As for your slurs on my editing, how many GAs have you significantly contributed to? I thought so. Enigmamsg 16:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Far experience in SPAM work or american football? Sure you do. Far experience in Human Rights, Racism or Politics articles? Sure you don't. You admitted you have 50 and I have thousands of edits even in Israel-Palestine matter yourself. You know, what I say about your 28.000 "contribution" is exactly true, and your "4.000 a month contributions" just 1-2 month before your previous RFA was not a coincidence, since your "regular" edit count is 1.500-1.000-500 per month. If you are a native English speaker good for you, but intelligence, research skills, expertise in the field and English grammar level are different things, especially for a foreigner. You try to claim you are "qualified" but at what. I don't care about your american football contributions at all. I read your FA "contribution" claims in RFA, which were only pitiful. Also at ANI and RFA mostly your supporters were voting anyway. I generally don't even check any article I contributed is FA or GA, simply because I don't care. And most possibly a FA or GA won't need my help much. I try improve articles that need my contribution more in general. I created a sub article for FA diamond Child labour in the diamond industry, actually I forgot to add a summary in diamond article, so thanks for reminder. For example I improved Rachel Corrie to a FA level, yet I didn't bother nominating it anyway. But if you ask how many articles I significantly contributed or created you can find plenty of them. Kasaalan (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Far more experience with Wikipedia in general. You were the one who started the nonsense about who is "qualified". You destroy yourself with this argument, because you are not qualified to edit an English encyclopedia. End of story. "Also at ANI and RFA mostly your supporters were voting anyway." Oh, so the community in general is "my supporters". Mostly my supporters? Yes, most of the people who voted at RfA supported me. That means they approved of my contributions as an editor. On the other hand, they didn't approve of yours. I advise you to edit the Wikipedia in the language you actually know, because it clearly isn't English. Enigmamsg 23:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Since you mainly edit american football or basketball like sports related articles, you sure are overqualified, you can even be a policeman. Again, any American high school kid may "contribute" likewise. I am not a native English speaker. Yet even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kasaalan#Citation_templates alone is much more research work you have ever accomplished for any serious article in all those years anyway. And for RFA, if you have too many friends and supporters watching your page, it can't be helped anyway, that is no community but RFA and talk page watchers only. Also they praised your anti-SPAM work not your "contributions", I can tell they didn't even check your contributions at your claimed articles. You admitted yourself at RFA question, you have near no actual contribution to any FA or serious article. Main "contributions" you claimed: 1 football 1 basketball player Sid Luckman, "few days editing" Derrick Rose, Félix Houphouët-Boigny, comedian Pauly Shore (you mass deleted from that article which is more deletion than contribution anyway) and a fake contribution "I spent a lot of time proofreading and copyediting 1964 Gabon coup d'état, which also become a GA.", most pitiful "best" contributions for any RFA candidate I know. And I already proved the mechanics behind your "4.000 a month" edit just before your first RFA, and SPAM-edit count relation anyway, while you still try to brag about it. I don't advise you to edit any serious article since you have no expertise anyway, keep it limited to American football, basketball or spam related work like you do and stay out of politics, since you you not neutral, not a 3rd party and not even qualified enough to judge by any means. Kasaalan (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC) You already dug yourself quite the pit with your "qualified" nonsense. You are not qualified to edit en.wiki because you don't know English. What is your native language? Enigmamsg 22:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC) You are not the one to decide who is qualified or not since you consider you are "qualified" (as a mostly American football-basketball contributor - which only have the lowest grade importance in wikipedia). I read scholar sources mostly, generally I have no difficulty, though I make mistakes time to time since my native language is not English. My grammar structure is not perfect, so I generally have to revise my sentences, though generally I correct myself and 3rd party help isn't needed. Also natively speaking English is not related to the edits you make. It it were, maybe you could call yourself "qualified" and edit any science or politics related article. And if you still consider yourself "superior" with your "ultimate English grammar", try using it for improving Wikipedia and show me your "great contributions" in "quality" articles. With my "bad grammar", I can create articles from start like Casa del vento or Linda McCarriston, majorly improve art, music, culture, comics related articles like Lucky Luke http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lucky_Luke&action=historysubmit&diff=316530160&oldid=309955662, or implement critical tables and data into musician pages like Chava Alberstein http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chava_Alberstein&action=historysubmit&diff=324727881&oldid=287735410 or into political articles Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Civilian_casualties_in_the_Second_Intifada&action=historysubmit&diff=304120193&oldid=181342327, and these are not even my leading contributions, I can even reveal religion based institutions money laundering or child abuse scandals along with cover up attempts of these cases in wikipedia. And it is only pitiful to claim such a mass removal like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pauly_Shore&action=historysubmit&diff=270389978&oldid=270281936 is a "contribution" worthy enough to be mentioned in any RFA. You deleted most of the article including his TV work and awards, filmography and family related referenced content, converting it into a stub then called it contribution in RFA. "While it didn't take a lot of article-writing ability, I'm most proud of my work fighting defamation on Wikipedia." Removing a person's origin from an encyclopedia cannot be considered as anti-defamatory at all. It apparently reverted by other editors, since you have no ground for such a removal of sourced info and related categories anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC) You sure can type a lot without understanding even the slightest thing. Only people who have a good understanding of English are qualified to judge my work. My edits are of a higher quality than yours. Once again, what is your native language? Enigmamsg 00:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Edit conflict. You should first show your contributions you made, before you expect any judgement, right. Anyone that have account in wikipedia is eligible to judge sports related articles. English is not my native language, my native language is not related to the discussion at all, I don't give personal info to anyone over internet anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Special:Contributions/Enigmaman You demand I answer personal questions you ask of me, but when I ask a question, you don't answer? That's called hypocrisy. Enigmamsg 00:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC) First of all you ask unrelated questions, but I already answered your question since I declared for months, I have no racial, religious, citizenship etc. connection to the either side of the conflicting Arab/Palestine or Jewish/Israel sides (you didn't declare such a thing yet tried to avoid my question with general answers). Also I don't edit my own country-nation based conflict articles as a self policy (even though I find myself NPOV for such matters) and try involing other countries issues similar to the UN perspective. But if you seek for any kind of relation, I always contribute to peace supporters' and activists pages, Palestinian, Israeli, Black, Chinese or White doesn't matter (but you know that already since you tried to intertwine my edits in many Jewish peace activists pages in the past by tracking my edits and reverting the articles I edited coming out of nowhere during 1-2 weeks, but you already know WP:WIKIHOUNDING is not advised), yet I never try to WP:CENSOR any WP:RS or WP:VERIFY criticism at their pages and even add-improve criticism sections myself. Second Adminship is another league than being a regular editor, its NPOV requirements are much higher, so they should act likewise for any case. For example, I wouldn't support my own RFA if anyone nominated me today, before contributing more articles to balance all parties' human rights violations equally. I am a regular user, yet you are a privileged user who should act independently (or doesn't involve the cases at all), yet you edited non-NPOV style at Israel-Palestine cases (though you only have low number of edits and no expertise) yet claim being NPOV and a 3rd party (apparently you aren't), even claiming your views/background doesn't affect your edits. That is proven for me after checking your attempts at Yeshiva Torah Temimah (you tried to remove a sentenced child abuse case from the article, even you tried AFD to remove it), Pauly Shore (even for a comedian you try to remove 1st hand info and categories - his own interview comments - and you call that "anti-defamatory", do you even know hundreds of other comedians exist in the same category) and other cases. Third Special:Contributions/Enigmaman shows anti spam work related reverts, bans and page blocks more than any contribution. And when they asked you what is your best contribution in RFA. You told those were your best contributions, as I said before they are the worst best contribution claims for a RFA candidate I ever come by. Also you didn't even provide links for your actual contributions in those articles, but just article wikilinks. Fourth, I came by a number of times you clear complaints from talk pages, you first directed a troublesome user to my page where I wasn't involved, and when he made a rude comment you blanked all of his complaints instead just removing that part from my talk page. You also removed the part you directed the user to my page from your own talk page, but I found that part in history. User is childish, rude, and possibly will be punished if he hadn't been already. Yet that doesn't indicate he had no point. Your talk page help request or your single-side warning scheme for the case isn't neutral to the bit, since as far as a quick check at the case shows both sides have same behavior pattern, and without warning both sides you can't claim any NPOV. Moreover, this is not the first time you involving me with the matters I am not involved, you even tried to cast suspicion upon me at Public Relations to Rachel Corrie AFD after debates with a personal Multiple account "suspect" of yours, again where I wasn't involved in anyway. Also guess what I checked your "contributions" in Félix Houphouët-Boigny and found out they are only limited to copy editing-rewording a few times and no actual research or addition. (correct me if I am mistaken) So since I am not eligible to your "higher quality edits" than mine, is there anyone with a Wikipedia account who didn't accomplish such "high quality" edits. What part of those edits are worth mentioning in RFA as best contributions, and why didn't you provide links to your actual contributions in the article yet put Félix Houphouët-Boigny alone in a misleading way, leaving the rest to the editors' imagination or giving a fake impression you make major edits in the article. I will try to close matter for me, since my points are obvious, you are not actually replying and just wasting my time with nonsense and I have to write a thesis. My views about you won't change until you prove your NPOV or show any kind of serious contribution to serious articles. Also try not to use vulgar British slang or pitiful insult attempts as edit comments [7] [8], similar to the user you complaint, not because I will take any action over it (I never did) but because wikipedia is better than that. And you may try not to imply I have multiple accounts or direct users you have a conflict to my page to waste my time. Kasaalan (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC) All that ranting and you still can't answer a simple question? Enigmamsg 20:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Read above. Before hearing others' "ranting", possibly one should first stop his own nonsense, so I cannot take your insult attempt serious. If you ask unrelated questions you get no answer. If you ask my real name, where I live, my mail address, if I have a drivers license, if I like chocolate or if I drink wine, you will get no answer, that is my policy for internet, which is essential since BBS systems. But when I edit Catholic sex abuse cases you may ask if I am Christian, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, anti-Christian hater or British, Irish, American, because it is far or less related and I will answer it. You haven't answer any of my questions directly and avoided any real answer (though we both know what your answer would be), so I don't owe you any answer, besides my answer covers all related aspects to the conflicting sides. That is all anyone need to know for such a case. And if you still don't like my answer, try giving an answer the same ways yourself, since you couldn't even accomplished giving any answer like that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Enigmaman#Talk_page It is funny you try to teach other editors "manners" and "proper English" when they revert your edits in their talk page. Do you also consider your own vulgar British slang for editing comments as proper English, especially since you try to teach other editors about rudeness or proper English. "reply to bollocks""rep to incoherent rant" while fully reverting another editor's comments from my talk page because he used another slang [9]. Funny coincidence. Kasaalan (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC) I didn't ask you your real name or where you live. I asked you a simple question, which you continue to refuse to answer. When you ask a question, you harangue me until I give you an answer. Hypocrisy, thy name is Kasaalan. "Vulgar British slang"? Just more proof that you're not familiar with the English language. Enigmamsg 00:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC) You asked an irrelevant question, so I didn't answer. Though I answered the relevant part. I asked you a relevant question yet you didn't answer at all. You try to teach manners to others with hypocrisy. Nice. Babylon definition bollocks: "nonsense (Vulgar, British Slang)", Longman definition: "bollocks BrE spoken informal [Language: Old English; Origin: beallucas 'testicles'] used to say rudely that you think something is wrong or stupid." Do you even know what you are saying. Kasaalan (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC) It's a very relevant question. I'm trying to help you find a wiki that might appreciate your contributions. Your work here is of low quality, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say it's because you don't know English very well. Your question was also a personal question. My race, religion, or ethnicity is of no business of yours. Enigmamsg 00:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Frankly I don't care about anyone's religion, ethnicity, race or any other detail. But if any editor intertwines them with wikipedia articles to cover up a pedophilia case or act WP:POV while claiming he is 3rd party without stating his connection to the conflicting sides it is my business. There are lots of WP:POV editors in wikipedia, lots of editors from conflicting sides, yet as long as they state their origin or thoughts it doesn't matter. Also try not to kid each other, you are not trying to find anything in favor of me. My work in English wikipedia is high quality, and even if my work's quality is low, that would only mean your work's quality is subzero since you couldn't provide any contribution that is even near my 2nd degree contributions. So either prove your "high quality" contributions with some links, or drop it already. I am wasting my time answering you. Kasaalan (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC) One cannot pass an RfA without high quality work. Now that I am an administrator, I devote my time to doing the administrative tasks I said I would do. Before I became an administrator, I helped improve many articles. If you think so highly of yourself, I recommend you run for RfA. Enigmamsg 01:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Before your RFA, you did anti-SPAM work, that is why you elected to adminship. They asked you what are your best contributions at RFA, you answered, as wiki article links but not direct self-contribution links. I checked your argued best contributions, found out they are only a few copy edit and mass deletion except 2. As I said you gave 5 article link, 1 was fake so you crossed it yourself, 1 was mass deletion, 1 was only a few minor copy edits-rewordings, I didn't check Sid Luckman edits one by one, but you appear to actually contribute it and nice work improving it, I checked Derrick Rose most of your edits at that page are anti-spam or regular reverts, however you have edited a few sections so you may count that improving an article. But high quality edit is referred something beyond regular edits and improvements. You just proved, "one can pass a RFA without high quality" editing work (high quality edits aren't required to be elected for adminship). I am not interested in being admin at all right now. Kasaalan (talk) 09:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC) "You just proved, "one can pass a RFA without high quality" editing work (high quality edits aren't required to be elected for adminship)." Actually, they are required. And trust me, I would know. I'm something of an expert of what it takes to be elected for adminship. You just told me you haven't gone through my contributions, only what was mentioned at the RfA. Enigmamsg 16:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Of course I didn't check all contributions, why would I. So either you lied about your best contributions at RFA (hardly), or simply they were your best contributions. Either way I checked your own stated best 5 contributions, and can easily tell they are not high quality by any standards. Either you may provide any link or drop it already as I said. Kasaalan (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Smurfs

On a lighter note to the above dispute, you might be able to write about this theory that the Smurfs is a metaphor for socialism in the article, but adding a couple of external links isn't the way to do it. The content should be worked into the article in prose. Fences&Windows 00:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC) p.s. You should archive some of your talk page. Fences&Windows 00:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

2 sources are WP:RS. One is a Korean newspaper, other is comic artist and writer's page. Both depicting the same comic artist' 1998 theory, which was widely discussed since then, around the world. The theory doesn't mean it is solid proof, but it is definitely worth mentioning. So it is kind of you, that come here trying to inform me. However the other user reverting my additions like he WP:OWN the article and dictates me to talk page, even though he is the one to delete WP:RS additions, so he is the one who should create a discussion. The external links are solid, and needs to be added until someone finds time to implement them into article. So you should warn other user instead, about unkind editing style. Kasaalan (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Complaining about other editors' additions, insistently WP:REVERT like WP:OWN an article pushing others into WP:EDITWAR, while dictating others to create a WP:TALK page discussion by not even bothering to create a discussion or editing the article themselves are the cheapest editing style for lazy editors in wikipedia, so I get frustrated when I come by a lazy know-it-all editor. When I do all the work, why do I need other editors' collaboration and what is the point of wikipedia in the first place. If I need someone to do all the complaining and direct me over things I already know, I would hire a boss right. Kasaalan (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and courtesy. But why the editors don't avoid edit wars themselves. 14:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Since you didn't follow WP:BRD, I have started a discussion on Talk:The Smurfs. The discussions about Smurfs and Communism started way before 1998 and before Schmidt, so singling him out with two sources was obviously incorrect. The section on Smurfs and Communism may need some expansion (but not too much, per WP:UNDUE), but this should be done with good research, not by using a self-published source as a WP:RS. Fram (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

He is not the starter of theory since his article dated 1998, you may tell others suggested a connection first, that is no reason to remove a published book which is a clear WP:RS. Also the later after 1990-2000 debates over internet gained popularity with his article and gained a world-wide popularity. It is a published book is not a self-published book, bother reading the links I provided or do not waste my time. Also even if it were a self-published book, since he is a comics artist himself, and an expert on the field, it would be enough to be called as WP:RS. Kasaalan (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a discussion for the talk page of the article, as WP:BRD indicates, and as I have asked for since the start of this editwar. Please continue it there, not here. Fram (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The disagreement turned out well if it is closed. Your link additions became useful for improving section. Kasaalan (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry been going on

Are you aware that the account NoCal100, who fought you tenaciously to keep information out of Tzipi Livni's bio, has been found to be one of a long string of sock-puppets? All are now blocked. Details at Talk:History of Palestinian nationality. Don't archive your TalkPage, NoCal used to make accusations so I first checked if he'd accused you of anything! 86.159.67.125 (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know. I remember user's name, but don't know where. I will check thanks. Kasaalan (talk) 09:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

NoCal100, Canadian Monkey, Lover Of The Russian Queen I remember. Happens. Thanks for the reminder. Kasaalan (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't check all evidence. Also I have had some conflicts with the user previously who falsely accused me. But at least could they take a defense from the user about the case somehow. I believe the right for defense for anyone. Is this a suspected case or a certain case. Dropped a note [10] Kasaalan (talk) 10:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It was quite a serious case of corrupting the product and intimidating honest editors. I have people telling me that Accredited (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Steve157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are not part of the same ring - but I'm not 1090% convinced. 86.159.240.147 (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I somehow missed the links earlier, it became clear, that Tzipi Livni page even resulted a serious conflict with an admin, interesting coincidence. User's bias was apparent. He might be part of Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America#CAMERA_Israeli_lobby_campaign_in_Wikipedia or personal efforts. On the other hand, I always believe in the right of defense. Admins should have listened at least once the editor before verdict. Nice reminder, thanks for the info. I currently improving War crime articles to scholar level. If I have time, I may also help accuracy for middle eastern issues again. Kasaalan (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Be aware there are editors following me around and reverting all my comments - several of them are really obvious cheats. I can see 3 editors tag-teaming to very tendentious effect, Justin A Kuntz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Narson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Redcoat10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Maybe I'm wrong, but the arrogance they display should be ringing alarm bells all over the project. 86.159.240.147 (talk) 23:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Except removing swear, personal insults or irrelevant content like unnecessary humour, neither I or anyone else reverts my talk page. Wiki policy is clear, even if someone tries there is an article history. Kasaalan (talk) 23:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Changed your indentation

Hi, hope you don't mind but I changed the indentation of your post [11] as I had earlier removed some spam which was between your post and the previous post Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is alright, you may also correct my grammar mistakes too. The link was a porn spam anyway, I didn't notice untill you removed the link, why would anyone bother to do such things. Nice catch. Thanks to you I find some more interesting wiki articles, and I will add them. Since the issues not limited to US army, I am searching similar cases for other armies currently. Kasaalan (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Rape during the occupation of Japan

I've re-removed some material from this article, and added in-depth explanations of this on the article's talk page - if you disagree with my changes, can we please discuss this first rather than edit war? I'm willing to take you on good faith and extend the same courtesies I try to give all editors, but name-calling is highly unproductive. As some background, User:Stor stark7 has a history of making claims which either aren't supported by the references he provides or which leave out the references' qualifiers, and appears to cherry pick his references so they only present one side of the story. As a result, I believe that it's necessary to check any claims he makes against what the references actually say, and the checking I've done has found some serious problems with the material he added. Nick-D (talk) 07:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Your progressive approach helped a lot, thank you for your efforts and double-checking. Your additions are good, but your removals are not. Discuss in talk page. After crimes against Japanese, I will try focusing on Japanese war crimes, maybe you consider helping. Kasaalan (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Abuse articles and template

I see you have an interest in the abuse template and some abuse articles. I am developing a sandbox version of a proper Abuse article rather than just a disambig page which is what we have at present. See User:Penbat/abuse. Let me know if you have any thoughts on this, for example it seems reasonable maybe to have a "military abuse" article but in any event i have a section for military abuse in User:Penbat/abuse, I also have Church Abuse, Religious Abuse, Spiritual abuse etc etc.--Penbat (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am interested in many of abuse of power articles. In the long run I can gladly help. Kasaalan (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

But do not use title wikilink but use {{Main|Wikilink}} under title. Kasaalan (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

OK is there a particular reason not to use title wikilink or is it just convention ? Anyway i expect to keep User:Penbat/abuse in the sandbox for maybe a few weeks before unleashing in the main arena. It is tough to work on and get it right - just doing a bit at a time. Feel free to edit my User:Penbat/abuse if you can make constructive improvements. --Penbat (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Wiki layout guidelines doesn't permit title wikilink as far as I know. Also when we add content, we should use it in that style anyway. Sameway expand tags are unnecessary. Kasaalan (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have just copied my Sandbox version of abuse over to the main arena - see Abuse. It is not complete - some important sections remain to be done - but hopefully it is fairly presentable. I would appreciate it if you could keep an eye on it by "watching" it and contribute to improve it if you can spare the time sometime in the future.--Penbat (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

We should organize sections better. Kasaalan (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Criticism of Kyoto Protocol

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policywill be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gobonobo ^{T C} 13:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Your wrongly adressed Speedy Deletion nomination rejected immediately. Kasaalan (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Catholic sex abuse cases

Isn't there a way for you to make the page less thrashy and less sensational? I tried to do that once but I wasn't really able to, having been reverted. I think much of the information could be put into Ecclesiastical response to Catholic sex abuse cases, which is really just one aspect within the whole series of abuse affairs. ADM (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you make a specific point, I will try to answer. Which sections you refer. Kasaalan (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The part about Gerald Fitzgerald is too long, much of it should be transfered.

The Global overview section is okay, I would not change it.

Too much of the debate over the causes section overlaps with the article debate on the causes of clerical child abuse.

The part about media coverage should be less precise, because this is already covered in media coverage of Catholic sex abuse cases.

Too much of the Response of the Church section overalps with the article ecclesiastical response to Catholic sex abuse cases.

Much of the section about the sex abuse in the United States tends to duplicate information found in the Response from the Church section, since both paragraphs are refering to scandals that occured in American dioceses.

The part about Pope Benedict's statement duplicates information that was originally within the Response from the Church section.

The part about the Progressive discovery of the problem should be included in the Response from the Church section, since it doesn't talk about the abuse cases themselves, but only about high-level bureaucratic responses to these cases.

The section about the Ryan Report is too detailed, it duplicates some available information.

The part about the John Jay Report repeats a good deal of information found within the John Jay Report article.

ADM (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Boy Scouts of America

Were you planning to revisit Boy Scouts of America and do some cleanup after your last edit?[12] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 08:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If no one else does I have to do it myself. Kasaalan (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright tag

Hi. With respect to your comment here, the tag is supposed to make the section unreadable. That's its point. Once copyright infringement has been detected, the content cannot be published. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I am making blockquotes of quoted text first, then I try to deal with paraphrasing. Main issue is generally not every editor bothers to correct issues, so I have to correct them myself anyway. Let me finish first, then you may tag again. Kasaalan (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I finished marking copyright issues, blockquoted all quotes, you may tag again. Another issue with the section is it is majorly self-referenced. Kasaalan (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If you'd prefer, you can go ahead and rewrite some of that material. While the quote is too extensive for WP:NFC, if the content can be cleaned up, we don't have to tag it for removal. OTOH, if you don't think it's fixable, I'd be happy to blank it again pending some kind of verification of compatible license. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

First tag section again, second if anyone else fixes it nice for me, if not instead blanking use hide the text feature, so I can correct the section when I have time. Since the blockquotes are referenced someone will correct the blockquotes in the long run. Also it is a self-defense of the church, copyright is a lesser degree issue here than NPOV. Kasaalan (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

All right, I'll blank it again. When it comes to Wikipedia, copyright is actually primary, hence the whole "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted" at the bottom of every edit screen. NPOV issues hurt our credibility, but copyright issues can hurt us legally. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright concerns

I have blanked and protected the article Catholic sex abuse cases pending further conversation at that article's talk. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Note

I don't answer gender, race, ethnicity, religion, country etc. related questions unless they are strictly related to NPOV of any case. As my policy I don't answer any wild guesses or hypothetical guesses based on articles I edit either, unless they are not related to my editing since they wouldn't end in practice.
Furthermore I don't answer personal and irrelevant questions like what is your favourite color, what was the last movie you watch, do you have a drivers license etc.
I edit in Wikipedia to raise its accuracy to acceptable journalist, encyclopedic and academical standards, mostly for culture, international politics, history and human rights related issues. And in general terms I strictly accept and follow what science, history, law, journals and scholar works points, and respect any religious, philosophical or political views unless they violate any human rights. I also follow a self-stated self-censor policy over not editing articles directly related to me somehow. Even though I don't have any pre-determined POV stance in history or politics, I consider my source of knowledge might be unbalanced in such matters which might be misleading since they majorly originate only one side of the conflict. So as a self policy I only edit controversial articles, if I can directly view the case as a 3rd party from outside.
In my editing, when I find time I edit or create articles of artists around the world and art has no ethnicity. And basically world artists' articles I edit are the ones I research that day for example the section I edited was about Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and other was a reference fix. In human rights, politics and history it is the same, yet my editing is a bit more limited to my area of expertise and interest. Kasaalan (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright research

It became essential to review and maybe request a change of copyright policies in wikipedia. Since Fair use is the essential US copyright policy, I will try further investigating it. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Time to time wikipedia users and admins points copyright over quotes, pointing wikipedia has tighter copyright rules than fair use. They are right about concerning over copyright especially in US. Though if such sources would call copyright infringement, they could also call the same claim for paraphrased sentences like they could do for quotes or blockquotes.

Fair use in US

• Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

• Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

• The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use:

“quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

• Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.

Note

• http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html Fair use (U.S. trademark law)

Copyright concerns

• "If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."
  • "This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not."

• "If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."
  • "False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's main difference under the law."
  • "If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action."

Note

• http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
• http://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php
• http://www.eff.org/issues/dmca

Also

• Copyright Act of 1976

Kasaalan (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

abuse template

I sincerely respect your wisdom. I would certainly slice the template up if i could but as i explained in the deletion discussion it wouldnt be easy but i am open to ideas.--Penbat (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean since some entries belong to more than one category. For example war rape is both a sexual abuse and a military abuse. However only solution for that is placing the entry in both sections. I began categorizing or the template is not useful. Try categorizing rest of the entries as far as you can. Then we can regroup. Kasaalan (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way copy the template so we can improve it if it got deleted. Kasaalan (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to categorise if possible but whether or not categorisation is possible does not undermine validity of the template. It is similar in some ways to Template:Emotion-footer which is not any less valid without categorisation - it is just a fact of life. There is a valid discussion to be had that some items shouldnt be there but the lack of categorization shouldnt determine whether the template is deleted or not. There just isnt any academic literature i am aware of that suggests a proper categorization system. --Penbat (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

True, but in reality, that template is less confusing since the terms of emotions in Template:Emotion-footer in alphabetical order is less confusing than non-standard definitions of abuse in Template:Abuse. Whether template got deleted or not, we should categorise so the readers can reach the info more quickly, that is our main concern. Also emotions might have benefit from a categorisation too. Also since most AFD voters are deletionist I might advise you to read Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia as a firm supporter of inclusionism I generally consider deletionists criticize more than actually contributing at AFDs, since they waste a large amount of time at AFD discussions, yet almost never try to correct issues they criticize in AFD nominated articles. Kasaalan (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

yes a constructive approach is best - might be worth reiterating this on the deletion discussion. i would throw in the towel if it was deleted as the template and the abuse article need each other and the abuse article is seriously undermined without it. then i suspect it will lie idol for the next 10 years.--Penbat (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Japanese invasion money

I've just re-removed this link from the Japanese war crimes article. There's no suggestion in the article on the money that issuing it was a war crime, so it's not relevant to the topic. It's quite routine and perfectly legit for occupation governments to issue their own currency (the western Allies did it after they landed in France in 1944, for example) so there's no need to link it in an article on war crimes. Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I will re-add then. It need not be a war crime to be included in see also section, it is related to occupation of other countries by japan. Kasaalan (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The "quite routine" of wars are not routine for civilians, and there is no "legitimacy" in invading countries you like and dominating your money as a replacement. Kasaalan (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. I've just reverted you and started a discussion on the talk page. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Abuse relisting

I am extremely shocked that User:Plastikspork has relisted ‎ Abuse. It has been a major nightmare for me having to waste my time on this - now the ordeal goes on for another week. I dont think User:Plastikspork looked at this properly, all those who wanted deletion have now withdrawn or moved to a neutral stance (User:Apoc2400 for example. There isnt any compromise to be reached as the view is now unanimously a Keep. There has been far too much discussion already. I am likely to have a heart attack at this rate.--Penbat (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You possibly disappointed. My advise, do not think about the AFD, keep a copy of the article or template in your sandbox, article editors' opinion has an unofficial priority. After we organized the template, the main argument for AFD already became ineffective. So forget AFD and long answers. Just focus on improving the template like I did. I made some efforts to organize the entries, which might also help the article. Template deletion is not likely, and if it get deleted, I will help further improving the template from the sandbox and we recreate it. Do not frustrate much there are lots of AFD editors who focus on deletion anyway. I am senior editor, I cannot judge AFD yet I can help improving the article and template. Kasaalan (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I already have a sandbox copy. I have already replied to User:Plastikspork on Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_24. Inspite of the facts that i have explained the points he raises already previously on the TFD about 3 times he seems to have not understood this. !.--Penbat (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Abuse TFD looks like a complete mess

see User_talk:Plastikspork#Please_tell_where_i_have_voted_twice_in_the_new_discussion_.3F

It looks like administrators just count bits of emboldened text and ignore the fact that opinions may change as the result of discussion. 3 of the editors in the 1st TFD changed from delete to neutral but User:Plastikspork looks to have ignored that and just gone by their initial postions. If he had picked up their later views there would have been no justification for relisting the TFD and wasting everybodies time all over again. --Penbat (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)