User talk:PalestineRemembered/Archives/2007/November

This is an archive of past discussions with User:PalestineRemembered. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Fischer Article

Some people are removing my 3rd party, sourced information from the Bobby Fischer article. I invite you to examine this sourced material, and see why it belongs.

First, please download this file, which is the audio from an online Interview that was on the chess.fm radio broadcast in October 1996:

http://www.GothicChess.com/radio.wma.zip

Decompress the file, and listen to it with Windows Media Player, or some other audio player that supports the stream format. The fact that you can download this file from a website owned by Ed Trice has no bearing on its true source, namely, the ICC chess.fm internet radio channel. They only archive their broadcasts for one calendar year, and Trice requested a copy of it in exchange for being on the program. Clearly that is the voice of Dan Heisman, who does the broadcast. His ICC handle is "PhillyTutor" and he can confirm that Trice was on the show to discuss the sourced material that is being cited here.

There is no way this was a "rumor" if so many people were involved.

Next, take a look at this YouTube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54I8wqm2NeE

Note that it is from a company that supplies interviews with individuals from a variety of backgrounds. There is no link between Ed Trice, Gothic Chess, and the news agency that performed this interview. Their YouTube account is:

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheInterviewpoint

It is clear that this is 3rd party sourced material.

Also, take a look at the interview itself. Karpov's signature on the contract to play Fischer is right there. No rumor. Properly sourced.

This material belongs.

Clearly Trice was in Iceland, if you looked at the images that are linked from the blog:

http://www.gothicchess.com/images/iceland/alexis_ed_streetsign.jpg

And here is Grandmaster Fridrik Olafsson, longtime friend of Fischer's examining the new Gothic Chess pieces:

http://www.gothicchess.com/images/iceland/Fridrik_pieces.jpg

The plastic pieces are from the set Ed Trice sells online, the wooden pieces are designed by the House of Staunton:

http://www.houseofstaunton.com/gothicchess.html

Frank Camaratta, owner of the HouseOfStaunton.com, was on the Iceland trip to showcase his wooden pieces for Fischer's approval. Here is a photo showing Olafsson, Alexis Skye, Frank Camaratta, and Ed Trice all together in Iceland in a meeeting:

http://www.gothicchess.com/images/iceland/news_meeting.jpg

His phone number is listed on his website as [phone] and their email address is [e-mail]

You can contact them to confirm that Frank was there, and the purpose was for Fischer to approve his Gothic Chess set for use in the match with Karpov.

There is plenty of 3rd party sourced material that supports the fact that the match was well underway, and Fischer was just being Fischer and backed out. This was not a rumor. This is fact. And Wikipedia was founded on the premise that factual, sourced material can be included in articles.

ChessHistorian 18:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

notice

i remind you to,

1. find a normative mentor.
2. avoid edit-warring: at the very least bring up questions on talk page if you don't understand why you are being reverted.
3. cut down on the soapbox when making editorial commentary.

cordially, Jaakobou^Chalk Talk 18:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you like me to mentor you PR? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect I have gotten the job? Though what is the old saying about the blind leading the blind? Is this here a pothole or a pit? Eh, let's jump and see! -- Kendrick7^talk 01:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a good idea considering PR was placed under community mentorship - maybe this should be brought to wider attention. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, ok Mr. Twice as many edits as me. If you really don't think I'm up for it, I'm all for a WP:3 or more. -- Kendrick7^talk 01:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just a little concerned that you've come out in support of PR a number of times decreasing the neutrality of mentorship. I've taken it to WP:AN here. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. As I said there, Category:Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a rough place to edit, a fact I am well aware of. I suspect many other wikipedians, perhaps yourself included, don't appreciate that. So, I believe I'm uniquely qualified, given what User:GRBerry wrote above. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Well, whether I'm your mentor or not, I do want to mention you should be kinder in you edit summaries. I've seen the word "ridiculous" pop up often lately. I know you perhaps feel you are fighting fire with fire, but try and rise above the fray and don't ridicule, even by abstraction, your fellow editors. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I opened a mediation about Gazimestan speech at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gazimestan speech. Nikola 08:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Mentorship musings

Hello, PR.

There is something you need to seriously consider. If a number of different people have tried to mentor you, and it hasn't worked out, perhaps the problem is not with others? Let me give you a very recent example:

Your "mentorship" proposal might have been a subterfuge to get others to muzzle me…

— PalestineRemembered , User talk:Avraham—09:50, November 6, 2007

This is a classic example of assuming bad faith. You were one step removed from being banned from Palestine/Israel related topics, if not indef blocked. I come along, someone whose politics and point-of-view can be easily determined to be rather different from yours, and argue, successfully, for one last shot for you. If I wanted to muzzle you, all I had to to was remain quiet. Nevertheless, you found yourself incapable of discussing this issue with me without applying some form of personal attack, whether implied or overt.

This is but one example of any number of incidents where you find it necessary to contribute or respond using sarcasm, implied or overt personal attacks, and otherwise demonstrate a lack of respect for your fellow editors, whether they agree with you or not.

This is also why I begin to despair that mentorship will serve its purpose, as like the old joke goes, "How many therapists does it take to change a lightbulb? One, but only if it wants to." Mentorship is used to help editors, whose editing style has been deemed disruptive enough to wikipedia that they are the topic of discussion regarding a block or a ban, to change their habits and attempt to follow the rules. In the face of evidence that the editor has no intention of abiding by the policies and guidelines, mentorship is useless. I fear that mentorship is fast becoming a non-viable option for you. -- Avi 15:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see you misread a reasonable question so badly, I thought you'd appreciate the heads-up. I specifically cleared you of any possibility that you'd proposed mentoring as a means to muzzle me. I thought you'd be interested to know (in case you'd not noticed) that the mentoring (which I've treated with accept good faith and even enthusiasm) has clearly gone badly wrong. But it's not me that has embarked on a reign of terror on each of the brave people who've offered their services - and I contacted you hoping for comment on what was torpedoing the process. PR^talk 15:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You're habit of giving these little speeches is unhelpful, per WP:BEANS. If people are going to twist your words and take what you say out of context, all you are doing is giving them more material to work with. If nothing else, you are creating unnecessary drama (slang). The wisdom you might want to start adhering to more often is better to stay quiet and be thought a fool, than open your mouth and remove all doubt. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

HRW and AI on war crimes

Hi PR. As you know, Battle of Jenin is currently edit-protected -- for good reasons -- so we need to propose edits. I helped hammer out a brief text for the lead paragraph about HRW and AI. Tewfik Armon G-Dett and Eleland participated and support the new text. It's good, it's fair and we've got support on both sides.

However, toward the end of the section with the proposed text, you made a strong statement that sounds like you're trying to block the proposed edit. E.g., you wrote: "Why are we saying: ...major human rights organizations found strong prima facie evidence of IDF war crimes. instead of saying: ...major human rights organizations found that the IDF had carried out war crimes.?" As a result, apparently, a neutral admin (CBM) didn't feel that the proposed edit should be put in place.

I'd like to point out that the proposed edit DOES OMIT the "prima facie" language -- which is apparently your chief concern -- and even added that the human rights groups called for official investigations. So I would think that you, (perhaps similar to Eleland here?) would support the proposed edit.

Therefore, I would greatly appreciate it if you could strikeout your objection and join the others in supporting the proposed edit. I think it's to everybody's benefit to demonstrate that we can collaborate and edit the article. (Or, if you have a concern, perhaps you could reword it in a way that deals narrowly with the wording we've come up with? Please?)

Thanks very much. Best wishes, HG | Talk 23:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello HG - I'd love to join you at Talk:Battle of Jenin/Sandbox and start making real improvements to that article. I see the mediator believes he has two smallish edits ready to be finalised there - perhaps he's not seen this, your attempt at doing something similar until it was apparently sabotaged.

However, there are fresh and yet more aggressive attempts to muzzle me in progress. Perhaps you'd not realised, all three of my mentors have suffered very serious harassment. Not much of it in public, obviously, but see this reference and a (deleted) "Attack Page" here to get a feeling for it. (And this is the "good" mentor, the only one not to have suffered admin consequences for putting themselves forwards!).

You must be very relieved I rejected you as a mentor, there can be little doubt you'd have suffered the same harassment if you'd tried to do it honestly! Remember me saying you'd been "attacked" for dealing with me in a collegiate fashion? You refused to accept that that was what was going on - when you see your successors get so much worse, perhaps you'll accept I was right!

Anyway, times have moved on, the latest salvo is an attempt to impose on me a mentor, you can see it here. I've stated my feelings at Mentee speaks #2, I'll not disfigure your TalkPage by repeating myself here. PR^talk 12:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It is ironic that despite your attempts at argumentum ad naseum, PR, none of your mentors feel that they were "harassed" as you claim. Start making serious, productive contributions to the encyclopedia rather than complaining constantly about your imagined persecution please. Kyaa the Catlord 13:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

PR, I don't understand your reply. You say: "Hello HG - I'd love to join you at Talk:Battle of Jenin/Sandbox and start making real improvements to that article. I see the mediator believes he has two smallish edits ready to be finalised there." You seem to be addressing me in the third person ("the mediator"), which is confusing. Anyway, we do believe that the first of the (I certainly admit) smallish edits is ready to be finalized. Can you accept this small edit? If not, what wording change do you think will gain consensus, and what is your reasoning? After this small edit, I would be glad to help work on larger real improvements. HG | Talk 14:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

massacre title

You found 2 cases of civilians being killed and the said event being labeled a massacre, albeit controversially. I will not waste my time finding the literally thousands upon thousands of cases in which multiple civilians have been killed and the event has not been labeled a massacre. This is just silly. I find it surprising that these low-level unsupportable arguments are even being discussed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joebloetheschmo (talk • contribs) 07:38, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Censorpedia

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gazimestan speech. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 01:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Archiving

PR, I'm not sure if you're aware, but MiszaBot III is archiving your old posts to a page that's not linked from your talk page (as far as I can tell). Mark Chovain 02:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks for that, fixed! PR^talk 08:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Opinion on source

Beats me as to what Isarig is so upset about. You are certainly entitled to your opinion on the reliability of sources. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Gazimestan speech

Hi PR. Your recent edits on Gazimestan speech have been brought to my attention by User:Nikola Smolenski. While I don't know the entire history here, Nikola seems to have brought forth sources supporting the point of view that the emigration of non-Albanians from Kosovo was also due to economic issues, in addition to government (e.g. police) discrimination as described in your source. While I let Nikola know I didn't approve of the deletion of the MacDonald reference, his last edit otherwise seems to better present both points of view in the article text itself. Please review WP:NOPOV in regards to dealing with multiple points of view. Thanks! -- Kendrick7^talk 18:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure both you and Nikola have learned a lot since March. You should try to get past your previous disputes and work towards something equitable to you both on the talk page. If he has a reliable source which expresses a certain point of view, he's certainly allow to add that information to the article. -- Kendrick7^talk 17:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not about to get involved in yet another series of civil war related issues, and I don't have an opinion on how accurate a gloss he's providing of what his sources say. I'm just telling you the guiding principle is explained WP:NOPOV (an unhelpful shortcut name, which really should be called WP:YESPOV). You should attempt to work out you problems concerning sources or what have you on the article talk page. -- Kendrick7^talk 19:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Soapboxing

please don't: [1]. Jaakobou^Chalk Talk 23:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Concerned

PR, as your mentor, I've been a little concerned about your recent editing. I see a lot of edit warring in your contributions (here's just a few: [2][3][4][5]) and many of your edits seem to be pushing your own point of view regarding Ariel Sharon. Can I please remind you that edits must be neutral point of view, and revert warring to push your point of view is clearly desruptive. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You might want to try the approach of using tags, such as {{NPOV-section}}, {{disputed}} or the inline template {{dubious}} to force discussion on the talk page. Sometimes this is the only way to move the discussion forwards. After months of back and forth reverts at Operation Defensive Shield#Background I finally took that approach, and a dialog finally resulted (a simple request for dialog alone, without the tag, didn't work.) Other editors, of course, sometimes just try to remove the tags, but that's usually frowned upon. That should result in some sort of compromise language, without simply reversions back and forth of sourced material. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kendrick here that this is a better way to resolve disputes than edit warring. NPOV is bound to start up discussion on the talk page and then sources can be found and compromises made to make the article more neutral. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing Hezbollah

I read your comment "This is a very poor article..." in GHcool's talk page. I'm exactly canvassing for it to be "peer-reviewed" to attract some wikipedians like you. Can you please explain your idea here.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Salam, Feel free to add whatever should be added in the article with reliable sources. Just remind that the article is too long and we should add everything briefly. Your comments shows you're a little exited. Please pay attention to WP:FAITH and don't write such sentences, If it's our intention to produce a misleading article, then we've done a fine job. We, editors of the article, don't intend to produce a misleading article. I suggest you reading these guidelines:WP:WQT and WP:CIVIL.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Dual mentorship

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive109#PalestineRemembered‎ (talk · contribs).—Random832 15:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I stated that he was the only person claiming that he was my mentor and was quite wrong about that. I struck the offending statement and later went back and removed it completely. PR^talk 14:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

arb

I think your statement was pretty much on target; thanks for pointing me to it. And thanks for your intervention in the railroading; I know you took flak for it from an admin who at one time had struck me as rather fair. Stuff like this starts to sour me on wikipedia. csloat (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)