User talk:Vanished user lt94ma34le12

Please leave sensible and relevant messages

Hi AnkhMorpork, I understand your frustration with the tententious spinning of the page. Keep me posted. Tkuvho (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately certain partisan editors are not simply concerned with tendentious spinning of facts, but actively remove sourced material that they deem unfavourable. Moreover, my objections have also been stifled and tags removed. This documents the systematic removal of any linkage of religion to the perpetrator and the frequent deletions of sourced material by just one editor (vice regent). Thanks for that message.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Obviously sourced material removed from the body of the article should be restored. The lede is trickier though, and it may be harder to reach consensus there. Tkuvho (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yup. The combination of obtuse dim-witted people with impartial obscurantist agenda's are the bane of Wikipedia. I often edit in the I-P remit and rarely chance across such perversity and acute pigheadness .
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

OK well but excessive rhetoric does not help, either. You strengthen your case if you abide by "assume good will" rules. My impression has been that the editor you are referring to has been respectful of challenges to his edits. Tkuvho (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I direct your attention to a persistent editorial pattern which certainly entitles an abrogation of an assumption good faith. AGF does not mean "be a blind imperceptive idiot"
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

In response to user Vice regent stating, "the comment "such perversity and acute pigheadness" seems to be directly a reference to my edits", I have redacted content above.

In response to your message

This is NOT a pro-"Palestinian" or pro-"Israeli" issue this is a mater of a genocide of a people. I'm NOT even going to bother there is a clear and obvious propaganda campaign by the editors: Oncenawhile, Malik Shabazz, and Zero to cover up these historical massacres that can be consolidated as a genocide of the Old Yishuv shame on those editors and shame on you for your support/complicity. If those massacres should not be mentioned in the "Palestinian" article then the Holocaust should be removed from the German people article. Really shame on you. You're no different then the Iranians that deny the Holocaust or the Turks that deny the Armenian genocide. DionysosElysees (talk) 13:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Islamic-Jewish Relations Dispute

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Islamic-Jewish Relations". Thank you. 67.247.19.21 (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Your comment on IRMEP at WP:RSN

Since it's easy to miss threads I asked you this yesterday:

Just to check: you have read the very beginning of this this thread with a long list of WP:RS regarding IRmep/Smith? And do you understand that despite this diversion, what we are discussing is reliability for hosting documents? See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#IRmep:_actual_reliable_source_evidence_re:_FOIA_docs If you only are responding to this last small section, you've missed a lot. Please respond so we'll all know. Thanks.

FYI. CarolMooreDC 03:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Vanished user lt94ma34le12. You have new messages at Brendon111's talk page.
Message added 15:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Brendon is here 15:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply from Zero

Hi, Thanks for writing. Actually I like the collegial attitude you bring to the editing task and hope you will continue even though your biases are different from mine. But since you asked my opinion, I think you should try to raise your sourcing standards. The example you just posted at WP:RSN, see my reply, illustrates the problem. Most things worth reporting in articles have tons of sources, but many of them (in the Middle East arena) are written with an agenda. By using the right search terms, you can find sources supporting whatever position you want. Unfortunately this means that it too often becomes a competition over who is most clever in finding sources supporting the position they like, which makes for terrible articles. It is hard to counteract this trend; in particular we are not supposed to do our own research to determine the facts. However, the best approach, in my opinion, is to always look for the most eminent sources on any particular topic. Newspaper articles are terrible except when they are doing the things journalists are trained for, which is to report and analyze current events. The next worst are encyclopedias and popular history books (usually easy to pick as they have few or no footnotes to primary sources). Much better are books written by academic historians which cite and analyze the primary sources and make judgements about them with reasons given. The best sources are articles in peer-reviewed academic journals, as they have strict quality control measures in place. Of course this is a problem in that most academic journals are behind paywalls. If you see something on Google Scholar (the place you should normally start looking) and can't get it because it is behind a paywall, you can ask for it at WP:REX and nearly always someone will send it to you soon. You are welcome to ask me, too, as I have very good access. Cheers. Zero^talk 13:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)