User talk:Aaron Asimov

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! RJFJR 18:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Ausrottung
Another editor has added the  template to the article Ausrottung, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Michael A. Hoffman II
Please stop removing material in Michael A. Hoffman II that is appropriately sourced and replacing it with material that is not backed-up by the citation provided. Thank you. Location (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I am restoring material that was removed (see TALK). Citations provided certainly do corroborate the material. Please prove your contention that "material...is not backed-up by the citation provided." If you can't prove it, you're just trying to take over this subject. I have addd an entire bibliography that was missing, including books Hoffman wrote long after Gardell's own book was published.

Using one source (Gardell) principally for whole sections of a Wikipedia entry are inappropriate and lead to inaccuracy. I see no reason why Mattias Gardel should be the main author of a Wikipedia entry, particularly when other sources are censored or omitted in favor of Gardell's more than ten year old material.


 * And I see no reason my Michael Hoffman should get to write his own Wikipedia article. Do you?

The entry on Michael Hoffman is one of the most politicized I have seen at Wikipedia. His detractors continue to try to dominate the entry --but on what grounds--that Wikipedia should serve their animus? Wikipedia should serve the advancement of knowledge.

As noted in the TALK section, material that was on the page for years has been removed in favor of a truncated and mutilated version that can't be justified on any grounds.

The challenge to my citations needs to be documented. Omissions and removal of material needs to be explained and justified.


 * Sorry, Bucky, but that ain't the way it works. He who alleges must prove. If you can prove your points with material that can be tracked down on a reasonable basis, then the material can stay. But claiming that one worked for the AP in New York and then vaguely citing "wire service dispatches" for thirty years ago isn't going to cut it. Actual dates of publication can be verified, or you can guarantee that I'm going to come back and delete/edit as I see fit.

To Bucky: Your arrogant thought cop routine has no place in encyclopedia writing. Providing citations is not an "allegation." Removing a link to the Amazon Author's Page but leaving Nizkor's link intact says all we need to know about your pretensions to fairness. I repeat: politicizing this subject's entry turns the Wikipedia encyclopedia into the private propaganda posting of the subject's enemies. Cooler heads at Wikipedia who are solicitous of the reputation of this online encyclopedia, will surely prevail in the end. --Aaron Asimov.


 * Oh, please. You can think whatever the fuck you want to. No one's stopping you. And in case you didn't notice, there's a ton of material based on nothing but Hoffman's own work still in his Wikipedia bio, even after I cut what has been alleged but not proved. So get the bunch out of your panties, OK?


 * By the way, is there something at the Nizkor page on Hoffman that isn't true? Be specific. Provide examples. I'll wait. Thanks.

I See What You're Doing
So you started posting articles here a few years back. Your first one was on Hoffman. Since then, you've edited a bunch of articles. You created the article on Provan. You edited the Adin Steinsaltz article to imply that somebody's hiding something about the Talmud. You tried to make Robert Crumb look like a racist and anti-Semite.

You don't edit in good faith, and you know it.

I am more than happy to say that I can't fucking stand Michael Hoffman. So I take issue when people try to make him look better than he actually is. But I do so within the guidelines of Wikipedia. You don't. So don't give me any more bullshit about how you're trying to be fair because you're not. Soon, I'm going to call in moderation, and we'll see who makes the better case about his neutrality. OK, Bucky? Aemathisphd (talk) 21:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I See Your Hatred
Dear Aemathisphd: Please do call in moderation. Let's see what they think of what an encyclopedia editor who is "more than happy to say that I can't fucking stand Michael Hoffman," is doing editing Hoffman's Wikipedia entry, censoring alternative views (which stood for years at Wikipedia), removing citations and references, and clearly violating Wikipedia's guideline on a neutral point of view. What good faith is there in that? You imagine that Wikipedia is going to enforce the attempted control of the Hoffman page by a hater of Hoffman? Wikipedia moderation will deliver the wake-up call you've been needing. You do serious harm to Wikipedia. Aaron Asimov (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * What business do I have? I'm an acknowledged expert on Holocaust denial, cited by Wikipedia in articles on that topic. That's what business I have. You, apparently, are an anti-Semite. You cite Herman Otten? He's also a Holocaust denier. You really want to do this? Then let's do it. Aemathisphd (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#cite_note-Key_elements-3 — Aemathisphd (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Guilty of edit wars and reverts at the Shahak page for which he has been blocked by Wikipedia
For the record, Aemathisphd is involved in an edit war on the Hoffman page, with numerous reverts in violation of Wikipedia policy, for which he has already been blocked as a result of an edit war and reverts he committed at the page of Israel Shahak. Aaron Asimov (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * WAS involved in an edit war. Over which, by the way, I was banned by the very person who disagreed with me in rather a Stalinist move. I received a 48-hour ban. And then you know what happened? My suggested changes were accepted. You're an idiot. Aemathisphd (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael A. Hoffman II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Twilight language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)