User talk:GregKaye: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:50, 9 November 2014

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

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

— Saheeh Muslim

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

— Albert Einstein

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

About David Attenborough

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

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

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

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

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

TY for reply

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

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

Discussion of London images

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

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

Re: Population Matters

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

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

reversals

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

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

"Mentions" decides? E.g. in [1]? -DePiep (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Which single one of your first edits had an explanation -- at all? [2] -DePiep (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your level of involvement at Talk:Antisemitism

Looking over the talk page history at Talk:Antisemitism, [3], I see that you are replying to nearly every editor that posts to the page move discussion you started. Can you please consider backing away from the discussion and letting others state their opinions and reasonings? Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

This is rich VQuakr for someone whose whole argument depended on red herring and erroneously applied references to "Lady Gaga" and "Guinea pigs". Your use of weasel statements in the discussion has similarly been deplorable.[4]. Worst your long standing insult of incoherence. If you meant it in the Pauline sense (as stated above, with a link that in no way mentions incoherence), why did you not say so, or were you just trying to score points?

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

Starting with my statement of support, the discussion proceeded as follows..

Support as nominator. The use of Semitism is, intentionally or not, a form of identity theft. Israelis, Jews and Zionists all have strong individual identities as does Judaism. Its one thing to assume a designation that does not solely belong to you. Its another thing to then lessen that name in the process. Gregkaye (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What? Your justification is incoherent and completely unbased in any Wikipedia policy or guideline. VQuakr (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VQuakr, although put briefly, everything stated is clearly intelligible. The issue of identity is relevant here with further discussion at Talk:Antisemitism#Identity.

Gregkaye's arguments are utterly incoherent and nonsensical. Jews did not invent the term antisemitism. People who didn't like Jews invented it. The assertion that the use of Semitism is "a form of identity theft" is therefore ludicrous. How can you "steal" something if it isn't you that's taken it? Paul B (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul B Sorry for the late reply. If one person takes an object, another person moves the object and others then takes and uses the same object, its still theft. Maybe I needed to have clarified to my initial statement. The use of Semitism, no matter by whom it is done and whether by intention. or not, (is) a form of identity theft. You introduced the word "Steal" in isolation and in quotation marks which was misrepresentation. I said "The use of..." The issue, as far as I am concerned, is not "stealing" but possession. The French writer Ernest Renan used Semite, the Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider used antisemitische Vorurteile (anti-Semitic prejudices), the German journalist Wilhelm Marr is widely credited with coining Antisemitismus, German Wikipedia currently uses de:Judenfeindlichkeit ~Judeophobia. "To thine own self be true" Polonius from Hamlet Act 1 Scene 3, “It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.” ― W.C. Fields" Gregkaye (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think about it I also think that "incoherent" is a little harsh. Any reader can make their own judgement on what I wrote. Gregkaye (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

What's your justification for the insult?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Antisemitism → Anti-Semitism : related moves

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion of userbox templates

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

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

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

Link and heading format

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

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

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

 ==Requested move mishandled==

to a third tier heading as:

 ===Requested move mishandled===

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

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

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

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

September 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

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

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

Prefixes

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

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

Move review for Anti-Semitism:Requested move

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

Thanks for the thanks

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

ANB discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

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

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

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

1RR violation at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

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

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

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

The 1RR

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

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

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disambiguation

Hi again, I just happened across this [5] edit and reverted it. All those entries were already listed, and we never pipe links per WP:MOSDAB. Please familiarise yourself with the style guide MOSDAB before editing the next dab page. Widefox; talk 01:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

September 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

Widefox. Talk:Islamic state (disambiguation)? What disruptive editing are you talking about? What reversions?[6] Gregkaye ✍♪ 10:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

WP:DABREDIR says:

"Where redirecting may be appropriate

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

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

It continues:

Linking to a redirect can also be helpful when both:

the redirect target article contains the disambiguated term; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of those editors even came to this page to comment: "I see no indication of disruptive editing from Gregkaye, so I agree that Widefox's warnings seem entirely unjustified".[7]

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

Breed RMs

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

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

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

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

Madonna Talk

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

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

Isil

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

Israeli West Bank barrier#Names

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

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

1RR rule, re: SeattliteTungsten

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

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

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

I don't think that the my comments are misplaced. As far as I can see User:SeattliteTungsten [8] has not logged on or at least edited in the time during the procedure. As you mention the WP:AE is closed. My question related to original behaviour and the original context of this behaviour and I have added the note "Comment relating to context:" This type of information is as a matter or procedure in normal trials and my comments were added, again while not agreeing with various of the editors contibutions, out of a sense of justice. A fair representation of context is worthy of inclusion. Perhaps any response to the query on context can be placed in a collapsible box or something like that. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transliterations/Translations

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

A heads up about using ref formatting on Talk pages

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

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

Caliphate

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

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

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

hi

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

Syrian Civil War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Odia alphabet move

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

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

American

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC

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

Discussion: Operation Inherent Resolve

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

ISIS Talk page

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

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

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

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

October 2014

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

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

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

Technophant Can you be specific?

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

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

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

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

The supposedly controversial and relatively brief text reads as follows:

Widespread Islamic criticism of ISIL^[1] has included an open letter from 126 Sunni scholars to "the self-declared Islamic State", indicating^[2] the group as Khawarij and stating that its sacrifice, without legitimate cause, goals, and intention, is "not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality".^[3]^[4]^[5] Pakistani clergy also condemned it as a "violent group" whose "actions are against the teaching of Islam".^[6]^[7]

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

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

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

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

ISIS Lead edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move by blanenicholas

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

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

Request

AN/I issues

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

Acknowledged. The important thing is that editors can themselves be honest, truthful and direct. I got in contact with the other editor, asked questions and received evasion. Some things need to work themselves out. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've always appreciated you are just that, Greg, and I have a bad temper :( . Worldedixor has upbraided me for moving one of your comments on the AN/I. I did it to get the time sequence right. It was (on the 23rd):

Wheels 1:41 - You 8:43 - You 7:08 - which I changed to - Wheels 1:41 - You 7:08 - You 8:43

For some reason I thought the 8:43 comment was Wheels's! Have restored it to what it was originally. (Note to self: don't interfere.)

This AN/I is terrible. Never wanted a ton of bricks to fall on you. I didn't know about the AN/I until it happened. I've no idea what happens next. :( --P123ct1 (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have contacted you sooner but, ironically, I have been busy with training in a religious paramilitary organisation. Regarding the AN/I, it all relates to one revert and, in fact, I am lucky that it wasn't within the 24 hour period. I had thought it had come a lot later. The other raised issue relates to my insertion of Islamic criticism into the last paragraph of the lead of an article pertaining to an Islamic organisation is far from balanced. This criticism had previously been presented as fist thing in the second paragraph of the entire article, was then relegated to the second to last paragraph, then the last and then, without discussion, was repeatedly removed. There is also no ruling a against POV so from someone and I find it totally hypocritical for someone who constantly promotes his own POV through spin and manipulation to plaintively present, "we just need to see this POV pushing and edit warring to stop".

Some reference to Technophant's offensive and demeaning content is found at Talk:ISIL#Use of "Islamic State" at least in the infobox. A second derision was then inserted. I have only ever given one personal attack on anyone in my history in Wikipedia and it was warranted. There is only so far you can accept people's excuses of ignorance, of not checking, of not reading clearly or of not thinking it important to check. Whether consciously or not to my mind its "wilful" manipulation. This is an editor who offers to put in a "good word" for certain editors in dispute and who will expend great energy in pursuit of tearing down others. A second derision was inserted.

The thing that has really fried my brain in the last few days relates to the badgering thread at User talk:Technophant. I wanted to raise this with you sooner but my values are that I don't talk about people until I get to grips with the facts and, in this situation, this grip was frustratingly elusive. What was clear was that the timing of the warnings and retractions was deeply suspicious. I raised related question with RGloucester on Technophant's talk page which I there found to relate to Technophant's "has been removed" entry and Greyshark09 further intervened to place a link to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. I find it inconceivable that still no apparent attempt has been made to rectify the situation.

I also object to the way that my questions to Techophant are consistently handled with the evasion and spin which are characteristic of Technophant's edits. Either that or, to suit, questions are flatly ignored. Within this context I think that my "I have every right to be wary" statement is more than justified. In my book and in relation to battleground tactics evasion comes high on the list as is the irrelevant presentation of "like", "value and respect" in some veiled bid for moral high ground. Also came the deceitful spin that I have "ferventaly argued against the use of the word "jihadist"'. It is deeply concerning if he thinks this was my argument. I have consistently argued that the wording can remain in place with appropriate qualification but have received no help from other editors to find a way to do this.

The galling thing is that also, for want of better timing or of better clarity of thought, none of this would have happened. I just want people to live. Its not a bad POV to have. :'"-( Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the trouble is that Technophant wasn't in on all the discussions about "jihadist" and all the changes to the Lead and you have suffered as a result of it. He was away for some time before you arrived and his edits are more about the technical side than the content. I couldn't follow all the discussion on T's talk page about the notices but it could be that he isn't familiar enough with handling them, I just don't know. (Can't say more in this goldfish bowl.) I don't like to see you embattled like this, although I know I have been contributory to it with my comments on the AN/I. I was hoping for a softer approach, as advocated on the Help Desk, with some kind of dispute resolution. I wanted to modify one of my comments about you on the AN/I, but know if I did there would be no end of hassle from Worldedixor. (The trouble there has a long and very unpleasant history.) I think I may risk it. If this wretched "jihadist" business crops up again on the ISIS Talk page, why not state once again very clearly your position that the wording can stay with appropriate qualification? The efn might be accepted. I can't at the moment think how else to help in this awful situation. One good thing is that some editors recognise and respect your motives in editing the Lead (and the article as a whole) even though they may not agree with you on some things. (I will try not to be so aggressive in future.) I don't know how to stop this runaway train (the A/NI) and Technophant seems to have stopped editing temporarily. It may exhaust itself and the admins will take a decision. I think everyone has had their say now. Apologies for the distractions with Worldedixor and myself on the AN/I, but he cannot make wild allegations and not expect rebuttal, I have a reputation to protect. All this must be very galling for you, given your peaceable stance on things (I have read your userpage). WP can be a bearpit and it has nearly stopped me editing in the past (before you arrived on the ISIS page). Just hang on in there. :):) --P123ct1 (talk) 08:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You pinged. Sorry if I moved that comment back to the wrong place. I should leave stuff like this alone. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P123ct1, I think that it was inappropriate for Technophant to join this particular loop and this raises the question as to why he choose to get quite so actively involved. You have done some reading around my involvements in Wikipedia. Read his.

I can't comment on any background issues related to your personal involvement with Worldedixor but for my part I have always found you to be direct, honest, straightforward and, from what I have seen, to deserving of a generally high level of reputation. My hope is that the two of you can find peace. Just keep this in mind. If relevant, I would be more than happy be involved in any private (as much as that is possible on Wikipedia) or public dispute resolution. Also, if anything ever comes up between the two of you feel free to ping me a reference here or whereever.

My personal perception is that the three of us are all towards the higher end of the emotional spectrum which I personally consider to be a strength, albeit one that also brings additional challenges.

My hope is that, if Wikipedia would be an appropriate avenue for him, WE can get into gainful contribution in Wikipedia.

Reputation is often a touchy issue. For me one of the things that I generally take most note of is when anyone can say, on any issue and by any wording and in a non forced situation, "I was wrong". I will always take people at face value but whenever I see something like that then my trust increases. My suspicion is that grudges may involved between the two of you and that, while battleground can work in many ways, I may have seen more aggressive content from WE (and I may strike this WP being what it is). On-line contacts are strange. In real life people in dispute can end up being good friends. Sadly I haven't seen evidence of the same on the internet. Gregkaye ✍♪ 09:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

My old Biblical teaching said that we may be refined like gold in the fire, or something like that. It also said to "test everything and hold on to the good." We acknowledge and deal with the bad with clear reality and work with what remains. Good god I sound like a new age hippy.

Whether intentionally or not Technophant is manipulative. Its also fair that he stands for himself. I already take exception to his irrelevant self endorsements and don't think it is right for this to spread to other people.

That risks (being slightly flipant) going down the road of Cabal. Have you seen this hilarious list? Like I say though, I don't bear grudges but seriously people should fight their own battles (and answer their own questions if I can add that). Having said that, if there was an AN/I or similar I don't think I would hold back. There is another Biblical saying that those who live by the sword will die by the sword (here lies another potential problem with fundamentalism). Things will need to move some for me to gain trust but this can come from perspectives of his editing not yours. In any case I had developed the perspective that, if Technophant is a loose (or wilful) cannon, he is your loose cannon. This isn't good.

In regard to Worldedixor I also want to keep on the right side of him in the continued hope of that bit of translation. I guess I can be manipulative too. :) Gregkaye ✍♪ 11:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P123ct1, I appreciate your suggestion to state once again very clearly my position on jihadism on the talk page. If you think this wouldn't it be sensible for you to remove your comment at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#The word "jihad", criticism and disruption first. It also seems like tricky advice for me to follow while your comments in the AN/I still say support. You also say that User talk:Technophant is not manipulative and yet his prejudging comments remain within the same thread so as to state: NOTICE: Gregkaye (talk · contribs · logs) has repeatedly reverted or reinserted edits that violated NPOV and talk page consensus. His "please refrain from discussion here" comments also persist. Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which comments in the Talk page, Greg? Do you mean where I rudely said, "The Gospel according to Editors"?! That was a cheap shot in retrospect, sorry! Btw I tried reinserting the efn footnote after "jihadist" earlier today, but was swiftly reverted by Felino. I have amended my "Support" comment saying I didn't think AN/I was such a good idea after all or that there should be a topic ban. Did you see it? We need some guidance on what to do about this dispute as it has reached deadlock. I don't want you to lose editing rights - I know I have been contradictory about this, btw - and it seems a bit childish to "ban" or "punish" someone for not agreeing with other editors, so perhaps dispute resolution might be a better way, where outside editors mediate editors' views. I am inexperienced about these various regulatory noticeboards, disciplinary boards, etc, which is why I have asked for advice on this on the AN/I (I put it in bold). Even Technophant had his doubts early on; I was quite surprised to see him say dispute resolution might have been better. We have not discussed any of this in emails, btw, which may seem odd, and the RfC/U came as a surprise as well. I agreed as I was pretty desperate about Worldedixor by that stage. I trusted T. as he has so much experience in WP. (Btw, Worldedixor has been editing for about eight years, I think. I've only been editing since February this year.) Let me know which bit of the Talk page you were referring to, won't you? I am trying to think of the best way to put across to recalcitrant editors why the efn footnote would be harmless. I would have thought it would be a good compromise, as plain "jihadist" still follows the RS guidance, and yet it links very unobtrusively to where the criticism is in the article; it is not like a regular footnote. I think you agree about the ordering of Lead paras and the last one now, don't you? (Though the last one will keep changing shape!) Sorry about this meandering reply, but I think that was all. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's basically the edit you mention. The AN/I is trumped up. I see no reason to make any applications and I am just looking to move on. There are a few editors who do nothing or very little for the page who may have taken this on as a crusade. Your edit as mentioned has been up for quite some time now and will already have made a big impression. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am not quite sure which edit you're referring to there. I'm not sure my comments are as influential as you think. Editors are more independent-minded than that, aren't they? Anyway will rectify. You sound fed up and battle weary, which is hardly surprising. When you say move on, I hope you don't mean move on from the article. :( ---P123ct1 (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you see that I am trying to see things through with the AN/I and want to see things covered both there and on the talk page so I guess I'm looking to stay :). Its basically the 13:33, 23 October 2014 edit which is the current last word on the thread. You are often the voice of mediation and clarification on the page and I think you are definitely listened to. You have deleted things before. Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended my comment in this way to get in the part about the efn, which I was going to do anyway as I said above, so if there are any spies watching it's hardly a canvassed edit! I think this is right and that the efn (which I've called a "footlet") should be appended to "jihadist". I knocked out the time and date when amending it, but I think this is the 13:33, 23 Oct comment you were referring to. I am very flattered by what you say and wasn't aware of being listened to! I didn't do any strike-through this time, which I am not sure is a violation of some WP policy I don't know about. Do you know? Hope this is the entry you were referring to. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following changing that comment, I have reinserted the efn footnote again, saying in the edit summary to refer to the Talk page. --P123ct1 (talk) 08:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

. --P123ct1 (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are, and I mean this with genuine respect, a true jihadist. Good for you :) Thanks also for your support for me. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice messages. Thanks! . He really gets up my nose, as they say. :) --P123ct1 (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind, but I presume because of UB? --P123ct1 (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I hadn't used those letters. Now I'm not following, doh, lol, Gregkaye ✍♪ 15:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You changed wording, I thought because of the privacy thing. ;) --P123ct1 (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to collapse this very long conversation? I have collapsed one on my Talk page, putting {{collapse top|title=Conversation}} at the top and {{Collapse bottom}} at the end. They are both very long threads! --P123ct1 (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea and will do. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! I agree, too much talk lately, treating this as a chatroom. Bad luck with the edit-warring noticeboard, worse than useless result. --P123ct1 (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the useless. For one thing it demonstrates some fairly vivid contrasts.

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

RM notification

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

Edits in ISIS

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

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

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

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

removed message P123

ANI confusion

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

Edit-warring Noticeboard

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

Khawarij

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

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

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

done and good idea - FYI:

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

creates this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misrepresentation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misrepresentations 2

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

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

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

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

WP:HOUNDING edits

(talk page stalker) That's a good idea, Greg. Go ahead and make your changes in Template:History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/sandbox and do some test edits.~Technophant (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technophant All good. Glad to see that you are keeping up which is appreciated as a slow reader. However I would think that a simple reversion of your last edit should set things straight. Gregkaye ✍♪ 12:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neque porro quisquam est qui do{{lorem ipsum}} quia dolor sit amet consectetur adipisci velit (translation: "Neither is there anyone who loves, pursues or desires pain itself because it is pain").~Technophant (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technophant Is this a riddle? I am baffled as to the meaning of this reference. Can you explain? Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technophant thanks for the edit above. Still baffled and would still appreciate explanation. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

riddle=yes. hint=previous_revision. ~Technophant (talk) 14:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

@P123ct1: do you have any clues? Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC) *sigh*[reply]
If is anything to do with the template, no. The technical talk about it is gobbledegook to me, I'm afraid. But I agree the template could replace the "Index of names" (though we did a lot of work on it together) to great advantage. It is more attractive than a simple list, and far more appropriate to have something on the names close to "History" rather than right at the beginning. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as the story goes I got an email, can't find it right now, anyway said something about you and disruptive editing on ISIL lead. I used to do a lot of Vandal Patrol so the "warn3, wait, warn4, wait, report" was just a gut reaction. I wish you had simply heeded the warnings, you asked for clarification but went ahead and reverted without getting an answer. You need to respect your fellow editors Greg. I did make an error in calling your edits "disruptive", wp:tendendatious is what I should have called it, however I can never remember how to spell it...~Technophant (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technophant I really do not think that making a mistake covers it. As mentioned any disruption that I made pales into insignificance compared to others on the page. You should loose your interest here. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

That and you WP:Filibuster the talk page. Now that Worldedixor is gone I don't see another editor that has edited in the last two weeks that has caused as much discussion as yourself. You still don't seem be willing to get off your wp:soapbox and let God and let go. ~Technophant (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technophant I find it remarkable that you consider it to be in any way related to WP:TENDENTIOUS to expressing views about ISIL that are in line with the thoughts of the Majority of the Islamic world. Astounded in fact. Please do not come to talk pages just to push a point especially one without justification. The only pain came from your actions of badgering, misrepresentation and abuse.

I have also asked that if you have a specific comment to make then make it. You have been told about badgering before. Don't you think that "letting God" has caused enough problems in past history? Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Tendentious: expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view, especially a controversial one." That would be truer of Greg than "filibuster", which here would be trying to stop editing happening that he didn't want by out-talking the opposition, which I don't think is accurate in Greg's case. Anyway, to filibuster is to stop something happening within a limited time-frame, and there is no time limit on this on the Talk page, the discussion, theoretically, could go on for ever! "Soapboxing" Greg has admitted to. I don't think the actual views Greg puts forward are "controversial", but they are causing controversy on the Talk page among editors. I am assuming the "collapse" on this means no more comment, but had to get that in. (0 ~ P123ct1 (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

further unsolicited edits

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

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

Your notice on the ISIS Talk page

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

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

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

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

Linking problems

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

I used:
{{anchor|jihadism}} and 
[[#jihadism|their actions are “not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality” (See related discussion at #Logical Order in Lead)]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit warning

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

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

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

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

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

Im flagging :)

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

-based opponents

Iraq Iraqi Armed Forces KEEP
- - Iraqi Army
  - Iraqi Air Force
  - Special Forces
  - Iraqi Police
Iraqi Kurdistan Iraqi Kurdistan KEEP
- - Roj.png Peshmerga
Iraq Sunni Iraqi Insurgents KEEP
General Military Council for Iraqi Revolutionaries.jpg General Military Council for Iraqi *Revolutionaries[174][175]
Shiism arabic blue.PNG Special Groups KEEP
Flag of Iraq Turkmen Front.svg Iraqi Turkmen Front[176] KEEP
Lebanon-based opponents
Lebanon Lebanese Armed Forces[177] KEEP
- - Lebanese Army
  - Lebanese ISF Logo.jpg Internal Security Forces
InfoboxHez.PNG Hezbollah[178] KEEP

Syria-based opponents[179]

Syria Syrian Armed Forces KEEP
- - Syrian Army
  - Syrian Air Force
  - National Defence Force
  - Flag of the Ba'ath Party.svg Ba'ath Brigades
Syria Syrian Opposition[180][181][182] KEEP
- - Free syrian army coat of arms.svg Free Syrian Army
  - Syria Revolutionaries Front
  - Logo of the Islamic Front (Syria).svg Islamic Front
  - Army of Mujahedeen logo.png Army of Mujahedeen[183]
Syrian Kurdistan Syrian Kurdistan[184] KEEP
- - People's Protection Units Flag.svg People's Protection Units
  - Logo of the Syriac Military Council.jpg Syriac Military Council[185]
  - Logo of the Sutoro Syriac Police.jpg Sutoro[186]
  - Local guerrillas[187]

The rest are all national/pannational flags

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

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

Opposition

Opposition within Iraq, Lebanon and Syria

Iraq-based opponents

Iraqi Armed Forces

Iraqi Kurdistan

Peshmerga

Sunni Iraqi Insurgents

General Military Council for Iraqi Revolutionaries

Special Groups

Iraqi Turkmen Front

Lebanon-based opponents

Lebanese Armed Forces

Hezbollah

Syria-based opponents

Syrian Armed Forces

Syrian Opposition

Syrian Kurdistan

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

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

NP question about Hezbola, "bullet" or flag?

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

How about (editing):

Iraq-based opponents

Iraqi Kurdistan

Peshmerga

Sunni Iraqi Insurgents

General Military Council for Iraqi Revolutionaries

Special Groups

Iraqi Turkmen Front

Lebanon-based opponents

Lebanese Armed Forces

Lebanese Army

Internal Security Forces

Hezbollah

Syria-based opponents

Syrian Armed Forces

Syrian Army

Syrian Air Force

National Defence Force

Ba'ath Brigades

Syrian Opposition

Free Syrian Army

Syria Revolutionaries Front

Islamic Front

Army of Mujahedeen

Syrian Kurdistan

People's Protection Units

Syriac Military Council

Sutoro

Local guerrillas

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

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

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

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

P123ct1 Here are two versions

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

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

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

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

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

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

AN/I and next steps

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PBS edit

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

Warning

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

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

My edit came with the following explanation:

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

I will try to explain the difference

The word "jihad", criticism and disruption

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

Felino123, edit warring

[Revision as of 22:49, 19 October 2014] Felino123 enacts wholesale removal of the second paragraph of the lead complete with its 7 footnotes

....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just to be clear this, I believe, is the edit in question. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
That's not criticism or opinion, but human rights reports by international organizations. Don't you know the difference? Really? So according to you the opinion of an imam has more value than the FACTS stated by the UN and Amnesty on their human rights reports? After saying this, don't expect us to believe that you're editing in good faith and objectively. This is no more than your bizarre, subjective personal opinion. I won't buy your distortions and manipulations. No one will. Felino123 (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, it is, but only in summary form, without footnotes, and not giving individual examples of criticism. There is a difference. --P123ct1 (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
In a perfect world, but anything critical that goes in the lead that is not footnoted to death gets challenged and deleted. Legacypac (talk) 08:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Again, thanks for changing the heading.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Jihadist" qualification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IS on the Occitan Wikipedia

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

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

Is this something collapsible or actionable?

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs

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

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

Repost of Category:Misnomer

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

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

Guido

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[text block moved to Misrepresentations 2]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last Lead para in ISIS

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

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

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

RM notice

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

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

Late addition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@@ Line 948: / Line 948: @@
 :[[User:Technophant|Technophant]] and [[User:PBS|PBS]] it is fairer either give a simple link to the case or give a full account in context,  [[User:Gregkaye|Gregkaye]] [[User talk:Gregkaye|<span style="color:Black"><big>✍</big>♪</span>]] 16:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 :I object to the fact that content that misrepresents can be left up for days for all to read and then just be deleted without another word. We should be able to stand by our words, our content and our actions. [[User:Gregkaye|Gregkaye]] [[User talk:Gregkaye|<span style="color:Black"><big>✍</big>♪</span>]] 16:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
+:::[[User:PBS|PBS]] regarding your recent comment on Technophant's [[User talk:Technophant|talk page]] re: striking, I have only gone as far as to edit content to give, what I consider to be, a more but not fully complete picture.  (I had placed similar content there at 17:36, 9 November 2014) but thought better to place the edit here.
+:::[[User:Technophant|Technophant]] I would still appreciate answers to questions above and also want to ask why you originally entitled this thread: [[WP:DEADHORSE]].  [[User:Gregkaye|Gregkaye]] [[User talk:Gregkaye|<span style="color:Black"><big>✍</big>♪</span>]] 17:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

v t e History of the Jews in Asia
Sovereign states	Afghanistan Armenia Azerbaijan Bahrain Bangladesh Bhutan Brunei Cambodia China Cyprus East Timor (Timor-Leste) Egypt Georgia India Indonesia Iran Iraq Israel Japan Jordan Kazakhstan North Korea South Korea Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Lebanon Malaysia Maldives Mongolia Myanmar Nepal Oman Pakistan Philippines Qatar Russia Saudi Arabia Singapore Sri Lanka Syria Tajikistan Thailand Turkey Turkmenistan United Arab Emirates Uzbekistan Vietnam Yemen
States with limited recognition	Abkhazia Northern Cyprus Palestine South Ossetia Taiwan
Dependencies and other territories	British Indian Ocean Territory Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Hong Kong Macau
Category Asia portal

Revision as of 17:50, 9 November 2014

About David Attenborough

TY for reply

Discussion of London images

Re: Population Matters

reversals

Your level of involvement at Talk:Antisemitism

Antisemitism → Anti-Semitism : related moves

Deletion of userbox templates

Link and heading format

September 2014

Prefixes

Move review for Anti-Semitism:Requested move

Thanks for the thanks

ANB discussion

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

1RR violation at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

The 1RR

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Disambiguation

September 2014

Breed RMs

Madonna Talk

Isil

Israeli West Bank barrier#Names

1RR rule, re: SeattliteTungsten

Transliterations/Translations

A heads up about using ref formatting on Talk pages

Caliphate

hi

Syrian Civil War

Odia alphabet move

American

RfC

Discussion: Operation Inherent Resolve

ISIS Talk page

October 2014

ISIS Lead edit

Requested move by blanenicholas

Request

RM notification

Edits in ISIS

ANI confusion

Edit-warring Noticeboard

Khawarij

Misrepresentation?

Misrepresentations 2

Your notice on the ISIS Talk page

Linking problems

Edit warning

Im flagging :)

Opposition

Opposition within Iraq, Lebanon and Syria

AN/I and next steps

PBS edit

Warning

"Jihadist" qualification

IS on the Occitan Wikipedia

Is this something collapsible or actionable?

Diffs

Repost of Category:Misnomer

Guido

Last Lead para in ISIS

RM notice

Late addition

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