User talk:Kasaalan/Archive/Conflicts

with 2 users over 3 articles, and subsequent personal, adminship and edit tracking discussions

Phil Goldvarg

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

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

Phil Goldvarg

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

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

April 2009

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

According to the AfD from March 22, the article is to be merged and redirected. No one is doing the merger, so it must be redirected. You can feel free to merge it at any time. Enigma^msg 15:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes but the result is merge, and untill merge keeping it. If it would be deleted like that the closing admin could have done that. Your reaction is mostly biased, and main reason is my edits in Irgun and their members. Kasaalan (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

My reaction is not biased. My reaction is to merge per the AfD. Your reaction is to ignore the AfD and create yet another inappropriate page by moving it. Enigma^msg 19:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really, 2 different admins advised me to do that even in the merging decision. You didn't even bothered it to discuss in discussion page, or improving the article let alone reading it. That is why your action is biased and POV, since you didn't even bothered to read closing and after discussions in admin pages and deletion review. Your reaction is only meant to be a reply to my attempts that bring out Irgun's actions to public opinion. Kasaalan (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I read the AfD and the conclusion was to merge. You edit warred against the merge. Look at my history and look at your history, and know that I am not the biased one in this discussion. I don't typically edit articles in that area. Enigma^msg 20:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

At the original deletion discussion it was in favor of a new public reactions of rachel corrie, therefore I created it. Your Log clearly shows that you edit in Eitan Livni page, who is a senior Irgun commander, along with her daughter Tzipi Livni. Your edit was a complete removal of the info, instead trying to improve or wikify it at all. Also you are aware the direct criticism in the name of both Eitan and Tzipi Livni is available, though in both articles some users clearly acting POV and try to remove info totally. A better way is trying to discuss it, or adress it partially, yet removing that info totally is a clear censorship. Gerald Kaufman is a notable politicians with dozens of years' political experience in Labour Party, a Shadow minister in British parliament, not an opponent of Livni in any way, but in same rank in political status, a Jew himself, he directly criticizes her, and her father's armed/bombing actions in Irgun during foundation of Israel by name, yet some users, including you, trying to remove that quote persistently without even discussing in talk page, so are you really sure I am the one that begins an edit war or acting biased. I have a hard time founding good faith in that pages. Kasaalan (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Also let me remind you while same editors trying to remove info in Eitan Livni page for the speech is "a criticism of Tzipi, not him" in Tzipi Livni page they remove info for "this belongs in Eitan Livni, not here". That is illogical. Kasaalan (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Please cease and desist from making threats such as this; they are not productive. Please do not reply to this with an explanation of why you are right, as I just don't care; I just need people to calm down. If you have any serious concerns about other users then please bring it to WP:ANI, where it'll be dealt with by uninvolved users. Also, please stop accusing other editors of acting out of political interests; you couldn't be more wrong. If you have any questions or queries, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thanks and regards, Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Being right or wrong is another issue, I wont discuss that here, it would get unnecessarily long. But I simply try to explain in user's page [1] why no actual threat is involved. Simply I referred "Yet, I do stress suffering may only contain in terms of my complaint on your POV actions in relevant authorities, therefore are civil and of course not involving any further threats in real terms, in any way." I don't threat people in any real term. WP:ANI was a last resort, but was actually what I exactly mean in the first place. I may not be calm always, yet never threat anyone on any real term, also trying to explain that to himself clearly. Kasaalan (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie

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

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

Hello,

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

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

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

Thanks for your kind help and advise. Tried to create a seperate title as closing admin advised. Kasaalan (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'd comment but I am not sure if that is the appropriate place. Follow MBisanz's instructions as to how to present it to the community for review, then I will comment at the DRV. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Very much appreciated, my motive is letting editors know about the voting beforehand. Since I created a deletion review, yet most of our dedicated page editors not voted, it turned on a contrary base. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Artistic_Tributes_to_Rachel_CorrieWikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_April_16 Most users don't even read before they vote, and on behalf of their political views. So if you please have a look to the articles first. Last revision [2] copy of the article is available for your review. Kasaalan (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Your edits

Hi Kasaalan. After our disagreements over Phil Goldvarg, I gave you some time to get used to Wikipedia, its policies and guidelines, and hoped you'd come in contact with other editors who could explain policies better than I can, as I wasn't getting through to you. It seems you still have not embraced the way Wikipedia works. To clarify:

• Article subjects must meet the notability policy.
• References to support notability should be independent and non-trivial, again per the notability policy.
• All references must be reliable sources per the verifiability policy, e.g. not personal websites, blogs etc.
• Edit warring is unacceptable behaviour. Wikipedia works on consensus and discussion, not reverting others' edits for no reason.
• Wikipedia requires working with others and respecting their opinions, even if you disagree with them. Threatening other users is not acceptable.
• You must assume good faith - other editors are here to improve the encyclopedia too.
• Where you have a conflict of interest because you knew an article's subject, you must be careful not to let that interfere with your editing.

If you continue along your path of edit warring, ignoring policies and consensus and making personal attacks, the best case scenario is that there will be an RFC on your behaviour, and the worst is that you will be blocked to prevent further disruption. Please take the time to read the policies and make an effort to work with others. Thanks, Somno (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Article subjects must meet the notability policy.

Notability guideline, clearly refers notability is not about being famous. I showed in the article that he is a notable local poet that lives, and active in San Francisco.

• References to support notability should be independent and non-trivial, again per the notability policy.
• All references must be reliable sources per the verifiability policy, e.g. not personal websites, blogs etc.

Personal blogs only used very limitedly, and only in accordance with wiki guidelines. Also blogs that I have used are mostly notable local poets/artists/art commentors of San Francisco. So your claim is also false for that matter. For example using the blog of his publisher is totally acceptable according to wiki guidelines.

• Edit warring is unacceptable behaviour. Wikipedia works on consensus and discussion, not reverting others' edits for no reason.

You are deleting a huge info claiming non-notability, trying to begin an edit war yourself with your insistence on deletion of huge part of the content, than accuse me. I clearly stated my reason of your undoing on huge content removal, just like you, so a blatant accusation will not help your case.

• Wikipedia requires working with others and respecting their opinions, even if you disagree with them. Threatening other users is not acceptable.

This case doesn't involve other editors, only you and me reading the page currently. But previous editors Woohookitty and PamD didn't remove the info you remove, or agreed you in any way. You first tried to erase info claiming copyright issues, and now you trying to delete claiming non-notability. When and how I threaten you exactly, don't accuse me blatantly without showing any proof. Threatening other users of course not acceptable, and I didn't threaten you. I respect your opinion, but don't expect me to agree with you just because of that.

• You must assume good faith - other editors are here to improve the encyclopedia too.

Sorry but, as you even wrote yourself, you didn't took any time to improve the article, because you didn't prefer it the first place. Your only edit is limited to removing most of the content out of the article, which is I cannot call as improving.

• Where you have a conflict of interest because you knew an article's subject, you must be careful not to let that interfere with your editing.

If you continue along your path of edit warring, ignoring policies and consensus and making personal attacks, the best case scenario is that there will be an RFC on your behaviour, and the worst is that you will be blocked to prevent further disruption. Please take the time to read the policies and make an effort to work with others. Thanks, Somno (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You are even deleting his published book, his public teachings, so what is left actually is not worthwhile keeping anyway. Sorry your edits are weak and disruptive edits. If you took RFC, that would be fine with me, as I previously stated.

Yet you act as since you are the only one to delete a huge part from the article, I have obliged to get act as you wish, and that is not true in any way. Kasaalan (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You expect me to letting you erase the core and most of the article, without a number of 3rd party opinions, since I don't agree with your claims, that won't help getting a consensus. Kasaalan (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't modify my comments. Edits that follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are not disruptive or "weak". I showed that Goldvarg was notable by adding non-trivial mentions in reliable sources - the existing article showed he'd been mentioned trivially and in unreliable sources, which didn't meet the requirements of the notability policy. You have not used any blogs that are reliable sources, so that point is moot. Yes, I have deleted information -- trivial, irrelevant information. I also removed information "claiming copyright issues", because it was copyrighted information that you'd cut-and-pasted into the article, causing it to be listed at suspected copyright violations.

Wikipedia articles are not about cramming every little bit of information ever into the article (if you want to do that, create a personal webpage); it's about highlighting the important parts and going into detail where relevant. My comment about needing to work with other editors and refraining from making threats relates to the other disagreements shown on your talk page and your relations with other editors. An overall pattern in your editing is emerging which concerns me, and obviously others, so please try to make a positive change there.

With Goldvarg's article, should we seek a third opinion and see if that helps? Somno (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really, poems-for-all series are notable enough to be added as a reference, and a book publishers own personal blog is not trivial at all so you are wrong about that.

Without reading a case fully try not judging about it. There were no threats involved, but I would take his POV and biased actions of reprisal to other admins judgement. I clearly stated that later. Actually that was how he complaint me likewise. "Don't act POV or suffer the consequences" is no threat, especially against a privileged user, in my terms of judgement, but only a warning about the neutrality he should took in the political cases. He claimed edit warring me, yet not warned other users likewise, who was acting POV in the first place and began the war if there were any. His later actions, also lead me to consider his actions likewise. Yet I don't even want to discuss this matter any further with you or anyone else, my standpoint didn't change. Kasaalan (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should, but before that, please read my other comments including my apologize, and also discuss on a per pay title basis. If we can get some headings of conflict, and agreement than seeking a third party opinion will be more helpful. I also apologize, since it was late in the evening and I misjudged you only took out info. But your last edits also improving it in a good way, even though I still object your removal of published books, and composed poems since they are crucial info. But your addition to the reference section is good, but deletion of them are not. I have tried to explain to you poems-for-all is notable enough to be mention. Kasaalan (talk) 09:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

First I should crosscheck your edits, make a new proposal in discussion page, so we can clearly list our conflicts and agreements. Then if we cannot find a resolution we may go to third opinion. Kasaalan (talk) 09:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Your main mistake is making an additions, and a deletion in 1 single edit, which leads undoing. For the different titles, you should took more than 1 edit, so checking and reediting will be easier and more clear. Kasaalan (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Please leave my comments intact and reply underneath, rather than in the middle of them, so it's less confusing. I have trouble understanding some of your comments - "discuss on a per pay title basis" - do you mean discuss each edit individually? I don't understand why you keep saying I removed his published books - I just moved the content from a list into prose.

I minimise the number of edits I make and make all my changes in one go, so it doesn't flood the article's history and editors' watchlists with dozens of minor edits. It is not a mistake but an intentional decision. I will temporarily change that for Phil Goldvarg if you prefer. Somno (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually that approach doesn't flood history, and more healthier, since it separate your edits, and giving other editors reedit them per title basis. Before your edit You can easily understand your edit removed "Published Poem Collections", "Published Poems" by "Poems-For-All Series" publishing titles and references, and 2 of his composed works for "Keep on Crossing" immigration project, along with Poetika magazine, also memorial events for Phil Goldvarg. Kasaalan (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "per title basis". What are you referring to with the term "title"? Perhaps there is an issue with a word you're trying to translate to English, because the use here does not make sense. The published poem collections are mentioned in the prose; the published poems themselves are not notable; I could not find any references in reliable sources about Goldvarg's work on the Keep On Crossing immigration project (or any indication that the project is notable and worth mentioning); and the memorial event is not notable (Wikipedia is not a memorial). Somno (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I will try proving you 1 by 1, then so if you have any objections you can state under the proper title. Kasaalan (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Try to discuss in the talk page of the article. Kasaalan (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The most recent revert by Kasaalan

"very bad edit removing everything his published books, or public teachings are not trivia" - for a start, an edit designed to improve the article is, by definition, not a bad edit. I did not remove any of the information about his published books. The article still mentions that he spoke at schools, and now also mentions that he did poetry readings at local coffeehouses, which is more information than before. Also, now the information is sourced to reliable sources. If you have an issue with information that has been removed, then explain it and add that information back in. Reverting an edit without discussion is inappropriate. Somno (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes you did. Assuming good faith, maybe you don't know what you were doing. Yet the logs are very clear. Huge Info You Deleted including His Published Books Actually you have edited on his life, and I have missed your edits there, sorry about that misunderstanding on that part. Why I called the edit is weak for it removes too much notable info on Phil Goldvarg in the first place. You deleted his published books, his composed poems, memorial events, and most of all the references. And you are not doing it per part basis, instead you delete a huge part at a time, and that is why I had to undo you in the first place. Original Page before you remove a huge content is still better than your edit. The info you removed is, clearly his published books, sourced neutrally but his publisher's pages, and 3rd party magazines. Kasaalan (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet your other edits and additions of reference is really good and more than welcome, since it improves the content, and clearly I thank you for impoving the article that parts. I still insist the published books, and composed poems should be in the article either in a paragraph or as a bulleted list or the article will be missing crucial info. Kasaalan (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all since you deleted the relevant info, do you object using of poems-for-all as a reference. The publisher's site and blog should be called a good reference, but you removed them. Kasaalan (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie

I have nominated Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie, 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/Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll respect that. I suspect this version may survive AFD (or the admin will just go "no consensus"), and I do plan on following up then with serious cleanup. However, and you can take this as biased or whatever, my main issue will be the abundance of primary sources (for example, like citation 15 that Alice Shields composed a piece for Corrie is nice for the fact that it was done but violates undue unless we find someone who indicates that it's important to the universal of reactions to Corrie's death), which will necessary result in a lot of information removed. Your main argument going on for quite a while is the amount of work you've put into the article, regardless of everyone else pointing out that it's against policy and should be removed. Not everything that's true belongs here. And, finally, I'm 100% serious about the name-calling. I have no problem blocking you if you continue (although I'd rather go through with warnings and AIV and the like). Yes, I'll consider myself involved and report myself to ANI if we go that way, but I'm going to be blunt and straight-forward with you. If you want to attack me, fine, that's somewhat fair, but do not try to suggest intent. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You didn't state your concerns on primary sources before as I can recall. If you can list the references you require to be improved, or parts to be summarized, I will try improving that. But since I am not the greatest editor I need some editor's help and consensus for a truly good article. The experienced editors taking breaks on the page, without them it may not be accomplished fast.

You could have discuss me your concerns previously, you didn't. I have no intention meter, but you tried same thing on personal pages of admin, before discussing me in my talk page, or in main discussion pages. That was my judge accordingly, I didn't name call you anything (biased comment was for another user) as far as I know, but claimed you were "trying to build a prejudice on me", because you made a highly accusing comments over my actions in the deletion review, without previously discussing them with me. As long as you discuss your concerns publicly with me, and I reply there is no reason to accuse each other.

Even you voted otherwise, you stated some opinions in deletion talk that might be considered in favor of creating a new public reactions page. That was while I was creating the new page, I assumed it was a general consensus including yours.

I have no personal grudge at your or business with you other than articles, if you keep it that way I am more willing to accomplish that.

As I clearly stated, and restated in main discussion page, that biased remarks were not for you, but for another user that I claim some non-neutral actions. I don't want to discuss who or what, because I don't want to, but that was not you. Kasaalan (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

At the prior AFD, I noted concerns about certain references. I am now more concerned about your choice to notify the Palestine noticeboard (as a "cleanup project"), as I note at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Possible_convassing_concern. I'm surprised there isn't a more neutral central location for notices. I've seen enough from your interactions to know how productive talking with you directly is. We can discuss things at the article talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The project belongs to Palestine Project, which I seek help for a cleanup. So what is wrong with that, didn't you claimed the article needs cleanup in the first place. Kasaalan (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Philip Munger

Alright, cards on the table. I will post a notice on DRV immediately if you agree to it. I promise to say that, you, the author, feel that Somno was wrong to call it a copyright violation and delete it because he "could easily tag the article for improving", since it was just "some clearly referenced blockquotes waiting to be wikified". I'm quoting your exact language (with the links so it's clear) so I hope there isn't any issue. If you want, report it yourself and use your own words; if others agree, believe me, they will get on Somno about it, and you can definitely push to demand he not use or threaten his admin powers in any dispute with you. I'm being honest and I'm trying to be fair. Otherwise, drop it right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to note that he's been in other active disputes with you and that you feel it was personal or something, that's on you. I don't know the history well enough to able to accurately state it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

DRV is only a last resort that I may only take if I couldn't find a copy of the article. I will recreate the article with a better quality, later when I have time. Yet he wasted long days of research, didn't even willing to provide previous material to me, or warn me or discuss with me previously. Yet still it is not right to delete a complete article before trying to improve it, because it consisted of some blockquotes. Kasaalan (talk) 09:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I said I would not restore a copyright violation, but I have offered to give you the links used in the article, through which you can access the info from the blockquotes. You did not respond to that offer, but it clearly showed I am willing to provide information from the deleted article. Somno (talk) 10:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You can ask any admin. I'm sure they would be willing to do the same. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I stated I found a copy of the article myself. Yet, apparently full my mistake on wording by my part on that case, between so long recent edit traffic. He didn't willing to provide the content, yet offered the links from page, which I apparently forgot during debates or missed, which can be considered fair enough to be considered good faith. But I also have already found a copy of the article at that time anyway. Still cannot agree on your deletion approach, but my mistake for that case. Actually that was the biggest reason for me to get frustrated in the first place. So he deserves an apology for wording on my part. Kasaalan (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not personal, but it is our approaches that are conflicting, which may be good or worse depending on the case. Kasaalan (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Also yes I may even confuse copyright infringement with plagiarism since english is my second language, yet still there are better ways to solve copyright issues than completely deleting them. Delete is always a last case resort. Completely deleting an article not very good. The lead was taken parts from his own biography, I really claim that was fair use somehow, not copyright infringement. Kasaalan (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan, Somno was right in deleting this article, I would have done the same. I strongly suggest you give it a rest, stop arguing in vain, because it's clearly not going to go anywhere, and just rewrite the article whenever you feel like it. Before you do, I'd recommend to have a look at WP:COATRACK, about that passage related to Palin, and maybe check whether there is really enough of notability about the person himself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I will do that thanks. Philip Munger has enough notability to be mentioned one way or another. Composer and activist, though possibly more known in the local area. Yet I strictly advocate that local artists of an geographical area, or country also deserve to be mentioned in their own article pages, if they have notable works or acts. Being famous is another issue. Otherwise the wikipedia would be only full of kylie minogue or britney spears articles. Less famous but higher degree art works and their artists also deserve attention. Being out of popular culture is better. Kasaalan (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Frustration

Hello,
I am sorry for what happened to the article you developed. That is unfair and is the exemple of the disfunctioning of wp. I fully understand your frustration.
Be aware, that it is not the first and will not be the last disfunctioning. All human systems are subject to mistakes and it may also be our point of view for that article that is bad.
Whatever, the case is now closed and if it is technically possible to overturn this, that would be a very bad idea. You have been given an image of a "problematic contributor" and it is important you show, by facts and acts, that is was unfair and untrue.
I copied the article on one of your personnal page. Just keep there. Add any new information you can but don't do anything else.
If, within 6-12 months, you find some secondary sources that discuss the topic of the public reaction to Rachel Corrie more into details, add them and keep them for your argumentation. Then, on the talk page of Rachel Corrie, start a discussion to see if there can be a consensus to put the material in a new article and/or to see how to use this.
In any way, take some distance with this. A few weeks. And don't launch any discussion before 6 months. That would be lost by advance for behavioural reasons having nothing to deal with the content, which is the only important issue.
Good luck. Ceedjee (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh. And think about that : Stanford prison experiment. Ceedjee (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

They claim Wikipedia:Canvassing for example, I didn't know there was a policy like that at that time, I felt main page editors and project editors somehow related or might be interested to the topic, just based on the recent discussions who seems active and constructive, same sense I am not sure users of the project page can be accused as partisans, also even opposing views clearly debate on project pages, the issue is they debate in a constructive approach, not debating over crush and burn, I just put a notice on deletion review neutral and same for everyone, way before that I put notices in public pages openly, which is also in watchlist of various opposing parties, therefore I did it openly and publicly, in a transparent way. And from the only user that replied to my talk page, I asked him to read the article before voting. They even claim votestacking, first of all the debate was not about votes as the admin clearly declares, second if I had a similar approach there were 3 users that voted keep, yet I didn't even put a notice on their talk page, because I simply put notice to users of project talk and main talk page editors, and didn't even think once putting a notice on all keep voters. My case may be considered Excessive cross-posting somehow, but without sending notices to the user talk pages, there was no way to getting this discussed between more users from various parties. I put public notices along with user notices in their talk page, where actually even watched by their opposing views and conflicting users, so nothing hideous was going on, just an insisted attempt to discuss this beetween a wider crowd.

My only frustration is so many people vote before they read the content including some admins. Yet more familiar users discussed the issue more widely this time, which I intended in the first place. The issue is not about voting, but getting a wider discussion and interest to the issue, because no article can be improved solely by 1 or 2 editors.

Anyway a public reactions might not be a good idea in the first place, they have suggested the idea themselves, yet not contributed or discussed with me beforehand, I tried my best alone for developing the article the way might be approved.

Another thing is most of the active page editors of recent 6 months taking wiki breaks, discussion breaks or simply didn't join the discussions yet, and the ones that did simply ignored somehow. I created the page on consensus in the first place, because our space issue lead so many edit-revert process that was not productive for main page. But the deletion nomination didn't pay too much attention to get devoted editors of last 6 months from opposing views, who actually brought the article's standard to a next level, after months-long discussions.

The thing is the core of the article, which is the devoted songs, cannot be merged into main page, if we try merging it into main article, it not only consumes a huge space, but over 50 additional references, which distracts the reader in the first place. According guidelines advises us to create a subarticle, but when you create a table of songs, that claim it is no good for an article, when you widen its content trying to listen their voice, they claim this is POV because it only covers some parts, if you try to cover even more wider content, they say that is non necessary fork, too long and on and on. There is some systematical deletion approach for the article content. Also because my own conflicts with some editors.

What I feel like is merging the political reactions that are not available in the main page yet, to be merged along with documentaries. Yet another sub page for dedicated songs to Rachel Corrie is necessary if we going to keep the table. After the ongoing discussions end at main talk page, I try creating a proposal and we may discuss fully with main page editors.

Thanks for the discussion. I feel like even contradictory opinions may compromise on a constructive and faster approach. Kasaalan (talk) 11:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. You have been warned about this previously - stop accusing other editors of "trolling" and assume good faith. Somno (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Which personal attacks you refer Kasaalan (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are at two that I have noticed recently: edit summary accusing Enigmaman of trolling, comment accusing me of trolling. Somno (talk) 10:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you insist that much it can stay to show your perception, there is nothing referring you there. Kasaalan (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Replaced you with other user. If he has any unease for my accusation, he can clearly discuss it with me, you jumped the case yourself, I did not accuse you. Kasaalan (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

For the zillionth time do not modify other people's comments on talk pages. Please refer to the talk page guidelines for more information about how to communicate effectively with other users. Somno (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You are posting wrong accusations on me, there is nothing there referring you, it is not about editing other users comment. I can even delete your comments, which I won't unlike you.

Do accusing others, then deleting their replies from your talk page is effective communication to you. "Do not misrepresent other people" Kasaalan (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The other user you refer is another issue, he keeps up every page I edit trying to revert them somehow after a short while, even he didn't have any edits in the page before like Joseph Rotblat History, even he tries to revert my resigning of unsigned comment in your talk page insistently. He clearly trolls my every edit, and wants me to know he does it. So publicly stating it is not something I will let go.

Assuming good faith is really hard on some users, and I am no big fan of posting people to ANI.

So don't confuse yourself with other user.

I didn't accuse you, but stated my sandbox page is only available if someone tracks/trolls my own page edits. Also asked you not to post my personal sandbox link publicly without my consent. And it is a fact, not an accusation or discussion matter. Kasaalan (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

A more appropriate way of phrasing it would be to say the sandbox is only apparent if someone "looks at your contributions" ("tracks your contributions" is also acceptable). That is a fact. "Trolling" is behaviour designed solely to be disruptive and cause a reaction, which is not what I was doing. Just be careful with the way you word things. Somno (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

As I clearly stated above, I did not refer you. Yet after you have a conflict, if someone constantly, tracks your edits, and reverts them even minor issues like your signatures, just to be able to revert them, it is a disruptive trolling as far as I read the guidelines and I have every right to state it in public. But you don't have to state your actions, because the trolling is not referred to you. I clearly stated who I refer in the comment section. You can easily track his actions too if you like that much. Kasaalan (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That was not a minor issue. You screwed up the entire formatting on Somno's talk by incorrectly signing your comment. Then you misrepresented the date on your signature. Enigma^msg 15:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Neither it ruined the layout, nor the date has any importance. Also it was no business of you. Yet instead reverting it, you could easily fix time tag instead, like I did. It was just part of your last week revert tracking of my edits. Kasaalan (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. Enigma^msg 15:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

But afterwards, instead discussing with you further, I will spend my time improving the article, as I should have done in the first place. Since discussing with you goes nowhere, and the articles needs wikifying deserves a page anyway. You may do the same.

Also after a good page proposal and improvement, I will republish the page if you concern, or like to nominate for deletion again. Kasaalan (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

my deleted comments

I did not refer you. You jump to the case and including yourself in it, I stated who I referred clearly and publicly for continuous and reverts he has done in recent 1 week for multiple of pages including even minor details like my resigning of my unsigned comment. After you have a conflict, if someone constantly, tracks your edits, and reverts them even minor issues like your signatures, just to be able to revert them, it is a disruptive trolling as far as I read the guidelines and I have every right to state it in public. I don't want to state that over and over again, since this is not his talk page, but you keep accusing me on my talk to other user, therefore I become obliged to reply one way or another.

You insisted on posting my personal sandbox unnecessarily and publicly against my consent. Do not post other people's sandboxes against their consent, yes it is not "highly ethical" as I clearly stated which you reversed into "not ethical" yourself, or don't expect any kindness afterwards. Sandbox is not user page, as in referred guidelines, "(that is, as a personal sandbox)", and cannot be reached unless you do some tracking over another editor's activities, or publicly post.

Again you throwed some guidelines, yet none of them refers, posting other people's personal sandbox links is highly ethical, advised, or legal.

You claimed copyright infringement continuously, yet not bothered to prove any. I explicitly asked you where exactly in the guidelines that refers, 1 paragraph quote considered as infringement. I took copyright classes at graduation and post graduation from 2 different colleges, so I really ask you who on earth claims, 1 paragraph quote from a free online source with clear reference is a real infringement that should be deleted so speedily. By academical standards, or newspaper standards, or book standards, just show me.

Since you speedily deleted the article without my knowledge, and did not tagged it, or warned me to improve the article, there was no discussion for deletion I participated, so I don't know who he is, also not sure if he has any expertise in copyright infringements. Before taking any article to deletion, tagging them or discussing them is better, taking every article to drv is not helpful or rational. All the discussion and deletion wastes time, which we could use for improving the article in the first place.

I preferred creating a personal sandbox, to improve article then post it instead wasting time on drv, yet you even objected my private sandbox, put a public link in your talk page, in accusatory tone about "warnings" I have been given "by you" on copyrights.

Since you obviously don't care taking my consent before publicly linking to my sandbox, I will not carry any more conversation in your talk page. My clear replies will be answered in my talk page if you or anyone else, have any further issue with me. Kasaalan (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Near all copyright issues has been cleared out, but I had to do all the work again, since noone could helped, which is not the main aim of wikipedia's collaborative approach. Kasaalan (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

DRV

I think you can give better arguments but see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_19#Public_reactions_to_death_of_Rachel_Corrie. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Casa del Vento

A tag has been placed on Casa del Vento requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. RadioFan (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I improved the article a lot, review it, then tell me your decision. They are definately notable. If you going to delete the article, it shouldn't be speedy deletion now, but it may be afd. Kasaalan (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation against you

You have been accused of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kasaalan. Thank you. SoWhy 09:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I use a single account, in the past, now and in the future. Some biased users has serious conflicts with me for I involved in political articles, maybe they did it or maybe it is completely random, because I am not sure for which reason I am getting inspected or why, but I have nothing to hide in any way since all of my edits and actions are publicly open. If you give out any detail on why when or how I may talk about it better. So which article(s), or talks by which IP and account involved. Kasaalan (talk) 11:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I read the case and replied, you may even accuse anyone on earth that can create an account on wikipedia, with that little proof and indirect connections. The user referred is most possibly someone that got angry because he nominated director's article for deletion, so he tracked his talk page, then found my article review link so he renominated article for deletion review because his personal issues with ricky. So the connection you looking for is not my article, but ricky's talk page possibly. Comparing some 10 edit user that creates 1 edit fake account, with me is outrageous by any standards. Try to rexaminate the case. You cannot compare my quality edits, with a user that make only 10 edits in some pages, and creates a fake account and fake nominating for adminship to take revenge on someonelse. I critisize people publicly and openly, if any action will be measured upon what I say it is fine by me, yet claiming I commited inexperienced weasel actions like those, is a fail of logic and I cannot be blamed for what I haven't done, said or thought. I don't waste my time on such actions, instead I improve articles, as I always do. Kasaalan (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Case quickly closed by the way if anyone cares. Kasaalan (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Afd

Fyi. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_My_Name_is_Rachel_Corrie_performances Bali ultimate (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not very pleased by your swift deletion nomination on the article without bothering to improve it, tag it or discuss it previously, so assuming good faith is not that easy for me. All the references improved by naming the sources properly after you nominated the article for deletion List of My Name is Rachel Corrie performances#References. Kasaalan (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish to express my appreciation for the work you have contributed to the List_of_My_Name_is_Rachel_Corrie_performances . Peace, rkmlai (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes but the article may get deleted, since a deletion nomination is in progress, voting still going on in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_My_Name_is_Rachel_Corrie_performances, but I advise you to read the article fully if you going to vote since most of the voters don't bother to read article. If the result will be merge, I may use other editors help to merge the content. Actually any help to improve the article will do fine, it is based on countless hours' of research work currently. Kasaalan (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I did weigh in after seeing the play in Sacramento http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=List_of_My_Name_is_Rachel_Corrie_performances&diff=prev&oldid=293536498 , and seeing that there has been controversy sometimes resulting in the play being cancelled at certain venues, as a result of the underlying controversy. I found the play I saw to be very moving emotionally. I appreciate specifically your patience and energy in the AfD process, as I have been watching it. BTW an AfD is not a "vote" process but an attempt to make good arguments to keep, delete, or merge. Peace, rkmlai (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly why I asked you to read and investigate the case before voting. I don't care any vote count personally, but the quality of the arguments. But if I will be the only one who comments in favor of the article then there is something wrong in the deletion talk process, other editors also should state their opinions, whether they are in favor or against it.

Also it is very cool that you actually watched the play, how was your impressions. Kasaalan (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)