"

 Timeshifter's dishonesty 

Timeshifter, your story above is text-book projection, first rate water-muddying, I grant you, but deceit nonetheless. But this follows the pattern of your edits. Your POV is clear throughout. It's pretty simple: you believe this recent Lancet study is the Truth, and, therefore you have to believe that virtually all other sources are way off. IraqBodyCount is a wild underestimate, ILCS is not ""legitimate"" etc. Basically every edit you've made on all these pages is carefully orchestrated and loaded to lead everyone toward these beliefs. Now you're pissed that I've ever so slightly gotten in the way of your prolific POV-pushing by deleting a miniscule fraction of it, and now you're playing the victim. 

Let's put that act aside and look at what I've actually deleted. I've reverted basically three things here: 

1. Lancet page - claims about a supposed ""ILCS baseline 2002 mortality rate"". Fabrications do not belong on wiki pages. I deleted that fabrication. The only ""sourced material"" I deleted was stuff about Lancet baseline rates that were cited accurately enough, but only had any relevance to this section because they were being related to the fabrication I was removing. Once the fabricated ""ILCS baseline rate"" is removed, the surrounding ""sourced material"" from Lancet that I deleted no longer has any relevance to the section. It is entirely out of context and so properly removed along with the fabrication. The ""sourced material"" that was there makes no sense being there unless the fabrication is there, so I removed it along with the fabrication. 

2. IBC page - I deleted an inaccurate and out of context claim authored by Timeshifter. I added a statement which says IBC showed an example of something, and provided a citation for this. Timeshifter then adds that Lancet authors dispute this claim from IBC, and he puts a footnote onto this, but the footnote leads to quotes by Lancet authors that address something else entirely. Thus, this claim of Timeshifter's is properly removed as it is falsely described as one thing when it is something else, and the citation leads to something that is different than how it's described. 

So the first two are just simple falsehoods and fabrications. Apparently it's ""against the rules"" and ""POV-favoring"" to delete POV-pushing falsehoods and fabrications.

3. IBC page - Guatemala study. I've questioned the relevance of this to IBC, and the accuracy of the description, and discussed this on the talk page. This one is at least more debatable than the others, as it is just tangential cherry-picking for a POV, rather than just fabrications and falsehoods for a POV.

Deleting these three things has been my great crime, causing poor Timeshifter so much pain and anguish, yeah right. As I've already said, I can't keep up with Timeshifter's proselytizing for the Lancet study on all these various pages. He's very commited to the cause, as proselytizers tend to be."