User talk:CaroleHenson/People's Mujahedin of Iran
Checking in
[edit]Pahlevun and Stefka Bulgaria, I am sorry I haven't gotten to your comments today. I've had a bad migraine and have been sleeping most of the time. I'll get back to you soon, though.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- @CaroleHenson Please take your time. I'd like to think of this as a rather long-term process where we look at things carefully and without rushing. I won't go back to edit the MEK page until we solve things here, so no rush on my side. Wishing you get well, and if I haven't said it yet, thank you for your time/efforts in helping untangle this mess. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Want to see what the two of you can work out together?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'd like to work with Pahlevun on this, though despite RS available we seem to look at the available information from two completely different standpoints (as it appears to be the case by some of his replies on the work page). Will see what I can do. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Great, thanks for understanding. Does it make sense to summarize the two different viewpoints, if both of you have good sources, trying to be as objective as you can in the wording?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I think proceeding on that basis would be the best way forward. My main issue originally concerned quoting from fringe/compromised sources about a difficult topic such as this one. If we
canagree to use uncompromised sources to resume factual information, I think we could work through this process with much less friction. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)- Very dizzy and a bit confused from meds, but probably back on in a few house.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Dear CaroleHenson, I hope you feel better soon. That's OK with me. Pahlevun (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- Very dizzy and a bit confused from meds, but probably back on in a few house.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I think proceeding on that basis would be the best way forward. My main issue originally concerned quoting from fringe/compromised sources about a difficult topic such as this one. If we
- Great, thanks for understanding. Does it make sense to summarize the two different viewpoints, if both of you have good sources, trying to be as objective as you can in the wording?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'd like to work with Pahlevun on this, though despite RS available we seem to look at the available information from two completely different standpoints (as it appears to be the case by some of his replies on the work page). Will see what I can do. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)