Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:22, 30 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)

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)

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.Morpork 12:02, 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.Morpork 22:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks Ankh. I should also say that I respect your discworld-inspired choice of name.

Yours still curiously, Oncenawhile (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

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.Morpork 12:22, 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.VR _talk 23:35, 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.Morpork 00:15, 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?VR _talk 04:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Another user seems to also be concerned about you showing up at articles you've never edited before and reverting someone whom you're known to have disputes with.VR _talk 05:47, 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.Morpork 09:10, 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 said about me.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 09:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)