Can you please check out the talk page of that article. You seem to be ignoring the messages on the DYK page. There are fixes to the intro which need doing ''immediately'' because the first sentence is so badly written that it carries a completely false implication.[[User:Amandajm|Amandajm]] ([[User talk:Amandajm|talk]]) 03:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Can you please check out the talk page of that article. You seem to be ignoring the messages on the DYK page. There are fixes to the intro which need doing ''immediately'' because the first sentence is so badly written that it carries a completely false implication.[[User:Amandajm|Amandajm]] ([[User talk:Amandajm|talk]]) 03:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
== [[Jerusalem]] ==
You have reverted long standing consensus material that has been the subject of long drawn out debates. You have also done so dispite the ongoing discussion taking place on the article's talk page. Revert, or I will see enforcement at A/E. -[[User:Asad112|asad]] ([[User talk:Asad112|talk]]) 20:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Revision as of 20:12, 11 September 2012
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think you misunderstand Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
Congratulations, AnkhMorpork, you've recently made your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia!
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
AN/I
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Hello, Vanished user lt94ma34le12. You have new messages at West.andrew.g's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
My opinion of you as a Wikipedia 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. Zerotalk14:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
FYI
I have said on ANI that I have found a couple of your edits troubling, and that is indeed the case. However, that is all that is meant by that comment. I am not aware of the context of them, and I will probably not be investigating unless the people who want to ban you come up with something better. Therefore, unless I change my tune, which will be obvious, please do not see that comment as a slur on you in any way whatsoever EggCentric00:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia in response to abuse of editing privileges. Further abuse from this IP address may result in an extended block.
Regarding this revert [1] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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[reply]
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)[reply]
Dear User:AnkhMorpork, I am robin klein. I am having dispute on the page Saint Thomas Christians. The said people have a claim of being of Jewish origin that is corroborated by Scholars from various universities including Prof Shalva Weil from Hebrew University Jerusalem and Prof Katz from Florida International University. But a group of 4-5 editors are deleting any mention of Jewish origin of the said people (Saint Thomas Christians). There is a concerted deletion of mention of claims to Jewish origin by a community of ancient christians from Kerala, India. The said community is called as Malabar Nasrani a.k.a Nasrani Mappila. Nasrani is the Hebrew word for Jewish Christianity. It was the Portuguese invaders of Kerala who started calling the Nasranis as Saint Thomas Christians because they hated any Jewish reference to the a supposed christian community. Anyway The naming is a minor dispute within the larger dispute of the deletion of any cited mention of claims to Jewish descent of the Nasranis a.k.a Malabala Mappila a.k.a Saint Thomas Christians. I had put up quotes from Scholars from Hebrew University Jerusalem and also cited from research work from scholar from University of Texas. Prof Shalva Weil from Hebrew University Jerusalem mentions in her papers that the Northists ( a sub group of the Nasranis) have claims of Jewish origins. She also quotes in her paper about the claim that Saint Thomas the apostle converted members of the Jewish diaspora settled in the Malabar Coast (Kerala). I have given all these quotes with page numbers from the peer reviewed academic papers at the talk page of the article. Now editors are constantly deleting text that mentions the claim of the community to Jewish descent. Why or how would you justify deletion of text when I have given citation or page numbers from the academic research papers. The editors state that I do not know english and that I am misinterpreting the quote. To this I told the editor that since he/she knows better english than me then please help the collaborative wikipedia editing by rewording the text so that the misinterpretation is removed. But the requested rewording did not happen. I have given references and quotes. Why would the editor keep on deleting the text and not allow rewording. Clearly the research authors have mentioned about the claims of jewish origins of the Nasranis Christians (a.k.a Nasrani Mappila a.k.a. Malabar Nasranis a.k.a Saint Thomas Christians). With proper citations given, it is definitely legitimate to mention about the claims of jewish descent of the Nasrani people. How could the editors keep on deleting mention of the claim of jewish origin of the people when proper citation with page numbers have been provided. Does that mean that no mention of claims of Jewish origin should be made even though scholars have stated so, just because the editors have an agenda. The editors who are reverting have administrative powers. I think they are misusing their administrative powers. A lot of discussion regarding the deltion has already happened on the talk page of the article Saint Thomas Christians under the sub heading Jewish descent and at WP:DRN. Now an editor User:Sitush is threatening me that I would be banned from the article. This is using threat. Please help, thanks Robin klein (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this [2], 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [3]. 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)[reply]
RSN
You claim to want to hear the opinion of uninvolved editors, but in fact you are vigorously advocating your position when it has not been supported by uninvolved editors. Dlv999 (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, Vanished user lt94ma34le12. You have new messages at Al Ameer son's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I would appreciate it if you would discuss reinstatement of edits containing several potentially non-reliable sources in the dhimmi article at that article's talk page, before taking them in again en bloque. benjamil (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Can you please check out the talk page of that article. You seem to be ignoring the messages on the DYK page. There are fixes to the intro which need doing immediately because the first sentence is so badly written that it carries a completely false implication.Amandajm (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have reverted long standing consensus material that has been the subject of long drawn out debates. You have also done so dispite 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)[reply]
? . -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 16:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Egg Centric 00:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
78.105.8.153 (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
