User talk:Shrike/Archives/2012/March

Twinkle
I've installed it. Seems very useful. Any other add ons you recommend. Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 20:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do. Just installed WikED; looks like a lot to learn. Many thanks Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

sorry
I don't read English!! save your time and keep hiding information about your state history....--Neogeolegend (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Gaza War controversial tactics
Shrike, you recently made two separate edits, to this page. Both of them were edits deleting substantial sourced material added by previous editors. I see this a clear violation of the 1RR rule which applies to all articles within the I/P topic area.

Also in a controversial article discussing the Gaza war it may be more helpful to explain why you think an opinion is being given undue weight in the talk pages rather than just asserting it with your deletion without prior discussion. If you notice the section on targeting police is already a lot smaller than the other sections - I think it would be far better to include other opinions per RS rather than substantially deleting the opinion of HRW. I would ask that you consider self reverting one of your edits so that you are within the 1RR policy in this topic area. Dlv999 (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC) Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the unwarranted accusation - I had misunderstoo the practicalities of the 1RR rule. Dlv999 (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you think the paragraph on dense inert explosives is sufficiently notable and and sourced as a 'Controversial Tactic in the Gaza War', especially as "DIME weapons and weapons armed with heavy metal are not prohibited under international law". Their alleged use does not seem to have been particularly controversial.

recent edits to rachel's tomb
Please explain your edits with an edit summary. Please do not remove tags without reason or explanation. Please understand that just because someone has published something somewhere, it does not necesserily belong in wikipedia. This is particularily true with regard to contraversial subjects.93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The removal of tag was done by mistake.--Shrike (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * and the failure to provide an edit summary for one edit, and provision of a misleading edit summary for the other?93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Ofra
This edit is inconsistent with Legality of Israeli settlements. I should add that my personal view is that the single statement in the lead is enough but that is not what was agreed.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Good faith
Could you please explain to me the "specific evidence of malice" you have that lead you to question my involvement on the 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings article? from WP:AGF : "If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence, so that people can understand the basis for your concerns."

As I am sure you are aware, questioning the motives of editors without supplying evidence could be seen as a failure to assume WP:GOODFAITH.

I would like to point out that (following the first advice I received as a wikipedia editor ), in the vast majority of articles I am involved with, my first edit is to the talk pages, after I have spent time with the page on my watchlist reviewing the talk page discussion and reading the cited sources for the article. The 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings article is no different in this regard. In fact I have been watching the discussions on the talk page with some dismay over several days as it has descended into acrimony and have withheld from contributing in an attempt not to inflame the debate. My actual contribution was aimed at getting the discussion back to a debate on the sources, wikipedia policies, and on the basis of assumptions of good faith among editors, which makes it all the more dismaying to find you questioning the intentions of my edit.

I would kindly ask that you refrain from making further insinuations on my talk page. If you have an issue with any of my edits you should openly make the accusation through the appropriate channels. Dlv999 (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

please help
hi, i saw your page, could you help me find a certain user to talk to on wikipedia? his name is CUSH and i wanted to find out if there was a list of users you could search on this website. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.198.45.43 (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)