User talk:Kasaalan

This user may have left Wikipedia. Kasaalan has not edited Wikipedia since 19 September 2020. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Wikipedia articles are on sale as printed books

User_talk:Kasaalan/Publisher

Hi. I've copied your thread at Template talk:Announcements/Community bulletin board to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). Just fyi. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Kasaalan (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kasaalan, I had a seen a bit of this stuff before, but didn't realize how big it was. Have you found any press about this? We should alert some papers, it seems like a notable scam. The Telegraph (UK) likes to write about wikipedia drama.[1] [2][3][4]. A good article might crush the scammers.--Milowent (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: Apparently Alphascript reports that they talked to The Guardian in August 2009 (see references to it: [5], [6], [7], but I don't see any proof that The Guardian did an article on it.--Milowent (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help people, I have a stress over writing a thesis so I may not contribute too much for next months. Though if we can somehow manage to create a group to deal with the issue, we may accomplish some public awareness, better than doing nothing and letting people scammed. I mean if the publisher seriously believe the "quality of wikipedia" they should also advertise that line in amazon, too. If they do that, then we have no concern over scam, and it will be free and fair trade. If they don't it is a serious scam. Kasaalan (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The copy isn't authorized if it hasn't met the terms of the CC license. The CC license terms include: Notice—For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work." [8] Kasaalan (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd say they are being crafty here. Apparently the disclaimer does appear in the book, on page 4, but its not shown on the Amazon listings. I get the sense that that most of those at the village pump don't care much about the scam. And I'm not sure its something wikipedia officially needs to respond to, though I feel its worth some of my own time to spread the word about the scam around. Posting a review on the amazon books explaining the scam would be a start, but there are so many many many fake books on there. I think getting press coverage is our best bet. I will look at emailing some UK papers within the next day.--Milowent (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take the case serious, admins apparently not take the case as serious as us. And there were previous discussions about the scam in wikipedia. And not sure if it is true but the publisher unofficially claims he make millions out of the case, not sure if it is just bragging or true. But before creating mails to newspapers, we should first improve the alphascript wiki article, so that people reads the article can understand the case well. I mailed Mike Godwin the lawyer of wikipedia. You may mail him too. Also for amazon you may use alphascript scam tag as another user does previously. Also we should create a project page to deal with the issue. You may use User_talk:Kasaalan/Publisher to add more sources before we create a group page. Kasaalan (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have any of you ordered one of these books and do they contain images from Wikipedia? If so and any of the images are licensed under the GNU FDL GNU_Free_Documentation_License#Burdens_when_printing, it appears that they "must also include a copyright notice and a physical printout of the GNU FDL, which is a significantly large document in itself." Mojoworker (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kasaalan, I've created a proposed project page to address some of the issues raised concerning commercial republishing. If you could comment at the pump, I'd appreciate it.-- RA (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't misunderstand my comments at the Village Pump. I do take this seriously, I just don't think you can force other Wikipedia editors to become activists over this. Getting the attention of the press would be a good way to stymie this operation, in the UK The Guardian are probably a good option, as well as Private Eye. For tech press, The Register would probably bite. I've knocked up a userbox for anyone to use to spread the word, if they wish: User:Fences and windows/Userboxes/Alphascript

Warning! ~~Soylent Green is people!~~ "Books" by Alphascript Publishing & Icon Group reuse Wikipedia.

Fences&Windows 02:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks for your help. Actually I don't force anyone to do anything, I just try to inform people so that others who willing to do something can gather together. Yet some editors really try to discourage us, since they don't like to do anything about it. Check User_talk:Kasaalan/Publisher for how much distress they caused for a few month old company. By the way they even claim the make millions per month, which may be fake, though even if they earn a hundred thousand grand that is still a bother. Kasaalan (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added your userbox. I will contact Shane Richmond of Telegraph.co.uk [9] for the matter. I will contact Alison Flood who claimed to interview VDM. Who do you think I can contact with The Guardian. Guardian exposed Climatic Research Unit hacking incident scandal, so they will definitely be interested if we find the right person. Same goes for The Register or Private Eye. I haven't heard Private Eye before, thanks for the tip. I am holding off a bit until we develop some more content, and a wiki project to organize, then I will inform the media about the case. Kasaalan (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian has done a lot of stories on Wikipedia:[10]. Bobby Johnson is the tech correspondent, so might be interested, also Charles Arthur, or Victor Keegan, who has written about online book publishing. From the books angle, Alison Flood might be an option (ah, she's the one you mentioned!). Cade Metz seems to be the person to go to for The Register, or Charles Eicher. Wired's Epicenter blog too. Any journalist who wrote about Philip M. Parker and his Icon Group International might be interested,[11] as well as anyone who covered the PediaPress initiative from German Wikipedia, or the concept of Copyfraud. Library Journal, TechCrunch, LibraryThing, Eric Goldman etc. etc. We could also nominate one of the weirdest titles for the Diagram Prize by The Bookseller, though we've missed the boat for this year.[12] The biggest impact would come if the WMF could be persuaded to send out an embargoed press release, complete with juicy quotes etc., but I don't know if they'd bite. The newsworthy hook is customers being hoodwinked into forking out $$$ for Wikipedia articles and Amazon doing nothing about it. Fences&Windows 01:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that many (all?) of the newer Aalphascript offerings on Amazon have in the the book cover graphic (in the upper left corner of the Amazon page) a tiny green "seal" (which is hardly noticable and unreadable until you zoom in on the graphic) which says: "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!" much like the description in the Betascript offerings (which have the same seal in red) -- I guess it's a start, but much more hidden in the Alphascript pages. Mojoworker (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, that seal is awesome.[13]. I can't tell how far back it goes, but the 1st 100 pages of results have it.--Milowent (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I will check the case. But if they warn the customers with a noticable notice it solves half of the issues. Still that doesn't change the fact that we have non-transferable Moral rights (copyright law) over the content we created, and no-contributors' signing 10.000s of articles we created as editors, is totally offending. By the way I seriously updated the complaints page if you didn't check content in 1-2 weeks. Kasaalan (talk) 12:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way until recently alphascript were not put any sign on the cover check cover. Kasaalan (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are still plenty of Alphascript offerings for sale on Amazon without even a hidden notice. For example: Algae fuel: Biofuel, Algae, Algaculture... cover —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojoworker (talk • contribs) 20:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climatic Research Unit hacking incident‎‎

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident‎‎, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 18:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP discussion

Hi Kasaalan! If there is any consensus at at all, it is that the entire discussion has become a tangled confusion, and as a result both proponents and opponents of the issues under discussion are abandoning ship. None of us want this. It is still not clear which way consensus will fall and your contributions to the discussion are invaluable. However, In an attempt to keep the policy discussion on an even track, some users have decided to start the ball rolling for clarity by creating a special workshop pages. The first of these is for the technical development of a template at WT:BLP PROD TPL in case policy is decided for it . The taskforce pages are designed keep irrelevant stuff off the policy discussion and talk page, and help a few of us to move this whole debate towards a decision of some kind or another. The pages will be linked in a way that watchers will still find their way to them. This move is not intended to influence any policy whatsoever; It is to keep the discussion pages focussed on the separate issues. Cheers. --Kudpung (talk) 08:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as all links provided in the front page together, it is fine by me. And that is what I am talking about, we don't even have a proper template for hard discussions, and we all have to do formatting etc. in manual way. Kasaalan (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kasaalan. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 23:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion: Comparison between roman and han empires

Hello. You are invited to take part in the deletion discussion on the redirect Comparison between roman and han empires. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VDM Publishing communication in the German Wikipedia

Hi Kasaalan. I've inserted this note after your 4 March 2010 post in the VDM Publishing talk page:

Note inserted on 11 May 2010: Jonny98 alias 62.143.66.193, de:Johnny98, de:Jonny98 is currently active on the German Wikipedia and has created a page about "the head of global communication for the VDM Publishing Group" (see: http://www.vdm-publishing.com/index.php?act=nav&nav=10051).

Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are from the company I don't have any doubts, but thanks anyway. Currently I am writing a thesis so I am a bit busy so you can go ahead and add the deleted info they claim "blogs" which belongs to publishing professionals and academicians. RS academician blogs that are removed by false accusations I proved the issues about their academic works in talk page yet they couldn't even answer the allegations. Kasaalan (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added book cover scan to the article. Kasaalan (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong AFD deletion decision for DRV

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Israel Defense Forces T-shirt affair (2nd nomination)

"Given the contentious topic, is it unsurprising the amount of discussion that has been spent on this AfD."
- Question More discussions has been made in First AFD did you also read keep comments in first discussions before you conclude a deletion

"The delete votes were strong, numerous, and based the argument firmly on WP:NOTNEWS."
- Reply Delete votes were not strong especially 3rd party votes. And even if you tell they were numerous [most votes were not from 3rd party independent, or non-IDF-defender editors] per second AFD, you should also tell they were weak if you consider first AFD
- Also WP:NOTNEWS clearly refers to tabloid news, and article is clearly not tabloid news

"Some keep votes claimed that due to the nature of this event, NOTNEWS is being misapplied, and that there were adequate source to consitute notability, but I don't believe the amount nor the quality of the keep arguments outweighed the deletes and hence did not change the result."
- When I provide more than 8 independent highest reliability international news sources neither you nor anyone else can't argue the event is not notable, or not have enough news coverage. It is a fact.

So I will open a proper case at DRV

Per first AFD results which has wider vote in favor of keeping [which the news coverage was far less while now article is stronger per references and content] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2009_IDF_T-Shirt_controversy
Per clearly misapplication for WP:NOTNEWS which clearly applies to tabloid news not real human rights violations
Per deletion serves more to IDF scandal cover up over WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTCENSORED
Per various and more than enough international reliable 3rd party independent newspaper and TV coverage
1. WP:Notable per The Observer, Haaretz, The Independent, Sky News, Jewish Chronicle, BBC News, CNN, Al Jazeera English
  1. Additionally The Insider, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Green Left, Huffington Post, Al Arabiya, Metro (Associated Metro Limited)
2. In addition to current references, more cites and coverage about event
Per this is no unimportant news, T-shirts banned by IDF after it has wide media coverage
1. http://www.metro.co.uk/news/world/article.html?Troops_tasteless_T-shirts_banned&in_article_id=592460&in_page_id=64 Metro (Associated Metro Limited)

More sources

I will open a DRV later for this case. I can't claim any bad faith or intention over admin's decision. However I will note that admin has a high deletion rate at his recent AFD decisions (possibly 60-80 percent), and he only resulted near 60 articles for merge, no consensus or keep while hundreds of deletion in his latest 500 edits in WP AFD section. While I can't comment on his other decisions because I didn't read them, he clearly misinterpreted Wiki Policies and possibly did not consider previous AFD while resulting a deletion for this case.

I will open a DRV case when I find time for your wrong decision on deletion of the article [even without a merge] on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Israel Defense Forces T-shirt affair (2nd nomination) which bases on sheer number of 2nd AFD votes and misapplied Wiki Guidelines referring to tabloid news. I added several more RS news sources that covers the story about the case which resulted a ban by IDF against wearing the t-shirts, in talk page. Kasaalan (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza flotilla clash

According to Mavi Marmara activists and personnel, IDF commandos surrounded the ship with 40 zodiacs/ships, raided aboard the ship illegally from attack helicopters and from sea on international waters after stopping ships rotors. After aboarding IDF jammed communications and started shooting with live ammunitions from all sides including tear gas, smoke bombs and sound bombs even though they raised white flags on board and they "defended" themselves with wooden sticks and other items they could find on ship. They also claimed noone on board carried any weapons. Israeli troops storm Gaza flotilla by AlJazeeraEnglish DHA News Footage and Commentary by DHA (Doğan Haber Agency) of Dogan Group Companies

Calm down a bit in editing Gaza flotilla clash. Some of your edits is not WP:NPOV and some other is against other policies. --Kslotte (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name one of them first. Kasaalan (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kasaalan! You're making some very important edits regarding the account of the activists on board the Marmara. We really need good accounts here since that is one of the sections of the article still lacking reliable info. However the references you are citing do not support the story being told. Please find references from reliable sources that discuss things like the "40 Zodiacs". Until something new comes up I'm going to remove the unconfirmed bits of your edit that have no sources. Zuchinni one (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again as I said name one unconfirmed story with no sources. Talk specific. Kasaalan (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is I read and watch news real time from primary sources. I have access for international TV channel and newspapers. For example the female staff of the ship with a kid, who were freed made the comment of 40 ships/zodiacs in TV interview at airport. So you may not find it in CNN but it is a valid statement. Kasaalan (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As usual I provided the necessary links for the eyewitness accounts. Kasaalan (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. I took enough of your personal attacks during my RfA. It's about time you stopped, don't you think? Enigma^msg 14:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a copy of my comment for JClemens, unlike you who did not bother to inform me before or during AFD. Since my "personal attacks" that you couldn't reply are based on clear evidence about you misinformed/misreplied answers during RFA, I do not consider you as a true "mod" who contributes content to wikipedia anyway. You misinformed other editors about your "contributions" in a sense you actually created content as a real mod would do. You are the "other" editor. Your reply is an attack itself. Do not WP:Wikihounding the pages I created/contributed more according to your personal political/racial/religious views. Do not try to AFD unless you note other contributing editors, which is a basic procedure that applies for anyone. I took enough of your anti-Jewish peace movement actions in wikipedia, don't you think. This is not the first time you engage in Israel related AFDs that I created/contributed even though you claim you have no expertise/interest/knowledge/POV/COI over the issue. Kasaalan (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't contact you unless I have to, considering how you've been hounding me since my second RfA. You've had your warning. Further attacks will be met with a block. Enigma^msg 15:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the issue is you didn't bother noticing me, although you know I am recent contributor and you have issues with me, yet started an AFD which resulted with a few votes in 4 days Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish pacifists, peace activists and supporters, without contributors commented. So as "mod" is this how you handle AFDs.

I proved you wikihounded me by tracking your own actions. I do not comment about you unless you delete content I contributed from wikipedia. And you try to delete content I created/contributed because you track and AFD the pages I created/contributed which is a clear Wikihounding. Block from your talk page. Who cares. Block from wikipedia, try and see the results. Kasaalan (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You created an AFD after a long time, you did not notice me as recent top contributor/opposing view editor before or after AFD giving me no chance to participate discussions, although you harshly debated me before over the article. You did not notice anyone in related Wiki Projects. The AFD closed in 4 days with a few votes/views. You have acted same before in various I-P related AFDs for the articles you have not contributed but I have contributed/created before, by tracking my edits. You did not inform the facts to the JClemens as AFD closing party. Seriously how do you explain your AFD insistence on IP/I-P related articles although you have no expertise/involvement/contribution/knowledge/COI/POV about the issues according to your own statements. Kasaalan (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sent an article to AfD. I do not need to notify any Wiki Projects. I put it up for the general community. I had no control over when it was closed. That's up to the closing admin. For all your bad faith claims, had I wanted to do it "underhanded", I could have put a WP:PROD on it or simply deleted it myself. But instead, I chose the aboveboard route and sent it to AfD. It's not my responsibility to usher you to the AfD. I trust you can find the page yourself. Enigma^msg 15:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you are admitting: you did not bother to notice me as the primary recent contributor before or after AFD, who you have had conflict including the AFD article. You did not bother to notice any other past contributors. You did not bother to notice other related Wiki Project members. You simply filed an AFD out of nowhere after a year, for an article you did not contribute but to revert my edits. You did not inform closing admin, but just made some misleading statements which I clearly answered before during debates, and watch JClemens close AFD in 4 days with some random editors opinions, who we do not know if they have any expertise in the field and who did not even read opposing views about the article, since you did not notice any opposing or previously contributed editor. And you claim that your action was out of courtesy since you could WP:PROD then simply delete the article you don't like in the first place. Yes not underhanded at all by your own standards, do I have to share same opinion with you. Again how do you explain your long time interest in all of the AFD processes of the articles over I-P related articles (Jewish peace movements/figures/events) that I created/contributed but you have not created/contributed/or even fully read before/after. Kasaalan (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I tell Jclemens anything? I created an AfD, that's all. It's not up to me to close it. It's up to another admin. How do I explain my long time interest in all of the AfD processes? It's part of Wikipedia policy. I think it's straightforward enough that I should know about AfD processes. Enigma^msg 16:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As wiki etiquette and AFD Guidelines, it is your duty to inform other related parties about the AFD as AFD starter. Without noticing any other parties, AFDs are just random voting without any actual debate. Second regular time for closure is 7-14 days. When you did not inform any opposing or related parties, it will misguide the admin as noone objects AFD. No, I asked your long time intereset in AFDs for the articles I created/contributed over Jewish peace which you have not contributed/read/interested or involved as a party before since our first conflict. Kasaalan (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, canvassing is discouraged. Regular time for closure is 7 days, not 14 days. It was closed early at the discretion of the closing admin, which certainly had nothing to do with me. Enigma^msg 16:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noticing other participating editors is required for a healthy AFD debate, which is clearly addressed in guidelines. It is not WP:canvassing by definition, especially noticing opposing/conflicting editors. So you are wrong and just making out arguments out of your head. As I said regular time is 7-14 days, depending on the extent of debate. Early closing in 4 days has certainly do something with your attitude over not noticing any other article contributors/opposing views/related wiki groups for AFD, so try not to blame closing editor who doesn't know anything about article history. That clearly indicates your policy over articles you don't like. Kasaalan (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. I had nothing to do with the early close. I think you're trying to blame me, but it's hard to tell with your misuse of language. Enigma^msg 17:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is early close only happens if no objections made, and not noticing other opposing/involved editors is the best way to accomplish a no-objection AFD. And if you do not notice opposing contributors of the article, who will you debate about the page in the first place. You try to whitewash your every action that is against wiki guidelines/etiquette by personal comments.Kasaalan (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You ignored the guidelines WP:AFD deliberately if you already know the guidelines:

An unhealthy AFD without any actual debate by any of the contributing/related/opposing editors. You created an AFD as a single nominator party with 5 random editors. You did not list Jewish Peace supporters article AFD notice in none of the contributors or related wiki projects. You misinformed other editors. Norman Finkelstein is a Jewish peace supporter for example, he doesn't need to be a peace activist to be included in the article. You made no effort to save content, move it, improve it etc. You AFD for personal reasons without even noticing opposing editors, then trying to whitewash your actions. Kasaalan (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not whitewashing anything. I'm being very up front. Normal Finkelstein is not a peace supporter. I sent the article to AfD because I don't think it merits inclusion. Personal reasons? I suppose everyone edits for some kind of personal reason. Enigma^msg 18:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you try to AFD articles that are both outside your area of interest/expertise and created/contributed by someone you don't like after tracking his edits, multiple times over a year period it is simplly more personal than that. What was the number of articles that you "contributed" during your RFA again, was it 5? Seriously keep on AFDs. I will DRV when I find time anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with Wikipedia policy, which means I know that that "article" does not belong on Wikipedia. I've contributed to thousands of articles, which is more than you can say. "Keep on AfDs"? I don't know what that means, but I don't often start an AfD, and anyone who actually looks at my contributions can see that. Enigma^msg 19:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During AFD I checked your alleged contributions, which turned out a few articles and some minor tweaks but 2-3 basketball/football articles. Even some of the contributions you claimed turned out no contribution at all, so you had to confess that and strike your own comments. Anti-spam work cannot be considered as an actual contribution to the article. If nothing changed since RFA, your self-claimed top contributions at content creating/article editing were not sufficient enough by any wiki standards, let alone admin level ones. You claim 1000s of contributions, try listing more than 100 before RFA period. Forget it list more than 50. Forget it, lowering my expectations list more than 10. And I mean real contribution, not typo fixes or anti spam work to raise post count. Serious contribution like serious section creation, serious reference work, anything goes. Kasaalan (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"During AFD I checked your alleged contributions". Ah yes, we're back to the core point; that you are not qualified to be doing this. "your self-claimed top contributions at content creating/article editing were not sufficient enough by any wiki standards". If there were standards, you wouldn't be editing here any longer, so I suppose you should consider yourself lucky. Clearly, there are no standards. Enigma^msg 19:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said list 10 top "contributions", unless you can't don't bother bragging your 1000s of contributions at all. You are the solid proof that real article contribution is not essential for being an admin in wikipedia. Kasaalan (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, you asked me questions, I answered, and then I asked the same of you. You then refused to answer. I'm done answering your fatuous questions. Anyone who wants to see the articles I've contributed to is free to check my contributions log. As you said at my RfA: "Your list of doings is long." So clearly you agree, and you're just being difficult now. You are the solid proof that knowledge of the English language is not required to edit the English Wikipedia. Enigma^msg 19:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No you avoided and played word games all the time. I answered further than your question according to the relevant scope. I already checked, I found you had no serious contribution at content creating, but only typo-fixes, reorders, anti-spam and content deletion, I declared what I found, you couldn't object or proof by listing even 10 of your 1000s of contributions since it doesn't exist. Unless you have proof you are just talk. Kasaalan (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"No you avoided and played word games all the time." That's exactly what you did when I asked about your bias. You asked me, I answered, I asked back, and you refused to answer. Word games. No straight answers from you. But in a way, I have my answer. I know you are clearly biased in the subject, and your edits bear this out. "I declared what I found, you couldn't object or proof by listing even 10 of your 1000s of contributions since it doesn't exist." I did at my RfA and I have hundreds more since. If you're too lazy to look for yourself, I'm not going to hold your hand. Enigma^msg 19:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No you avoided direct answer, played word games and gave a general answer about the country you live in. I directly stated I have no racial/religious/political party ... etc. relationship to the one of the conflicting parties more than the other. And I have friends/figures I respect at both sides which are the peace advocating sides as any other international voice similar to UN. Other than that I do not reveal any personal information in wikipedia with noone as my personal policy. I did research, I shared in talk page discussion, you couldn't list any of your 1000s of contributions at all, you still talk and talk but cannot prove any actual contribution before RFA. Kasaalan (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demonstrably false. All you did is play word games and never admit the truth. As for my contributions, I have answered you many times. I cannot hold your hand any longer. You are an adult and you should be able to figure it out on your own. Enigma^msg 20:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It only shows you are false and proves you didn't majorly contribute any article, only averagely contributed 2-3 articles, deleted majority of 1 article, typo-grammar fixed 1-2 articles and 1 of your claimed contribution was a fake according to your own confession based on your RFA answers. As I say I don't care what you claim, unless you provide some links to your content creation before and after RFA. 10 links are less than 1/100 of what you claim and you can't even provide that. Kasaalan (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it shows you are false. You admitted during my RfA that my doings are long, and the fact that you're changing your mind now just means you're intentionally being difficult. I will not dig through 35,000 contributions to satisfy your desire for immature bickering. And by the way, I see you chose to ignore what I linked to, meaning you tacitly admit to being a hypocrite. That's good to know. Enigma^msg 20:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't even know what you talking about. I did not change my opinions at all. It is a fact that your "edit count" is high, since you do anti-spam work and other non-contributing edits. But your actual content creation/contribution count is miserable. You are bickering simply because you failed to provide any major contribution among those 35.000 "edits". You don't need to dig your own contributions, since you should know which articles you majorly contributed in the first place. Kasaalan (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about me. Of course I know what I'm talking about. And again, my point is proven by your silence. Enigma^msg 21:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you know what you talking about: your failure to provide any link to any major contribution. That is already a fact. So you try to hide the fact with all that talk. So what are you exactly trying to prove again. Kasaalan (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mavi marmara

Hi Kasaalan,

Could you please attach at least 1 RS to each of your bullet points (They probably exist already in the article).

Cheers,

Zuchinni one (talk) 08:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to write a thesis, however I will add when I have time. Also it should be a colloboration, so people may help by searching. I asked help from Hebrew and Turkish wikipedia pages for translation too. Kasaalan (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flotilla case

Facts

Amount of supply 10.000 tonnes [14]
- 7.500 dollars worth cement
- 3.500 dollars worth cash
Number of passengers 466 [15]
Number of crew
Number of journalists

General

Case Against Activists

Armed assault
- Proven: organised cold weapon attack by 5-20 people group
- Beaten [but not killed] IDF soldiers: gallery
- Crying IDF soldiers: http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/14944432.asp?gid=373 text repuires translation
[16]

Anti-semitic talk arguments

Martyrdom

Case Against IDF

Legality of blockade

http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/96514396E8389A2C852575390051D574 UN

declerations

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/international/article442925.ece

Weapons

Helicopter
Weapons

Activist and passenger testimonies

Kenneth Nichols O'Keefe

Gaza Flotilla Sexual harrassment

http://www.sabah.com.tr/Gundem/2010/06/03/cirilciplak_soyup_tum_esyamizi_aldilar
- http://www.sabahenglish.com/general/10126.html

Non-Gaza flotilla abuse

Aftermath protests

http://palsolidarity.org/2010/05/12604/

In progress. Kasaalan (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of these claims and issues were extensively discussed and resolved on the talk page of the article. I do not see your point in adding them to your own talk page. --386-DX (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debate on caption

Hi Kasaalan,

It seems your recent contribution to Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Summary_of_the_debate had a technical problem and doesn't appear. You may want to re-post it. In any event, my response to Nevit's recent comment also applies to yours, as well as points numbers 2 and 3 in my summary.

Raﬁ 20:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remember my edit. Kasaalan (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one? Cheers, Raﬁ 22:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Kasaalan (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza flotilla raid: Building materials

Read, respond and possible take actions to this. --Kslotte (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not re-add section without consensus. --Kslotte (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Hams rocket attack section is being discussed. --Kslotte (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not force (re-add) information into articles without consensus. Don't take it personally, when your sections have been deleted. In both cases compromises has been made by having the issues covered by links in sentences. --Kslotte (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.

Please stop making arbitrary reverts ignoring the talk page discussions, and adding NPOV comments to the article. If you continue, you will be reported. --386-DX (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You 2 try to dictate your own revert and views as consensus, which clearly is no consensus at all. Kasaalan (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kasaalan, you have made multiple reverts on the article ignoring the discussions and consensus on the talk page, and you have been warned by numerous users. In addition to your NPOV violations, please note that there is a [[WP:1RR] restriction on the page. You will be reported on your next violation. --386-DX (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are making multiple reverts each day yourself? Will you report yourself too. Kasaalan (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing the arbitrary reverts of others is not the same thing as doing reverts. I am not reverting anything that wasn't extensively discussed and resolved in the talk page. Please relax your eyebrows, and see WP:AGF. Have a nice day :) --386-DX (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We just need to expand a bit. Kasaalan (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!

Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and I kind of figured out you're really interested in seeking justice and truth, so can you understand what are a minorized language and culture and maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Supporting us will be like giving equal opportunity to minorized languages and cultures in the future! Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Keep on preserving integrity of information! Capsot (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So basically a template for a group that supports catalan language and culture. If that is the case, it is alright I support any language and culture activities, I added template. Kasaalan (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Corporatocracy

This article could have been deleted as an expired PROD, but in view of its long history and number of contributors, and the fact that there are corresponding articles on a number of other Wikipedias, I have taken it to AfD to get more opinions. I am notifying you because you have contributed to the article. Your views are welcome at WP:Articles for deletion/Corporatocracy. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of commercial goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza

Hello, I am just making sure that you know that the articl List of commercial goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza is being considered for deletion under grounds that it serves no encyclopedic purpose at all. I am looking forward to reading your opinion in this matter. GastelEtzwane (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Kasaalan (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gaza flotilla raid and AfD

I've collapsed the thread, replacing it with a link to the AFD. In future I'd strongly advise that you post bland, neutral links, without any editorialising as to the merits or otherwise of the AfD. TFOWR 15:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. But whole AFD process is wrong in Wikipedia wasting article contributors efforts. People are even claiming they are not obligatory to notify article creators, contributors or related wiki project users about AFD. What a nice WP:GOODFAITH. What if I was not even around. Why should the article contributor put all the efforts while some random non-contributor starts an AFD while you do not watch that page or not around in wikipedia. Kasaalan (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhps, but that is how Wiki works. If you think its wrong I am sure that users will point you towards the village pump.Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just about political issues. The whole AFD system has to change in wikipedia. There should be a bot notifying previous page contributors about AFDs. People spending really hard time to build content yet it is so easy to delete. What is the point of AFD if some deletionist or non-contributor or just a POV user starts a PROD or AFD while not even notifying leading page contributors or article creators. Why is there a WP:AFD if noone reads or cares about it especially not seeking any consensus. Sometimes they even delete articles with 4-5 random user opinion without any page contributor. Kasaalan (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way http://www.gisha.org/UserFiles/File/publications/Products060610_Eng(1).pdf is the leading source. Kasaalan (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your contribution to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of commercial goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza

Your behaviour in the AFD was wholly unacceptable. You canvassed unacceptably and imported a hostile battleground mentality into your responses to votes that you disagreed with. By doing this you tainted the whole discussion and most likely discouraged non-aligned editors from involving themselves in the discussion. Had I come across this earlier in the discussion I would have blocked you for disruption. As it is, I am putting you on fair warning that I will block you if I encounter this behaviour from you again in any other AFD or discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am me, not them or anyone else, do not belong any group. Why as an admin do you try to refer me as plural. After TWOFR's notice I already decided I won't add comments next time. However you are wrong I didn't canvas at all.

First of all I have no friend or supporters or fans in wikipedia. So I have no vote power or canvas potential in the first place. "likely discouraged non-aligned editors from involving themselves in the discussion" is a failed argument. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish pacifists, peace activists and supporters is another AFD case I am not notified as recent page contributor 1 month ago.

Second I put exact same notice in every related channel including opposing ones where vast number of opposing users exist. Noticeboard for Palestine-related topics along with Noticeboard for Israel-related topics and Middle Eastern military history task force or Gaza flotilla raid. Because I seek a wider debate with Palestinian, Israeli and non-Palestinian/Israeli users like me have a debate. [anyone can clearly understand that part] You can clearly see delete voters come from related portals after my notification. [which is the natural way AFD process should shape having various related users]

The article satisfies the basic need/demand of such a list in Gaza flotilla raid, 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip and many others which are WP:TOOLONG so a proper WP:FORK. I didn't create article myself but it was a needed FORK since there was such a demand.

It might be harder to understand for non-related/non-expert users who does not know about the Israel-Palestine conflict much. Yet the list is crucial:
- Since what is banned or not banned is highly critical it raises issues of collective punishment, economic warfare and other humanitarian crisis issues by UN and many other Human Rights organisations, therefore the case is covered by multiple RS internationally. [Not only BBC dozens of mainstream media]
- The case is highly critical that Israeli HR Organisation Gisha took the case to the Israeli courts. Therefore it is even NOTABLE by that event. [the court case was about revealing what specific items are banned/prohibited]
- Because there was such a broad ban on items [even chocolate] organisations like Free Gaza Movement started a Gaza flotilla raid. The banned items are also related to Gaza War, Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel etc.

I stated the AFD is unnecessary based on failed arguments like WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The list is not WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it is a highly specific list about which nutrition/agriculture/housing items etc. are banned in the blockade. Since it is important in many MAIN articles. I expressed my frustation simply because:
- I am not obliged to show courtesy to the people who wastes actual contributors time/efforts in wikipedia, trying to get articles/information deleted without even showing any effort in CONSENSUS/DEBATE. The actual courtesy is respecting others edits. By the way stating they have an unnecessary AFD with failed arguments is not hostile or biased.
- AFDs has a limited time period 7-14 days. Nominator first PROD a necessary article then after I removed his PROD and improved article, started a rushed/blazingly fast AFD with 3-5 random/non-random people while not showing any effort in taking necessary pre-AFD steps or notifying related MAIN?FORK page contributors/portals. I was away so I haven't got notified until 5-6th day of the AFD, like the rest of the page contributors, which is not NPOV/courteous/NPOV at all.

So WP:AFD nominator started PROD then AFD process:
- Without Contributing to the page/improving it
- Without Discussing with FORK/MAIN article users seeking any CONSENSUS/DEBATE
- Without Making any research
- Without Notifying any WP:FORK/WP:MAIN article/RELATED WP:PORTAL users/contributors about the WP:PROD or WP:AFD
- Isn't a bit wrong to have an AFD discussion without page contributors/expert users/contributors on the area or is it just me who thinks that way

You should actually warn AFD nominators who fails to comply the necessary pre-WP:AFD processes, who even does not bother asking why the article is created [It was upon a need in MAIN ARTICLES]. The rushed AFD without related users was not healthy or NPOV or courtesous at all. Wasting other editors serious efforts with AFDs they don't even notified is a serious lack of understanding the colloboration spirit of wikipedia.

The main body of text is added by Markowitz and I did not delete it. It can be merged.
I have proven many other similar item based lists are available in wikipedia.

So basically your comments/arguments on the case is not true. You should review the case more through. Kasaalan (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- This was a warning, not an invitation for a debate. No-one else in the AFd behaved as badly as you did so you got warned. I don't care if you agree as long as you show more respect to the views of other contributors, don't canvass and don't import battleground mentalities into AFDs and discussions. Your whole screed sidesteps this point. Carry on and I'll block you. You do not need to respond, you just need to behave better. Simple. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Contributor=who actually contributes/debates/seeks consensus. AFD nominator did not yet contribute to the article as of now. He swiftly PROD then started an AFD while I am away without notifying anyone.
  - The worst behaviour is already an swift AFD nomination without showing any effort in debating/notifying page creators/contributors especially while they are away. I may have comment in my notification, it might not be "kind" though as an experienced editor I did not canvas at all and notifitied portals with "potential delete voters" too for having a wide debate. And guess what "Who gives a f.ck why chocolate is banned?" was one of the replies I got. He does not only swears me of course "Srsly, grow the fuck up. You're a POV-warring, partisan hack." along with others Really kind right. Did I actually replied him with same tone. No. And if you actually refer to Enigma who would really like to get me banned, guess what he claimed canvas with my notification in Palestinian board, while not mentioning my exact same post in Israeli board or Middle East history board. You might claim it is aggresive, you might not say everything was alright, AFD was proper, healthy and NPOV with a wide number of debaters. Whatever you claim a swift AFD without page contributor's opinion is not healthy at all. And I see a certain effort in various AFD nominations about the Human Rights violations of Israel since months.
  - User is not kind with his behaviour or way he talks. [17] He did not show any effort for the page. Particularly your own replies to your own talk page commentors does not appear to be so "kind" either. And you need to review page history more throughly. First know what you talking about before you try to command only reactioning users to "behave". Simple. That is not because I ask, that is because if you like to have a better/more fair duty.
  - As a academic RS content creator, I am more strict with the waste of my research/editing efforts than others, especially if the process lacks the proper debate/consensus phases. Everyone talked and talked yet in the end only a few people actually contributed to the article including me. So if I am contributing my valuable time I also would like to have a proper debate before any unnecessary AFD.
  - Noone commented insistently as much as much as I do, simply because they didn't spend hours editing the article. Also a user who omits all debate/consensus/research/notification process referred in WP:AFD didn't started an AFD after an unnecessary PROD for an article needed by other MAIN articles, while they are away.
  - There should be a bot notifying all page-history contributors, page watchers, and related project portals. Only a rare number of users watch AFD lists anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2nd

I have nominated this article for deletion. Goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza Cptnono (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for NPOV notice. Kasaalan (talk) 08:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necati Arabaci

The discussion there should be only about the specific AfD, please stop inserting your opinions on notifications, that is not the correct venue. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you made such a discussion title here but not in the talk page of the user who starts such an argument. I already moved my replies to actual talk page, on the other hand if a user blatantly accusses me with serious offenses, I have to reply one way or another because his "claims" aim to get me blocked by admins. I generally react when other users do something wrong. Most of the AFD nominators tend not to notify anyone, no page editor, no Project page, do not make research if the article may use any RS, they do not seek CONSENSUS first, they swiftly put an AFD while the articles are still being developed, then points the editors who try to notify other related project pages with CANVAS, while it is their own job to do so in the first place.

I will request a more strict AFD policy, so that the AFD nominator will be bound to notify related Wiki Projects, page creator and at least top/recent contributors about the AFD himself. Or place related tags so that a bot will do that job automatically. Not everyone checks their watchlist/AFD listings everyday, and most of the time since nominators don't notify related projects they are not categorized properly anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kasaalan, I will respond here to your question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necati Arabaci. I have read the four links you have listed now.

The first one from Die Welt is about criminal turks, but does not mention Necati Arabici. I therefore deleted it from the article. The second one (from Klaus Wiendl and Oliver Bendixen) is a good source for the article. It's from the author Wiendl's own site, and says in the header, that it has been broadcasted by the "Bayerischer Rundfunk" (official German TV) in the political magazine program "Report".

The text of the third (ARD Report (München) forum copy paste) seems to be identically with the second one. (The second link also says that it's from "Report", which is the name of an political magazine broadcasted by German television.)

The same holds true for the fourth link, it's also the "Report" text.

Best regards and thank you for appreciating my work --Cyfal (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romanization for words of English origin

On the MOS:JP talk page, a discussion has been started about including or not including romanizations for words of English origin, such as Fainaru Fantajī in Final Fantasy (ファイナルファンタジー, Fainaru Fantajī) (for the sake of simplicity, I called this case "words of English origin", more information on semantics here).

Over the course of a month, it has become apparent that both the parties proposing to include or not include those romanizations cannot be convinced by the arguments or guidelines brought up by the other side. Therefore, a compromise is trying to be found that will satisfy both parties. One suggestion on a compromise has been given already, but it has not found unanimous agreement, so additional compromises are encouraged to be suggested.

One universally accepted point was to bring more users from the affected projects in to help achieve consensus, and you were one of those selected in the process.

What this invitation is:

You should give feedback on the first suggested compromise and are highly encouraged to provide other solutions.

What this invitation is not:

This is not a vote on including or excluding such romanizations.
This is not a vote on compromises either.

It would be highly appreciated if you came over to the MOS:JP talk page and helped find a solution. Thank you in advance. Prime Blue (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"nice AfD"

I suggest you make that "First of all this is a nice AFD unlike the first one..." jab your first, last, and only personal attack, bud. If there are any more, I will not hesitate to file a complaint with the admin who closed the first AfD, an admin who took a very dim view of your antics and insults. So, consider this a formal warning to cease the personal attacks against me. Tarc (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will just ignore your touchiness, I did hot mention any name, end of discussion. Consider spending time on articles. Kasaalan (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are constantly try attacking me, bringing past in any AFD or discussion. I also stress you directly sweared and insulted me and other users more than once before and during discussions. I tolerate childish behavior, but I do not tolerate threats. First AFD was not nice for me since noone notified me early and arguments are weak, some people accused me with a wrong judgment etc. 2nd one is nice and more constructive. So, why do you exactly care. Kasaalan (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of fictional magic users

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of fictional magic users, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional magic users (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

is there any auto message template for AFD notifications. Kasaalan (talk) 21:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rachel Corrie

Template:Rachel Corrie has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Anime-manga

Template:Anime-manga has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That VDM thing

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Congratulations for your diligent work and the effort you've put in, personally, to this subject and the respective entry in Wikipedia.The Gnome (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words, I took a serious break from wikipedia editing, since people and all the long debates tiring me to no avail. Also considering some people steal our efforts to scam others while wiki attorneys sit and watch even though I beg for their help is sad. People reverting or irreversibly deleting other users' hard and verifiable edits / articles without any second thought including but not limited to deletionist mentality / actions considering Wikipedia as Britannica or Webster, wikihounding or much more dangerous schemes like CAMERA campaign in Wikipedia for politics, is why I am disappointed. Also lots of the "active users" raising their edit counts via reverts, minor / grammar edits via scripts like it is a race, while some even focus on making admin friends to be administrator instead contributing more is simply wrong. I proposed rating / voting with longer discussion period for article / deletion debates and easier contributing / debating tools for articles, with some option for active users to actually reach the deleted pages history without admin intervention for later undeletion process via admin verification without the tools I request it is too complicated to contribute since one high school kid somewhere do not agree with academical references. Kasaalan (talk) 08:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Skies are Weeping

Please see my comment at the article's talk page. GregorB (talk) 23:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took a serious break from wikipedia and don't have much time to debate or edit at least 3 more months . So as a summary, section 5 of the cantata lyrics quotes Moshe Nissim's interview, who was a bulldozer operator at 2002 Jenin incursion. Read 5. Recitative: I had no mercy for anybody at http://xferstoothers.blogspot.com/2008/03/skies-are-weeping-november-1-2005.html Kasaalan (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Kasaalan. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 02:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Kasaalan/sandbox/rachel

User:Kasaalan/sandbox/rachel, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Kasaalan/sandbox/rachel and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Kasaalan/sandbox/rachel during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

VDM Publishing´s printed Wikipedia articles

Hello Kasaalan and thank you for this articles "VDM Puplishing" (printed Wikipedia articles). This is well researched and defines the business interests that Vielvalt of publications and its profits open. Achieved through on-demand technology - Print to order. My best regards and wishes for you, thank you from Germany! --Goldpremium (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hi are you here?Enigma^msg 00:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kasaalan. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Faik Bulut, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DW. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Arab-Jewish conflict" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Arab-Jewish conflict and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 10#Arab-Jewish conflict until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]