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]

--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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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" 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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ✍♪@

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]

@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 within Iraq, Lebanon and Syria

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

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

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

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]