Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Hello. There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.
Hello. There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.
] (]) 19:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
] (]) 19:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
:Will you please stop violating talk page guidelines by editing your comments after they have been replied to. ] (]) 20:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Revision as of 20:52, 23 January 2013
Please leave sensible and relevant messages
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)
It is a pleasure to work with the co-editors you mentioned, Oncenawhile, Zero, and especially Malik Shabazz, and it is quite satisfying that this feeling is not unrequited. Do refrain from aspersing their good characters, and limit your criticism to myself. Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork12:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Again
Hi Ankh, just to say I have no hard feelings about the AE, and hope we can move on collaboratively together.
Could you satisfy my curiosity and let me know whether you've edited wikipedia before your account was opened in January? According to this and this, you've made 1,800 edits in 3 months vs my 2,700 edits in 2 years, but you know seem to understand the dispute procedures of wikipedia much better than I do! Oncenawhile (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I have been impressed by the way you have handled this matter, and I acknowledge that I may have filed my expeditious report prematurely. (I was frustrated at the sudden regression to a previous version, which seemed to disregard our talk page discussions) As you have previously stated, we did appear to share a constructive working relationship, and I hope to collaborate with you in the future. Perhaps you are less privy to the dispute procedures because of your usual agreeable editorial style! Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork22:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks Ankh. I should also say that I respect your discworld-inspired choice of name.
The Discworld novels are an excellent foil to the weighty tomes I am periodically forced to peruse, and I esteem them so highly that I have decided to captitalise their title with a Capital 'D'. I can go on and on and extol their virtues, but I fear the credible risk of soapboxing on my talkpage. Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork12:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Following me around?
How do you explain this revert? You don't seem to have edited this article and all of a sudden you come and revert me. You don't even leave a message on the talk page.VRtalk23:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
This article relates to Antisemitism, Zionism and radical Islam, a heady concoction that I am incorrigibly attracted to. I am editing this article in spite of your lugubrious presence, not because of it, and re-encountering your customary truculence will not dampen my editorial ardor. I fiercely contest your megalomaniacal ravings that I am tracking your activity and request you refrain from maculating my talk page with gratuitous hostile messages. Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork00:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand Misplaced Pages:Disruptive user, if you think that the above message makes me one. And did you just make three personal attacks against me in one post: "your lugubrious presence", "your customary truculence", "your megalomaniacal ravings" ? Given your previous violations of WP:NPA, might I suggest politeness?VRtalk04:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Since you mention my familiar interlocutor, Mr Dlv999, allow me to reminisce about our first trilateral encounter. It occurred at Talk:2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings, when my good friend decided to pop by and share his sagacious views, unfortunately at odds with my own. This unsolicited visit prompted an uninvolved editor to leave these remarks. It appears that Dlv999 and I both share the habit of turning up at each others doorstep uninvited, (an illusion no doubt, due to shared interest) much to the surprise of the other, and chuntering about our "content disagreements". With regards to yourself, our interests tangentially overlap, and in the few instances when they manifestly do, I would assume good faith instead of deciding upon Wikihounding. Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork09:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Ankh, you can use all the flowery language that you want but the fact remains, turning up in an article that you have not edited before and reverting an editor with whom you have a history of disagreement, without any attempt to engage with the ongoing talk page discussion or even an edit summary is problematic editing. You should just acknowledge it and take it into account in your future behavior. On a more general note, I don't have any problem with you reviewing my edit history, but if you are going to contribute to an article you should do it in the proper manner. Dlv999 (talk) 09:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Aha! Speak of the devil! Let me switch on the kettle and see if I can rustle up some comestibles, while we engage in jovial nattering, and disapprove of each others editing habits. I am certain this will prove to be a most cathartic experience and I suggest we similarly reconvene at a future date. I assure you that my editorial lapses that exasperate you so, are highly atypical and I hope you consider the kind words that my companions have saidabout me. Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork09:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Jocular forms of address
Greetings, AnkhMorpork. You've referred to me as "Babe", "Hun", and "M'dear" on the Zeitoun talk page. I don't doubt that you mean that in a pleasantly jocular, bantering way, but taken together with your userbox disclosing your feelings for Nishidani, it's kind of creeping me out, to be perfectly direct. I'm a man, and am probably around the age of your parents, so show greater respect for your elders, young 'un. ;-) I hope you won't object: I've removed all such pleasantries from the page, as I'd rather other users not come to an erroneous conclusion as to my gender, or as to the nature of our relationship, either. I'll get back to dicussion with you there in a day or two, btw. Cheers, – OhioStandard (talk) 09:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
See, now, this last comment might very well seem funny to me if we knew each other, and it were said in person, so tone of voice and facial expression could be used to communicate which of many possible meanings you intended. I did see your post to my talk, and I usually appreciate humour that's intentionally outrageous, but there's not enough history or context between us for me to be able to interpret comments like this unambiguously. I'm wondering, for example, if you might prefer male company for your intimate encounters. I'm not asking, and it would be perfectly fine if you do, of course, although that would be at odds with my own choice: There's the ambiguity, you see. As it is, I'm inclined to reply, "Don't be familiar. We haven't kept pigs together."
Since we seem to be getting to know one another, though, you can find an example of the sort of humour I favour, by clicking on the final "really bad turnover accident" link in this thread about an autobiography of some wild child who bounced around the "metal" music scene in Los Angeles as a band groupie, I gather. I also like most anything by Monty Python; most of the I/P articles' talk pages remind me of this sketch, for example.
That said, I've been meaning to suggest Erich Fromm's book, The Fear of Freedom to you; I think you'd enjoy it. I read it when I was your age, exactly, and it was like lightning from a clear sky to me; I ended up reading most of Fromm's other books, as well. It's about the individual's choices when confronted with authoritarian environments, and it's presented in the context of the rise of Nazi power in Germany. If you're interested in the effects of authoritarianism on individuals' freedom of thought and action, there's also an utterly fascinating book called, Are We All Nazis? that deals with the same subject against the backdrop of the famous Milgram experiments.
Both books are very relevant to Zeitoun, imo, and to any situation in which people act in ways they'd otherwise abhor, except for orders from above. I wonder whether you've heard of the My Lai Massacre that took place during American's war with North Vietnam? It was in the news for months, and just shocked everyone extremely, when I was a young kid. We all thought at the time that it was an isolated incident, an aberration. It wasn't though. Years later, it was disclosed that the U.S. government could have investigated dozens or even hundreds of other very similar incidents, but they squelched the inquiry. In retrospect, and based on what I've read in the intervening years, I've come to the view that such behaviour by armies is almost unexceptional, that it occurs much more often than is contemporaneously disclosed. Cheers, – OhioStandard (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Your suggested reading material seems very appropriate; I am fascinated by social psychological experiments and analysis and I have previously ruminated upon the findings of the Stanford prison experiment, Milgram experiment and the disturbing Bystander effect which was cited in regard to the case of Ilan Halimi which profoundly affected me at the time (and probably still does). I have edited several highly emotive topics and perhaps this affected gaiety (e.t.p) is my method of detachment. I shall moderate my communications with you to a more bland and less excitable tone pursuant to your very reasonable and composed response.Ankh.Morpork12:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, we all need some way to keep the obscenity at arm's length. I remember reading that gallows humour has a measurable physiological benefit, for example, that it boosts the immune system's T-cell counts and lowers stress hormone levels, although only for the person who perpetrates it, interestingly.
Glad to hear you're already well read in the area, though, but do give The Fear of Freedom a try when you're able. As an interesting side-note, it presents one of the clearest explanations I'm aware of for the puzzling draw that S&M evidently has for so many people, or of one important aspect of that draw, rather. Fromm explains Hitler's appeal as a kind of masochism, and that explanation seems to me to apply to the word in its usual sense in the vernacular, as well.
I remember the Ilan Halimi case; the angels must weep at the things our species is capable of. If I were the Deity, I'd think hard about reaching for that "deluge" lever again, whatever colourful tokens I'd left in the sky after the last time I'd used it. I've posted a reply for you here, btw. --OhioStandard (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Rochdale
Apologies, almost advised you into revert war territory. I'm sure we can redraft a suitable inclusion on the talk page. Keristrasza (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
The redraft has already been proposed twice...it is difficult to know which problems I am seeking to obviate when none have been clearly articulated.Ankh.Morpork22:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Nang Award
DBigXray has given you a LOLipop! This horrible pun and delicious candy promotes WikiLove and tells the world how low you will stoop for the sake of humor. Spread WikiLove by giving someone else a lollipop, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
For the Nang Sock award, couldn't stop LOLing at that, how did you spot the image for this ? . --ÐℬigXЯaɣ16:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Spread the unrelenting joy of lollipops by adding {{subst:Lollipop}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
Thank you for my first award. As to the image, I like personalizing awards, user boxes etc and thought that picture was very suitable!Ankh.Morpork16:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations, AnkhMorpork, you've recently made your 1,000th edit to articles on English Misplaced Pages!
Thank you for protecting articles from vandalism, collaborating with other editors on tough controversial topics, and for all your contributions to the encyclopedia. Keep up the good work! (P.S., Discworld's the greatest :D) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to STiki!
Hello, AnkhMorpork, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!
We hope you enjoy maintaining Misplaced Pages with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Orphan Wiki (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Needy Holocaust survivors—disgraceful
Israel: Here's the nasty little country's treatment of its Holocaust survivors:
I can only hypothesise where the money went. Perhaps it went to building the Yad Vashem facility to educate people like Mahmoud Abbas that the holocaust actually happened. Perhaps it went to ensuring that there such an existential threat will never reoccur, and was used as part of their defense program. Maybe it helped fund the cost of regular elections that are a cornerstone in any democratic country. But I'll stop speculating because I'm sure the country's free press will be better suited in tackling this issue and identifying other failings in Israel, so that accountabilty and improvement can take place.Ankh.Morpork02:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations, AnkhMorpork! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contribution to Misplaced Pages at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Orphan Wiki (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I reconsidered your comment and the person writing it, and I now realise its sexual connotations. Seeing as I have an immature sense of humour, I find that comment mildy amusing. Note that it thanks for my contributions "at-large".Ankh.Morpork23:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I've been accused of vandalism before, but I would never do such a thing. I'm just trying to spread love. If by sex, you mean love, then yes there is a sex connatation to that tool comment. It is a love-tool, right? Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep going
well done
I hope you are a troll or an agent provocateur, because it would be quite upsetting if you seriously espoused such racist views. I totally reject your attempts to align my views with your own; I have no animus against the Pakistani community and kindly stop projecting your bigotry upon myself. Ankh.Morpork09:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Grow a pair a horns, viking! If you're gonna fly your banner with a handle like that, then stand up for yourself. Did the vikings say, "sorry, we're gonna sail home now"? Or maybe I'm reading it wrong and your a Cham named Nordi Mer. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 09:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Not forgotten
I haven't forgotten our discussion on my talk. On the contrary, I've been thinking a great deal about your now-redacted comments, and your intact remarks about my use of the description "right wing". My focus on those two things has been interrupted of late by my internal reflections following from your and Shrike's British Pakistani edits, but I'll post the net of my musings to my talk soon, along with a talkback here. --OhioStandard (talk) 06:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I saw it a couple of weeks ago was prepared to leave it there as I thought it was humourous in light of our differences. But I have just seen your behaviour at British Pakistanis. You have degraded and embarrassed yourself. I have read all your excuses, so please don't respond to this with any more. You say you are "prone to mistakes" but you tested the limits way too far with this one. I know you don't believe it, but by trying to demonise a whole race you exposed innate racism. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
You won't get anywhere on this site without earning others' respect, dude. Peaks and troughs. Do the right thing and it will come back to you. PhnomPencil19:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Zero, your comments above appear to tacitly condone the sentiments of user:Oncenawhile so please understand that this 'respect' that you seek is of bilateral application. Understandably, I am unlikely to heed your concerns of "libel" when it appears you are all too willing to sanction this vituperative traducement. I may have misconstrued the situation and I therefore ask you directly: Do you disavow the above claims that I am a racist? Ankh.Morpork10:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
My opinion of you as a Misplaced Pages editor is negative and you have demonstrated that my initial judgement was incorrect. I don't care what your personal qualities are and I don't need to answer for another user. Your attempt to use me as a reference at AN/I without asking me and contrary to what you know of my opinion was quite shameful. Please remove my name from your user page so that I don't have to waste my time making a complaint against you. I won't ask again. Zero14:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
You are correct that you do not need to answer for another user; I felt that your conduct condoned his comments and his reasoning. I therefore ask you again: Do you similarly opine that I am a racist?
Preceding comment posted by AnkhMorpork at 23:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC) was separated from its second paragraph and accompanying signature by Zero's interleaved reply.
I don't care whether you are an angel or a devil provided you edit properly. However you don't. Zero03:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
You asked for some 'respect', yet you have twice failed to answer a direct question to clarify that you do not tacitly support personal attacks upon my person. I hate to do a Paxman but I would like a proper response to this, so for the third time: Do you similarly opine that I am a racist? Ankh.Morpork20:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
You can read WP:Civility for how to behave towards other editors. Note that it is not a guideline but one of the five key policies. Zero03:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I see. An editor impugns me by calling me a vile innate racist and yet you brazenly cite WP:CIVILITY to me in support of your request. Do you not understand why I am bothered with this incongruity?Ankh.Morpork20:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Housekeeping section break
My comments below were made inline after Zero's post of 14:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC). Moved here to preserve clarity of preceding discussion. - Ohiostandard 12:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Zero. I'm pretty sure I understand your frustration; I'd feel the same way if my opinion had changed as you say yours has. But purely in the interest of keeping both you and Ankh and the rest of the community from the Sturm und Drang that every foray onto the drama boards entails, I wonder whether you could stand to let this ride another couple or three days before you take any additional measures? Ankh and I are on pretty good terms, or were, last time I checked, anyway, and I'd actually been thinking of trying to broach the topic with him privately, myself.
I have no idea whether he'd be open to that, and I don't want to be officious, either, so I'll certainly butt out ( strange phrase, when you think on it - backing out of a room, butt first? ) if either of you tell me to. But perhaps a short delay could let this come to a satisfactory conclusion with less expense of spirit all around, too. Please let me know what you think, either or both of you, here or via e-mail, just as you prefer. --OhioStandard (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, I see that just the fearsome prospect of having to listen to me blather on has prompted Ankh to redact the comments for the present, at least. I can't really fault him, since I can be more tedious and soporific than anyone I know, when I really get rolling. More seriously − and Ankh, feel free to remove both my comments here, if you'd rather − I know full well how extremely difficult it is to step back from a feeling of having been deeply wronged or seriously injured by another's remarks, to de-escalate a dispute. You've done a good thing, and as an added bonus − I'm not being in the least flip to say this − the practice will stand you in good stead if you marry, or become a parent, as it's a crucial ability for success in either role. --OhioStandard (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I guess I have to postpone any imminent marriage thoughts :-) I remain unconvinced that the policies cited, namely WP:LIBEL and WP:CIVILITY, have any bearing upon this request. Of course WP:DONTBEANASSHOLE is of constant applicability but the exceptional circumstances and constant evasive responses appertaining to this issue means this has been abrogated temporarily. Ankh.Morpork23:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Recent edit by 198.150.162.49 at We are the 99% article seems a pretty clear cut case of vandalism. (it seems like an almost random delete of text, cutting off the end of a sentence and leaving a fragment of a citation note.) I tell you because of this notice by you,
and this this notice on the 198.150.162.49 page.
This IP address has been repeatedly blocked from editing Misplaced Pages in response to abuse of editing privileges. Further abuse from this IP address may result in an extended block.
Too late, I've filed a report. IP has long history of vandalism and does not seem to have abandoned his old habits.Ankh.Morpork19:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
To state the obvious
Regarding this revert of my edit you made to Israeli–Palestinian conflict: Difference between revisions. Just because PMW have been mentioned in news reports on the issue, it does not make them an RS on the topic that can be used without attribution, no more than a news report mentioning B'stelem or HRW mean that we can use B'tselem or HRW publications as RS for facts. In light of this your edit summary makes no sense and I ask you to self revert.Dlv999 (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
My dear fellow, there is an obvious difference between labeling something an unreliable source, especially when RS don't happen to share your view, and stating that attribution is required. I think this would be an excellent opportunity to ponder this distinction so I shall not heed your request.Ankh.Morpork20:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I was busy reading Night Watch at the time and rather prosaically used that for inspiration. You'd be surprised at some of the bizarre interpretations of my user name which has been described as "specifically targeting me and muslims" and "cleverly disguised as wackiness, is in fact provocative and inflammatory (more pork!)" by two different editors.Ankh.Morpork23:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
That's extremely amusing, but somehow not surprising given you seem to be active in articles associated with the palestinian/israeli conflict. Somehow I'm also not surprised that the entire area is still a minefield two years after I stopped being an active wikipedian. 78.105.8.153 (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a very serious issue that shouldn't be allowed to be papered over by the Discworld smoke screen. It takes little intelligence to assert that the user name is actually a tripartite reference to devil dancing among young people determined to rebel against wholesome American cultural traditions. ( The user himself can't deny that he's young: It says so, right on his user page. )
The first part of the user name is obviously Ankh, a well-known symbol of devil worship. The middle word is not "mor" as the "more pork" school erroneously claims, but Morp, which is "Prom" spelled backwards, referring to a kind of anti-American, anti-good-clean-fun for freshly-scrubbed-God-fearing-American-youth, dance, properly chaperoned by responsible elders, and ending at 9:00 PM, like God intended. Besides, we all know that playing around with backward things like that has to do with death, and the devil. Finally, there's the word, "Ork", obviously a thinly veiled reference to the devilish creatures called "Orcs" in that infamously immoral trilogy. Add it up and it adds up to what it all adds up to: Young people throwing off the bounds of decency to dance, probably naked, certainly on drugs, to worship devils. And anyone who says otherwise is obviously just pushing devil POV.
Btw, feel free to delete everything beginning with my 20:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC) comment, in this section, if it makes you happy. Cheers, --OhioStandard (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Only the wicked demand a sign or a reliable source like the Bible isn't the reliablist source there is. You shut your ears to the truth when it's right before your eyes and if the shoe fits then it's like I said: "Anyone who says otherwise is obviously just pushing devil POV." You'd probably like it better if I gave you "proof" from ungodly "science" and left-wing secular humanist mediaist types. I bet you're naked devil dancing right this minute, aren't you? --OhioStandard (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Ohio I have no idea what you wanna convey. All I did was appreciate your excellent explanation and asked if you made it yourself or read it somewhere ? was this too hard to comprehend ? --ÐℬigXЯaɣ19:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Wow, DBX, my bad: If I'd had the least idea that anyone might take any of the preceding at all seriously, I'd never have posted it. I was only playing; I made it all up. I meant it ( and my preceding reply, to you ) to be understood as satire, as a "send up" of editors who have suggested there's a dark hidden meaning in Ankh's user id. I admit some of it is very remotely plausible, but I never intended it to seem so in its entirety. So to be explicit: I don't really think you're any more likely than the average editor to be dancing around naked and on drugs to worship devils. Although come to think of it, given my knowledge of what the average WP editor is like, that's not really saying much. --OhioStandard (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC) Please note my final sentence is intended ironically. - OS
on seeing the kind of editors coming to this page and their posts, anything seems to be possible. And one can easily take sarcasm as craze. if you know what I mean ;) --ÐℬigXЯaɣ23:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this , it seems to me that accusing you of libel represents a WP:LEGAL threat and is quite serious. Considering the fact that you provided a direct link of the quote from that user, it is clearly not libellous in any case. Just thought I'd point that out. Don't let people intimidate you from continuing to contribute to the encyclopedia. Feel free to delete this if you'd like, of course. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Request
Hi again AnkhMopork. I was asked to look at the comment you made here and I concur with the complainant that the final section is unhelpful. I wonder if, in the interest of harmonious editing towards a compromise, you might consider refactoring and removing what might be seen as a personal comment on others contributing to the discussion, whether or not you intended this interpretation of your post? Thanks for your consideration. --John (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry about the misunderstanding(s) we had. I apologize. Thank you for your good work on The Zeitgeist Movement. I'm looking forward to continuing to cooperate with you on improving future articles. Regards and best wishes, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Advice?
Hi, I notice that you have quite a bit of experience around here dealing with problem editors so I wanted to ask for your advice because I have no idea what I should do at this point. I am having trouble at the article Palestinian people where I made a few changes, explained them on the talk page, but then was reverted by another editor who did not join the conversation on the talk page. Here's the explanation of my edits for the record . In the past he reverted my edits calling them "ip vandalism" and I tried reporting him on AN/I but nobody did anything... apparently editors can just call any IP edits they disagree with vandalism and get away with it. So if AN/I won't do anything, is there somebody else who will? Thanks 99.237.236.218 (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
The Dalai Lama once said, "Where ignorance is our master, there is no possibility of real peace." I detect a troubled soul and I hope these Buddhist teachings are a source of comfort. Ankh.Morpork21:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
As Buddha once said , "To understand everything is to forgive everything", and I would like engage with you on this pursuit of understanding and inner peace. Are you amenable to embarking on this edifying journey hand in hand? Guru.Morpork12:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I was the user who originally added the information about Richard Falk's cartoon. Another person removed it for no reason, and you put it back in.
Looking back at it, I am wondering whether we should perhaps make a new section under Israel, such as "Richard Falk Anti-Semitic Cartoon Controversy," much like the "Hosting of a Hamas member controversy" etc. What is your opinion on this?--Activism1234 (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it's just more appropriate to put as a new section, rather than in the overview, since it is a controversy related to a specific person, which is what the sections deal with, rather than the overview. So I'll do that. --Activism1234 (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Rereading the article one more time, it actually may be more appropriate to leave it. There is info regarding Richard Falk in that same paragraph, which was there before I added the cartoon info, such as his Nazi comparison and criticism. So I'll leave it there. Also, being majorly involved in the UN involving Israel, it would be appropriate in the overview. Anyone who would like to move it though, I have no issue with.--Activism1234 (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Lol. You had to, at least after you opted for Qb7+. (Which just triggered an related thought that QB VII is one of the best books I've read) Hmm we'll see about that e pawn shall we... Ankh.Morpork11:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the game. I was slightly more familiar with that opening and these slight edges can make all the difference. Looking forward to playing you as black. Ankh.Morpork18:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
No worries. It didn't require skillful detective skills to surmise the reason for your revert. Plus you had just been snap-reverted by me so I can understand your frustration. Ankh.Morpork19:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I won't do anything against the rules. I see that some people (not you) are trying to play old game "let's violate page with our PoV and then trol at talk page as much as you can to keep PoV alive". --109.165.140.217 (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I apologize to you if I look "too rude" with my edits (you're active user, I'm just IP), but I asure you in good intentions and I have explanations for everything. I gave you other sources on other talk page, you can see context is clearly different. Cheers, and if anything "suspicious" - just ask here. --109.165.140.217 (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Even if he didn't, it still counts as his reaction to it, that the "enemies" of Iran give "blows" to Iran and "in return" receive "stronger blows." He said that right after the attack. It doesn't matter whether he was claiming responsibility; that's his reaction. In fact, it's been edited down so much by various editors and admins to appease certain editors (such as "Statements by Ahmadinejad were interprted by some media outlets as implying responsibility or gloating over the attack" being the final version), but that hasn't stopped other editors to cover up for Ahmadinejad and still remove it. --Activism123404:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. It is one thing when people revert you on an ordinary article and disregard your views but it is all the more humiliating when your sense of humour is called into question! I tried a few tweaks, hopefully they improved it to everyone's satisfaction. Ankh.Morpork10:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is fine. Great contribution! I see my friend Martin followed my reverting Nobody Ent back to your original ... he has sharp eyes ... noticed the missing 'n'. He and I enjoy each other's sense of humour, and feel Misplaced Pages is all the better for injecting some from time to time. Sadly, many disagree. I have tweaked it a little as follows:
/* T */ AnkhMorpork ... that is great! Made a couple of tweaks: updated the dash ; Quotation in italics
I could access the entire article at the time and did not realise it would not be similarly available for others. Out of interest, which databases did you use to locate the others? Ankh.Morpork16:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
If you want to help you just need to upload it to some service like I did.If you have access to certain database(for ex. via your institution or work place) the link to obtain the pdf will be available to you.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX17:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I noticed you created the page about transfer of palestinian militant bodies... I'm not sure where the recentinfoonthe terrorist attack should go - either a new article or a subsection, but maybe once you get it started I can come in and contribute. Thanks. --Activism123420:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
A depiction of the chocolate-chip cookie model of the atom that spurred a group of innovative and hungry physicists into examining the possibility of 'splitting the cookie'. An unconscionable proposition since it is biscuits that I would instead indulge in or perhaps a delectable buttered scone, and in my experience, those from across the pond that are inclined to partake in cookie consumption, tend to shovel vast quantities of these victuals into gaping mouths and cavernous bellies in an incessant frenzied flailing of arms that resembles a Cephlapodan orgy, and any cookie unfortunate enough to be ensnared in this sticky whirl of edacious flesh, would experience a very brief (though sweet) terminal existence; certainly one too short to beget any surviving crumbs to bisect and inspect with inquiring minds of an epistemic bent. And what of the unspecified factors such as the noise the breaking cookie will make should nobody be there to hear it, and the possibility of the crumbs remaining both half and whole until the cookie jar is opened? And are't you forgetting the fundamental theorem of cookie indivisibility: that the sum total of a cookie will always exceed the sum of its parts (which the dissection of any meringue will indisputably demonstrate)? But most importantly of all, the stern dictum of my mother rings in my ears which proscribes any empirical experimentation - Stop playing with your food. Ankh.Morpork23:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The plum-pudding model, by J.J. Thompson! One of my favorite examples of a great scientific theorem to be proven wrong, in our case, by the gold-leaf experiment. --Activism123423:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
No offense, but there are things that I think are just stupid, and "wikilove" is one of them. But thanks anyways. nableezy - 19:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
It was harmless, I didnt mean for the deletion to cause any offense. I just have always thought messages like "let's have a virtual pint" or "lets have some falafel" are dumb. And I appreciate the gesture. But personally Id prefer the words without the lame packaging. nableezy - 19:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Will remember this for a future occasion should the opportunity present itself. And I thought I was being tactful by not proffering that "virtual pint"! Ankh.Morpork19:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
In response to your white-washing of the facts on the Talmud; do you think it is more truthful or neautral (a pathetic term that has nothing to do, and is not; objectivity) to hide facts that you find unpleasant. It is unacceptable that you would present a sanitized version of anything and call it 'neutral'.
Unforutantely objectivity requires these facts to be known, hiding such facts makes you complicit, to a degree, in such things as pedophilia, murder and stealing. People need to understand the basis of Talmudism and you are denying them that opportunity.
You are not 'neutral' or objective by the way, you have an agenda to hide certain facts; this is not a neutral stance and is the method of the liar and the intellectual insignificant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.50.86 (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I have added few entries to your list .Probably official report should be filed so they could be tagged and dealt according to polices--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX17:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
You have reverted long standing consensus material that has been the subject of long drawn out debates. You have also done so despite the ongoing discussion taking place on the article's talk page. Revert, or I will see enforcement at A/E. -asad (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I was making what I considered to be a bold edit that had not been the subject of the discussion. If you can direct me to a recent discussion pertaining to this repetition in the lead, I shall immediately revert and partake in the discussion. Thank you Ankh.Morpork20:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't care to partake in your demonstrations of bad faith and Wikilawyering of the WP:CONSENSUS process. Consider this my final request for you to self-revert. -asad (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
You have not showed me any recent discussion discussing this repetition, let alone an archived thread. I repeat that should I have erred on this point, I will readily revert and partake in any discussion - in fact, I have started a thread to explain my edit. However, I will not be browbeaten into reverting a bold edit without you explaining where this supposed consensus lies that I may have inadvertently infringed. Ankh.Morpork20:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Fascinating! The usually perfectly spoken Ankh gets his/her simple past and past participles confused. I see you are no longer claiming to be of 'tender years', but still are of being relatively new to Misplaced Pages. I also see that I am not the only one to doubt these claims. Confess before I bring forth the comfy chair! All the best.1812ahill (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
What are those grammatical thingies you're referring to; they mentioned nothing about 'em at the Public Relations seminars I frequented ;-)
I have been inexorably marching along the passages of Misplaced Pages, scraping my knees on its abrasive asininity and carefully circumambulating the muddling morasses that befoul the paths of many. I have sloughed off my callow skin in the oppressive heat and those nascent days of neophyte tenderness have long since faded away from the memory of a mind battered and subdued from editing travails. And though I still find myself trundling along the dust-filled corridors of this catacomb of contention, bedizened with begrimed tapestries of bygone POV tags, and stepping over the crumbling masonry of abandoned constructions that mock the gleaming facade and vaunting pillars of policy that greet the inquisitive and the unwary, I still do not consider myself a Misplaced Pages veteran: someone engorged with multitudinous minutiae, incorrigibly inured to inimical interaction, a denizen relentlessly leery and swift to rejoice in solecistic stumblings. So yes, I may no longer be of 'tender age' but I still consider my outlook 'relatively new'; I for one would hesitate to comment in month-old threads to gibe at grammatical gaucherie and iterate ill-founded insinuations. That others share your suspicions scarcely surprises me; I am depressingy familiar with this folie en famille and your overture, 1812, is but a prosaic piece. Ankh.Morpork22:13, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Christ, after finally getting round to reading your reply, I conclude you are not only a troll (obviously) but a show off as well.1812ahill (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Everyone is an egotist. Those that dissemble this are liars too. Some consider this a biologically impelled, ethical and rational position. And as for reading too much Pratchett (an oxymoronic construction), that verges dangerously close to personal attack territory.Ankh.Morpork18:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Murder of Neta Sorek and Kristine Luken
I do not understand what is expected of me. The content in each section is reliably sourced to to the references provided. Am I simply supposed to copy-paste sources so that every paragraph has the same bundle of sources alongside it even though many paragraphs within a section are sourced to the same references? Ankh.Morpork16:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
It appears now that you bundle all the sources at the end of a section. DYK, and indeed Misplaced Pages in general, is looking for inline sources to be closer to the material they are sourcing, never later than the end of a paragraph. If a citation applies to two or more paragraphs, it needs to be given in each. Although not required for DYK, quotes should typically be sourced immediately after the quote, though a "he said" type interjection in the middle of two parts of a quote does not require an addditional cite at that point. Hook facts do have a special requirement for DYK, and must be sourced by the end of the sentence in which the fact is given.
The point behind inline citations is to allow the reader to check the source to see what more might have been said. If you list all the sources at the end of a section, it's hard for the reader to do that, since it means checking as many as seven sources in this article. So you shouldn't simply copy-paste, but move those that should be moved, and copy-paste the ones that are needed for the last paragraph of a section as well as for earlier ones.
This does mean a fair amount of work needs to be done: For Neta Sorak, the last paragraph of the first section needs citing, as do the first two paragraphs of the other section. For Kristine Luken, all paragraphs but the last need citations. I doubt all eight (one of which is a duplicate) will still be needed to support the final paragraph. And the Aftermath section needs paragraph citations on all but the final paragraph in each of the final three subsections. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to examine the article and explicate exactly what need remedying. As you state, it seems a fair amount of work needs to be done and I will try to see to it expeditiously. Ankh.Morpork19:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Appreciate your willingness, but as it's turning out, I'm going to guess the whole DRN idea isn't going to be productive (at least not directly), so thanks anyway. But please keep the article Watchlisted. Zad6803:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
May I offer my own opinion? The word "Yehoshua" in Hebrew translates into Joshua, not Jesus, which is "Yeshu." This is just the Hebrew language, and anyone who speaks Hebrew can tell you that. --Activism123403:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Innocence of Muslims
You need a much better source than someone's blog page, if you are going to post a really inflammatory quote. The blog probably took it from a paper. Find the original reputable source e.g. Reuters, CNN, BBC etc
Fair enough. I was under the impression that the Yahoo source that I used was a credible news report and did not realise it was a blog. Ankh.Morpork12:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Your presence here makes me squirm with embarrassment. I perceive in your comment a justifiably aggrieved undertone of one that has generously dedicated his time to assist a new user only to have his offer ignored. I apologise for that; it was the copyright questions that halted my progress. While the other policies were Misplaced Pages specific and didn't warrant excessive attention, I wanted to study the relevant copyright laws in much more detail because of their much wider applicability; something, I confess, that I still haven't got round to doing.
Currently, I am extremely busy so am on an enforced Wikibreak of sorts and am finding it surprisingly pleasant. However, I do plan on resuming editing in the future and writing a few articles.
I also wanted to check in; I wanted to commend you for how civil and collegiate I always find you, even when we disagree. Please remember if you ever want a second or third opinion on something I would be happy to hear from you. --John (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I had an encounter about copyright and fair use issues a while back and I got the impression that it's so complicated that only a hand full of editors fully understand it. So if you can't seem to sink your teeth into it (like the cookie above), that's why. SlightSmile00:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the super long reply. There's no trouble. I'm busy as well. On the copyright question, when you feel up to it, feel free to ask questions, you don't need to jump right to the test. In addition, when Worm created it, I believe he meant for it to last a few months. RyanVesey23:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Vandalism?
I have no clue what you reverted, because the most recent edits I made there are still intact. If it has anything to do with my placing them in the Asian/West Asian category, then I don't see anything wrong with it. Israel is in West Asia.69.248.98.23 (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Fat fingers and a small screen. Did not realise I had done that. Secondly you are wrong, it may also be used "to revert edits by banned users who are not allowed to edit". In all likelihood, I inadvertently reverted a sock.Ankh.Morpork19:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
There was a point where this place was literally crack to me, but I never got so strung out to look at in between the times I was at a computer looking at it. Might want to try setting limits on how much time you spend on this place before you get much further assimilated into "the community". nableezy - 04:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
"non-RS"
I saw you removed Nathan Brown as a "non-RS". I then saw that many of your recent edits have been removing "non-RS" and that material. Removing a source if it actually is not reliable is fine, but removing material that you know to be factually correct and for which countless other sources can be provided is not. For example, is there absolutely anything in this material that is inaccurate in any way? Or is there another reason for removing that material, despite you knowing it to be completely accurate? nableezy - 22:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I am seriously considering bringing an AE case for tendentiously and repeatedly removing an exceptional source on the basis of you not liking the content. If you do not intend to self-revert please say so. nableezy - 19:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Please see the policy regarding primary sources: Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors. This was explained on the talk page and your conjecture as to my motives is misplaced. Ankh.Morpork19:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
How exactly is Nathan Brown a primary source? He isnt writing about himself. But Ill get started on the AE for gaming 1RR and tendentious editing. Bye. nableezy - 19:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I noted at Palestinian territories this morning that in this edit you not only removed dubious sources, but also valid information and facts readily verifiable from the page. If you have grounds for challenging a source, do so with a cn tag. This pattern of behaviour, as I can now see from above, of using RS defects to remove perfectly obvious facts is complacent. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and you are simply putting the burden of construction on other editors, instead of googling within a minute the right source for the facts, and replacing questionable sources.Nishidani (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you take this up with Sean Hoyland who advised that: "you are perfectly entitled to delete unsourced information in the topic area on sight. You don't need to tag it, you don't need to discuss it or try to be nice. You can just remove it. Adding unsourced material in the topic area covered by discretionary sanctions is not okay. Editors soon learn that content they add will be removed if it doesn't cite reliable sources." He is an experienced editor and I am abiding with his guidance. Ankh.Morpork11:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Well fine for Sean. Entitlements are one thing, responsibilities are another. About 90% of the information in Israeli/Jewish articles is poorly sourced, dubious or unsourced. I feel a responsibility not to delete it, because, unlike you, I think one's job here is to construct articles, not to "deconstruct" them when a constructive solution is immediately available. One can, within the rules, do a lot of destructive work here. I choose not to on Israeli/Jewish articles. You choose to do so, on Palestinian articles. That is the difference.Nishidani (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Objectivity is one thing, personal opinion is another. Your perspective on "constructive editing" has lead to this impressive resume, a stand-out mention in the seminal ARBCOM case and several lengthy topic bans for continued violations of Misplaced Pages policy. Your pharisaical self-regard for your editing style is harmless enough, but kindly desist from dripping sanctimony all over my talk page. And how exactly do "Jewish" articles enter this discussion? Ankh.Morpork12:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I am unable to assist with that. This requires admin intervention; maybe ask Nableezy to rectify this as he seems to have arrogated some admin functions for himself. Ankh.Morpork23:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, I guess sometimes shit just happens. Someone is trying to stage an incident, my advice don't loose your head though. Cool down. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
1RR
You have violated the 1RR. An ArbCom clarification (here) allows for the notification to be given by any user. Self-revert or be reported. nableezy - 23:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Don't get bent out of shape about "Being Listed In The Official ARBPIA List As WARNED!!!" All "BEING LISTED" means is that you've seen the ARBPIA warning. Of course you've seen it! You do a lot of work in that area, you know about it, everybody else knows you know about it, you know they know you know about it, etc. This is very silly, don't let it get to you. Have a beer on me! Cheers... Zad6800:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
AE on the way
Im bout to head home, Ill see you at AE when I get there. WP:HOUND, combined with distorting sources and edit-warring should make a compelling case. Bye. nableezy - 22:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The implication being that you live at AE? I have already adjusted my edit according to one of your comments on the talk page, and am quite prepared to continue the discussion there. Ankh.Morpork22:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
No, the implication being that when I got home , I would write up the report. And Ill be doing so now. Or you could self-revert your tendentious edit and seek consensus for the challenged edit. nableezy - 22:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jerusalem". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 20 November 2012.
regarding your recent addition to the page , google books indicates , that the term is not used in either of your cited sources for the edit. I would appreciate it if you could explain on talk how you believe the two sources you have cited support your edit. Dlv999 (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Shrike. Is there any chance you would be able to let me have a look at the relevant pages, these are old, out of print books and i don't think I am going to be able to get access to them. Dlv999 (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Vanished user lt94ma34le12. You have new messages at Jeff Song's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
If I quaffed a beer every time I undid some Nang mischief, I would swiftly turn into an inveterate blurry-eyed boozer, with a bulbous ruddy nose. Ankh.Morpork17:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Tourette's. Can't help it; certain phrases just pop out of my mouth when I subliminally associate two different situations and form a mental link. Ankh.Morpork12:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I like you, you're funny. I just hope you're not violently dragged away from our midst, with your wig and false moustache falling by the wayside. Ankh.Morpork19:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
@Ankmorpork, leaving aside that your accusations against this user are wholly unsupported . You are insinuating that you have recognized a user that was blocked years before your own account was created and has had zero confirmed sockpuppets in the time your own account has been active. I think the accusations say more about yourself, than they do about PerDaniel. Dlv999 (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
In the same way that I cannot conduct a discussion here without sensing your voyeuristic presence hovering about somewhere, I also, upon reading particular articles, cannot fail to detect the distinctive grimy fingerprints of a disruptive editor smeared right over them. A few minutes of clicking and comparing is all it takes to reveal the history of an article or an editor, and your intimation otherwise is perhaps suggestive of a wider inability is assessing historical events and situational background. I was not around in 1066 and yet am familiar with and able to contribute to the Battle of Hastings; your premise is typically quite absurd. Ankh.Morpork12:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not sure why one says 252 and another says 79; perhaps they have a different start date. 252 and 79 are both in fact in the article now, which will have to be resolved at some point. However, I don't think 70 is correct. Superm401 - Talk23:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I would have updated the figures to the most recent figures (252) but editors are very touchy in I-P topics and allergic to any form of reversion. I'll see if I can find any further sources on this point. Ankh.Morpork23:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Userbox
as you love openness and no chicanery at all , and 'grimy fingerprints' , - not very community spirited and civil but thats the way it goes i guess, or pushing surreptitious viewpoints - What is the point AM of having a userbox saying you have a POV and are aware of it - but then leaving it pointless, and moot, by not saying what it is - so you're admitting to a partisan allegiance but are un-open to letting others in the community know what it is. What is the point of such a userbox?
And what is ma'an news by the way that you are laughing about with brewcrewer? you should be open and democratic and say in the userbox what bias you acknowledge you have, what is it ?, otherwise its a pointless userbox and stands as a kind of statement , in my opnion, that though you are aware of your bias , it is secret, and there is no promise to see that it doesn't determine what you will contribute - so your contributions are likely to be skewed. Sayerslle (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I certainly do not find the Maan News article at all amusing; it strikes me as abhorrent that mainstream Palestinian press could publish such despicable, venemous material and I am perplexed how such events could occur. My gallows humour should not in any way detract from the gravity and immense sorrow with which I regard this issue.
As for my userbox, there are several points I must make. I have on occasion made apparent my intentions to redress a perceived imbalance in a particular article. However, I feel unable to refine any religious, political and philosohical complexities into a condensed and static form to be neatly enclosed inside a colourful box; to attempt such a facile exercise would simply not do justice to the host of disparate elements that apply to these multifaceted intricacies. Nor shall I be so presumptious to asseverate an unqualified and unified position in the knowledge that there is much I know not and much I may have misunderstood. And though I conceed bias, how am I to find the objective standard with which to characterise the form and size of the bias that affects me; after all, I am of the view that all of us are beset from these cognitive afflictions too! But most importantly, declaring one's views can so easily distract and distance editors harbouring oppositional views, and become an impediment to collaborative discussion which is paramount when editing these contentious topic areas. Thus, I prefer to keep my views and editing firmly apart lest one should be suspected of affecting the other, and hope that discussion is limited to my editing alone. Ankh.Morpork14:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
you didnt sound 'perplexed' - the persiflage sounded very sure-footed to me. whatever, - it boils down to , no you won't say where your bias lies. - behind the verbiage , an unenlightening userbox, concealed agendas; - 'a facile exercise' in looking honest and open about your bias, indeed.Sayerslle (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Your misapprehension of my dark satire only serves to corroborate my belief of the futility of attempting an accurate conveyance of ideas and the inevitable discord and misunderstanding that would arise.
are you sure you're using the word 'invidious' right there? do you know what it means?- i dont really follow your thought at all in this last wad of words - it was you who showed up with brewcrewer on my talk page to hound and try and shut me up - believe me i have no wish to ask you anything further ever again and i hope you never visit me ever again on my talk page . the revert of my edit on the article about gaza was rverted with the reason of 'grammar' - Do you understand that? No, it was specious, but because I revert it you are right on my neck with brewcrewer trying to shut me up. if theres thought police , its not me, I'm too open if you ask me, - your userbox remains useless imo. disingenuous. I'm glad I used a word Orwell used, makes me feel I'm on the right path, though I've never read 1984 and didn't know he used the word there - seems to me he's using it there to say an enemy of openness is using persiflage , which is exactly how i used it. 'invidious' - look up what it means. Sayerslle (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
What I was trying to convey was that a light-hearted tone, a persiflage, may be employed when discussing sobering topics and does not necessitate that the subject is somehow being trivialised or the severity attenuated.
I really dislike "ultra" from an NPOV perspective, whether used with Orthodox or anywhere else. It implies that they're more orthodox than they ought to be or than you would like. Regardless of what moronic monikers the media use, we should not use it here. Notice that we do not have the "ultra" in article or category names. I don't want to revert you - I would very much prefer it if you could please move it back. -- Ynot?07:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I certainly am sympathetic to this point of view and appreciate the negative connotations. Yet, this term is the most accurate and has been commonly used. I note that Ultraorthodox judaism redirects to Haredi judaism, a synonymous term, as the result of this discussion. Are you amenable to using this term instead? Ankh.Morpork11:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I disagree that it's the most accurate term. It's unscientific, the subjects do not self-identify that way, and it's part of an effort by "everyone else" to marginalize these guys by calling them "ultra." I think Haredi is ok from the POV perspective. I think it's stilted, and I don't understand why the article needs to be limited to only the right side of the orthodox spectrum, as opposed to be more broadly about dudes in yarmulkas committed sex crimes, regardless of the color of their yarmulka. So I would prefer a revert. Haredi second choice. -- Ynot?17:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
You know, it's akin to doing an article of abuse by Jesuits and Franciscans separately from the rest of Catholics. It doesn't make sense. -- Ynot?17:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
The sources relate to shtreimels and large black velvet kippot. When they extend the sartorial ambit to colorful kippot srugot and the crumpled fabric yarmulka stowed away in the cubby hole of a car, only withdrawn for the occasional religious event, then the scope of the article will change accordingly. We don't select which kippot strut down the catwalk of wikipedia, the sources do. My preference is ultraorthdox/haredi; feel free to copy this thread to the article talk page for further opinions if you so desire. Ankh.Morpork18:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that Haredi can be an effective descriptor for Weberman and Keller. I am not sure about the other two. I also don't think we should label people as much as the sources do. In this regard, I don't really care what the mainstream sources do - they don't understand (or seek to understand) this Jewish "inside baseball". Well, whatever, I'll move it Haredi with your agreement. -- Ynot?19:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
AFP - "The Israeli air force pounded targets in the northern Gaza Strip early on Wednesday, without causing casualties, following rocket fire on southern Israel, sources on both sides said. Palestinian security sources confirmed the strike had hit a training camp in Beit Lahiya which was used by militants from the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of the ruling Hamas movement."
Maan - "Israel launched an airstrike overnight Tuesday on the northern Gaza Strip, Ma'an's correspondent said. The strike targeted Beit Lahiya and caused material damage to several homes, with no injuries reported. Israel's army said it targeted a "terror tunnel in the northern Gaza Strip,"
Maan opinion piece - Says it is a well known fact that Jews are cowards and universally hated, a nation of conspirators and are worse than feeding vampires. Excerpt translated here.
Another shocking Maan opinion piece - Reflects on Maan's "reliable reporting" that in fact it was a foreign worker that perpetrated the Itamar massacre which silenced Israel's "planned international campaign". Excerpt translated here.
Maan prints nonsense claim that "Israel allocates 70 times more water to each settler than to the average Palestinian in the West Bank". Contrast this with the Civil Administration report that Palestinian Arabs receive 124 m3/year per capita, settlers get 134m3/year per capita.
Maan reports that "a man died... from injuries sustained in an Israeli attack". AP describe him as a "Gaza militant" killed in airstrikes "launched in retaliation for rocket fire from Gaza."
Ma'an's English editor says: "The most important thing for us is to deliver the facts and to portray the full extent of the harsh reality of life for Palestinians living under Israeli occupation, without causing incitement. The coverage is more important than the language. In regards to our choice of terminology, we aim to stick as close as possible to UN-accepted terms, while maintaining our Palestinian perspective."
This should go to WP:RSN with a limited objective of declaring unreliability of ma'an coverage of "pillar of defense" (rather than a broader unreliability). Tkuvho (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Also it should be clarified whether it is Stratfor or the ma'an editor who wants to liberate with military honor :-) Tkuvho (talk) 14:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Question at RSN talk page
I'm responding here because I just posted that would stop posting in that discussion and wait for more feedback.
It depends on who you ask. Personally, I don't mind saying that a source is reliable generally speaking, but other editors will refuse to say this without knowing specific context. Also, we occasionally have the issue where a given source doesn't actually say what an editor claims it says. IOW, it's still possible to misuse or misinterpret an otherwise reliable source. Giving us specific examples can also help us suggest compromised wording if the source is reliable, or if a source is unreliable, we can sometimes help resolve a dispute by finding a new source.
Don't worry too much about not following the header instructions. Almost nobody does. It's been a problem for sometime and we don't know (yet) how to solve it.
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that a source's context should usually be considered when determining its reliability. However, I do think that these advisory guidelines can be too rigidly applied. Surely, there must exist some criteria which will allow for a general conclusion of unreliability? The bible, the little red book and Znamya are prima facie unreliable texts. I thought that a similar determination might be reached regarding Ma'an considering its unabashed espousal of antisemitic canards. Ankh.Morpork19:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Most sources are reliable for something. The Bible, for example, is not reliable for the creation of the universe, but is reliable for it's own claims in the Bible, Jesus, and many other articles. In these cases, it would be considered a primary source. Primary sources are allowed provided articles aren't predominantly based on primary sources.
Let me give you a completely different example regarding a secondary source. Cosmopolitan (magazine) might be a perfectly fine source for contemporary woman's fashion, but would be a terrible source for Nuclear physics. Everything depends on context.
Hi there. Please see the latest version which gives relevance to this topic. It is not OR for SS, and other sources to claim that this study gives evidence for his book. if we remove this section, then other parts of this section, which claim that other studies refute SS's claim wiil also have to be removed. Have a great day.Do not collect (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
They discuss the book, your source is discussing the issue, a big difference. And you are now in a position where any uninvolved Administrator can block you without warning. Dougweller (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. These kind of articles are distressing to read about; yet, it is their upsetting nature that compels me to write about them and lay bare these avoidable tragedies in the hope that increased exposure might somehow effect a change for the better. The Delhi gang rape prompted a national debate, a judicial inquiry and and govermental measures to increase women's safety. I just hope that this event and an equally tragic recent case regarding child grooming in Oxford will lead to enhanced safety of those vulnerable people in society. Ankh.Morpork15:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
not connected with POD
On a little unrelated topic, is there a guideline that says that the source need to mention the topic at hand? --Mor2 (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:OR states that "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." While editors might occasionally exercise their discretion in including indirectly connected material in an article, generally, in contentious topic areas, such derogation is usually with the intent of asserting a particular point of view and is a subjective framing of facts with a background that a particular editor deems most appealing, and should therefore be avoided. Ankh.Morpork18:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I read your Pratchetesque ramblings on wiki youth, and the nature of stumbling across Wikiville under the glaring stare of others who should know better ... but know so little! It just made me day - So I quote in full for posterity:
" I have been inexorably marching along the passages of Misplaced Pages, scraping my knees on its abrasive asininity and carefully circumambulating the muddling morasses that befoul the paths of many. I have sloughed off my callow skin in the oppressive heat and those nascent days of neophyte tenderness have long since faded away from the memory of a mind battered and subdued from editing travails. And though I still find myself trundling along the dust-filled corridors of this catacomb of contention, bedizened with begrimed tapestries of bygone POV tags, and stepping over the crumbling masonry of abandoned constructions that mock the gleaming facade and vaunting pillars of policy that greet the inquisitive and the unwary, I still do not consider myself a Misplaced Pages veteran: someone engorged with multitudinous minutiae, incorrigibly inured to inimical interaction, a denizen relentlessly leery and swift to rejoice in solecistic stumblings. So yes, I may no longer be of 'tender age' but I still consider my outlook 'relatively new'; "
A real tonic when having to deal with some .... and no Gin required!
Evidently we have different views on the public exposure and displaying of one's Bombast! I've shown it to many who worship at the bookcase of Lord Pratchett of the Disk. The best description so far is "Wet making" Cheers --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
South Yorkshire police allowed the abuse to continue !
? . -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 16:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
78.105.8.153 (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Murder of Neta Sorek and Kristine Luken at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=small}
