Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:40, 18 November 2014

“	I order you to be truthful, for indeed truthfulness leads to righteousness, and indeed righteousness leads to Paradise. A man continues to be truthful and strives for truthfulness until he is written as a truthful person with God. And beware of falsehood, for indeed falsehood leads to sinning, and indeed sinning leads to the Fire. A man continues to tell lies and strives upon falsehood until he is written as a liar with God	”
— Saheeh Muslim

“	In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same	”
— Albert Einstein

WP:TALK#USE: "Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity.."

About David Attenborough

I saw your message on ro.wikipedia. Unfortunately, sites like YouTube often have copyright issues. For this reason, we can't allow them in the articles or in the article's talk page. Anyway, next time you can skip automatic translation. Everybody on Romanian Misplaced Pages knows English. Cheers. --Winter (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I almost forgot. The documentary was really interesting. Thank you for the message. --Winter (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for dropping by :), and for taking an interest It's been a big interest of mine for I guess a lot of reasons. Noroc! I hope that translates. Gregkaye (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It does :D --Winter (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Gregkaye. Unfortunately, these days my spare time is very limited. I can give you a proper answer as early as Wednesday. Thanks, Winter (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

TY for reply

Thanks for your reply, in re: Hum. Sexual. article review. The sources there are in miserable shape, and I believe I was drawn to your work because of a shared commitment to good sourcing. Understand the need for priorities, but I have done all I can (as scholarly, but outside, non-expert). Any time you might wish to give a bit of time, can only help the article. Look to talk for the long list of issues with the sourcing (and consequently, likely the content). Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you for your kind comments. I've made my gaffs along the way and will try to be worthy of them :) Gregkaye (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of London images

I've started a discussion about images in the London article at Talk:London#Images in body of article. I'm suggesting we reduce the number of images and that would include some that you've added, so I'd be glad to hear your views. Hope to see you there. NebY (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

PS I'm taking the great liberty of changing a header level above so that your table of contents doesn't show everything after 15 July as a subsection of "Talkback". If this isn't appropriate then please accept my apologies - and do of course revert me at once! NebY (talk) 09:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: Population Matters

I started a Vietnamese translation of the English article. Note that, at the Vietnamese Misplaced Pages, we tend to keep the native name of an organization unless a Vietnamese name is widely or officially used. Thus the article is named "Population Matters". We have plenty of organization articles with English names, and I've yet to see any indication that users avoid such articles. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 11:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Minh Nguyễn whatever works will be most welcome. Many thanks for your interest. Gregkaye (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

reversals

You're supposed to talk, or give a link. -DePiep (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• as are you, my changes had explanations attached Gregkaye (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

"Mentions" decides? E.g. in ? -DePiep (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was thinking more of the Jimmy Carter books. All books are better described as critical of Israel that I can see. Gregkaye (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Which single one of your first edits had an explanation -- at all? -DePiep (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Changing Category:Books critical of Zionism to Category:Books critical of Israel - the books, as far as is visible, fit better in the new category. Gregkaye (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• I declare this change controversial, as you already see. I propose you revert (into pre-situation), and you write a proposal to be discussed. -DePiep (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• How controversial? Do you think that a "Category:Books critical of Israel" does not apply? In which cases? Gregkaye (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• DePiep, re: above questions, please substantiate or else withdraw the declaration. Gregkaye (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

'controversial' as in: the edit is not uncontroversial. So that statement alone is enough to require create consensus before editing. Note that for these pages WP:ARBPIA applies, including 1RR. So I invite you to revert the edits, and start a talk. -DePiep (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Category:Books critical of Zionism was created on 21:51, 3 November 2005 with comment "(started category, with categories)" by User:Morning_star with, as far as I can tell, no consensus discussions being involved. Items have been added into the category that seemed to me to have contents more related to Israel than Zionism and, copying the format of "Category:Books critical of Zionism", I created Category:Books critical of Israel. Instead of doubling content I choose to change the categorisation of books from ...Zionism to ...Israel. I initially placed "Category:Books critical of Israel" into Category:Israel but, on finding an alternative, changed this to Category:Politics of Israel. I have provided cross referencing links between the two categories. In reply to my question how? you replied: "'controversial' as in: the edit is not uncontroversial". I don't see any controversy within my actions. I would argue that there would be more controversy related to the categorisation of Jimmy Carter's writings as "Critical of Zionism". Again I ask How? pinging:DePiep Gregkaye (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The very fact that I disagree and reverted says it is controversial. From there, you are supposed to find consensus in a talk - from the pre-situation. -DePiep (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• DePiep In regard to the Jimmy Carter books, the only controversial thing was your reversal. Gregkaye (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Your level of involvement at Talk:Antisemitism

Looking over the talk page history at Talk:Antisemitism, , I see that you are replying to nearly every editor that posts to the page move discussion you started. Can you please consider backing away from the discussion and letting others state their opinions and reasonings? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• I started four discussions, one due to a flagrant disregard to Misplaced Pages guidelines regarding archiving, two due to the poor quality and misuse of citations in the article, three due to a form of article title that is unjustified by any content in Misplaced Pages guidelines and four perhaps an overreaction to your accusation that one of my clearly intelligible comments was incoherent. I was also the only editor to offer a defense of Israel in the discussion: Are anti-israelites considered anti-semitic? Along the way I have corrected a number of factual inaccuracies while receiving a bit of fair correction myself. I have no regret in regard to my content. At no point have I been involved in misrepresentation of content and have contributed to the veracity of the whole. Gregkaye (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, I was referring specifically to the page move discussion. You have nearly as many replies there as all other editors combined. This is a good indication that you should listen more and write less. And yes, that post was and is incoherent in the Paulian sense. It is an outlier even given your extensive history of producing non sequiturs on that talk page. VQuakr (talk) 07:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

If you have arguments to make regarding the topic feel free to make them. However the position that you have so far taken in the discussion already seems strange for someone who declared support. Gregkaye (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You have made exactly one valid argument (that most similarly-titled articles use hyphenation) and diluted it with a bunch of nonsense. I agree with the observation regarding hyphenation and consistency, and reject the nonsense. It is very simple. VQuakr (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This is rich VQuakr for someone whose whole argument depended on red herring and erroneously applied references to "Lady Gaga" and "Guinea pigs". Your use of weasel statements in the discussion has similarly been deplorable.. Worst your long standing insult of incoherence. If you meant it in the Pauline sense (as stated above, with a link that in no way mentions incoherence), why did you not say so, or were you just trying to score points?

Oh, boy. I doubt any further attempts with you are going to be productive, but here's an attempt. Lady Gaga and Guinea pigs are both examples from the policy that you linked. They are therefore relevant - you introduced them. I pointed them out to illustrate how you were incorrect in stating that WP:COMMONNAME applied. You appear to not understand what the terms "red herring" and "weasel word" mean. My observation that your argument was incoherent was not an insult - it was directed at your argument, not at you. I piped the adjective "Paulian" to the article on the phrase "not even wrong," which is commonly attributed to Wolfgang Pauli. In retrospect, simply copying the dictionary definition of incoherent for your reference probably would have been less likely to cause excusable confusion. VQuakr (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You insultingly described my "justification" as "incoherent".

What's your justification for the insult?

Gregkaye (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The word incoherent is a criticism, not an insult. I said it was incoherent for the reasons I gave. I see no point in repeating myself. Please don't talk nonsense. You didn't just say "The use of..." you said theft, which is the same thing as stealing, so don't be dishonest. In any case the analogy is absurd. It is not and never was theft, because there is no loss of anything and there is no ownership of words. I have to say that I find your argument utterly disgusting and I am embarrassed to find myself in agreement with you on this issue, since your motivation is so distasteful. . Paul B (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Paul B no-single group can claim exclusive use of an ancient terminology. My family are the Britons. The name does not apply to anyone else. That would be nonsense. Gregkaye (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, it is not nonsense. Everyone in Britain is a Briton. We use do, of course, use Briton in the older sense when talking about the sub-Roman period, but often alternative spellings or other identifiers are added to avoid confusion (hence "ancient Briton" or "Brython" etc; or even the spelling Breton, when referring to the continental branch of Britons). Trying to "own" the term is both fruitless and, to my mind, displays a desire to control ethnic identity which has very unpleasant associations. Of course Jews are Semites, so you can't steal something you already have. Language does what it does, and inevitably includes ambivalance, polyvalence etc. People use it in the way that it has evolved, because we have no individual choice over usage. Paul B (talk) 13:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Paul Barlow: he knows that already. After all, he piped Britons (Celtic people) to read "Britons" because Briton is a disambiguation page, the first link from which is British people. But of course, just linking to the natural link (the disambig) would completely destroy his own argument. Interestingly, this also fits the 2nd definition of "incoherent" that Greg kindly linked above. VQuakr (talk) 06:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes @Paul Barlow:, I would agree that: a British person in Britain is a Briton. Those are just three of several words that make reference to a common British linguistic root. My point stands. It would be ludicrous for one group to claim sole use of British terminology and yet this is exactly what has happened with the prefixed usage of terminologies with Semitic roots. The inevitabilities of language do not include specific use of misnomers. Anti-Semite, anti-Semitic and anti-Semitism are all forms of misnomer that references a larger group of people in describing issues relating to a smaller group of people. These terminologies all do this with versions of Semitic terminologies that are in common modern day usage with several usages of the word root being involved. "Briton" is a word used in modern contexts. "Semite", "Semitic" and "Semitism" are words that are used in modern contexts. Your argument, as stated above is (in the second sense of the word), incoherent.

Sad to say though, language may inevitably do things when sufficient POV pushing is applied and, looking at loaded replies to the recent move discussions, I think that it is reasonable to suspect that this is exactly what has happened. The British have a principle: "call a spade a spade". Its a principle that I endorse. There is no reason why language should have unnecessary ambivalences or some such. Language is best used to facilitate clear communication. Gregkaye (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It would be ludicrous for one group to claim sole use of British terminology and yet this is exactly what has happened with the prefixed usage of terminologies with Semitic roots. No, it isn't. Jewish people do not control the evolution of the English language or the definition of antisemitism, and it is quite insulting of you to claim otherwise. The inevitabilities of language do not include specific use of misnomers. Patently, demonstrably false. English is rife with, as you say, misnomers (ie, look up the etymology of "apologize.") Antisemitism means prejudice against Jewish people, even though the logical construction of "anti" and "Semite" would apply it to a larger people group. There is no reason why language should have unnecessary ambivalences or some such. Please be reminded that Misplaced Pages is not a place to promote your ideas. Good luck finding any forum that gives you enough voice to prescriptively control the definitions of words. VQuakr (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Antisemitism → Anti-Semitism : related moves

--jpgordon, Red Slash, User:Arvedui, Paul B, Pluto2012, VQuakr, Bus stop, Fleenier, Emphascore, NebY,

Pinging contributors to Talk:Anti-Semitism#Requested_move to let you know that there is a discussion related to proposed moves of similarly titled pages at Talk:3D_Test_of_Antisemitism#Requested_moves.

Gregkaye (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum reads at its website: "Antisemitism": "The word antisemitism means prejudice against or hatred of Jews." This being the case, there is little reason to title this article "Anti-Semitism". You are in fact not using as precedent the best quality sources. Many more examples exist. Bus stop (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• And every political decision made by the US establishment is right yes? Gregkaye (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of userbox templates

Hi, regarding Template:User still believes in handshake agreements: when you put a {{subst:tfd}} on a template, you should also create an entry on the relevant day's section at WP:TFD. You've not done this at Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 1; there is more info at WP:TFD#Listing a template - you've only carried out step I.

But this is academic, because it's a userbox, which are not processed at WP:TFD, but at WP:MFD. If you don't want to go through all of that, you can get the template speedy-deleted, under WP:CSD#G7 - just put {{Db-author}} on the template page, and it'll be gone in a few hours at most, rather than the several weeks that MFD seems to take. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Redrose64, thanks for your direction. I was under the assumption that some content might automatically appear at Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 1 and was wondering why it wasn't happening. I'm still learning and appreciate you pointing the way. Gregkaye (talk) 06:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Link and heading format

@Anomalocaris:,@Red Slash:,@Emphascore:,@Bus stop:,@NebY:,@Geofferic:,@Lisa:,@Jpgordon:,@Pluto2012:,

Pinging contributors to the discussion Talk:Anti-Semitism#Requested_move_mishandled to ask whether you would want a link placed at the end of Talk:Anti-Semitism#Requested_move so as to link to the new discussion: Talk:3D_Test_of_Antisemitism#Requested moves. How should this be correctly handled?

I would also like to suggest changing the format of the title:

 ==Requested move mishandled==

to a third tier heading as:

 ===Requested move mishandled===

This is both because the discussion directly relates to the content of the requested move and in response to the insertion of the "Requested move mishandled" discussion out of the normal chronological sequence of discussions.

Gregkaye (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: I think it would be a good idea to place a link at the end of Talk:Anti-Semitism#Requested_move so as to link to the new discussion: Talk:3D_Test_of_Antisemitism#Requested moves. I don't have any suggestions on how to do it. I also agree that it would be good to make the "Requested move mishandled" heading a third-tier heading. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Please do not ping me again. I have zero desire to discuss anything with you in your personal WP space. I'm sure a better place can be found for this discussion. Geofferic •_C✡ 19:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *"dis", a ] changing the meaning of a term to its negative (as in ].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Prefixes

Please stop adding prefixes that do not have their own article to disambiguation pages. Those pages are meant to list existing Wiki articles that a user might be looking for, not all possible meanings of a term. Also, please do not add additional links to entries that already have a blue link. Each entry should have exactly one blue link. If you intend to keep doing so much editing of disambiguation pages, you should really read through all of MOS:DAB. -- Fyrael (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I also see other issues such as primary topics and punctuation as I undo all of these. Please, please read through MOS:DAB before making any further edits to dab pages. -- Fyrael (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Anti-Semitism:Requested move

I have asked for a move review, see Misplaced Pages:Move review#Anti-Semitism, pertaining to Anti-Semitism#Requested move. Because you initiated the discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. IZAK (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks

...on IWBB. SeattliteTungsten (talk) 05:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

ANB discussion

There is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#Move War at History of the Jews in Nepal, and RFC review that concerns you because you were recently involved with one or more of the related Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal, Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30 (History of the Jews in Nepal), Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#RfC: Should we change article name to 'Judaism in Nepal'?. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think the question is a little moot since the Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#RfC: Should we change article name to 'Judaism in Nepal'? is closed.

All the same I totally agree with reference to a term such as "Jews" in the title and would further approve that all article titles be this straightforward in description. In Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal I saw "history" as a stretch. There is a seasonally large Jewish presence in Nepal and I have had some great moments trekking with some of these people. This presence is clearly a recent phenomena. The article History of the Jews in Nepal cites a recorded visit in 1898 as a single exception.

Perhaps the strongest argument for the title History of the Jews in Nepal is that of consistency.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Did you change many "ISIS"s to "ISIL" in the text today? Please would you go to the Talk page at #"ISIS and ISIL" if you did, as there are problems with this. Thanks. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

When you changed ISIS to ISIL at 2.53 UTC today the 14th, not only did you not change all the ISIS to ISIL, but you altered at least one ISIS inside a quotation to ISIL. Quotations have to be copied strictly verbatim into text. It is not clear whether you altered any ISIS to ISIL in the footnotes, but if you did, it would have resulted in broken-link footnotes, meaning readers would not be able to read the citations. An editor has gone to a lot of trouble to revert the ISIL to ISIS in the text. Please would you check to see whether you changed any footnotes or any quotations and rectify. A change as major as this should always be proposed to editors on the Talk page to get agreement first. Editors work by consensus on large changes. --P123ct1 (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Gregkaye, and thanks for your thanks. Hope you like the lead now. Rothorpe (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

1RR violation at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Could you please revert yourself? I can see a "remove" and then an "undid" in your edit summaries, so you know what you are doing. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Dougweller, Thanks for the 1RR info but, if the edits you contest include these two, it seems to me that you pick some strange battles to fight. Re edit: "Removed: "colloquially" from: ... DAʿESH (Template:Lang-ar Dāʿish). These names continue to be used." Can you explain? The word is not only used colloquially. Isn't this a biased misrepresentation? Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You miss the point. 1RR, 3RR, a revert is a revert. Right or wrong. Dougweller (talk) 09:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The 1RR

If I dare mention it again, Greg, be careful about the 1RR. It has caused a lot of problems for editors since it came into force on the ISIS page. As the warning on the Edit page says, flouting it can lead to bans and blocks, although I don't think anyone has been sanctioned yet. Much of the trouble for us editors stemmed from not knowing exactly what a revert was (the WP guidance is not very clear), so after getting it sorted out with others on an admin's page, I added this guidance to the ISIS Talk page here. Hope it helps.

NB: Although it does not say it there, we learned that admins are allowed a certain amount of leeway in interpreting what a revert is, as much depends on the exact circumstances surrounding a revert, which is an extra problem for editors. It's awful working in a straitjacket, I know, but that's how it is. I guess it comes from ISIS being a very controversial page which is getting lots of hits from readers at the moment. All Syrian War-related pages are currently labouring under the 1RR restriction. Best of luck. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

The hatnote to Isil (disambiguation) rather that ISIL (disambiguation) was on purpose, as the uppercase was broken (pending a move to fix a botched move). This was described (out of sight) at Talk:ISIL (disambiguation) so you probably didn't see. All fixed now, but for hours it was broken. Widefox; talk 18:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Widefox, I think I need to apologise for earlier suspicions. I had noticed a few instances in which a preference for ISIS had taken place so as to overshadow ISIL and Da'esh (both more accurate interpretations of the 2013 terminology). Sorry for the directness of comments. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what suspicions you're referring to, but that seems like it might be a separate issue, as this was not ISIS vs ISIL, but the change of the hatnote from "Isil" to "ISIL" which broke it for readers for a few hours (I believe as the subsequent move (I requested) has obscured the history, but it was broken when I set the hatnote for the lowercase to workaround the temporary breakage). Widefox; talk 19:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Greg. I would like to point out to you the xTools analysis page for ISIL here. First, take a look at the number of Pageviews. It varies day by day (more on weekends) however there's 3.5M pageviews in last 60 days which comes to an average of almost 60k views/day. Next take a look at "Month counts". As you can see since June, there's an average of 1000 edits/month. Also there's 900+ total contributors and 283 "watchers". Also you can see the list of top contributors and when they first and last edited the page. I bring all this up to help you understand why it's not advisable to make major changes to the page (like changing ISIS to ISIL or changing to tone or meaning of the lead). I would like to ask that instead of making bold changes that you instead take your ideas to the talk page first. I've been mostly involved with trying to maintain the structure of the page (like suggesting page splits for older historical sections) and participate more in talk page discussions rather than editing the page directly. User:P123ct1 primarily copyedits the page, and other editors like User:Gazkthul are "subject-matter expert"s who help advise and correct factual details. All editors need to work together as a team. I bring this up not to discourage you from editing, rather to help you understand how to better contribute to the project without causing unwanted disruptions. Also, as you've already been warned, there's 1 revert per 24 hour rule, which is much stricter than the general 3R rule. This is strictly enforced. Now that you've been warned you are expected to follow this rule carefully.~Technophant (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller:, @P123ct1:, @Widefox:, @Technophant:. Please let me apologise for disruptive edits that started with the ISIS to ISIL changes with which you are familiar. They were due to my misunderstanding of coverage of ISIS which I had not checked and I should have made additional checks before making changes. I had simply looked at the 2013 Arabic title of the group, seen that "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" was the most accurate translation of the text and, on this basis assumed that this translation would naturally have wider usage than is the case. I also assumed, with I think some justification, that the acronym ISIL would be in wider usage than it actually is. While I still think that the use of ISIL still has merit on the basis of accuracy I realise I should have checked actual usage.

I appreciate that the result of my edits was disruption. This was far from my intention and I willingly admit my mistake. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Hi again, I just happened across this edit and reverted it. All those entries were already listed, and we never pipe links per WP:MOSDAB. Please familiarise yourself with the style guide MOSDAB before editing the next dab page. Widefox; talk 01:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Widefox, I think that in this case I was confuse by existing content on Islamic state (disambiguation) and its several links to redirect pages.

The link labled Islamic State of Azawad redirects to Azawad; the link labled Islamic State of Waziristan redirects to Islamic Emirate of Waziristan; the link labled Islamic State of Indonesia redirects to Darul Islam (Indonesia) and the link labled Islamic state in Palestine redirects to Hamas Covenant.

I later did some searches on "Islamic state" and found articles for Azawad, Darul Islam (Indonesia), Hamas Covenant and Islamic Emirate of Waziristan. Not realising repetition I added information in "See also" in the form:

*]	
*]
*]	
... 	
*]

My links generally conformed to What You See Is What You Get principles. The link labled Azawad goes to Azawad; the link labled Islamic Emirate of Waziristan goes to Islamic Emirate of Waziristan and the link labled Darul Islam (Indonesia) goes to Darul Islam (Indonesia). I made an input error with the link to Hamas Covenant which was intended to go via the Islamic state in Palestine redirect page. This was another mistake.

In each case it was intended that users might click on a link presented with a description and arrive at the location that matched the description used but with the addition of, I thought useful, Islamic State redirect information on the page. This is a similar result as is provided by existing content. For reasons mentioned I did not realise that there was a repetition.

The Islamic state (disambiguation) page was recently brought to my attention when visiting: Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 7 and I made this edit. In the edit I declared: "I added some links in See also: of Islamic state (disambiguation) in this edit. If any of these links are inappropriate then that may indicate that the associated redirect namespace should be deleted."

In all this I was genuinely trying to present useful content while raising potential issues that might be gainfully clarified by people who understood the subject area better than me.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this. There's been a lot of talk page discussion with little resolution. Dougweller (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks too, appreciate you were trying to help. I'm not sure from your reply if you've understood that on dab pages we never pipe links. (that's links at the start of the entry, apart from style - e.g. italics). Just want to confirm that point is understood by you because you mention how WYSIWYG you feel they were. Here's an overview Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation dos and don'ts (once you're OK with that, as I've suggested try to at least checkout WP:MOSDAB so you know how to in future). Hope that helps, regards Widefox; talk 13:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Widefox, I knew the ruling but, in this case (and wrongly), I chose to ignore it. I considered it to be a form of "auto-correcting-piping" although I hadn't invented that fanciful terminology at the time. My knowledge of the piping ruling was one of the reasons that I made the link from the other discussion. I wasn't sure of its validity and was happy for another editor such as yourself to check. I, myself, stand corrected. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Please be aware that several of us have warned you about these disruptive edits, so rolling them up into a caution seems apropriate. Widefox; talk 01:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Talk:Islamic state (disambiguation). Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. and other edits. Did you read MOSDAB as requested before you start editing / making any more suggestions? Your suggestion indicates you haven't read the dos don'ts or MOSDAB. Suggesting big formatting errors for dab pages, when you've been asked to stop disruption on dabs seems like WP:IDHT. You've also change the hatnote and many of your edits are getting reverted. Stop now, listen to what other editors and style guides say. Widefox; talk 18:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Widefox. Talk:Islamic state (disambiguation)? What disruptive editing are you talking about? What reversions? Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the technical side of editing, but on regular edits Gregkaye is no longer being disruptive, as far as I can see. --P123ct1 (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm seeing continued talkpage discussion, without indication of listening, IDHT. Specifically about the desire to change a high importance dab page (again the ISIL topic) without reading / or by ignoring WP:MOSDAB. This is repeated above. Widefox; talk 00:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? Widefox, you have been ignoring sound arguments offered by Mr. Granger through a talk page discussion now reaching considerable length. See: Talk:Islamic state (disambiguation)#Redirect. I agree. The use of the redirect discussed is unjustified. It presents the existence of a phantom Islamic State (militant group) page which does not exist. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The suggested edit at the top of that page has several uncontroversial style problems, as detailed (and not just the one controversial one you've mentioned). I'd only just asked for you to read dos and dont's (and MOSDAB) before making more dab edits, and those large errors indicate you haven't read either WP:IDHT. Did you? That is disruption. When you say there User_talk:Mr._Granger#Sorry_not_to_have_joined_the_discussion this is "unsubstantiated accusations", the context is all those issues. Widefox; talk 07:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Widefox, Please don't overlook the section in WP:MOSDAB on Piping and redirects. There is no justification for the use of the phantom Islamic State (militant group). Please look, listen and hear? The page Islamic State (militant group) does not exist.

WP:DABREDIR says:

"Where redirecting may be appropriate

A redirect should be used to link to a specific section of an article if the title of that section is more or less synonymous with the disambiguated topic. This indicates a higher possibility that the topic may eventually have its own article. "

Note: The disambiguation page link does not make link to a specific section of the article but to the main content of an article that should be so named.

It continues:

Linking to a redirect can also be helpful when both:

the redirect target article contains the disambiguated term; and

the redirect could serve as an alternative name for the target article, meaning an alternative term that is already in the article's lead section.

Note: MOS says "can also be useful". It does not say, as it seems you are reading, "must be used". In the current case it is a toss up between "Islamic State (militant group)" and a proposed use of "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" which was presented in a way that made direct mention of "Islamic State".

The current content of the page Islamic state (disambiguation) begins: "An Islamic state is a type of government, in which the primary basis for government is Islamic religious law."

My suggestion was also to place this text below the line to indicate: "Islamic state or Islamic State may also refer to:" and to place the related Caliphate reference as an indenture of the above.

This had the effect of tidying content and, I think, produced an improved result.

Your unjustified repetitions of unjustified accusations are reaching the point of abuse.

Please read the guidelines and also recognise that this is exactly what they are. Please read WP:PILLAR

Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I will continue to discuss the dab on that talk page (in the open thread) not here, thank you. Please stop pinging me to talk about it in many places (here, and User talk:Mr. Granger or elsewhere) and repeating and spreading suggested edits that fail basics of dab page formatting, it is disruptive. While I'm here, it's good that you're quoting MOSDAB. Did you see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? That should help you with formatting. I suggest you seek more opinions, and compare with my comment at the top of the dab talk. What do you mean by "phantom"?

Note that I'm not the only editor that has complained about your talk page disruption. "This is a good indication that you should listen more and write less" by User:VQuakr, User:Geofferic has told you they don't want to discuss content issues on your talk page. I'm looking for an indication that you not only acknowledge that this behaviour is disruptive WP:IDHT, but realise that continuing to repeat over and over may eventually lead to a block to prevent this disruption. The warnings are there to draw a line, and I hope you will reflect, OK? Widefox; talk 10:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Your complaint relates to my edit to Talk:Islamic state (disambiguation) on 17 September. You have made an unjustified accusation of disruptive editing here. I am justified in making my reply. The first line of text of the disambiguation page currently relates to Islamic state. If you have issues regarding this sequence of presentation as related to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC I suggest you make them there. For goodness sake. I asked a question on a talk page. Another editor has taken up a similar theme in the discussion that follows. There was nothing wrong. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• I see no indication of disruptive editing from Gregkaye, so I agree that Widefox's warnings seem entirely unjustified. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Several editors above disagree with you (for similar reasons above about talk page / listening). Widefox; talk 07:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Widefox, Intentionally or not your recent actions have had the effect of WP:gaming the system.

You issued a warning at 18:43, 18 September 2014 with the claim of disruptive editing at Talk:Islamic state (disambiguation).

This "warning" came after: 1) your previous warning had already proven to be unsubstantiated (you even stated: "Thanks too, appreciate you were trying to help."; 2) after I asked a question on a talk page (THAT'S ALL I HAD DONE) and 3) after a discussion on similar issues raised by me had also been raised at Talk:Islamic state (disambiguation)#Redirect.

Your false accusations here have been continually reasserted despite lack of substantiation. They have also had the effect that I did not make fair contribution to the parallel discussion in which you presented lone opposition to Granger as well as other contributory editors.

In this discussion you have made irrelevant mention of editors comments.

You irrelevantly quote User:Geofferic. I pinged him once, was asked not to do so again and haven't.

You also mention VQuakr. Please understand that "Its arguments that matter in Misplaced Pages. My encouragement to VQuakr was: "If you have arguments to make regarding the topic feel free to make them." He is justified in presenting his own arguments but is as unjustified as you in any attempt to prevent other editors from presenting theirs.

User:Widefox I am pinging you now because I would like a response. You have continued to push an unsubstantiated accusation. I have demonstrated an example above in which I made apology following a situation when I had mistakenly got things wrong. Your response is up to you. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"Use of the term "gaming the system" should be done with caution, as it is inherently an accusation of bad faith editing." -WP:gaming the system . Of course, you may want to back this lack of WP:AGF accusation with diffs or withdraw it.

Repeatedly insisting that you want the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC styled incorrectly per WP:MOSDAB is disruption. It is up to you to seek further opinions for your controversial edit, rather than continuing WP:IDHT and creating further disruption. In any case, as others have said above, I will not discuss further on your page, thank you. Widefox; talk 07:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Widefox I stated: "Intentionally or not your recent actions have had the effect of WP:gaming the system" and I view this as fact. This was the effect. See explanation above.

You first placed a Template:Uw-disruptive2 warning on my talkpage following which you said, "Thanks too, appreciate you were trying to help" but, following this, you added a Template:Uw-disruptive3 warning because I asked a question. The warning stated: "Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Talk:Islamic state (disambiguation). Your edits have been reverted or removed". My edit was neither reverted or removed due to the very clear fact that THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT. You have placed an unjustified / unsubstantiated warning on a talk page and pursued it even while losing the argument that it was based on elsewhere.

"styled incorrectly"? My suggestion was to use of a link without piping, without redirects and without parenthesis. The disambiguation term was directly presented but without the unnecessary parenthesis. Other editors took up a similar argument with similar effect at Talk:Islamic state (disambiguation)#Redirect. with the effect of an adoption of similar wording as that I had originally suggested.

MY EDIT WAS VERY CLEARLY CONSTRUCTIVE. Other editors were building on it even from before the time of your second warning.

One of those editors even came to this page to comment: "I see no indication of disruptive editing from Gregkaye, so I agree that Widefox's warnings seem entirely unjustified".

Given this context I find it astounding that you are quoting: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT rightly applies. You may not have liked that I asked a question and you may not have liked an answer later given. This does not mean that either are wrong. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Breed RMs

The Talk:Canadian Speckle Park and Talk:Black Hereford (hybrid) RM discussion raises similar issues to the other ones you commented in. Curious if you think there are any unclarities in the proposals; it's odd to me how severely some editors are misconstruing the nature of the proposals, and I wonder how they can be clarified to avoid this problem. Any thoughts?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  07:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

•  SMcCandlish ☺ I hope that my comments have in some way helped. I am always ready to fight the cause of the use of clear terminologies and find it quite ridiculous when people would see clarity whittled away. I presume you saw the discussion on English Carrier pigeon. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't actually, and only just now noticed the one at Talk:Strasser pigeon. I don't see this as a cause to fight, it's just proper encyclopedic treatment. We have a WP:SSF problem going on here, where specialists deeply steeped in the names of these breeds cannot fathom that they could be confusing to anyone else, and resent "outsider" interference with "their" articles, a clear WP:OWN problem. I think RM and similar processes, since they involve the entire editing community, are the only way to address this (unless it gets worse, in which case there's WP:RFARB).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  08:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It annoys me that editors use loaded language against you such as "your unreflected moves" and "apparently unable" or whatever when, as far as I can see, you have consistently argued for sensible titling of topics that may not be generally known by the average reader. That gives me a thought :) be well. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Madonna Talk

Dear Gregkaye, I have initiated a new discussion on the Madonna Talk page. I need editors to weigh in and decide if Madonna's article should follow guidelines usually followed by articles on artists known mononymously. Some discussions tend to be overlooked; this is why I'm telling you about it. Thx! Israell (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

sounds interesting :) Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Isil

Hi! You participated in the move discussion that closed this week on ISIL (disambiguation). There is currently a discussion on where the title this was redirected from, Isil, should link to located at Misplaced Pages:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_24#Isil. Please feel fee to participate in the discussion. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Israeli West Bank barrier#Names

Hi. Your edit to IWWB in the introduction that explained the Hebrew name and provided translation was a good change. It was moved down to #Names because that seemed like a better section for it. If you feel strongly, move it back... no hard feelings. Thanks. Keep on rockin'! HonourYoMama (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• TY, However I don't see why reference should be removed to Separation barrier and wall by the now barred SeattliteTungsten as well as others and why wall should be relegated to names. It is a used description. In the majority of locations where people are likely to see it, it's a wall. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

1RR rule, re: SeattliteTungsten

Hi, 1RR is a "bright line" rule that has to be obeyed by all editors in the Israel-Palestine part of Misplaced Pages. Arguments that edits are "reasonable" have never been accepted by the administrators as an excuse. If you look at the archives of WP:AE, you might find examples where reasonableness gained a lower penalty but I think you will not find examples where it prevented a conviction. I think it is good this way, even though it causes anomalies. Having the rule as simple and exception-free as possible helps everyone to understand what they are allowed to do and reduces disputes over the boundaries. ST's penalty of 48 hours block was quite lenient and all he/she needed to do was wait it out. But instead he/she decided to commit suicide by creating a whole army of very obvious socks. This is a much more serious offence. Btw, I'm an administrator but because I'm "involved" in the I/P area I'm just an ordinary editor with regard to this case. Regards. Zero 05:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Zero, I hope pinging is appropriate. (Conversation relates to the very clear case of: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/SeattliteTungsten. First thing to note is that I find any case of false identity to be abhorrent. It is a case that I dispute in relation to the use Semitic in anti-Semitic when the issue is anti-Jewish and in the absence of the word professional when referring to professional wrestling when there is no sport of a competitive nature involved. I think clear presentation of identity to be amongst the most hightly important issues in Misplaced Pages and personally use my real name as my user name. Under no circumstances am I endorsing the use of a sock puppet or the breaking of a clear 1RR rule. My understanding is that the rule is there to oppose both bad edits as well as good. My query was to get the quality of the edits into context. My experience on this page in User_talk:Gregkaye#September_2014 started as a reaction to a genuine mistake of mine and then an editor chose to apply procedure to an unjustified and ridiculous extent.

It would present a very different start to the story IF User:SeattliteTungsten had originally made the right edits but just at the wrong times.

I don't think that the my comments are misplaced. As far as I can see User:SeattliteTungsten has not logged on or at least edited in the time during the procedure. As you mention the WP:AE is closed. My question related to original behaviour and the original context of this behaviour and I have added the note "Comment relating to context:" This type of information is as a matter or procedure in normal trials and my comments were added, again while not agreeing with various of the editors contibutions, out of a sense of justice. A fair representation of context is worthy of inclusion. Perhaps any response to the query on context can be placed in a collapsible box or something like that. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Transliterations/Translations

Greg, I wanted to put my comment re the above here rather than on the Talk page, but then realised it could be seen as canvassing an edit and there are strict rules about this! That's the only reason I transferred it to the Talk page. Cheers, P123ct1 (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

A heads up about using ref formatting on Talk pages

I've noticed you're using reference template formatting in some of your talk page comments, such as in Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Ref formatting is generally for use only in main article space or in sandbox subpages. If you use them in the talk page space then the footnotes will auto populate the bottom of the page, separating the note from the ref in your comment and making of mess of the bottom of the page. It's general easier to use the external link format when linking out or wikilinks for things hosted here. GraniteSand (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Cheers Granite, I guess I had just pasted in some text and will try to be more careful. ty Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Caliphate

ISIL fails on both key points - they hardly have authority over the entire Muslim faithful, and there is no credible evidence that Bagdadi descends from the prophet. You can't declare yourself the Pope either. Legacypac (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Legacypac, I could be the popeest with the mostest :0 - but would that be enough? don't answer that!

The thing is that Bagdadi can say what he likes. It doesn't mean that people will agree. Gregkaye ✍♪ 00:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

hi

I am providing everyone who commented in the open page move RfC - as well as the previous closed RfC - a notice of an ANI ] This has to do with a possible editor stability issue. DocumentError (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War

As a result of a community decision, broad editing restrictions apply to all pages broadly related to the Syrian Civil War, such as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant which you have recently edited. These sanctions are described at Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions and a brief summary is included below:

• Sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process.
• If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or a topic or article ban.
• A one revert per twenty-four hours restriction applies to articles broadly related to the Syrian Civil War, with the wording listed here.
• Please familiarise yourself with the full decision at Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions before making any further edits to pages related to the Syrian Civil War.
• Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard.

This notice is effective only if logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/General sanctions#Log of notifications. If you have any questions about this post then feel free to ask me. PBS (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI see this edit. With regards to this edit: stop discussing the options for a different article titles until thee months after the close of the last RM (which will be early in the new year). -- PBS (talk) 11:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, understood. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Or was PBS's warning understood since the next day you started a frivolous move request on a closely related article that essentially duplicates an earlier requested move. I do appreciate your edits, especially to standardize to ISIL, but on this move request you got me stumped. Legacypac (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac You may think it "frivolous" but please assume good faith. I think you would be best to lay off criticising other editors, using the threat of sanctions as a stick to beat those you accuse of bad faith editing, and stick (pun intended) instead to commenting on the content of articles, and the merits, or otherwise, of requested moves based on the article titles policy.

The RM process will run for seven days or so and then be closed by an uninvolved editor. I would expect that once this RM is closed that Gregkaye acting in good faith will refrain from initiating another RM on Talk:2014 American-led intervention in Iraq for at least three months as presumably Gregkaye's major renaming concern for this page will either have been met or have been rejected because of no consensus for such a move. I would also expect that if the consensus is against the move, Gregkaye will refrain from initiating another "America → US" move for at least six months on any page.

-- PBS (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Odia alphabet move

I don't know why, but there's been a war going over the move for over a year now. LOL. The freakin' Constitutional change occurred near 3 years ago and even the MAIN 'ODISHA' page has been updated! BOOKS AND OTHER LITERATURE IN INDIA HAVE CHANGED TO ODIA AS WELL!!! TOO MANY EGOS INVOLVED AND HURT!!! The admins are on the wrong side too. That's why the moves are unsuccessful. Dankitydank (talk) 17:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Dankitydank, I like to think that its more often misunderstandings - and I speak as someone who has got some things wrong. Where are you from? Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

American

"Enemies of the United States typically refer to the nation as America."

I have no opinions on whether you add the words you propose, but you clearly are not a native speaker of English.

In the Anglosphere everyone tends to refer to the United States of America as "America" and its inhabitants as "Americans". For someone else from the Americas, common Angloshoere uasge is either use the terms "South American", "Caribbean" or name the country and/or island: Mexican, Canadian, Argentinian, Brazilian Jamaican etc.

The vast majority of English language sources will refer to the "American President". The sources will sometimes talk about the US Government or US military forces, but such terminology tends to be in a more formal setting when reporting from such places as the UN or the like.

--PBS (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• PBS, If a president of the United States was to be announced on arrival to a function would he or she be announced as "the American president" or as "the president of the United States"?

Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

To answer your question in another way if the Queen of Canada arrives at a formal function in Washington how would she be announced? However she was announced the it would be reported in reliable sources that "the Queen ..." or "Queen Elizabeth II...". The president would be formally announced in this sort if style. A slightly less formal style (to please the Yanks who pretend not to like titles) is shown in this one State Visit by the President of the United States of America in the one article within four sentences there is "President of the United States of America", "The President of the United States" and "Previous visits by American Presidents include:" So I am not sure what it is that you are trying to prove. -- PBS (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Just that there is justification for the use of the article title president of the United States in the same way as there is also a general level of justification for the rest of Misplaced Pages's categorisation and content in Category:Politics of the United States. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC

A RfC in which you may be interested has opened here. DocumentError (talk)

Discussion: Operation Inherent Resolve

A discussion in which you may be interested has opened here. - SantiLak (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

ISIS Talk page

I have just seen the diff in your last comment on that long thread about jihad. The very last thing I would want is for you to lose editing rights, Greg. You are too valuable to lose. Just wanted you to know this. I know how strongly you feel about some things, and personally share all your views on this dreadful group. We just badly clash on what NPOV is! --P123ct1 (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

removed content: Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@User:GregkayeNow that you have been given the notification you can be subject to general sanctions. That can include blocks/bans without warning. ~Technophant (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been informed that you were already on the notify log. The duplicate entry has been removed. I apologize for the oversight.~Technophant (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. The talk page seems to indicate that you are intentionally editing against consensus. ~Technophant (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Technophant Can you be specific?

You are really pushing your luck going ahead with further reversions as you did below. Most people would have stopped all reversions and sought clarification first. You could get sanctioned right now without any further edits.~Technophant (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

As you know I had asked you to substantiate the warning that you gave above which you declined to do. You do whatever you see right according to your values as will I. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it is irrelevant, but those edits clearly arise from strong moral convictions. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you reinsert previously removed material as you did here without consensus in violation of ISIL sanctions, as you did at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

The supposedly controversial and relatively brief text reads as follows:

• Widespread Islamic criticism of ISIL has included an open letter from 126 Sunni scholars to "the self-declared Islamic State", indicating the group as Khawarij and stating that its sacrifice, without legitimate cause, goals, and intention, is "not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality". Pakistani clergy also condemned it as a "violent group" whose "actions are against the teaching of Islam".

This text had been removed from the ISIL page without discussion in this edit. I replaced the text as the last paragraph of the lead. Islamic criticisms of ISIL have rated extremely highly in news the news and they are arguably of more relevance to the controversial, genocidal faith based group than designations as "terrorist" by national governments. Technophant Why cut or relegate the Islamic criticism? I would appreciate reply because I find this beyond comprehension. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

1. "Muslim leaders reject Baghdadi's caliphate". http://www.aljazeera.com/. {{cite news}}: External link in |agency= (help)
2. "Another battle with Islam's 'true believers'". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 13 October 2014.
3. "Over 120 Muslim scholars reject IS ideology". The News International, Pakistan. 26 September 2014. Retrieved 13 October 2014.
4. Cite error: The named reference OpenLetToAlBagh was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. "Isis is 'an offence to Islam', says international coalition of major Islamic scholars". independent. Retrieved 8 October 2014. More than 120 Sunni imams and academics, including some of the Muslim world's most respected scholars, signed the 18-page document which outlines 24 separate grounds on which the terror group violates the tenets of Islam.
6. AFP. "Pakistan Ulema Council condemns IS militants". Retrieved 17 October 2014.
7. "Pakistan ulema council condemns IS group". Retrieved 17 October 2014.

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

• Please see my proposal on ANI to "I propose to drop my complaint here if Gregkaye takes his issues to Dispute Resolution and agrees not to make potentially controversial edits (including furthering talk page disputes) until the DisR is closed." PLease take me up on this.~Technophant (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

ISIS Lead edit

Good and ingenious solution, Greg. :) --P123ct1 (talk) 09:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• P123ct1 I'm quite annoyed at myself for not thinking of it earlier... but thinking about it now I may have partially blanked it out after making such a hash of footnotes when I first got to the page. For whatever reason I couldn't think my way past in page comment. It was obviously on my mind a lot and refs even came to mind. Of all choices this is my preferred option.  :) We'll see what other editors think. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The fog of battle! :) What a relief, phew. If the others don't support it, it would be extremely unreasonable of them, I think. I will argue for it if it comes to that. :) Apologies for my stridency sometimes, btw, it gets the better of me. :( --P123ct1 (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Greg, have just copy-edited the quote in that footnote and in "Criticism" (punctuation & format) and got to thinking about the word "sacrifice". It struck me as a bit odd first time round, and have just seen it is your paraphrase of the Independent report. (I assume that was your edit in "Criticism".) Do you think the uninformed reader will understand what is meant by "sacrifice" in that context, i.e. that true jihadists sacrifice their own lives in the pursuit of jihad? I was wondering if "actions" (the Independent's word) or some other word might be better, or if the passage in "Criticism" should be expanded to explain "sacrifice". If you think the word is okay and readers will pick it up from the quote anyway, that's fine, although I can't imagine readers look up all the citations. Do you see what I mean? Horrors, I hope some admin doesn't think I'm canvassing an edit! Perhaps this should be on the Talk page. --P123ct1 (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The sacrifices wording came straight from the document. I am sure there are many ways that the wording can be arranged about which I'm not overly concerned. I was aiming for a perhaps anal level of accuracy but, as you rightly note, other issue may take precedence. Whatever works, works. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(we can fight about it later, Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC) :) I'll delete this

Oops, didn't read the document. "Sacrifice" is there, so have adjusted the quotation in "Criticism" to include that word. It reads now as the document reads. :) --P123ct1 (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Your "jihadist" footnote edit got reverted today (not by one of the regulars). I have just restored it. --P123ct1 (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Genuine apologies for earlier remarks. I had been confused after earlier comments in this thread as to why you hadn't added anything publicly. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1, Oh well, The above still holds but I guess I should have read the rest first. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move by blanenicholas

Thanks for getting back so quick on the changing of a page title. Can you walk me through the next steps to change "Amani and Aytan" to "Going Deep with Amani and Dan"? I am new to this. We are all on board with making mention of the old show name but I am not sure how to make that edit and then what to do after that to ensure the title is changed.Blanenicholas (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blanenicholas Its a pleasure. Your request seems quite legitimate as the new name, as I mentioned, seem to be the main term of reference that is widely used. Having seen this my proposed condition became a simple suggestion of request that a reference to the previous name of the show be added to the article page. An addition like: (formerly Amani and Aytan) at the top or: The show changed name from "Amani and Aytan" on (date). It is mainly a suggestion regarding page usability so as to facilitate internet searching regarding previous names. The choice whether or not to add such an edit or what form it should take is yours. Gregkaye ✍♪ 04:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Request

RM notification

Since you have participated in at least one Requested Move or Move Review discussion, either as participant or closer, regarding the title of the article currently at Sarah Jane Brown, you are being notified that there is another discussion about that going on now, at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown#Requested move #10. We hope we can finally achieve consensus among all participating about which title best meets policy and guidelines, and is not too objectionable. --В²C ☎ 17:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Edits in ISIS

I am mystified. I restored the efn "jihadist" footnote here, it has been removed by Felino, although he put nothing in is edit summary about it, and earlier I couldn't see a diff or edit summary for the removal of "not jihad at all" in that quote in the "Criticism" section, which I spoke about on the Talk page here. Who do you think did this? Felino is trying to impose his version on the page by stealth, I think, which you never did. You will probably have seen where I began a thread which I hope will lead to consensus on that last para. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You Be right about the removal m8. This was the edit I will use my suggested wording as it is exemplary and standard practice to propose wording prior to editing. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

UB - R! --P123ct1 (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

24th at 6 on "ISIS Talk page" only just spotted. TY. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

removed message P123

ANI confusion

Greetings, you replied to a question at ANI about who added a one-sentence post there, suggesting that I was the IP editor that left that line. I think you may have thought that I left that line, but mine was the post above, ending with my signature. I tagged the IP part with an "unsigned" tag to clarify who said what. You might want to refactor your reply. VQuakr (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring Noticeboard

I noticed the edit warning diff doesn't have a link and there is no working diff for attempts to resolve. If this is premature and you are going to add them, my apologies. 0) --P123ct1 (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Khawarij

"Khawarij" is mentioned twice in the article. Could you do one of your special links, linking the one in "Criticisms" to the one in "Ideology and beliefs"? The "anchor" type you did in the "Names" section, not the small footnote type. I think it would help readers. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1, both usages have been adapted as links to the Khawarij article. Do you think that a cross article link would be better? Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The blue links to the Wiki article must stay, but I think it would be a good idea to have a cross-article link as well, from "Khawarij" in "Criticisms" (where is just mentioned) to "Khawarij" in "Ideology and beliefs". At the moment "Khawarij" in "Criticisms" does not tell the reader that "Khawarij" is dealt with more fully in another part of the article, "Ideology and beliefs". Can cross-article links be combined with blue links to the Wiki article? --P123ct1 (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

done and good idea - FYI:

this:
*link from → ] (standard piped link format)
*link to → {{anchor|Khawarij}}

creates this:

• link from → Khawarij (standard piped link format)
• link to →

Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I have linked "criticism from other Muslims" in "Criticism" to the "Ideology and beliefs section", but would like to make the link more specific and go straight to the words "All of the most influential" in "Ideology and beliefs". I used the standard piped link method but couldn't make it work. How is it done, or is it not possible to link them? --P123ct1 (talk) 07:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 What name of #link are you referring to? If it is #Criticism then at present I see in the section on Criticism. Is the text that you are referring to the one including, "According to The New York Times, "All of the most influential jihadist theorists are criticizing the Islamic State as deviant, calling its self-proclaimed caliphate null and void" and denouncing it for its beheading of journalists and aid workers"? Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The name of the link is #Ideology and beliefs, not #Criticism, and the only anchor in the "Criticism" section is {{anchor|Khawarij}}; I didn't add another anchor for my link but it still worked. Where did you see those? Yes, that is the text I am referring to. (Btw, you didn't put in "nowiki" so it doesn't show in the text, but I saw it in the edit text.) --P123ct1 (talk) 07:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1, I haven't really considered nowiki issues but have developed the link as #NYTquotestheorists. Its definitely a positive connection to make. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I see how it is done now. I wanted the link there partly to pre-empt those who I know are going to argue that the criticisms in the "Ideology and beliefs" section should go into the "Criticism" section, and if that happened it would mess up "Ideology and beliefs". I didn't want to have to argue it on the Talk page! But more importantly, I think there should be this cross-referencing of the criticisms. Thanks for helping out. --P123ct1 (talk) 09:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresentation?

WP:AGF please, but what do you think I misrepresented on the ANI page? VQuakr (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You have seen my reply in regard to your continued misrepresentations.

"VQuakr, you are being disingenuous. As you know there was no "attempting to force prescriptive definitions of words" at Talk:Antisemitism. My interventions were to point out the clear weaknesses of "anti-Semitic" terminologies (based, as they are, on a misnomer) and, for instance, stated that, "Sensible terminologies include: Anti-Jewish, Anti-Jewish sentiment, Anti-Jewish racism, Persecution of Jews, Anti-Judaism and Anti-Zionism". As you know I also clearly stated: "yes the word is in exclusive use for the Jews. So is the word "Jews". Why not use terms like Anti-Jewish sentiment when possible. My simple suggestion is, where possible, editors seriously consider the use of terminologies that are not misnomers in preference for terms that give clearer representation of their subject." I have not argued for a redefinition of "anti-Semitic" terminologies but have rather pointed out their clear failings. At no point have I been involved in edit warring and at no point have I said that the terminologies are not exclusive to the jews. However, searches such as on the word "semites" in the talk:Antisemitism archives just goes to illustrate confusions raised by this particularly highly promoted word usage. However, in my view the use of "anti-Semitic" terminologies places less direct threat to human life (not that this topic ever came up) than the threat to human life that I contest is indirectly posed by the unqualified endorsement of ISIL, a widely alleged wayward group, as being "jihadist". This, as far as I am concerned, is the difference.

Your misrepresentations have previously extended involved edits and an unsubstantiated personal attack. This one remarkably came in the context of your focus on the recognisability aspect of WP:UCRN as displayed in the text of talk:Antisemitism.

In my dealings with Jewish issues I have always advocated the taking on of responsibility by all sides but, whenever possible, through the minimum of embarrassment. This is born out in that, when I was getting to grips with the issue of the "min threads = 3" archive issue at talk:antisemitism I even contacted you privately to enquire about options. Amendments to archive settings were presented on the talk page and yet, despite your clear knowledge of the talk page content, you failed to give notification when you unilaterally reverted to a setting of three threads. I find it distasteful that your misrepresentations continue here and suspect further motives of curtailing discussion. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)}}

I have quoted your comments on the AN/I page and made clear comment. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"Attempting to force prescriptive definitions of words" and pointing out "the clear weaknesses of "anti-Semitic" terminologies (based, as they are, on a misnomer)" are just different ways of saying the same thing as near as I can tell. I do not see where anything was misrepresented. VQuakr (talk) 07:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

At no time have I said that a different meaning be applied to anti-Semitic terminologies. However it remains abundantly clear why the issue of this meaning is raised time and time again. Increased clarity of topic is gained through the use of terminologies such as: Anti-Jewish, Anti-Jewish sentiment, Anti-Jewish racism, Persecution of Jews, Anti-Judaism and Anti-Zionism. I have mentioned that the phrase that I hear most often on Israeli radio is "anti-Israeli". I can't say that I was particularly listening out before the start of my involvement in talk:Antisemitism but I am still to hear, on Galgalatz, of any mention of "antishemiout". People in Israel use clearly applied terminologies and I simply think that it would be of general benefit for clarity if we did likewise. Can I ask the reason for your present questions here? Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think the (if I understand correctly) Hebrew literal translation above is relevant? People in Israel use clearly applied terminologies and I simply think that it would be of general benefit for clarity if we did likewise. That is not our role as editors. That italicized quote is precisely the "attempting to force prescriptive definitions of words," which you deny. To answer your last question, to avoid rat holing the ANI discussion (and to avoid the appearance and practice of needling you in that relatively visible location), while attempting to get to the bottom of this bad-faith accusation of misrepresentation. VQuakr (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Again you are misrepresenting or misunderstanding what I have said. I am saying that, from my experience from listening to Israeli radio, I don't hear use of the misnomer. However this was a point that I barely touched upon in the talk page. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

If you are unsure which, please go with the AGF-compliant "misunderstanding." VQuakr (talk) 08:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of: VQuakr (add: whether intentionally or not) ... You had every chance to check content re talk page content, even re Lady Gaga etc., re your unsubstantiated accusations of not understanding, re UCRN and re trout. You now have reason to think that it may be worthwhile to check yourself and yet you don't and at no point do you ever retract. Its a pattern. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Since I have not changed my position on any of those issues (and where applicable, the community seems to have agreed with me), why would you be surprised that I have not retracted any of those comments?

I see at ANI that you object to the fact that I brought up other behavioral issues. I view these as issues as related because you seem to be productive except when dealing with connotations of words in the English language. Since you lack self-awareness of this and have not responded to community feedback by recusing yourself from discussions about word use, the next logical step is a topic ban. I disagree with your characterization of my post as "jumping on a bandwagon," since my proposal was different and less drastic than any action that had been discussed earlier in the thread. In any case, I think it is likely that the ANI will be archived or closed without any community sanctions against you - and that is the ideal result if the discussion itself was enough to stop the disruption. All the best. VQuakr (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

VQuakr, I objected at you being disingenuous in that you presented the utterly false claim the I was "attempting to force prescriptive definitions of words... over at Talk:Antisemitism". Your claim was blatantly untrue. In the AN/I I mentioned a number of other incidents and am more than willing to talk them through with you on an individual basis if that would help. Please consider that there are now a number of times that I could legitimately trout you within which you would have no means to refute the accusation. In the anti-Semitism RM you presented a very skewed misquote of what I had said about dictionaries and presented irrelevant red herring quotations of Lady Gaga and Guinea Pigs and you have the gall to talk about disruptive editing. At least I do things in open and above the board ways. Despite the presence of an active thread related relating to archive settings you choose to change settings without notification on the thread. You made an unsubstantiated attack. Whatever justification for a grudge that you think you have I suggest you get over it. Of course it was a "jumping on a bandwagon," which you did with presentation of fallacious content which you don't seem to have the integrity to strike. You say that you don't think that any action will be taken regarding the AN/I. Then you have nothing to lose by striking your false claim. This is another opportunity for you to do the right thing and I fear that again you will let it slip you by. Gregkaye ✍♪ 04:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresentations 2

I haven't read this whole thread but I want to make some general comments for Gregkaye. When issues end up on noticeboards admins, and most importantly the closing admin, will take into account your attitude, willingness to admit fault, and willingness to work within the system and cooperate with other editors. Being constantly defensive, launching counter-attacks against your accusers, and continuing the problem behavior despite being warned or advised to stop is often called WP:battleground behavior. It only makes things worse for yourself, and also ramps up your opponents. You have seemed to be reasonable in most discussions we've had previously and I'm rather disappointed in you. Please try to offer to make some voluntary changes. It may be too late in your AN/I so avoid sanctions, however it will likely make a difference and can approve your overall reputation. ~Technophant (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• Technophant, as a first point I think that it is worth adding a time stamp on this mail. I also welcome the fact that you have actually chosen to communicate directly with me. All the same I find it strange that you will tag comments onto the end of a thread that you say that you have not fully read. I have split your comments into a separate thread. In my contributions to the process I have made a number of very specific accusations against you. If there is any specific issue amongst them that you want to discuss then feel free bring it into detail and I will be happy to talk it through.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Edits moved to from thread Guido to last thread initiated by Technophant

Your notice on the ISIS Talk page

I have been linking discussions on the Talk page, and in the process inadvertently knocked out the link in your notice in bold at the end of the "Logical Order in Lead" section. So that your link is still indicated I had to adjust your wording slightly. Hope this is okay and that this message makes sense! --P123ct1 (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC).

• That's all great. I was also wondering about presenting a list of all the changes that have been made so as to give qualification to the word Jihadism just to demonstrate that it has been happening. Hoping that this would be cool with you. The footnote has just been removed again. It seems that the people reverting from qualification are breaking 1RR while the people reverting to qualification are not. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
• I think it would be a very good idea to keep a running list on the Talk page of the number of times words in that sentence have been/are being reverted/changed and by whom, to give a clear picture of what is going on. Can you draw up those stats? Things have been too vague and discussion is getting no further than it was before the AN/I, and some people are getting away with things. Did you see what I did about the last Lead para on the Talk page? That was an attempt to stop edit-warring and come to a consensus. Nearly there, I think, just two/three more people to respond before consensus one way or the other is clear. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 sorry not sure what you mean about "the last Lead para on the Talk page". I need to do some work on finding all those edits. that should keep me busy. :O funny that people dont comment on your edits of qualification. When people revert mine they always mention my name. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the discussion on the Talk page and it concerns the very last para in the Lead. You gave your view on it in the linked discussion. That's why I didn't ping you as I did the others. Re the efn, yes, I noticed that! --P123ct1 (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Linking problems

I managed to link two pairs of same topic discussions earlier today, but have come unstuck trying to link three together, "their actions are "not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality" with "The word "jihad", criticism and disruption" and "Logical order in Lead", which has knocked out one of those earlier pairings. 0 o! I used anchor links, so don't know if that has anything to do with it. Would you have time to sort this out or shall I ask Technophant? (The sooner the list of changes goes up the better; he is edit-warring by stealth.) --P123ct1 (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I used:
{{anchor|jihadism}} and 
]

I think one of the reasons why I have fallen foul is that I've honestly declared my edits at the time of editing.

There is a dishonesty when editors tag a controversial edit within another edit so as to conceal what they are doing. It really gets to me.

There has been a lot of stress recently and I haven't really been watching what's going on. Have you seen the Israel opposition thread? There is a familiar pattern of not answering or evading questions. I really think that this was a clear effort to draw attention to Israel despite almost no involvement.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 01:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for linking tip. I don't understand the Israel involvement as I have not been following it. I agree that editor needs watching carefully. There is a lot of "surreptitious" editing in this article (vague edit summaries, not keeping to sections, making it difficult to see where edits belong without looking at the diff). --P123ct1 (talk) 08:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 np - Given that Israel faces its own human rights allegations in relation to the palestinians many people, particularly Muslims will find distasteful to support activities on the same side of a war as Israel. Readers will see three citations and without checking comparative contents will assume Israel to have a proportionate level of involvement. Pro Israel supporters have their own tactics and, following the AN/I you will have seen a snapshot. However, there is no point in gratuitously flagging up Israels limited involvement unless it is for a purpose, Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Greg, I have messed up that link you made (see my first comment) when trying to simplify the links in headings just now. 0_o! Corriebertus had rightly complained about them; they were messy and obtrusive. I also cannot understand why your link in the "Logos" discussion to "#Prose instead of flags" no longer works after I did something to the main heading (gave the "See also" a smaller font size). If you could correct it, I will look at the wikitext and see how you did it. I could then correct all the discussion links which are now not working after I "simplified" them. I am getting the hang of linking thanks to your help – I am pretty computer-illiterate but can learn. :( --P123ct1 (talk) 11:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Any chance that you could flag up a footnote again, its been taken down :)

Sorry, I didn't even give you the link! I can't understand why your blue link and mine in the title (mentioned above) don't work. Thanks for the offer of continued help. I tried looking at the WP Help on this but as usual I couldn't follow all of it. I can never follow their byzantine instructions properly and usually end up on the Help Desk. :{ If you repair the links, I can look at the wikitext you leave, and if I still can't understand, I will get back to you. :) --P123ct1 (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Have just realized, you may have meant help with links for the "Opposition" table, not this! --P123ct1 (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1, Sorry miscommunication, I was still wondering what you thought about the efn template in the lead that could be flagged up. Gregkaye ✍♪@

Edit warning

Good to see that list of edits. Can I or would you move it from that thread, though, please? It is sort of now blocking the thread where I was trying to get editors to come to a consensus decision on a particular edit (last para of Lead). If editors start adding comments to your list, it will throw out the original thread! I think it would be okay to give that list its own section. It would make him sit up and take proper notice. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

last thing on page? Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

TY! You will see my comment there. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

If you have noticed Corribertus' frequent disparaging remarks about P123, this will explain it. The last time he made regular appearances he was often extremely insulting to editors, though not to P123. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

P123 being you? I think most people who know you would take such remarks to an extent with a pinch of salt. Anyway, if x/he comes back x/he will be lovely :) Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Im flagging :)

@P123ct1: I just want to clarify which images you want excluded from the test. at the moment opposition includes the following

-based opponents

• Iraq Iraqi Armed Forces KEEP
  • • Iraqi Army
    • Iraqi Air Force
    • Special Forces
    • Iraqi Police
• Iraqi Kurdistan Iraqi Kurdistan KEEP
  • • Roj.png Peshmerga
• Iraq Sunni Iraqi Insurgents KEEP
• General Military Council for Iraqi Revolutionaries.jpg General Military Council for Iraqi *Revolutionaries
• Shiism arabic blue.PNG Special Groups KEEP
• Flag of Iraq Turkmen Front.svg Iraqi Turkmen Front KEEP
• Lebanon-based opponents
• Lebanon Lebanese Armed Forces KEEP
  • • Lebanese Army
    • Lebanese ISF Logo.jpg Internal Security Forces
• InfoboxHez.PNG Hezbollah KEEP

Syria-based opponents

• Syria Syrian Armed Forces KEEP
  • • Syrian Army
    • Syrian Air Force
    • National Defence Force
    • Flag of the Ba'ath Party.svg Ba'ath Brigades
• Syria Syrian Opposition KEEP
  • • Free syrian army coat of arms.svg Free Syrian Army
    • Syria Revolutionaries Front
    • Logo of the Islamic Front (Syria).svg Islamic Front
    • Army of Mujahedeen logo.png Army of Mujahedeen
• Syrian Kurdistan Syrian Kurdistan KEEP
  • • People's Protection Units Flag.svg People's Protection Units
    • Logo of the Syriac Military Council.jpg Syriac Military Council
    • Logo of the Sutoro Syriac Police.jpg Sutoro
    • Local guerrillas

The rest are all national/pannational flags

As far as I'm concerned they are all flags but that some aren't national. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we are confusing terms. I call "logo/flag" what you call "flag". My fault. I just meant keep the main unindented flags and remove the indented ones (I have adapted your list). In other words, to remove the flags/logos that are indented in the "Opposition" paragraph and keep the ones that are not indented. I hope this is clear! (Sorry the bullet formatting went wrong sometimes, don't know how to stop this.) --P123ct1 (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Opposition

Opposition within Iraq, Lebanon and Syria

Thanks. The first one looks best. I will put it on the Talk page. I will tidy up the wording at the end of the thread there and add it with a note to editors. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC) That is my example. I think that it looks less messy than with all the extra icons/flags. Do you see what I mean? --P123ct1 (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'll just do a couple of links. Its up to you but I suggest you make a separate proposal. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• That's fine. I am sorry about this. I will make the extra proposal. :) --P123ct1 (talk) 13:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• NP question about Hezbola, "bullet" or flag?

• P123ct1 I also think an option with indents instead of bullets may be good. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC) I think that this may be where a complication may come into play in. Opposition are both government and non government. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

How about (editing):

I think keep Hezbollah as a flag, and I see your point about the opposition being governmental and non-governmental. I think the bullet points will have to stay, because (a) if they are removed here, all the other bullet points in the section would have to be removed for consistency and (b) without the bullet points the alignment doesn't look quite right, does it? I am in deep water here as I don't know what I am doing technically, but at least I can suggest on the Talk page what might look better. I have a copy of my example without the flags/icons on my userpage, so I can make the suggestion and add the link to it on the Talk page now. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Btw, I have asked the Village Pump Help Desk to help me out with my linking query, as you have spent quite enough time helping me with links already, much appreciated. :) Also, I don't mind if you delete this messy thread, as I'm sure you don't want it cluttering up your Talk page. :{ --P123ct1 (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I've cleared out the citations so its fairly clean. If anything I would be happy for this to act as a sandbox for any editor to make suggestions which could at your discretion be suggested. I'm quite happy to help with links. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't provide a link for the Talk page, as my userpage is embedded in it, and I can't see how to make a "clean" link to that example (without the flags/icons but with the bullets)! Can you give me the link and I will put it on the Talk page? --P123ct1 (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Here are two versions

• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=631777957&oldid=631777635#Opposition_within_Iraq.2C_Lebanon_and_Syria
• https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=631777635&oldid=631738226#Opposition

Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The first one looks best. I will put it on the Talk page. I will tidy up the wording at the end of the thread there and add it with a note to editors. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 and back to normal issues. I am guessing that in a discussion you may ask which additional flags users want to eliminate or vice versa. Also FYI, when I did my revision and reverted back a user I had never contacted thanked me for the revert. Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Additional flags eliminated/added where? In the "Opposition" table? I have not followed any of the discussion on flags or this section until today! --P123ct1 (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

-P123ct1 rephrase, after I had done my edit that removed all the flags I then reverted to a version with all the flags and symbols. I was thanked for that revert. Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understood about the thanks for the revert :D, but I am talking about the question to put on the Talk page. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

AN/I and next steps

I saw the admin's closing of the AN/I. Not very good, is it? Some slight misrepresentation there, I think. When consensus is decided on the final Lead para, I might start a similar thread to deal with "jihadist" and your efn. There's not much more that can be said on the subject, but editors need to make up their minds what they are going do with it and not keep reverting. The idea is to get proper consensus on a sensible solution. If all the discussion can be contained within a similar thread, I think at least it will stop the edit-warring. I won't do this if you think this is the wrong approach, of course. Let me know. I can't start a new thread on it until the final Lead edit is out of the way, and can't imagine it will take much longer to come a conclusion there now, another day at most? I left a message for Technophant about this on his Talk page; you might want to have a look. I am not trying to be a control-freak, just want to chivvy editors along and be sensible instead of going over the same ground again and again. Please stop me if you want to or can think of a better way. But you need a day's respite at least after the AN/I, so won't do anything tomorrow or even the next day. No rush for an answer, Greg. :) --P123ct1 (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I have left a message with the admin on one particular topic.

The there's the thing that for well over a week now the The word "jihad", criticism and disruption text has been up with what I now consider to have a manipulative and defaming content. It is also written, at the same time that Misplaced Pages proceeding were going on against me, to isolate me as the "one" editor that opposed criticism in the lead. Then when I produce evidence of a major campaign of revision and "contrition" is displayed I present an olive branch and ask for the editor to refactor. PBS collapses the listing. The editor goes off line for the longest period for a while. but has left accusations that I am defaming him/her. There is no justice in this place. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the way PBS has been handling this. The collapsing is tantamount to censorship (see my next message). I have emailed Technophant about the "defame" remarks, which could have serious consequences for the editor concerned. You are being discriminated against by PBS. I made a trenchant but not hostile comment to the editor which was meant to help, but along with the rest it has been collapsed. This is not acceptable. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 I am currently writing to the arbitration commitee, what do you think? Both editors have seen my comments and have since edited but made no response to me. ... I should have pinged, any way done it now and copy has been posted on both editors talk pages. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I just got done writing you a heartfelt message but it got accidently deleted. I can't find the thread on AN/I or the archives so at this point I don't know what the closing decision was. I hope it wasn't a topic ban, I was opposed to that. You mentioned above that you felt that you are be punished for being honest about your opinions. A lot of so-called "POV pushers" never show their hand, but continue to try to push their viewpoint while outwardly pretending to be following every policy and guideline. I can tell you have strong feelings about this issue. I was never in the military, however I've been personally affected by seeing so many young men and women come back from Iraq with severe PTSD, unable to put what they've seen and done behind them. The collapse of the frail stability in the region must, for them, make the whole experience seem even more pointless and frustrating. I suggest you reread the WP:COI section and follow the advice on how to stay out of trouble. Two areas where you seem to be unable to maintain NPOV are in putting undue weight in the criticism section and trying to suggest the best use of language and terminology. The one suggestion COI has for areas where you foresee that you may not be neutral is restrict yourself to putting forth edit suggestion(s) on the talk page. ~Technophant (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Technophant, I have clear and genuine concerns about you and your seeming inability or unwillingness to deliver a proportional response and this is demonstrated at User talk:Technophant#Genuine concern. You are a very technically able editor that has demonstrated significant technical skills to work effectively with Misplaced Pages systems as you want. What you do is that you go to the WP:AN/I page. You might also go there through a the kind of repetitiously rhetorical and prejudging links that you freely distributed in various locations that included the link Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing on ISIL by User:Gregkaye. You might also go to the top of the WP:AN/I page and see that the clear title is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. With any of these cues you might, at any time, go to the archive link for incidents and found the report. You have previously added manipulative content regarding your push to use the name "Islamic State" for ISIL despite it's wide rejection by Misplaced Pages editors. In comparison you have shown no interest in the jihadist issue and yet, given the chance, you took the extreme action of taking the case to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents even though I had not broken the 1RR ruling. You had left messages on my talk page which other editors considered as "badgering". In response and without provision of any clarification you stated: "I've been informed that you were already on the notify log. The duplicate entry has been removed." despite the fact that nothing was removed and, even when comment to indicate lack of removal was repeatedly placed on your talk page, you seem to have done nothing to have rectified the situation. In all these situations you have clearly exerted great effort to orchestrate a disproportionate and manipulative presented a greatly distressing and abusive witch hunt against me. On a various issues you have refused to answer or have selectively answered questions. At each point and, again, regarding an issue that did not concern you, you have consistently pushed for the highest level of sanction available. You were the one person to suggest an extreme 0RR sanction despite the fact no actual breach of 1RR being involved. Then, having taken these extreme actions and suggesting these extreme sanctions you say that you have not even looked at the result. I view your extreme actions, consciously or not, to be spiteful, manipulative and vindictive and that your failure to check the results of the proceedings that you have so forcefully pushed demonstrates a callous disregard to the consequences of your actions.

You say "A lot of so-called "POV pushers" never show their hand". You will have looked through my texts on relevant subjects and will know that I have consistently shown my hand. I again consider this irrelevant inclusion of text to be a manipulation.

You mention the "The collapse of the frail stability in the region" and yet seem to fail to consider that Iraq has a democratically elected government that is accountable to its people and yet there an insurgent group has arisen that conducts a policy of massacring populations or otherwise taken away their liberty. It astounds me that you can talk, given what you are doing, about a non neutral point of view. Editors have been subvertively removing valid criticism from the ISIL page. I note that you do not suggest here that all editors with various views on criticism take their issues to the talk page, which is what I have been doing, but single me out. Guidelines such as WP:LEAD state that fair content should be presented. ISIL is one of the most criticised groups in history. Many editors recognise this indisputable fact.

As far as your disproportionate and manipulative approaches to the AN/I are concerned, a simple "sorry" would be nice. In all these connections I really think that you need to consider your own NPOV issues as a matter of priority. As mentioned, I have concerns which I would really like to consider, despite mounting evidence to the contrary, to relate to good faith practice. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment on my technical skills. I would rather deal with a difficult, time-consuming technical issue any day rather than deal with difficult user issues. I did find the AN/I now placed in the archive and read the result. I hear you that you feel singled out. I wasn't aware of the canvassing guidelines regarding AN/I. It seems that it was ok to put a link, however the way I presented it was loaded and I apologize for that. When I meant by saying "A lot of so-called "POV pushers" never show their hand" is that you aren't one of these people and I appreciate that you didn't do this. My hopes for the page is to continue to maintain a neutral point of view and not have excessive disputes. This is definitely a hot topic and there's going to be more prob lems to come. There's so much activity on that page there's no way I can keep track of everything that is going on.~Technophant (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The apology is appreciated. Please continue to keep in mind the various comments that have been made throughout your editing history. The page needs editors that communicate in straightforward ways and that present arguments without spin or by undermining perceived oppositions. We all need to reflect on who we are and how we do things and I really hope that you can consider any and all relevant issues. I do not consider the page to have a neutral point of view as many of its former prominent contents of criticism have been relegated or removed. It can also help to consider "how would I feel if I were in such and such a situation". Even trying to think of the feel considering the potential emotional situations of the other person may have relevance. Obviously the various people that continue to work on the page need to be able to function together. Despite your efforts I am still here. I am wary. Nothing has changed there. The apology is appreciated but words only count for so much. Your offending words in you abusive links are yet to be struck. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

PBS edit

. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Warning

Gregkaye if I make an edit to a talk page of a page under the general sanctions: Syrian Civil War..., then I am doing so as an uninvolved administrator, do not edit my edits as your did here. If you think an edit that I have made under the auspices of the general sections, is unreasonable then you may ask me to revert it on my talk page. If I disagree to a revert and after you have read my explanation then you may of course appeal thorough the usual channels. -- PBS (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

PBS, thank you for not restoring the collapse. As stated I think that it was wrong to have collapsed the thread on the basis of censorship. There has been misrepresentation of both the argument for criticism in the lead and me as taking that supposedly isolated position. It was wrong to collapse the content. I raised this issue on your talk page and received no reply. I am happy to receive guidance regarding the presentation of the content but, considering the long running context, I think that the content is fair. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

My edit came with the following explanation:

• PBS, I have reverted your collapse. It borders on censorship. For over a week now Felino123 has had his skewed text on display at: The word "jihad", criticism and disruption arguing that criticism of ISIL should be removed from the lead with the use of the blatantly misrepresentative statement: "Me and most users (with one exception) have made it clear." This is complete nonscence as is proven above and after this mirepresentation has been displayed for this long period of time it is only fair that facts relating to the actual situation can be presented. In all this time I have done my very best to assume good faith. I have bent over backwards to present an olive branch. I have held out hope of moderation. Nothing has been forthcoming. Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I will try to explain the difference

The word "jihad", criticism and disruption

The criticism of IS should be on the criticism section. Is that difficult to understand? Me and most users (with one exception) have made it clear.....

Felino123, edit warring

• Felino123 enacts wholesale removal of the second paragraph of the lead complete with its 7 footnotes
• ....

In the first one there is a meaningful header. Whether or not the way the argument is presented in the best way is questionable, but it does not directly break any of the suggestions on WP:TALK. The second one breaks WP:TALK both explicitly and implicitly. Yes hatting the conversation where I did was a form of censorship and rightly so because the posting was way outside the talk page guideline parameters. I was careful to select a point in the section where Felino123 is contrite. The conversation could continue from that point without reference to the start of the section.

If you really can not see what is inappropriate in using such content in a new section to an article talk page then I strongly suggest that you reread Misplaced Pages:Etiquette and Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines and try to understand the spirit as well as the letter of the pages. Also re-read WP:CONSENSUS and ask yourself if such a posting is an attempt to build a consensus or an attempt at bludgeoning another editor. If the latter then you may triumph is the short term, but it is an action that will usual boomerang in the longer term. There is a famous exchange in A Man for All Seasons.

• Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
• More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
• Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
• More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? ... do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

-- PBS (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• PBS there are a great many differences if we were to undertake a full compare and contrast. I certainly agree with regard to the heading which was gratuitous. Thank you for that amendment. (It is not a justification but it comes in the context of my recent AN/I in which rhetorically worded links were made. If you go to the AN/I page and look at a selection of articles through "what links here" you will see that this is not how things are done). I had similarly mentioned a few issues to Felino123 and each time received accusational replies along the lines of "why are you trying to defame me". In retrospect I should have tried User page communication but experiences with Technophant and defaming statements had left me feeling that this might be a waste of time. Felino123's comments had the effect of presenting me in total isolation on a major issue of wanting any criticism in the lead while my basic stance was related to a less impactful provision of qualification on one word. I found Felino123's situation to be utterly hypocritical. X/he had presented me as being the one person resisting on a major point and yet, as time went by, x/he would have seen more and more evidence that x/he was in fact the lone person making edits while everyone else was editing in the opposite direction. Never-the-less, when I raised issue it was me that was accused of defaming when all the time x/he was continuing with a presentation that lead criticism had no support. X/he had conducted large scale revisions undoing the work of a range of editors and was always quick broadcast accusations so as to present my relatively few and small scale disruptive edits in the worst possible light. If Felino123 was aware of what x/he was doing then this was blatantly dishonest. In context I don't think that my response was disproportionate.

So I provided my list. Felino123 came back with his usual response. P123ct1 chipped in and, to my amazement, Felino123 seemed to offer contrition. I was genuinely taken aback by this and missed the later statement "You're defaming me without any evidence." The whole list, though strongly worded, was nothing but evidence. Never-the-less I went overboard to offer an olive branch on Felino123 and also gave a heads up related to my next possible courses of action. Felino123 had the option of making amendments to the page or stating intention to do so. I left another message which received no reply. I waited and then started to enter various edits as you have seen and within minutes Felino123 began to respond. I have honestly tried good faith but it has worn thin. If I had presented erroneous content I retract. It is not unreasonable to expect others to do the same.

I will also admit to being very emotionally involved. I associate disproportionate or, as I see it, approving content in the ISIL article as being a clear catalyst to unnecessary death and suffering. I find it difficult to cope with this

Please also note that after Felino123 had finished his/her long initial misrepresentation in "The word "jihad", criticism and disruption" the text continued as follows:

• Current criticisms in the lead include: "The United Nations and Amnesty International have accused the group of grave human rights abuses and Amnesty International has found it guilty of ethnic cleansing on a "historic scale"." Do you want these critical comments to be cleaned out as well? If anything the Islamic criticisms are of more relevance than anything that organisations like the UN have to say. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear this, I believe, is the edit in question. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• That's not criticism or opinion, but human rights reports by international organizations. Don't you know the difference? Really? So according to you the opinion of an imam has more value than the FACTS stated by the UN and Amnesty on their human rights reports? After saying this, don't expect us to believe that you're editing in good faith and objectively. This is no more than your bizarre, subjective personal opinion. I won't buy your distortions and manipulations. No one will. Felino123 (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Felino123: Please remember WP:CIVIL and WP:PA. Editors on this page are strong-minded, but we don't resort to that kind of talk here. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• NOTICE: Gregkaye (talk · contribs · logs) has repeatedly reverted or reinserted edits that violated NPOV and talk page consensus. The is an open discussion on AN/I. If you want to participate in this discussion please go to the discussion at the discussion at this link and please refrain from discussion here. It is against WP:talk page guidelines.~Technophant (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Technophant, You have just present a conclusion regarding a matter and have even done so prior your presentation of the link to the related discussion. You have rightly indicate that your comments along with the canvassing comment by Felino123 are against WP:talk page guidelines.

On what grounds do you say that editors should "refrain from discussion here"?

Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It is imperative that criticisms are included in the lead. They are a big part of the topic. Legacypac (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is, but only in summary form, without footnotes, and not giving individual examples of criticism. There is a difference. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

In a perfect world, but anything critical that goes in the lead that is not footnoted to death gets challenged and deleted. Legacypac (talk) 08:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you even see Felino123's side-lining behaviour?

Do you recognise Technophant's manipulative addition of out judgement related to an active AN/I? Again, this is not how things are done. Do you recognise the effects on discussion of the unqualified "please refrain from discussion here"? Its wrong.

Do you turn a blind eye to some editing behaviours just to focus on others?

Again, thanks for changing the heading.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that your construction was a clear breach of the talk page guidelines, while the others are nuanced and not a clear breach of the same guidelines. There are bright lines which are easy for uninvolved and disinterested administrators/editors to see as clear breaches of polices and guidelines, and other edits that are less than helpful in building a consensus, but are not clear breaches of guidance. Later comments in a section may become so, in which case point it out on user's talk page, not on the article's talk page.

For example the only part of the above exchange I think is a breach of guidance is the first sentence in Technophant 00:35, 22 October 2014 comment, as it invites someone to a lynching rather than giving a factual statement of attending a court case. However administrators are not police (and as I have pointed out this particular talk page is the size of a novel, so is unlikely to be read by many in detail) and the best they can hope to do is act on the most flagrant breaches that are not directly brought to their attention and your heading and first comment in that section was clear example of such a breach.

On a slight aside. I think that the person who hit the nail on the head in the few comment you placed here from the talk page was Legacypac, and that conversation needed further development, with use of guidance from the WP:MOS specifically WP:LEAD -- PBS (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that one possible issue with my edit was that it was fairly bare bones but this came in a context that whenever I presented information related to or questioned Felino123 I would be accused of trying to defame him. My choice was to simply present a list but was wrong about my choice of title. I would ask for the warning to be withdrawn if appropriate. If you can see fit I would appreciate any thoughts on how I might have presented that list so as to comply and will also have my own look at talk page guidelines. It seems to me that there may have been a great many breaches of guidelines of late but I will be mainly looking at how I can better apply the guidelines to myself. I also hope that my comments toward the end of talk:ISIL#Restoration of deleted lead text re criticism will have a positive effect. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

PBS I know that I keep pinging you but I think it fair that you understand the context of my edits. 10:36, 2 November 2014

This addition was moved but not that I would know. I was merely pinged with original content and became aware of the moved material shortly after. edited Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I will not withdraw the warning, but I would hope that now we have discussed it in detail, that in future you will be more circumspect and not breach the talk page or other guidelines, so making it unlikely that I will have to alter one of your edits, or tak any other administrative action. -- PBS (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

As long as interventions occur in fair and impartial ways, I'm happy. There was however no justification for the justification for the collapse of earlier content. It was an utterly unfair action to take. 16:47, 2 November 2014 Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

"Jihadist" qualification

I hope this is acceptable. Let me know if not. It is the comment on the bottom right. I had to juggle as someone put in a comment before I had revised my own properly. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 thanks for asking but I think that what will be will be. I'm pleased that we have various areas of agreement but your content is yours and respected. With whatever your view maybe I'd also be happy for you to weigh in. For me I still haven't seen a valid argument against.

Also don't worry. I've put my ideas of Misplaced Pages behind me but this is only because of things that I consider myself to have learned about page politics. I find it hard not to take a stand on an issue that I think can make a real difference. Anyway I've refined my proposals and am glad that I was online to do so.

I'm also annoyed at the context of the discussion to put Islamic criticism back into the lead and also that it I largely missed it due to feeling/being ostracised. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

We had an edit conflict. Here was my comment: I wasn't trying to stop debate, but get editors to concentrate on your proposals for qualification, as you had seemed prepare to make one. I still think a link of the kind I described would be the best. There is cross-referencing of that sort several times in the article now and it is invisible! I know how difficult it has been for you to take a stand against the opposition, and am glad you feel you have done the right thing. I will weigh in when someone opposes unobtrusive qualification. What do you mean about page politics? I am curious.:)

What was the context of the discussion to put Islamic criticism back into the Lead? Do you mean the suggested wording by Mohammed at the beginning? Why did you feel ostracised? Anyone can say what they like, even when it is not liked. I thought you had made your view clear at the beginning of the thread, and once again later, that you agreed with having some criticism in the Lead, and when I did that counting, I counted you as a "for". Anyway, the wording isn't final, and I hope others will respond to what you said. :) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Have added a few words in that thread, to balance the dismissive-sounding remark. Couldn't face any more discussion about wording at the time, but it was inappropriate.  :( ~ P123ct1 (talk)

P123ct1 something you said earlier, "If the others don't support it, it would be extremely unreasonable of them, I think." Yep. I haven't seen the page yet. I've been busy at the yard dipping torches in parafin ready for the fifth :)

Re: page politics, it's Cabal. There are people here that care nothing about building an honest encyclopedia but just want to produce a brochure for the so called "Islamic State". They will argue any point to build that kind of bias and ignore the fact that this group is just about the most criticised groups in history. They want it approved as jihadist but will resist reference to massacres. Articles about the massacres aren't being written but while content about ISIL's Military, which legacypac has just brought back to united designation, grows apace. There is an apparent habbit of trying to discredit opposition with any turn of phrase possible. It's not Jihadist defence but attack. That's why I say page politics. Its arguing the person not the issue

Why did I feel ostricised? see Talk:ISIL#The word "jihad", criticism and disruption, "Me and most users (with one exception)..." Technophant's "Lynching", to use PBS's words, "please refrain from discussion" "NOTICE", he change that first word to capitalisation. Whenever I said a word in reply I get attacked as defaming despite the misrepresentative content of the thread mentioned and that the author knew the content to be groundless. I have asked both F and T to edit, withdraw or strike content. It hasn't happened. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

What you say is interesting. It is funny how things can strike people differently. I see Felino as an inexperienced editor who doesn't understand what "defame" means (as I said on PBS's Talk page) and will bend facts to suit his arguments ("everybody says...") more out of laziness than ill intent. PBS is just like that, I think, and I wouldn't take it personally, and I don't know why Technophant has been the way he has with you. He was pretty stern with Worldedixor in the RfC/U and had some bad clashes with him on the Talk page before it. Legacypac like some just seems naturally keener on military stuff, and discrediting the opposition is endemic to WP, isn't it? I must say there is far more of that on the page than there ever when I first came there. It was very civilized then. As for those who you say want to produce a brochure for ISIL, I think that is an unfortunate effect of their wanting to stick to RS as per WP:RS come hell or high water and to WP:NPOV (like me), like sticking to the law. It looks bad, but I don't think there is any ill intent of the type you describe. I cannot see an actual cabal, but an artifact of one, created by the different circumstances, like everyday objects so arranged as to cast the shadow of a monster in a light show, if you see what I mean. That is honestly how I see it. The one thing I do agree with you on is that there is not nearly enough on the atrocities of ISIL in either the article or the Lead, but I haven't seen any resistance to dealing with them, I think it just apathy that has led to that gap. Some editors who have gone now or rarely visit were very keen on expanding the human rights abuses aspect. The phrases "ethnic cleansing" and "human rights abuses" in the Lead do not convey the full horror at all. There needs to be a strongly worded phrase in the Lead to reflect it. I have seen enough YouTube videos of ISIL's activities to give me nightmares for years, particularly the Ar-Raqqah heads on spikes one. This article must convey just how beyond the pale the group is, but it will be tricky to do it in WP's voice because of NPOV, but it could be done by a cold cataloguing of events. I was glad to see one editor did just that and I split their edit into different sections of "Human rights abuses". Btw, I also expanded on "jihad" in "Criticism" using the famous letter, and on its criticisms of ISIL's barbarity, did you see it? I can understand why you see things the way you do and don't minimise it, btw, especially as you have come under some pretty heavy attack from a number of quarters recently, not least the AN/I. WP is a bearpit and snakepit rolled into one, IMO, and it has got me more than once. I feel bad about being "heavy" with you on the Talk page about NPOV now. I probably feel more strongly about NPOV than anything in WP editing and I sometimes get carried away with my own rhetoric on the Talk page! Don't blow yourself up before the fifth! :):) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 thanks for the message. I sit here with a head full of parafin and ready to process and to bring some effigies to justice, hoorah. I really appreciate your bearpit perspective which helps :) Bearpit's are great .. or should I say fine - and if it stopped there, there would be no problem. Its the snake side of things, whether wilful or not, for which I have less tolerance.

I think that you have always been, as far as I have seen, generally direct and sincere and reactive to situations as you have seen them. I have not been shy with strongly worded comment :) and, yes, this goes with the territory. There's often no love lost in the philosophies but, all the same, in various situations I've also witnessed healthy respect and fair dealings between adversaries. Gregkaye ✍♪ 04:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1, I didn't really respond to your thoughtful comments and appreciate your good will. I accept some of what you say about Felino being an inexperienced editor but I really think that the issues relate to decisions as a person. S/he has made erroneous statements, seen that they were false, given accusations of (by whatever definition) defaming, been asked to retract, gone off line and appeared rapidly again as content was presented. I can excuse lack of awareness of self re AGF but I think the actions are still wrong. Being an experienced editor can mean that you just know how to get away with more. The question as to why Technophant has acted as he has has really troubled me. Again there has been a lack of responsibility for edits. I have tried to assume good faith and have raised concerns on his page. I would like to think that he still isn't conscious of what he is doing or of the implications of his actions but this has become difficult. A personality clash may be part of it, may be resentment for things said may be an influence or maybe approaches are directly political. I don't know.

On the brochure issue, RS are unanimously condemnatory to ISIL and are quick to report criticism but lots is being said about this right now. I know that I keep mentioning Cabal and appreciate your monster analogy. I definitely agree that it is unlikely that there is any coordinated approach and that it is just individuals involved. Technophant has questioned me regarding WP:COI and, in retrospect, I think that this may potentially be a better explanation of a possible issue. I was one of the most vocal people in opposition to the use of "Islamic State" and I suspect that this, consciously or not, is a big part of things. I appreciate your questioning of my perspectives. I will try not to look for the monsters :) Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I have had many email exchanges with Technophant about all sorts of things and am at a loss to understand why he has been as he has recently, especially to you, and I am usually a good judge of character. I don't think editors will consider his proposal to go for mediation, which I do think was well-meant. From what I can see, I think you just don't understand each other, which I suppose is what you mean by a personality clash. All I know is that unlike W-E's opinion of us both, he is not a monster! Have added to the efn thread, btw. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

IS on the Occitan Misplaced Pages

Hello, thanks for your message on the discussion page of the w:oc:Estat Islamic article. We have no policy for article names, trying just to keep them understandable for potential readers. We use the shortest name, avoiding translation errors like in English (ash-Sham is the city of Damascus, not an hypothetical Levant) and explaining in the article body this organisation-and-disputed-territory as nothing to do with islam. Hope it is a bit less fuzzy for you now. Regards, --— J. F. B. 10:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

J. F. B. Thank-you for your reply and, ironically, your comment regarding nothing to do with Islam is quite timely. Discussions in the ISIL talk page seem currently enmeshed in related issues. Thanks for the explanation. I hadn't figured on legitimate language issues. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this something collapsible or actionable?

In answer to you posting on my page "Is this something collapsible or actionable?". No I do not think it is. -- PBS (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

A posting which suggests the use of the dispute resolution process such as this one is not unreasonable. If it is not to go to mediation then what dispute resolution process do you think ought to be followed? -- PBS (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

PBS Thanks for your thoughts on this. I was uncertain whether a collapse or something like a move of text was warranted but thought I'd ask. In this case I don't see any pressing need to do anything. Technophant is talking of burying the hatchet. I will wait to see evidence of this over the long term. At this stage I am not that knowledgeable to know what areas of guidelines may have been broken in the current situation and hopefully my interest in this is just academic. If you have any thoughts and the time to explain I would be interested but otherwise don't bother :) Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

PBS I'm now thinking that the best thing to do is wait a few more days (>7) and then put a request for uninvolved admin closure on the noticeboard. If the decision is "no-consensus" then the go for arbitration. Can you ask for a discussion to be close that isn't an RFC? ~Technophant (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

While there is nothing to stop you asking, I doubt that an uninvolved admin will do that as this discussion on its own is not really different from any other. Arbitration can not decide on content. The options of what you can do is described in dispute resolution. I'll monitor the conversation over the next few days.... -- PBS (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Diffs

Give me the diffs if you want me to look in detail because you have made a number of edits. But if all the edits are to the same statement before another editor replies, then there is no need to worry about the time stamp (all edits by an editor before another editor replies count as one edit). -- PBS (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the diffs as I said it counts of as one edit so you do not have to change the time stamp. -- PBS (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Repost of Category:Misnomer

A tag has been placed on Category:Misnomer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of recreating the page. Thank you.

The previous discussion is at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_15#Category:Misnomers. – Fayenatic London 06:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Guido

I am sorry things are still so bad between you and Technophant and hope you are able to resolve your differences soon. I have had an almighty blow-up with Worldedixor on PBS's Talk page, not pleasant, but I really think it has cleared the air and was worth it just for this. I hate conflicts with others as I am not naturally combative. I would do anything to return to the good relations we had in July but get so exasperated that I then say things which only push this further away. I wonder if we have all been affected by the spirit of Guido Fawkes lately! I am glad my words helped in your attempt to settle things with Technophant, but never dreamed they could be influential. Let us hope all four of us can finally find peace soon. This is not meant to start another thread, but to put you in the picture from my point of view. Best, ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 I think you underestimate your impact but this may be subjective judgement. I am still as wary as I was and feel quite vulnerable having made adjustment to so many things that would otherwise be useful in future defence. As I mention I think that it has been me that has been misrepresented and yet it is me that is forced to run after reconciliation. There is still material on the page in violation to guidelines which works very much against me. I have written to Technophant to present my views on the way and the extent that things have been presented on the recent jihadism thread. The whole situation makes me feel wronged and pretty grotty. I suspect, consciously or not, there are some long standing grudge issues here and don't know what can be done. Anyway, by about 11 tonight Guido Fawkes, Pope Paul V and another yet to be disclosed figure will all be gone. maybe the spirit can go the same way. At the moment its quite depressing. I regard the current petty controversy to be well described as a storm in a cup. Its madness. Gregkaye ✍♪

Greg, I never told you how the AN/I came about except that it came as a surprise. Before the AN/I as you know I was very concerned about you pressing hard for an edit others fundamentally disagreed with and how it was causing problems and said so to Technophant. He is very experienced as he has been editing for years so I often turn to him for advice on Misplaced Pages matters and I think he stepped in like a protective older brother to sort things out. He did it before over Worldedixor and came up with the RfC/U. We didn't discuss possible solutions (or honestly not that I can remember) and the next thing I knew was that he had taken you to AN/I. As you know I would have preferred a gentler approach like dispute resolution and Technophant himself said in the AN/I that that might have been better. I just wanted you to know what went on before the AN/I in case you were wondering; I should have told you this long ago.  :) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Nothing need be said about that and I'm pretty clear that you were genuinely trying to work things through for the best. The only thing that I have wondered about relates to communications between you that may have occurred between you this edit and this completed response. Obviously I did not know details of the situation with Worldedixor and, at this stage, clarifications of Technophant's failure to withdraw badgering messages as he had said he had done and his campaign against me were only becoming apparent. The past is the past. The only thing that I feel is that people need to be accountable for their own actions and the extents that they take things. Beyond guidelines content prevails on the talk page and in other locations and has not been struck. No apologies or explanatory comments are given when changes have been made. The worry is that editors will look at the state of behaviour and assume that this is fine.. and to an extent they are right. It helps them get the things they want. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by "between you", Greg. Do you mean any communication we had between the time of his reply to you at 23:14 on the 21st and my message at 12:08 on the 22nd? I remember responding immediately I saw that exchange between you and I had no communication with him before I made it, if that is what you mean. Or do you mean communication about those things? As for Misplaced Pages, I think the law of the jungle applies.:( . I'm that cynical, I'm afraid, and I've only been here since February! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

:) and I think that both of us have seen a fair bit more context since then. I know that you have responded directly to situations in clear ways as you have seen fit.

I was feeling quite strung out at the time and, given limitations of content that I then felt able to present, definitely overstretched myself with regard to mail content that I sent to you :(

Back to the present. I think that the Guido reference maybe quite apt. I interpret various verbose contents on the page not to deal with topics and suggestions directly but instead, intentionally or not, to derail as well as to undermine. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I despair at the threads sometimes. As you say, editors often do not keep to the point and go off at irrelevant tangents. I put it down to incompetence rather than deliberate evasion in order to undermine, though, but I could be wrong. :( If I was at the receiving end of it, I might think differently. :( ~ P123ct1 (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 I think that there's plenty of competence in regard to major edits of current cases and other editors are quite naturally following the bad examples. BTW I actually have fair respect for Guido and I even played Robert Wintour, one of the co-conspirators in my one time musical début :) . The musical Remember Remember isn't a classic but somehow it went down well in our home town :)).

I hardly think that fringe theories would be a next port of call relating to the use of Islamic terminologies in relation to an Islamic group. I don't see the relevance of counter proposals. I don't see the fairness in loaded and dismissive language. I don't see the balance in going against supported suggestions made related to Template:History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant which only affect its presentation on the main article page or the relevance of raising the issues on the templates talk page even when the changes don't affect template performance in any other situation. In many situations I think it can be more complimentary to assume that edits are made in bad faith than to assume that manipulative tactics in recent edits are adopted at this scale at an unconscious level. I suspect that edits badmouthing me in relation to the AN/I are still scattered about the site. The other theory is that there are definite agendas amongst various editors and various tactics will be willingly deployed to achieve their ends. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with agendas. Technophant raised the issue of COI with me which was quite educational and interests, if relevantly disclosed, are fine if they don't result in manipulative behaviour. That's my view of things anyway. I hold to the hope of good faith even though a constant provision of signs seems to indicate otherwise. Initiatives for dialogue are not responded to. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

One of the problems with Misplaced Pages as I see it is that nobody can be held accountable for their actions in the same way as they would be in real life (modern civilized life, that is). I have seen it lead to all sorts of evils, injustice being the worst. The topic bans, various sanctions, etc, a form of accountability, are often misapplied, from what I have seen. I agree there is nothing wrong with open agendas per se, but in WP editing they can be quite dangerous because of NPOV. (You know my views on that!) I am a little concerned about the inflation of discussion about the ISIL History template, when a few of us want to scrub it from this article (I think you do?) and I don't think anybody has voiced support for its retention. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The edit that reverted to the bold text in the template has no relevance to its function anywhere else. Coincidently the template may have use as a replacement for and more attractive version of the index of names. I think that it is a clever bit of creation and have always thought that, if it is not just needless duplication, its inclusion could benefit the article. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

]

P123ct1 I guess it may take a few days to see what others want regarding the names section and then it may be apparent the right way to go. Hoping for good faith edits. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1, I really respect the fact that you have taken a friend under your wing. As far as I have seen this seems to clearly be the way the relationship has worked. I have tried my best with subtle and subtly worded content but as previously mentioned as per (11:21, 24 October 2014 edit) those that live by the sword will die by the sword. If there are misrepresentations then I reserve the right to reply accordingly despite the fact that the response requires a lot more work than the misrepresentation. My aim remains to respond fairly to content presented in the context that it is presented. What else can I do? Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a rough place, Greg. I would try to ignore hostile or difficult editors if I were you; there are always some on every page. Obviously you must stand up to misrepresentation, that is only right. One piece of advice: deal with these editors on their Talk page or yours, or I think you run the risk of some admin coming down on you and them or even imposing sanctions for warring on the Talk page! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1, Technophant makes a presentation of maturity as within "further unsolicited edits" here. I would find things easier to comprehend if they were coming from an immature person but an undamaged person with average maturity and an average level of perception should, I believe, know to present a good example on a talk page. That editor should also be able to engage in simple respectful dialogue with awareness of issues of manipulation and with the self restraint not to use such tactics in almost every dialogue. I fear I may have another long wait for any further dialogue but doubt that next time it will come as another torrent. As far as misrepresentations are concerned I even saw it fit to add content relating to truthfulness at the top of the page. I have always considered truth to relate to the whole truth. To this end I will even go to the extent of confessions if I think that this may be a route to editor good behaviour. With all the talk about NPOV on the page and while the general trend is to present Misplaced Pages maps in grey or in globe type colours I'd be interested in your opinion on this. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the comments or what the map is for/about. Do you mean it being in black is inappropriate? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, The map as used in Middle-east articles might naturally be grey or green. Intentionally or otherwise I think it is politically loaded to use the Wahhabi colouring throughout. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Then grey or green would be better. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 The other thing I just noticed about the mid-east map noticed is that it is way off centred position. The emphasis is not on a moderating middle but an extremist east. 08:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC) edited Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Last Lead para in ISIS

Greg, I have been bold and altered the wording here, partly to get editors to reach a definition conclusion on this, as offering suggestions in the thread isn't getting anywhere, is it? I thought "communities" which you put forward was perhaps too narrow, as governments and countries, not just communities are critical of ISIL. Obviously I am open to challenge! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I left a note about it on the "Should we add this to the lead" thread. :) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 that was appreciated and I followed on with related comment. :) Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

RM notice

You might be interested in the 12-article move discussion at Talk:Aspromonte (goat)#Requested move 07 November 2014, since it raises the same question on which you had previously given a fact- and policy-based rationale in very similar requested moves discussions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  15:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• SMcCandlish you know me :) Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Late addition

This is for "Guido"! Technophant wants me to tell you about an email I sent him, on the 22nd, after I had sent you that message on the 22nd you referred to. I said I thought W-E had turned you against him (I had seen W-E's message to you) and then said, "I have said something in your defence on your Talk page, as Greg needs to see more of the context. He is unfairly criticising you, which I sense he wouldn’t have done if he knew more about what had gone on . Worldedixor has said 'He’s doing to you now what they did to me”", which I thought was so unjust and is why I stepped in. But let's leave it in the past now. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The comments were definitely a catalyst. What I could clearly see was comments on badgering interventions which I didn't understand, a whole range of lynching messages posted in a variety of locations and an editor that, even before this time, was not answering questions. I saw W-E's comment and sympathised. P123ct1 thanks as always.

Technophant let me ask you straight with no go betweens. Is the past the past and what would that mean? Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The words "badgering" and "lynching" are loaded terms, both on and off-wiki. On-wiki they can be viewed as personal attacks esp. if unwarranted. If you're satisfied with the explanation and apologies I've given and are willing to forgive me I'm willing to forgive you. However, the accusations need to stop and not return. If you feeling resentful of my past (or future) actions please email me privately. Anybody with an internet connection can read any and every word written here. There's people on websites like Wikipediocracy that revel in stalking and mocking our work and our lives. Public discord must stop, agreed? ~Technophant (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Technophant: I was horrified to discover today that a website I have never heard of carries the whole of the long "discussion" we had on PBS's Talk page the other day, and I saw the whole of the RfC/U on another website. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I have done nothing wrong and the accurately descriptive terms mentioned were not mine. This context with the lack of response to questions explains my perceptions during the AN/I and I presented the my honest interpretation of the situation as it appeared to me. I'm sure you can look at the situation and see how it can be interpreted to have all the hallmarks of the mentioned vindictiveness but, despite the fact the AN/I has gone into archive, I am willing to try to strike related comments there. It is important for things to be different. I don't appreciate that the text was generated in the first place but I greatly appreciate your striking of the "I've seen this issue drone on and on and I don't see that there's going to be a compromise solution that is going to be satisfactory to all parties." comment in To or not to be - adding qualification to Misplaced Pages's endorsement of ISIL as jihadist and I really hope that other prejudging comments can be struck as well, perhaps with explanatory comment of your choice. The comments have already done their damage as they have already been read, digested and absorbed and they will have given momentum in the conversation that follows. Its this kind of thing that sets the context for HAHAHA type comments and any openness to criticism from sites like Wikipediocracy in these cases is down to you. I think that you will have to be more specific regarding how you say that I have been discordant. I certainly don't see any content regarding any misrepresentation that I have made. I have added no spins. I honestly think that much future discord content is up to you. If you add manipulative content I reserve the right to react. Vague allusions to wrong doing based on POV perceptions also will not wash. Editors just need to deal with one another in straight and direct ways and, within this context, things should be fine. I do feel cynical with regard to the extent to which you have pursued the jihadism issue recently. There are issues that editors are naturally drawn to. I don't see that this to have been one of yours and your actions seem to have been aimed at wilful disruption and derailment. Again future behaviours like this will be reacted to. Editors present arguments with reference to real world contexts. Let's leave things like that. As far as I am concerned I am very far away from trust and remain wary. Unless you can point to specific things you want me to change, I think that the future manner of our interaction will be down to you.

From my perspective I've regarded interactions to have had a horrific content for quite some time. Gregkaye ✍♪ 02:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Technophant Another thing that I find strange is that after non-participation in discussion with me and after even getting another party to initiate conversation on your behalf, up until now you have made no further reply to the thread content above. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 I know that none of this is any of your responsibility but, in chance that you are still in contact with Technophant and if a relevant opportunity comes up and if you think it appropriate (three conditions there) - amongst other possible topics of discussion, please consider working through the issue raised here. My concern, similar to concerns raised in content addressed to Worldedixor, is that Technophant is not showing acceptance of points from various situations that might result in personal growth. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't get involved in this as I don't know or understand what the issues are. I gave up trying to follow the complicated discussions between you both some time ago, so it would be wrong of me to interfere. My attempts to mediate got nowhere and can see even less how they would now, I'm afraid. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Totally understood. Not knowing what to do I was just thinking through possibilities and perhaps should have stuck with the simple view that Misplaced Pages related matters are best discussed on Misplaced Pages pages. I also appreciate the stance that you take with both of us but I'm in the situation and I often find it hard to keep up. It was easy to raise issues with Worldedixor even though s/he may not have liked all that I said. I have placed a ping above and am happy to chat with Technophant on his page regarding any related issue. Meanwhile, unless there is a situation that warrants it, I'll leave attempts at communication due to current accusation. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You mean his accusation that you are wikihounding? Did you seen that both Worldedixor and Technophant are indeff blocked now? They may even be blocked from posting on their own Talk pages, which is not unknown. You may not have the chance to discuss with him on his Talk page for much longer, and he looks to be occupied at the moment with trying to get unbanned. I don't think he will succeed. I once used an IP address on the Talk page for an innocent two-line question (earlier this year) but erased it more or less immediately, and that was before I was aware of the dangers. =( ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Yes and yes :|. By preference I would like resolution with editors including Technophant. The truth is that he does not need to rush and I don't think that the serial requests for review without "taking stock" will help.

I think that, if accepted, the kind of advice I offered Worldedixor would genuinely help Technophant and it is sad that, in an undesired situation, my hands are tied. The fact remains that "I know that none of this is any of your responsibility". Its nothing to do with you :). Anyway, I have been advised below not to intervene directly again and only commented that one time in connection to the "clearly hounding" accusation which was addressed to me. You remain the one person that both sides speak well of. I think that you like to be involved in things but also have the valid option to let go. PBS often has better cultural references. Not implying that you need it but this well worn verse is the best I have to offer :) Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I liked being involved until things became really unpleasant. I am not a combative person, or at least not with people. I have seen that prayer before and, yes, it is apt in the circumstances! :) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Technophant has lost access to his Talk page. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 I saw and am both happy and sad if that's not too insensitive to say. He can still appeal by email. This is probably going to be another disturbing situation for you. Take it easy friend. Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but not really disturbing. He has been through this before and doesn't talk very much now about his blocks, bans, etc. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent comment at #Reducing Islamic criticism and highlighting the involvement of Israel

Despite our previous talk about burying that hatchet you've fanned the flames here and reopened an old wound. Please revert yourself asap before it gains a reply.~Technophant (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Technophant In future please give fair and rounded accounts of actions. I am happy for arguments to be over but within condition that they are underlined in a fair way. I am also happy for you to edit and give a fair and rounded summary of all content. I have also changed your pre-judgemental section title. We have covered topics like this before Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't do that again. I've asked admin User:Anna Frodesiak for help dealing with you.~Technophant (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Technophant Re: "that" can you be more specific? Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Please use your next edit or two to revert the talk page comment mentioned about. Failure to do so may result in further action.~Technophant (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Technophant Can you specify what action and on what grounds? And please answer previous questions. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Stop wp:fillibustering and just do it!~Technophant (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

PBS, sorry to be asking but your opinion on all this would also be appreciated. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Technophant the thread that you are referring to relates to the apparent edit warring of Felino123. My edit was a valid clarification within various relevant contexts of your previous statement.

At 15:18 you mentioned wp:fillibustering which, when following the link, is described as: Stonewalling or filibustering – repeatedly pushing a viewpoint that the consensus of the community has clearly rejected, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution.

There was no filibustering just direct comment. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

My advise as an experienced editor (not as an administrator -- as I do not intend to take any action over this is):

• @Technophant it is best if you remove the phrase "The case was dismissed", as it seems to annoy Gregkaye and is not necessary to the rest of the information in the posting.
• @Gregkaye,to revert your comment, to reduced the Wikidrama others can read the link Technophant has provided and read the exchange if they care to.

As acts of good will neither action needs to be conditional on the other preforming the other suggested action. -- PBS (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Technophant and PBS it is fairer either give a simple link to the case or give a full account in context, Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I object to the fact that content that misrepresents can be left up for days for all to read and then just be deleted without another word. We should be able to stand by our words, our content and our actions. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

PBS regarding your recent comment on Technophant's talk page re: striking, I have only gone as far as to edit content to give, what I consider to be, a more but not fully complete picture. (I had placed similar content there at 17:36, 9 November 2014) but thought better to place the edit here.

Technophant I would still appreciate answers to questions above and also want to ask why you originally entitled this thread: WP:DEADHORSE. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

OK now with my administrators hat on. Enough! I am going to hat your comment above. You are to stop editing anything to do with pages under the ISIL sanctions or User talk:Technophant for 24 hours. You are not to discuss Technophant's behaviour in any other Wikipeida forum. You need time contemplate your actions, at the moment you are heading for a block or a ban. -- PBS (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

To clarify one sentence: " you are not to discuss Technophant's behaviour in any other Wikipeida forum". -- PBS (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

If you come back in 24 hours and continue where you will leave off now, I will take further administrative actions. -- PBS (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

PBS the only places where I have discussed User talk:Technophant's actions are on this talk page and in places where my actions have been discussed by Technophant. Beyond that I have only added content following edits by Technophant that I have thought to have contents such as misrepresentions or incomplete presentations of information. Again and again I ask for clarification on things and get nothing. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Block

As Technophant says that (s)he is away on a long sabbatical, the topic ban and ban on discussing Technophant's behaviour in any Misplaced Pages forum, is no longer serving the useful purpose of defusing tension so I am lifting it. -- PBS (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

PBS On of the accusations that Technophant made against Worldedixor that either caught my eye or was brought to my attention was the accusation, without any grounds for suspicion, that W/E might come back as a sock puppet. In my experience people often generate accusations related to the types of activity that they might undertake themselves. Another username may just be another form of misrepresentation. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC/U

Have you seen this? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

And this? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 The heads up is greatly appreciated. As for me I am under a shared ban that relevant participants in the latest clash should all be following. Its amazing. I had thought that the ban had misunderstood the ban as saying that I could not comment on the other person in any forum and especially in ISIL related pages, my mistake, and, amongst other things, I gave my thanks to you for making one of my edits more workable. Extensive texts get written elsewhere in a way that utterly defies the whole spirit of the ban and nothing is done. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You are unblocked now, though, aren't you? It says so above and also PBS says it somewhere in the RfC/U. Perhaps you should check with him to be sure. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 07:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

In the previous instance I did not realise that I was restricted and think I will carry on with some more contributions to WP:RM and the like. I just deleted half a paragraph of "thoughts" here about the situation.

I get the sinking feeling that there is something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

In other situations misrepresentative texts can be left for days on a talk page with archive settings of 8 days just to get deleted or otherwise refactored without consequence when and after they have done their damage. I can't respond to the RfC/U at the present time because of the 24 hour ban. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

All restrictions I placed on you were lifted at 22:31, 9 November 2014 (diff). There is no RFC/U at the moment because it is out of order and the person who created the text is now blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry for the second time. -- PBS (talk) 10:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I am not sure whether you have seen the last comment here. (0 I think T. will be off for the full week. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 It is also worth noting final comments in the RfC and on Technophant's talk page regarding a block on sock puppetry. I have long considered your sincerity to be clear in relation to related dealings but his/her manipulations have always been clear to me. I honestly don't know what to believe. I have made edits on Worldedixor's talk page and, once I have my head around the sock puppet situation may call attention to current content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No doubts there's no shortage of reading that you've done and have to do

In answer to this.

1. "If there's a chance,..." I don't understand your inference, and I would prefer not to follow you down that rabbit hole.
2. "On another point I would appreciate the collapse to be removed ...". No for the reason I gave in the edit summary: I have taken administrative action and hatted this section. It has not helped build a consensus on the content of the article and is causing tension between contributors .
3. "I appreciate that ..." noted and thank you.

-- PBS (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Our colleague

You pinged, and I have just read your words on Worldedixor's page and his. Things may be looking up. Thank you for the kind things you said about me and for being a mediator. I wanted so much to give him some words of encouragement, because he does not realise I have more sympathy than he thinks, despite everything, but I was asked by Bishonen not to comment on his page and I promised I wouldn't. If I have ever responded badly to him (post the AN/I, for example) it is because I have felt goaded beyond what I could endure, but I sincerely hope this is in the past now. I would give anything to go back to how things were in July. I do not like falling out with editors and that was the first and only time it has happened in a big way. I hope he gets unblocked to get the opportunity to start afresh and come back to editing on the page. As I said to him on PBS's page the other day, it was not all bad and he can be very civilized when he wants to be. He is a good and careful editor as well in my opinion as I have said somewhere before but cannot remember where. I wanted to tell him about the Arabic translation he gave. As I noted to the translator who I got from the WP panel, I was pretty sure WE's translation was accurate (which it was), but it had to be independently corroborated, per one of the WP policies I read but again cannot remember where; being fairly new in Misplaced Pages my grasp of WP policies is not very good. So what looked like lack of trust was far from the truth. I hope there will be no more misunderstandings like this. My tone can be pretty abrasive on the Talk page, as you yourself know, but it is not the real me, as you also know. That we manage to get along so well is pretty amazing considering how profoundly we disagree on some editorial points, isn't it? I am not going to edit this but leave it as it came naturally and I am hoping Worldedixor will see this. Thanks once again for mediating. :) :) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

:) I think that there may be mileage in any valid extension of the "goading" issue and other wording may also be relevant. You know the situation better than me and are certainly more than justified in being aware of ways in which WE has inappropriately lashed out. I don't know if User:Bishonen agrees but I think that a statement (with any relevant accompaniment) along the lines of your "If I have ever responded badly to him (post the AN/I, for example) it is because I have felt goaded" may be appropriate. I have directly edited W/E's posts, related content aimed that have made reference to you have since been withdrawn, I have presented my content. The situation may have changed. "Felt" is a good word and in analysis of disputes these references I think are relevant. People can argue against accusations of a person's intention to have an effect and I think we talk too much about "good faith". People can't argue against feeling and result and can, at best, dismiss and statements like "<x things that you said> rightly or wrongly left me feeling ....". Also, if in WE's situation there was goading placed against him/her then that might also be mentioned. I have personally not looked for or seen such goading but in my situation I have personally not seen any evidence that the manner of the promotion of proceedings against me were not handled vindictively and I concur with the judgement of others regarding "lynching" and "badgering" as being involved. I WE's case, any relevant context like that, while not being soft on WE's response, if relevant may be relevantly mentioned. I don't think that you are necessarily an issue now in the situation but you are a part of relevant history. The important thing is that W/E can learn not to assume bad and that editors such as yourself can interact with WE (and all others) without unnecessary fears of repercussions.

I know of minor relevant additions that I may add related to the above but would also be happy to leave response to you. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You would have to look at the RfC/U in detail to understand what I meant by "goading", but I really don't think it is wise to do that; it is not good to rake up past troubles now. I want to forget that RfC/U. I am happy with Bishonen's assessment and want to put this matter in the past, but thanks as ever for your solicitude, Greg. I am sure W-E also wants to put it in the past and make a fresh start and I put my faith in that. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I am also open to the idea that I may be experiencing a level or Transference in my sympathies for W/E after some extremely barbed comments were made. The reason that I trust what you say is that you admit your perceived faults and make mention of reactions and not aware of any significant admission from WE and certainly not one that has been offered voluntarily. I have seen enough content to, I think, know what you mean. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not going to criticise him any more as he is having a bad enough time already. He is in the bearpit now and it is horrible to watch. I have seen other editors go through the same thing. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Wise as ever :) His/her criticism would, in my POV, best come from within. Over and out Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I am reading your commentary on the W-E page. You say in (5): "A final comment was made: "Supported. Worldedixor has been nothing if not civil in an attempt to build consensus among all of those with an interest in this issue."" I can't find this in the link you gave. Is it from somewhere else? I think this needs clarifiying there. On (8): this is one of the links that has gone awry since the RfC/U. PBS commented somewhere that some of the links were no longer working. This one does not work because the linked discussion has since moved to another Archive #number. I will see if I can find it. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 TY I messed up on 5. Any links you can find will be appreciated. Otherwise existing content gives a flavour. The PBS comment would equally provide good context. As long as you are happy I may refactor some of the above. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Refactor some of what? Here or there? If here, let me know what first! I wouldn't want any of my comments to look as if they weren't in response to something you said. Probably best to strike out rather than remove if you mean on this page. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 I was thinking the (5) references that's all.. which I'm happy for either of us to do. Otherwise forget it. I think we both just want peace but perhaps its an idea best forgotten. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I have been warned not to comment on the page, and I think it would be highly inappropriate of me to do that anyway; I didn't need the warning. (13) may look innocent, but it was put there in the context of overall wikihounding. Most of these admins know WE very well from previous encounters, but I think some are being too rough with him here. (9) is obviously a wrong link, (8) and (12) you say are missing and they were mine, so I will try and get those three to you. The archive numbering system has really messed things up. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you delete everything in your posting on User talk:Worldedixor from the In of "In the RfC/U you were accused of:..." down to but not including your signature. Your wall of text does not help Worldedixor (as uninvolved administrators will not appreciate having to read it), besides the RfC/U was very badly constructed and was not generally supported, so the analysis of it is unnecessary. I think your first part of the post is on target, but Worldedixor ought to be able to work that out for him/her self, but as it is brief it does not hurt Worldedixor's case to leave it there. -- PBS (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

If you do not want to delete it (either because you has spent time on it and have become attached to it, or you really think it necessary) then at least consider surrounding the comment with {{collapse top}}and {{collapse bottom}} -- PBS (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what PBS means by saying the RfC/U was not generally supported. Read the RfC/U Talk page and draw your own conclusions. He did not take part in it and has said on his Talk page that he was unable to read all the diffs recently because some links were broken, so he cannot have formed an accurate picture of it. I have found the links and will update the RfC/U record. They are: (8) https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant/Archive_5#Using_YouTube_for_citations, (9) https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant/Archive_8#Israel (read in conjunction with "Resolving one single edit with Thnidu" on the RfC/U Talk page) and (12) https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant/Archive_5#Discussion_on_cn_requests. WP is a poisonous place. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

PBS I can see the logic of your argument but, given the fact that I have found your previous decisions relating to the deletion or collapse of contents to be between mildly questionable and wrong, I have, with no names mentioned, also asked the opinion of the main admin dealing with the Worldedixor case. I appreciate that you have raised the issue and have asked that person openly regarding an appropriate response.

P123ct1 you are a superstar. I don't imagine that this was easy ... but then I'm working from the perspective of my level of ability :P Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It was fiddly more than difficult. I saw your message to Bishonen. I can't speak for the others, but for me it was over a month of horrendous harassment – or that is what it felt like – and I still didn't take WE to AN/I when just about everyone was urging me to. But as I said, I really want to put this behind me now. Despite the reminders today, I still hope to re-establish good relations with him. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 IF s/he's allowed back then I'm sure it will be on a super short leash. S/he has to face up to some things and while reference to the talk page and the first of the links you provided has rightly given me a fuller head of steam, I still don't agree with the polarised form of the judgement given. I found a few of its aspects to be quite heartless. I'm not saying that s/he deserved better but don't think that, from my interpretation, the one-sided, biased, misrepresentative and cold summaries would necessarily have a positive rehabilitative effect. I agree with a lot of recent content but the really distasteful thing is that still suspect that a lot of its application has been agenda driven. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I've just read,

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Worldedixor#Questions_to_Certifying_users_from_Worldedixor and am truly disgusted, literally with bile in my mouth. Even as a last request to get some honesty. Fuck. This is an editor who has proven ability to make extraordinary efforts when s/he has wanted to. I find it difficult to think that there was any thought here for reconciliation. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@PBS: Thank-you for above advice and I have now collapsed content at Talk:Worldedixor. I think that comments made are appropriate but am open to any suggestion of revision. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@P123ct1, your summary of what I said is not quite up to date see Revision as of 16:42, 4 November 2014 from my talk page "I now read the WP:Requests for comment/Worldedixor in detail I had started previously but given up because the "Article talk page abuses" were not arranged as diffs and were difficult to follow. ...". What I mean by RfC/U was not generally supported is reflected in the Rf/U itself: only one other user added their name to WP:Requests for comment/Worldedixor#Other users who endorse this summary and only one other editor added an outside view which was not endorsed by anyone. Compare that with some of the entries in the RfC/U Archive eg the one immediately below the Worldedixor listing: Redrose64. Whether users were active on the talk page is beside the point regarding support for the RfC/U (any or all of the people who commented on the talk page could also have participated in the RfC/U if they so wished). -- PBS (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye: with regards the content of this edit. W. can't leave messages on your talk page until (s)he is unblocked. -- PBS (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

PBS thanks. I was really thinking about any other concerned editor here and Dougweller has posted below. I'll edit what I said and hadn't seen the problem. This was, at least, some attempt to minimise an increase in content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

PBS: My apologies. It was a procedural misunderstanding. I realised you had difficulty with the broken links, but I had forgotten what "Supported" means in an RfC/U, and I hadn't realised the significance of no-one endorsing the third editor's contribution or that technically the Talk page contributors were not actually participating in it. Sadly, I think it was a case of the blind leading the blind in bringing that RfC/U. :( ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Would you like me to redact/remove my cat joke on the Talk page, Greg? It was meant as a gentle joke. :) Too much stress today. :( ~ P123ct1 (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it. ~ P123ct1 (talk)

I have just edited my "And they are" to "And those stories are" which was a reference to, your fair statement "Just thought the stories might be worth investigating". The cat joke was funnier than many but you can do there as you choose. My statement was meant in support. Misplaced Pages seems to have a polarity between reliable and unreliable sources somehow which I don't think is helpful. When the Mail gets accurate well written content then that's great. Your reference to the mail is fine and my earlier comment was more to do with the pixelated photo than the outlet that presented it. The conversation then went on to the polarity thing. With my objections to what ISIL are doing, I would naturally want any such criticisms to be included and, if heads roll, so much the better. It goes against the grain to raise objections like these. I should have I question re the picture on your talk page. I have also added a comment in support of relevant use of the Mail. You can do as you like with the edit. Of course I dispute the statement, "The cat sat on the mat, in the sunshine". I live in England.  :) Gregkaye ✍♪ 02:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Your comment at 21:57 yesterday: explain, Greg? Just curious. :) Btw, the RfC/U never got off the ground and was closed because of this. No conclusion reached. I won't comment on the WE saga any more, best that way for all parties, I think. .:) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Certainly. I don't know what Technophant may be like in response to admin but I have found him/her to be typically and consistently evasive and unaccountable when faced with enquiries and questions. You may have seen recent collapse related comments on Worldedixor's page included, "My conjecture is that this "RfC/U" was not so much written as a request for comment but as a non-neutral statement of condemnation coupled with request for agreement". Proceedings, no matter what the crime, should be conducted by the rules concerned. In their aftermath fair response from accusers may rightly also be given, especially if the system is constructed for this to happen. I think that the lack of response demonstrates a potentially habitual disdain. It was only following I had expressed other concerns on Technophant's talk page that s/he got in contact with me so as to mention that s/he had not even looked at the AN/I but, at least at this point, I was getting Dr Jackal. I suspect an incomprehension of the effects that his/her actions have on others or the relevance in recognising and rectifying personal wrongdoing. I in no way condone Worldedixor's behaviour or any of the personal issues that may drive it but I can see the context that has fueled those flames. If you think my reaction was to strong that can also be withdrawn.

I guess my time may have been wasted in the RfC/U and, in any case, Worldedixor may not even respond. It may even be that s/he likes being on the periphery. Its a person who is perpetually "out of here". Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I think your "I suspect ... have on others" is accurate. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope that those others have not included you. Technophant has often made statements regarding agreement with you that may have overstepped actual realities but, then again, I think I have unwittingly done the same. The coamitss message was meant purely as some light relief and I'm also pleased that its presentation inadvertently displays an additional need for good copy editing. In the UK educational tests are called "SAT" tests. I may have failed mine :) May cats ever sit on mats in the sunshine. Ikes, Sunshine is one word. I clearly could be cleverer, Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

No, they haven't included me, until the proxy appointment! I don't think he realized how I would react to that. (See PBS RfC/U, where I made my view known!) We do agree on a lot of things, but not on some edit points, as he himself has said somewhere on the Talk pages. Don't underestimate yourself, Greg, language isn't everything, and once again, look at my latest on the Talk page as purely "professional" disagreements. :) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 appreciated and definitely agree with your view on diktats there. I just think its better, marginally, and definitely more representative than something like rulings. You have seen the content of headlines on issues like those presented. I hope that something suitable can be found. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

What about "Orders"? That is stronger than "Rulings". I'll put it on the Talk page. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 is it possible to see how others respond. I think the whole title might benefit from a rewrite. I came up with the original title because there was a definite change in section content. Its also of note that the word diktat is used in news and scholar. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the German word "Diktat" doesn't have the pejorative overtones it has in English usage. (I have some German.) I think a rewrite of the title might be the best solution. Can't think of anything at the moment. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 can you cite the WP ruling on pejorative terms? Please also see site:www.britannica.com diktat. As far as I can see it is an English language term, it is used by encyclopedias, it can be used. There shouldn't be a political correctness cosh on expressions that are freely used elsewhere. There are awful things happening there and the title should reflect that. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I've no idea if there is a WP ruling on pejorative terms! Except for the main ones, I know very little about the WP rules and policies, haven't been here long enough. I looked up those refs for the BE and "diktat" there is used with a very specific meaning, the way the word is used in history-writing and that usage doesn't have pejorative overtones. Not that the BE is writing history, but there it is using the word in that narrow sense. In other contexts, though - general speech, newspapers, the media - it definitely is a pejorative word. Will be interesting to see what other editors think. So glad we can argue without falling out. That's how all civilized debate should be. =o) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Worldedixor

You seem to be very involved in this, does that mean you've read past versions of his talk and user pages? Because, like a lot of people including me (although I archive, rarely manually delete) he's deleted a lot. Dougweller (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller TY I've been following the page for the last couple of months. I've read the RfC/U recently and really went to Worldedixor's page to see if I could set him/her straight. I have just commented on things as I have found them. I've asked bish if I should colapse my content and P123ct1 has helpfully provided links that I failed to find so that I can complete my account. My main intention remains to help WE to become an acceptable editor. Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I meant further back. From, say, last November onwards (he has a big gap, so it isn't 12 months). Dougweller (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller No. I have obviously written and have now recently edited my understanding of recent interventions and their citations and I think that this is fairly and accurately written. Perhaps it would also be appropriate to produce another account of situations and actions further back. This would certainly be encouraged if it would help the editor amend his/her ways but, at this point, there is no immediate indication that s/he is planning to return. It may have been a further waste of time. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok. As you probably know, I am among several Admins who think that he is unable to change his behavior for more than a short period of time. I don't think you should dig up the past now either. My own advice for you would be to leave him be. Dougweller (talk) 10:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller I have already done more than I imagined that I would. Within clear context of Worldedixor's wrongs I still think that the way that the RfC/U was presented was, to my understanding, wrong for the reasons mentioned on his/her talk page. I also do not think that it is right (less than ideal) that admin have not picked up on these issues. I have done what I can to, I think, level the playing field. Fairness ideally works both ways. I will aim that any, currently unplanned, contribution that I may will be neutral. For background I can cite instances where the primary author of the RfC/U has gone out of hiis/her way to work proceedings against editors who have opposed his/her editorial view but has supported and offered to support editors who have shared his/her views. I see significant provocation and manipulation. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead: Talk page

Am concerned about all the "self-"s in the Lead, Greg. (See TP.) Obviously there need to be some, but am hoping someone can suggest how to reduce the number. ;) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 There are other references directly to Islamic State in the article. The group does not qualify as a caliphate according to definition. Its a seeming impossibility and is rejected by a wide range of sources especially those most affected. I could call myself Pope but that does not mean that I would be one. Gregkaye ✍♪

I agree with you. I just wondered if there was a way of reducing the number, not eliminating them. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I would think that the whole, "In its self-proclaimed status as a caliphate, " line could go. I'm not sure on the rest. I can't think of a way to amalgamate the opening paragraph Islamic State and caliphate into one. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 The currency information may be of arguable interest re: economics but if that goes re tourism then perhaps time zone is a greater issue, as a thought.

It is very difficult to know what to do about the two "self-"s in the first sentence. It reads very clumsily, but the two ideas have to be got across somehow. I worry that the information in the infobox sometimes looks like recruitment material! Time zones are pretty neutral, though, and possibly useful for news and timeline-watchers. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 I think that it used to be self-declared and self-proclaimed but so called could also fit. You are the words person. In the info box and elsewhere I have been uneasy about the Libyan and Algerian references. Just because a group pledges allegiance doesn't make it equivalent of nation. I did quite a bit or work on Dependent territory and this is not how things work. I don't see the relevance in the first info box. When I tried to present Area of operations as:

"Middle East: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Iran,

North Africa, Libya, Algeria"

I got reverted. Algeria is uncited and I don't see how ISIL sympathisers translates to ISIL forces. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 I seem to be going backwards with regard to issues from "" as related to jihadist to "a" as related to caliphate. I think "As caliphate ..." works as an addition to "it ..." Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I think most times "caliphate" works without an "a", but occasionally is needed as it reads clumsily without one. :) As for the "jihadist" footnote controversy, did you see that Corriebertus has added a "citation needed" tag to it? He obviously means supporting evidence to show they are jihadist (which I don't think is needed) and clearly hasn't followed the long discussions on this word properly, or he would have seen how confusing his tag is. I explained to him briefly about this discussion in the "to be or not to be" thread at the end, but I don't think he can have read it. :) Do you think you should take this up with him? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I never checked about "As caliphate it claims..." which I had put into the Lead. I said on the Talk page that I would revert if you disagreed. Shall I, and put it on the Talk page as a query instead? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Khawarij
Sorry, I had to put this here and not in the appropriate section, as this needs to be private. (You pinged him, so he would see this if I put it there.) I have drawn up five diffs where he has edited against consensus and he has twice broken the 1RR in the last four days. What is the best course of action? You saw that I asked him to go to the Talk page to explain his "extremist/Khawarij" revert. He is a new editor and may not understand the rules. I also don't think he understands why "extremist" cannot be equated with "Khawarij"; there may be a language problem here. Should he be given this one last chance, or should this go to the Edit-warring Noticeboard? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be put, presented as a mild slap, on the edit warring notice board. The edits are only a little worse than those I did so as to exchange jihadist for extremist (visibly apparent) or moving and unchanged piece of text to another position. His is mild vandalism but it shows no sign of stopping. He can decide whether he wants to take a dive on this but you've been plenty patient. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

These are the five diffs, and I have given a description of each beneath the links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=634309268&oldid=634307243

18 nov 1.25 (reverted to extremist/Khawarij) → 1RR broken

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=634221820&oldid=634220676

17 nov 13.59 (reverted to extremist/Khawarij)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=633809014&oldid=633806656

14 nov 13.46 (sentence about Khawarij added to end of Lead, against consensus) → 1RR broken

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&action=history

13 Nov 22.53 (whole para added to end of Lead, against consensus)

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=632358146&oldid=632356091

4 Nov 1.17 (last Lead para wording changed against consensus)

As you have done one of these before (with Felino), could you put this on the Edit-Warring Noticeboard? I know the editors have to be notified, but I am not sure if there is a template for this. If you point me to it, I could put it on this editor's Talk page. It is now more like vandalism rather than edit-warring, I agree. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Its an amusingly ironic situation. To do this I will have to go back to Technphant's directions where he stated I am not the ISIL cop lol. *sigh* Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Try and forget the context. It is straight edit-warring after all. Is it okay for you to do it? Give me the code for the template (if there is one) and I will put it on his Talk page. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Understood, I did Fel's report in a slap dash way and will need to make similar excuse for the same now. Funnily the reference from Technophant's page was deleted without archive with no reference that I can find >:( Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I asked as I don't know how to go about this and thought you did. What reference from T's page? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The report has been i think successfully submitted at: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Mohammed_al-Bukhari_reported_by_User:Gregkaye_.28Result:_.29 so everything should be working through and i definitely support this action as much for Mohamed'd sake as for anything else. Its the wrong way to go about things.

When first looking at diffs relating to F's breach of 1RR I was told to go to the 3RR notice board if I had "not already done so" and as simply informed I am not the ISIL cop. He then placed a half truth defence on F's page which I did not see before a result was obtained and then placed misrepresentation about the case on the main talk page. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Syrian Civil War

I have no opinion on the issue of whether to keep or delete Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Syrian Civil War/

Technophant claimed there was a consensus for its cretion "I'm one of top contributors to ISIL related topics and in good standing with other project members and just yesterday announced the launch of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Syrian Civil War which I can't even edit for pete's sake." (on my talk page ). So you will have to see if there is anything behind that claim.

You should also check with user:Kww if the page history needs to be kept as an audit trail until after Technophant appeals his/her block (within the next week?} -- Admins can still see deleted histories by some editors may wish to see the evidence themselves and if the page is deleted the history is deleted as well. -- PBS (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

PBS I had just was just working on a thread to add to Talk:Syrian Civil War to canvass opinion there when I noticed that RGloucester has, in any case, amended the page as a redirect. I also hadn't realised that the main Syrian Civil War page gets better stats than I thought, about a third of those on the ISIL page and will leave things as they are unless others add comment to this thread. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Collapse

I will not collapse it. Also your last comment is wrong: as there is a comment above that says:

"Update: the preliminary result from WP:FTN is that WP:Fringe does not apply to this topic.~Technophant (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC) "

-- PBS (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

PBS I think that the comment was fair given the context that, "even when being given a negative response, (he) didn't strike previous text). My question was, Can this content be collapsed? and I was really asking whether there would be any reason why I could not do so. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

(S)he did not need to strike anything, the second comment made the point (conversations develop) and besides one opinion on another page does not indicate any form of consensus on that page. All you last comment does is keep the section hanging around for another 8 days. Do not collapse as your are an involved editor see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines specifically (WP:TPO and Off-topic posts), WP:Refactor (lead) and template:collapse top/doc -- there is clearly bad faith between editors involved in the exchange. -- PBS (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Tool

This is a useful tool you may not know about. It is enlightening in all sort of ways. I wish I had known about it earlier. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 I wish we lived in a world where tools like this were not needed for anything other than progress checks. It looks like a fun and potentially useful tool. I'd be curious to see total additions and total deletions. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Footnotes

Your footnote looked fine except for "publisher". There is no need to put the full hhtp address in, just the website name "smith.com". Few websites have just "xxx.com" on the first page of the article, there is usually a name, even if (as in this case for example) it is only "xxx". If you cannot see a name, put "xxx.com" in the "work" box, not the "publisher" box. Magazines, newspapers and articles are put in the "work" box (which shows as italics in the text), but all else in "publisher" (which shows as normal text). If you can see an agency mentioned in a newspaper report,as well, for example "Reuters" or "AFP" (it will say "agency" by the name of the author or title), put the agency name in the "agency" box. Don't forget to put in the access date in the access date box. (You only need to click the box for this). For the ISIS article, keep to the date format "6 June 2014", not "June 6, 2014" or "6-6-2014", just to keep consistent with the other footnotes. I can't remember if you put the access date in that footnote. For newspaper, website and magazine articles, I think "cite news" is the best template. With the others it can be confusing sometimes to know what to put where. Some months ago I went through over 300 footnotes in this ISIS checking they were correctly configured, and there was lots of missing information in them, where editors had not filled in all the boxes. That is why it depresses me to see all the bare URLs. That footnote template I gave you most editors ignore when I give it to them. I am not doing their work for them any more! Thanks for converting that footnote. This looks daunting, but it is easy once you get used to it; what isn't easy is the laborious converting of bare URL footnotes. I "thanked" PBS for his reply to my query. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Thanks, So basic News content = Title, URL, Access date, date, publisher, and perhaps Work?

Previously I added a "NOTE: This talk page... " note to Talk:ISIL. Seeing the issue you raised I was wondering about changing this to "TALK PAGE NOTE:..." and adding an "ARTICLE EDITING NOTE: Please add full citation to content. Content that is not cited with use of fields such as Title, URL, Access date, date and publisher may be deleted". This might be a way forward. I also passed thanks - tries to be polite when can. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You had better not threaten to delete! I used to leave notes on the Talk page about URLs but it didn't help much. Author, Title, URL, Date, Publisher/Work, Agency, Access Date is the order. Technophant put my amended footnote template at the top of the Talk page of the Timeline article, where the worst offenders are. I don't think it has made any difference. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 I think I will give the issue more attention as well. You saw the comments about the misquoting of source material. shrugs I've added a note in both talk page headers. They may do some good. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was quite concerning. Good idea. Don't know whether it is conspiracy or cock-up, tbh. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The note on the ISIS Talk page won't mean much to editors who don't know how to create footnotes with the WP cite templates . Could you put my template into the orange part as Technophant did on the Timeline Talk page? I don't know how to do this. The template is {{User:P123ct1/My template}}. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The note that has just been appended to footnote 115 (click on it in the article after "... Mandeans in particular" and then on (help)) is a very good example of why I am getting tired of editing this article. I put "Subscription required, available via Google" for quite a few paywalled citations in the footnotes, and one has been changed to that muddled note. I am also tired of trying to get editors to come to consensus, it is an uphill battle, and of the badly-formed footnotes, there are so many now. I think interest in editing this article is declining generally now, comparing the Talk page as it is now to how it has been. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

WP MoS

You asked about WP guidance on loaded words. I found this very interesting section in the MoS guidance. It is very helpful! No criticism intended. ;) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Yes, PBS pointed to it in his earlier reply. I knew there was a content somewhere. I took note and it's bookmarked. He applied it to the word executed and I think that this can be looked at. The main reason that I raised the issue of terrorist is the clear hypocrisy that a value laden lable like jihadist can't even be given qualification but value laden labels like terrorist can't be used. The uneven application of the ethical issues that are enshrined so to speak in the guidelines is, consciously or not, gaming. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You have a more questioning and combative nature than I do when it come to editing! One reason why I have never really been happy on the ISIS page since around the beginning of September, when it became really contentious and editors started arguing so much. Apart from WE, who really was the exception then, it was a collegiate, civilized atmosphere, but that and those editors have all gone now. Only a couple are still around from June but they don't appear very often on the Talk page now. I have changed "massacres" and will change "executions" now. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Thank you you have always said things to make me think. I have always had a questioning nature and this has particularly followed me in my involvements with Christianity and Judaism. I still have your "cat sat on the mat" thought in mind. Up the age of about 6 I had frequent Solipsist thoughts wondering if everything might be an illusion. Perhaps this relates to my later liking of my favourite biblical verse reads "test everything, hold on to the good." I had never thought of that. I have just read some more at some collegiate related pages. Its a good aspiration. I hope to play my part. I hope that some decent college rules can apply. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't get me wrong, I really admire you for your questioning nature, which I share, and how you apply it to this article (even though I don't always agree with you), but I apply it in my private thinking and seldom get into arguments over it, and now doing it publicly upsets me. That and the attempts to mediate between you and T. and the trouble with WE have all got to me of late in rather a big way. The cat on the mat joke was a gentle and affectionate teasing and not meant to be critical. In fact you and I see eye to eye on basic outlook, I like your we wunt be druv as I am the same, but am just weary at the moment. I don't like the hostile tone that is creeping into my comments on the Talk page, so perhaps had better withdraw for a while. I will continue to copy-edit the article, of course, and we must keep in contact.. :) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1, strongly or subtly stated I put store in what you say knowing it comes from a good place. But I've seen your "I'm out of here" before (no strong comparisons meant)... whatever works is good but I'd hope it won't last long. Your inputs here, however they come, are welcome :) Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

TY. I just need a break for a few days. :) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Words have meanings and I think that these meanings need to be kept in perspective. The words that I have proposed have a far softer nature and accurately describe situations involved. In Iraq/Syria border regions Diktat's have been instituted in a clear context of "Totalitarian regulation". Basic liberties have been denied people and they are threatened with "harsh punishments". There is no comparison here between crime and punishment. If a teacher did not tear out a picture from a book you may have to legitimately fear for the person involved. There might be a woman that may react to a string of put down situations and decide, in a we wunt be druv attitude to go out not wearing a face covering in a fair and free expression of self. As you may imagine I have far stronger things than this to say. By now I hoped that you knew me, the direct way in which I try to operate and that I don't do things on a personal basis. At 08:58 yesterday you said you going to withdraw with 17:29 a break for a few days and yet at yet at 22:34 you state "You're deliberately winding me up, aren't you, Greg!" You don't give any reasoned comment that can actually be replied to and this is not straight dealing. Please withdraw your comment. It is not fair. You has previously asked: "I the only one who thinks this word should not be used here?" Why not leave it to see if there are and then we can address issues directly and in regard to policy matters?

There are a number of nations whose governments Misplaced Pages labels as totalitarian and I doubt that many of them are any where near as extreme as ISIL's. From my perspective it is a sincere and fair proposal of an accurate description of content with an equivalent tone as may be be repeatedly presented in reliable sources. Please remove the "deliberately winding me up". If I din't genuinely believe good faith it would genuinely wind me up. It isn't a fair way to address an argument. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course I will withdraw it. It was a joke that obviously misfired. I didn't mean it literally, and know you would never do that.. Please forgive me. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 06:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing to forgive. It was one single comment that, considering the context, was difficult to address but is pretty inconsequential in the scheme of things. Some periods of history use loaded words. One period of history even uses holocaust. I don't see the problem in strong wording when it is fairly and accurately applied. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You may have noticed that I switched the order of "self-described" in "caliph" and "caliphate" in the infobox. I was not trying to make a point, just straightening out the layout. The reason I didn't edit Corribertus' six-line sentence myself (see Edit History page) - which badly needs a complete rewrite - is that there would be a terrific backlash, as for some reason he does not like me. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 One issue that I now feel I let slip was when I voluntarily edited the prefix "self-" out of the "Declaration of an Islamic state 13 October 2006" and "Declaration of caliphate 29 June 2014" contents, given objections. This was, for me, a huge concession. Its one that I think, given objections, now unfairly legitimises this group. Declaration can always be taken as with trumpets and this wording has always made me feel deeply uneasy. I don't agree and have never agreed and now the nature and presentation of recent objections makes me feel that I need to argue every point. In connection to currently debated topics it has to be recognised that ISIL presents extreme situations. They are situations that can rightly be presented at extremes that my proposals do not even reach. Reliable sources do not hold back in their accurately descriptive headings. I think we are justified to follow the same lead. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

No comment is the safest comment, I think. You know my views. The "self-declared"s don't have to be repeated, once is enough, IMO. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Horns of a dilemma

With regards this edit there is no useful reply that Technophant can make, see Horns of a dilemma.

The admins discussing this issue are aware of Technophant's sophistry -- it is common when blocked users are caught red handed at first they deny it, and bring in lots of specious arguments to blame others for their actions. Some blocked users eventually realise that this approach will not work and make a realistic offer to be unblocked, most do not.

Technophant is not blocked for anything (s)he directly did to you, or for any reaction (s)he had for what (s)he alleges you did to Technophant. Technophant was blocked for repeated sockpuppetry. I think that it would do best for everyone if you refrained from commenting on Technophant's talk page while Technophant is blocked. This advise is given as an experienced editor and not an administrator. -- PBS (talk) 11:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

PBS Thanks. I receive regular signs that you have an impressive classical education and I look forward to digesting more on "Horns of a dilemma" when I can apply myself to it as I don't think I've absorbed its full implications. I hope a basic answer will suffice for now. I did not ask to be brought into Technophant's "First of all the ..." reference. I hadn't commented on the first appeal. I have elsewhere been chatting about ways to broach things with Technophant with similar advice as I gave to Worldedixor but this becomes impossible in face of accusations of Wikihounding. I have recently sent a ping within a related conversation and if he wants to broach things with me then he can. I think my question on Technophant's page was fair and open. If I had been wikihounding him, he could have presented the simple answer "yes" and produced the diffs. I consider the "clearly hounding" accusation as baseless slander and was at liberty to give some form of reply. I am happy to refactor to another relevant form or for any other editor or me to add following comment to, for instance, say that my response was specifically related to the second review request. On a personal basis I would prefer personal resolution - genuine resolution - where people can clearly discuss matters. However I will not do this at the expense of having to allow, as I see it, misrepresentations to slip by. I feel I have done what I can but request that further interventions by others are carried out in ways that may genuinely challenge Technophant to actually address relevant issues in personal behaviour. This, again, may be POV. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead edit

Have you see the wholesale edit at the end of the Lead? All those long discussions and coming to consensus on the last sentence, and the agreement on the sentence about "As caliphate it claims ...", all thrown out by a new editor, and the reference to the Levant wiped out completely. The editor is obviously completely unaware of the careful discussion that went into the wording, but even if he was, would he care? This is one reason why I am disillusioned with the project. A lot of hard work can be a waste of time. I am not reverting it as I cannot take any more discord at the moment. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 Fair comment, I have reverted within the last 24. Will raise it. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Why it was thought to be "editorialisng" I can't imagine. Those points were a summary of what is in the article, per WP:LEAD. Btw, apologies for note in Talk page saying those were your comments. To me it wasn't quite clear, but probably is to others. :) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 When you cite the talk page can you cite section or exact time of edit or something. I have a hard time finding. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 It was definitely a shady clarity kind of thing. I just felt that I had enough questions pointed at me at the moment. I didn't want something about paragraph layout on top of all else. Maybe pressures are getting to me too. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, but understandably so. :) Thanks for raising that Lead edit on the Talk page. I said I wouldn't edit for a few days. I had to comment as I was incensed by the editor's arrogance as much as anything. You raised suspicions about his other edits. I was suspicious looking at his userpage and his Talk page. Just doesn't fit with his presentation on this Talk page. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm just back from dinner. Chicken Puteneska, don't know how to spell it but it's left a nice flavour :) I like to think that you can appeal to people's better nature ~~ we shall see. I think that there are some good honest editors that edit with sympathy to the Islamic State agenda but I don't think that this is always the case. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This editor is edit-warring (see Revision History page), going against consensus, and has broken the 1RR. He is steadily working his way through the article now. I have just reverted his removal of the description of "Al-Sham" in "Names". Something fishy about this editor. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I suspect he is a sock-puppet. I might mention it to Ponyo, who deals with sock-puppets.. I caught a sock-puppet on the page earlier this year, after my suspicions turned out to be accurate. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

reported him to ANi- quick result 48 hour ban. Legacypac (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

ty both, P123ct1 I think that there should be a tally mark system for sock finders like they had on old war planes. Pegged on a washing line would look good. I've never followed these investigations and would be interested in how they go. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Some light relief. Click on "P123" and it will take you to where I raised whether the editor earlier this year was a sock, and see this for more on it. I have reported yesterday's editor to Ponyo just in case. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 v nice. As for me, I never have a problem with sock hunting. Mine are all black but occasionally they get holes. I'd like to make a metaphor :) but that may be a stretch. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Here's a barnstar for you for sticking by your guns and your great work on ISIL - Myopia123 (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Khawarij (again)

Have you seen this? I just don't think he's very bright. I cannot revert because of the 1RR; you probably can't either. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1 *sigh*, we have another non talker "(again)". Do you know who removed it? Gregkaye ✍♪ 00:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac ~ P123ct1 (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that my track record of editing here shows that I am against Discrimination, prejudice, bias etc but in relation to some Islam related subjects I feel that I have witnessed a prehaps disproportionate amount of dishonest, surreptitious, misrepresentative and manipulative editing. I take the above as being a potential but minor example of this phenomena now on both sides of the current argument. My observations started as related to comments made at Talk:Muslim#Honesty. There is a religion here that has content such as presented at the top of this talk page. Within the assumption that some of the editors on the 'SIL page are Muslim or are otherwise conversant with Islam, it amazes me that people do not protest against offending content and intervention. I have seen you stand up to issues such as unjustified personal attacks an good for you. I have not noticed others taking similar approaches. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that edit was all of those things. I don't know what has happened to this page. It seems to be attracting a certain type of editor. You would not believe how different it was before you arrived. It was a civilized place where editors behaved according to the rules and there was none of that. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

He has done it again. He is edit-warring and has broken the 1RR (again). I have left this message on his Talk page. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Mohammed al-Bukhari, You have now recieved messages from the both of us and while I sympathise with the content and intention of your edits, you are clearly not going about things in appropriate ways. I think it is strange that it is down to me to say this as, when edit warring is occurring in the opposite direction, there are a range of editors that say or do nothing but situations are as they are. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

P123ct1, Mohammed al-Bukhari, I think this situation should be put, presented in a firm but proportionate way, on the edit warring notice board. The edits may be of a mildly disruptive nature but, none-the-less, they are clearly vandalism which shows no sign of stopping. I sympathise with the content and the intention but that is not enough. He can decide whether he wants to take a dive on this but P123ct1 you've been plenty patient. Mohammed your rudeness in not replying is also not appreciated. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk Page Discussion

There is a talk page discussion going on here on the Vietnam war outcome that you might be interested in. - SantiLak (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

SantiLak I'm more than happy to add comment on another stupid war. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)