User talk:Mi6QBranch

Your edits to Rachel Corrie

Hi Mi6QBranch. Please stop readding what you've been adding to Rachel Corrie. All material, especially when controversial, must be cited and adhere to Wikipedia policies. You can reply here or on my talk page (click here) if you have any questions. Thanks. IronDuke 00:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mi6QBranch, please discuss changes before removing content. You may do that here. Thank you. IronDuke 01:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Duke, until you this encyclopedia tells the truth about Corrie's activities in ISRAEL, I will have to set the record straight. Even if it means the use of internet cafe, library and work computers all of which have many IP addresses. This will not end until Wikpedia starts to tell the truth about Rachel Corrie. I will not allow this biased view to go unanswered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mi6QBranch (talk • contribs)

Mi6QBranch, thanks very much for responding. A few points I'd urge you to consider. 1) Go to the talk page of Rachel Corrie and look at the top of it. You will see some advice there about how to proceed in terms of what is and is not an acceptable way to edit the article. This advice, FYI, is neutral--it does not support Corrie, nor does it denigrate her. It simply tells you what will and will not (generally) be accepted. 2) I can see that you are angry about Rachel Corrie. You are not alone in this, I am sure. And yet, Wikipedia is not the best place to vent this anger. There are many chat rooms and message boards where such comments will be welcome. You might also, as a new user, check out this page. There are some helpful tips there. 3) If you want to change the Rachel Corrie page in a major way (or a controversial way) consider discussing your proposed changes on the talk pages. That way, you may actually garner support for your position. Or, you may find you are without support. Useful information for you, either way. 4) Threatening to use multiple IPs to insert content that contravenes WP policy is not a good way to get people here to listen to you. Indeed, if you do this, you may find that even sensible, reasonable proposals you make may be looked at askance. 5) Last point: please "sign" all your comments by typing ~~~~ after them. That automatically puts your user name and the exact date and time you posted for all to see. Thanks, and please don't hesitate to ask me for help if you are confused about anything. IronDuke 18:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: I have reverted your latest edit and left a message at the bottom of the talk page here. Please give your thoughts on my edit there. Thanks. IronDuke 18:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits to Alan Rickman

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 17:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, could you please explain why you hate the play that much? Pea ceNT 13:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate the play because it glorifies a terrorist sympathizer. You should be ashamed of yourselves for including it the way you do. If you will not allow me to edit it truthfully, I must continue to delete it. mi6-Q-Branch

I suggest you see the play. You will then be able to see for yourself whether or not she is a "terrorist sympathizer"

--NSH001 17:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice

IronDuke's advice to you above is excellent, and I urge you to follow it. You can read about Wikipedia policies and guidelines here.

You will find, especially when editing controversial articles, that you will encounter people of a contrary viewpoint to your own. The Wikipedia policies and guidelines are what enable people of differing views to collaborate and (eventually) produce a good article acceptable to all sides.

I have sometimes become angry at what appear to me as lying or nonsense edits. It can also be very frustrating when others modify your edits in ways you don't like. In such cases, I have found that remembering the guidelines (especially about assuming good faith) has saved me from making embarrassing mistakes. Usually progress can be made, but it takes effort and hard work to do so.

For what it's worth, I think the current Rachel Corrie article is biased against her, and that there are several places where it can be improved (which I hope to do, when I have time). I am interested in this article because, as a Christian pacifist, I have been active in the peace movement for over 25 years, I know the sorts of people involved in these causes, and so I know that much of the stuff about Rachel Corrie published on right-wing websites is a work of fiction (to put it politely). You can see more of my background by following the links on my user page. I have an additional interest, as someone who is basically sympathetic to Israel and the Jewish people, whose father fought against Nazism in the second World War, and who grew up being taught huge chunks of the "Old Testament" at school and in Church of Scotland Sunday School, in seeing an end to the continuing slaughter of both Jews and Palestinians. Unfortunately the current actions and policies of Israel in Gaza and the West Bank are guaranteed to produce precisely the opposite result. Rachel Corrie is to be admired for doing her best to stop it.

Finally, a little editing tip. I find the easiest way of generating a signature with time stamp (the "~~~~" mentioned by IronDuke) is to use the squiggly button just left of centre in the row of tool buttons (all useful) above the edit box. I usually put it on a new line, aligned with the rest of my contribution, as I think that makes it easier to see who has written what.
--NSH001 17:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey NSH: thanks for your nice words. Speaking only for myself, I'm inclined to say that if editors who generally look on Israel favorably grind their teeth when they read this article and editors who look on the Palestinians in a favorable light also grind their teeth when they read this article, we're probably pretty close. I'd hate to see the RC article veer too far in any direction. Oh, and I like your idea about sigs. I may steal that. Cheers.

IronDuke 04:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Hmm, just in case this is in danger of degenerating into a mutual thankfest, I ought to mention that I have disagreed with IronDuke in the past and will probably do so again. I consider myself sympathetic to both Israelis and Palestinians, so not sure where that puts me! But I do think the idea that anyone opposed to IDF violence in Gaza and the West Bank is somehow "anti-Jewish" or "antisemitic" or a "terrorist sympathiser" is a lie that needs to be stamped on. It's basically a mirror image of the old Stalinist "anti-Soviet" propaganda trick.

--NSH001 12:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting there

So your recent edit to My Name Is Rachel Corrie is a big step up over your previous edits. Still room for improvement, though. You provided a great source, which fully complies with WP:RS. However, you erred in that you added your own interpretation to the article, one not at all supported by the the text. That goes against WP:NOR, which I think you'd be interested in reading. I encourage you to keep at this as you seem to be improving, although I also caution you to observe Wikipedia policies and also keep communicating with editors you disagree with (in a civil manner, as we all must). Cheers. IronDuke 03:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]