User talk:Ash Carol

/archive

Category:Husbands has been nominated for discussion

Category:Husbands, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:American wives has been nominated for discussion

Category:American wives, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yoninah (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Rebuttal

@78.26: re special:diff/870457450 I believe you know full well that "the case presented is excellent" is false. Being "hyper-focused on analyzing and recording the details and timeline of the shooting" is not malicious. A group of editors recently swarmed that article and removed mention of the bris without consensus, even though consensus had already been established to include it.

My encouragement for analysis was only because sources were being broadly misinterpreted by POV-pushing editors.

The content I added to the TOL page was encyclopedic and was very much due, it was basic information about how the building was split between the owners and 2 renters, and clearing up some confusion about "Life"/"Light" in the names.

I encourage you or others to take a close look at the reversion cabal formed by 2605, Bus stop, Yoninah and WWGB. They are collaborating to remove reliably sourced information to Cleveland Jewish News/Daily Mail/Daily Mirror/Jewish Telegraphic Agency/National Public Radio/New York Post/New York Times/NBC/The Daily Beast/Time/Variety/Baltimore Sun/Huffington Post/Telegraph/Washington Post/Charlotte Observer/Tatchell/Toronto Sun/People/Times of Israel/Miami Herald/Vox

They insist that all these prior sources are "FAKE NEWS" based on deference to a mere two "The Forward" and "Vos iz Neias", both of which I only cited to show how marginal opposition to the facts was. These two sources do not outweight the twenty-two others just because they published later.

These editors are marginalizing and insulting one of the survivors of the shooting, Barry Werber of New Light, who affirmed with Globe and Mail that a bris was happening. Barry Werber deserves to be heard and not disregard. I do not think Barry Werber is a liar, and I think these 4 editors are attacking him personally by implying he lied to Globe and Mail and disregarding the importance of his testimony.

Regardless of how I am treated, this issue requires further neutral examination. Ash Carol (talk) 06:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The biggest issues is not whether or not your are "right", the issue is that you seem unable to work with other editors regarding respecting consensus of what is encyclopedic or not. Other editors feel that the inclusion of such details regarding what is considered a sensitive ritual performed on a minor is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. That is not "marginalizing and insulting," it is a valid point of view deserving consideration. This becomes a content dispute, and consensus is not with you, but you are unable to work with those who see things differently. You will receive no further communication from myself until you resolve the cause for the indefinite block on your original account. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Ash Carol (Tyciol), I had no intention of saying anything to you, but you've chosen to invoke my name in your rambling comment here. Putting aside the fact that you've now been caught with your seventh sockpuppet account, you are yet again completely failing to either understand or acknowledge the reasons your behavior has been so problematic to this project. You refuse to listen or even be open-minded to very experienced and respected editors when they counsel you on relevant policies, guidelines, protocols, and other issues; ignore clear evidence that contradicts your positions; cherry-pick sources that you believe will solidify your arguments; make false allegations against other editors by purposely restating their comments out of context; obsess over small details; insert clearly contentious content in articles despite the objections of most or all involved editors; and in terms of your talk page participation, you have caused absolute chaos with your never-ending creation of new threads and lengthy, disruptive arguments. As any reasonable person can see from the last version of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting talk page prior to your block, you essentially hijacked the page from top to bottom and there was no indication that it was ever going to stop. The bottom line is that you have shown an almost complete inability to productively collaborate with other editors. In any case, we now have confirmation about why you completely ignored the repeated questions about whether or not you are/were using multiple accounts to edit. The seven illegal accounts they found (so far) are likely not the only ones you've already created, and it would be hard to believe there won't be plenty more in the future. I would suggest you find another hobby because this one isn't a good fit for you. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:3059:8016:5847:3E43 (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)