Jump to content

User talk:GregKaye/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

About David Attenborough

[edit]

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 Wikipedia knows English. Cheers. --Wintereu (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It does :D --Wintereu (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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


TY for reply

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Discussion of London images

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Re: Population Matters

[edit]

I started a Vietnamese translation of the English article. Note that, at the Vietnamese Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

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

reversals

[edit]

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

"Mentions" decides? E.g. in [1]? -DePiep (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Which single one of your first edits had an explanation -- at all? [2] -DePiep (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
'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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Your level of involvement at Talk:Antisemitism

[edit]

Looking over the talk page history at Talk:Antisemitism, [3], 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)[reply]

  • I started four discussions, one due to a flagrant disregard to Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[4]. 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)[reply]

{collapse top|Starting with my statement of support, the discussion proceeded as follows..}}

  • Support as nominator. The use of Semitism is, intentionally or not, a form of identity theft. Israelis, Jews and Zionists all have strong individual identities as does Judaism. Its one thing to assume a designation that does not solely belong to you. Its another thing to then lessen that name in the process. Gregkaye (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What? Your justification is incoherent and completely unbased in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. VQuakr (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
VQuakr, although put briefly, everything stated is clearly intelligible. The issue of identity is relevant here with further discussion at Talk:Antisemitism#Identity.
Gregkaye's arguments are utterly incoherent and nonsensical. Jews did not invent the term antisemitism. People who didn't like Jews invented it. The assertion that the use of Semitism is "a form of identity theft" is therefore ludicrous. How can you "steal" something if it isn't you that's taken it? Paul B (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Paul B Sorry for the late reply. If one person takes an object, another person moves the object and others then takes and uses the same object, its still theft. Maybe I needed to have clarified to my initial statement. The use of Semitism, no matter by whom it is done and whether by intention. or not, (is) a form of identity theft. You introduced the word "Steal" in isolation and in quotation marks which was misrepresentation. I said "The use of..." The issue, as far as I am concerned, is not "stealing" but possession. The French writer Ernest Renan used Semite, the Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider used antisemitische Vorurteile (anti-Semitic prejudices), the German journalist Wilhelm Marr is widely credited with coining Antisemitismus, German Wikipedia currently uses de:Judenfeindlichkeit ~Judeophobia. "To thine own self be true" Polonius from Hamlet Act 1 Scene 3, “It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.” ― W.C. Fields" Gregkaye (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think about it I also think that "incoherent" is a little harsh. Any reader can make their own judgement on what I wrote. Gregkaye (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

|}

You insultingly described my "justification" as "incoherent".
What's your justification for the insult?
Gregkaye (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
[edit]

--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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Deletion of userbox templates

[edit]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

[edit]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 T•C✡ 19:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

[edit]

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 [[prefix]] changing the meaning of a term to its negative (as in [[disappear]].

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)[reply]

Prefixes

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Move review for Anti-Semitism:Requested move

[edit]

I have asked for a move review, see Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks

[edit]

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

ANB discussion

[edit]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal, Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

1RR violation at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

The 1RR

[edit]

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)[reply]

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

Disambiguation

[edit]

Hi again, I just happened across this [5] 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)[reply]

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: 

*[[Islamic State of Azawad|Azawad]]	
*[[Islamic State of Indonesia|Darul Islam (Indonesia)]]
*[[Islamic State of Azawad|Hamas Covenant]]	
... 	
*[[Islamic State of Waziristan|Islamic Emirate of Waziristan]]

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: Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]

September 2014

[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia'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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
  • 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".[7]
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)[reply]

Breed RMs

[edit]

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Madonna Talk

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Isil

[edit]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Israeli West Bank barrier#Names

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

1RR rule, re: SeattliteTungsten

[edit]

Hi, 1RR is a "bright line" rule that has to be obeyed by all editors in the Israel-Palestine part of Wikipedia. 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. Zerotalk 05:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Zero, I hope pinging is appropriate. (Conversation relates to the very clear case of: Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 [8] 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)[reply]

Transliterations/Translations

[edit]

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)[reply]

A heads up about using ref formatting on Talk pages

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Caliphate

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

hi

[edit]

I am providing everyone who commented in the open page move RfC - as well as the previous closed RfC - a notice of an ANI [[9]] This has to do with a possible editor stability issue. DocumentError (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Civil War

[edit]
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 may only be imposed after the user is notified sanctions are in effect. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Odia alphabet move

[edit]

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)[reply]

American

[edit]

"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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia's categorisation and content in Category:Politics of the United States. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

[edit]

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

Discussion: Operation Inherent Resolve

[edit]

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

ISIS Talk page

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

October 2014

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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


Stop icon 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[1] has included an open letter from 126 Sunni scholars to "the self-declared Islamic State", indicating[2] 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".[3][4][5] Pakistani clergy also condemned it as a "violent group" whose "actions are against the teaching of Islam".[6][7]

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)[reply]

  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.

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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)[reply]

ISIS Lead edit

[edit]

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

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

{collapse top|related conversation}} P123ct1

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(we can fight about it later, Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC) :) I'll delete this[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
P123ct1, Oh well, The above still holds but I guess I should have read the rest first. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

|}

Requested move by blanenicholas

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

Request

[edit]

{collapse top|title=AN/I issues}} Please do not keep criticising and telling me what to do. I will do as I think fit. If you find it unacceptable, there are channels for dealing with it. I am very tired of having my AGF thrown back in my face. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Acknowledged. The important thing is that editors can themselves be honest, truthful and direct. I got in contact with the other editor, asked questions and received evasion. Some things need to work themselves out. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've always appreciated you are just that, Greg, and I have a bad temper :( . Worldedixor has upbraided me for moving one of your comments on the AN/I. I did it to get the time sequence right. It was (on the 23rd):
Wheels 1:41 - You 8:43 - You 7:08 - which I changed to - Wheels 1:41 - You 7:08 - You 8:43
For some reason I thought the 8:43 comment was Wheels's! Have restored it to what it was originally. (Note to self: don't interfere.)
This AN/I is terrible. Never wanted a ton of bricks to fall on you. I didn't know about the AN/I until it happened. I've no idea what happens next.  :( --P123ct1 (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would have contacted you sooner but, ironically, I have been busy with training in a religious paramilitary organisation. Regarding the AN/I, it all relates to one revert and, in fact, I am lucky that it wasn't within the 24 hour period. I had thought it had come a lot later. The other raised issue relates to my insertion of Islamic criticism into the last paragraph of the lead of an article pertaining to an Islamic organisation is far from balanced. This criticism had previously been presented as fist thing in the second paragraph of the entire article, was then relegated to the second to last paragraph, then the last and then, without discussion, was repeatedly removed. There is also no ruling a against POV so from someone and I find it totally hypocritical for someone who constantly promotes his own POV through spin and manipulation to plaintively present, "we just need to see this POV pushing and edit warring to stop".
Some reference to Technophant's offensive and demeaning content is found at Talk:ISIL#Use of "Islamic State" at least in the infobox. A second derision was then inserted. I have only ever given one personal attack on anyone in my history in Wikipedia and it was warranted. There is only so far you can accept people's excuses of ignorance, of not checking, of not reading clearly or of not thinking it important to check. Whether consciously or not to my mind its "wilful" manipulation. This is an editor who offers to put in a "good word" for certain editors in dispute and who will expend great energy in pursuit of tearing down others. A second derision was inserted.
The thing that has really fried my brain in the last few days relates to the badgering thread at User talk:Technophant. I wanted to raise this with you sooner but my values are that I don't talk about people until I get to grips with the facts and, in this situation, this grip was frustratingly elusive. What was clear was that the timing of the warnings and retractions was deeply suspicious. I raised related question with RGloucester on Technophant's talk page which I there found to relate to Technophant's "has been removed" entry and Greyshark09 further intervened to place a link to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. I find it inconceivable that still no apparent attempt has been made to rectify the situation.
I also object to the way that my questions to Techophant are consistently handled with the evasion and spin which are characteristic of Technophant's edits. Either that or, to suit, questions are flatly ignored. Within this context I think that my "I have every right to be wary" statement is more than justified. In my book and in relation to battleground tactics evasion comes high on the list as is the irrelevant presentation of "like", "value and respect" in some veiled bid for moral high ground. Also came the deceitful spin that I have "ferventaly argued against the use of the word "jihadist"'. It is deeply concerning if he thinks this was my argument. I have consistently argued that the wording can remain in place with appropriate qualification but have received no help from other editors to find a way to do this.
The galling thing is that also, for want of better timing or of better clarity of thought, none of this would have happened. I just want people to live. Its not a bad POV to have.  :'"-( Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the trouble is that Technophant wasn't in on all the discussions about "jihadist" and all the changes to the Lead and you have suffered as a result of it. He was away for some time before you arrived and his edits are more about the technical side than the content. I couldn't follow all the discussion on T's talk page about the notices but it could be that he isn't familiar enough with handling them, I just don't know. (Can't say more in this goldfish bowl.) I don't like to see you embattled like this, although I know I have been contributory to it with my comments on the AN/I. I was hoping for a softer approach, as advocated on the Help Desk, with some kind of dispute resolution. I wanted to modify one of my comments about you on the AN/I, but know if I did there would be no end of hassle from Worldedixor. (The trouble there has a long and very unpleasant history.) I think I may risk it. If this wretched "jihadist" business crops up again on the ISIS Talk page, why not state once again very clearly your position that the wording can stay with appropriate qualification? The efn might be accepted. I can't at the moment think how else to help in this awful situation. One good thing is that some editors recognise and respect your motives in editing the Lead (and the article as a whole) even though they may not agree with you on some things. (I will try not to be so aggressive in future.) I don't know how to stop this runaway train (the A/NI) and Technophant seems to have stopped editing temporarily. It may exhaust itself and the admins will take a decision. I think everyone has had their say now. Apologies for the distractions with Worldedixor and myself on the AN/I, but he cannot make wild allegations and not expect rebuttal, I have a reputation to protect. All this must be very galling for you, given your peaceable stance on things (I have read your userpage). WP can be a bearpit and it has nearly stopped me editing in the past (before you arrived on the ISIS page). Just hang on in there. :):) --P123ct1 (talk) 08:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You pinged. Sorry if I moved that comment back to the wrong place. I should leave stuff like this alone. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1, I think that it was inappropriate for Technophant to join this particular loop and this raises the question as to why he choose to get quite so actively involved. You have done some reading around my involvements in Wikipedia. Read his.
I can't comment on any background issues related to your personal involvement with Worldedixor but for my part I have always found you to be direct, honest, straightforward and, from what I have seen, to deserving of a generally high level of reputation. My hope is that the two of you can find peace. Just keep this in mind. If relevant, I would be more than happy be involved in any private (as much as that is possible on Wikipedia) or public dispute resolution. Also, if anything ever comes up between the two of you feel free to ping me a reference here or whereever.
My personal perception is that the three of us are all towards the higher end of the emotional spectrum which I personally consider to be a strength, albeit one that also brings additional challenges.
My hope is that, if Wikipedia would be an appropriate avenue for him, WE can get into gainful contribution in Wikipedia.
Reputation is often a touchy issue. For me one of the things that I generally take most note of is when anyone can say, on any issue and by any wording and in a non forced situation, "I was wrong". I will always take people at face value but whenever I see something like that then my trust increases. My suspicion is that grudges may involved between the two of you and that, while battleground can work in many ways, I may have seen more aggressive content from WE (and I may strike this WP being what it is). On-line contacts are strange. In real life people in dispute can end up being good friends. Sadly I haven't seen evidence of the same on the internet. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. They mean a lot to me. I have tried many times to reconcile with Worldedixor in the past but have got nowhere. Not meaning to denigrate him in any way at all, I think you may understand a little more if you read the RfC/U, to get the background of the clash there. He has not been sanctioned yet, and I am glad to see he is back on the ISIS page with some edits. I hope my encouragement helped and that this will continue, and if there is no trouble there he may not need the topic ban the editors and admins talk about on the RfC/U. I used to keep quiet before the RfC/U and not respond very much to trouble between us on the Talk page, but have become more "battleground" since the latest trouble (which began only a few days ago). He was away for a month and I could edit in peace. I want this to continue and will not rise to the bait on the Talk page, but who knows it may not come to that. You are right about the high emotional level; I think the three of us are the worst for that on the ISIS page. Hadn't noticed that before. However, I was so much meaker up to shortly before you arrived you wouldn't recognize me! Got off to a bad start when I jumped down your throat about "terrorist" and those ISIL footnotes! I can laugh now, hope you can. Ironical that we went over to ISIL not long afterwards. :{
Thanks for the offer of mediation, may take you up on it, if it comes to that. He is a good and careful editor, but quarrelsome and this has been so destructive. The sad part is that we started off so well and collaborated very well on edits (if you go back to the discussion in July about the country terrorist designations). You may be just the person to reconcile us. Btw, I know Technophant (US) quite well and he isn't manipulative, so it must be something else. He doesn't like troubles on the page and I know he is upset that his attempts to sort them out have backfired on him; he has asked me to tell editors that. Probably like you, am waiting with bated breath to see what happens next on the AN/I.:{ --P123ct1 (talk) 10:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My old Biblical teaching said that we may be refined like gold in the fire, or something like that. It also said to "test everything and hold on to the good." We acknowledge and deal with the bad with clear reality and work with what remains. Good god I sound like a new age hippy.
Whether intentionally or not Technophant is manipulative. Its also fair that he stands for himself. I already take exception to his irrelevant self endorsements and don't think it is right for this to spread to other people.
That risks (being slightly flipant) going down the road of Cabal. Have you seen this hilarious list? Like I say though, I don't bear grudges but seriously people should fight their own battles (and answer their own questions if I can add that). Having said that, if there was an AN/I or similar I don't think I would hold back. There is another Biblical saying that those who live by the sword will die by the sword (here lies another potential problem with fundamentalism). Things will need to move some for me to gain trust but this can come from perspectives of his editing not yours. In any case I had developed the perspective that, if Technophant is a loose (or wilful) cannon, he is your loose cannon. This isn't good.
In regard to Worldedixor I also want to keep on the right side of him in the continued hope of that bit of translation. I guess I can be manipulative too. :) Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1, I appreciate your suggestion to state once again very clearly my position on jihadism on the talk page. If you think this wouldn't it be sensible for you to remove your comment at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#The word "jihad", criticism and disruption first. It also seems like tricky advice for me to follow while your comments in the AN/I still say support. You also say that User talk:Technophant is not manipulative and yet his prejudging comments remain within the same thread so as to state: NOTICE: Gregkaye (talk · contribs · logs) has repeatedly reverted or reinserted edits that violated NPOV and talk page consensus. His "please refrain from discussion here" comments also persist. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which comments in the Talk page, Greg? Do you mean where I rudely said, "The Gospel according to Editors"?! That was a cheap shot in retrospect, sorry! Btw I tried reinserting the efn footnote after "jihadist" earlier today, but was swiftly reverted by Felino. I have amended my "Support" comment saying I didn't think AN/I was such a good idea after all or that there should be a topic ban. Did you see it? We need some guidance on what to do about this dispute as it has reached deadlock. I don't want you to lose editing rights - I know I have been contradictory about this, btw - and it seems a bit childish to "ban" or "punish" someone for not agreeing with other editors, so perhaps dispute resolution might be a better way, where outside editors mediate editors' views. I am inexperienced about these various regulatory noticeboards, disciplinary boards, etc, which is why I have asked for advice on this on the AN/I (I put it in bold). Even Technophant had his doubts early on; I was quite surprised to see him say dispute resolution might have been better. We have not discussed any of this in emails, btw, which may seem odd, and the RfC/U came as a surprise as well. I agreed as I was pretty desperate about Worldedixor by that stage. I trusted T. as he has so much experience in WP. (Btw, Worldedixor has been editing for about eight years, I think. I've only been editing since February this year.) Let me know which bit of the Talk page you were referring to, won't you? I am trying to think of the best way to put across to recalcitrant editors why the efn footnote would be harmless. I would have thought it would be a good compromise, as plain "jihadist" still follows the RS guidance, and yet it links very unobtrusively to where the criticism is in the article; it is not like a regular footnote. I think you agree about the ordering of Lead paras and the last one now, don't you? (Though the last one will keep changing shape!) Sorry about this meandering reply, but I think that was all. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's basically the edit you mention. The AN/I is trumped up. I see no reason to make any applications and I am just looking to move on. There are a few editors who do nothing or very little for the page who may have taken this on as a crusade. Your edit as mentioned has been up for quite some time now and will already have made a big impression. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Am not quite sure which edit you're referring to there. I'm not sure my comments are as influential as you think. Editors are more independent-minded than that, aren't they? Anyway will rectify. You sound fed up and battle weary, which is hardly surprising. When you say move on, I hope you don't mean move on from the article. :( ---P123ct1 (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you see that I am trying to see things through with the AN/I and want to see things covered both there and on the talk page so I guess I'm looking to stay :). Its basically the 13:33, 23 October 2014 edit which is the current last word on the thread. You are often the voice of mediation and clarification on the page and I think you are definitely listened to. You have deleted things before. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have amended my comment in this way to get in the part about the efn, which I was going to do anyway as I said above, so if there are any spies watching it's hardly a canvassed edit! I think this is right and that the efn (which I've called a "footlet") should be appended to "jihadist". I knocked out the time and date when amending it, but I think this is the 13:33, 23 Oct comment you were referring to. I am very flattered by what you say and wasn't aware of being listened to! I didn't do any strike-through this time, which I am not sure is a violation of some WP policy I don't know about. Do you know? Hope this is the entry you were referring to. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Following changing that comment, I have reinserted the efn footnote again, saying in the edit summary to refer to the Talk page. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You pinged. The AN/I was a mild example of the WP:PA and WP:HOUND I had to put up with for nearly one and a half months practically every day on the ISIS and other Talk pages. It has continued on the RfC/U page in the last few days. I used to keep my mouth shut, but not this time. Sorry the AN/I was cluttered up with it. You have a point about others edit-warring on the ISIS Talk page! I have tried to open a thread hoping to determine consensus on one topic at least (adding the sentence about Muslim criticism to the last Lead para) hoping to stop the edit-warring on it, but things being as chaotic as they are now on the Talk page, I don't hold out much hope of this happening! Good to see you giving as good as you got on the AN/I today, firm but not combative. :) --P123ct1 (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are, and I mean this with genuine respect, a true jihadist. Good for you :) Thanks also for your support for me. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice messages. Thanks! . He really gets up my nose, as they say. :) --P123ct1 (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind, but I presume because of UB? --P123ct1 (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I hadn't used those letters. Now I'm not following, doh, lol, Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You changed wording, I thought because of the privacy thing. ;) --P123ct1 (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to collapse this very long conversation? I have collapsed one on my Talk page, putting {{collapse top|title=Conversation}} at the top and {{Collapse bottom}} at the end. They are both very long threads! --P123ct1 (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea and will do. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! I agree, too much talk lately, treating this as a chatroom. Bad luck with the edit-warring noticeboard, worse than useless result. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about the useless. For one thing it demonstrates some fairly vivid contrasts.

ad: Its also a long thread so may get archived. A few things need to go. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

|}

RM notification

[edit]

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)[reply]

Edits in ISIS

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
UB - R! --P123ct1 (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
24th at 6 on "ISIS Talk page" only just spotted. TY. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
removed message P123

ANI confusion

[edit]

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)[reply]

Edit-warring Noticeboard

[edit]

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)[reply]

Khawarij

[edit]

"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) {collapse top|Related discussion}}[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

done and good idea - FYI: 

this:
*link from → [[#Khawarij|Khawarij]] (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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

|}

Misrepresentation?

[edit]

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

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)}}[reply]
I have quoted your comments on the AN/I page and made clear comment. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
If you are unsure which, please go with the AGF-compliant "misunderstanding." VQuakr (talk) 08:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Misrepresentations 2

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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

(talk page stalker) That's a good idea, Greg. Go ahead and make your changes in Template:History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/sandbox and do some test edits.~Technophant (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Technophant All good. Glad to see that you are keeping up which is appreciated as a slow reader. However I would think that a simple reversion of your last edit should set things straight. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neque porro quisquam est qui do{{lorem ipsum}} quia dolor sit amet consectetur adipisci velit (translation: "Neither is there anyone who loves, pursues or desires pain itself because it is pain").~Technophant (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Technophant Is this a riddle? I am baffled as to the meaning of this reference. Can you explain? Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Technophant thanks for the edit above. Still baffled and would still appreciate explanation. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
riddle=yes. hint=previous_revision. ~Technophant (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technophant how about you just explain as per: "would still appreciate explanation". Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @P123ct1: do you have any clues? Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC) *sigh*[reply]
  • If is anything to do with the template, no. The technical talk about it is gobbledegook to me, I'm afraid. But I agree the template could replace the "Index of names" (though we did a lot of work on it together) to great advantage. It is more attractive than a simple list, and far more appropriate to have something on the names close to "History" rather than right at the beginning. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, as the story goes I got an email, can't find it right now, anyway said something about you and disruptive editing on ISIL lead. I used to do a lot of Vandal Patrol so the "warn3, wait, warn4, wait, report" was just a gut reaction. I wish you had simply heeded the warnings, you asked for clarification but went ahead and reverted without getting an answer. You need to respect your fellow editors Greg. I did make an error in calling your edits "disruptive", wp:tendendatious is what I should have called it, however I can never remember how to spell it...~Technophant (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Technophant I really do not think that making a mistake covers it. As mentioned any disruption that I made pales into insignificance compared to others on the page. You should loose your interest here. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):OK, it's Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and the def. with audio is here. I'm not sure why Wikipedians like to use 1,000 point words, I guess that compet. wordmanship is in the nature of people who like to edit text for free.~Technophant (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That and you WP:Filibuster the talk page. Now that Worldedixor is gone I don't see another editor that has edited in the last two weeks that has caused as much discussion as yourself. You still don't seem be willing to get off your wp:soapbox and let God and let go. ~Technophant (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Technophant I find it remarkable that you consider it to be in any way related to WP:TENDENTIOUS to expressing views about ISIL that are in line with the thoughts of the Majority of the Islamic world. Astounded in fact. Please do not come to talk pages just to push a point especially one without justification. The only pain came from your actions of badgering, misrepresentation and abuse.
I have also asked that if you have a specific comment to make then make it. You have been told about badgering before. Don't you think that "letting God" has caused enough problems in past history? Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Tendentious: expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view, especially a controversial one." That would be truer of Greg than "filibuster", which here would be trying to stop editing happening that he didn't want by out-talking the opposition, which I don't think is accurate in Greg's case. Anyway, to filibuster is to stop something happening within a limited time-frame, and there is no time limit on this on the Talk page, the discussion, theoretically, could go on for ever! "Soapboxing" Greg has admitted to. I don't think the actual views Greg puts forward are "controversial", but they are causing controversy on the Talk page among editors. I am assuming the "collapse" on this means no more comment, but had to get that in. (0 ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
further unsolicited edits

I can tell that you are eager, ambitious, talented young man. That's an unqualified compliment. I'm trying to get around to explaining the context of why I reacted as I did. There was a lot of commotion on the ISIL page, I wasn't feeling well so only following User:P123ct1's commentary of what was going on, not actually reading diffs. Worldedixor is toxic, and he poisoned the well and got us on the defensive trying to figure out what to do in response. On Oct 20th, User:P123ct1 emailed me "[I] was very surprised that Gregkaye started attacking me on my Talk page today, as you will have seen. Perhaps that is what he is like when he is under pressure. Shame, because like you I basically like him a lot. Just can’t bear his POV-pushing". P123ct1 is a new user, and I've adopted him in an informal way. He was very aggravated and asked me to do something. I see now that you were template warned 3 days before I template warned you. What I did was above-board, but was admittedly overblown. I hope you can accept my apology on that. I'm not going to revert any more text though. You'll need to learn how to deal with conflict better and take a learn how to relax.~Technophant (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Technophant Can I ask if you had P123ct1's permission to share that information or in anyone else's interest other than your own. There are plenty of things that people can't bear and its kind of funny what you say. I think there are far more extreme POV issues on the page than anything I have to offer and yet either my views or P123ct1's views have changed but we seem to agree about a lot of the same things these days. I do plenty to relax. There are a variety of things that I think you need to learn. Keeping confidences, approaching things with a proportionate level, finding it in yourself to respond when called to, arguing the point rather than using manipulative spins to undermine other arguments. Beyond my question I'm calling an end to this conversation. As I have repeatedly said, if you have a specific accusation that you want to raise then feel free. Your badmouthing on my page is not appreciated. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your notice on the ISIS Talk page

[edit]

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). collapse top|related discussion}}[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

|}

Linking problems

[edit]

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)[reply]

collapse top|related discussion}} 

I used:
{{anchor|jihadism}} and 
[[#jihadism|their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality” (See related discussion at #Logical Order in Lead)]]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Have just realized, you may have meant help with links for the "Opposition" table, not this! --P123ct1 (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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

[edit]

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)[reply]

last thing on page? Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TY! You will see my comment there. --P123ct1 (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Im flagging :)

[edit]

@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[174][175]
  • Shiism arabic blue.PNG Special Groups KEEP
  • Flag of Iraq Turkmen Front.svg Iraqi Turkmen Front[176] KEEP
  • Lebanon-based opponents
  • Lebanon Lebanese Armed Forces[177] KEEP
      • Lebanese Army
      • Lebanese ISF Logo.jpg Internal Security Forces
  • InfoboxHez.PNG Hezbollah[178] KEEP

Syria-based opponents[179]

  • 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[180][181][182] 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[183]
  • Syrian Kurdistan Syrian Kurdistan[184] KEEP
      • People's Protection Units Flag.svg People's Protection Units
      • Logo of the Syriac Military Council.jpg Syriac Military Council[185]
      • Logo of the Sutoro Syriac Police.jpg Sutoro[186]
      • Local guerrillas[187]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Opposition

[edit]

Opposition within Iraq, Lebanon and Syria

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

P123ct1 Here are two versions

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
-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)[reply]
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)[reply]

AN/I and next steps

[edit]

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) collapse top|related discussion}}[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

|}

PBS edit

[edit]

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

Warning

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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
  • [Revision as of 22:49, 19 October 2014] 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 Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia: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)[reply]

  • 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)
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"Jihadist" qualification

[edit]

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) collapse top|related discussion}}[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

|}

IS on the Occitan Wikipedia

[edit]

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. (me´n parlar) 10:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Is this something collapsible or actionable?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Diffs

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Repost of Category:Misnomer

[edit]

Information icon A tag has been placed on Category:Misnomer requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_15#Category:Misnomers. – Fayenatic London 06:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guido

[edit]

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) collapse top|related discussion}}[reply]

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 [b] 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia, 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)[reply]
:) 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
One of the problems with Wikipedia 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. [Clarification added later: I am not referring to the AN/I here.] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
[text block moved to Misrepresentations 2]]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia maps in grey or in globe type colours I'd be interested in your opinion on this. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Then grey or green would be better. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

|}

Last Lead para in ISIS

[edit]

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)[reply]

I left a note about it on the "Should we add this to the lead" thread. :) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 that was appreciated and I followed on with related comment. :) Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RM notice

[edit]

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Late addition

[edit]

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 [with W-E]. 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) collapse top|related discussion}}[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 b or not to be - adding qualification to Wikipedia'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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
P123ct1 Totally understood. Not knowing what to do I was just thinking through possibilities and perhaps should have stuck with the simple view that Wikipedia related matters are best discussed on Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Technophant has lost access to his Talk page. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

|}

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Technophant Re: "that" can you be more specific? Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Technophant Can you specify what action and on what grounds? And please answer previous questions. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stop wp:fillibustering and just do it!~Technophant (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PBS, sorry to be asking but your opinion on all this would also be appreciated. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

To clarify one sentence: "[During the 24 hour ban] you are not to discuss Technophant's behaviour in any other Wikipeida forum". -- PBS (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Block

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 hours for As I stated above "You are to stop editing anything to do with pages under the ISIL sanctions or User talk:Technophant for 24 hours" you made this edit at Revision as of 18:51. If you breach the 24 hour ban again expect a longer block.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  User:PBS (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

RfC/U

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]

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 [to the article].
  3. "I appreciate that ..." noted and thank you.

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

Our colleague

[edit]

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 Wikipedia 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) collapse top|related discussion}}[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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/wiki/Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant/Archive_5#Using_YouTube_for_citations, (9) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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/wiki/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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I think your "I suspect ... have on others" is accurate. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
What about "Orders"? That is stronger than "Rulings". I'll put it on the Talk page. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

|}

Worldedixor

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Lead: Talk page

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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[17][18], Turkey[19], Iran[20],
North Africa[21], Libya[3], 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)[reply]
P123ct1 I seem to be going backwards with regard to issues from "[b]" 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
P123ct1 re your recent comment on [b] in this diff My comment related to the response to what you said. You said, The discussion is not closed. and yet Gazkthul prematurely stated, "from reading this thread it seems the consensus is for the same". I was answering him/her. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

new

[edit]

Khawarij
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

collapse top|related discussion}} These are the five diffs, and I have given a description of each beneath the links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?title=Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant&diff=634221820&oldid=634220676
17 nov 13.59 (reverted to extremist/Khawarij)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The report has been i think successfully submitted at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)[reply]
P123ct1 I forgot to ping the last comment. I feel bad for Mohamed. He clearly feels that he is doing the right thing and I definitely agree that his proposed content is of very great relevance which, given the chance, could help save lives. Its also difficult for new editors. People are often used to having their work judged but having it deleted can take some getting used to. As a non-communicator I wait to see if we will see this person again. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, and thanks for doing that. I have a certain amount of sympathy for him as well, as you could probably tell. He is new, but is having to learn the hard way, I'm afraid. I hope things work out for him. Tonight Signedzzz's 48-hour ban expires. I wonder what will happen. His pro-ISIL stance is worrying. =( ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Today I almost snapped at an editor at Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Population who had presented information that had then been called into question and I almost went into something like "how do you think we can trust your info when you can't make sure you've signed your posts". Remembering your comment about seeing something along the lines of a temptation to snap coming in really helped. I held back. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 I wish I hadn't got him off ---- but I won't say more than that for now. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I snap all the time now, at you and on the Talk page! Don't like myself for it. He is banned for a week, but I wonder who the editor is who just has raised the Khawarij question on the Talk page. Coincidence? Maybe a friend putting the case for him? I haven't heard the word "snap" used in years. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

|}

Wikipedia:WikiProject Syrian Civil War

[edit]

I have no opinion on the issue of whether to keep or delete Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Syrian Civil War which I can't even edit for pete's sake." (on my talk page [10]). 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Collapse

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
(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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Tool

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Footnotes

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

WP MoS

[edit]

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) collapse top|related discussion}}[reply]

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

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

|}

Horns of a dilemma

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Lead edit

[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) collapse top|related discussion}}[reply]

P123ct1 Fair comment, I have reverted within the last 24. Will raise it. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
reported him to ANi- quick result 48 hour ban. Legacypac (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

|}

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
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)[reply]

Khawarij (again)

[edit]

Have you seen this? I cannot revert because of the 1RR; you probably can't either. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P123ct1 *sigh*, we have another non talker "(again)". Do you know who removed it? Gregkaye ✍♪ 00:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac ~ P123ct1 (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

collapse top|title=related discussion}}

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hopefully this will end well Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It can be difficult for new editors sometimes. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He has only been warned, and he had two blatant 1RR infractions, one after being warned by us of the dangers. I had a Syrian Civil War Sanctions Notice and got put on its list when I hadn't remotely been found guilty of a 1RR infraction. This was during the WE trouble. I asked the relevant admin three times about this, and was brushed off with a discourteous and impatient non-answer. So much for justice in this place. I know how T. feels. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P123ct1 I was asked to put him up - not something that I would have naturally done and someone else might have just said I am not the "ISIL cop" and then sprung to the defence. I didn't want to put him up in the first place. I agree. So much for justice in this place. I have no idea how T feels and, believe me, I have tried to understand. I hope he learns his lesson because they will not be as lenient in the future. I suspected he would get a ban. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you felt coerced. You said you thought this should be put on the edit-warring noticeboard (11:18, 18th), I obviously misunderstood that, I found the diffs, I had never done one of these before, you had, so I asked. Too many misunderstandings of late, think. Btw, Technophant is back from his break and we are in email contact again. He is taking his ban and rough handling by the admins very badly. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am disappointed with the result all the same. M should have got 24 hours or similar. Apparently M has been warring again. Fel has pointed it out and I've left a message on his/her talk page to say that action can be taken. Wikipedia is meant to be a level playing field and T plays dirty. PBS says he has become known to admin and they have reacted. I would have liked the chance to mediate with regard to T with similar content as with WE but there was no chance of that. People have to face realities and respond realistically. T is no exception to that rule. As I have said before, if you are talking about Wikipedia matters then I request, where possible, that he does this on the talk page. Its all part of the level playing field. 18:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC) Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 The thing I don't agree with is the approach taken by admin with Technophant. In a message above where I pinged PBS I said, "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." The approach has been more condemnatory than directional and this will not help Technophant on the "outside". Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it was exactly the same with Worldedixor. I think they were both badly treated. (edit conflict) T. can't go on his TP. He is banned from all WP editing, indefinitely. I won't disclose our emails even if they are about WP matters. To be asked or forced to is a form of censorship. If there is any "plan" we have that involves anything other than his ban appeal which should be made public then it will be. But that is hardly likely to happen now. And the mediation between you both stops as of now as I am no longer a willing go-between; I think I might even have made things worse. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was in two minds about Mohammed al-Bokhari, but no longer. The latest was the deciding factor. :( ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes wonder who has more baggage, me, T, M,...? M is the one that you can't even talk to. Its ALL one way and in that case I don't see any hope of him staying.  :) its a fixed smile resolute against the Wikipedia facts. I've just had sausages and potatoes. (If they can be genuine I'd also prefer to see less sad faces from you --- but reality is, arguably, more important). Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about today's temper outbursts, but the stress of WP really got to me. I never started editing in WP to deal with all the strife there is wherever one turns, and now on top of it T.'s troubles. When both of us are stressed, bang! =( But can never be cross with you for long, Greg.  :) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 Can I ask how the phrase anti-ISIL propaganda developed or where it comes from? Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know what you are suggesting. It is an idea I alone have had in my head for some time and been quite concerned about, but never felt I should voice it until now as I thought it was too inflammatory, but was alarmed enough at how far you were wanting to go yesterday to mention it. I brought up the Edit-warring Noticeboard deliberately, to indicate to Mohammed that he really cannot behave like that with editors and get away with it. Confining that to his Talk page was not working. I don't know who split that part of the thread into a 1RR subheading, which I thought was wrong and verged on pillorying him; it did not need as much prominence as that. Do you think it would be safe to revert it and put it back to being part of the main thread? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P123ct1 I had split the content with the 1RR heading. The context as I see it was: that you had started the "Bold change of para order in Lead" thread; this thread had progressed to the point that it had confirmation had been given to move the terrorist related content into the first paragraph; Felino123 then placed irrelevant content regarding the current thread and which would have had far more relevance in a thread such as: Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Can we add this important information to the Lead? which Mohamed had personally started and in which he would have been on home ground. It could also have been added to Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Should we add this line to the lead to give reference. As it happened, if the placement was intended, it would have been an excellent derailing tactic.
I have collapsed the content of the 1RR thread which now may seem rough on Felino123. It may be best if something similar is done with the Fastfingers666 thread which has the, possibly sock puppet, user name in the title and which has very directly worded content. I didn't want to mention this on the article talk page especially in the context of your last comment at 1RR. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure it was not meant as a derailing tactic. Either I am naïve or you are too suspicious! I don't think editors are as manipulative as you think. I think it is a good idea to collapse both threads as they are finished with now, although I note no-one else criticises me for being outspoken and it is possibly because I say things they basically agree with. I had a nice note from Fastfingers about his mistake, btw. I am a little concerned at your apparent attempts to control my thoughts and freedom of expression, Greg. It has been a trend lately, but maybe I am imagining it. T. needs my help (not re a ban appeal) so probably won't be very visible today. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

P123ct1 I think the edit, I guess done by you, to change the Status entry is great. It summarises the situation really well. I was thinking about citable forms of status and on that mark terrorist would fit the bill. Current content gives excellent description .
The first paragraph I think has difficulties... I'll cut what I was about to say and just ask you to put yourself in the shoes of a borderline Islamist and read it.
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL /ˈaɪsəl/), also translated as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS /ˈaɪsɪs/; ad-Dawlah al-Islāmīyah fīl-ʻIraq wa ash-Shām), also known by the Arabic acronym Daʿish and self-proclaimed as the Islamic State (IS),[a] is a Sunni, extremist, jihadist rebel group controlling territory in Iraq and Syria. It has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, the UAE and Israel.
For many people feeling, rightly or wrongly, oppression from the west I think that this is like a red rag to a bull. In connection to similar thoughts I referred back to the Al-Qaeda article. I remember that after 9/11 one of the main features of the news was a torrent of Islamic condemnation for the attacks. There is now not a note of this in the article and it has all been edited out. At the same time I have seen gratuitous references to Israel and a great many piped or otherwise redirected links to coalition or multinational force articles presented as if they were done by the US or the "Americans". I notice that one of the editors that has long been straining to remove Islamic criticism even joining fierce and rhetorical resistance to an unobtrusive footnote then praised the elevation of UN etc reference to terrorism. Now people may read the lead and read of Primarily Western meddling at the beginning of the lead and not read about the central issue of Islamic criticism until the last sentence. It took me a while to figure this but I currently have a bad feeling that the way the lead is currently structured is just the way that pro ISIL supporters might like it. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be how pro-ISIL supporters want it, Greg? The way it is structured with the terrorist deisgnations near the beginning - which I thought you supported (you said "This is absolutely fair") - shows criticism of them, not support for them, surely. What is the western meddling you refer to? You will see I have now suggested keeping the end criticisms part together with the terrorist designation part and have them both at the top. I agree it is wrong to tack the Muslim criticism part on at the end, when it is such a major feature. I have stressed on the Talk page several times that I think the Muslim criticism is very important and should be given more prominence in the Lead, though I wouldn't go as far as to say that it is the central issue, I think the criticisms are all equally important. But I think the main thing is not to split the criticism part (terrorist designation, UN & Amnesty criticism, Muslim criciticm) but keep them all together, whether it is at the top or the bottom - I would prefer at the top, before the history part. What do you think? I can't remember how they all got to the bottom of the Lead, can you? On the other point, how is it a red rag bull to an Islamist? What do you mean by an Islamist? A supporter of Islam or an extremist? I didn't change the status entry, btw, and I agree it is better than unrecognised state! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am puzzled by your references to pro-ISIL supporters. Who are they? You seem to mean more than just those who support the group as fighters, etc. Do you mean some editors? Opposing bias towards a strong anti-ISIL stance in the article does not mean being pro-ISIL, and wanting NPOV doesn't mean being pro-ISIL. I am sure all editors are very anti-ISIL like most of the world. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 I still stick with "This is absolutely fair" but I also think that I was momentarily forgetting other factors in the situation. I also said just above, "It took me a while to figure this ...". I am sure that you have witnessed the way that people can get even more committed to an issue when they feel they are facing a fight and, for a potential ISIL sympathiser, what greater Goliath could you get than the combined mass of world government especially when you can see a supposedly group decision which is only backed up individually by a handful of nations. Jesus said things like "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me" and I suspect that Islam may directly have its own similar content. I have seen the mentality in which conceptions of persecution result in entrenchment in views with a viscous circle action oscillating between real or perceived persecution and further entrenchment. In my use of Islamist just then I meant it more by the extremist definition but definitely in the perspective of someone who would see the relative promotion of Islam as being a prioritised value. A contingent in these people will may look at international comments of terrorism and just see a false word by raised by untrustworthy but powerful politicians. A similar response that I got from Lagacypac reads: "pro-ISIL types don't mind western govts saying nasty stuff or dropping bombs, they WANT that fight. It justifies their existence as protectors of the faith. But listening to moderate islam is not cool." Isolated mention of terrorist accusations is fair but may not be in all ways beneficial.
I am not so sure about all editors in this case. We have witnessed concerted attempts to remove religious criticism from the article and concerted arguments against factual qualification regarding a relevant Islamic term. ISIL/extremism sympathetic has more chance of accuracy. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 This is something that I should have mentioned this at the time you made comments at 19:28, 19 November 2014 but the conversation moved quickly and I didn't keep up.
Its up to you but one thing that you would be in a position to do is to act in a similar way with Technophant as I tried to act with Worldedixor. The situation is made more complicated as, from comments on T's page, some editor's clearly have more issues in mind that the presented issue of sock puppetry and, had this issue not been raised, others would have been. By researching and presenting issues as I did T would have a chance to respond and to give reassurances of how things might be different.
Bear in mind, though, that T has consistently argued for the hardest penalty to be awarded. In the end this is what he received.
The approach I mentioned is something I believe in as a means to gain restitution even though I have no evidence of success. Unless this is a topic you want to pursue I have nothing more to say. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean now. I admit to a political blindspot, which probably prevented me seeing this. As for editors, as I said somewhere before I think their stance is an unfortunate side-effect of wanting to keep to RS per WP:RS more than anything. What you are arguing for is a more balanced approach to what is and isn't Islam and how Muslims see ISIL and trying to put it across in the Lead, as I see it, when I believe this question should be dealt with in "Criticism". I think that is the main difference between us. I believe there should be more about it as well, which is why I expanded the "Criticism" section by adding these words: "[You] have misinterpreted Islam into a religion of harshness, brutality, torture and murder ... this is a great wrong and an offence to Islam, to Muslims and to the entire world", the letter states. ... the letter censures the group for carrying out killings and acts of brutality under the guise of jihad—holy struggle—saying that its "sacrifice" ...". And now there are complaints on the Talk page that the "Criticism" section is too long/not relevant/must go! These criticisms are such an important aspect of the subject and I cannot understand how some editors cannot see this. I also know what you mean about taking up a position in the heat of the moment that doesn't properly reflect what one really thinks, so it was unfair of me to criticise you for that. :) I am glad we have both collapsed the threads on the two editors. :) (who wrote this lol)
I did! I was trying to save before I finished my comments, as my laptop keeps cutting out. :( ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 The criticism thread can grow and then be split off into its own article like any other topic. There is a mass of relevant material to be developed. Thanks for your thoughts. You may also be interested in Template:Smiley but I'd like to see you with more of the positive ones Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised that you support splitting off "Criticism" to its own article. But as you say, a lot needs to be shunted out as the article is far too long. Probably "Human rights abuses" will need its own article. I know it has to be done, but am not really happy about it, even if there are links to the sections that get split off. It also raises the big problem of the Lead. As the Lead is essentially a summary of the article, some of the Lead would have to go as well, and that would create a distorted picture of the subject, but there may be ways round this.
I wanted to comment on what you said about Technophant. I hesitate to give others advice and am far happier analysing what their problems are for them (which I have often done in the past for friends and b/fs) than advising them how to overcome them, so I don't think I could do what you did for Worldedixor. I hope WE is all right. He hasn't come back to reappeal his ban yet. I am tempted to leave him a goodwill message on my Talk page, but had better not risk it. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS Are you going to collapse these threads? I have been doing that on my TP. They can always be opened and added to if needed. Don't like to think of passing editors eavesdropping on our conversations. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 I don't like the Wikipedia method, if its so, of condemning ex editors and washing its hands. My approach was to analyse WE's problems and to say are you going to respond or not. I got not. If you left WE a goodwill message s/he may feel good about it and s/he may feel bad about it but either way, from his/her position, it would probably be a positive result - definitely in the long run. Even leave it on his/her talk page with content like "delete this or respond as you like". You are in a no lose situation. If you get a good reaction you get resolution. If you get a bad reaction you get validation. Whatever action you take you can say, if you like, that its after speaking with me. By now at one extreme WE may have even forgotten his/ her password and at the other may be planning a grand appeal. Despite cynicism I try not to make assumption but I suspect its not the latter. WE, in a true sense of the phrase, in a Bear pit - I think that he only had moments of that but, perhaps, fairly so. There should be little danger if there was anything you choose to do. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I will rely on him perhaps picking this up here. I still maintain that however badly a person is judged to have behaved, they do not deserve the ad hominem dressing-down that he got from the admins. And as you said, it does not help them to resolve any difficulties that may have led to the sanctions they get. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 I think that is a fitting summary. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to find the diff where you removed my remark to "thank" you, but can't find it. TY very much for doing that. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your note to the editor on his Talk page. Swaywoof is clearly a new account he has opened to circumvent his ban. In other words, that is a sock puppet account. There is another board he could be taken to for this: SPI (sock puppet investigations). I could take him there, but I don't know how to do it; I will do my best. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


|}

Fastfingers666

[edit]

There has just been a massive revert by this editor (see Talk page) which I have reverted back. Funny how the name is so similar to Signedzzz's, whose 48-hour ban is due to expire in a couple of hours. I have used my 1RR on this, so could not revert the extremist/Khawarij edit. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC) collapse top|related discussion}}[reply]

P123ct1 hmm, 666 is synonymous with non-good and theologically not in the light, zzz is synonymous with not being awake. It's quite suggestive. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The 666 is obviously chosen for the reference, but I doubt whether it is more than a joke. But I do think the similarity between the names "Fastfingers666" and "Signedzzz" hints they may be socks of the same editor. Signed opened an account in September this year and the other opened an account in June this year, but the latter's View History page shows the first edit was on 2 November, so perhaps the account was lined up for use as a sock later. Also, Signedzzz has that strange first entry with the IP that you noted. When I asked Ponyo what to do about Signedzzz, s/he said to take suspicions to WP:SPI and now there is this other editor I will have to do this, I think. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I may have an over-active imagination. :) The large revert could have been a mistake. I have asked the editor on their Talk page for an explanation. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 Its a long existent but not highly used login. Who knows. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is what made me think it was a sock account. [Later:] The editor has just said it was a mistake. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

|}

Talk Page Discussion

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

thanks for the awesome photo

[edit]

sure beats the images from the war! Legacypac (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac :) Sure does! It was just when I got to the population thread on 'SIL Talk with the "where I got my source" reference and the failure to sign the post ... I was just about to lose it. I took a breath and remembered some of the calming things that P123ct1 had happened to say to me and replied differently than planed. It was a detour of pleasure to pick out the photo but I should have left written refs to the runners up. I think your whole approach to the page is great especially in contrast with some other inputs on the page, but all the same, some extra calm is always good. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bold change to para order in Lead

[edit]

I have made a big change to the para order, moving up the terrorist designation part to the top. I am not sure if this goes against consensus – I can't remember that far back. I have left a note on the Talk page, and of course will revert if others disagree. I don't know how you might feel about this, but the positioning does highlight that there is great opposition to this group right from the start, and I agree with you that there needs to be more criticism of the group in the Lead. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC) collapse top|related discussion}}[reply]

P123ct1 Its not such a big change. The Spanish article even has terrorist in the title. Everything about the group and its publicity speaks of terror.... and I almost forgot to ping. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the infobox as well could make this look like anti-ISIL propaganda! Beware! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me weigh up the validity of my edits. Comments here don't help. In this case I think that the case is very clear. Terrorism is a widely mentioned subject. News reports are of a perpetually condemnatory nature. In any case I was independently planning this action as is evident by the timing lol. More importantly there is no citable designation of ISIL being an "Unrecognised state" as per news (isil or isis or daesh or "islamic state") and "unrecognised state" or any kind of state. They are a group as has been very well described as "controlling territory". Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had queried the "unrecognized state" myself only today! The blue wikilink on the word has nothing to with unrecognized states, so I added a "why?" tag. I am quite shocked this has gone unnoticed for so long. The word needs to be removed from the text altogether unless someone can come up with a proper cite. I agree that a group "controlling territory" is much more accurate. Btw, I am tired of feeling I have to apologise for offending moves and remarks so I think it is safest I not speak my mind in future except on the Talk page. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 Thanks for the "except on the Talk page" addition. I honestly quite like it when you speak to me strongly and directly and just prefer the content to come straight from you than with possible reference to the possible actions of others. That's all the Beware comment was abp. I honestly don't think you have anything that need be defended. I honestly write the word honestly too much lol. I too feel that I sometimes need to take care with what I write to you but that's fine. Just try to take the good away from the page and not anything else.
I have previously postulated that there may be a natural law that encourages coincidences. After months of editing its odd to both hit on the Status and Terrorism contents at the same time. Legacypac has definitely raised consciousness regarding issues of state for a while and I guess that a variety of editors may have responded to this. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I'll be able to remember the rules about how I comment.:) On "unrecognized state", I think it probably isn't a coincidence and is to do with Legacypac drawing attention to this aspect. It is good to get these overlooked aspects sorted out. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I moved up the last para to join the terrorist designation para and said I would revert if it was against consensus. Felino wants it reverted and says there is no consensus, but no-one else apart from him has responded yet. Can you add your POV? The thread is here. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TY for commenting, but does that mean you agree with keeping all the criticism at the top? Just want to be sure. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 Absolutely. That's how it pretty much was and how I think the media presents things.
I've jus had a nice evening with my paramilitary religious youth organisation lol. What fun. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 Curiously the small group of people that created (and rapidly developed when threatened with deletion) the Portal:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant were happy to include reference to the designations as a terrorist organisation yet no reference is made of Islamic criticism or ethnic cleansing. Propaganda? See Google: game AND "play a terrorist" and alphabetising. Gregkaye ✍♪ 03:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

|}

1RR

[edit]

What do you make of this? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think s/he is very smart but overstreaches when it comes to editing practice and negotiation. Edit history shows a tendency to remove material rather than to add. I have not checked many details other than the large Boko Haram deletion that was commended by the IP. S/he thanked me for at least one of my edits. Gregkaye ✍♪ 04:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can't be that smart if he doesn't read the article first to see how the Lead summarises it, which he clearly hasn't. Doesn't he know what a Lead is? Though he has picked up a few good points, e.g. the citation for "aims to bring most traditionally Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its legislative control" does not say anything about "most" or "legislative", nor do the other citations Legacypac listed in #Lead: most traditionally .... I took those two words out. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 Agreed. I was thinking of "very smart" in terms of very capable. If the conclusion of the report are anything to go by then its a past piece of history. I doubt I will ever look at edits in detail so can't say much further. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khawarij - sock-puppeting

[edit]

collapse top|title=Sock puppet incident and procedural comments}} I said at the end of the "Khawarij (again)" thread – hope you saw my comment – that I would try to take the editor to sock-puppet investigation. I have just done this and notified him on his Talk page. There is a space for comments by other users and the links are WP:SPI, where his name is half-way down the list, and this takes you straight to the right page.

I have told him how to go about defending himself, which is very important, but I have little doubt that this is a sock-puppet account he has opened, to get round the block. I did see your message to him, but as I thought he would ignore it as he has ignored every other warning I went ahead and did this. I hope I don't regret it. My judgment is that he will not listen to anyone, so he has to be stopped somehow and made to see sense and learn. Sock-puppeting is one of the worst things an editor can do in Wikipedia. I have kept the account as objective as I possibly could and not given my point of view (apart from saying I had the suspicion). As I put links to his Talk page and the other account, your comments inevitably showed up, so I had to explain what they were, but didn't say you had suspicions.

I haven't notified any other editor about this and don't think it's appropriate; it's probably best to keep this between us. I have no idea what the sanctions are for sock-puppeting, but they probably vary from mild to harsh, like the various bans. Like you, I don't necessarily dispute his edits, just the way he goes about making them. The fact remains that he seems to have opened a second account and even if he doesn't use it again, it can't remain open and will have to be closed by the admins! I already feel bad about what I have done. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P123ct1 Did you see my comments on the report filed by Felino123? Mohammed made several vandal type edits and when reported he stopped. He then twice moved content and when notified on the article talk page he stopped. He then seems to have used a second account while banned and when confronted with this he, so far, has stopped. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 I was angry and, as things go when feeling like that, didn't see your final sentence. I have edited back. I am not used to people who can communicate like Mohammed but choose not to. My gut feeling is that he is damaged. That's my perception and perhaps that will explain my reaction. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We had an edit conflict. My comment was that I have discovered that admins have discretion over how to deal with this, so he may just get a reprimand and not be sanctioned. But I disagree with you, I sincerely believe he needs to be shown by someone other than editors that he can't do what is doing and that he will not stop until he is stopped. That is my considered judgment and my action does go against my better nature. The main thing is that the second account has to be dealt with, as it cannot be used, and this procedure is the only way of doing it. No, I didn't read your comments on the Felino report and will now. I honestly can't help thinking your attitude may be coloured by your sympathy for M's edits and has made you lenient where you wouldn't be with other editors who did the same thing, but, please, that is just how I see. You are free to plead mitigating circumstances for him in the SPI, of course. In answer to your last comment, he doesn't strike me as damaged. I think the language problem may be hindering him and that he may be one of those people who have no regard for "rules", and he is new, of course, which will make him unaware of the seriousness of what he is doing. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is a matter of saying things in reports as they are. There has to be a full picture. Mohammed is edit warring but with a clear and belief in an issue that he is willing to risk his editing privileges for. I understand that viewpoint because that is exactly where I was. I remember you commended Felino for calling Mohammed's edits vandalism even though no text was removed. I had mentioned vandalism and deceitfulness and you were still angry with me for getting him off. All I did was mention mitigating circumstances which is just what you should also have done. He created a second account, he got my "I see you just started editing today message", he posted another message, he received warning messages that he would get into trouble with the use of that or any other account, he hasn't used that account again. Just as Felino and Technophant have done you did not give the full picture of events. This is not fair. Its behaviour that may very possibly make someone feel victimised. You have not presented a case that presents both sides of the story. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1, this is the case that I took against Felino123. Honestly if there were mitigating circumstances I would have mentioned them. As it was I was unfairly and falsely attacked and then F even said, "I have been contributing to ISIL article in a neutral way." One thing that you will have seen is that I will stand up to misrepresentations like this. Where possible the whole truth must be presented in an even way. This may not be so easily achieved in the context of a fight. You also criticised Fels content on Mohammed and my splitting of the content into a separate more noticeable thread entitled 1RR when all the time you had left visible a thread with the heading title Fastfingers666. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to put your opinions in the comments section, that is what it is there for. It was warned on the SPI board that the presentation should be objective. It was as objective as I could make it. I copied the diffs from the edit-warring warning and block, and then gave the plain facts about the new account. I cannot see what else I could have done. It was not my place to present "mitigating circumstances". Can you not see that? Unless you are, again, telling me what I should and should not do, and that I should have presented something in the comments section. And it certainly was not my place to give a "view", "judgment" or "interpretation" of the facts. Can you not see that "Mohammed is edit warring but with a clear and belief in an issue that he is willing to risk his editing privileges for" is a judgment/ interpretation/view, not a fact? You have to distinguish between facts and judgements. If you believe there is any misrepresentation describe it in the comments section.

I don't know if you are aware of it but the overwhelming impression you leave on the Talk page and elsewhere is that you feel a number of editors are always misrepresenting you and attacking you. And I doubt admins or others have the patience to read your long explanations as they are very hard to follow. If you could be succinct I think it would help your case. I have been quite unable to follow the tortuous arguments you have had with Felino and Technopant over the past month, for example. I think you may be too sensitive for the rough-and-tumble of Wikipedia editing and suspect you may have a persecution complex, which is not meant to be an insult but an observation. There is hardly a thing I do now on the Talk page or elsewhere that you do not criticise me for in the same way that you criticise others and I am tired of it. I suspect it may be because I disagree with you very profoundly about NPOV and that this is displacement activity. I have my own views, I will stick to them, and I always try very hard not to be unjust or personally judgmental. Anyone who knows me well will back that up. I have explained my motivation twice, that the problem needs nipping in the bud, and how I felt about it and won't repeat it again. I think it is best if we stop this exchange now. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P123ct1 One thing I want to apologise for is the assumption/half assumption that I made that you would have seen the comments I had made on Felino's report. I do not think that this report was fair for the various reasons mentioned. I was thinking that you could have said that M was warned and he stopped but I guess that stopping at that point would be kind of expected. I appreciate what you say about objectivity. I had a look at my first report on Mohamed and it seems very woolly. Taking people to court in prosecution and not simple defence doesn't come naturally to me. I also took my POV on trying to resolve issues first on a personal basis and ascribed that on you. I was also applying the extreme of AGF that I had attempted with Technophant with Mohammed and this may have contributed to the woolly perspective. I don't think that Mohammed (or whatever his/her name is) is the kind of person who would bother to defend themselves but I still felt that it is rough to be banned and then have a report in opposition that can't be responded to. He is not the kind of person to ask for clarification but he may not have had much of an understanding, as I think you said, about 2nd logins. The main thing of which I think we are all aware is that he has wasted a huge amount of all of our times. I do think that there are probably issues but it also seems to me that there is also an arrogance. All the things I say on my talk page are things I am happy for the person to see. As you know I am in the habit of pinging. Any critique you have on my comments on the sock report will be well received. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean now and think you have analysed yourself well, Greg. [Added later: Didn't mean that to sound so patronising!] Objectivity is perhaps harder for you than it is for me, I am quite good at "cutting off" when I have to – otherwise we would never have been able to connect given my strong views on NPOV! I didn't think I had it in me to prosecute and as I was filling in the SPI form felt rather sick, tbh, sort of "What am I doing? This goes against my principles." I wouldn't want to critique your comments, as I feel what are others' views are others' views and I should not interfere (unless I think something is grossly misstated but I cannot imagine you ever doing that). I don't think M's ban means that he cannot respond to the SPI. It was only a ban from editing in ISIS, and I am not even sure editing on the Talk page is banned (I raised that point in the SPI). There is a note in the "Comments" section which says the "accused", as the SPI calls them, can defend themselves, but only in very tiny writing (which I think is a bit "off" and pretty indicative of the general WP ethos). I pointed this out to M. on his Talk page so that he would not miss it. Let us see what happens and try not to judge M. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have just seen what you put in "Comments". I think that is generally fair, though I doubt he would have desisted altogether. Perhaps I should have gone into it in more depth and not been in such a hurry to get something done. Never mind, the picture for whoever adjudicates on this is clear now, I think. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 I hope that you can see that the second report on Mohammed failed to indicate that a new/different issue was being presented (a notification of different circumstances would have also added to the picture) and that following first notification the editing stopped. As noted by PBS at User talk:Felino123#Mohammed al-Bukhari, "It would far better to address such a problem by first warning the editor on the editor's talk with the {{subst:Gs/SCW&ISIL notification}} template and adding the name of the editor to the sanctions page (Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant." He hadn't even been given this basic notification. None of this information was presented in the reports. I also appreciate that you had the strength to take direct action. Mohammed ignored warnings on his page until I raised my first case. After that he has changed editing behaviours at times of warnings and notices. He is still sufficiently rude so as not to reply to questions and raised issues. I don't think that your report was delivered in an even-handed way but I don't think that my one was either. I think it is a good thing for you to take direct action (sorry for the repetition) and this seems to be to be better than publicity actions as in this thread where a seemingly suspicious login was made into a thread heading and then left on direct display. You said to me above, "There is hardly a thing I do now on the Talk page or elsewhere that you do not criticise me." Do you really think this is fair? In the case of the splitting of the 1RR thread you commented correctly that "Clashes between editors that have been a major disruptive feature until recently have no place on the Talk page and should be kept to editors' Talk pages". If anything I am biting my lip. I refrained from comment regarding the entitled "Fastfingers666" thread and privately raised the matter here. When going back to WE's case I took anything but an even handed approach in continually defending you and presenting you as not being a perpetrator of the repetitively misrepresentative content in that RfC. Please point to any criticism that you think that I have made of you. I have tried, against my natural skill set, to present any content in subtle ways. In various other cases I have repeatedly acted as your lap dog in chasing after issues raised at the village pump regarding templates and timelines and have similarly promoted the issue you raised regarding footnotes. This is in no way a complaint as I have been happy to help but I think all sides of the current of involvements here should be taken into account. At each stage I have tried to be as agreeable as possible even going along with the "self-proclaimed" objections in a sincere bid to keep the peace. If I have made criticisms that you do not agree with then feel free to disagree. I also think that it is possible that some of the things that you have taken as criticisms may actually have been requests.
I request that you do not edit my edits as you have done on two recent occasions placing your additions in the middle of my content which interrupts time sequence but without notification that time sequence has been disrupted. Do you do this with other editors? Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What you say is packed full with misrepresentations, but sorry, I am not going to get involved in yet another of your endless quarrels with editors. I am tempted to disengage from the ISIL page as well, as copy-editing has become an uphill battle lately. The quality of added edits has plummeted since June, when most editors could write properly, and the edits made to some passages now are barely literate. The difference since September is very noticeable. The Lead now changes every day, there are endless disputes about the wording, the "jihadism" debate is still dragging on unresolved and it began on 8th October, which is preposterous. I have tried hard to get editors to come to consensus on issues, but it has been a complete waste of time. There has been a noticeable exodus of good editors, who have probably given up on the page. Heaven help the poor Wikipedia reader, they take pot luck over which version they read and don't even know it, as the versions change daily. The instability of the page text is working against it in a big way now, IMO. Not to mention the sheer bad manners, incivility and quarrelsomeness of many of the editors now. In June, July, August the editors were civilized, but they have nearly all gone now and it isn't hard to see why. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 You say that I criticise you but do not say where. You state misrepresentations above but do not say how. Conversation should be a two way process. I have honestly tried to support and don't understand where you think things have gone wrong. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, Greg. I'm disengaging. Best for both now, I think. No hard feelings. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 My sentiments remain the same whatever happens especially with thoughts of disengaging from the topic. The collapse doesn't matter to me one way or the other but I thought it might be appropriate. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

|}

Long overdue

[edit]
The Barnstar of Integrity
Despite the ups and downs, I think a lot of you, Greg, and that you richly deserve this for all your work on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tendencies to collapse

[edit]

Saw it coming weeks ago, and this is something T. and I have talked about. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • P123ct1 You realise I hope that you are always welcome to post on my page and that in this I reserve the right to reply in any way of my choosing. I have a right to comment and you have a right to reply. Collapsing threads can be just one form of censorship. There have been a lot of collapsed threads recently on the talk page with just one example that I thought was uncalled for. I think that it was you that brought it back on line which was welcome. For me my change of views and priorities came in the lead up to and the beginning of my AN/I. It was this that acted as my enlightenment to the manipulations and partialities of editors within the ISIL environment. I had seen a lot of it similarly when work on anti-Semitism. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is all new to me (since September) and I am shocked. I can remember the day it started, and it wasn't anything you did. Before ISIS I only copy-edited uncontentious articles and didn't get involved in Talk page discussion, there was none. You are welcome to post on my TP as well, about anything. :) I hesitated to give you this link, but it may illuminate the collapsed threads disagreement. I was really quite concerned about it. It was of course right to collapse the 1RR and Fastfinger666 threads (I lost my head there, very bad judgment to put the name in the title), and perhaps I am oversensitive about anything that looks like censorship. Having said that, I have been collapsing threads on my own TP a lot lately! The messages from and exchanges with everyone are getting much longer than they used to be. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • P123ct1 Bad judgement must be kept in perspective. Editors have come to the page and hacked at content with clear disregard to the context or that other editors may have been involved in painstaking discussions to resolve points. There is a school of thought that would say that such a person should be stripped naked and paraded through the streets and possible actions go way beyond anything you did and yours was the lesser wrong. Situations like this can be all hands to the pump endeavours so I won't criticise the initial use of banners. My minor worry was just that the heading stayed up afterwards and that you took issue with 1RR thread having done similar actions elsewhere. Again this is a minor issue on methodologies related to the addressing of greater wrongs.
What does collegiate mean to you? There can be all manner of colleges and schools and, in the thread referenced above, PBS also used the term In Wikipedia what are the values that you associate with it?
In that link the first two links went to the same page. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure there was another link, was there? Good to change the title so the name wasn't prominent for all time in an archive. I didn't realise it was you who changed the heading to "1RR". Was faintly worried that it would highlight the person, when I had already done that myself! Have not been thinking straight lately. Have I done similar actions elsewhere? Please tell me where if you can remember. I think I will stop refactoring as it gets one into all sorts of trouble. Collegiate can and in the Wikipedia sense does mean collaborative working, i.e. discussing major edits and coming to a consensus, which is what I was driving for at one time. It has bothered me that some editors have been overturning consensus decisions much later, even when they were involved in them. Being collegiate would have meant taking the major restructuring of the article to the Talk page first for some discussion and a broadbrush agreement before making changes, as we did the last time it happened. This time that has been completely ignored. I made a comment and expect I will get a backlash; I always do with this editor for some reason. Perhaps he doesn't like my copy-editing him, once recently quite heavily, but it was needed. Another editor also does not like me politely raising copy-editing points with him, so I leave his edits alone. His is not English but his English is pretty good if a little stilted. The editors who always believe they are "right" are often the most sensitive to criticism, and I do speak up as you know. I don't see you in that category! Enough of the infighting talk. I hope that explains collegiate here, but normally it just means "belonging or related to a college". People talk of a "collegiate atmosphere" when they mean there is much cooperation between people when trying to reach a common goal, and here I am thinking more of the academic context, I suppose. I left a short message for WE on my TP; hope he sees it. See? I can't be cross with you for long. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • I added some remarks to the SPI form here about M. possibly being a new editor. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • P123ct1 You should be able to edit copy on the article without worries regarding the sensibilities of others. If there are legitimate points to be made fair enough and if there are legitimate objections they can be raised as as opposing points. With regard to your question, "Have I done similar actions elsewhere?" all I have seen is a few comments with both pros and cons attached such as "has the editor even read the article?" The question was fair but I think you would attract more respect if you put a strong statement rather than a question of rhetorical nature. A statement such as "please can editor's read through relevant sections of the article before making bold changes to content" may be more authoritative, more directive, and less argumentative, annoyed or angry. When you value a collegiate environment, as by your interpretation, and editors come in with maverick style as I first did then that will surely have the tendency to grate. Interventions by yourself and other editors brought me into discussion and hopefully the same can take place with others.
As venn diagrams of parameters of collegiate and censorship go I guess I have a bit of a hippy view of colleges. Perhaps its Naive but I kind of hope that everyone can just get along. I am not saying that my approach is right but I hope that what you have seen in my interventions is gentle but firm explanation and request both with technophant and mohammed. There are also long appeals on Felino's talk page and as has also been the case with WE. Thinking about it my views may be extreme as a stronger approach to me certainly had advantages.
As far as censorship is concerned I would like more to be done on issues of derailment and misrepresentation. Ideally editors can just add comment in straightforward ways with straightforward content depending on their stance on a topic. As a case in point you mentioned the length of time that the jihadism issue has been hanging around, droning and dragging on have also been mentioned and there has also been an very large amount of text. If you look at the old discussions you will see that some of the editors applied regularly irrelevant walls of text. This was the case with Wheels of steel0 whose last edit on Wikipedia happens to be this and whose last received communication a couple of hours later happens to be this. I interpret that both editors involved have adopted spoiling tactics. Again I have no problem with straightforward debate but would not object to "censorship" of some kind when things go beyond these bounds.
I think that your sock puppet case was comparatively fair and my reaction was mainly born out of the context it came in. I don't think your edits to the SP case loaded as far as page history is concerned. The case is the case and a comment as you have mentioned would be a kindness. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what you mean by the last comment on the SPI. As for censorship on the Talk page, I think the best censorship is to ignore the comments and not get side-tracked, though what one editor will find disruptive another editor might not, which complicates things. So not easy. On the edit summaries, I have fallen into a bad habit. I used to hate editors who left sarcastic comments and I am now doing it myself. Will try not to in future. I get so frustrated at some of the (stupid) edits that it comes out that way. Not nice for a newcomer. Hoping that people can "just get along" is very naïve indeed, IMO! Humans are a quarrelsome species, that's why the world is the way it is, with all the bad things that flow from it. The Talk page on a contentious page, and Wikipedia generally, is just a microcosm of that, unfortunately. Have changed my mind about Legacypac's reordering and added a comment on the Talk page. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I think a lot of you" doesn't mean "I think a lot about you", but "I respect you". Hope it wasn't that that was confusing you! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • P123ct1 We've had a lot of engaging dialogue. At times its left my thoughts quite occupied. Back on track, when people do stupid things you are quite entitled to backlash as well. Sarcasm is a valid tactic in some ways but a strong measured answer can often do the trick and, at other times, the best thing can be to let things pass. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC) Just to add those were general comments not meant to comment on any particular situation.[reply]
  • I see Felino is edit-warring over that paragraph in the Lead. *sigh* ~ P123ct1 (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • P123ct1 I don't believe that this is an impossibility but time will tell. Felino123 should have the ability to stop him/herself and, in the context where the immediate alternative may be short term bans, this is my preferred option. If s/he is, for instance, from a "Islamic based" background then a content on honesty and respect for authority/establishment/others is probably in there. All the same past history leaves me doubt integrity in response. My edit here demonstrates the use of an extremely skewed presentation of facts. I have also personally experienced this editors long term and hurtful misrepresentations and, despite investing considerable attention to appeal for retraction on his/her talk page, these misrepresentations have not been struck. S/he has most recently presented a skewed context of Mohammed al-Bukhari's 1RR infringement report. As mentioned the editor makes against consensus edits despite him/herself making many and frequent references made to the importance of consensus. The nature of the editor's behaviour makes no sense. I have previously mentioned WP:TALK#USE: "Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity.." in relation to WP:COI and can only think there is more to the picture here than anything that has been presented. Whether within Wikipedia or elsewhere Felino needs to do better. That's a simple fact and at this stage I am happy to have personally continued with the direct approach to appeal for this to happen. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict

[edit]

zzz is being deliberately obtuse, IMO, over the Levant etc wording. I think he is one those people who when others violently disagree with them and their back is against the wall become more entrenched in their view, however unreasonable. His argument that there is nothing to support it doesn't hold water, yet he still says "it shouldn't be in the Lead anyway", with no explanation. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 11:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • P123ct1 You talk to that editor about two camps in the talk page and about forms of censorship and to me about that editor being deliberately obtuse. I am happy to hear your views but will also develop my own opinions. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course. I was only expressing my view. When did I mention censorship? Do you mean my wanting that thread left open to view? The two camps idea is easily explained: pro-jihadist in the Lead and anti, there is a clear divide. I said that it could be seen that there was a clique on the page, by closing down his thread, if you remember, not that there was one. I explained yesterday why I though collapsing was a form of censorship. It doesn't matter whether I agree or not with what anyone says, I think what they say should be seen by all, full stop. He had some good points, but not many. You are a lot angrier with me for my views and actions than you let on, aren't you?P123ct1 (talk) 12:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 And i said I am happy to hear your views. Here. I respect your views on keeping threads open an argument of which could extend to User talk pages but I don't think it wise to canvas for support for this view from a newly arrived editor who has already got into conflicts of his/her own. I don't think or feel that I am angry with anyone. For a while when I saw the report you had filed on Mohammed I was livid but that passed especially when I saw it in context. In some circumstances I have felt very determined but not with you. Please don't turn this into an argument. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misread you. (Btw, I was not canvassing support for not collapsing threads. I was pointing out to an editor that they had been "censored", as I saw it. I was pretty incensed at the time about the collapsing. He could have been any editor and I would have done the same if it had happened to them. Legacy and I have sorted out our differences on it and we are fine now.) No need to reply to this. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overriding Government

[edit]

I love how you managed to override the word Capital. In the same vein, a non-state can hardly have a "Government". Should we try to override Government with "Organization type" or "claimed structure" or something else other than "Government"?

What do you think of revised order? I like how Criticism ended up higher on the page and all together. I only managed to trip about 3k but there is potential to trim more. Legacypac (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac You make me angry at myself that I did not think of that as a relevant headings categorisation. The TOC has a much cleaner look which previously looked quite bitty. I think it looks great as well as being a great improvement as far as navigability is concerned. You have seen my tendency towards internet searching. The government issue is of clear relevance but I'd like to do some checking into RS titles. I'd guess it may be something along the lines of hierarchy but will need to do some work with the thesaurus and a search box to check best options. I'll ping you when I gather some coherent thoughts on the subject. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - that means a lot given how much effort you put in there. It was not like I had a master plan, it just gelled into 6 logical sections as I was moving related stuff together. At the end I was shocked it went from 18=>6 sections and sections 2+3 (Criticism=>at war with ISIL) and 4+5 nicely fit with each other at that. ISIL controls and "governs" but it not a true government. I'm thinking too.
I think Finance is the section to split out next. It is article length and if liberated on its own could be expanded and deepened.
Legacypac (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are other options but, despite the fact that government is inaccurate, I think that the root of the word govern still has relevance. I think that "Governance" would be more applicable. I think that possibility of a change may be good. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked most of the other rebel groups that control territory. [11] where I found all the other similar pages use either no box or "Infobox War Faction". The only exceptions I saw are ISIL and Syrian Kurdistan (which is a real "breakaway" regional government, the autonomy of which is recognized by Syria). "Infobox War Faction" has Active, Ideology and leaders but no place for a govt type. I'll admit that ISIL looks more like a country then all the other rebel groups, but interesting to see how the others are dealt with - and useful if we need to defend the change.

"Government: the governing body of a nation, state, or (local) community (ISIL is not any of these)" and this zinger: "Government is necessary to the existence of civilized society." How about - and I kid only a little - "Hostage administration" as that is essentially how they control up to 8 million people. Legacypac (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about replace Government' with Structure remembering it is followed by "caliph (self-declared)" and three leader names and titles. They clearly have a structure of control of both territory, population and military and religious matters. Legacypac (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Infobox gone - no discussion. Legacypac (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second Lead paragraph in ISIS

[edit]

Can I safely assume that you want this paragraph, with all its components, to stay as the second paragraph of the Lead? So far Legacypac and I agree that it should, and if you do, the consensus is clearly against Felino, I would have thought. Do you agree? I would like to try and clear this up today, so that Felino can see that if he continues reverting, he knows he is going against consensus and edit-warring. The ref is #28 Bold change of para order in Lead. (I have left out the 1RR part as you are dealing with this.) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This para is becoming contentious again, this time over the ordering of the sentences (see #Bold change of para order in Lead). I think getting consensus one way or the other is the only way to stop this growing into another long dispute. Felino and I have given our views, I have pinged Legacypac; is there anyone else who should be pinged, to contribute to this discussion? Just want to be fair on you. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your view of fairness. I also think that I have fairly replied to Felino's "an imam" manoeuvre with appropriate content. Its manipulation. The UN designations have been mentioned briefly in the news. Islamic criticisms have rightly raised contentions time and time again. Imam's have also described the group as terrorists. I should work on the references. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you really not see that the language is too strong to be said in WP's voice? Can you think of a way to say it more neutrally? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 In an earlier comment I said that sarcasm was not always unacceptable. Maybe we should also change content to read: "The United Nations and Amnesty International have hinted the group done a few grave human rights abuses, and Amnesty International has suggested the group to have conducted ethnic cleansing on a "historic scale" and The group has been dubbed as terrorist... Strong wording is used in all the other situations. The Islamic criticism is at least as strongly and I would say more strongly voiced than the rest. I am open to other wording but "described" is very weak. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Described" could be a little weak, but there is that link from Muslim criticism to the "Criticism" section, where the criticism is expressed in very strong terms indeed, in that quote from the letter. I am not trying to whitewash ISIL at all, btw. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 Sorry I did not explain. I meant that I was being sarcastic. I would appreciate ideas for alternatives. judged synonym, described synonym, anything else? There should be a description that is representative of content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I misread it at first! I have only just spotted that "accused" in that para is very strong and not NPOV, so have altered it to "have held responsible for". I shortened but kept your "judgment" wording. I will try to think of a synonym for "judged" that won't upset editors. On the TP I overreacted to your change, sorry - it was the word "judgment" that did it. I have redacted my comment there. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have reworded this para to reflect more accurately Amnesty's wording in its report (see citation in "Human rights abuses" subsection). It didn't use the word "guilty" at all and to say Amnesty "accused" the group of ethnic cleansing is just an interpretation by the press (see other citation there). I think the wording is fairer all round now and hope my "judged" for your "judgment" is acceptable. What do you think? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 They are a good set of word roots. It was only when I isolated them as follows: "held, found evidence, widely criticized, judging, designated" that I noticed that judging was the one in present tense. "Have judged" might also work but either way it reads better than with my four word link . Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 I've done a revert within 24 hours re: "accused" and I guess you have too. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? I changed/reverted the word "accused" only once and it has been reverted by Signedzzz. as I noted on the TP. I haven't reverted him. When did you do a revert of "accused"? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 There was something I reverted this morning. I'm happy with what you say on accused but, even out of a legal context, I think it gets used in Wikipedia's voice a lot. See sample amongst 501-1000 of 55,000 results in a Wikipedia search. What are your thoughts? Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What are my thoughts on what? It has been reverted by zzz to "accused". Are you saying you think that is okay? I don't feel strongly about it either way. (Although this editor did say he was no longer going to edit in ISIS.) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 Sorry I was forgetting about this. I should keep diffs of his/her edits and inform the closing admin. Gregkaye ✍♪ 22:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have given the admin the diff for the edit a few hours ago (reverting to "accused". ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Felino123 is being disruptive again. No consensus has been reached either on the Muslim wording or the order of the sentences in the Lead. What can be done about this? (See thread for the latest changes.) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 When I'm in a better personal state of mind than right now I'll also look into things. I don't personally think there is a problem with the word accused. One thing that I think can happen, theory, is that people who get angry or have other things going on, like WE for example, can be attracted to articles like ISIL. I'd like to see zz's record to see the extent the s/he might be one of them ... but maybe I've gone to far with rehabilitation efforts already. Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 It might be messy but I think its warranted to now raise the previous 1RR case with Felino on the edit warring board. Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 just an update regarding Felino's last reply on "Wording in lead: with many Islamic communities..." The content was seemingly mistakenly closed by Philosopher which has caused me not to add to the page but rather to place notification of Philosopher's talk page. While checking talk ISIL history to try to see what had happened I found reference to Felino's reply to you which was developed with revisions as follows: one, two, three and four. I'm encouraged to see that Felino has reverted. My personal defence of my judge related edit is that this revision was backed up by a case that had been made on the talk page regarding the relevance of Islamic criticism in relation to "'SIL" and that that the edit brought more of a balance in tone related to the range of critical contents presented. I do not think that Felino's edit was similarly justified. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems unprecedented – to get "consensus", there are only three editors to decide it, now that Legacypac has not responded to my request to give his views on this paragraph. Editing the text part of this article draws very little interest now. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 I can see how it may lack some direct rewards but I hope that you can reflect on the kind of condition that the article would have been in but for your personal involvement. Not with any expectation for the future but I think that ~30,000 readers per day owe quite a lot to you. I would not have predicted that there would be so few editors. It was interesting to see that more contributions came with the RfC but its a shame to need to rely on those kind of measures. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

,

Edit warring notice board

[edit]

I will not take any action over this. If you want to peruse 1RR then do it though the appropriate notice board (which is the edit warring notice board).

Your section title on User talk:Felino123 of "Please discontinue your disruptive editing and please don't again repeat 1RR infringement" was almost guaranteed to fail to resolve the issue, as it begged for the retort "My edits are not disruptive at all"!

A title such as "1RR infringement" would have been much better. Then state the facts as you did in your second edit (14:05, 23 November 2014). That allows the editor to go "whoops! I did not realize I had" and offer to revert their last edit. But if they then they come back with "I think I have not violated a 1RR. If I have, then I am sorry. But you have violated a 1RR reverting my edits." then you have a choice, either discuss it further or take it to the edit warring notice board (simples!). -- PBS (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • PBS That's fine. The intention of the thread was essentially an appeal for consensus behaviour on a personal, non-heavy handed basis and my post on your talk page was intended as nothing more than a notification of situations on the ISIL page. Felino123 knows of various issues that I consider to be relevant to behaviour which have recently been summarised in this edit. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. Army in Iraq

[edit]

Hi, I closed your AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. Army in Iraq because it was listed in the incorrect place. If you would still like discussion on this redirect, please list it at WP:RFD. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you reopened an AfD for this page. Sorry for sounding like a broken record, but redirects should not be discussed at AfD. Please create a listing a Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Natg 19 (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isil

[edit]

Thanks for this - I was called away just after closing the RfD, and only just came back to finish and tidy up. JohnCD (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JohnCD I think it must have been coincidence that I got to the page just at that momment. Thanks for checking by Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another defector to ISIL http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/11/pardoned-white-house-turkey-defects-isis/ !!

Did Israel designate the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to be a terrorist organisation?

[edit]

To answer this question I am pinging people that I know have previously been involved in Judaism related subjects in the hope that some speak better Hebrew than me. @Jpgordon: @VQuakr: @Bus stop: @Fleenier: @Emphascore: @NebY: @Anomalocaris: @RolandR: @Geofferic: @Lisa: @IZAK: @DGG:

I am asking this because the ISIL page lists Israel as one of the nations that has designated ISIL as a "terrorist organization".

There are a number of web pages displaying the image of the following document: http://megafon-news.co.il/asys/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/IMG-20140903-WA0010.jpg

And these pages are as follows:

It would be helpful if anyone could write out the Hebrew of any appropriate part of the document and help with translation.

At Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Designation_as_a_terrorist_organization Israel is cited in an Arabic source as designating ISIL as a "terrorist movement". Is this right?

Skip to TOC

[edit]

Some *!&*! has just added a "skip to TOC" link at the top of the ISIS Talk page. That way all the footnotes stuff will be skipped and not read. Do you think it should be reverted, with a stern note on the TP? I am sure most editors ignore most of the preamble anyway, but to show editors a quick way to do it is another matter. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS Timeline article

[edit]

You will probably have noticed that I have been copy-editing this article recently. I noticed this. Why is this propaganda? The Syrian Observatory for Human Right is a Reliable Source, much used in this article and the main ISIS article. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • P123ct1 The second entry on in the 2013 section reads: Starting in April 2013, ISIL made rapid military gains in northern Syria, where according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights it was "the strongest group".
The deleted content was just a needless repetition of this content.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P123ct1 I appreciate that I may be sensitive on some issues. What do you think of these quotes from the timeline document?

it became evident that this number was a gross underestimate.

thus bolstering the group's numbers.

the Kurds...were unwilling

hundreds of Christian families fled from the Nineva Plains in face of the ISIL advance.

I hope that when I edit I present an representative content from the articles cited but it seems to me that some editors are cherry picking phrases. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I cannot comment on those phrases without seeing the context and citations. P123ct1 comment split from "revisions"

Revisions

[edit]
cut into new section

I see what you are driving at, but please never attempt to rewrite the way Legacypac has been doing. I am astounded that he has done another major restructure today, in the process dropping passages and altering others, without consulting editors. He has added at least one phrase to an original sentence that is not backed up by the citations originally appended. After his adding some new words recently to a sentence that were not backed up by the original citations, when I couldn't sort it out myself I asked Gazkthul if he would check as his knowledge is so good (see last entry on his TP), but he hasn't. I think most editors have lost interest in this page now. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this was @Legacypac:'s combined edits and whether from these or others I don't recognise much of the article. Legacy, what's your plan? Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the safest comment from me on that is is no comment, or roflmao. Good luck, as I'm not getting involved in this. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 I'm quite happy to go back to the original but I think that other versions have characteristics to consider. I am really not overly fussed. There is a thread for comment at: Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Reorganisations. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should say "original" Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was other editors not happy with the criticism section high in the article - now that info is dispersed by topic instead. If there is a specific concern, please point it out. My only goal is accuracy. Legacypac (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your wording in Lead

[edit]

This is becoming farcical. A "new" editor has altered your wording on Muslim criticism.. Is this a new account opened to make this edit? It seems it was opened on the 25th November. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Tipszelig: to be sure that relevant logins have access to relevant information. Tipszelig, this is to provide notification that your above mentioned edit here, fits both with content and style of User:Mohammed_al-Bukhari who has now finished serving an arguably harshly delivered ban for a "disruptive" 1RR offence and who is currently under a more fairly presented WP:sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mohammed_al-Bukhari. I appreciate that the User:Mohammed_al-Bukhari account is not currently banned. I do not know all the rules on sock puppetry. P123ct1 may have a better understanding. As much as anyone I can understand a desire not to use a real name in a login while discussing issues related to Islamic extremism.
  • Please especially be aware of issues relating to simultaneous (at the same time) use of two logins.
  • Please be communicative in talk pages and other places regarding changes that you may propose.
  • Please read and, unless you don't care about being permanantly banned, follow WP:CONSENSUS.
  • Please revert your non consensus edit.
  • Consider reading the definition of "farcical". I agree.
Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mohammed al-Bukhari @Tipszelig: please reply. However you decide to edit, It must be according to Wikipedia:Five pillars. You can either be helped to get things right or you can continue to do wrong and be punished. Even at this stage any editor could make fair additional comment to your existing investigation. P123ct1, this is not a recommendation either way and is not meant as a statement of, not that it should mean anything, my preference. Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted it for bad grammar. Was not aware of this discussion. Legacypac (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added this editor to the Mohammed al-Bukhari SPI page here, and will inform M. this has been done. If you would like me to change anything on my part of the form, let me know. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 While I thought it possible that he was responding to challenge I had patience with him. Its all fair IMO. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TY. You have more faith in human nature than I do. You may be interested in these exchanges I have had with PBS today: [16] and [17]. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@P123ct1 Wikipedia can be a cold place. If an editor wants to make amends then that's genuinely positive - there are relevant issues for Technophant to rightfully address. You may have quarms about his ban for stated reasons but there were other reasons for banning waiting in the wings. PBS mentioned doubts about your editing on Technophant's behalf. I think it is wrong for a banned editor to be discussing Wikipedia related issues with any active editor. That wouldn't be the way it should be. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to provide a link to where I said I had "qualms" about Technophant's ban, for any passing admin or editor here to see. Two swear words removed. No other requests from Technophant. No other "edits" on his behalf. Now suspicions about my editing activities generally and a huge fuss about one single edit, one single lapse of judgment. Criticism from you for something you know nothing about. Technophant and I have not discussed his "case" but knowing Wikipedia I do not expect that to be believed by anyone here. You would think I was a criminal, lying and conspiring to aid and abet another criminal. I am tired of having my integrity impugned by some Wikpedia editors and now an admin. This has been going on since July one way or another. I will be driven away from Wikipedia by this. I have never in my life been insulted in the way some Wikipedia editors and now an admin have done. I will be frank with you as you are with me. The disruption on the Talk page caused by you and your arguments with Felino and Technophant was major. I am surprised PBS did not take firmer steps to stop it. I have an idea why but cannot say it in Wikipedia. To be criticised by you and PBS for one single lapse and yet for you to cause major disruption on the Talk page with no penalty is staggering, but it is the sort of inequity I have come to expect in Wikipedia. Loyalty counts for nothing it seems. I will be more careful about those who I am loyal to in Wikipedia from now on. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 09:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lot of sympathy for WE and Technophant. I can now understand their deep loathing of Wikipedia, expressed on their respective Talk pages. I used to think it was exaggerated but experience is making me go the same way. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 10:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 I did not say that you "had qualms" but that "you may have qualms". I have edited this to, "You may (add: or may not) have quarms" I said, "I think it is wrong for a banned editor to be discussing Wikipedia related issues with any active editor." No accusation was made here, just an expression of what I think from me to you. When you said "Criticism from you", please note that I did not make any criticism of you. You said, "You would think..." and, unless you tell me differently, I will take this as a use of a Generic you. Your statement in no way describes what I think.
You said, "I was asked to remove those two words by Technophant,.." and stated, I believe truthfully, that "I have never made an edit at the request of any editor or admin before that time or since and regarded this as an exception." PBS said, "If you were asked to do it, then you should have made that very clear in your edit history comment. That you did not do so shows a lack of judgement -- doubly so as the words that you changed was that of an editor formally requesting an unblock which had been turned down." I also agree with this.
I am getting tired.
When you say that "The disruption on the Talk page caused by you and your arguments with Felino and Technophant was major" please note your reflections at #Guido that you had no idea that your words could have had the impact they did as I bent over backwards to try to broach peace and please note Technophant's I think willful disruptions of proposals that I then tried to make; please note your reaction to Felino here and that, despite the fact that I could have gone much further, my resultant response was a polite personal appeal for better editing behaviours. There are further significant contents that I can point to that indicate that I was not the editor to initiate the disruption.
A recent edit, deleted following your suggestion, here contained your statement that you were "trying to protect T". Why?
On this page I have repeatedly referred to F and T which has followed your example regarding not wanting content to be searched and have similarly collapsed sections of text at your request/suggestion with the result that the content is less manageable for me but so that it fits in with your apparent sensibilities.
I repeat my non accusational comments above: I think it is wrong for a banned editor to be discussing Wikipedia related issues with any active editor. I am not even going to follow this up with a question. I am only expressing a view. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist or just supporting terrorist organizations?

[edit]

Hi Gregkaye,

Thanks for editing List of designated terrorist organizations!

Are you sure that the Excel sheet you used as a reference say "this organization is a terrorist organization" for each organization?

I can't read Hebrew, but to me, it sounds more like "this organization is supporting terrorist organizations". Which is out of scope for the article.

I would appreciate your expertise on the subject.

Cheers! Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas1981 sorry to take time with this. I have pasted together a summary of findings at: Israeli, Declaration, as [an] organization, [of] terror, "from mouth", [of the] Ordinance, [of] prevention of, Terror". I am not surprised that you were dubious in this case and perhaps in other groups so declared by Israel. I know of no retraction of the declarations, which were certainly made, and how valid they may have been. I don't doubt the possibility that the organisations mentioned may have been groups that Israel wanted to terrorise. My own view is that Israel needs to be kept accountable for its actions. The information was difficult to track down and this rings alarm bells. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should have checked the talk page! I replied there. Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nicolas1981 It was only recently added to that page. I appreciated notification as I doubt I would have done so otherwise. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You might be interested in this question: https://politics.stackexchange.com/q/6448 Nicolas1981 (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

response

[edit]

Should we go for a block? Legacypac (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am unfamiliar with the edits of User:Signedzzz and whether s/he and am unfamiliar with a balance of productive/destructive influences on the article. My view is of an argumentative personality. If I remember right it all kicked off when I asked for a revert on his/her webpage and this got transferred to the talk page. After having a few encounters with suspected sockpuppets here I made a comment on a suspected sockpuppet influence on Signedzzz's talk page and this comment was argumentatively misrepresented so as to suggest/indicate/something that I was accusing Signedzzz of the infringement. My big thing is misrepresentation and that did for me. I really don't know the rest. P123ct1 is of the general view of nipping things in the bud. My view is that at each stage in the process it is good to encourage editors to engage in reasoned dialogue which, I think, Signedzzz has done certainly at least at times. I don't care what is done as long as paths to relevant destination options for constructive edifying editing remain on the agenda. The last AN/I had a condition that has not been followed. I think that this should be validly raised somehow. From what I have seen Signedzzz is a very capable editor with a keen mind. None-the-less, I don't think it does Wikipedia good to let issues of commitment and the like slip. Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Back promising to edit war and refusing to read sources. Reported - can't comment about the socks, maybe you can? Legacypac (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you agree with him... guy can't read. Legacypac (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of edits at Boka I'm concerned about the content there now. Legacypac (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac I presume that you have seen my last addition to z's report. I think that all Islamic extremist group related articles should come under sanctions. Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically I'd say that the best sanctions parameter would be Islam related organizations designated as terrorist. Gregkaye ✍♪ 06:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac I'm also thinking of using WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE with wheels.. . Gregkaye ✍♪ 00:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RFCU is universally disliked - there is or was a big vote to trash it. No one finds it effective. ANi we know about - it can be effective assuming you have good clean hands. I'll support your action. Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goals, territorial claims...

[edit]

I've just been looking at your edit: "In Iraq and Syria ISIL uses the traditional boundaries of provinces (wilayah) to subdivide its territory." Does that mean "the traditional boundaries of existing provinces"? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • P123ct1 that's my understanding. I don't think there is evidence that they have done anything new and, if so, it isn't presented. I don't know if there is evidence that they pay attention to province boundaries either. I don't see much relevance in content generally on this topic. Gregkaye ✍♪
I had better leave it, then. I know they have created one new province which straddles both Iraq and Syria, quite a landmark event,. It's called al-Furat, or Euphrates. I remember it as I had to copy-ed an awkward sentence about it. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 I think I will edit as " ... uses many traditional..". The earlier wording presented the idea that Daesh invented the concept of provinces. Its similar to the bs in Israeli articles that try to present Palestine as an infertile dustbowl before they came along with their agricultural miracle. Gregkaye ✍♪ 23:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I went deep into this topic. Most ISIL provinces follow existing governet boundaries but they made the cross national border one and created Fallujah out of another one. They also appoint governors for areas they have designs on. Quite the system actually. They start with low level humanitarian aid and missionary preaching, then step up to more intensive stuff like running water systems, courts etc. Basically whatever they can get away with depending on the military situation. Its not uniform governance everywhere at all, which is why the mapping is problematic. Control means different things in different areas. Legacypac (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac That all seems to have relevance. The thing that I don't think has relevance is a map that indicates an uncited limitation regarding territorial claim. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying the map does not show enough claimed territory? Like add Lebanon, rest of Iraq and Syria etc? Legacypac (talk) 07:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac I am saying that I have seen no corroborated justification for a distinction between the pink and white areas of the presented map. I have seen nothing convincing to indicate that this isn't unsubstantiated content. IMO, it should be cut. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked into how the map was created and by who? It is very widely used across WP's many languages. It looks to me to follow the Long War Journal map, and their list of waliya. However, later ISIS started claiming provinces in Libya so who knows, maybe the maps is outdated now. Legacypac (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac P123ct1 Yes, Its used in the main infobox in just about every version of Wikipedia. As far as I can see it has always presented misinformation. It does not, by any cited reference, relate to territorial claim. Outdated has nothing to do with it. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac and Gregkaye: When I saw this thread I remembered something about the Long War Journal months back on the Talk page and have found it. The suggestion there is that it is not a Reliable Source, and there is a link there to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (RSN) where this is discussed. However, both Legacypac and I have found the RSN not very reliable in what they say. (Legacypac found more info re the UN terrorist designation than they did and I found them completely unhelpful when investigating the Israel terrorist designation). I thought I should bring it to your attention as there seems to be a query here about the reliability of the LWJ. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P123ct1 and Legacypac, I have edited the map text to read: "Areas in which ISIL have claimed to have presence or control" which fits in with the BBC. I haven't seen anything here to make me think that the Long War in any way misrepresented its information within its presentations of its content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editor

[edit]

Legacypac and you are thinking of reporting WoS0. On what grounds? Cannot say more, obviously. ;) ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P123ct1 as per AN/I here. You are welcome to make comments in any direction there. I think that each editor may get their buttons pushed in different ways. These are the things that have pushed mine. I would also generally prefer having content on my page that allows me to ping various people concerned Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TY, will have a look. Not sure what you mean about pinging. Do you mean on this particular matter, always post on your TP? Or generally? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 13:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 the ping comment was just to let you know that in some circumstances, if an editor is mentioned, I may ping them. Nothing more than that. On the Article tp with WoS0 I was just getting weary of trying to respond. Its hard enough trying to work out where s/he is coming from without all the flack. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The editor is certainly very uncivil, full of WP:PA, but I hardly noticed it because of past experience; this is mild in comparison. ;) I wonder if the difficulty in working out the approach is because it is being disguised. I think too much like a policeman. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 Yes, officer. Begging your pardon but you may be interested in this. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GSOH ~ P123ct1 (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have read zzz's ban appeal, and have to agree with him on just one thing: the citation for "... aims to bring Muslim-inhabited regions across the world under its control" does not back it up, if read carefully. You may have seen my note on the TP about it yesterday. Either that part of the sentence will have to be reworded to reflect the citation accurately, or a proper citation found to back up those words. You will remember I said I found footnotes in the timeline that did not back up its statements. This is the sort of thing I was talking about: inaccurate to the point of being misleading. I found a lot of this in one article I copy-edited from beginning to end some time back. Depressing. I am not suggesting deliberate falsification, just incompetence. I have done a certain amount of checking of this kind in ISIS and found misrepresentations, but not nearly enough. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have seen my previous comments on the topic that zzz also quoted. I am unsure which target mat 'SIL's aggressive cat is aiming for. They haven't said a lot officially about anything. Videos from members talk about flags on the White House and Buckingham Palace. A previously argumentive, disruptive editor that misrepresented situations had declared an end to involvement in the ISIL page and then returned to make edits on consensus texts which, at the time, only I had otherwise criticised. At present the article presents the farcical and insubstantiated content on "territorial claim". At present an "aims to bring ... regions across the world under its control" is mainly needed, IMO, to balance this unjustified and insubstantiated content. Gregkaye ✍♪ 00:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wants to suggest better wording, great, but z sure never gave an suggestions. I think the Week citation is very clear and so does another editor commenting on the appeal. I'm not thinking he has much of a hope in the topic appeal, and could get blocked. Legacypac (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 Thank-you for contributing the WP:PA comment. It could have been directly added to the report. Which contents/extended contents make this mild in comparison? Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All of it is mild in comparison. You have read the RfC/U I was referring to so you should know, although I am not sure you grasped how bad the WP:PA was that led to it. I have forgiven the editor and I hope that is mutual, but the memory is still there. I will be keeping out of these endless disputes between editors now which are escalating to giddy heights on the ISIS page. I cannot even remember who is taking who to various arbitrations any more, there seem to be so many of them, one following another in quick succession and several running concurrently. It is hard to believe that ISIS was a peaceful, collaborative page up until about early September, with one isolated exception, and that exception I now think was caused by some basic mutual misunderstandings, more than anything. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 I have scrutinised the RfC/U. Was there any relevant PA involved that it didn't contain. The RfC/U contained plenty of exaggerated, misrepresentative and selectively presented materials. Are you saying that there were legitimate materials which were for some reason not included? What? Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not saying there were legitimate materials which were for some reason not included. I have no idea what you mean by that but expect there is some criticism underlying that question. How on earth can you know that the RfC/U contained "plenty of exaggerated, misrepresentative and selectively presented materials"? Have you looked at every single discussion on the Talk page from July to September when the RfC/U began? If you have not, how can you possibly know that? You were not there, m8, so you speak out of turn. It was obvious to everyone on the Talk page then what was happening. I was very patient, I never rose to the bait, and as you saw in the RfC/U repeatedly offered an olive branch but it was always rejected. You conveniently forget that. I cannot understand the animosity even now. I have a feeling that if that editor and I had met privately and got to know each other there would have been none of what happened. I was never as outspoken and forthright then as I am now on the Talk page, and I did not go crying to some form of arbitration over that trouble the way you are doing with WheelsofSteel0, for far, far less. But I was very upset and that is why T. devised the RfC/U. I have told you that as well but you conveniently forget it. You say misrepresentative materials. Again, how can you possibly know that? You were not there. One admin was worried that I might be driven away from Wikipedia by the almost daily WP:PA and harassment. As for selectively presented materials, how else does one present a case, for crying out loud? You imply they were biased. How can you know that? You did not experience the daily attrition. There was plenty of emailing with the admin on how to handle it, and that of course is invisible, but it was there as a daily problem. I am particularly offended by your sanctimonious and judgmental attitude when you were not even there, and your assumption that you can be a moral arbiter on a case in which you were not involved. I was shocked by your intrusion into that ban appeal. That editor could have done without yet another Wikipedian telling him where he went wrong and how he not might, but should, improve. I found the whole display by almost everyone involved in his ban appeal, including you, disgusting, to be frank. Before you step in and make moral judgments on those of us who were involved, including the editor, make sure of your facts, and if you cannot, keep out of an affair that did not involve you. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was particularly concerned at your interference in WE's ban appeal as you were not an unbiased party. You were in the middle of a bitter dispute with T. and could not possibly have been untouched by that, in the way you interpreted anything to do with that RfC/U. I was so concerned that I contacted two admins by email about it. Reading between the lines they were already were fully aware of that and I was asked politely not to interfere. I had no intention of getting involved; morally that would have been quite wrong. I am still concerned for the welfare of WE after the gruelling he got from some admins and editors. I don't know if I could have taken all the ad hominem attacks he was subjected to. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P123ct1 Please see: User talk:Worldedixor#Taking stock for full content. If there is anything there that you don't agree with then say so.
My view was that, as stated above, "The RfC/U contained plenty of exaggerated, misrepresentative and selectively presented materials". I had also voluntarily admitted elsewhere that some of my sympathies for Worldedixor may have been in as a result of Transference issues in reaction to the "badgering" and "lynching" approach that was taken with me. I believe that I had fully considered these issues as I looked into Worldedixor's case. The hatnote of my review of the case read:
This section contains an extensive (1650 word but I think relevant) text related both to the clarification of actual wrong doing by Worldedixor and references to the overstatement of various cases. The second part was not planned and, while I do not want to detract from relevant areas of cited wrongdoing, I also think it relevant to notify reviewers and interested parties of questionable content within.
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 and that, in totality, many of the interventions presented within do not demonstrate best practice in relation to Wikipedia's policies regarding dispute resolution. In addition to statements within that I think were misrepresentative I further question the selective use of external type links that focus on individual edits while no direct reference to context is provided. Other links in the RfC/U, if followed through to get to the actual edits, I believe demonstrate provocative comment particularly by Technophant, the primary author of the RfC/U. I further propose that the related talk page discussion of the RfC/U ended in a way which I consider indicative of the characteristic unaccountability and evasiveness of the primary author.
I lastly propose that any later remarks by Worldedixor, while not being excused, should be rightly considered within the context here mentioned.
A chronological selection of my content, going point by point, and which seemed to me to be right at the time read:

1 Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 4#Competence Matters Polite request, rude response, civility

I honestly don't personally see major fault here on either side. You presented issue related to the acceptability of a sourced Arabic text whose quoted content currently gets 1,080 hits. You were given a dismissive response (but which may better be understood in context) and independent editor quoted: 'WP:NOENG: "Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available."' You declared willingness to follow WP:AGF. The final comment eventually got round to clarifying a problem that: This particular situation was one in which Google translation gave a bizarre result but without giving a direct request for your response. I presume that there was a failure for this situation to be resolved but I think this was may have been in the context of unnecessary antagonism from the start.

5 Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 4#WP:OWN to new editors warnings to other editors

I can't see what in any of this is about. Even if there was something wrong in giving relevant warnings to other editors I do not see it."

6 [18] Response by WE expressing ownership of talk page (you're not invited) and wrongful accusation of personal attack. WP:NOEDIT

I find this one particularly annoying. The edit must be viewed in the context, see: #Israel. The discussion had continued and P123ct1 fairly resumed the discussion as: #Israel(2) citing that "The discussion on this was side-tracked by the long digression above" but, to be fair, with the sidetracking being initiated by Technophant and with inclusion of content that is inappropriate for an article talk page discussion]].

7 Talk:James Foley (journalist)/Archive 1#Execution or Murder.3F warned about shouting on another page (and the Levant page)

Please actually take a look. The accusation seems ludicrous to me and an independent editor even finished the thread with the comment: ".. Worldedixor has been nothing if not civil in an attempt to build consensus among all of those with an interest in this issue. In fact, everything has been done to ensure an inclusive venue and opportunity for talk. Proper adherence to, and reiteration of the rules should not be mistaken for 'shouting'"

9 Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 8#Israel (diff) Hostile attack, with boldface "shouting", against another editor for reverting an item that was not supported by the reference, on the basis that a clause in Israeli law, not mentioned in the reference or on the page, bridged the gap between the reference's text and the item. Claimed to base the attack on WP:Revert only when necessary, while invoking own ability to read non-English sources. See also exchange with P123ct1 at end of section (diff). WP:CIVIL

What? The only boldfacing came as: '"The Israeli Ministry of Defence approves the designation of Daa3esh as a terrorist movment". Hope this helps.' How is this a hostile attack. The text also demonstrates a willingness to strike text. This leaves honest representation of mistakes which displays better form than other editors involved in this affair. I personally wish more be people here could invoke their "own ability to read non-English sources".

13 [19] WP:HOUND and WP:PA directed at second certifier on an admin's talk page (several examples of this on same talk page re certifier and re other editors from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant page). Unwillingness to accept criticism.

I see a difference of opinion here between mainly between to editors on another editors talk page. Worldedixor exited discussion at 23:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC) and the other two editors continued with five more entries into a discussion that ended at, 01:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC).

As you know I also had direct things to say to Worldedixor in my intervention and I sincerely believe that it was my balanced delivery of home truths that caused him to give up the fight. What in the above content do you think is wrong?

I read what was in and directly around the RfC/U. I made my judgements. Again I ask, what do you think I missed?

Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously not aware that WE has followed a pattern, of involvement, then non-involvement, and involvement again, over some years. I am not saying anything that might prejudice you against him, but you know how to find your way round Wikipedia. I wouldn't imagine your counsel made that much difference; he is too independent-minded for that, in my judgment, he is just as strong-willed as you and I. I hope he does come back after a while to start afresh again. I have said my piece about the RfC/U and will not wade through yet more walls of text which from the first few lines I know will be a repeat of what I have read before and as I guessed it would, shows my words have made absolutely no impression on you. This is an old story with you; you don't listen when you don't want to hear, WP:IDHT I believe it is called. Of course I remembered that you had explained to the admins that you might not be completely objective because of the bad blood between you and T. and that there was probably some transference going on. I am not going to comment on anything T. did in the RfC/U or make any judgments on him, out of loyalty as much as anything. He helped me in a difficult situation and it would be odious of me to criticise his handling of the RfC/U. I will leave that to others like yourself, and I don't pay much attention to your view of him as it is biased for obvious reasons. For the record, unlike you he has only ever complained in the mildest terms about you. He is more upset that whatever he does totry to help situations backfires, but I don't expect you have any time for that. I cannot understand why you have copied here your submission in WE's ban appeal. I have read it and remember it and know where to find it if I need to. You seem to me to have a strange obsession with the whole thing and I cannot understand why. There is nothing any of us can do to help WE, unfortunately. Had you not better concentrate on your case with WheelsoffSteel0 and forget this? ~ P123ct1 (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 Please be responsible for your own words. You had asked, "How on earth can you know that the RfC/U contained "plenty of exaggerated, misrepresentative and selectively presented materials"?" I answered. You said, "I cannot understand why you have copied here your submission in WE's ban appeal." I clearly did it for the simple reason to answer your question!
Please consider what I consider to be a particularly judgemental content above. "I wouldn't imagine your counsel made that much difference;" Maybe but he is human and it was worth the effort.
You say "I don't expect you have any time for that." I have made particular effort to broach things with Technophant never getting a non pointed reply and then receiving the tirade that you will remember.
You quoted, "whatever he does to help situations backfires". He should ask himself why this was.
You said "I remembered that you had explained to the admins that you might not be completely objective because of the bad blood between you and T." That is not what I said. At the very beginning of my AN/I I said I was wary. This proved to be warranted but it never went beyond this.
You judged, "it is biased for obvious reasons." No.
Now you have quoted WP:IDHT with no substantiation and just your POV.
On other matters you have repeatedly spoken about a lack of a collegiate atmosphere on the TP. Then when WheelsoffSteel0's report comes up and you perceive personal attack you still add nothing.
You say that I should "forget this". Again and again you come up with unsubstantiated accusations against me. Please... please, please, please deal with it. Don't just let things pass so as to let things get raised again at another time. If you make accusations then you have a responsibility to substantiate. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have already said that I am not getting involved in any more disputes over editors being taken to the various forms of arbitration. I did not come to Wikipedia for this. My few words in zzz's appeal yesterday were the last. I am not doing more for the SPI. The reason why I will not substantiate here is that I have repeated the reasons for my criticisms about your POV and refusal to accept RS a thousand times on the Talk page and will not do it again. I have given you the exact place to find substantiation for "accusations": in the Talk page archives. You can find it, it is not very hard. Search "NPOV" and "RS". Look at what other editors have said in those "jihadist" threads. I am tired of repeating the same things over and over again about NPOV on the Talk pages and am not going to do it yet again when you can look it up for yourself, it is unreasonable for you to expect it. If I thought it would be hard to find, of course I would spell it out for you. And the more you speak in terms of "Please be responsible for your own words", "you have a responsibility", "you ought", "you should do this", "you should do that", the less cooperation you will get. That is no way to speak to another adult, it is insulting and shows no respect for another's dignity. If you really cannot recognise yourself in the quote from WP:IDHT then it seems you are incapable of seeing yourself as others do. What is quoted there is exactly what happened in the long "jihadist" debate, to the point where, I believe, editors left or withdrew. You would not give up when you should have done, per WP:CONSENSUS. I cannot be clearer than that. The only grounds on which you could say that the evidence produced in the RfC/U was "exaggerated, misrepresentative and selective" is if you had read all the Talk pages. I do not expect you have done that. By insisting those examples were exaggerated, misrepresentative and selective, you show you are not prepared to take my word for how things were. I thought you believed I was honest and truthful, but clearly you do not. You are like the Wikipedia admins and editors who seem only prepared to believe the worst of others, and I am disappointed. I have obviously not understood you all this time and you are a stranger I do not recognize any more. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WE realised how much I was affected by all the trouble, and I honestly don't think he realises what effect he can have on editors. There was something he said about boldfaced shouting that proved that for me; he noticeably changed on that when he realised. He was embattled and alone once the RfC/U began and I can understand exactly why he thought there was a conspiracy against him, even though it was not true. He has said he how much he hates injustice and I can see now why he thought he was being treated unjustly while I was favoured. It was based on a misunderstanding (basically of the type of editing I do, copy-editing), but he believed it, and that is what counted for him. I have had time to reflect on that episode and come to these conclusions and I see him in a different light now. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 I hope you understand that when you first say "How on earth can you know that the RfC/U contained "plenty of exaggerated, misrepresentative and selectively presented materials"?" and then say, "I cannot understand why you have copied here your submission in WE's ban appeal", I see an inconsistency. There were accusations and, in certain cases, they were unsubstantiated. I think that PBS was correct in his judgement of the content. I completely agree that I would not give up as per WP:CONSENSUS. I was also clear on this at the time and this was a deliberate decision.
Related to the RfCU I have considered that you were not the primary author and just went along with its frequently unsubstantiated accusations. At this point who am I meant to see the worst in. There are either the accusers or the accused. I have certainly read other contributions of the editor concerned. In many cases I have found Worldedixor to communicate clearly on various topics. There was one time that he used the work Jerk and that was in the RfC. Worldedixor made one addition to your talk page here. I see nothing of an argumentative nature here. I have searched Worldedixor through the talk:ISIL archives a couple of times. To me he goes from overtly arrogant to not so overtly arrogant. There is clearly some extremely unconstructive and obstructive stuff on a staccato level. With WheelsofSteel0 it can be a constant twisting and accusation. WheelsofSteel0 has not been around as long as Worldedixor. But I have not seen that WheelsofSteel0 is significantly more "mild" that Worldedixor. I got into Worldedixor's case ready to challenge him hard. I found the accusations to be unsubstantiated.
I made my comments about NPOV and RS below before seeing this content here. To say that I disregard these issues was very far from the truth. Gregkaye ✍♪ 01:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 Here is the condition of the Talk:ISIL at the time of your final post on the thread "The word "jihad", criticism and disruption" as started by Felino123. At the time the page also contained the threads, "their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality”" which I started and "Logical Order in Lead" which I seem to recollect was spawned from my thread. Please, (bold-face for reason) scan through the page or look in detail as you wish. Yes I strongly stated proposals and views, which I maintain were broadly in line with NPOV and RS, but you state that I turned the page into a battle ground. Yes there was a lot of content in these threads but this was in the context of a total of 39 threads at this particular time. As I have stated, thankfully it was still business as usual in much of the page. You say that an article talk page is an appropriate place for content dispute and that I have the right to defend myself against misrepresentation. Admin have shown that they may do nothing to prevent abuse and will even censor attempts to set issues straight. My only infringement, which I have always freely admitted to, was to go against consensus but this was on an issue that I regard to be of literally vital importance and which, contrary to Wikipedia's and various editor's rules, I was not willing to drop. At each stage I presented material to editors cordially al-be-it with very strongly worded content. This was in the confines of one thread that I started and resultant threads. I do not want to take your exaggerated blame for turning the page into a battle ground. I fought a corner. That was all. Please do not WP:ASSERT your opinions on NPOV and RS as fact. What I consider to be your abuse of this article content related principle has wasted both of us a lot of time for both of us in what you have rightly called a meaningless debate. Be aware that, as previously stated, if you place information on my page I reserve the right to respond as I like. If you make statements such as "mild by comparison" I also have the right to ask for reply and then to reply to replies. You can choose to respond or not as you like and I have the same right. Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to your AN/I and previous Talk page threads for criticisms I have raised along with others. It is your prerogative to think what you like and disregard others' views. Refactor what and how you wish. My collapsing is to keep the page clean not to hide and I never refactor it. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your Syrian Civil War Issues

[edit]

On the one hand, it does appear that User:Wheels of Steel0 is being combative. On the other hand, your post at WP:ANI does look combative. Another editor advised you to try dispute resolution, and you said that you had considered that and been advised not to do so. You misunderstood. You were advised not to try a user conduct Request for Comments, a deprecated process for writing up issues with disruptive editors that is itself disruptive. The place to discuss your content issue about the status of ISIS is an article talk page, or, if that fails, a dispute resolution process, such as an article content Request for Comments or moderated dispute resolution. Since Syrian Civil War is subject to community general sanctions, if you think that an editor is editing disruptively, you can request general sanctions enforcement, but first read the boomerang essay. Your post to WP:ANI is angry and not helpful. Try to calm down and discuss content issues on talk pages, or to use dispute resolution processes. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon I am honestly not angry. There was even one situation with User:Technophant that you are at liberty to research where, what seemed to me to be a high level of antagonism coming my way, I bent over backwards to make peace. Please check my record there including deleted posts. The advice I was given was "RFCU is universally disliked - there is or was a big vote to trash it. No one finds it effective. ANi we know about - it can be effective assuming you have good clean hands. I'll support your action." I would be grateful if you would point out any content that came across as angry to you. I think that there is wrong in the situation and am concerned, for issues of the general good here, that such issues not go unaddressed. This way of working does not make for fair debate and it would be quite possible for editors just to give up. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you are not angry. Your post at WP:ANI appears to be angry, so maybe you should compose your posts in a word processing page and reread them before posting them. As to deleted posts, I can't read posts that have redacted or oversighted. I can read deleted or refactored posts that are still in the page history, but that is time-consuming. I agree with advice not to use WP:RFC/U. I disagree with advice to use WP:ANI for Syrian Civil War issues. A better approach there is, first, to discuss on the talk page, second, try to use a content dispute resolution process, and, third, use general sanctions. It isn't entirely clear what you mean when you say that there is wrong in the situation and that this way of working does not make for fair debate. Do you mean that another editor is being disruptive and is trying to shout down differences of opinion, or what? If that is what you mean, general sanctions can have the editor topic-banned. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon I would like to resolve issues such as misrepresentations and the like on the talk page. P123ct1 is one editor who has categorised my attempts to set straight previous misrepresentations as being disruptive. I really don't know what to do and admit to frustration. No support is given in policing these issues. Flagrant misrepresentations are added to talk page contents in a way that either gives impetus to one argument or adds to the cutting down of an editor and thus to related arguments. Then, when you try diplomatically to get offending content struck, nothing happens. If you push then an offending content may get deleted but this will be at a time once the content has been on the page for some time with all its detrimental effect and then be removed sometime prior to archival. The current case involves arguing the person as much as arguing the case and involves the misapplication of Wikipedia policy and guidelines in false accusations in the process. Many editors may not check the content of the policies and believe the mirepresentation. On the defence I get left in a situation where I may need to write extensively to diplomatically address a pithy misrepresentation and this, again, is to the detriment to any argument that I am trying to present in debate. It seems that no administrative support is given. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gregkaye of course should correct misrepresentation to defend himself. But that should be done on users' or admins' Talk pages, not on the main Talk page. On the Talk page it has at times been very disruptive and distracting for editors. At one time recently the ISIS Talk was a battleground, not so much for edit-warring as for Gregkaye fighting with two editors over misrepresentation. Arguing over content is quite a different matter and the Talk page is obviously the appropriate place for that. P123ct1 (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 As you have seen from the recent AN/I admins indicate that they may do nothing. There is an editor in the current case that I do not think is displaying any type of collegiate approach. Do you expect an editor just to let things go on a talk page to be misrepresented, insulted and falsely accused? In reference to our recent dialogues I would prefer to be one of the cats and not one of the mats. My interventions not gone beyond trying to right wrongs.
There have been many causes of disruption on the page. There have been areas of fair battle but Talk:ISIL was not a battle ground. With regard to most topics, thankfully, it was business as usual. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes think you do not read what I write. To repeat, I said of course you need to defend yourself, but the Talk page is not the place to hold these personal disputes (that begin as editorial content disputes) they should be taken to users' Talk pages, or to some form of arbitration to leave other editors in peace. You are the only editor who repeatedly complains of being falsely accused, derailed, insulted and misrepresented and that I think is revealing. This is how I see it, others may not. As for peaceful editing on the ISIS page, there has been no such thing. There has been nothing but conflict over the "jihadist" point, for example, since 8 October and that has only died down because the editors involved in it have backed off and disappeared. In fact, there are only three of us left who appear regularly on the Talk page now. I do not think this is an accident. As for expecting measured justice from any form of arbitration in Wikipedia, dream on is my view. What it boils down to is if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. That is the way Wikipedia is and it will not change. Crying for justice and trying to right wrongs in WP is largely a waste of time, IMO.
P123ct1 You know very well that I pay a high level of attention to what you write. Do you want me to cite the references You say on the jihadist point "that has only died down because the editors involved in it have backed off and disappeared". My last edits on the related threads are presented here, here, here, here and here. In response to the second of those you replied in good faith here but clearly without having understood what I had written. You made a wrong assumption was made that I had misunderstood you. My previous edits in response to derailments are presented in sequence, here, here, here and here. I have conducted my side of the debate regarding the "jihadist" point with great amiability given the circumstances. Please demonstrate diffs if you think otherwise. The "jihadist" point "died down because.." I let it go. However, most recently you personally suggested, "I think you should pursue your idea of a link from "jihadist" showing how the word has two entirely different meanings now, and a simple link to the wiki article is not enough as that has just one vague sentence describing (if that is what it can be called) the difference" here, (emphasis added). You are condemning and encouraging at the same time. I don't get it. If you think I have done anything wrong on the talk page please be specific. Show me where. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot follow points via a series of diffs, I need to see the whole text at once, otherwise it is too disjointed. There was great disruption on the page before the AN/I over the "jihadist" issue, you cannot deny it. It dominated everything else on the Talk page and the war of attritition over it only stopped recently. I did not say that you were less than amiable and civil throughout it, but it was still a disruption. I have for some time been open to the idea of a linking footnote of some kind as you know, and encouraged you recently as I still think it is a good idea. I had changed my mind during the long debate on the matter. I don't think you did anything wrong on the Talk page except to persist in your wish to either remove or qualify "jihadist" with a footnote when all editors consistently disagreed with you, and to disregard WP:NPOV and WP:RS when other editors wanted to keep to those rules. You were flying in the face of consensus which you know is agains the WP:CONSENSUS policy and for all those reasons, you ended up at AN/I. It is tiresome to have to go over these obvious points yet again; you know them very well as they were brought to your attention repeatedly. I cannot follow the diffs on derailment, but I can remember clearly that at one point you considered the editor who objected to your pursuit of the point (which had unreasonably gone on for about six weeks, I think, unreasonably because all editors disagreed with you on it, except for myself and another editor) and suggested mediation as somehow employing derailing tactics. He was being quite reasonable, given that the debate had gone on for such a long time getting absolutely nowhere. You thought I was trying to close down the discussion at that point, when all I was doing was trying to get editors to come to a conclusion and some consensus, as I thought there really had been quite enough debate. Endless debate with no end in sight and no changing of positions? Was that unreasonable? You asked me to refactor a remark which you thought was intended to shut down debate which I obligingly did, but it was no such thing. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 So basically you are now not indicating fault on my part since my first attempts to tackle the "jihadism" issue (which was done in the face of walls of repetitive walls of text, misrepresentations and the like). You also state that I "disregard WP:NPOV and WP:RS". They are serious accusations. When? How? Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not be disingenuous. It was explained to you repeatedly by various editors throughout that debate. If you really cannot remember, the Talk page archives are there to help you with that. You will find the links; all those discussions were linked together before archiving. There was nothing wrong in you raising the matter, but there you go again, whenever anyone disagrees with you, they are "misrepresenting" you. That is how it looks to me at any rate. Perhaps the repetitive walls of text were because of your WP:IDHT and unwillingness to pay attention to the concerns of other editors, I don't know. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is from WP:IDHT and is meant to help not criticise:
In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted.
~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1 There was nothing disingenuous.
  • WP:NPOV states: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
I considered a large contingent of Islam to be significant as related to source material.
I considered that the large contingent of Islam constituted an extremely "significant minority view". Following initial correction I did not insist that the word "jihadist" be removed from the article but that there should be qualification. At this point the only route to do this that I knew was to place Islam based content criticising the group's following of "jihad". Your statement that I disregarded WP:RS is false. Any interpreted infringement that I may have had of NPOV would be dependent on the POV of a person judging. They were both issues that I had very much in mind throughout. To go to the extreme to say that I disregarded them is false. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GregKaye/Archive_2&oldid=1256247334"