User talk:Vanished user lt94ma34le12

Please leave sensible and relevant messages. Offensive material will be deleted.

"Arab zoological conspiracy theories"

Can you please provide a source that defines this term? It appears to be a synthesis, and a distinctly offensive one at that. The article is a ridiculous assemblage of trivia as it is, and is hardly improved by ethnic stereotyping. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

As delineated in the lede, the article relates to conspiracy theories "propagated by the Arab media and Arabic language websites". The previous title did not not incorporate this aspect; how would you rather I do so?
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source that states that "the Arab media and Arabic language websites" are propagating "zoological conspiracy theories"? In any case, not only Arabs speak the Arabic language. The title is offensive - as indeed is the article as a whole. It is nothing more than synthesis, and not remotely fit for anywhere other than the inside pages of some trashy tabloid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Is your objection to the article title, the lede or the content in general as your posts appear to confusingly conflate these together. Intellectual snobbery is not grounds for exclusion and you are not compelled to ogle this 'tawdry tabloid trivia'. I agree entirely that much of the content of the article is senseless sensationalism and was therefore equally surprised that it was reported in the Arab main stream media as the article documents. A brief scan of the sources reveals mention of "the Arab masses", "Arab coverage of Israel" I await a constructive counter-proposal and not just captious cavilling and criticism.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The Stonegate Institute is no part of the 'mainstream media', and a brief mention of the topic in the Toronto Star hardly constitutes in-depth coverage. In any case, even if the subject matter is legitimate (which I very much contest), the title is a violation of WP:NPOV. I suggest that you self-revert, and then make a proper page move proposal, after finding a more appropriate title. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

(Note. Contrary to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, AnkhMorpork edited his comment above after I responded [1]) AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

(Note. The edit in question is the insertion of the word 'Arab'. I have communicated my accord to a reversion of this subsequent edit but AndyTheGrump appears to prefer to let it stand and condemn it in true Strawman fashion.)
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

And I suggest you express your objection in a more coherent manner as you have now introduced NPOV concerns to the pot-pourri of synthesis problems and issues of notability, with regards to title, lede and content. Can you provide a specific concern as opposed to disgorging a bolus of entangled thought on my Talk page.

Ok, since you seem to be going out of your way to avoid explaining why you made the page move, I'll make it explicit: the present title is offensive, stereotyping, and not based on any valid source: it is a violation of WP:NPOV. Are you going to do as I asked, and self-revert so the move can be properly discussed, or not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You either have a memory span to rival a goldfish or myopic maladjusted cognition. Contrary to your claim that "you seem to be going out of your way to avoid explaining why you made the page move", my first reply stated, "As delineated in the lede, the article relates to conspiracy theories "propagated by the Arab media and Arabic language websites". The previous title did not not incorporate this aspect; how would you rather I do so?". I am prepared to highlight the salient features of this response if this will make comprehension easier. Despite your similarly ludicrous claims as those included in the article, I shall revert in the spirit of corroboration.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Central Fund Of Israel

Central Fund of Israel is article related to the Palestine-Israeli conflict and is thus subject 1RR rule. I have previously warned you before about breaking this rule in the topic area, as has another user. I request that you self revert your revision. Dlv999 (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have made a comment on the talk pages regarding your recent edits. Also I have started a discussion on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that you may be interested in. Dlv999 (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC) Dlv999 (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems sensible.