| Revision as of 15:23, 29 April 2012 editVanished user lt94ma34le12 (talk | contribs)8,065 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:57, 29 April 2012 edit undoOnceinawhile (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers49,721 edits →Hi Again: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| 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 ] 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. | 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 ] 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. | ||
| ] (]) 13:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC) | ] (]) 13:24, 15 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 and , 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! ] (]) 21:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:57, 29 April 2012
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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
- Yup.
- 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)
- 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.
- Hi AnkhMorpork, I understand your frustration with the tententious spinning of the page. Keep me posted. Tkuvho (talk) 14:55, 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)
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)