P123ct1, I am happy to hear your thoughts on this but, as I see it, the issues that were of most relevance were WP:SOAPBOX, issues related to use of words associated with profanity in relation to my indication of a "bastardisation" of terminologies over time and WP:CONSENSUS particularly, as I see it, in relation to Vote!. As I see it the question of NPOV in this case most centrally depends on whether there was a legitimate justification for an association of an explanatory content to the word "jihadist". This was something that, in the context of a supply of such an explanatory content in the form of a footnote, that you agreed with. The only difference with regard to suggestions before I was taken to AN/I was a level of affect to article content in the provision of a relevant explanation.
I mentioned my views on WP:NPOV and WP:RS here. At the time leading up to the AN/I, and not stating that I was right, I gave considerable considerable consideration to NPOV and RS related issues. I am quite happy that we acknowledge a difference in our views in regard to the validity of my interpretation of issues related to NPOV and RS. I wouldn't even mind if someone had any even extreme view of any of my attitudes or actions. It is only when someone asserts as fact that I disregarded issues that I think that I have a right to dispute that assertion. As you know, I also think that Wikipedia's fixated focus on so called "reliable" but secondary sources is quite simply nuts. I don't think that there has been reliability in presentation on this issue right down the line from many extreme organisations that have, none-the-less called themselves Mujahideen or jihadist and down to a range of sources that have then used jihadism related terminologies in their description. My view is that an encyclopedia should give good, accurate and useful information.
As previously mentioned, if I have a POV, I think that it is a good POV. It was a POV that, at the time, I was prepared to follow through even to the point of being banned. This was not something that I decided on lightly and honestly I gave considerable attention to the relevant issues concerned. I am happy for us to disagree but please do not say that I have disregarded issues especially when, at a later point in time, you have agreed.
The article talk page is clearly a place for the discussion of article content issues and I have voluntarily admitted to having taken this to a soapbox extent. I stated one thread on this. I honestly do not think that this constitutes turning the talk page into a battleground. I maintain that throughout, I dealt my presentation of content in more straightforward and civil way than various editors that argued opposing points. Gregkaye✍♪11:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, I agree that WP:SOAPBOX and WP:CONSENSUS were the main issues in that debate, and from what you say can see why you might even have thought our NPOV was POV! You did give the impression that you were disregarding the issues around NPOV and RS, but even then I could see after a time during those debates that your POV, or your interpretation of what NPOV is, was well-thought through and well-motivated. So "disregarded" was the wrong word to have used, "disputed" would have been better. I came to agree with you about the RS use of "jihadist", hence my support on that. The overuse of "Criticism" and the use of "diktat" I still believe gave a POV impression, but that problem has sort of disappeared of its own accord now, which I think is revealing. It leads me to wonder now if your seeming strong anti-ISIL stance is another artifact, an artifact of the sort I mentioned before – only in this case the opposite – that your choice of words for text and text headings and your resistant stance against other editors gave the impression of a strong anti-ISIL POV you never intended, but really you were keeping to NPOV in your eyes. As always the choice of words is critical in wording things in a particular way, in this case in the article text neutrally.
The long arguments over some of the Lead wording, in which you indeed were always measured and much more civil than some, did nevertheless cause disruption, because you would not accept the consensus view as you acknowledge and because it took up so much time. But I would not call that turning the Talk page into a battleground. The battleground that I was referring to concerned the later disputes between you and Felino and then with Technophant. All three of you did turn the Talk page into a battleground for what seemed a long time and was much more disruptive, IMO. Those were bitter and personal disputes mostly caused by but really tangential to content disagreement and I think they should have been conducted on user Talk pages, not the main Talk page.
I know you believe that an encyclopedia should give good, accurate and useful information, and I would add balanced. Your emphasis on Muslim criticism in the Lead did look unbalanced at one time, but I think the right balance has been struck now. As part of correcting the imbalance I supported your fairly strong "judging" because I think it reflects the strength of the Muslim criticism and I think other editors were wrong in wanting to play it down.
I think really the main difference between us is over how to strike the right NPOV balance in telling the facts as they are. Is that fair? Is our difference over NPOV a red herring, even? ~ P-123 (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 To reference Red Dwarf, repository of all wisdom, there may be an extent that that kipper should be smoked (as final moments here). WP:CONSENSUS still relates to WP's goals and not vote but, perhaps with influence of my Japanese blood, I can see that I was going kamikaze. I agree now about balance in the lead at the time with regard to criticism. I was new to the article and, the irony is that in the context of distractions that I had initiated, content swung the other way. As far as battleground is concerned, as you know, I considered this to be a very territorial edit. Will also know from reference to User talk pages that I, wastefully it turns out, invested a great deal of effort attempting to broach peace. I think that what you see as anti-ISIL POV is largely representative of both a lot of content in RS and of attitudes within a large coalition of nations and local combatants. My views on ISIL as being murderous tyrants can be fairly presented on the talk page but, in truth, I don't want any of these militants to suffer and die. I may be mistaken but my view is that the best way that I can be pro-ISIL (to the extent of being pro their membership) is to present accurate content and informative content that may act to burst their bubble. Given the chance I would also be anti any pershmerger or similar abuse. I am anti many of the facets of Hussain, Bush, Blair, Assad and Netanyatu. I will support any valid criticism of coalition activities but, when the Analysis section contained a misrepresentation of an article so as to place all blame at the American door, I edit so as to present citation content in an NPOV way. How was the original presentation get developed? Why was I the only one to point it out? Despite accepted definitions of State there are editors that want to unjustifiably want to apply this definition to the miltants. Despite the generally critical tone throughout RS there are editors that would want to take criticism from the lead and denude this content within the article while relegating it to the bottom of the page. Yes I tend to edit on one side of things... and the result, I think, is balance. As mentioned I think that on several issues, you have presented ISIL sympathetic POVs but that is another issue.
I also think that there was political naievity (ironic that I can't spell the word) after the Iraq war and that, perhaps, the country should have been divided at this point. I see no problem in a peaceful Sunni region ASKING for recognition and independence. Please don't let us fall out over anti-'SIL issues as well. I won't argue unnecessarily but I will defend myself. Gregkaye✍♪19:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also found it interesting going through all the articles on groups designated as terrorist. The non Islam related articles all spoke of all the nations that had described as terrorist. The Islam related articles all focused on US designations in semi isolation. Gregkaye✍♪19:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to fall out over anti-ISIL issues either. Out of curiosity only when have you thought I presented ISIL-sympathetic POVs? If I defend myself – I may not – it won't be to open another dispute. ~ P-123 (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P123ct1, You, of course, can take whichever position you like but: Diktats, Criticisms, making note of anti-ISIL POV and not ISIL sympathetic/ compliant tendencies as with relegation of criticism etc. I know in the situations such as the last case you stood against the relegation but, as far as I've seen, you've only labelled the anti side of things as you have seen it. This may be my POV again but, beyond my use of 'SIL, Daesh etc. I think that my proposed contents and dealings with other editors has been more balanced than others. I've asked questions of people and have moaned a lot to you about them, but that's all. However, as you've also said, we generally have commonality on most things. I also respect that you have a level of will not to take my comments above as any form of censorship which I know, rightly, you would not heed. This is more a commentary about me than anything. How narcissistic is that! Gregkaye✍♪21:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, the word "censorship" or the idea of it never crossed my mind, so there was no restraint there and I cannot take credit for that. I can see how being utterly neutral could look like pro-ISIL POV. This idea cropped up very early on, when I said on the Talk page that stating the facts barely and calling the group the "Islamic State", a "caliphate" and al-Baghadi "caliph" without any qualification like "self-declared" could look like pro-ISIL POV, but that qualifiying those words could look departing from NPOV. It is a paradox, or dilemma rather, that I don't think can ever be satisfactorily resolved. I don't see how any kind of wording could escape this. That is my only comment as I said I didn't want to open up another dispute. ~ P-123 (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 I would like to see any content in guidelines that specifies a type of "utterly neutral" approach that could look like a pro-ISIL bias. This is where I think that you can have n-NPOV. I do not see that NPOV with regard to ISIL would raise issue with diktats of criticisms. A NPOV should simply seek accurate description without any involvement of another agenda. gregkaye✍♪06:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Respectful interjection
Respectfully in my opinion both of you have been taking a perfectionist "challenge everything" and eliminate anything that could be read as POV by anyone. Remember this is WP and anyone can edit. We will never get the article perfect and the most carefully worded consensus sentence will be butchered eventually. I'm all for accuracy, but this incessant challenging of everything and debating phrases is not productive. We can't copy sources verbatim, so we have to rephrase, which means the article may say blue when the source says navy or whatever.
I'd suggest starting or growing another article like the one on ISIL human rights abuses, or the much needed articles about ISIL setting up in Pakistan, or a whole article on finances (there was a big multinational meeting on that topic recently, yet no updates to the article) rather then fretting over words like jihad or the intricacies of terrorist designations. If many RS call ISIL terrorist or jihad or whatever, let it be. We have enough problems with other editors putting in or deleting large blocks of text based on clear agendas. As the editors who regularly update the article and have a good handle on what ISIL is all about don't need to edit war and fill the talk page with debates over a word or phrase that frankly is not a big deal. Legacypac (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac: While I agree with you that the endless debating of phrases has got out of hand - this only began in October in this article - citations have to back up statements accurately, not vaguely, and I am referring in particular to the citation that Signedzzz and I disputed. I have found quite a few footnotes in this article that bear no relation to the statements they are supposed to back up. On the POV issue, there has always been a lot of debate and argument on this, from the time the Islamic State was set up, and it is a genuine problem and not one to be swept aside lightly. ~ P-123 (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it were not for the efforts of P-123, the article would be in a very considerably worse state than they currently are. Apparently I have created 197 pages on Wikipedia but I think that my more important contributions have been in development and correction. There is a major difference in meaning between "territorial claims", which have not been made, and "Areas in which ISIL have claimed to have presence or control". It turns presented content on its head and this is just one example where Wikipedia has provided misinformation. Our quoted figures on issues like troop numbers in ISIL need to be checked. The relative positioning of article content are of importance as is the dealing with misinformation. Objections that have been made to Signedzzz are similar to objections that have been made to you regarding editing without referral to talk page discussion. Signedzzz went to an extreme and with regard an unwarranted hacking of content but the problem of lack of discussion and a potentially POV driven agenda shouldn't let us ignore an admirable view of wanting to ensure the existence of accurate content. The passage mentioned is certainly in my mind as being one that is only justified by association with allied contents such as those that describe caliphate. Issues like whether we call the group a state or not are of similar importance. There are things that we need to get right. We have been thrashing out a disagreement on POV which may or may not relate to the issues that get challenge but there needs to be challenge. Philosophy found here. My POV agenda is to add warranted information that I think will promote peace and to remove or adapt unwarranted information or presentations that I think act as obstructions to peace and my intention is to build an encyclopaedia along the way. How I go about this is up to me. gregkaye✍♪10:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd rather work on big picture stuff like exploring areas not covered well then debating "territorial claims" vs "Areas in which ISIL have claimed to have presence or control". which seem pretty similar concepts to me. Edit in a way you enjoy :) - just suggesting taking a deep breath and keeping it all in perspective. The families of the 300,000 dead so far in the Syrian Civil War are not debating phasing. I also wish for peace, and an accurate representation of what ISIL about is a little part of the path to peace someday. Legacypac (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac Editors have different strengths in different areas in building an article. Debating phrasing and getting it right is just as important as providing facts. The way those facts are presented is crucial to making a good and accurate encyclopaedic article that may help towards peace efforts. Do not underestimate it and dismiss these considerations as worthless set against the suffering caused by ISIL. ~ P-123 (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 TY. I don't regard my edit as being much more than a shuffling of content, but I think it made sense. Its documented on talk:isil and I guess I will make comment. Gregkaye✍♪12:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure anyone has deliberately reverted it. It seemed to happen when you were editing the "Designations" box, so you may have done it by editing onto a slightly earlier version. I don't think any other edits have been affected. ~ P-123 (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I caused that problem, when reverting an earlier edit which added unnecessary wikilinks. The usual warning about intervening edits and that the revert would have to be done manually did not come up, so that is why it happened. I have rectified now by self-reverting and your original changes to those titles have been restored. ~ P-123 (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 Thinking of name changes I've only now sorted out the capitalisation of my user name. If I wasn't editing on political issues I would probably put my name in business format with both my initials: KayeGB gregkaye✍♪05:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NE Ent I agree that further comments would not serve a purpose. @Signedzzz: had made a range of statements in the report and I think my related comments to those were apt. I didn't expect to have needed to have added the comments made. Gregkaye✍♪18:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You added: "Multinational Organizations (associating with al-Qaeda)". I am not sure what that means and I am not readers will understand it! Could you think of some clearer wording, perhaps? ~ P-123 (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually quite disappointed when I found the UNs content. I'm not sure if I understand and I'm not convinced that they do either. What we now have is a faithful representation of and link to the UNs content. Any reader will then be faced with the same difficulties as a Wikipedia editor in there own original thought OR as to what the list is or what it implies. However you may be proud of me. I have not taken my cat sat on the mat pedantry to the point of noting that ISIL are not actually on the list. Some of its members, exmembers are. Some editors might say that this was uncited content and want it removed. I may adjust the citation to reflect this.
Possible: (indicating as "associated with al-Qaeda"). I see the point. Its not the Multinational Organizations that are associating with al-Qaeda. The new wording uses the same as format used in: Nations (designating as terrorist) gregkaye✍♪05:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The group is in the second list in that document, dated 24 November 2014, under the name "Al-Qaida in Iraq". The pages are not numbered, unfortunately. So I am not sure that "Indicating as associated with al-Qaeda" is the right wording. Legacypac looked into this in great detail and came up with that reference. P-123 (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
QE.J.115.04. Name: AL-QAIDA IN IRAQ Name (original script): القاعدة في العراق
A.k.a.: a) AQI b) al-Tawhid c) the Monotheism and Jihad Group d) Qaida of the Jihad in the Land of the Two Rivers e) Al-Qaida of Jihad in the Land of the Two Rivers f) The Organization of Jihad’s Base in the Country of the Two Rivers g) The Organization Base of Jihad/Country of the Two Rivers h) The Organization Base of Jihad/Mesopotamia i) Tanzim Qa’idat Al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn j) Tanzeem Qa’idat al Jihad/Bilad al Raafidaini k) Jama'at Al-Tawhid Wa'al-Jihad l) JTJ m) Islamic State of Iraq n) ISI o) al-Zarqawi network p) Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant F.k.a.: na Address: na Listed on: 18 Oct. 2004 (amended on 2 Dec. 2004, 5 Mar. 2009, 13 Dec. 2011, 30 May 2013, 13 May 2014, 2 Jun. 2014) Other information: Review pursuant to Security Council resolution 1822 (2008) was concluded on 25 May 2010.
P-123Legacypac please read the contents that you supplied. I made a mistake in that I searched on a different spelling of AL-QAIDA IN IRAQ but this does not change the fact that the texts do not designate the group as terrorist. gregkaye✍♪11:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This designation was discussed at length on the Talk page some months back. You will find references to them here and particularly here. It was decided then by editors that this document, http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/AQList.htm#alqaedaent, the one above, could not be used to support a designation of the group as a terrorist organization by the UN. Recently Legacypac overturned this after some research and added the UN to the infobox. Please refer to him for details. ~ P-123 (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 TY, and don't get me wrong, I am probably more appalled at 'SIL's association with al-Qaeda as at anything else. They joined al-Quada and got chucked out. The UN is the first item in the table and the last item in the table's notes which I will see to. The group was not designated as terrorist but I'm not going to argue. The cat is on this mat whether or not it was clearly stated. also ping @Legacypac:gregkaye✍♪12:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I may be on a better track now. (add:) *sigh*, when you are done copy editing ISIL could you do some work for the UN. They fail to make their point. Also see: #Gas giant below. gregkaye✍♪12:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The UN has not designated ISIL a terrorist organisation as those countries have. The consensus was against having this designation in the infobox precisely because of this document. Legacypac went against the consensus some months later. There was no explanation given for the change on the Talk page that I can remember. I am tired of documents and citations being laboriously interpreted to fit edits. Nowhere in that document or the other citation does it say categorically that the group has been designated by the UN as a terrorist organisation, it is all interpretation. This document is a sanctions list, which is not the same thing at all. The UN does not keep a designation list. The paragraph about the UN Sanctions list that is already there should be enough for this section. The EU should not be in that box either, as it follows the UN Sanctions List. It has a note as well, which should be enough. ~ P-123 (talk) 12:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just seen from the wikilink that the UN Sanctions List was not established until 2002 and it says in this article that the EU adopted it in 2001; the citation appended for the EU date says 2002. So the muddle gets worse. Can you add some words about this Sanctions List? I don't want to interfere with your edit which looks fine. Then if you don't mind I will tighten up the para syntax (but not alter the facts). ~ P-123 (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What are you two talking about? An old consensus based on a failure to read the sources correctly is worthless. P-123 previously agreed with me on this. After I added and sourced it the new consensus is that the UN and EU designations stay. I don't have time to redo all points but its real simple. UN Security council resolution 1267 (199) designated AQ and the taliban (later split off in their own list) as terrorists - please read 1267 - just google is as you can't link directly into the UN site docs. Under 167 the UNSC created a list of organizations and people that fall under the 1267 designation and are to be sanctioned. A secondary source: http://justsecurity.org/15014/isisisil-remains-al-qaida-security-council-so/ A recent secondary source: www.wsj.com/articles/syrian-rebels-issue-demands-for-u-n-hostages-1409662075 (al Nusra cited as a UN designated terrorist - on the list just a few spots from ISIL., kidnapped UN peacekeepers and demanded to be taken off the UN list!) The UN docs are all linked from here http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/. Legacypac (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac the articles mention of the UN listing of AKA the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is notable but the content should be presented accurately. I first moved to put descriptive content in the titles but P-123 disagreed. There is now, as far as I can see it, an accurate picture of the situation presented in a corrected sequence of notes beneath the table. What do you think about that wording? Is there a way in which it needs adjusting? I also think that the word designation, in the full context, may be overblown. gregkaye✍♪17:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac To clarify, the UN and EU content contained no designation. It gave an indication of association. Editors are overblowing the importance of the terrorist description at present. gregkaye✍♪17:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 In an old college of mine there were posters up saying, in not so many words, don't trust Wikipedia. To an extent i still think this was harsh - but less so now. gregkaye✍♪12:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Finished copy-editing this article? Some of my very basic copy-eds (for consistent formatting, syntax, etc) are now being reverted by barely literate editors. Copy-editing this article is becoming a waste of time and I will not trawl through it to unearth citations that do not back up the text, which I suspect is a very much bigger problem than seemed until recently. ~ P-123 (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 Well if the UN cannot clearly describe al-Quada as terrorist and then generate long listings on associations to al-Quada, then a low standard for specification has been set. gregkaye✍♪13:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 Perhaps a template could be developed to request users with incoherent grammar etc. to ask them to refer to English advisers before editing. Bad quality edits, I think, are a form of vandalism. This encyclopaedia is meant to be comparable to Britannica. gregkaye✍♪13:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In some ways it is a repeat of the Israel designation problem, not that the UN are evading anything this time. WP is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, there are no rules about having to have a good grasp of the language. You would not believe what I came across in this article when I first started copy-editing it or what I have weeded out since. I refused to touch the clumsy edit about the coalition Yazidi relief operation as the editor is so touchy, but someone has attempted to rescue it since. I would put WP at the bottom of the list of encyclopaedias comparable to the Britannica. It is an insult to it to compare it with WP, IMO! ~ P-123 (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You will see my reordering of paras in the Lead and reasons for it on the Talk page. I don't think there was consensus on the positioning, though I know and I cannot remember if there was on the ordering inside the "criticism" para. This is an FYI just in case you think I have gone over your head here. WP:BRD seems the best way to make changes now that there are so few editors to discuss things with first. ~ P-123 (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 This has happened just after I have used a revert. I really can't see the logic of that. If you were looking for a deliberate way to wind me up you have found it. I will have to forget about guarding the document so that I can guard against you. They are not primarily a terrorist organisation. They are a group that conducts ethnic cleansing. They are amongst the most criticised group that there has ever been. Do you think Britannica would have separated the two contents in the lead? I do not see that anything has changed since you made this edit with the fair justification "best to keep terrorist designation and criticisms together, not split between top and bottom". gregkaye✍♪15:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit below placed out of chronological sequence]
P-123 In case you are trying to locate this comment via the ping it is added to the third paragraph of "lead" the last section of my archive, recently restored. I am also making reply now, despite having been quite busy, in context of your, "You [with PBS] must be in email contact". I am again trying to make an effort to present my side of things.
I could easily do this in a more public place such as on the talk page of PBS but, as always and when I do not feel I am being pushed into corners, I am trying to edit in a way that gives minimal embarrassment to other users while still trying to maintain the standards of Wikipedia guidelines.
I know that I made my "guard against you" comment above but, please understand, this was in the context both that I was running around after your "What happened to all the maps" question and that you had yourself initiated the consensus on the placement of the additional criticisms content in the lead. On this point you had even contacted me with here with notification that, my addition of support to the motion would mean that "the consensus is clearly against Felino". I felt stunned by the dramatic and, as it turns out, rapid reversal.
Then I responded directly to you in regard to your here in which you said, "Cannot justify this view, just seems common sense to me" and you also made insinuation weaselling. This is no way to pushing a Wikipedia stance which would allow editors to, amongst other things, place rebel groups such as 'SIL on Wikipedia's list of sovereign states. The guideline infringements that I quoted to you on this were WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:INDCRIT. There have been other instances on debate where you have raised objection in article content in what has seemed to me to be a 'SIL sympathetic way which I do not think had a basis in policy and which failed. Another editor has commented that editors can lose patience.
In reaction to your content on the recognised as a State issue I responded by adding to a more subtly worded thread with an addition that was later edited here. I made a statement which was redacted as, "I do not doubt that you will not be happy with what I say here but (add: in my view) you continue to argue dirty (add: unfairly)." This was in response to your statement "Any lawyer can weasel out of it, but these are all hard facts, and they have to be dealt with as such in this article. These facts should not be twisted or denied with sophistries" where you alluded, perhaps, to lawyerism, weaselling and the use of sophistry. This was done on the article talk page and in the context of clear, logical and supported arguments against your views.
Through all this long before I have requested, to an extent that has now got to begging and pleading, Please don't make unsubstantiated accusations. Regardless of this, and of your "Of course" assurance amongst other indications that this would change, you added this edit on PBS's talk page and this edit on my talk page below. I may very well respond to your edit on PBS's talk page. Meanwhile please either edit in substantiation for your accusations and seeming attempts at mind reading or please edit them out.
I also want to present why I felt "provoked" with regard to my above mentioned comments. I still feel provoked.
In our long history I have done things like pro-actively acted to protect a confidence that you shared, I presume, to other editors and which I became privy to. Despite being nothing that many people might think to be a big deal it clearly was to you and I made several interventionist edits solely for the purpose of protecting this confidence. You have further talked of me collapsing my thread contents on my talk page and have talked of ".. eyes" in the "goldfish bowl" of Wikipedia. I have also archived contents, not for any need of my own, and received your thanks. I also initiated with you to with view to archive any of this content as an olive branch and gift. Despite your regular habit of blanking you page, you responded by again refactoring your response to your half barnstar award and collapsing the response content. To your credit you admitted to me that you felt a fraud to have received this barnstar as you did not walk away. You censor comment that was clearly a response to comment that you had made. So as to merely leave the impression left by Lor that I was solely in the wrong.
I also request that you take your time with edits on my talk page. It is a user talk page which most commonly involves a conversation between two editors. There is no need to rush into edits then have second thoughts and then retract. If you have any uncertainty regarding an edit, please leave it to the side while you think about it, and send it when you are sure. If I am online when you are editing there is a potential for me to formulate a reply to then find that there is nothing to reply to because it has been removed.
Please also do not edit within my edits especially within the article talk page context. I have asked you this before.
Pinging @Lor: re the above. Please either leave comment or click thank for this edit so that I know that you have seen it. This will save me the need of placing a link on your talk page with connection to this content. Again my aim, as can be verified through a view of talk page histories, has been the minimisation of public embarrassment to fellow editors. Obviously this does not seem to have fully worked and has backfired on me in the current situation. GregKaye✍♪06:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This edit was done with no thought of what effect it would have on the sensibilities of editors. My main concern is for the article, not editors. I had not seen the effect of the edit I agreed to earlier until yesterday. It gives a very bad impression to start this article with a barrage of criticism. That is profound anti-ISIL POV. I hope you realise "I will have to forget about guarding the document so that I can guard against you" is a WP:PA, and if it were not for you making it, I would do something about it. It is editors like you and Legacypac who does a fine line in the put-down who are driving me away from this page. I consider you and Legacypac to be exerting ownership of this page and am tired of defending it against you. No other editor stands up to you both any more. You both chase away opposition by taking "offenders", i.e. editors who cross you or disagree with you, to some form of arbitration or reporting them to "other parent". It has become very noticeable. This is no way to edit a page. I have tried to be civil with you since the last dispute, but this time will not forgive you. I was considering reverting, but in view of your WP:PA will not and will ping all editors involved in those discussions. I think we had better restrict communication to the main Talk page from now on. I shall not be returning here. P-123 ~ P-123 (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 The lesser issue of terrorist activities has been left at the top of the page. The main criticism of the group is of its merciless killing of people. Terrorist is a Buzzword and, even if attractive to editors, its disproportionate use is unencyclopaedic and pushed according to POV. As I have previously stated I also think that this is dangerous. With regard to arbitration I have once done this long after having made appeals on the user talk page. You noted that comments were full of PA. To be honest I did not even notice the thread on the lead. I had been spending my efforts on chasing down information on the map images as requested and tidying up and relegating the section on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Criticism of claim as "Islamic State" and "caliphate" which was largely done because I knew that it was a topic that was important to you. gregkaye✍♪16:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 I also spoke before even realising that a thread on the subject had even been raised on the subject so apologise for that. I see your reasoning but consider that your POV priorities are wrong regarding the importance of the issues both related to each other and in relation to other contents. Do you think Britannica would have separated the two contents in the lead? gregkaye✍♪16:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac The current wording of what is fine? This thread relates to the movement of content without textual change. Feel free to delete this and move your comment if appropriate. gregkaye✍♪17:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 You stated that you "consider the effect of the second para before I changed it to show profound anti-ISIL POV, in that barrage of criticism." could you either add something like ".. from my original edit .." or remove or refactor some of the content. Any pinged editor coming straight to the content may assume that another editor made the original change. I also consider your comment: "gregkaye: Please remember that the consensus was to have the terrorist designation part at the beginning of the Lead and that you have to comply per WP:CONSENSUS. Please do not distract by repeating all the arguments here that you have put before on this" to be unwarranted in all respects. gregkaye✍♪17:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? Your rhetorical repetition of consensus and unjustified comments on repeating content remain. I am also happy for you to delete my comments in reply. Your reactions to me with their sporadic accusations and insinuations varies depending on circumstances not in my control. I have always attempted to limit these kind of issues to User talk discussion. If there are issues then perhaps you can present them here. gregkaye✍♪18:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was an edit conflict and I did not see your subsequent angry remark. I said on the Talk page that the edit I made was to an edit agreed on by editors as far as I remember, which last bit I have just added to satisfy you. I said on the TP there was consensus (1) to move the terrorist designation part to the top of the Lead and (2) on your "judging" wording. I cannot remember whether the ordering of that paragraph was agreed by consensus and said so. I knew there was no consensus to move the criticisms part back to the bottom again, which I did per BRD, and invited editors to comment. I cannot see what is rhetorical about that. Why can you not leave it at that? You are seeing into this more than is there. "Sporadic accusations and insinuations" I object to, as I was trying to show restraint on personal matters on the Talk page. Perhaps you would have preferred me to be frank, which I will be now as that it what you seem to want, and it is this: whenever an editor opposes you on a disputed point that has been much discussed, you tend to repeat at great length only in different words the arguments you have put forward before, and when anyone disagrees again with it, you press the point to destruction. I honestly believe it has been driving editors away. You probably got more than you bargained for there, but I think it is safest for me to be totally frank with you now. I am protecting myself here, not trying to help you, because I do not like the accusations you have been mounting against me recently, which I think are unjustified and quite insulting. I do not want to get involved in yet another of your squabbles with editors so would like to withdraw now. I find this a very good example of the sort of childishness than I mentioned to PBS the other day that I seem to see everywhere I turn in WP now. As I say, I think it is best if we confine exchanges to the main Talk page from now on, although I have something to say about the UN and EU terrorist designation as I have looked carefully at Legacypac's links again and at the wiki article on the crucial UNSC resolution 1267. ~ P-123 (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 Please note that I have not edited against consensus since the AN/I. As you also know, WP:CONSENSUS is about achieving Wikipedia's goal of being an encyclopaedia. As mentioned I do not think that a description of this group in isolation as terrorist is encyclopaedic. As indicated, I think it was gratuitous to say, ".. and that you have to comply per WP:CONSENSUS. Please do not distract by repeating all the arguments here that you have put before on this". In regard to early conduct you have clearly said that you consider it fine for content issues to be raised on article talk pages and you have said that you think it is fine to respond to misrepresentations. This is exactly what I have done. Again if you want to mention accusations you have to be specific. Not being so is not fair/ Anything that I said, and I am happy for you to check, was in response to your content. On the other hand, the way that we have treated each other on the article talk page has been, as the phrase goes, chalk and cheese. In previous contents I justified what I said. You toss in words like squabbles while pointing to no specific content with the clear insinuation that all perceived fault was mine. This again is not fair but yes, unfortunately this is exactly what I have bargained for. Before replying to your last message I had decided that I would just present my case on the talk page and, unless an incorrect content or a misrepresentation of my content is presented, be done with it. Where have I otherwise acted differently? gregkaye✍♪21:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus=never edited against but disputed later. Squabbles=you=Felino=Technophant=each as bad as the other. My impression=much repetition of same arguments (views) on Talk page and most "misrepresentations" too trivial to pursue. Agreeing/disagreeing=normal between two who have fundamentally different views but are not enemies, normal cut-and-thrust, concessions possible. Conclusion/advice (cynical)=don't take everything to heart so much, most people are not worth it, just say bugger to them and ignore it. ~ P-123 (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 In response to my "could you either add something like ".. from my original edit .." or remove or refactor some of the content", how does this constitute done. Nothing was done "to further clarify". Re your public remark: "this is getting ludicrous". It certainly is. gregkaye✍♪00:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have written what I believed: it is "as far as I remember". What else do suggest? A blow-by-blow account of how that paragraph came to be written, who agreed with what? Do you think editors cannot read it for themselves? Do they need signposts to those discussions? Do you think they really care? If you wanted something more specific than my addition, you should have given clearer instructions. Are you trying to save face or something? Do you think editors will think the worse of you for my remark? They know I can be brusque and probably think "Oh, it's P-123 going off on one again". I cannot understand why you get so obsessed on these points. Is this a manifestation of your preoccupation with misrepresentation? Can no-one ever make a slightly critical remark on the Talk page without you making a big issue of it? You seem constantly to want redress for perceived slurs. Most people take this sort of thing in their stride on unimportant matters and probably ignore it when it happens to others. This is Wikipedia editing, not warfare between ISIL and Muslims or between Jews and Arabs. Come ON! And if you cannot see that this is a slightly bizarre cross between teasing and remonstrating, you don't know me. ~ P-123 (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 One "blow" would have done it, as was indicated in my earlier edit. My comment was:
You stated that you "consider the effect of the second para before I changed it to show profound anti-ISIL POV, in that barrage of criticism." could you either add something like ".. from my original edit .." or remove or refactor some of the content.
A direct result of this would have either been, "consider the effect, from my original edit, of the second para before I changed it to show profound anti-ISIL POV, in that barrage of criticism" or "consider the effect of the second para, from my original edit, before I changed it to show profound anti-ISIL POV, in that barrage of criticism."
I had stated: "Any pinged editor coming straight to the content may assume that another editor made the original change."
As I have previously requested, take responsibility for your words. You take the credit for the removal of "profound anti-ISIL POV" but you do not take same sentence responsibility for adding the "profound anti-ISIL POV". In the absence of you taking responsibility here for "profound POV", as said, a pinged editor may think that this POV was "pushed" by someone else.
Your editing content is up to you. You also rhetorically implied a lack of compliance to consensus and also implied actions based on distraction. I have never treated you like this.
You also make mention, in text above, of "accusations you have been mounting against me recently". Issues mentioned came in context. You have also previously made it clear that you don't like contents related to inter editor wrangling to be on display for passing readers to see. In response, I decided to place the related content in archive but despite this you seem insistent on dredging up the past. I am trying my best to do the right thing and honestly don't know what to do. gregkaye✍♪02:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean now. First I moved up the terrorist designation part, editors agreed, then I moved up the criticism, editors discussed it all at length, altered parts of it, but agreed both parts should remain at the top. By that stage I honestly didn't regard it as "my" edit any more, but a joint decision, although I can see how it could be seen that way. I was shocked at what I/we had done, then changed it back, per BRD. Don't use kid gloves on me on the Talk page, btw. By lack of compliance I meant challenging consensus, as I explained, which you tend to do, but wasn't suggesting you would go against it, not since the AN/I, and don't think you would. I wasn't aware that you had moved the ISIS TP wrangling to archive. Did you? The memory of that wrangling is still very strong which is why I brought it up. I wasn't referring to users' Talk pages. You must do the right thing by your own lights and not concern yourself with what I or anyone else thinks. It does not matter what we think; no-one is going to take you to "court" again over what you do. I don't for one minute think you will infringe any "rule" but your disputaciousness can be a problem on the Talk page, IMHO. It is late now, but I will try tomorrow to think of a way to amend that wording. ~ P-123 (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have further redacted the comment, but I had already opened the thread by saying, "I first moved the designations as terrorist organisation part of the Lead to the top and the consensus was to keep it there. I think I made a mistake in moving the criticisms part of the Lead from the bottom to the top to join it. The first thing that hits when reading the Lead now is that second para of heavy criticism." Is that not a clear admission of "guilt"? I have added a "because" to make it even clearer. This is just one of many instances where you have tried to make editors retract or modify their comments and this is very bad practice indeed, IMO. You are lucky that I complied, and I am not surprised other editors have not. I have never known an editor try to do this before. You see it as "fairness", but to me it is thought-police behaviour. Please can you drop this now? ~ P-123 (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly seven screens of text generated because you didn't like one editor's comments is utter madness. You would think you had been libelled. What makes it worse is that I don't think editors will have even noticed. ~ P-123 (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
seven screens of text generated without meaningful response is utter madness.
As far as thought police are concerned, I can respond as I want and so can you. Please actually consider content.
A piece of advice that you have often given me of late is to try to resolve disputes on User talk pages and not let disputes spill over onto article talk pages. I have put a huge amount of effort into this but with little and perhaps no response from anyone but you and Worldedixor - and then Worldedixor disconnected after more issues were raised. I have certainly never had an "I see what you mean now" response from anyone else. WP can indeed be a battleground. In Positioning of "Terrorist designation" infobox Felino123 and Azx2 both delivered unjustified attacks on me in regard to consensus to which I am grateful that you said, "Would editors please be careful when they use the word "consensus"? Gregkaye is right, there was no consensus at this point." You have also forcefully argued some specific arguments regarding censorship activities on the page. Then in Talk:ISIL#Lead you said, "gregkaye: Please remember that the consensus was to have the terrorist designation part at the beginning of the Lead and that you have to comply per WP:CONSENSUS. Please do not distract by repeating all the arguments here that you have put before on this." Please see: Freedom of speech. There have been attempts on the ISIL talk page to shut down talk page discussion before as in this instance which followed I think 2 instances in which I had gone against talk page Vote:consensus on the jihadist issue. Despite the context of a thread whose whole premiss was based on a stilted untruth I replied politely here. As was always the case with Technophant, my calmly presented question "On what grounds do you say that editors should "refrain from discussion here"? remained unanswered. I have neither been able to gain meaningful dialogue with certain editors at any talk page location and this has not been for lack of trying. I similarly don't appreciate your discussion shut down and pre-judgemental comment: "Please do not distract by repeating all the arguments here that you have put before on this." Its a new thread. Do you expect something such as a new reader to read back through all previously related threads before responding? You do not own the page. You do not own my responses.
In regard to your accusation of my "disputaciousness" you have previously stated that it is perfectly acceptable to defend against misrepresentations. See: squabble. I am quite in my rights to dispute what I consider to be unfairly presented arguments. If you disagree with this then dispute resolution is also available. Please, let's resolve things. I have made concerted efforts with you to achieve resolution with you as per User_talk:Gregkaye#My admission of wrong, my first thread since my mass archive, and in it I made a concerted personally initiated effort to clarify the lines. That thread is still open. I suggest that if you have further accusations of "disputaciousness" that this would be a suitable contextualised place to raise them. I echo some of Legacypac's comments. There are more important issues to deal with. If you have a disagreement then mention it. I will maintain my right to respond. There are no thought police. As per my reply to you here, "people can think what they like. the only issue is what they do".
The issue presented in Talk:ISIL#Lead presents a purported problem of a previous condition of "the second para before I changed it to show profound anti-ISIL POV, in that barrage of criticism" but you never once make direct comment that you were editor that instituted this seemingly heinous crime. Take another look at the lead in the state it was in before your edit. (Para 1: 4.5 lines of text al-be-it with bold type; para 2: 5 lines of text; paras 3-4: 12-13 lines on group history; para 5: 8 lines on the groups goals, ideologies and claims; para 6; 1+ lines mentioning propaganda and beheading, added by an unknown editor and the inclusion of which you disputed). Criticism is a big part the worldwide real world situation regarding this group. A change in section title from "Criticism" to "Torrent of criticism" would not be unwarranted. It has been unrelenting.
The second paragraph has now been changed from a content describing real issues to content that will likely be interpreted as international name calling and fairly so. Wikipedia, by "consensus" has not even got its names right. My clarification of the UN's response has already been hacked. Another thing at the back of my mind is that I think the workers at the al-Hayat Media Center may be quite happy about this resultant situation. gregkaye✍♪10:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 I will happily drop anything whenever I am enabled to do so. Please, if at any time you want to make accusations in the future, be specific and state the content concerned. If I then think I am wrong I will happily retract, apologise or whatever. You are quite entitles to think what you like and, in regard to any of your accusations, I will be quite happy to agree to disagree. In any case where an unjustified accusation of wrong is maintained regarding some unsubstantiated catalogue of offence or some such, I will respond.
In turn, if I make an accusation regarding a content that I think is unfair. An editor can either reply to say why s/he thinks the content is fair, give some other reply or not respond. There is no restriction. If you have a problem with this then please go to dispute resolution. Please see: the term "Rebel group controlling territory" is fake term made up in order to replace the term "unrecognized state". Compared to the responses of others I am extremely moderate. Why not tackle others as well. I also would like a collegiate atmosphere to further develop on Wikipedia. I think that part of this is the straightforward representation of situations. The consensus that you referred to related to the expressed views of four editors and was finalised in the context of your edit made on the view that it would be "best to keep terrorist designation and criticisms together, not split between top and bottom". All points were later made in that context. You understand the parameters of consensus and understand that this case is not beyond fairly presented dispute. I still do not understand your approach here or your framing of the discussion - but I have said all this already. gregkaye✍♪11:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute resolution? Nothing was further from my mind. I am really not bothered by this. I cannot understand it all, no other editor is like this. I think it is best to leave you alone not only on your Talk page but on the main Talk page as well. That way there will be no endless repercussions. ~ P-123 (talk) 11:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 Similarly I don't experience "this" with any other editor. As mentioned, repeatedly mentioned when we have been in exactly this situation before. You are welcome to post where you like and I am entitled to respond as I like. I am entitled to respond to any responses I am given. Please do not complain about responses without taking issue with a specified content. A continuation of any dispute between us is equally your responsibility. gregkaye✍♪12:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 Can you please keep your WP:CRYSTALBALL to yourself. Again, you are entitled walk where you like and continue with what you like. You have stated that you think it is best to leave me alone on my talk page. Its your choice. gregkaye✍♪12:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 Please note your views on consensus as presented here. It would be appreciated if you tried to understand why I find your recent actions on the talk:ISIL so baffling. gregkaye✍♪13:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123Thank you I have never had objection to what @Mohammed al-Bukhari: said but with the deceitful way in which the information was presented and his refusal to communicate. My view is that while someone is responding to reason then dialogue may work. Sadly this turned out not to be the case. Comment added here.gregkaye✍♪15:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am touched by your generosity, Greg, in view of the latest trouble. I accept that AGF gesture as I don't think sarcasm is in your nature. I wish I could redact much of what I said yesterday. You were very patient. ~ P-123 (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 You honestly don't realise how much that means to me, eyes half full with tears. Please believe me that I try my best to a significant extent to resolve issues with editors on talk pages before adding content to article pages. I also hope for your forgiveness for my occasional over reactions to issues in the past. Sometimes I can grab the wrong stick. I don't pretend to be undamaged in life and, while not claiming to be socially functional in all ways, shouldn't make excuses either. Signedzzz interpreted my actions a being patronising and often fail to make a good impression. I often look at my edits and know that there is something wrong but don't know how to get things right. Editing on my page will likely remain hazardous, I cannot lie, but, believe me, you mean a lot to me. I have also taken the liberty of amending your message above - in hope. GregKaye✍♪19:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I think we are both the same, can over-react and get hold of the wrong end of the stick sometimes, and I do admit to having a short fuse. You never struck me as patronising on the TP and your editing always looks fine to me, apart from the occasional clumsy wording in the text, but I can be guilty of that as well sometimes. You and a couple of other editors have the best manners on the TP, IMO. Felt quite forlorn yesterday after "cutting you off". New start? ~ P-123 (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Atifabbasi8 Your disruption is noted by a number of editors and action may be taken at any time. Whatever ideology you hold I hope that it includes something regarding respect for establishment. Please respond. 02:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't see the highlighting. If it shows as dark blue as it sometimes does on my screen, it is almost indistinguishable from ordinary text so I miss seeing the links. He has broken the 1RR once, so it is mostly editing against consensus. I see you have already mentioned him at AN/I where Legacypac talks about his creation of articles. I think edit-warring is the best grounds. ~ P-123 (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JorisvS I have very happily struck my oppose. I just wanted to ask you about the option mentioned. Neptune is 80 ± 3.2% hydrogen (H2) and 19 ± 3.2% helium (He). They are gas giants and giant planets. If it were my effort going into it, which it isn't, I would use the base name Gas giant. The other thing I would do it try to merge Ice giant to the Giant planet article but this is your baby. Enjoy. GregKaye✍♪14:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The composition in the infobox is of its atmosphere. Uranus and Neptune have significant hydrogen–helium atmospheres, but their bulk composition is ices. That's where the difference with the gas giants lies: the gas giants' a bulk is composed of hydrogen and helium. --JorisvS (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JorisvSThank you you make me think. The atmosphere is ~99% hydrogen and helium. I don't know of estimates to say how big the core is but the atmosphere would be super dense further in as very soupy gas. I also admit to the fact that I may not have a right view on this. See: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/233047/giant-planet They don't have either of the other two articles. I really appreciate your passion. Many other info providers talk of ice giants and I don't think there is a right choice whether to develop all the articles or not. I only think that, if an Ice giant article remains then there would be a need for a gas giant article as well. GregKaye✍♪15:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Always a pleasure. Wikipedia tends to incorporate new information and new insights more quickly than a traditional encyclopedia like Britannica, because of its very design. The Neptune article says that Neptune's (hydrogen–helium) atmosphere is estimated to be 5–10% of its mass (some 0.8–1.7 ME) , whereas its icy mantle is estimated to be 10–15 ME, and its metal–silicate core at 1.2 ME. This shows what it means to be an ice giant. --JorisvS (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JorisvS quite so but its an Ice giant composed of I guess 70-80+% gas. I suspect that giant planets throughout the universe are generally more gassy than icy. This will especially be the case of near orbits of exo planets within which water would boil. GregKaye✍♪16:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The phase of most the matter by far is a supercritical fluid at the high temperatures and pressures involved. "Ice" in astronomy means the volatiles such as water, methane, ammonia, etc., regardless of the phase it is in. "Gas" means only hydrogen and helium, again regardless of the phase it is in. --JorisvS (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw Mhhossein's remarks in the "Lead" thread on the main Talk page and then yours on their Talk page just now. When you say there "I was presented by the same editor... ", you mean Felino, don't you? If so, can you word it so that it does not look like me, please? I think you must be referring to the edit-warring by Felino there, but I can't remember the details that far back! It really is a small point and don't want to make an issue of it. :) ~ P-123 (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
.[reply]
Mhhossein I am a by very nature a questioner with a joke long running between myself and P-123 that I would argue against "the cat sat on the mat". These days I am agnostic. i find it hard to discount the vastly improbable marvels of natural science without some kind of guiding intelligence. I have a hunch that paradox may have been somehow in the generation of existence and that an intelligence within existence may somehow have been able to generate a beginning of existence. That's paradox. Maybe that is God. Maybe its us within some super developed format. Maybe its the beings that we (or another form of life) genetically or technologically create in the future. (maybe this gives an idea of the things I think about. However I find it hard to believe in a God/god that is both loving and powerful and who has a special place for humanity in her or his heart.
I used to be a part of a highly committed christian group, wanted to find answers, studied Hebrew, went to synagogue, wrote on Genesis, went to Israel (five years total) and India, with Israelis, (one year). My interpretation of Genesis insisted on the idea that God had interventionist power following creation and, I looked around, and (while acknowledging that injustice is just a factor in a wonderful world of sunsets and the like) decided that traditional views on God were not the answer I was looking for.
This has all been a big part of what I am. I have great interest and respect for doctrines and feel very strongly regarding their misrepresentation. On the talk page I tend to talk about 'SIL, Daesh or similar and, in one small side of things, feel that their lack of representation of Islam should be highlighted.
To be frank, as a non-native speaker of English, I should read it 2 times or more to get exactly what you mean! However I know you better now. Thanks for your response. Btw, I'm a metallurgist! Mhhossein (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhossein I have a friend that does electro plating. Your English seems excellent. A problem may also be that I don't always write so well. More info on me is on my User page. The initial content is just playful stuff. I've also just looked at your User page too and had previously just read a discussion on your TP. Do you do much in the Fa Wikipedia? GregKaye✍♪06:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did my final thesis for taking MSc degree in the electroplating field. In fact, I manufactured a nano-composite coating. That's interesting to hear my English is good! I don't contribute in Fa regularly and like it here much more! Mhhossein (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Forgive me while I make a totally unsolicited interjection. You're both clearly smart people and you've both, in concert, made tremendously productive changes to the Islamic State (excuse me, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) article. As a matter of fact, your symbiotic collaboration was rather frustrating to my own desires on that page. A cursory review of your interactions didn't reveal anything to me that would suggest the need for an IBAN. In fact, you two seem to have mutually supported a lot of quality work despite some inevitable stress associated with the type of work you two do. The things you have done together far outweight your disagreemetns and so I'd urge you to just let it go. Maybe take a break. Just don't let the stress of all of it get the better of you both. Cheers guys. GraniteSand (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GraniteSandThank you for your thoughtful response. I will add that the two of us have engaged in a lot of dialogue and that everything needs to be considered in context. Thank you also to the reference to a great deal of collaborative work but any editor can apply for what they like. I have presented content on a User talk page in regard to Article talk page activity and this was done for the editors personal consideration. My hope is that this matter is now closed. My preference is for User page dialogue in cases where this may be proven to work. In the mean time I am considering archiving this thread. (add: In the mean time I am considering archiving this thread on the basis that this may be the diplomatic thing to do). GregKaye✍♪08:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not refactor my Talk page, it is gross interference. I needed two versions of that message, one annotated and one not. I may bring this up. ~ P-123 (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 It would have been a kindness if you had noted that my refactoring of your talk page did not extended beyond your refactoring of my edit. Again I ask, if you are to present accusation (in this case through an implication of wrongdoing), please present diffs. As you know, the context was of edits, here,here,here,here and here. My refactoring was enacted here after which you deleted the thread here.GregKaye✍♪09:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 You did not provide, "two versions of that message, one annotated and one not." You did not go beyond a refactoring of my edit. In such a situation I would have no objection to you adding any relevant comments in sequence or at any appropriate point but please leave other editors contents in the form that the editor has presented. If you want to raise issue, then do so. GregKaye✍♪09:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you know I have been very concerned about your conduct on the Talk page with regard to some of the editing in the article for a very long time. The conflict between this and our otherwise good working relationship until recently has always put an enormous strain on me which you may not be aware of. I am afraid your latest aggression was the last straw and from now on I will be putting the article first. This is to inform you that I have added my concern to Anastaisis' here. I am sorry it has come to this. ~ P-123 (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns relate to what I interpret to be dramatic changes of approach that I consider you to have taken at various times. Just a short time ago you made this edit stating:
"==Thanks==
I am touched by your generosity, Greg, in view of the latest trouble. I accept that AGF gesture as I don't think sarcasm is in your nature. I wish I could redact much of what I said yesterday. You were very patient. ~ P-123 (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)"[reply]
Towards the end of a greatly protracted Wikipedia saga recently archived (with your thanks received for the archival) I ended by saying, "It would be appreciated if you tried to understand why I find your recent actions on the talk:ISIL so baffling". You responded, shortly after the edit above, with the gratefully received reply, "I think I do now".
When I am in the wrong, as you know, I admit it. Since your placement of the thread above you withdrew this content.
Please be aware that you may not be the only editor to reach a "last straw" type situation.
In regard to the above thread you deleted the "Sovereign state" thread from your talk page which had its last appearance here, yet, I think it was to your credit that you refactored your related Article talk page contributions here. Sincerely, thank-you for those changes made.
I have made attempts to tackle issues privately where possible. The issues raised with regard to your recent edits were: WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:INDCRIT. I asked a question above, "On what point do you disagree?" Beyond your redaction of talk page content no answer was given. GregKaye✍♪15:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The content placed here has been transferred to Legacypac's talk page as irrelevant to this discussion. P-123 you have posted here about your uncited concerns about my "conduct on the Talk page with regard to some of the editing in the article for a very long time." One thing at a time. If you want to discuss issues that concern me I will be happy to hear. You were recently threatening an interaction ban. GregKaye✍♪22:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Breathtaking disingenuity! You have known for a very long time exactly why I have found your conduct with regard to some editing questionable. I have never made any secret of it, either to you here or on the Talk page, and you know it. I have no more time or patience for your interminable analyses of every word I say, it is beyond a joke now! I hope the eavesdroppers are enjoying this, I certainly am. Twisting the tail can be fun!P-123 (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Worldedixor repeatedly described you as "vindictive". I defended you. You also have failed to justify your accusations yet you continue to WP:hound. I am the same person to whom you recently gave a barnstar of integrity. It's really up to you how deep a hole you dig for yourself. GregKaye✍♪23:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lor, just to clarify, a context for my view of the above comment as being vindictive is found here as one pertinent occasion in which P-123 displayed sensitivity regarding the way on lookers might view discussion content with the statement, "Don't like to think of passing editors eavesdropping on our conversations."
I have since initiated archival of contents on this page while also indicating the possibility of similar archival on P-123's page, something that used to be a very regular habit. P-123 reacted by again selectively editing his/her response to the half barnstar award and collapsing my response.
I have also raised issue with P-123's comment on his/her talk page at 22:21, 12 December 2014 regarding accusation of anti-ISIL prejudice in which it was also said, "you must speak up. It doesn't matter if you have not followed all the discussion, your opinion will be as valuable as any other editor's." I have previously objected to this as in opposition to the fostering of the "collegiate" atmosphere (as presented in uncited accusations) that P-123 otherwise presents as being a goal. POV issues have recently been addressed in the P-123 initiated thread Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Pro-ISIL and anti-ISIL which I think is very telling.
Lor, my thought is to place this content within your hat below when seen. If you think that this may be positive perhaps you could hit thank. GregKaye✍♪07:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have never felt vindictive towards Worldedixor and you know it. He meant both Technophant and I, but I certainly never felt that way. I was exasperated. You really are losing your head now. There is one way to stop this, which I have requested: stop posting comments. P-123 (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 Your comment was, "Twisting the tail can be fun!" Your words judge you. Please see WP:CRYSTAL. Please see WP:Personal Attack. Please don't tell me what I know or don't know. Please cut your derogatory comment. Please have respect for my talk page. What request?.. and, in any case, you certainly don't WP:OWN content here. You just continue to WP:hound with no basis of content GregKaye✍♪00:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've had enough
Since your recent WP:PAs and persistent WP:HOUND pursuit of points though asked to stop, I decided this time to respond in kind, no holds barred. Mirror activity. P-123 (talk)
Anyone has the right to walk away from a discussion, and move on. Your discussion with P-123 was civil yes, but when they wanted to walk away, you clearly did not let them. If they want to discuss it, discuss it! But if they just want to stop discussing it, and move on to other topics, then let them! Happy editing, just keep this point in mind. LorChat02:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
I have never felt vindictive towards Worldedixor and you know it. He meant both Technophant and I, but I certainly never felt that way. I was exasperated. You really are losing your head now. There is one way to stop this, which I have requested: stop posting comments
As this clearly shows, they had been requesting for the discussion to stop. Look, when the discussion stops, the discussion stops. Unless it's an urgent matter which needs to be dealt with quickly, i see no reason why they did not have the right to stop that discussion, walk away, and move on. LorChat02:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Lor I have been accused of concerning "conduct on the Talk page with regard to some of the editing in the article for a very long time", "Breathtaking disingenuity", "conduct with regard to some editing questionable" and "analyses of every word I say". Then when the comment "I hope the eavesdroppers are enjoying this, I certainly am. Twisting the tail can be fun!" the excuse is "I was provoked". None of this at any point is given any substantiation. How is it right that an editor can come to a talk page without substantiation present insults and then demand silence as a condition that they walk away? GregKaye✍♪02:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of only being human. In my honest opinion, it wasn't their fault. Everyone has breaking points where they can't keep their 'cool' of sorts. They have now refactored it, taken it back, and said sorry basically. LorChat02:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lor, I personally think its a matter of not making accusation without substantiation. This has been a very long running issue and honestly I have tried my best. I invite you to read as much of the ISIL and other talk pages as you want. The core justification I am convinced is unfounded. Nothing is pointed to. It just goes on and on and I feel helpless. I ask for qualification and nothing ever comes. GregKaye✍♪02:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you don't have to work in the article in question by any means. But due to the very debatable nature of it I would not necessarily suggest it LorChat02:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please Lor is it possible for the accusations to stop? I have asked repeatedly for this to happen directly. I have asked if there are issues or instances that can be discussed.
Throughout the discussion I have felt extremely pushed. I was not "enjoying this". The reason I did not stop the discussion was that the issue was not resolved. GregKaye✍♪03:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. I have thought about what you said about me being vindictive, as I was quite shocked by it. If I am completely honest, I have to admit to it, in the last few days. (I still insist I never felt this way about WE.) I wanted to hit back after being as I saw it accused injustly of some things, but I went too far and apologise. I also felt harried by the questioning of my every word, so I harried in return. You do not see that you harry sometimes, you see it as wanting answers to questions. I have always genuinely found it puzzling why you need to ask the questions, as the answers to me are nearly always blatantly obvious and cannot understand why you cannot see them. I now think your questions are not disingenuous and that you really cannot see it. Your constant questioning of everything is in your nature and mostly that is a good thing, but it can be trying sometimes. Yesterday I completely lost it as I felt goaded too far by the perpetual questions and the remonstrations. I hope we understand each other better now. Please be reassured that I bear no grudges and harbour no ill feelings over this. P-123 (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question about "pro-ISIL" on the Talk page. Hope you can answer it. It may help you, because I suspect some editors may be accusing you falsely of being anti-ISIL. I began to see this after we spoke about it the other day. ~ P-123 (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 Re: yes of course. I have got to say this because I have been stewing on it all day. Why did this take so fucking long? I really think It would be good for you to ask yourself this. Again and again I have asked this one thing. I have initiated whole threads with you to try to achieve resolution. You have left me frustrated with claims of past wrongs, POV and anti-ISIL leanings, but its the wrongs where you seemed most to want, as I see it, to keep me on a hook. It is also this that I see as a parallel to a vindictive side of personality. Of course you have other sides as well but out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.
On anti-ISIL I will be adding pretty scathing comment on the use of the prejudice and discrimination referenced Wikipedia neologism. I am about to have dinner (sausages) but, as always, will let you know in advance of content. I do not enjoy the humiliation of others and will delete related content to anti-ISIL content on my talk page. GregKaye✍♪18:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Am adding this in, Greg, before I read your next: Re "anti-ISIL", I had already made up my mind that if any editor starting attacking you on this, I would warn them off. You have to believe me on this. I think you can be as scathing as you like, given the remarks you have had on it, (especially me. ) I think people need to realise where you are coming from on POV/NPOV, or "anti-ISIL" should I say, as it is less obvious than first meets the eye. I think I understand it now.
I am sorry to have put you through it, Greg, I really am. I did sense something like that today and felt guilty. I ran amok yesterday, I was reckless. I was out of my mind with frustration. Thinking about it today, it was like two cats fighting and chasing each other down alleyways, pausing now and then, spitting and caterwauling, knocking things over, fur standing on end (on different usertalk pages!) Though at least I think the onlookers realise that basically we get on well. On the questions, I had no idea getting answers was so important to you, though had I had stopped, I would probably have divined it from the way you were asking them. One thing I am clear on, I never intended to keep you on a hook, about anything. I am not like that. I don't like to torture or taunt and hate people who do that. It seems cruel and underhanded to me. It is a pity online communication cuts out all the visual cues that help one to assess the other person. It is a real problem. Also, we had gone through all those things before and I simply couldn't understand why you wanted it repeated. It was only going to be more of the same, nothing new., though you weren't to know that I suppose, and that is the crux of it, isn't it? But that is why I was so irritable about answering questions in detail. I will keep off criticism unless I can justify it to you directly in future. I am pretty tired of the constant battles on the ISIS page and yesterday was a real crisis point. Could go on, but that is perhaps enough. I think we are harmonious on the main Talk page again, aren't we?
Don't know why I got a half-barnstar. Felt a fraud, as I don't think I deserved it, as I didn't walk away – that only came with Lor metaphorically throwing a pan of water on us both to stop the fighting.
I hope you don't think I was being frivolous in those descriptions – was hoping to cheer you up a little. Hope you are in better spirits tomorrow, Greg. ~ P-123 (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 On harried: This is my perspective. I am not litigious. I try to resolve issues with editors in often subtle ways through talk page intervention and you have seen this with efforts with Technophant and Felino. When I get into discussion with you however the discussion goes on and on to, for me, an exhausting extent. Then I make my edit on the article talk page and then you see the point. I can't cope with this. I know it is perhaps a weakness but I have got short on patience in various situations. I didn't want to get into another pointless argument but, through my loss of patience, we still got into pointless arguments.
P-123 Anti-ISIL is basically a term stating discriminatory POV. It indicates prejudice and it invites people to defend. This is your usage on your user page, "Do you mean editors who are anti-ISIL are spoiling the article? In my opinion at the moment the article is not always spoken in a neutral voice, which is against one of Wikipedia's main policies in WP:FIVEPILLARS. Remember you can add your voice to the Talk page discussions on anything and if you do not agree with what is said there you must speak up. It doesn't matter if you have not followed all the discussion..." I take this as an encouragement to confrontation under a discriminatory banner. In the article talk page you have raised a question and yet, even when the spotlight is clearly on you as the major initiator of the phrase, you give no answers. I think it very likely that editors saw the anti-ISIL references repeatedly used and just came up with an opposite. I am really unsure of your motives in starting this thread, for not presenting information but pushing for information from others. Please consider whether the use of the term has a positive effect on the collegiate nature of the talk page.
On another point I wonder whether you would have got to your "of course" in a context in which I had not developed the perspective of situations as mentioned or if admins were not involved. GregKaye✍♪20:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I can see I have lost your trust and truly you have got me wrong on some things. When I invited the new editor to go to the Talk page, I honestly wasn't sure who she was referring to, she seemed to include several editors. It was an innocent invitation to a new editor to contribute on the Talk page. It began with a strange edit she made which I queried and it went on from there. That is was "an encouragement to confrontation under a discriminatory banner" to me seems paranoid, but if you weren't sure of my motives I can see why you might be. You must stop being suspicious of me. I have never had this from anyone else (except WE) and I wonder again if it is something to do with the absence of normal cues because we are online. I have never been called some of the things you have called me, and have been offended, but I think we have to make allowance for it because of the online problem. Good tip re me: I can be very easy-going and tolerant for a long time and then suddenly, bang, I will snap and turn on the goader and gore them (apparently typical of Pigs, Chinese astrology, if you believe any of that). It doesn't happen very often, but, boy, when it does it can be startling. Am not proud of it. Do you know what are you, btw?
On harried: we do get into pointless arguments and I find it is as exhausting as you do. Let us stop it, now. Loss of patience I think is right, we both lose patience, and then, trouble. Quite often I don't see quite what you are driving at, so I think things can go wrong there sometimes as well. I think I make the mistake of not asking you to explain when I don't understand quite what you mean.
On "anti-ISIL", you will see what I wrote before I read your latest comment. I opened that thread to clear the air, as I could see "pro-ISIL" creeping in (probably as you say because I started it with "anti-ISIL") and that things might start polarizing among editors, which would be counterproductive and dangerous. Again, you probably won't believe me, but I did not have that new editor in mind at all when opening the thread. I think I thought, this could turn into something nasty, let's define terms to stop that. It was not an invitation to anything more than that, there was no "agenda". Perhaps it was a mistake Again, I thought there was little point in me saying what "anti-ISIL" meant, as I have been banging on about that and NPOV for ages on the Talk page and thought editors would be familiar with it by now. Perhaps not, and they aren't, and there are new editors, so perhaps I should spell it out. I will do it as neutrally as possible. You must not be so suspicious of my motives, Greg. You have that tendency with some people if you don't mind me saying so, but that is just my opinion.
I think that it is. Please no more until tomorrow as I am shattered after yesterday! I find the grilling you do exhausting at the best of times and is one reason I get impatient. But perhaps that was not a grilling, but you just commenting. Again, it is hard to tell what you mean sometimes. I can see I won't regain your trust immediately, but hope I can soon. ~ P-123 (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made a terrible mess of trying to revert Atifabbas8's latest batch of reverts. The revision history page is a mess, but I think I reverted everything. As I was doing them they seemed to multiply and I cannot understand it. He is a new editor, so I wrote him a longish note explaining about reverting, 1RR and edit-warring in the hope that he will come to the Talk page. He writes a lot of articles that get deleted almost immediately because they overlap with the ISIS page. The last admin who approached him about this was quite sympathetic to him, as he clearly doesn't understand properly how Wikipedia works, and I took my cue from that. I sense he is not an awkward customer like - some we have had to deal with recently. ~ P-123 (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have just noticed this: "On another point I wonder whether you would have got to your "of course" in a context in which I had not developed the perspective of situations as mentioned or if admins were not involved." That is nasty. If your opinion of me is as low as that, I am wondering why you would want to have anything to do with an editor like that. You obviously do not think I made that statement AGF, which I find hard to take. I am not used to having aspersions cast on my character like that, Greg. You imply that I only made a "concession" because of admin involvement. I said of course as I could see that having an accusation without substantiation – which I have never been aware of doing, by the way – upset you and didn't want to upset you any more. Now I read through my last message to you, I can see it is a series of self-defences and self-justifications in the face of your mistrust of my motives and not accepting my AGF, and a series of attempts by me to make you see I am not the low-down person you seem to think I am from your series of criticisms in your message. I should have spotted this before, and I must have been dreaming. I have never in my life felt I had to do this with anyone before. I think I fall into the Felino and Technophant camp for you, I really do. You think nothing of any of us. It is beneath my dignity to defend myself against imagined faults and I don't know why I did it. Do not say I have suddenly switched. I naively overlooked the meaning behind those words until now. I had better not say any more, except that I am quite angry about this. I tried to reconcile with a gift, I tried to reassure, and you throw it back in my face with unpleasant insinuations, and then a long list of "faults" you made me feel I should account for. I have counted NINE criticisms of my character. Do you not see that that is ad hominem? Do you even know what that means? Are you like this with others? Frankly, I don't think you deserve my AGF or my support or my cooperation or my collaboration. Sorry, you're not the person I thought you were. ~ P-123 (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 No, I don't think that you have suddenly switched. The great things that I see and continue to see in you stand. The last time I edited this page it looked like this. In my response I was careful to say "Of course you have other sides as well ..." and "side of personality". I acknowledge your many strengths. Even in a context of pressure I acknowledged you as a "phenomenal editor". I hold to that as well and perhaps I should have written more about this in my content above and am sorry that I didn't. Amongst other things I have always appreciated your questions. You have raised issue of ad hominem and, as with all the things you say, I will seriously take this into consideration. We have had deep and productive discussions.
(Points that I have raised raised with you have not, as far as I remember, been questions. They have been comments on entries on the article talk page that I have regarded to have unjustified content or bias (I'm looking for the right word but am tired) presentation. The reference to consensus was one example).
I am considering collapsing this conversation up to the point of my "On anti-ISIL.." statement in my second post and archiving this page as I think that this may be the best diplomatic way forward. I would certainly appreciate comment on any reason that this would not be beneficial. I made a mistake in not splitting the thread with regard to the why did it take so long and the anti-ISIL contents and should have allowed these contents to develop separately. If I do collapse content I will be more than happy for contents and response to the why did it take so long issue to be moved into the uncollapsed area of text. Lor, it may be appropriate to decide with P-123 whether the your unilateral collapse in content is for the best. Prior to the placement of an IBAN I think that P-123 has a right to speak in all cases.
I have really wanted to get the issue sorted out regarding the bringing up of uncited accusations. Progress seemed to have been made on this when I dedicated a thread to this and then, in my perception, things slipped back. In this context I raised the question "Why did this take so fucking long?" I also raised question (raised indirectly due to my bad writing) as to 'whether you would have got to your "of course" in a context in which I had not developed the perspective of situations as mentioned or if admins were not involved.' This was another thing that I wanted you to consider. You have done so and have given your answer. We have had a long history of deep discussion related to motive related issues and, at this point, I consider this to be in order. We have a history in which you have come back again and again to the presentation of uncited accusations. I want this to stop and permanently. On a personal basis I request that you give thought to any reason for your presentation of accusation and interference in this way. As I say I want it to stop. If the only way that this can happen is through an IBAN then so be it. Despite their regularly exhausting nature I have valued many aspects of our communications. Yes I have lost patience in regard to various issues. Yes I have lost trust. "Test everything and hold on to the good". I am sure that a lot of good with regard to continuance of our communications remains.
Forget the IBAN, not needed if we can keep civil. I want no more criticism of the other from either us, please. Yes, they were comments more than questions. No more deep questioning, please, as it drives me to distraction and you know what happens then. No more long exchanges either, please - the length of threads was getting out of hand. If you interpret comments as accusations, the communication will have to stop. Constant surveillance and unilateral closing of discussion, i.e. policing, (not by you ) I find intolerable. I have lost patience as well and will find it hard to communicate without mutual trust, so you will have to bear with that. I am not interested in rebuilding but will not refuse contact. P-123 (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
General statement on my approach If there are truths that I think need to be mentioned related to article talk page activity then I will mention them. I would prefer to broach issues on User talk pages so as to avoid embarrassment and potential conflict in a more public arena. This is still not ideal as offending content may be left on public display for an additional period of time remaining unchallenged but, in my view, this may often be better than raising the issue in public display. GregKaye✍♪19:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I have never made any secret of it, either to you here or on the Talk page, and you know it. I have no more time or patience for your interminable analyses of every word I say, it is beyond a joke now! I hope the eavesdroppers are enjoying this, I certainly am. Twisting the tail can be fun! P-123 (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
You have refactored my comments. Please restore [Sorry, I was provoked.] which I added after my struck out comment. You realise your deletion is censorship, don't you? Any passer-by might think you struck out the comment. That I did it and added an apology is lost by your refactoring. What does that do for my reputation? ~ P-123 (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 Yes I do. I deleted that content here with explanation "Please don't leave an accusation when I don't even have a chance to answer." The thread, to all intents and purposes had been shut down. As I see it, this was censorship in the context of censorship. An action that I am willing to take, prior to intervention of Lor or through dispute resolution, is to add a note to the struck text to say that I had refactored it and to supply a link to any explanation of the context of the struck text that you want to give. I hope that this content would be cited. This would also permit a situation in which I would be given fair opportunity to respond.
I don't agree with a "no holds barred" approach. I don't consider this to be "mirrored activity".
I don't understand most of that. However you do it please ensure my words are visible next to my struck out comment. Do not complicate a simple request. This is censorship and I am once again surprised at you. If you were the person I thought you were, you would have apologized and done it immediately. You may have seen my note to Lor about this. Clearly I misjudged you, again. ~ P-123 (talk) 08:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 I think that you should try to understand. I am sick to death of your uncited accusations. You even gave a direct claim to my guilt following the word sorry. You claim that you were provoked. Present your case. This all relates to some truths that I mentioned relating to an edit of yours on talk:ISIL. I then asked you, "On what point do you disagree?" You gave and continue to give no answer. GregKaye✍♪18:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then silence is best. There is a reason for my not answering your questions. I will not engage in any more long-winded interminable analyses of things I have said with accompanying remonstrations and requests for justification and reasons for (often imagined) accusations. If editors cannot speak frankly with each other, about their edits or the way they conduct themselves, they may as well give up. The ISIS page is not a tea-party. If you cannot take the rough and tumble of criticism, you should not be editing on a page like ISIS. Have I asked Legacypac for chapter and verse explanation for and justification of every critical remark he has made of me? Of course not. It is to be expected when strong-minded editors disagree. It isn't pleasant, but you have to get on with it and take it in your stride. O-v-e-r a-n-d o-u-t. P-123 (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then don't engage. If I see things I don't agree with I can comment. You then have the option to either reply or not. I have the same option in response. We have been through this. If its in relation general article issues or similar then you can always delete. Nobody is above the following of guidelines. Nobody is beyond fair criticism. GregKaye✍♪03:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the Talk page under this heading I mentioned getting RS citations for countries that have said they do not recognise ISIS as a sovereign state, to back up the sentence. By that I mean reliable media sources that have reported this. I asked how could these be found. Can you let me know how to Google for this as I have never done this before. What search terms should be used? I did not want to give you the task though you are good at it. I am determined to sort out that uncited sentence as it has been a problem for a long time, because of WP:OR. Thanks. P-123 (talk) 11:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read and note the singular and plural. Here I said "RS citations for countries" and then said LP has found a good citation for this aspect. That needs to be used along with the other citations he provided. P-123 (talk) 18:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. If the citations are beneficial and don't look like we are just trying to justify a Macro claim with piecemeal citations then that will be positive. GregKaye✍♪19:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All will depend on the way the sentence is worded. With the right adjustment to the wording it can be made to mean in effect the same thing as the original. I will try to think up something and put it on the TP first so as not to upset editors. P-123 (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm P-123. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. P-123 (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123, thank you for the introduction. I will certainly be mindful of the manner in which I interact with editors and similarly hope that other editors will engage in similar efforts. As you know, when there have been issues that I have thought to be validly raised, I have done so not in the more public arena of article talk page but privately on personal User talk pages. This gives an editor concerned more control as content can be deleted or archived as thought relevant.
I like your new RFC on the map - but it is a little confusing. I suggest removing option 2 so that we can get a clear cut yes/no Been through this debate at least 3 times before. Legacypac (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the ISIL article. Look at Kobani Canton, Syrian Civil War, Syrian Kurdistan, and Supreme D's user page at Commons where he was banned for a time. He made the map he is pushing on a bunch of articles. Legacypac (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] Gregkaye, if I were you, on the RfC, I would state whether you are in support or opposition to what you proposed (I obviously know what it is, but other users do not). By stating I mean having typed Support or Oppose, as opposed to description. (Just so we can keep this RfC moving)—SPESH531Other03:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you my friend. I'm currently on it. I am apalled at the way that the hard work of editors such as yourself has, as I see it, been manipulated in this way. GregKaye✍♪03:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, re the IBAN, I confirm I don't intend to do anything about this if we can keep civil on our Talk pages. I will try to keep my posts to your Talk page to a minimum. Just wanted to let you know this. P-123 (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 I hope that we can. I do not know why you are posting this here while deleting or collapsing my own conciliatory or clarification seeking efforts on your talk page. You have consistently accused me of disruption on the article talk page an of consistently reducing collegiate nature of the page and yet when other editors make blatant attacks on other editors you say nothing. You edit into my article talk page posts.
It took me a while to realise what you may have meant in your unreferenced comment "we are polar opposites on editing policy" that this may have been referring to conceptions of NPOV. Please realise that you may have POVs of your own and that, in the majority of cases in which you have contested my edits, consensus has been against you.
I have valued you as a friend but friends need to be able to talk to each other openly and honestly. You have talked very often about leaving the article or not posting here. You can do as you please. As previously indicated, you can say what you like and I can respond, with civil content, as I like. I have tried to reconcile but your selective editing, collapsing and deletion makes this difficult. GregKaye✍♪20:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot make a statement like that without justification. You are implying that another editor's editing behaviour is dishonest. You cannot cast scurrilous slurs like that on another editor's reputation without explaining yourself.
I said I would forget an IBAN if you were civil. Please read WP:CIVIL carefully and consider how your above and recent comments may fall under any of the descriptions there. P-123 (talk) 09:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 I am about to archive a lot of this saga type material which I have not in any way enjoyed. However, I must leave a record that you have struck accusation but have left a "Please read" comment related to civility. Again, at this point, my question would normally be, "On what point do you disagree?" The only thing that at this point I beg of you is that you read WP:ASPERSIONS: "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums." I still need to tackle issues at Talk:PBS and Talk:ISIL that have recently been raised. I would appreciate it if you would argue the point and not the person and I believe that there are clear guidelines presenting such a requirement. If you do want to dredge up past issues such as an baseless AN/I for which no result was given then do so if it is relevant and when it becomes relevant. You could have simply commented on the consensus discussion without gratuitous additional mention of the unsubstantiated AN/I. There is always the option to leave various issues in the past as we ring happy bells across the snow. Ping also @LorGregKaye✍♪18:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 You originally struck your comment. You then removed it without permission. It is your responsibility to restore it. You do not WP:OWN this talk page. Please do not hit save page with text that you will not either stand by or apologise for. GregKaye✍♪11:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this meets requirements! 12:24, 20 December 2014 P-123
I have found my dignity again and will not be coming to your Talk page any more. If you could stop posting comments on my Talk page I would be grateful and I will not pursue the IBAN request. Thanks. P-123 (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 Neither will I be pursuing an IBAN request. I consider that we used to be fairly good friends al-be-it with some kind of level of misunderstanding between us. I am genuinely saddened at the way things have turned out. For my part I apologise for the few mildly harsh things that I have said along the way but I really think that some things needed to be said, either on your talk page or more directly on an article talk page. My priority, as I have seen it, has always been article content integrity but the use of relatively subtle approaches via contacts through user talk pages was also on my agenda.
I ask, please do not place an accusation or insinuation against me in any context unless you are prepared to cite reference. This is a repeat of requests that I have made for a very long time and yet, when agreement is reached, it broken with rapidity.
This is certainly the case with content placed at User talk:PBS. I give you a second opportunity to, if possible, qualify or reference your statements.
My main point was that, "You have consistently accused me of disruption on the article talk page an of consistently reducing collegiate nature of the page and yet when other editors make blatant attacks on other editors you say nothing." If you ever want to raise these issues again in relation to my ongoing talk page editing, PLEASE GIVE CITATION! PLEASE! I'M BEGGING! I do not understand. GregKaye✍♪15:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 Above, in relation to unwarranted comments, you suggested, "I was provoked". Here you suggest that a WP:IBAN might be in order. In both instances feel free to present your case. GregKaye✍♪07:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will make an exception and answer your questions, as you seem genuinely puzzled and aggrieved:
NPOV -That was my complaint on the Talk page and you know the full details about that. I have said it all before, since October at least That is what I was referring to when I said to Lor that we had profound disagreements.
Your disruption on the Talk page - That was at the time of the trouble between you and Felino and you and Technophant, when it spilled over onto the Talk page. I am not suggesting you have disrupted the Talk page since.
Provoked - I lost my head and made uncharacteristic comments in criticism as I was driven to distraction by your interminable questions and lengthy texts. The "mirroring" was an attempt to show you what it felt like. I don't think you realise how exasperating and wearing your behaviour can be.
My refusal to answer questions - Your questions I have answered many times before and yet you insisted on asking them again and again. I do not think there is anything in the above here that I have not said before.
The AN/I - It was hardly baseless, it was a very serious matter. I mentioned it on the Talk page as I think editors need to be warned about the "jihadist" dispute which led to it. There are new editors who know nothing about that saga. I backed up my warning with a link to the first discussion on this to please you. It seemed to me that you were attempting to revive the debate, which is fair enough, obviously, but new editors who want to dispute you need a proper background as to what went on before. My comment was meant to inform; if it came across as an attack because of the way I phrased it, I apologise.
Please do not ask for further elucidation; other questions will not be answered. My frostiness now is because I am still very offended by your accusations of bad behaviour, behaviour which no one who knows me would recognise in me. As I said before, I do not think you realise quite how insulting you can be. Even if you genuinely believe those things, you have no right to express them openly in this goldfish bowl. You are lucky that other editors who have crossed you have not been as plain-speaking as I have been with you. I can think of only one who has been more direct with you. Perhaps we are less civilized than they are and they have better manners than we do. P-123 (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123, I appreciate the effort but I did not ask questions. I stated very clearly that, "If you ever want to raise these issues again in relation to my ongoing talk page editing, PLEASE GIVE CITATION!" (emphasis added). This again, to a great extent, you have not done.
NPOV - There has been constant criticism of my POV but, taking a look through the recent thread Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Pro-ISIL and anti-ISIL, I really do not see that it is me that has the n-NPOV. If you think I have issues with this then please cite the evidence.
My disruption - then also place blame on Felino and Technophant who created the situations. You, yourself have said that it is fine to respond to and correct misrepresentation. Given the extraordinary situations I also think that there were questions that were relevantly asked. Despite my efforts, satisfaction regarding misrepresentations remained unsuccessful in many cases. Misrepresenions remained and, if anything, I did not push things as much as I could have. Throughout I was more than civil with a far higher level of politeness than many contributors that editors seem to turn a blind eye to. If you think I have issues beyond this then please cite the evidence.
Provoked - I think that we have both presented lengthy texts. Cite the questions. Demonstrate the behaviour you are talking about. Cite, please, cite. You do well enough with this when you are taking someone to sock puppetry investigation. You do more than well enough with this when you (with another editor) take someone to RfC/U. You have the ability. If there is evidence, cite.
Your refusal to answer questions - I am not sure of the issue here. My one main request is that, if you make accusation, you either cite of specifically reference the situation. What context? Which thread? Which edit?
The AN/I - yes there was a related and serious issue. I have thrown up my hands and admitted to soapboxing. I have admitted to this and have done my very best to avoid these behaviours. The AN/I was baseless as rapidly became apparent. Yes at that time I pushed one of the most extreme issues that I have touched. I still think that I have a valid point on this that has no extreme pov and I certainly do not think that my POV is more extreme than the POV that was supporting other edits at the time.
The behaviours that I have accused raised with you of have been in relation to the breaking of Wikipedia guidelines. My related question on this has been consistently the same. "On what point do you disagree?" GregKaye✍♪22:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand that question and never have. What do you mean? Please don't use aggressive words like "accused you of", they don't help. P-123 (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 Apologies for the wording. I also realise that I took liberties. Rather than raising issue on the article talk page directly I have chosen to raise issue via User:talk page. I also felt frustrations in regard to situations that I made claim were infringements to guidelines and, considered the relatively advanced state of our Wikipedia friendship, to make it possible to speak more bluntly than I should have. I think I also regarded that writing on the user page in which deletion was more possible to speak more freely than was appropriate.
On what point - Perhaps I should have worded it: "on which aspect of what I said do you disagree?" When I have raised any issues with regard to talk page entries, I have considered each issue raised to be a point and this may not have been clear. GregKaye✍♪00:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure which guidelines you were referring to in those previous questions, but perhaps we should not pursue this now as I seem to have answered your main questions! Thanks for the generous tribute to the support I gave you during the AN/I, btw, especially after I had raised the AN/I which I now regret having done. I should have confined myself to comment on the "jihadist" debate itself, not what it led to. P-123 (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested you quite a few times to drop this and yesterday asked you not to post any more messages on my Talk page. You have ignored this by posting a message here today. I have asked for Lor's help on this. P-123 (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123, I pinged Lor in regard to the edit that you mentioned above as I have in other edits that were specifically placed so as to cause minimal potential embarrassment. Lor, please let both sides of the current situation be aired before coming to any relevant decision. GregKaye✍♪12:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 as you know I take exception to your use of anti-ISIL terminology at this point as a sort of call to arms for editors to fly into any level of unresearched argument that you seem to advocate. Again you are using the arguments of discrimination with use of "anti-ISIL" to, I think, push according to your own POV priorities. Its comments like this and comments as you have added to the already prejudiced thread "Ham fisted lead" that seem to me to be aimed at a rounding up of support. I have already raised issue on this so forgive the directness. GregKaye✍♪18:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 With what within my content do you disagree. Your thread at Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Pro-ISIL_and_anti-ISIL showed your preference to generally go along with the claims of one rebel group despite a world of protestation. Please consider the appropriateness of what I consider to be a call to arms. Take a look at your text.
"Do you mean editors who are anti-ISIL are spoiling the article? ... Remember you can add your voice to the Talk page discussions on anything and if you do not agree with what is said there you must speak up. It doesn't matter if you have not followed all the discussion, your opinion will be as valuable as any other editor's."
From the way the editor spoke, who was clearly a new editor, I thought s/he was referring to particular editors, and in the context of the edit s/he made, possibly those with an anti-ISIL bias. S/he was clearly a new editor. I was really asking what s/he meant by "disruptive" editors. This did not become clear until s/he commented on the Talk page later. The rest of my comment was an invitation to a new editor to join discussion on the Talk page and nothing more. Unfortunately I do not expect you to believe this. P-123 (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 We have had our disagreements but, beyond your own assertions of interpreted Sophism and the like, I have never doubted your base level of honesty. You certainly deal a lot with spin. For instance, when presenting an issue with admin you present a thread on the topic on the initial content in the lead "a very important discussion on NPOV". You habitually present your own opinions as facts.
I am sure that there are more extreme examples scattered across Wikipedia but my interpretation of your anti-ISIL comment is that it either fits into or has similarities with the campaigning content of WP:Canvassing.
If I wanted to promote a collegiate atmosphere on the talk page and someone came to me speaking of: "idiots", "fools" and "disruptive editors" I think I would certainly encourage contribution, further research and involvement and, mainly out of interest, I might also check the tone and content of previous comments made. If I thought it was needed, I might give some encouragement towards civility.
By way of illustration of this, in general I have found Legacypac to have a level of civility that often puts me to shame. However, at one point it seemed to me that s/he was making edits that seemed, to my perception, slightly more strung out than that particular situation might have warranted. I responded by sending a gift of a sunset scene over water with a title such as "gift of tranquillity". Other actions I might take would be to thank an editor for edits that I thought gave constructive benefit to the article but I think I would leave it like that.
In context I think the Fallujah thread basically responds to someone who feels antagonistically about a certain editors, asks are they the prejudiced ones? and gives encouragement to confront even in potential situation of ignorance. With an editor who was talking about "idiots" and "fools"... I don't think that it is the best route forward to civility to assert, "you must speak up" and "It doesn't matter if you have not followed all the discussion" and to make mention of editors with an interpreted problematic view point as spoiling the article. This is my personal view. GregKaye✍♪12:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[refactored][reply]
You say, "You certainly deal a lot with spin." I have never heard an editor's strong views interpreted as "spin". It is insulting to an editor to tell them their strongly-held convictions are "spin". That is a very clear WP:PA. Have you no respect for the sincerely-held views of editors? I would never dream of thinking, let alone saying, that of an editor's strongly-held beliefs. I might confront them with their views and question them, but never denigrate them in that way. Please study this carefully. Many of your charges lately have amounted to this and you just cannot make such charges lightly. If this dispute does go to AN/I, I will have an awful lot to say. P-123 (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 When you describe your opponents activities, I think unnecessarily, as lawyerism, weaselling and the use of sophistry, I describe this type of thing as, amongst other things, spin. GregKaye18:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have gradually been showing WP:OWN in ISIS. You have been able to as there is not much editorial interest any more in the more serious aspects of editing ISIS. I have not mentioned this before as I did not want to inflame matters further. My reasons for saying this? Your beating off criticism wherever it comes from. You simply cannot take criticism, can you? You and Legacypac are the same and both try to beat off criticism wherever it comes from. (See my comment in the collapsed thread.) Felino123, Technophant, Signedzzz, WheelsofSteel0, and now P-123. I do not always see the imaginary consensuses that you and Legacypac note in your edit summaries when reverting. Do you not realise how serious a problem this objection to criticism has become? Another aspect of WP:OWN is collapsing editors' comments. Collapsing criticism, whether it is off-topic or not, is a form of censorship. Who are you to decide what should be removed from view on the Talk page? You are not an administrator. I suspect the removal was just as much about my criticism as it was about it being off-topic or infringing WP:CIVIL (which is always a matter of interpretation). You need to toughen up and stop not just objecting to criticism, but laying down the law about how other editors behave. I may take up this behaviour with admins after the Christmas break. I suspected your olive branch would not last long. P-123 (talk) 13:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Make your criticisms but please, please, cite or otherwise reference them. I will absolutely ignore your unsubstantiated accusations. Please see WP:ASPERSIONS. You promised that this behaviour would stop with your earlier "of course" comment. Live up to your promise and we will be fine. Again I ask please do not edit within my edits. I find it humourous that you can talk about OWN yet you don't even respect this. GregKaye✍♪16:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 It does not cut both ways. Your scattering of WP:ASPERSIONS has to stop as you agreed. If you have an issue relating to civil or harassment. Then make it clearly. State your case. What wording do you object to and why do you think it is unjustified. It's not complicated.
You talk about OWN and controlling editors. You have frequently initiated with editors for them to take other editors to admin noticeboards. As you know this action was very much against my nature yet you pushed me to take one editor who I then thought was responding to written comment to administration. I presented a less that vehement case and your criticism was, "you got him off." How is this not controlling?
On your talk page you still display the text (edited here) "Do you mean editors who are anti-ISIL are spoiling the article? In my opinion at the moment the article is not always spoken in a neutral voice,.. if you do not agree with what is said there you must speak up. It doesn't matter if you have not followed all the discussion" and found in full here. You present a pre-judgement of anti-ISIL views before editors may even get to the article.
On the article talk page you have initiated a string of threads (so to speak) or of suggestions presented on user pages that have either been based on what I consider to be your n-NPOV or which I consider to have been poorly thought through. These have frequently been a considerable waste of time and I know that Legacypac, who has frequently shown notable tact in many editing situations, has occasionally lost patience as have I.
You have set a number of errands for me. I am not complaining but, if you are talking about ownership, its worth noting that the requests have not been going the other way.
Were many of these things at all on your mind when you placed your comments here? You take a very legislative approach to accusation. I consider the reactions that are required to defend against your baseless allegations to be a phenomenal waste of time. "Twisting the tail" may be fun for you. For me what is beginning to feel like an endless tirade of accusation, it is not fun at all. I am meant to be getting on with other things in my life. In cases I have cited and in the recent article thread, Ham fisted lead, your editing practice seems to me to reach "ignore all rules" levels of infringement. It began to feel relentless and, again, a huge waste of time.
In return I have placed good will messages on your talk page and took time to put together information that I thought might be of relevant interest to you. All have been deleted. At the moment it seems to me that you may be obsessed with tearing me down. GregKaye✍♪18:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have not read that. You have an unhealthy obsession with all this. Has it occurred to you that you might have driven me too far? There is only so much I can, or will, take. I am deliberately not pulling any more punches on the Talk page, as I do with other editors, over your editing (which you have always known I thought questionable). Had you remained civil during our dispute and withheld the WP:PAs, I would have treated you on the Talk page as I do any other editor there, and as I did you before, with some respect. P-123 (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 You say that I "have an unhealthy obsession with all this". It is not me initiating threads here. I have your name as P123ct1 written 379 times in my archive 2 alone. You still do not walk away. You still continue with unjustified aspersions. You have always had a choice of whether to edit on my page. Yes it is very clear that you have been driven too far but I dispute that I am solely responsible for the driving and I have been driven as well. As I have said several times, you can write what you like and (despite what I have viewed as your resistance to criticism) I have said I can reply as I like. You have continued to edit here. At many times I have spent more time replying to and fielding issues raised by you than I have spent on the actual encyclopaedia. When I have not agreed with what you have said, I have, with a generally high level of civility said so. I have also long thought your editing to be questionable and full of bias. You have never cited that I remember (and I have a fairly good memory) cited any particular infringement. I have made many many edits to the ISIL article. You have brought some of these edits, presumably the edits that you have thought to be most questionable, to the talk page. In these cases the resulting consensus has typically gone with me. Over time, and in a context in which I have stated time and time again that I do not agree with your uncited and unreferenced claims, I began to point out your own infringements of policy. There have been clear abuses but, again to save you embarrassment, I have tried to raise these issues in a private arena. By the time that I initiated the sovereign state thread on your talk page which was in response to this edit with its multiple infringements, I was already feeling pretty driven in the context of our long and often relentless debates. In my first post I asked whether you were replying to the right thread and in response to your edit, as containing the comment "Cannot justify this view, just seems common sense to me", I asked "what are your thoughts on following sources on this?" Allowing a rebel group to be classified as a sovereign state is serious. My second post had the text, "The debate on whether how we should describe the group is mentioned elsewhere and I think that those comments are more appropriate elsewhere. Also ping Kahastok to perhaps avoid unnecessary clash. I hope that's OK."
The thread covered the very serious matter on whether 'SIL could be entered onto threads such as the list of sovereign states and yet, after your vote, your reply included the text, "Am not really interested into getting into it, wanted just to make a broad observation." I have to admit that I then felt somewhat affronted when, after I had raised the very same points with you, you then said: "Ate my words! Did respond as the editor made an interesting point." It was content that had exactly the same nature as the content that I had presented to you and yet, despite our long history of dialogue, your response was to a new editor on the scene. None-the-less, on a subject that you did not even agree on you had left the text and which you had struck your opposition to the motion here and yet you still left an argumentative text which I interpret to be POV pushing for other agendas, "Any lawyer can weasel out of it, but these are all hard facts, and they have to be dealt with as such in this article. These facts should not be twisted or denied with sophistries". At this point, and in the context of a long history of trying to get various aspects of Wikipedia's guidelines through to you I began by saying, "I do not doubt that you will not be happy with what I say here but you continue to argue dirty", as in this edit. We did not enter dialogue at this point and while I think that my wording remains representative of the situation I did not get to apologise for my specific choice of words. You then deleted the thread and then revived it in what I considered to be a lynching format in which you had directly edited within my response here. I then redacted my response to its additional state here and I also added a reference to the "how" issue and regiged the opening statement to read, "I do not doubt that you will not be happy with what I say here but (add: in my view) you continue to argue dirty (add: unfairly). We never entered discussion over this. I admit to WP:PA over this but only in regard to the initial phrasing of the statement. In my view the argument on unfair approaches to editing, including direct and WP:INDCRIT and attacking the editor and not the argument, are very valid. With your deletions and resurrections of the thread, I never got to apologise for my initial phrasing of that opening sentence but, please note, my edits were made on your talk page in a context in which you had control of the content. You now allude to my PAs. Cite them. In my edits I have always come to you directly and have always regarded you with respect. It seems to me that you give unquestioning respect to the claims of a reportedly un-Islamic group who are engaged in ethnic cleansing and your edit above displays that, dispite my continued efforts to do the right thing, you now give no respect to me. I don't understand. Please don't give me further unsubstantiated content here. It is difficult to respond to. I really do not want to take any more. GregKaye✍♪06:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is crazy, Greg. You must not keeping going over this, it is not good for you. You are getting things badly out of proportion now. We have both said some things we have regretted in this dispute, or I have, and I think it is time to stop now. I do not bear you any grudges and am prepared to forget all this. I really think that analysing it any further will do more harm than good. I know you are still upset but am hoping that my goodwill here will help you to stop feeling that way. I do not like to think of you brooding on this indefinitely. Neither of us is a bad as the other makes out. I do not know what more I can say to help. I have no idea how you will react to this message, but am hoping it will not be badly. P-123 (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 I agree its crazy. You say "I do not know what more I can say to help". PLEASE cite or otherwise reference your criticisms. I don't know what you are talking about. I am BEGGING you, please cite or reference. I have repeatedly pleaded with you for unreferenced accusation to stop.
Please do not forget the situation here. Don't ignore it. Please give it attention and analyse to whatever level necessary. I do not want situations like this to be raised again. We cannot just go backwards and forwards. At present I have little hope that things can be resolved. Please don't edit here if you don't want to. I have no reason to think that you have acknowledged anything that I have so far said. When I do something wrong I acknowledge and apologise.
How have I made you out to look bad? Why have you done this to me? I have not opened multiple titles with your name on them on admin talk pages while regularly adding multiple edits to each. I have not launched derision on article talk pages. Even when it started I began by trying to laugh it off, still you persisted. Please also check what you are saying. It was a new proposal. I do not want things to go on indefinitely but at the moment I see no reason for hope. I have made the same repeated request and it has been repeatedly ignored. Goodwill is more than just a word. I have put effort into making subtle and thoughtful interventions with a number of editors to make sure you were presented in the way that you have wanted and even to the extent of editing WE's content. (This is another instance of editing that "must be against WP policy". I did it for you). I vehemently and persistently defended you when you were faced with accusations of vindictiveness. When there were article issues I wanted to raise with you I did this privately on User talk pages so as to save from public discord. I have previously also responded to your concerns about eavesdroppers. I feel that the huge store of goodwill that I used to have for you has been thrown in my face. I have lost patience and trust and remain wary. How you respond is up to you. GregKaye✍♪08:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You say, "I have not opened multiple titles with your name on them on admin talk pages while regularly adding multiple edits to each." You should know by now, as I have said it often enough, that I went to PBS and Lor in desperation, for advice on how to deal with this dispute and end it. The latest development is serious. You cannot career around as you have been doing in the past couple of days making wild charges about my character and editorial practice. That is dangerous talk. On our Talk pages is one thing, but in public on admin pages is quite another. If you want to do this, do it in the proper arena, at AN/I. Here I am not talking about your charges of WP:PA, as that is always a matter of interpretation. P-123 (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC) [comment added out of chronological sequence]P-123 (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You ask me to cite criticisms. I have responded on those about controlling editors. Do you mean criticisms mentioned in our Talk pages? They are all there, Greg. You cannot expect me to trawl through every page and extract them for you when you can read them for yourself. I think that is unreasonable. I was always very plain when I made them. I have never made indirect criticism. There are no criticisms other than those I clearly outlined on our Talk pages. I am wary of doing anything now as it always results in long screeds from you, which I just cannot take any more, my nerves cannot take it. It is that bad. P-123 (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 Please read WP:ASPERSIONS. I do not accept many of your interpretations and your pinning onto me all responsibility for various situation when there were others also involved. Please do not edit here unless you are prepared to follow the Wikipedia guideline mentioned. Either analyse, resolve and comply or leave me alone. If I am in the wrong about something I will admit to it. As it is all I have is your interpretation and your say so. If a claim is not worth justifying then, in my book, it is not worth making. On my side of things such claims just contribute to aggravation. Please, I am BEGGING, can they stop as you promised they would? GregKaye✍♪09:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When cleaning up my userpages just now I found this. This must be against WP policy. You made no request to do this and did not inform me of this removal. You need to give an explanation. P-123 (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 This was in a time in which we were still relatively good friends. You had content that meant that your user name was spamming, I counted, 22 category pages. I don't know why Wikipedia allows User pages to get listed but it was clearly disruptively included content. GregKaye✍♪16:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. It was disrespectful and probably against WP policy to go over the head of an editor and alter their userpage without permission or explanation. It fits in with your other attempts to control editors, which have been much in evidence lately. It seems you may be one of those editors admins have to keep under surveillance. I feel like I never knew you until recently. P-123 (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have called editors to contribute in accordance with WP:POLICY and I have cited clear infringement. I also spoke candidly to you in a situation in which you edited against a consensus that you had personally pushed for. I cannot think of any other time that I have edited content like that and, on what seemed to me to be an absolute no brainer issue, I edited the content knowing that the system should notify you of the change and not wanting to bother you further. When you saw the ping it would be easy to revert and I left an explanatory note. You still have the option to AGF. I have been the same person as you have always known. I stand for policy, against misrepresentation and against manipulative arguments. I keep and protect confidences, I edit directly without spin and I present myself as I am. When you say "other attempts to control editors which have been much in evidence lately", please cite. You are making serious allegations. GregKaye✍♪17:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Had no ping, never received an explanatory note. That I "push" for consensus is petty misrepresentation.
I see as attempts to control editors (all within the past few months):
Closing down discussion by collapsing discussion mid-flow as today on main Talk page.
Remonstrating with editors who disagree with you by quoting policy at them and trying to bring them to heel.
Telling editors who disagree with you how they should behave (Felino, Technophant, WheelsofSteel0, P-123).
Blackening of editors' reputations with scurrilous charges of manipulation and misrepresentation. These are attempts to control and bring editors to heel. (Editors see through this and walk away. Unfortunately for you I did not; I am not a pushover. T. would have had an IBAN imposed on you had he not been banned himself.) You are the same person but not fully revealed until now. Drop it now, please. P-123 (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 I did not ask you to list those four points. Regarding pushed, you were the one initiating with me to ensure consensus against Felino. I do not want anything to have to reply to but still you persist.
(You said please cite. This what you requested.) [comment added later]
Greg, you really can't get away with that. I did my utmost to be fair to everyone in those Talk page discussions on edits and never attempted to "ensure consensus again Felino". I was trying to be scrupulously fair and make plain to Felino what was happening at every stage of that consensus-gathering. The Talk pages will show that. It is this kind of below-the-belt and unjust charge you often make now that I find extremely hard to take. But perhaps you meant something else, the 3RR noticeboard he was taken to before that? I remember supporting you in that, and may have been the first to raise it, I can't remember now. [comment added later]
P-123, You practically wrote the rules of Wikipedia citation. Did you know the meaning as within the supplied link? Have you read WP:ASPERSIONS? For a different word please think in terms of evidence. I have most regularly mentioned this in terms of substantiation. If you have any doubts in what you think I am asking for then please ask. I have been asking for this for what seems to me to be a great age. I have been asking for citation or reference to content. Again I am BEGGING please understand. Surely this was clear. GregKaye✍♪20:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Content added in response to late addition[reply]
Collapsing a discussion that was way off topic and which continued regardless under the hat. As I made the collapse I also added a thread on Lor's talk page to ask for advise about the thread. I am open to guidance. You added further content out of the hat and then moved your content inside. This was your choice.
Remonstrating, when? how? in what way was my content wrong? What is wrong with quoting policy? This is something that you do yourself. Should it be disregarded?
Requesting that editors behave according to WP:GUIDELINES. Show instances where this was not the case. I think that editors, myself included, should behave. With regard to Technophant you said that you did not understand why he was acting to me as he was and I think that was in thread Guido in the archive of ALL my talk page content. With WheelsofSteel0 you said that s/he was full of PA.
Blackening, Please see all of the above. You are mud slinging without providing justification. It does not feel good. From my perspective I have been aware of the need to tread on eggshells with you for too long. I may have lacked subtlety but everything later was done and said with good intention. There came a limit where I was not prepared to tolerate your constant stream of unsubstantiated aspersion. I also chose to engage with you privately on other matters of infringement of policy so as to minimise your potential embarrassment on more public talk pages. The points that I raised were proven to be right time and again but the debates that ensued were a phenomenal waste of time. As time went by, with various other issues also being raised, I have lost patience. Even now you seem to me to be relentless. Please justify the things you say. GregKaye✍♪18:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for a straight answer, you got one. Don't cry and call it mudslinging when you don't like it. It is how I personally see it, others might not. The "constant stream of unsubstantiated aspersion" is imaginary, as I have explained many times. It is on the record, or should be. Please do not try to turn the tables by playing the ingénue in the hope that some admin will take pity on you. It will be seen through. I have answered all your questions, many times. I am relentless because I will take no more bs, I have had enough. I will not be pushed. I do not like confrontation, but I am not the sort to walk away in a situation like this. (Which I have never in my life been in before.) You know how to stop it: stop commenting. P-123 (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly liked to mention this before, but the way you express yourself is often quite difficult to understand, Greg. (You have noted it yourself, and it is not a criticism.) I think some misunderstandings have arisen from this. It may be why I have never been able to understood why you put so many questions. I should have asked you to specify exactly what you meant when your meaning was unclear. I privately call it "rune-language" but that is affectionate more than critical. P-123 (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we cease hostilities for the next few days at least. Try to forget the monster in me recently and remember the nicer person. It is still there. Merry Christmas! ~ P-123 (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 You say cease the hostilities. You have initiated two actions with two separate admins at the moment. Its pretty miserable. I hope you are having fun. GregKaye✍♪19:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, you must stop feeling sorry for yourself. I went to the admins in desperation. You do not realize how badly this dispute has affected me. I needed advice on what to do. An IBAN seemed the best thing. You do realise, I hope, that an IBAN works both ways. The two editors involved are not permitted to interact or comment about each other on any forum. That means I will not be able to say anything about you on our Talk pages or the main Talk page. It seemed to me the only way to keep the peace. It was done with no wish to harm you, but to save both our sanities. I fear for yours the way things have gone in the past couple of days. I am just an editor, Greg, I am not important. I have not destroyed you. I am not a menace. I still fundamentally respect you. I am just appalled at the way this dispute has developed. There is fault on both sides. Please calm down. I do not have it in for you. I know you do not believe me, but I am not the vindictive type. I wish you well, but my tolerance is strained to breaking point sometimes. This is how WE got me. I still respect him, unlike many admins. But he drove me to distraction, as you are doing now. P-123 (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 I am unsure on the parameters that you associate with hostilities. I will continue to point out infringement of Wikipedia policy and what I consider to be unfair tactics. I will continue to raise these matters with editors and will also continue to engage in the debate on NPOV. If you want to interpret this as: Remonstrating with editors; Telling editors who disagree with you how they should behave and the blackening of editors' reputations then that is up to you. On I hope rare occasion I may have phrased things badly but I am doing nothing wrong.
I do not see a monster in you but view your actions as clearly fitting your "twisting the tail" description. Please think on this. I think that your, "I would have treated you ... with some respect" statement is also something that I would like you to keep in consideration. I am open to criticism and, as you know, I will happily admit to my own wrongs even in public and especially if the related statements might provide a guide better editing practice in others. Please cite or otherwise reference your criticisms. Please, again I am BEGGING. This last day has been horrible for me. It has also cost me hugely as there were other things I needed to give my attention to. There has been nothing here that I have enjoyed or regarded to be fun. GregKaye✍♪07:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have never deliberately set out to upset you, Greg, it was all in reaction to being driven to distraction by this dispute. If I may, I would advise just letting editors be and not pursue them for what you perceive as bad behaviour, except when there are clear infractions such as infraction of the 1RR or sock-puppeting. You do not do this as often as you used to which is a good sign. I do not want to criticise you any more and want to revive the mutual respect we once had. I have clearly upset you far more than I thought I had and regret this. P-123 (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 I would advise editors in Wikipedia to edit within Wikipedia guidelines. I would also ask other editors to support me in this. You cannot pick and choose the rules and then bully an editor for the sake of censorship of hard fought over principles that are blatantly right. I also need to follow these rules but, if you are not prepared to follow the various principles of the Wikipedia guidelines, what are you doing here? Please also show respect. You have repeatedly edited within my edits which is something that I had never seen you previously do and had never noticed anyone else doing. Was this a deliberate provocation? GregKaye✍♪08:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was not deliberate provocation. I thought it was permitted. Do you mean comments added before you had finished your own comment? If you really think this badly of me, Greg, I suggest we cease contact. No one in my life has ever thought as badly of me as you do, apart perhaps from Worldedixor, who I still maintain had we known each other properly there would have been no trouble. I have never had this kind of trouble with any other editor, but you have had similar with other editors. I admit to some bad behavior with you but as I said before it was deliberate because I had had enough. I am not proud of acting in that way. Don't strain my goodwill by more criticism. I have said I am willing to forget this, but you are straining it. P-123 (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just re-read your last comment. You are on the attack again. I have more self-respect than to take any more of this from you. I have shown you goodwill today, you will not accept it. You come back with lists of where I could "improve". Have you any idea how insulting it is to talk to another adult in that way? I am not surprised some editors who cross you ignore you and walk away (Felino, WheelsofSteel, Technophant.) I think I should do the same. A final word of advice: stop hounding editors who cross you or do not meet your expectations of correct behavior, stop trying to "cure" others of what you perceive as bad behavior, and concentrate on editing. You show no respect for the dignity of others and I will not tolerate it. P-123 (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 Which part did you take as attack? Why? In summary, I would advise editors in Wikipedia to edit within Wikipedia guidelines... You have repeatedly edited within my edits... Was this a deliberate provocation? You always have the option to leave me alone. At what time did Felino, WheelsofSteel and Technophant walk away? If they ever did, what were the circumstances? GregKaye✍♪09:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to do with best wishes in your edit, performed at all times on Christmas Day, here. Please see friend. Friends don't do this. I am not here to spar. The point in being an editor is to constructively edit the encyclopedia. Its not here for your fun and games. Your relentless and unsubstantiated legislations and misrepresentations with two admins.; your intrusions into my edits that similarly required response and recent abuse on the article talk page has resulted that I have done minimal constructive work of late. Again you are invited not to edit on this page (add: unless it is in legitimate connection to Wikipedia's goals within the context of a broad view of NPOV. Messages of best wishes are great but not when utterly contradictory presentations are asserted elsewhere. The past few days have disrupted some important things that I also needed to do. You present what seems to me to as a rosy image here while declaring anger elsewhere). Please refer to your edit at 09:49, 24 December 2014 and the edit that it copied. 01:18, 25 December 2014 GregKaye✍♪06:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gregkaye time gives perspective. If both of you have little contact over the next few months then a proper resolution of your differences may be possible after that. If nothing else both of you will be able to employ you time editing more constructively for the next three months. -- PBS (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PBS I am unconvinced that it does in this case. On the personal issues I have gone to lengths to try to resolve issues according to my level and type of past wrongdoing from before and since my AN/I and yet issues are brought up again and again. There are uncited issues about my conduct. From my point of view opinion is stated as fact. P-123, to my mind, has resisted acceptance of wrongdoing in relation to the breaking of various guideline principles. You are suggesting that I drop my cited accusations. I have seen no evidence of P-123 dropping any of his/her uncited accusations. On this level your proposal is the worst possible result for me. The potential extent of problems may be lessened in that we are not really talking but nothing is resolved. From previous experience I have no confidence that time will help.
I'm trying to help you possibly avoid sanctions and get on with editing for fun. I don't like some of the stuff he has done either, but I don't think your hands are clean enough to win at ANi. Think seriously about it. Legacypac (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PBS: I agree with Gregkaye that just an IBAN, and even a topic ban, will not be enough. At the moment I don't see how any of the charges can be upheld, except the last two, and I really do need to know how this is viewed by those more experienced in the application of WP guidance and policy. My main reason for suggesting that Gregkaye take the dispute to AN/I was so that these very things at the root of our dispute could be sorted out. Just not getting along is almost secondary, and I think a symptom of our mutual misunderstandings about the things brought up in the charges. I hope there will be some resolution on this at the AN/I and that these questions will not be left hanging in the air. Just avoiding each other is not going to solve anything. P-123 (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do not collapse talk page threads over the objections of other editors
"But if one or more editors disagrees ... then somebody will have to read through all that stuff and weigh the claims." !!!!!!! See my response to that. P-123 (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lifted from a recent post to ANI [[User:Gregkaye|Greg]][[User talk:Gregkaye|Kaye]] 05:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC) you need to change you signature to link directly to your new name and not to your old name (change Gregkaye to GregKaye). -- PBS (talk) 10:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have witnessed a lot of High Court barristers in action in past work Greg and believe me, what I said in that sovereign state thread is mild by comparison! Let us see what the adjudicators say. P-123 (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have deleted "as in that thread" in my comment re sovereign state; have just checked the reference and I was thinking of another discussion in ISIS talk where editors were very uncivil to each other. But it does not alter my basic comment. P-123 (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you give Technophant's full details, including a link to his block log, in your number 5? How is that relevant to the point you seemed to be making? P-123 (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 I am yet to look at the context. You have chosen your company and you have chosen the editors from whom you have canvassed support. In the AN/I I have touched on what I regard as your spins. You went ape in multiple threads when I accused you of se.imilar in regard to your utterly unsubstantiated slurs on the article talk page. In the potentially closed forum of the AN/I I have highlighted a factual record of a Wikipedia editor's editing history. I should have done this with all the editors that you chose to canvas. GregKaye19:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as though you reverted this entry here, but there is nothing in your edit summary to indicate it, reference is only made to another revert you did there. P-123 (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My serious suggestion - delete your last post at ANi and instead say you are done arguing and are taking a break. Walls of text are annoying and I would rather see you able to edit. Legacypac (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac I appreciate what you say. I have edited back and would appreciate your views. I appreciate that I bans can work in various ways but I really think that resolution would help on a personal basis. From my point of view this is really out of consideration for the other editor who, I think, just does not see it. If I suffer for what I regard to be a personally good result for another person then so be it. GregKaye09:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I was accused of telling editors what to do. Yes a vast amount has been said. Within this situation, the extraordinary circumstance still came about in which an ANi was closed 10 hours prior to the last evidence being presented. Good faith is in no way questioned. My priorities had remained as they were at 09:51, 1 January 2015 but I acknowledge that there were ways that I could have handled things more beneficially from the beginning. GregKaye12:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I know I said I wouldn't post again, but you are right that I just can't see it (except for the last two charges) and like you would very much like to hear what adjudicators have to say about the charges. (I was concerned enough about the canvassing point to go to the Help Desk about it yesterday, for example.) I would feel cheated if they say nothing, but I'm afraid from the way things are going I don't think they are going to bother. A topic ban would not be a good result for me, btw, as I want to contribute to the editing, if not the copy-editing. (They are muddled about that, although I did amend, so will have to make it clearer.) I have read again the message from you that I removed about coping with the AN/I. Thanks for what you said and my apologies again for the unpleasant and sometimes unforgivable things I have said about you since the AN/I started. P-123 (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, once again. I am trying to save us from getting a topic ban at the AN/I. All commenters are looking at this dispute in isolation and see us both as bad. I want proper answers on the charges as you do, not judgments made in a vacuum on us as individuals - which to me is a secondary issue, the charges are the main issue - so have talked about how well we worked together at one time and had a good editorial relationship, witness our Talk pages in October and November. I hope this is all right. And I am wondering why commenting editors are hiding behind IPs, as I am sure they are. (I don't think that was Technophant, btw, we have not discussed this AN/I, all I did was inform him there was one.) P-123 (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P-123 You have publicly slurred your opposition in open talk page discussion and when I have given fair but strongly worded private comment you have gone ballistic in multiple forums in pursuit of the issue and given me hell. GregKaye 17:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Just to be fair to both editors, I am also wishing you happy editing. You must now have a great sense of relief that you can edit rationally and without the monkey on your back or unwanted disruptions. You also got your wish of an IBAN. Congratulations on a well-presented ANI, and sorry for the time you had to waste on it during Christmas and New Year's.194.169.217.62 (talk) 02:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
194.169.217.62 I do not know for sure who you are/think you are but you are hounding another editor on their personal talk page. Take note there is nothing that pleases me in regards to recent situations. I interpret your venom in regard to your above statement to be palpable and ask you to strike. I had no wish for an IBAN and, but for that condition, I would seek to take matter further.
"You" as 194.169.217.62 either FRANKFURT, HESSEN, GERMANY or Bromley, Greater London, GB
172.56.40.178 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, UNITED STATES
194.169.217.152 either FRANKFURT, HESSEN, GERMANY or Bromley, Greater London, GB
My hands are tied in relation to any direct action or support that may be taken in regard to related matters. Please desist hounding. I would support any relevant action that might be taken in relation to use of these and any other relevant IPs. Any further messages posted by similar IPs on this page may be deleted or transferred to relevant sections of text.
Add 208.123.223.244 EDMONTON, ALBERTA, CANADA or Laguna Niguel, California, US who added this stalking edit to the cleanup thread. Please, if you want to address editors about any issues, log on. GregKaye09:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop the witch hunt. It serves no purpose. You should not have deleted the comment about your comments to me - it was spot on. You deserved an IBAN and barely got away without a topic ban. You should not be referencing the ANi because it revolves around an editor you are now IBANed from. If you keep this foolishness up you are likely to be banned yourself. Go read WP:WIN please and take the comments of the IPs to heart - I suspect some of them are experienced Admins and editors simply wishing to avoid getting dragged into your mud throwing. Legacypac (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac I appreciate the advice which, as I have previously noted, has been excellent and deeply appreciated. One of my edits in the noticeboard could have got me further trouble. I am grateful to you for this and mentioned it at the time. I will also reread the comments of the IPs in various locations and have just taken another look at WP:WIN. I stick to my perspective though that I was after resolution of issues, all of which I had regarded to be valid, and not a straightforward win. The thing that tipped the balance for me with regard to deleted text was the line "We don't like ungrateful editors and snitches on here." Of course I am grateful but that can't effect my editing choices. There have been too many cases, as I have seen it, in which loyalties have been kept with the effect that contributions on AN/I boards have been in tune with tendentious editing priorities. I did not agree with the IP that I was deserving of equal sanctions but, if that is what you thought, then that is what you should have pushed for. I have the upmost respect for you on a a very great many levels but there can be no taking of sides. There will be some times where we disagree. When the first IP contributor above called a Wikipedia a monkey I think I was rightly incensed. I don't think that a responsible admin using their own login would refer to an editor using those terms and I don't think that a responsible admin would write about me on a users page from which I have been banned and comments to which I cannot reply. If an editor wants to call someone a monkey or some such they should do it under their own name and take the consequences. I take it on board that some editor's may be using IPs in good faith. I don't think that this is always the case. All the same, please where possible do not to jump into threads to which you have not previously been involved. GregKaye17:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did a little cleanup on your talk page, the ISIL talk page and elsewhere, since you doing so might violate the new IBAN. happy editing too and Happy New Year :) Legacypac (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am really grateful to you for your direct and personally levelled advice given during the AN/I. You were really helpful in your 08:15, 1 January 2015 edit on this TP and this really helped me evaluate and change my approach at this point.
Please, if you stalk pages, please try not to add third party additions to other threads. On this TP I would be especially grateful if you would start your own threads. One occasion one of your edits came during discussion in which I was engaged with another editor at: User_talk:GregKaye/Archive_3#Lead. While your interjection at 08:42, 8 December 2014 was respectful it may have hampered the chances of my query at 06:43, 8 December 2014 being answered. Please, if you see editors in dispute, please consider whether there are genuine efforts being engaged to resolve the dispute before trying to distract or trying to dismiss "More back and forth". It doesn't help.
Please, if you have concerns about a potential breach of guidelines before it happens, consider giving advice. You have closed discussions above and have not signed your unilateral closures on another editor's talk page. I appreciate that this was all done with an extreme level of good faith and I warmly appreciate your sentiment here but please revert. In regard to wider issues I consider that, while I think that your actual arguments are sound and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, your approaches frequently border on WP:OWN. I am not going to say more here other than to counsel, please, at any relevant point, consider whether a specific intervention is justified and, if you have doubt, consider readjusting plans, opening to consensus discussion, giving additional notifications of planed or performed actions or choosing not to perform the action. GregKaye07:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, its over, please don't start on me now :) Think about where your account was headed before I stepped in. Take a deep breath because you don't need to fight anymore. The discussions I closed (yup without signing to try to be discrete) is just me trying to do you a favor here because I question if you are allowed to touch them and because I wish to help you get the unpleasantness behind you. But hey, feel free to do as you wish. If it was me, I'd be deleting that crap off my talk page. Legacypac (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac As mentioned the intention behind the closures was really appreciated but the closures became an issue that prevented a direct, unedited removal of content. As soon as the dust settles I have every intention of archiving content. Gregkayetalk07:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac Good question. I did not intend an insult as the idea I had in mind in reference to stalking was of the neutral concept of Wikipedia:Talk page stalker, the WikiJaguar or talk page watcher who keeps an eye on one or more users' talk pages and adds input to threads. When I first looked at this just looked up WP:stalking which redirects to hounding which was not what I had in mind. i have written a fuller reply to this point in the thread above. GregKaye18:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Next time you violate the interaction ban you will be blocked from editing, the only reason you aren't blocked now is because, I dunno, I guess I'm in a good mood. Blatant violations such as this really are just asking for a block, do not interact with or comment on P-123 period. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder to administrators: Community sanctions are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or seek consensus at a community noticeboard.
I'd ask that when your block expires you stop going to admins complaining about my efforts to reduce the effects of your conflicts. You started the ANi - and then after 6 days and more ink spilled then anyone wants you get a resolution that's a clear win for you and then complain about that? Legacypac (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac When editors are themselves seeking to wikt:solve issues and find genuine wikt:resolution my advice is that it is not always best to interject with distraction or try to force issues towards speedy conclusion so as to suit your ideal time frame. You are referring to passing comment that I made on your 'please close' request. This came in the context of an AN/I in which both of the primary participants were asking for clarification in relation to the gaining of a genuine resolution. The main point of my interjection was to make comment on the general situation of the close and of ways to gain beneficial closure in such situations. You were not the issue. The IBAN was put in force to reduce conflict between myself and an editor and, at this stage, I am not the person engaged in this conflict. At this stage I would advise all editors concerned, unless they have something constructively beneficial to say, to back off. Direction is useful but an especially relevant time for this to be given would have been in the AN/I. GregKaye15:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GregKaye, I am aware of your IBAN, and when you say "between myself and an editor", I can tell that you are talking about P-123 and you are forbidden to do so. Move on already and leave the ANI behind. Otherwise, you will leave yourself open to much longer blocks and a possible ban. Don't be a pest and don't be stubborn. 74.115.1.70 (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
74.115.1.70 your advice is appreciated and, with the help of Legacypac talking some more sense into me above, is well noted. I do not understand what happened in the AN/I but, none-the-less, zipped and buttoned.
I have had my doubts about other IP contributor especially in regard to the abusively worded first comment in the happy editing thread above. An extreme piece of abusive language was in an IBAN situation in which no response is permitted.
You are very lucky I pushed for closure when I did - don't question that again. The ANi was over, everyone was sick of it, and you were headed for a topic ban per two logged in admins and various not logged in admins/editors. Legacypac (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac Maybe - I have not questioned your good faith and intentions for which I am grateful. I am grateful but my gratitude cannot change what I say or don't say. I have to do what I think is right. You do not have the right to tell me what to do. I also appreciate that you have taken the time to read through all "the back and forth". I have lived it. I appreciate that editors and admins may have been sick of the AN/I and I am also appreciative of the patience and attention given by all. The AN/I was intended to achieve resolution and I personally think that this resolution would have been better achieved within the AN/I
I raised the subheading towards the end of the AN/I: Reasons for a topic ban on GregKaye. No relevant content was added. I have made positive contributions to the topic throughout and want that to continue.
Right now I would be happy to follow 74.115.1.70's advice.
I have replied to your comment and, despite things said elsewhere, have no personal objection to any further reply should you choose. 19:19, 2 January 2015 GregKaye07:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|}
User:Gregkaye this has go to stop because you are being disruptive. If you post another comment here or anywhere else (such as that which I have collapsed with this edit) about the ANI or comments anyone made in the ANI or in the fallout from the ANI, and it comes to my attention, I will take further administrative action. Do not reply to this post as I will take it as a breach of this warning. If you think I am being unreasonable then you may take it to an ANI, but I suggest very strongly that you consider that option very carefully. -- PBS (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To reference Red Dwarf, repository of all wisdom, there may be an extent that that kipper should be smoked (as final moments here). WP:CONSENSUS still relates to WP's goals and not vote but, perhaps with influence of my Japanese blood, I can see that I was going kamikaze. I agree now about balance in the lead at the time with regard to criticism. I was new to the article and, the irony is that in the context of distractions that I had initiated, content swung the other way. As far as battleground is concerned, as you know, I considered this to be a very territorial edit. Will also know from reference to User talk pages that I, wastefully it turns out, invested a great deal of effort attempting to broach peace. I think that what you see as anti-ISIL POV is largely representative of both a lot of content in RS and of attitudes within a large coalition of nations and local combatants. My views on ISIL as being murderous tyrants can be fairly presented on the talk page but, in truth, I don't want any of these militants to suffer and die. I may be mistaken but my view is that the best way that I can be pro-ISIL (to the extent of being pro their membership) is to present accurate content and informative content that may act to burst their bubble. Given the chance I would also be anti any pershmerger or similar abuse. I am anti many of the facets of Hussain, Bush, Blair, Assad and Netanyatu. I will support any valid criticism of coalition activities but, when the Analysis section contained a misrepresentation of an article so as to place all blame at the American door, I edit so as to present citation content in an NPOV way. How was the original presentation get developed? Why was I the only one to point it out? Despite accepted definitions of State there are editors that want to unjustifiably want to apply this definition to the miltants. Despite the generally critical tone throughout RS there are editors that would want to take criticism from the lead and denude this content within the article while relegating it to the bottom of the page. Yes I tend to edit on one side of things... and the result, I think, is balance. As mentioned I think that on several issues, you have presented ISIL sympathetic POVs but that is another issue.
Done ~ P-123 (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
gregkaye ✍♪ 00:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I wish I could redact much of what I said yesterday. 
Hello, I'm P-123. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. P-123 (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
